What Do You Mean by 'Social Justice'? by Tom Neven on 07/22/2008 at 8:24 AM

You've probably seen some of the reports about younger evangelicals' abandoning the Republican Party during this election cycle, disillusioned as they supposedly are with the GOP's governance during the past eight years. (Some aren't so sure of this trend to start with, but that's a subject for another day.)

While some of these young evangelicals say they plan to vote for the Democratic candidate this year, others aren't sure what they're going to do, seeing problems with both major parties. I'm not going to talk about the merits of voting one way or the other. Rather, I'm bothered by a recurring idea expressed in these and similar reports: "social justice."

"We're helping churches to build the capacity to couple social justice with the things they're already doing well," says one person. "It's changed our perspective," says another young evangelical. "Each generation chooses their cause, and ours is AIDs in Africa, or poverty or social justice."

Now, I'm not against the idea of "social justice," as such. It sounds nice, but what in the world does it mean? It's one of those empty, formless political buzz phrases that mean everything and nothing, depending on what meaning the reader brings to it, not the speaker. Oftentimes, I suspect, even the speaker is not precisely sure what he means. It's one of those buzz words that trip so easily from the tongue, easy to say without having to think too hard about it. (And shame on lazy journalists who mindlessly allow such phrases to be spoken or repeat them themselves without bothering to clarify.)

Another example of this is "working families." You’ll hear this empty phrase most often spoken by politicians on the leftward side of the spectrum. Think about it: everyone from the highest paid Wall Street broker to the lowest paid ditch digger belongs to a "working family." But that's not what the politicians mean. Rather, they're often referring to those in the lower salary rungs, usually blue- or pink-collar workers. But fearing that saying so explicitly will come across as condescending or perhaps call attention to the obvious, politicians resort to this empty, meaningless phrase to avoid having to say what they really mean. It's politics by nudge and wink.

So back to the point: What do you mean by "social justice"? Helping the poor? Everyone's in favor of that. The chief disagreement is on means, not ends. Is just handing out money "helping the poor"? Giving them job training? Working in a soup kitchen? Creating economic conditions that encourage job growth, thus boosting the employment rate? Again, I'm not going to argue specifics; my point is that there are many ways, some better than others, to do "social justice." But remember: if that's what you mean by "social justice," even political conservatives are for it.

More important, would these same people consider protecting the life of the preborn in the womb doing "social justice"? After all, one of the bedrock foundations of justice is the protection of innocent life. We hear much less about this from these same young evangelicals.

Which leads me to believe that, in the end, "social justice" really means "not a conservative, pro-life, pro-marriage conservative who is easily caricatured in the popular culture."

The least they can do is say so.

What Do You Mean by 'Social Justice'? by Tom Neven on 07/22/2008 at 8:24 AM

You've probably seen some of the reports about younger evangelicals' abandoning the Republican Party during this election cycle, disillusioned as they supposedly are with the GOP's governance during the past eight years. (Some aren't so sure of this trend to start with, but that's a subject for another day.)

While some of these young evangelicals say they plan to vote for the Democratic candidate this year, others aren't sure what they're going to do, seeing problems with both major parties. I'm not going to talk about the merits of voting one way or the other. Rather, I'm bothered by a recurring idea expressed in these and similar reports: "social justice."

"We're helping churches to build the capacity to couple social justice with the things they're already doing well," says one person. "It's changed our perspective," says another young evangelical. "Each generation chooses their cause, and ours is AIDs in Africa, or poverty or social justice."

Now, I'm not against the idea of "social justice," as such. It sounds nice, but what in the world does it mean? It's one of those empty, formless political buzz phrases that mean everything and nothing, depending on what meaning the reader brings to it, not the speaker. Oftentimes, I suspect, even the speaker is not precisely sure what he means. It's one of those buzz words that trip so easily from the tongue, easy to say without having to think too hard about it. (And shame on lazy journalists who mindlessly allow such phrases to be spoken or repeat them themselves without bothering to clarify.)

Another example of this is "working families." You’ll hear this empty phrase most often spoken by politicians on the leftward side of the spectrum. Think about it: everyone from the highest paid Wall Street broker to the lowest paid ditch digger belongs to a "working family." But that's not what the politicians mean. Rather, they're often referring to those in the lower salary rungs, usually blue- or pink-collar workers. But fearing that saying so explicitly will come across as condescending or perhaps call attention to the obvious, politicians resort to this empty, meaningless phrase to avoid having to say what they really mean. It's politics by nudge and wink.

So back to the point: What do you mean by "social justice"? Helping the poor? Everyone's in favor of that. The chief disagreement is on means, not ends. Is just handing out money "helping the poor"? Giving them job training? Working in a soup kitchen? Creating economic conditions that encourage job growth, thus boosting the employment rate? Again, I'm not going to argue specifics; my point is that there are many ways, some better than others, to do "social justice." But remember: if that's what you mean by "social justice," even political conservatives are for it.

More important, would these same people consider protecting the life of the preborn in the womb doing "social justice"? After all, one of the bedrock foundations of justice is the protection of innocent life. We hear much less about this from these same young evangelicals.

Which leads me to believe that, in the end, "social justice" really means "not a conservative, pro-life, pro-marriage conservative who is easily caricatured in the popular culture."

The least they can do is say so.

Comments

[1. Carrie (the original) said the following at 8:53 AM on Jul 22:]

1

"The least they can do is say so."

Tom, you know as well as I do - perhaps better - that people like to admit their wrong. My step-dad and I got into a discussion about global warming (actually it's an on-going discussion) some time ago. I cornered him about his position and said "So, humans are a cancer to the planet?" when responding to his statement that parents should only have 2 children because there is no gaurantee that they can actually produce responsible citizens.
When people are confronted by the ridiculousness of what they believe, they won't admit it. Especially if they are educated.
There's this thing in innate to humanity that prevents us from recognizing truth. I'm sure the Fall had nothing to do with it! :)

[2. obewan said the following at 8:59 AM on Jul 22:]

2

The blog said:

“---in the end, "social justice" really means "not a conservative, pro-life, pro-marriage conservative who is easily caricatured in the popular culture.---"

And whose fault is that? Reality is that we have a polarized two party system where voters are forced into an all or nothing position on many issues when they are forced to vote the party ‘platform’ at the polls.

On the issue of social justice, there is only one party that has for nearly two decades consistently blocked fair and urgently needed raises to the minimum wage. The minimum wage of the 1970’s would be worth well over $9 an hour in today’s money if it were adjusted for inflation. That same party hangs their position on the false claim that by holding the working poor down, we help overall economy by keeping ‘inflation’ in check. Actually, if the working poor had a higher wage, perhaps they would go out and buy a new economy car and HELP the overall economy.

Even my current employer starts out new aerospace manufacturing technicians at $9 an hour with no medical benefits. I did the math for my own case, and with asthma to be treated, and no car payment, and an entry-level apartment at $650 a month, I come up $250 a month SHORT every month as a SINGLE. I don’t know how the families of those who work here are even supported. I was a radical conservative for most of my life until I was laid off and unfairly unemployed for several years. Now, I am a union sympathizer.

The Bible has over 2000 verses that speak to justice for the poor.

[3. Leigh Anne said the following at 9:06 AM on Jul 22:]

3

Wow, this is really off-base, in my opinion. I choose to read Boundless for the Christian perspective on things, not the Republican perspective (and they don't have to be synonymous).

[4. Jordan Peacock said the following at 9:19 AM on Jul 22:]

4

Which is precisely why each group wrestles with the specifics; how does one live what one professes? Does it mean opening our home to drug-abusing mothers-to-be to protect them and their unborn child, and if need be adopting one or both? Does it mean helping find work for ex-convicts, or building bridges with immigrant families, or living more humbly in order to help more? Does it mean nannying our gay friend's adopted daughter, or joining a Christian Peacemaker Team?

The 'social justice' tag can mean generic, feel-good, I'm vaguely involved in something that matters somewhat, and to the degree that it does, you are absolutely correct.

But more so I see people using it as a diving board from which questions and answers arise out of hard work, theological wrestling, community involvement, closeness of relationships, and divine love through the church. And these answers can, and should be, less than mere political pandering and empty slogans, and have little or nothing to do with the voting structures.

It has everything to do with how we live.

[5. Nathan said the following at 9:24 AM on Jul 22:]

5

Thanks for this Tom. I think you're spot on, because a lot of the discussion about social justice is fairly ill-defined and often a reaction against a certain caricature of conservatives as being pro-big business and uncaring about the little guy. And it's probably true that there are some conservatives who are terribly proud, convinced that they got to where they were solely by their own effort and that the poor are in their situation because of their own faults. But a reaction against some extremes is losing the Baby in the bath-water.

I've tended to think that the 'social justice' reaction against conservatives was more visceral than intelligible. Or, perhaps that is too harsh, the reaction was against certain conservatives or certain parts of the Republican Party.

BTW, why does nobody talk about President Bush's compassionate conservatism. It may not have worked out as perfectly as we would have liked, but I thought that was a genuine example of a conservative commitment to helping the least in society.

[6. pass the ammunition said the following at 9:33 AM on Jul 22:]

6

I go to a Catholic, Jesuit university where social justice is HUGE, and I have actually taken a "social justice" class. While this might seem like I am defining a word with the same word, social justice means working to correct injustices you see in society.

And you are correct--both liberals and conservatives can be involved in social justice when defined in this way. On my Catholic campus, abortion is a social justice issue. If one works to correct social injustices, it makes sense that you would lean Democratic if you are in favor of government involvement in fixing social problems. If you think it should be up to the private sector then you would more likely lean Republican.

My campus is a perfect example of the young people you are talking about. Our chapter of Students for Life is HUGE, but unlike at most schools these are the same students getting arrested to protest the War in Iraq, leaders of the Gay/Straight Alliance, leaders of the feminist organization, and studying abroad in Haiti or Latin America instead of London or Spain.

Many of theses students come to college as Republicans, but after seeing how wide spread these problems are, after working with charities that continuously run into government roadblocks, they begin to run to the Democrats. Although Republicans may support many of the issues, the politicians hardly talk about them or make those issues the centerpiece of their campaigns, like Edwards or Obama have. When conservative politicians talk about "personal responsibility" it turns them off--because they have seen firsthand how just a little help can go a long way.

[7. mindlab said the following at 9:35 AM on Jul 22:]

7

I hope you've got your Nomex suit handy, I predict you'll need it.

At least in the contexts that I'm familiar with, "social justice" is a friendly sounding code word for 'wealth redistribution' (which is a friendly sounding code word for 'armed robbery'), and the infringement of positive rights (i.e. the right to own property) in the name of negative rights (i.e. the right to not be offended).

Well. . . that offends me, and I demand my rights!

[8. mary kate said the following at 10:04 AM on Jul 22:]

8

yes, social justice has become a buzz word, but i think its roots among young christians are valid. many of us are tired of hearing people quote scripture about god and love and being kind and giving people the shirt off your back, and then turning around and hearing the same people talking about how god hates queers or aids is god's judgement on mankind. or how many upper middle class evangelicals refuse to get their hands dirty helping people who had the bad judgment to be born somewhere like south africa or china or haiti. at least, that's my take.

as for why you hear less from us on abortion, in my opinion it's because people at places like FotF and other large evangelical groups are already all up on those causes.

[9. Derek Wong said the following at 10:41 AM on Jul 22:]

9

As a fairly conservative person myself, I like this take on things. I think that I've said the same in much less elegant terms when I've discussed this with people.

[10. Dr. Ransom said the following at 10:52 AM on Jul 22:]

10

"Social justice" is a phrase currently often employed by "emergent church" types who, in their reaction to the Church's nonparticipation (actual or perceived) in the world, suddenly believe they're the only ones interested in helping the poor and feeding the hungry.

Apparently among many, these problems -- and the world entirely? -- are viewed to have begun yesterday. There's no perspective of history, the fact that people in both the Church and governments have been aware and trying to alleviate poverty before -- especially when it comes to the failed attempts of federal governments to overextend their constitutional (and worse, Biblical) bounds and take the place of the citizenry and religious institutions in terms of charity.

Among such "social justice" advocates, there's also very little perspective of the actual Scripture in these quasi-utopian visions, which indirectly contradict the Bible's portrayal of the rest of human history.

Christ-followers certainly disagree on what end-times events occur when, but there is (or was) an overall consensus against the notion that people would eradicate poverty, hunger, all that sort of thing, without Christ or at least before He comes back to take a look at our planetary renovations.

But now we're back to the same stuff -- and while it's very, very true that Christ-followers are to be a means of "common grace" toward the poor and abused among nonbelievers, this is not the be-all-and-end-all of the Gospel. "Social justice" is only an outgrowth: at the center should be the actual truths of God as Creator, humans as rebels against Him, and Christ as redeemed. Are these professing evangelicals using "social justice" as a means toward proclaiming the Gospel? Or do they operate completely the opposite?

As it is, many of them are advocating a clone religion of Christianity And, as His Utter Subliminity Screwtape (from C.S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters) said is such an effective strategy. In this case, the "new" idea is Christianity And Social Justice -- and it's not so new, either; it's a mere strain of "liberation theology" liberalism that's somehow been accepted as legitimately evangelical.

This next is from a recent review (mine) of Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be):

I wrote:

The emphasis of emergent authors [is often] living our best and most moral lives now on this Earth, cleaning up the environment, beating back poverty (because apparently no one else has ever tried that before) and restoring “authentic” spirituality. So the past 2,000 years of Church history mean little or nothing, and what C.S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery” runs rampant as such writers and leaders proclaim their own religious practices as the answer to all the world’s ills. Heaven and Christ’s return are nowhere in sight, [author Kevin] DeYoung contends:

[E]mergent leaders are hoping for heaven on earth before Jesus returns to earth to bring the new heaven and new earth. Emergent leaders dare us to imagine a world without poverty and war and injustice. That’s good. We need to be stirred to have faith in the God of the impossible. But we should not expect something God has not promised, especially when He has promised the opposite. Jesus said the poor would always be with us (John 12:8) and wars and rumors of wars would continue to the very end (Matt. 24:6). This doesn’t mean we are pro-poverty warmongers. But it does mean that wars won’t go away just because we follow the secret message of Jesus.

[11. obewan said the following at 11:04 AM on Jul 22:]

11

‘--BTW why does nobody talk about President Bush's compassionate conservatism. It may not have worked out as perfectly as we would have liked, but I thought that was a genuine example of a conservative commitment to helping the least in society.--’

The reason we don’t hear about it is because it failed miserably. Only something like 10% of the money promised actually made it to ministries that serve the poor. The person Bush appointed to work the program even resigned in disgust and wrote a book about it. Furthermore, many organizations refused the money because of Government restrictions that prohibited religious witnessing along with providing a meal or services to the homeless. At the same time, donations to many ministries actually went down because people assumed that the government (and their tax money) was picking up part of the tab now.

[12. Jen said the following at 11:10 AM on Jul 22:]

12

I find buzzwords and trite phrases annoying too. However, the liberals are not the only ones who use them. What about the conservative phrase "family values?" Or "personal responsibility"? It seems those phrases mean different things to whoever's using them.

[13. Tim H. said the following at 11:13 AM on Jul 22:]

13

Social justice = things that are cool to fight: AIDs in Africa, African debt, etc.
Social Justice does not include standing up for the life of the 3000+ babies killed each day.

[14. Christina (in green) said the following at 11:14 AM on Jul 22:]

14

Dr. Ransom, #10:

There's no perspective of history

The most popular statement I heard in high school was "there's no point in history". How many of our history teachers were sports coaches that the school gave an empty teaching position to?

Seriously, not a whole lot of appreciation for history...kinda leads to the lack of a historical perspective =p

[15. laura grace said the following at 11:21 AM on Jul 22:]

15

This really all boils down to eschatology, Tom. Do you believe that Christians have a solemn responsibility from God to work to increase the influence of the Kingdom of God on earth, even among those who will never know Christ, until his return? Or do you believe that the Church's task is primarily (or even solely) an evangelistic one, because we're all going to get zapped out of here before the really bad stuff starts to happen?

If we have what I'd call a "low" view of eschatology (pre-tribulation rapture, disembodied heavenly eternity), of course we would see social justice as secondary in importance or even unimportant. Of course we would circle the wagons, focus on purely "moral" issues, tsk-tsk at the culture, and hunker down in our Christian foxholes until Jesus comes to take us away from all of this.

But if our understanding of eschatology is that Jesus inaugurated the Kingdom of God, entrusted his Church with increasing its radically transforming influence throughout the earth, and will return to re-create this physical globe and reign here with his people in physical, resurrection bodies for all eternity in the consummation and renewal of God's once-fallen creation... well, that paints a slightly different picture of our actions in the here and now, doesn't it?

The question you have to ask yourself is this, Tom: if a situation will certainly not exist in the glorious (and tangible) future of God and his people in the New Heavens and New Earth, why should Christians stand by and allow that situation to continue unchecked NOW, given our responsibility to live Kingdom-focused lives here on Earth?? This addresses every issue you can think of -- homosexuality, abortion, genocide, AIDS, poverty, homelessness, stewardship of creation, oppression, war, forced prostitution, human trafficking, hunger, racism... everything! THAT is "social justice" for the Christian -- working to bring the Kingdom of God to bear on the world around us.

Honestly, I'm getting well and truly worn out with the Christian=Republican nonsense that pops up on the Line. You all are smarter people and better critical thinkers than that. Really.

[16. J. Tucker said the following at 11:22 AM on Jul 22:]

16

While I agree that "social justice" can be a vague and somewhat amorphous concept, I think everyone reading this article knows that Jesus was very active in helping the poor, caring for the elderly and widowed, etc. In fact, you could say that "social justice" is the original Christian concept, not a liberal political scheme to redefine normative social values. We can argue about the details later.

A few points:
1. Calling blue-collar and pink-collar workers "working families" is the respectful thing to do. It has nothing to do with "nudge and wink". It has everything to do with dignity and regard for our fellow citizens. Would you feel respected and equal if your representative said that he initiated legislation to help the "ditch-diggers" and "garbage men"?

2. I agree with Leigh Anne in #3 - Christianity is not synonymous with conservatism or Republicanism, and I think it's disgraceful that "educated" people in the Christian community could actually believe that after seeing all of the ungodly things that Republicans have done to our country and the world for the past 30 years. I am a republican politically, but I've had to repent for many of the votes that I've cast.

3. To mindlab in #7 - We wouldn't need "wealth distribution" if Christians hadn't dropped the ball in carrying out their Biblical duties of "social justice". I dislike taxes as much as anyone, but give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. And it's funny that you mentioned money, because that's exactly what it's all about. Republicans wouldn't hesitate to help the poor if it didn't cost money, would they?

[17. Khalil said the following at 12:10 PM on Jul 22:]

17

The medication and effects of my sinus infection are kicking in, so I'll keep this brief. The agency I am going overseas with uses James 1:27 as a theme. Using this example, are there not places in the Bible where we are told to look after the downtrodden, weak, and those in need? Perhaps it is how you define social justice, but I see this theme as a very Christ-like approach to life.

[18. Ken said the following at 12:53 PM on Jul 22:]

18

Tim H:
"Social Justice does not include standing up for the life of the 3000+ babies killed each day."

Care to cite or backup your statement?

Laura Grace:
Maybe some of us are tired of all the Republican, Bush bashing in the comments section.

Whatever kind of justice we strive for, no one party can claim total dominance in this area.

BOTH sides have done great and not so great things in regards to this issue.

[19. Ian said the following at 1:09 PM on Jul 22:]

19

As mindlab wrote above, "social justice" as buzzword probably stands for "wealth redistribution" in most contemporary contexts. I don't feel it's overly difficult to perceive this. Mr. Neven's post is curiously oblique and more than a bit defensive.

[20. Tom Neven said the following at 1:09 PM on Jul 22:]

20

laura grace (#15)

You miss my point. I refuse, for purposes of this post, to get into discussion of specifics about how best to do "social justice." Ditto for eschatology. (But, FYI, I'm definitely nota pre-trib rapture type, at least not in the Jerry Jenkins-Tim LaHaye model.)

My point is the use of meaningless political buzz phrases, often used as code to get around saying what you really mean.

[21. Ted Slater said the following at 1:20 PM on Jul 22:]

21

Another tired term that came to mind while reading your post, Tom: "sustainable."

[22. Dr. Ransom said the following at 1:28 PM on Jul 22:]

22

Christina, hearing that the who-cares-about-history statement made directly and aloud is somehow shocking to me. I really should be more disillusioned, though. ...

laura grace, you sound like my sister -- not in thought, but just in your name. That's my sister's name. But my sister would disagree with what you've written, particularly the false eschatological dichotomy.

Here's another personal note: I'm getting really, really tired of false either-or dichotomies ...

Anyway, here are some reactions to your comment (no. 15).

Do you believe that Christians have a solemn responsibility from God to work to increase the influence of the Kingdom of God on earth, even among those who will never know Christ, until his return? Or do you believe that the Church's task is primarily (or even solely) an evangelistic one, because we're all going to get zapped out of here before the really bad stuff starts to happen?

How about both? but not because "we're all going to get zapped out of here"?

Perhaps you simply aren't aware of more reasonable end-times views -- or lack of said views, as is my case -- that aren't so "Rapture"-heavy all the time, but also don't fall way too far into postmillennialism utopianism, which is an even less legitimate end-times view than the pre-trib view.

If we have what I'd call a "low" view of eschatology (pre-tribulation rapture, disembodied heavenly eternity)

How and why are you lumping these two together? Is it possible to believe in pre-trib, pre-mill stuff while also accepting the much more directly presented Biblical truth that the New Heavens and New Earth are yet to come, and will be a hybrid of both the remade heavens and the remade Earth?

(For example, even one of those Left Behind guys, writer Jerry Jenkins, mightily praised Randy Alcorn's Heaven, which does the best job yet setting the record straight about the supposed nonmaterial, super-spiritual idea of "heaven" in which many Christians somehow believe.)

But you seem to be taking the view that Earth will be remade to an unhealthful extent. Who will remake it and when will this happen? Scripture is clear that Christ will do this, sometime after He returns (a literal or allegorial 1,000-year "millennium" notwithstanding).

The Church is His Kingdom on Earth, to be sure. Yet unlike postmillennial memes would hold, it is not the Church's role or goal to change the world completely, fix it up pristine and shining before He touches down again.

of course we would see social justice as secondary in importance or even unimportant. Of course we would circle the wagons, focus on purely "moral" issues, tsk-tsk at the culture, and hunker down in our Christian foxholes until Jesus comes to take us away from all of this.

Here's another false dichotomy. (Sighs, and tries to smile.) Again, is it automatic that if we don't put social justice front and center (perhaps instead of the Gospel?) then we're behaving just like all them Legalists?

Guess what, though -- there are many other errors in the church besides withdrawing from the world into a safe subculture bubble and waiting for a rapture. Thers is also the error of substituting the Church, or a reasonable fascimile thereof, for Christ -- standing in for the "groom," rather than awaiting His arrival as His "bride."

While we're waiting for Him, we should indeed be busy and not focused on shying away from culture and tough issues. However, I'm just not convinced that is what the Church overall has done anyway. And the opposite error seems to be what you have advocated, laura: the Church as world-changer through politics all over again.

Really, what's different from what you've said and the position implied by the more "intense" of right-wing Christian activists, who put their "social" issues front and center rather than the Gospel, the Church's one foundation of Christ alone, sola Cristos?

But if our understanding of eschatology is that Jesus inaugurated the Kingdom of God, entrusted his Church with increasing its radically transforming influence throughout the earth, and will return to re-create this physical globe and reign here with his people in physical, resurrection bodies for all eternity in the consummation and renewal of God's once-fallen creation... well, that paints a slightly different picture of our actions in the here and now, doesn't it?

Here's where I just grin and clap and yell Ay-men (in a Southern accent, just to irritate people :-D). Indeed the Church is here to try to change the world before Christ arrives. But it won't revamp the whole place before Christ's return as some people more than imply it will.

I am thinking here of the emergent-ism authors, whom you may or may not agree with; if you do not, please clarify your view and correct my misunderstanding.)

But you have misunderstood Tom and the entire blog and have tried to wire what he said into your stereotype of Right Wingnut Christians Who Care Mostly About Low Taxes and Give Lip Service to Life Sanctity.

Again, it's a false dichotomy, which you may not have even recognized you were making. But as you seem to recognize, Christ-followers can work to alleviate poverty and hunger, stop slave trafficking, protest genocides, oppose laws that permit the slaughter of preborn children, help save otherwise unwanted children, and even pick up trash and do more to take care of God's creation. We can walk and the walk and chew solid doctrine at the same time. Not everybody is so severely flipping back and forth between sets of issues as you have implied above. Here's hoping this clarification has been helpful to both heart and mind. :-)

[23. SJ said the following at 1:41 PM on Jul 22:]

23

From discussions with other evangelical Christians from all over the political spectrum, I've come to see "social justice" used as a term to refer to a different prioritization of the activities and causes that Christian organizations fight politically. Its not that these Christians deny the brutality of abortion or the heresy of gay marriage, but the near singular focus on these issues seems to imply a neglect on other equally important issues such as religious persecution overseas, genocide, sexual slavery and trafficing, and the suffering of the poor both domestically and abroad. The frustration is compounded with the perception of non-Christians and more liberal factions in the government taking the lead or even ownership on these issues.

There certainly are a lot of good Christian organizations and missions that work on the issues I mentioned above. Also, despite disagreements, there is always room to work with secular factions when interests align; I have a lot of admiration for Senator Brownback, who crossed lines to speak out against the genocide in Darfur. Yet when the political capital is placed so heavily on a couple out of many injustices in this world, I can understand why there is such a call for a shift toward "social justice".

[24. mary kate said the following at 1:55 PM on Jul 22:]

24

right on SJ, #23. i totally agree.

[25. A.M.C. said the following at 2:08 PM on Jul 22:]

25

Well, this reminds me of a quote from the "How Do You Spell Success" section of Boundless Show #26:

"We [used to] have these really mixed neighborhoods where you meet all types. Now it is very likely that your neighbors are going to be about as identical to you as we've ever had in history of the country."

^ Since we're on the "social justice" topic, here's a very politically incorrect solution: Perhaps we should consider having Affirmative Action (by race/ethnicity, income, etc.) not in education or employment, but in the housing market. Namely, new homeowners would receive subsidies if their arrival in the neighborhood would increase diversity, while a mark-up would be applied if people wish to move into neighborhoods whose demographics are homogeneous to their own (e.g. in terms of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status).

==> The idea is based on the premise that segregation negatively affects everyone (and especially minority populations), an assertion that can be backed by actual data. And by "integration," I mean not only racial integration, but also having people of different socioeconomic backgrounds living in the same neighborhood. The main drawback of this policy, of course, is that it is politically impossible-- surely many middle-class Whites would strongly resent it as they see their property values plummet. Then again, that's exactly what the policy is trying to do, to use economic incentives to encourage integration without technically forcing people to move.

Ideally, such a policy would also reduce the effect of so-called "White flight," because there would be no escape; the new neighborhoods that they end up in will again be integrated thanks to the economic incentives provided by the policy. [Obviously, the practicality of this policy depends the frequency that demographics data are updated. In addition, different formulas have to be depending on the region-- a possibility is to define "fully integrated" as the city or state average in terms of demographic data.]

===================================

* Okay, I must admit that the "solution" above is probably too extreme. Even if it were ever implemented, such a policy would be full of loopholes-- just imagine people intentionally working less to reduce their income and thus benefit from the "handout" mandated by the policy. One could certainty remove the "income" part and just have Affirmative Action in the housing market by race/ethnicity, but even this would open a can of worms (some might be consider it a violation of the freedom of movement).

==> Perhaps some of you might even wonder, "why would a Christian who calls himself 'pro-life, pro-family, pro-traditional marriage,' etc. and considers himself conservative theologically EVER promote such a liberal policy?" Here's why: because I found segregation to be unbiblical, and the private sector isn't doing enough to solve this (few rich people would voluntarily integrate a poorer neighborhood by moving in). The underlying philosophy is simple: I'm willing to utilize any resource, whether from the private sector or a secular government, to do God's will.
Given my Biblical worldview, I would of course prefer a conservative solution-- the problem is that it's currently not working in the case of countering segregation. (While I'm certainly wiling to set an example myself, how much difference would that make?) That's why I would support the idea of the government using economic incentives to desegregate neighborhoods in principle, but only as a last resort when all else fails.

===================================

* Let's take a look at another example: wealth distribution. Many conservatives are against it, because they consider it an infringement upon their right to own property-- fair enough. But someone who's more liberal on economic issues might use Leviticus 25:8-24 and Acts 4:32-37 as Biblical examples of wealth distribution.

==> Now, here's where the disagreement starts. The conservative would argue that both instances are voluntary wealth distribution, or something that is akin to what we call "charity" nowadays. The liberal would then counter that by saying that people aren't perfect and would often give less than they should, and then cite statistics that show a negative correlation between net income and proportion of income given to charities. (If needed, the supposed failure of the Year of Jubilee in practice would also be cited. And if that's not enough, there's always the trump card of "technically, everything that we 'own' belongs to God, so the right to property should be limited in the first place anyway.")

===================================

* The point I'm trying to make is simply this: Christians should not dwell on the means of doing the so-called "social justice" because this is one area where people are bound to disagree. Rather, we should focus on the ends, i.e. repairing ALL kinds of broken relationships in this world (between God and people, between human individuals, and between humans and the rest of God's creation) caused by the Fall. As long as we remember to put faith before works and remember that everything must be done for God's glory and not our own, I don't see why the Biblical kind of social justice can be a problem.

[26. Ryan said the following at 2:51 PM on Jul 22:]

26

The problem, SJ (#23) with your premise, is that the reason why conservative Christians decry social justice is because it is used draw attention away from abortion and other matters that should be near and dear to the heart of the Church.

Case in point: the first time I ever heard about social justice was when I was at a college-age Bible study in Denver and i was asking what one of teh girls did there at her campus as a ministry. She replied she was with a social justice group, that chose to "deal with what we all can agree upon as being injustices, instead of focusing on less clear thigns like a woman's right to choose."

WHAT???

I'm so disgusted with social justice. One of the reasons is its redefinition of what justice truly is: the liberal presumes that justice is (and all the government programs are an effort to create) equality in outcome. This is antithetical to the Bible's view of justice: equality of opportunity. For instance: Not all people will become saved, but all will have the chance to accept or decline Christ. "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" If universalism is not taught in the Bible, then why effect it in terms of prosperity and call it "just?" God's idea of justice is far more different than ours--we just choose to redefine morality because us humans know better.

Another reason why I despise social justice is that it is a perversion of justice for the government to favor the poor. Case in point, Michael Medved's article:

"Leviticus 19:15 declares: "You shall not commit a perversion of justice: you shall not favor the poor and you shall not honor the great, with righteousness shall you judge your fellow."

"Concerning the crucial sentence, Rabbi SchlomoYitzhaki (Rashi), the great 11th Century sage commented: "'You shall not favor the poor' means that you should not say that a wealthy man is obligated to help the poor, therefore it is proper for a judge to rule in favor of the poor litigant. Torah insists that justice be rendered honestly; as important as charity is, it must not interfere with justice."

"Jewish tradition goes on to clarify the apparent contradiction between numerous Biblical injunctions to act compassionately to the poor, to the widow and the orphan, and this unequivocal insistence on avoiding favoritism. The essential point is that it's the individual that's primarily commanded to display compassion and give charity, while the government, particularly in its judicial aspect, must judge actions, not persons

"Leftists should take note: "loving your neighbor" doesn't involve protecting him against the just consequences of his own mistakes, or giving him special dispensation if he's unlucky, or punishing the productive in the name of helping the less fortunate.

"A just and loving society, in other words, doesn't enshrine victimhood and doesn't see a contradiction between justice and compassion. Both are attributes of the living God but they shouldn't be confused."

The complete article can be found here: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/04/11/biblical_liberation_from_liberalism

Finally, a big problem in this country, and the reason for the so-call "shrinking middle class" and "housing crisis" is that we are living outside our means. Fifty years ago the list of necessities totalled around twenty: things like running water, a roof, etc. Today it numbers in the hundreds: things like TV, internet access, cell phones... poverty in America is NOT the same as poverty overseas... And while we are told to have compassion on the poor in the Bible (as individuals--the Church is far more effective than the government anyway) it is with the sober realization that "The poor you will have with you always." There will always be an economic gap so long as there's greed and limited resources, and there will be always be greed so long as there's sin.

SIN is the root of man's problems, not poverty.

[27. Christina (in green) said the following at 3:12 PM on Jul 22:]

27

Hmmm...lets see (#23)

Lets break this down a bit...
Its not that these Christians deny the brutality of abortion...
Ummm...I think this qualifies as "social justice"...or do you not agree?

the near singular focus on these issues seems to imply a neglect on other equally important issues
Yeah, equally important, but you know...each group has its own battle. FOTF (and a lot of the "evangelical" world) seems to focus a lot on these. But your wrong that it implies a neglect.

such as religious persecution overseas
I met a woman who is studying to be a missionary at Reformed Theology Seminary in Orlando who was imprisoned for spreading the gospel in China. Religious persecution is greatly talked about over here. In fact, Randy Alcorn set up a fund and a project to inform people about the religious persecution. Neglect?

genocide
The Anglican Church of Africa and its mission churches here in the states focus on helping genocide victims. At my own church, we sponsor the economic revival and support of the victims of the Rwanda Genocide. Neglect?

sexual slavery and trafficing
The church has a HISTORY on this one, believe it or not...but history-ignorant, young, evangelicals who never had a teacher with enough sense to tell them how important it is wouldn't actually know this. Amy Carmichael specialized in this. My church in my hometown (an Episcopal church that wasn't mission oriented) sponsored a couple in our church who went once a year to check on the school that they started for young women in india, teaching them english and sheltering them from such practice. Neglect?

and the suffering of the poor both domestically and abroad.
World Vision (an evangelical group that is heavily sponsored by Casting Crowns) focuses specifically on the poor abroad. Domestically, you have soup kitchens, paper-bag ministries, and, ironically, the Episcopal Diocese of Central Florida is currently running an inner city missions project in the Orlando area, helping the not-so-fortunate people of this area. Providing vacation bible school in the projects, helping young, single mothers with dozens of babies clean their homes (which wasn't actually a part of the agenda...but the 4-5 12 and 13 year olds that helped a young mother with 3 boys clean her house were quite excited about it). Neglect?

Thing is, I don't know what anyone thinks to accomplish? Government programs? More social security? More of our tax money going to the government to fund multi-billion dollar programs to help all these people?

Seriously now.

Social Justice IS NOT LIMITED TO ONE PARTY. So stop talking about how the liberals are more into "social justice" than the conservative evangelicals. The conservative evangelicals have their own specific social justice that they have focused on, other denominations have their own...and each individual church has their own. Just like YOU will have your own to specifically focus on.

[28. laura grace said the following at 3:50 PM on Jul 22:]

28

Dr. Ransom, thanks for your response, brother. Let me clarify and/or rephrase a couple of things. I am NOT emergent. I am Reformed, and I am very wary, as you are, I'm sure, of the tendency of Christians to do one or the other when it comes to evangelism and social justice. In fact, that's the problem I was trying to point out. Perhaps I misspoke, but I certainly am not trying to perpetuate a "stereotype of Right Wingnut Christians Who Care Mostly About Low Taxes and Give Lip Service to Life Sanctity."

Perhaps it's only in the circles I've run in, but a distressingly high percentage of Christians I've known have a very weak view of what eternity will be like for the believer. Maybe I shouldn't have included the part about the "rapture" (although I still think that enters the equation in the "foxhole" mentality that can hamper outreach), but I think the point about a disembodied heavenly eternity still stands. If our souls go to heaven and we spend the rest of eternity in a sort of glorified worship service far away from the relationships and work of this life, what motivation do we have to work for the Kingdom here and now? On the other hand, the fact that believers, upon Christ's glorious return, will be raised to life (like Christ), have resurrection bodies (like Christ), and work and have relationships and perfectly rule creation as Adam and Eve could not (but the Second Adam did and will), ought to have some bearing on our actions in this life, oughtn't it?

I think it's too bad that Emergent-types (who are really just early 20th century classic Liberals, except with tattoos and hip glasses) have taken and twisted the Biblical language of justice to such an extent that even a Calvinist like me gets lumped in with them when I talk about fulfilling the commands of God regarding oppression and poverty and the like! :) As a Calvinist, I'm obviously realistic about how much can be done in a world so pervasively and comprehensively damaged by sin. But does that mean we throw in the towel, put on our flak jackets and head back in the bunker? No, it means we work, because we know God is at work -- a Sovereign God whose will is accomplished using means... the means of the labor of his people to bring his Kingdom's influence over every area of life.

I hope that clears up some of the issues, Dr. Ransom! God bless you, brother.

[29. Chris said the following at 4:16 PM on Jul 22:]

29

In regards to the definition of social justice, the Catholic church has long had a definition of it that includes both "pro-life" and "pro-poor/working class" components.

I've often found that many conservatives are hesitant to embrace such a definition, probably due to the "socialistic" (for lack of a better word) components. They're willing to support laws/leaders that deal with abortion/gay marriage/etc. These things do not affect the pocket book that much. The ones that do if actually enacted through law (living wages, a right to health care, the right to join a union, for example) tend to scare them away. For them, "justice" is a concept limited to criminal and civil law.

(Anecdotally, this supports my belief that people's political/social convictions shape their religious convictions, not vice-versa, but that's a whole other discussion......)

As to the claim about politicians on the left avoiding things by using the phrase "working family", I believe Tom Neven is burning a straw man. Ask any of these people if they're in working families, and they'll admit it and know exactly what it means.

It simply means a family where one or both parents must work weekly (sometimes 7 days/week) to simply provide basic necessities for their families. This is markedly different from the very well-to-do who, push comes to shove, don't have to worry about putting a roof over their heads, paying for food, or paying for medical care. It is not some "empty phrase" meant to avoid the truth or avoid being condescending. It's simply another way of saying lower/middle class families living day-to-day in not so many words.

[30. farmer Tom said the following at 4:44 PM on Jul 22:]

30

* The point I'm trying to make is simply this: Christians should not dwell on the means of doing the so-called "social justice" because this is one area where people are bound to disagree

And we have a winner,

Translation,......... we don't care who we beg borrow or steal from, we want to do good so therefore we are justified in using whatever means necessary to do that good.

How was it Paul put it?

Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound???

Some of you are so sure that "social justice" is something christians should be concerned about, you are willing to accept the tyranny of government to enforce "social justice".

And the proper response is, GOD FORBID

[31. Amir Larijani said the following at 4:58 PM on Jul 22:]

31

"Social justice" is a code term for taxpayer-funded abortions, undermining parental rights, waging war on masculinity, taxpayer-funded sex education, welfare-state socialism, universal health care, gay marriage that everyone must recognize, reparations to blacks and other 'preferred minorities', and appeasement of terrorists and other thugs.

[32. Amir Larijani said the following at 4:59 PM on Jul 22:]

32

Farmer Tom for President!

[33. Jaime said the following at 5:12 PM on Jul 22:]

33

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this as I only skimmed the posts, but the Bible never tells us that the government is in charge of this. The church is supposed to deal with social justice. Thus, it really shouldn't be an issue for political campaigns. Just my thoughts.

[34. Ting said the following at 5:21 PM on Jul 22:]

34

Social justice should never be an end in itself. Social Justice without evangelism is a works based, man made religion. Evangelism without social justice can be having faith without works. (I'm not advocating works based faith..just referring to James of how someone's faith naturally spurs them on to good works)

As one of the pastors Lisa interviewed said (paraphrase) , "Even the world will applaud us for doing good works for the poor. But they will not applaud us for evangelism."

[35. farmer Tom said the following at 5:26 PM on Jul 22:]

35

Tom Neven this is directed to you,

I asked you several questions the other day about the purpose and role of government. You failed to answer my questions. Until these young people here understand the Biblical role of government they will accept the idea of "social justice" as one of things government can and should do. Unless you admit that taking taxes from "each according to ability, and giving to each according to need" (look that one up), is an act of evil, people will continue to assert their right to use the power of government to satisfy "social justice".

This really is a question of what kind of government we will have, one that's sole purpose is to "punish evil doers" or one that is involved in every aspect of our lives, taking our God given rights away in favor of "social justice".

It is very alarming that so many who claim the name of Christ would accept the Darwinist/socialist view of the role of government.

By the way for all of you who can not understand politics outside of the Republican/Democrat dialectic, here's something to put in your pipe and smoke, I have not voted for a Repugnant for president in 16 years, and I refuse to vote for anyone from the opposite(Demoncrat) party which supports the very evils I just described and advocated the killing of the unborn. So do not attempt to paint me a Repugnant party hack.

[36. BC said the following at 5:28 PM on Jul 22:]

36

In general, social justice seems to be focused on immediate solutions to visible problems, operating under the auspices of the claim that any improvement in life is a worthwhile improvement. It offers people quicker access to a feeling of accomplishment without engaging any effective long-term planning.
Reactionist charity of that sort is more quickly accepted by leftist thinkers than rightist ones, which has allowed leftist thinkers to largely co-opt social justice ideas into their own long term plans. Their is nothing that inherently links social justice with leftist ideas, but the sheer number of leftists that have become involved with social justice easily sways gullible youth to believe that such a link does exist.

[37. A.M.C. said the following at 6:34 PM on Jul 22:]

37

Re: farmer Tom (#30)

All right, I see your point. What I meant to say by "not dwell on the means" was "it doesn't matter whether it's individuals or the government that is doing the job as long as the job gets done." Obviously, I would agree that the means of achieving the goal should be as "un-authoritarian" as possible-- that's why I mentioned in my previous post that I would only advocate the government stepping in "as a last resort" when efforts by the private sector alone are inadequate.

As for the quotation from Apostle Paul: Could you please explain why using a secular government to further God's will could count as a "sin"? (After all, there are many examples in the Bible where God has used people who did not believe in Him to do His will.)

Then again, is it the idea of taking away some of the privileges/rights/riches, etc. from those who earned them honestly and fairly that you are against? Fair enough, I won't contest that.

------------------------------

For further clarification, here's how I would define "Biblical social justice":

1. (n.) Acts done to repair the broken relationships between God and people, between human individuals, and between humankind and the rest of God's creation; and

2. (n.) Acts done to minimize or reverse the negative consequences of human sin.

------------------------------

==> By this definition, "liberal" issues such as helping the poor and feeding the hungry would qualify if the method is providing further education or job training (something that addresses the cause) rather than simply giving away money/supplies (handouts that may encourage irresponsible behavior, e.g. laziness or substance abuse).

* Issues such as stopping genocide, human trafficking, and prostitution obviously count as social justice as well. So would countering racism and, to a lesser extent, reasonable environmentalism (if and only if with the correct focus, i.e. "using our planet's resources responsibly without making nature an idol").

------------------------------

* On the other hand, several "conservative" issues would also qualify as social justice based on the definition above. For example, minimizing the number of abortions through overturning Roe v. wade AND. [***The "underlying causes of abortion" that some people talk about, such as poverty, are already covered under the "liberal issues" section.]

* The same applies to upholding biblical marriage and preaching that the opposite of homosexuality isn't heterosexuality but holiness. (Allowing the "gay agenda" to prevail, while seeming pro-equality in the minds of social liberals, would actually worsen the existing brokenness.)

* And here's the kicker: Yes, evangelism would count as social justice as well. Why? Because, above all else, Christ's sacrifice both repairs broken relationships AND reverses the negative consequences of human sin (i.e. spiritual death).

[38. Mike said the following at 7:10 PM on Jul 22:]

38

Is it safe to say we can be concerned for "social justice" (i.e. the well-being of our fellow man) without insisting it be enforced by the government?

Or is that too controversial?

[39. Eliza said the following at 7:35 PM on Jul 22:]

39

Deut. 10:17-19
17 For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. 18 He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. 19 And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt.

Psalm 10:12, 14, 17-18
12 Arise, LORD! Lift up your hand, O God. Do not forget the helpless. 14 But you, O God, do see trouble and grief; you consider it to take it in hand. The victim commits himself to you; you are the helper of the fatherless. 17 You hear, O LORD, the desire of the afflicted; you encourage them, and you listen to their cry, 18 defending the fatherless and the oppressed, in order that man, who is of the earth, may terrify no more.

Psalm 146:7-9
7 He upholds the cause of the oppressed and gives food to the hungry. The LORD sets prisoners free, 8 the LORD gives sight to the blind, the LORD lifts up those who are bowed down, the LORD loves the righteous. 9 The LORD watches over the alien and sustains the fatherless and the widow, but he frustrates the ways of the wicked.

Job 10:15-16
15 He saves the needy from the sword in their mouth; he saves them from the clutches of the powerful. 16 So the poor have hope, and injustice shuts its mouth.

Psalm 35:9-10
9 Then my soul will rejoice in the LORD and delight in his salvation. 10 My whole being will exclaim, "Who is like you, O LORD ? You rescue the poor from those too strong for them, the poor and needy from those who rob them."

Zechariah 7:9-10
9 "This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. 10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other.'

Luke 4:17-21
17The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."[a]

20Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

James 1:26-27
26If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. 27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

[40. farmer Tom said the following at 8:04 PM on Jul 22:]

40

#26 Ryan,

A sincere and hearty,

AMEN

[41. Sarah said the following at 8:22 PM on Jul 22:]

41

A few short comments:

To J. Tucker's first sentence in point #3 in comment 16: Dead on, my friend, dead on.

To Tom's comment 20 where he wrote, "My point is the use of meaningless political buzz phrases, often used as code to get around saying what you really mean.": welcome to politics.

As to this post, I mean no offense, but is this really that critical? It sounds like whining to me, and we've all fallen prey to a good time wasting game of semantics.

[42. Nat said the following at 8:41 PM on Jul 22:]

42

Arthur Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, recently wrote a book about the generosity of various American sub-groups. He found that Counservatives are more personally generous than their liberal counterparts, who prefer government involvement. He also found, though, that athere was a large difference between religious Americans and more secular Americans, and so; for example, religious conservatives were more generous with their personal wealth than secular liberals, and religious liberal more generous than secular conservatives, etc.
He also found that there are distinct differences in giving to charity around the world. Americans and British people give more to charity than continental europeans, for instance. He found other differences, too, in terms of the type of charity donated to, and in the prosperity of the giver. Poor- especially the working poor- and rich people tended to give larger percentages of their annual incomes than middle class people. It's a really interesting book, I reccomend it.

[43. Richard said the following at 8:45 PM on Jul 22:]

43

Amir,

I have certainly never considered my minority status as 'preferred' prior to reading your post, and feel even less 'preferred' after reading your comments.

I do think there are strong arguments on BOTH sides of the reparation debate. It doesn't seem fair to lump those not on YOUR side with terrorist and thugs!

[44. Tara said the following at 10:15 PM on Jul 22:]

44

I am grateful to everyone here who has pointed out all the ways people in the Church have been active in helping the needy and meding out social justice in the truest sense of the word.

I'm part of a denomination where missions and social action have been a huge focus practically since it's beginning (I'm an Anabaptist with Reformist leanings...:P )so I find it disconcerting to see peers in my Church talk as if this "social justice" movement is brand new. I see it as a slap in the face to all the work our parents and grandparents have done in Christ's name.

I'm not against pushing for social change in the political sphere (hello...how do you think the common man & woman got the right to vote? No one just *gave* it to us) but as Christians I think we have to be careful how entangled we let the Church become with politics. I see politics more as a tool...one of many. And ultimately politics will NOT make our world a more loving, equal place. You can make all the laws you want but true change comes from the Holy Spirit. Our actions don't define us. Christ is more concerned with our hearts. And I know you all know that already. ;) I guess the question is, are we willing to let Christ transform us from the inside out and that it's Christ they see in our actions...not our political leanings?

[45. JB said the following at 10:17 PM on Jul 22:]

45

Tom,

Maybe the reason you find "social justice" to be an empty phrase is because you're expecting too much from it. Someone who is talking about "social justice" may be trying to invoke an entire theory of justice, but I think the phrase is more commonly used to refer to a political orientation which is concerned with the justice of social systems as such. That is, I think frequently a person who expresses a concern for "social justice" isn't so much talking about a coherent system of thought so much as a belief that issues of justice ought to be addressed *at all.* In my, admittedly amateur, reading of political debates, it seems to me that progressives are more willing to discuss the effects of policies on various parties than conservatives, who more focus on the global effects. If we're discussing a new tax policy, the conservative debate focuses on whether it is good or bad for "the economy" while the progressive debate tends to ask how it would affect, say, "uninsured children," "single mothers," or "the middle class." The intrinsic critique of progressive "social justice" talk is, I think, that too often policymakers are so concerned with whether or not the system as a whole is working that they forget to ask exactly who is helped and harmed by a policy. Maybe when the people you mention say they're concerned about social justice, they're asking for us to make that kind of analysis at all. Exactly *how* we make that analysis is a separate issue.

If I'm right about that, I think it fits with how the debate about abortion is conducted between progressives and conservatives. Conservatives are frequently willing to call abortion a great moral evil that should be opposed with every possible means and leave it at that. Progressives, being concerned with social justice, are forced to grapple with the details - how, for example, an abortion waiting period would differentially affect a poor woman seeking an abortion for medical reasons and a more affluent woman who wants to terminate a pregnancy for other reasons. Even if you think abortion is wrong, from the perspective of someone concerned with social justice the issue is still pretty complicated and you might deemphasize it because you lack good solutions.

[46. BDB said the following at 11:34 PM on Jul 22:]

46

Somehow, it seems to me that the U.S. version of "social justice" has little to do with the actual condition of people. Let me walk through one example:

LIVING WAGE: In theory, a "living wage" allows someone to support a family on one income. In practice, the laws always exempt any worker covered by a collective bargaining agreement. The actual result is that companie have a huge incentive to allow unions to come in. The union promises them a lower wage than the "living" wage in the law, so the companies pay less. The union bosses get their "cut" of the union members' wages, and the workers are still making below the "living" wage.

There's a whole bunch of math on the business side, too. Some businesses such as hotels and fast food use minimum-wage employees. For hotels, the easy choice is to allow the union in - there are lots of unions in hotels.

For fast food, the answer is...automate. McDonald's deliberately designs their jobs to allow them to hire people with zero skills. They make a huge investment to train them, knowing that almost all of them will leave after being trained. If they hire teenagers, their friends will come visit them and buy something. It's part of the staffing plan.

Once you're not paying minimum wage anymore, you can start hiring people with skills. That allows you to put in more complex technology. Not every McDonalds uses the same kitchen technology. It's possible to adjust the configuration to require fewer employees, since more skilled employees work faster.

The result is teenage unemployement. They can't find a job anywhere because the jobs they'd normally get are filled by people supporting families.

Teenage unemployment tends to run as high as 20% some summers. It's much, much worse in European countries with living wage laws. That's one of the reasons for the riots in Paris a couple of years ago - a bunch of young people who couldn't find work and a combination of hopelessness and too much time on their hands.

So, that's a long way of saying that I agree that a certain party has spent too much time earmarking pork-barrel projects for their buddies, and seems to have ignored the real issues that impact working families and the poor.

Meanwhile, back in California, the state legislature missed the deadline to pass a state budget. They did, however, find time to try and take mylar balloons away from children.

Don't vote, it only encourages them...

[47. cn said the following at 1:12 AM on Jul 23:]

47

I'm in Israel and the other day I was talking to a friend who knew of a ministry in the land that goes and sits on buses targetted for attack. Contemplating their bold and risky move I asked, "Are they sitting there to pray?" My friend jokingly responded, "No, its some sort of demonstration... like 'social justice' or something."

My concern with the "social justice" movment is this: How effective is it? I'm sure some organizations are doing well. Personally I'm a fan of Ten Thousand Villages. But then I think about this bus sitting ministry and have to wonder how Rosa Parks they really think they are. Americans on a bus is surely not going to stop a terrorist, and "making a statement" doesn't really solve the problem as much as sharing the truth of Jesus and God's continued love of Israel with the Arabs. Sometimes it just seems that the whole Social Justice Movement is very surface oriented and not really getting at the bitter root, which is fallen people needing redeemed through Jesus, but if its getting young believers out there carying for the orphan and widow, then to God be the Glory. Hopefully everyone's learning about His heart in the process.

As for the abortion issue, I see plenty of people in our generation concerned for the unborn. Lou Engle has managed to round up thousands and thousands below 30 to pray for Roe v. Wade to be overturned all over America. Also, some early twenties twin sisters wrote a children's book called "Justice Loves Babies" as a means of teaching children about this issue. Find more info here: www.justicelovesbabies.com

Maybe its all a matter of what ministries you are exposed to.

[48. Adam said the following at 2:03 AM on Jul 23:]

48

It is amazing how abortion somehow seems to sneak into every slightly political discussion. Let me take a little bit different perspective on the abortion issue and social justice.

A few blogs ago, there was a discussion over child rapists being "monsters." Yet, when it comes to abortion, we view things rather differently. We blame the government for allowing it. We blame Planned Parenthood for performing the procedure.

Yet, we don't attack the root of the problem... 3000 cold-hearted killers every day. 3000 ladies who decide to murder the child growing inside of them. Not only that, but they are willing to take a financial hit to make sure the job gets done right.

No, we take a different tactic. We want to show the killers ultrasounds in hope they will change their mind. Or set up support groups for those who had abortions and later regret it. Quite the contrast to the "monsters" who many would rather just kill off.

It seems odd to me that Republicans seem to want to attack this issue through the government and the courts. Yet for most things - even social justice issues - the solution is for the government to keep their hands off and let the church, society, and the free market work things out.

---------------------------

I've noticed that there is very little about social justice that seems to seek to change laws. It seems to be much more about meeting particular needs. Taking care of people's health when they are dying from aids. Getting a bus to a poor neighborhood so they can get to work - and off of welfare.

Plus, there just seems to be a justified questioning of priorities in this country. We spend billions of dollars rebuilding Iraq, yet can't seem to get a few wells drilled in Africa?

[49. Zusanne said the following at 8:40 AM on Jul 23:]

49

Seems to be quite a bit of anti-conservative feeling from those interested in "social justice."

Here's my two cents:

As an on-again-off-again history teacher (a real one with real degrees, thank you very much--the coach/"teacher" frustrates me, too), I've seen plenty of students getting caught up in their causes and abandon the conservative ship--because they see the genuine flaws and the mistakes that the conservatives have made--and jump both feet into the left with very little investigation. By finding a community with the same soft-hearted desire to help others, they abandon the organizations that have been most successful at actually helping people. I know my students KNOW better because I've taught them better--we've studied the history, we've spent an hour on current events each week, and yet, the emotional takes over the intellect.

One of the best studies was published in a book called Who Really Cares? The author, a secular, liberal college professor was pretty shocked (he states in his introduction) when, after ten years of study, he discovered it was the most conservative and most religious who have been the most effective in creating "social justice" world-wide.

[50. M. Sand said the following at 9:48 AM on Jul 23:]

50

I have been visiting the Boundless website for a while now and have to admit that this is very interesting to me. It amazes me how we, Christains, claim we desire unity under Christ and yet we allow something as simple as "politics" to come between us. Social Justice includes a vast array of topics and I think we all know and understand that. Let's consider things like the education system, the healthcare system, economic development, etc. Where do we as Christans stand on these issues? I don't know of many Christians who support abortions. But I do know many who claim they believe that the strong should "bear the infirmities of the weak." There are plenty of lost, un-saved, disadvantaged people in the United States who need the help of the collective Church. As a matter of fact, the only way they will ever be helped or receive salvation is through the collective, unified Church/Body of Christ. Are we willing to give to the poor and homeless without assuming that they must have done something wrong to be in that conditioon? Are we willing to tell the government that we demand equal housing and access to eduation and healthcare for all United states citizens (or do we even want this)? Or do we secretly, or not so secretly for some, feel that these issues aren't our Christian duty or responsibility? Despite party lines WE ARE CHRISTIANS FIRST. Let us young adults who claim Christ remember that when we pass someone homeless on the street, listen to Republican or Democratic Presidential hopefuls "talk politics" (which is what they ALL do saved or not) or make a judgement on an issue based upon our own limited exposure to the world.

It amazes me that I know people who have traveled to impoverished countries and yet won't visit the "wrong side of the tracks" in their own city/state/country. I wonder how God feels about this?

Stop looking to Bush, McCain, Obama or anyone else to solve these issues. Sure He may use them but remember, God is looking to the Body of Christ. Let the Body stand up!

[51. mindlab said the following at 9:59 AM on Jul 23:]

51

29. Chris:

"I've often found that many conservatives are. . . willing to support laws/leaders that deal with abortion/gay marriage/etc. These things do not affect the pocket book that much. The ones that do if actually enacted through law (living wages, a right to health care, the right to join a union, for example) tend to scare them away. For them, "justice" is a concept limited to criminal and civil law."

Justice IS a concept limited to criminal and civil law. No one has a "right to health care." You have a right to use your property as you see fit; you do not have a right to steal my property because I can afford things you can't. Similarly, no one has a right to a "living wage." Again, you have a right to use your property, including your time, as you see fit. The fact that you are poorer than I does nothing to justify armed robbery (or wealth redistribution).

If you disagree, then I would be delighted to hear you justify wealth redistribution while condemning a mugger who make a living stealing purses and wallets at knife point.

[52. Jonathan said the following at 12:29 PM on Jul 23:]

52

Articles like this--and some of the responses to it--usually just tend to reinforce a split among Christians. A vague understanding of social justice is no worse than a vague understanding of "family values," for by the poster's admission, everyone is part of a family.

Many who espouse social justice, myself included, are just as firmly against abortion--because abortion is both murder and a breach of the justice God intends.

Yet we must not neglect the needs of others, even when it might endanger ourselves--financially or otherwise--to help them. The only reason the government is needed for that help is that most people are too selfish to do it willingly.

Someday the politicians and armchair Christian pundits will realize that there is no necessary conflict between faithfulness in justice and faithfulness in so-called "family values." That you don't have to choose which commands of Jesus you're going to try to obey. [That is, we should seek to obey Christ in all that he teaches in scripture.]

And then instead of voting for a lesser of two evils I might actually have someone I can support.

I have yet to see a political candidate, for president at least, that seems to support an agenda that Jesus could have endorsed. Let's not bicker about whether it's better to be wrong in one way or to be wrong in another.

[53. DP said the following at 2:52 PM on Jul 23:]

53

My comment was taken by #12

[54. Matthew said the following at 3:54 PM on Jul 23:]

54

A.M.C. (#37) seems to have one of the most thorough and helpful answers on this subject.

Mike (#38), I think that most Christian advocates for "social justice" want a lot of good things to be done by the church, but see many things that fall into the realm of governance to protect (criminalizing abortion, raising the minimum wage, enforcing laws on sex trafficking, etc.) Also, we've had the discussion on here before about how Planned Parenthood would give women some healthcare for gyn problems that they couldn't afford for themselves even though they were working, underscoring the fact that Christians aren't doing enough privately to address the needs in the world.

Many of us are divided on the issue of how much the government should be involved in social justice, but with the problems are enormous as they are it seems sometimes like the government is the only one with enough money to do something about it. Of course, the American church has plenty of money, but a life of radical giving away is quite unpopular and so you usually only hear wild-eyed people like Piper (whom I love) advocating it. Keep in mind that many of the problems of social justice are quite complex and that even going for an entirely politially "conservative" approach to ending poverty through job training and encouraging responsibility will be very, very expensive because of all the people (especially the homeless) who will need some sort of mental health treatment to be able to work and function and all the people who will simply need more and better training in order to thrive in an economy that values human life less and less.

Overall, I feel like growing up as a conservative Christian I was taught that abortion & gay marriage were the only "social justice issues" worth fighting about at the governmental level and that poor people were lazy. This is very easy to believe when you grow up not seeing injustice around you, which is a limited perspective that I think few of us in the middle and upper classes get. Thus, when I realized that the scope of injustices at home and around the world was much wider than I thought, I began to leave some of my conservative roots. This is not just an "emergent" thing, as numbers of well-respected theologically conservative Christians like John Piper, Tim Keller, N.T. Wright, Chuck Colson, and others have taught for years the importance of social justice. I would strongly recommend that people read some of Keller's thoughts on the matter, which you can browse through at http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/bio/timkeller.html

[55. Jethro said the following at 4:47 PM on Jul 23:]

55

Mindlab,

You see no difference between tax and armed robbery?

How about this: tax is part of the social contract. If you agree to live in this society you agree to pay tax. If you don't want to pay tax, go and find a country that won't tax you.

[56. Victoria said the following at 4:49 PM on Jul 23:]

56

As a British reader I often find this very issue on Boundless infuriating - being a Christian appears to be intrinsically linked with (often extreme) right wing political and economic views. No debate necessary - because after all those on the other side agree with abortion.

Surely this requires slightly more intellectual thought than that? I cannot agree more that abortion is wrong, homosexual marriage is wrong etc etc, but are we so shortsighted that we immediately throw away everything these political parties have to offer? Can there be nothing good? Can it be right that in the USA a boy dies because he cannot afford to see a dentist?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022702116.html

Why not have it both ways - why not stand firm on abortion AND make a stand against poverty? Why not oppose homosexual marriage AND protect the widows and orphans, the sick, the disabled, the poor? And why not think about the issues involved rather than just dismissing them out of hand because that is what the "enemy" believe?

In the UK there is no major political party that will repeal the abortion laws. But there are parties that will support those most in need, in the UK and abroad. I know how I will campaign on abortion laws. I know how as a medical professional I will respond to abortion in a medical context. I also know how I will vote - in an educated fashion, not as a reflex....

[57. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:23 PM on Jul 23:]

57

Richard says:

I have certainly never considered my minority status as 'preferred' prior to reading your post, and feel even less 'preferred' after reading your comments.

When I say "preferred", I mean by specially-selected by cultural elitists to benefit at everyone else's expense, even when those impacted had nothing to do with slavery.

(I for one oppose all racism, including affirmative action and other systems that lead to the use of quotas.)

I do think there are strong arguments on BOTH sides of the reparation debate. It doesn't seem fair to lump those not on YOUR side with terrorist and thugs!

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? You bet they are in the same boat. The former incited a deadly riot (Freddie's Fashion Mart) and led a political smear campaign based on a false rape charge. The latter is a well-established corporate raider. (Read Timmerman's book Shakedown, and you'll understand what I am talking about.

[58. farmer Tom said the following at 5:44 PM on Jul 23:]

58

. The only reason the government is needed for that help is that most people are too selfish to do it willingly.

So you are an advocate of armed robbery as long as it's done by the government?

I can also assume then that you consider the commandment which says, "Thou shalt not steal" to be authorization for the government to go ahead and take what they want in the name of "justice".

How very noble of you.

#50 said,

It amazes me how we, Christains, claim we desire unity under Christ and yet we allow something as simple as "politics" to come between us. Social Justice includes a vast array of topics and I think we all know and understand that. Let's consider things like the education system, the healthcare system, economic development, etc. Where do we as Christans stand on these issues?

Only a simpleton would suggest that "politics" is simple.

Ok, let's consider the health care system, education and ?economic development?

Are you suggesting that government has a role in any of these things? So you would take tax payers money to fund these things?

By what Biblical principle is government authorized to take money from the taxpayers to fund these things?

[59. Christina (in green) said the following at 6:21 PM on Jul 23:]

59

Adam,

Yet, we don't attack the root of the problem... 3000 cold-hearted killers every day. 3000 ladies who decide to murder the child growing inside of them. Not only that, but they are willing to take a financial hit to make sure the job gets done right.

Before you lump every woman who gets an abortion into that group, maybe you should meet some of them and actually come to terms of just what satan is capable of.

Which is WHY the church sticks with showing them ultrasounds and tries to change their mind rather than calling them outright killers.

[60. Jonathan said the following at 8:14 PM on Jul 23:]

60

I encourage everyone viewing this thread to reread post 10. My sentiments exactly. When will young evangelicals quit drinking the "liberal Kool-aid" and realize that the "social justice" tag is a lure to draw them away from a biblical perspective of helping the poor, taking care of God's earth and denying the paramount fight of our time: preserving traditional marriage and the sanctity of life.

[61. Ted Slater said the following at 8:50 PM on Jul 23:]

61

Victoria -- it seems that the boy died not because he couldn't afford to see a dentist, but because he couldn't afford to buy a tooth brush. If he and/or his family took personal responsibility for his hygiene, he'd still be alive. Seriously, that sounds harsh, but just a bit of prevention can deter a lot of problems.

Personal hygiene is taught in schools here. Whether anyone chooses to brush their teeth or not is up to them, not up to the government to enforce.

FWIW, all the Christians that I know of BOTH stand firm on abortion AND protect widows, orphans, sick, disabled, poor, etc. You cannot imagine the number of people I directly work with, or go to church with, or am friends with who have adopted one or more children, and at great expense to themselves. The Christians I know (not the ones in TV sitcoms) indeed do practice "social justice" in generous ways. Sure, we could do more, but saying that we do nothing is just inaccurate.

Regarding "homosexual marriage," who has dismissed them "out of hand," as you say? Not us. Boundless has a heart for those dealing with same-sex attraction, as does Focus on the Family. We graciously offer hope and help to leave their destructive lifestyle. Again, saying that Christians dismiss gay-identified people "out of hand" is a misrepresentation.

Yes, may we cast our votes in an informed way, not as a reflex.

[62. mary kate said the following at 9:01 PM on Jul 23:]

62

"but a life of radical giving away is quite unpopular and so you usually only hear wild-eyed people like Piper (whom I love) advocating it."

let's not forget shane claiborne and his 'irresistible revolution.' fantastic book, btw.

matthew (#54), i totally agree with you, and think you've hit the nail on the head. of course, my growing up experience was similar to the one you describe, so that's probably why.

like a lot of people have already said, i think many of my generation (i'm 29, btw) have just come to realize that there are other injustices happening all over the world, not just abortion (and homosexuality, though that's not a justice issue. but you get where i'm going, i'm sure). those of us who grew up like matt (#54) and have had our eyes opened to other problems often want to shed light on those problems.

whatever you think about the word social justice, at it's root it seems to mean people helping people live better. personally, i'm glad it's a buzzword because that means it's in the spotlight; it's cool to care. it's become a priority in many different circles (business, government, etc), and i think that's great. we're humans, so we're not going to always get it right. but i think it's a step in the right direction.

[63. Tom Neven said the following at 9:22 PM on Jul 23:]

63

Farmer Tom (#35)

Sorry, I didn't see your previous questions, so I wasn't being rude and ignoring you. (I leave on vacation shortly and I'm working like a madman to try to get ahead of my multiple deadlines.)

And not to sound rude here, but my position on certain political positions is irrelevant, especially to this post. I realize this is the Internet and discussions can head off on all sorts of tangents, but it's distressing (if not a little interesting) to see the direction this post has taken, which is not at all what I intended.

So, please pardon me while I decline to answer your questions.

[64. Tom Neven said the following at 9:27 PM on Jul 23:]

64

Victoria (#56)

I have many friends and family in the U.K., and the health system there is nothing to crow about. My brother-in-law got to the ripe old age of 48 before anyone discovered he had a congenital hole in his heart.

My mother-in-law went to the hospital with the medical condition where the lining of her aorta had torn away from the wall of the artery. (This is the same thing that killed the actor John Ritter.) In the States, she'd have been rushed into emergency surgery. There, she was put on a 3-month waiting list for heart surgery.

I could go on, but I find it significant that those who can afford private health insurance in Britain use that to see the doctors they want to see when they want to see them -- this despite still having to pay into the NHS.

[65. farmer Tom said the following at 9:46 PM on Jul 23:]

65

Tom Neven,

You have a right not to answer. But the point I was trying to make is related to the original question of this post, "What is Social Justice"?

And I think it is very clear from some of the answers that you received that "social justice" is really just a short hand term for socialism.

In the name of equality, fairness and compassion, many here who claim the name of Christ would use the power of the sword (government) to fulfill the following axiom, "From each according to ability, to each according to need."

And that philosophy is a vile and repugnant, unBiblical distortion of the Scriptural commands concerning widows, orphans, the poor etc. We have allowed the government to usurp their God-given authority and abandon their Biblical role to "punish evil doers" and replaced it with a system which takes from the haves and gives to whatever group it deems worthy.

Politics is about government and the type of government we are going to have, and those pushing "social justice" are the latest incarnation of the Marxist/Socialist tradition. And the most alarming things of all is that "christians" would embrace such a wicked idea.

[66. A.M.C. said the following at 10:16 PM on Jul 23:]

66

Re: Farmer Tom #35

Please forgive me for sounding "liberal" once again... but I do have a few questions.

1. You seem to be suggest that a progressive income tax is "an act of evil" because it can be considered a form of [government-sanctioned, rather than voluntary] wealth redistribution.

==> How would you reconcile this view with Leviticus 25, then? I'm asking this question because I'm getting the impression that the Year of the Jubilee is part of the law code to be followed (just like many other passages in Leviticus) based on the language style of the passage. By applying a bit of induction, these are the interpretations I reached:

(a) Judging from the "law code" context, one could say that the Israelites were EXPECTED (rather than simply encouraged) to redistribute property every 50 years.

(b) Since God says in verse 23 that the land is His, the ownership of property cannot be an unalienable right; rather, it is merely a privilege, because "ownership" is really "temporary stewardship" [in this context, it only lasts for up to 50 years].

* Given this "example," why, then, is government-sanctioned wealth redistribution evil? Is it evil because the modern context is different, i.e. because it is sanctioned by a secular government rather than by God Himself? [And if so, does that mean there are no Biblical ways of wealth redistribution other than in the form of charity?]


2. You said that the sole purpose of the government is to "punish evil doers," and that a government that does anything more in the name of social justice would be "taking our God given rights away."

==> May I ask you what those rights are? (Obviously, I would agree with you that the right to life would top the list. I am curious about the rest of the list, though.)

3. You said, "It is very alarming that so many who claim the name of Christ would accept the Darwinist/socialist view of the role of government."

==> I won't dispute that increasing government involvement can be seen as socialist. I do have to respectably disagree with the "Darwinist" part, however. As things now stand, if the government doesn't interfere, the rich would continue to build up advantages through inheritance. In other words, the offspring of rich parents would have an ahead start not because of their own hard work, but simply because they're blessed to have the "right" parents. In a sense, that's survival of the fittest in humans, which is Darwinian.

[Okay, I wouldn't go as far as to support a 100% inheritance tax to level the playing field for every generation. But you see the point.]

4. You also mentioned in your post that you support neither major party because you find neither of them acceptable.

==> Finally, there's something that we can agree on! :-) Based on your views, I guess you support the Constitution Party? [If so, then I guess we're going to disagree again, because my political ideology is better described as Christian Democratic-- which is popular in Europe but fairly unknown here in the U.S.]


==============================

P.S. Since I'm probably one of those (misguided?) "young people" you're talking about... here's a bit more background information so that you can understand where I'm coming from.


* Thanks to my involvement with InterVarsity over the past three years of college, I saw my views becoming more and more polarized (at least in political terms). With the adoption of a more conservative/biblical theology, I naturally shifted to the right on most social issues. Economically, though, I shifted to the left, mainly due to extensive exposure to the injustices in inner city neighborhoods (through a variety of service projects). [Hence my current views on social justice.]

==> Now, I do wholeheartedly agree with you that ideally, it is the church rather than the government that should be administering social justice. That's why I joined my local church (which has been able to do that while maintaining sound doctrine) after attending it for 2+ years. The problem is that the body of Christ isn't doing enough to address every injustice in our country. Ironically, this paradox is also caused by human sin, which had influenced church history negatively:

The problem basically boils down to church politics. Hadn't there been a false dichotomy that a church has to be either "liberal in everything" (i.e. focusing on social justice at the expense of preaching the Gospel) or either "conservative in everything" (i.e. focusing on preaching the Gospel at the expense of neglecting the needs of the poor and underprivileged), this problem would not have existed. As things now stand, those who want to administer social justice WHILE preaching the Gospel would be on their own.

[To take an example, my pastor is a victim of such false dichotomy. Back in 1982, his position of combining sound doctrine and evangelism with "living out the faith" almost prevented him from getting ordained. Then, in 1984, a nearby PCUSA church in the same city refused to provide any help for his nascent church simply because he's of the denomination that split off upon noticing the liberalization of theology in the mainline denomination.]

==> Since not every Christian who wants to both preach the Gospel and promote social justice is willing (or able) to risk the rejection from all sides, it is no surprise that efforts from the church in doing Biblical social justice is curtailed. Now you see why I would even bother to consider an inferior solution, namely allowing "liberal" policies that use the government fill in the gaps of administering social justice until the body of Christ would wake up, reconcile, realize their responsibility as Christians, and finally take over the job.

[67. BDB said the following at 10:54 PM on Jul 23:]

67

A.M.C. (

>>Given this "example," why, then, is government-sanctioned wealth redistribution evil?<<

If you look closely at Leviticus, the price paid for land was also supposed to be tied to the number of years until Jubilee. In other words, if it was 20 years until Jubilee, you paid a higher price. If it was only 5 years, you paid a lot less.

Nothing in the U.S. is priced this way. Every change in tax policy changes the "rules," and always disproportionally hurts some people and helps others.

"Redistribution" is wrong because it is the simple-minded taking from someone who has accumulated and giving it to someone who doesn't, REGARDLESS of the behavior of either individual.

And I'll use a personal example. When my grandfather worked for the school system, one of his jobs was to investigate truant students. He was specifically required to look for students of families on welfare, since education is the path out of poverty. He got really annoyed when he went to homes of the "poor" and discovered that they had nicer cars than he did. No doubt this is where he developed his propensity to buy new, rather than used, cars, later in life when he could afford it.

I had a miniature version of that myself once when delivering Christmas food baskets. Preferably, this is done very low-key. Sometimes the families invite you in to thank you. I was shocked at one house when I walked in and realized that they had thousands of dollars more invested in their TV and home electronics than I did. Something similar happened when I spent an evening working at our church's food warehouse. Our task was to load the boxes of food (enough for a family for 2 weeks) into their car. I was stunned to be loading food into a few brand-new cars.

Now, theologically, I do believe that we'll all answer to God for how we used resources; and North Americans will have a lot to explain. But if a church has trouble figuring out who is "needy" when they stand in front of them and ask for a box of food, I have even less confidence in a government bureaucracy to investigate and see if someone is being less than honest about how much they really need assistance.

And I am in regular contact with some of the people who work for these agencies. I think they are much better at determining need when someone makes an initial application for benefits. But once people get them; it is not uncommon for them to keep accepting them - not unlike when someone gets a job "under the table" and keeps accepting unemployment checks. Fraud is not necessarily the fault of the person who initially approved the benefits.

[68. khalil said the following at 6:08 AM on Jul 24:]

68

To #67...

I see this quite a bit myself in my current job. I work with inner city and at risk children and families. Many do have legitimate housing and financial issues, but there is a large number of those I work with that are as you described. Having nicer cars, furniture, electronics, $150 shoes on the kids, etc.

I imagine that much of this "wealth" comes from two sources, 1) drugs/prostitution and 2) rental stores. In the case of (1) they are not living a life of poverty or need because they are making more money than me or my coworkers in Juvenile Services, they just can't claim it as legal income. So they get Medicaid, foodstamps, and no responsibility. In the case of (2) they have the look of wealth and success, but it is only a facade as the things used to entertain them and decorate their house is rented and lasts only as long as they can keep up the payments. Often (2) is funded by (1).

It also doesn't hurt them that our tax system is set up to give away money to families like this in the form of the EIC, Earned Income Credit. Even if the family doesn't "work" or have a reportable/taxable income they can claim credits on the number of kids they have, etc. They get a tax rebate every year even if they don't pay a single cent of income tax. We have a segment of our population that is consistently getting handouts and has no motivation to change.

[69. Jo said the following at 9:30 AM on Jul 24:]

69

Tom (#64)

I'm in Britain too and I agree there are considerable problems with our own system. However perhaps you could answer a question I've asked before but never got a reply to: what happens in the US when a baby is born with an incurable disease that demands lifelong medication and healthcare costing A LOT of money? Does the insurance simply cost them a literal fortune, or are there systems in place to help people in situations like that?

[70. A.M.C. said the following at 9:37 AM on Jul 24:]

70

Re: BDB (#67), khalil (#68)

Regarding the abuse of welfare: This reminds me of a story from a family friend who lives on the West Coast. One day, when she was shopping at the local supermarket, she saw a Russian family paying for seafood and other expensive food items using food stamps. "Sure, there's no law against that," she said. "But as much as I hate to sound racist, I have little respect for immigrant families who would have 8 kids just to exploit our country's welfare system this way."

==> Anyway, I do agree that any government-sanctioned policy that attempts to administer social justice can be easily exploited. And so can the private programs, although to a lesser extent. After thinking about this issue more deeply last night, though, a revelation came to me:

Isn't the debate about government vs. private sector ultimately a conflict of worldview, i.e. choosing between "arbitrarily limiting people's options [playing God?]" and "allowing free will [even if it could allow more evil to occur]"? If that's the case, why not apply the model of "school vouchers" to social justice programs, i.e. let the government subsidize what the private sector is doing? That way, you get both the government's financial power and the private sector's efficiency.

==> Yes, I know that government subsidies tend to come with strings attached, e.g. "no evangelism." Well, let's invoke the First Amendment and get a few more conservative judges appointed to remove those restrictions entirely! [Personally, I would have no qualms about passing a new amendment that allows any religious non-profit group, even those of other religions, to proselytize, if only for the sake of fairness. After all, that would be one way of allowing Christian service organizations to do as much as they want to.]

------------------------------

Regarding the Year of Jubilee: that's why I would prefer applying this biblical model to the modern world as a means of wealth redistribution (as impractical as it may be). Surely that beats the progressive income tax system, or even applying a 100% inheritance tax and gift tax to (which, although arguably "fair," is authoritarian because that essentially forces people to donate everything to charity to prevent Uncle Sam from inhering their wealth).

[71. Steven Reeber said the following at 9:52 AM on Jul 24:]

71

We seem to have established that:

1. The majority of the issues under the "social justice" umbrella (poverty, ending genocide, etc.) are valid concerns. That is, they are legitimate things for Christians to oppose and work to end.

2. There are a number of issues that are also valid concerns that often are not included in the political use of the term "social justice" - abortion, homosexuality, etc.

All of these appear to be valid issues. Remember that we are all different and called to different work. Just because someone's priorities differ from your own does not make them any less a Christian. Feel free to discuss your priorities with them, but remember that these are all legitimate areas of concern. Condemning someone for focusing on genocide instead of abortion is like attacking them for being a missionary to New Guinea instead of China. Maybe one has more people than the other, but both need the Gospel. Let us focus on compromise, rather than over who is fighting the greater evil.

It is arguable whether or not the government ought to take an active role in these areas. Whether they should depend on individual citizens is really more of a question of political philosophy than any biblical principle. This discussion would be a lot more fruitful if we could speak openly with each other about our differences and priorities. Can we stay away from questioning our opponents' orthodoxy? It does not seem to have produced any valuable results so far.

[72. obewan said the following at 10:05 AM on Jul 24:]

72

Farmer Tom #35:

“---Until these young people here understand the Biblical role of government they will accept the idea of "social justice" as one of things government can and should do. Unless you admit that taking taxes from "each according to ability, and giving to each according to need" (look that one up), is an act of evil, people will continue to assert their right to use the power of government to satisfy "social justice".---“

Farmer Tom #58:
“---By what Biblical principle is government authorized to take money from the taxpayers to fund these things?---“

Farmer Tom #65:
“---And that philosophy is a vile and repugnant, unbiblical distortion of the Scriptural commands concerning widows, orphans, the poor etc.---“

Actually, the Biblical answer I come up with is the Tithe. According to the Old Testament law, it was a form of tax. Farmer Tom will love this part – only landowners and herders were required to tithe. The poor and city dwellers did not pay tithes – which were food only and not money.

Here is the social justice part. A full 1/3 of the tithe went to feed the poor, disabled, and orphans. The church for sure does not do this today, but I suppose some Christian charities fit the bill.

I suppose if Farmer Tom wanted to be Biblical, he could reduce his church tithe by the amount of his government taxes that go to feed the poor. I will take a lot of heat for this I am sure, but it is certainly food for thought.

Here is the whole thesis on the subject written by a PhD in seminary. It is a fascinating read, and many churches do not teach the Biblical position correctly in my opinion.
http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/

[73. Chris said the following at 10:17 AM on Jul 24:]

73

mindlab writes:

If you disagree, then I would be delighted to hear you justify wealth redistribution while condemning a mugger who make a living stealing purses and wallets at knife point.

What did I write to imply that I agree or disagree with anything? I was just pointing out what I see as the disconnect on the part of conservatives when it comes to concepts of social justice as defined by the Catholic Church (hardly a liberal organization).

If you do want to debate the difference, then I refer you to Jethro's post. You can also consider the fact that government takes money from people for the greater good (such as social security, for example) while the criminal steals for person gain.

This is not to say that all things that fall under the umbrella of social justice are right and beneficial to society. But the discussion and debate is slightly more nuanced than your "government = criminal when money is involved" argument.

[74. obewan said the following at 10:27 AM on Jul 24:]

74

BDB #46 said:

“---The union promises them a lower wage than the "living" wage in the law, so the companies pay less.---“

Actually, most studies I have read suggest that living wage laws raise all wages as companies compete for labor rather than take advantage of labor. As the saying goes, if the ocean rises, all boats float higher.

If MacDonald’s pays $8.50 an hour, the factory is going to pay $9.00 or $10.00 an hour. And believe me I have worked for only $8 an hour in Republican stronghold town factories when I was laid off. One was a semi skilled job that involved mold set-up, automation programming, and inspection, as well as inventory control and paperwork. I did it at a loss to my monthly budget because it was the only job I could find at the time.

Your comment opposing living wage laws ignores the fact that the minimum wage was not raised in America for 10 or 20 years. I think this week it goes up, but is still less than $7. If the wage of the 1970’s and 1980’s were adjusted for inflation, it would be worth well over $9 an hour today.

Yes, young people need jobs. However, they also need an education, which is an expense that is rising at a rate faster then general inflation. To be fair, should not their minimum pay rise at a rate that is tied to inflation so they can pay for a much-needed education?

If the conservatives really cared about social justice, this is an issue they might consider giving some bi-partisan support to. Perhaps if they passed a law that would tie the minum wage to inflation they would win some votes from the other side and have less worries about losing votes to ‘liberals’ and unions.

I would not be opposed to paying my fast food vendor $1.25 for my $.99 double cheeseburger so that a deserving high school student could save money for college BTW. I don’t think that kind of inflation is going to hurt a well to do engineer like myself.

[75. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:43 AM on Jul 24:]

75

Khalil says:

It also doesn't hurt them that our tax system is set up to give away money to families like this in the form of the EIC, Earned Income Credit. Even if the family doesn't "work" or have a reportable/taxable income they can claim credits on the number of kids they have, etc. They get a tax rebate every year even if they don't pay a single cent of income tax. We have a segment of our population that is consistently getting handouts and has no motivation to change.

And sadly, that won't change because it is a political hot potato. Any attempt to reform it will get shot down as an attack on poor people.

[76. mindlab said the following at 10:44 AM on Jul 24:]

76

55. Jethro

"How about this: tax is part of the social contract. If you agree to live in this society you agree to pay tax. If you don't want to pay tax, go and find a country that won't tax you."

Now we have arrived at another code word. "Social Contract" is a code word for what's more appropriately called the 'divine right of the majority.' This concept, descended from the 'divine right of kings,' says that anything the majority decides to do is ethical simply because the majority supports it. This is just as wrong as declaring that anything the king wants to do is ethical, since he's the king.

The forceful taking of property is ethically wrong, whether it is taken at the whim of a mugger, a neighbor, 3 neighbors, all my neighbors, all the senators, or all the voters. Who approves of armed robbery is irrelevant, it's still armed robbery.

Scripture clearly commands a non-resistive response to the specific sin of taxation (as opposed to armed robbery); that doesn't make it right.

[77. Tom Neven said the following at 11:28 AM on Jul 24:]

77

Jo (#69)

It's a good question. I happen to know a family with two children in this situation.

They receive Social Security disability payments and are eligible for Medicaid, which this family takes advantage of. And they don't have to impoverish themselves to do so, by the way.

But here's an important point: you have to be pro-active and diligent to get full service from the system. You cannot just sit back and expect everything to be dropped in your lap.

The boy in Maryland died needlessly, but as someone else pointed out, the family did not practice basic dental hygiene, which costs nothing but a toothbrush (you technically don't even need toothpaste) and dental floss.

And few dentists are part of the Medicaid system because it's so cumbersome to be paid and there's too much red tape.

[78. farmer Tom said the following at 12:57 PM on Jul 24:]

78

72. obewan

Nice try, except for the small fact that you are confusing the government of Israel and the USA. They are two completely different forms of government. One was a theocracy, their government and the religious system were one and the same. Therefore a tax paid to the government was also supporting the religious system.

We live in a Constitutional Representative Republic. The church and the government are two entirely different structures and never the twain shall meet.

A refresher. I believe in the reformers idea of a three fold social structure. First God ordained the family unit. It is the smallest system of government with a specific hierarchy, husband wife children etc. Then comes the church. It deals with the spiritual needs and concerns of the community as a whole and with the individual as well. It contains a specific hierarchy, and can not take the place of family. Finally we have the government itself, it should be the least powerful of the three, has limited roles in what duties it can perform, and is not to take the place of either the family or the church.

You sir are confusing taxing, a legitimate role of government,(although they are way outside the bounds of their legitimate role) and tithing, an act of obedience confined to the church, limited to the local church and done out of free will, not at the point of a gun.

Do not attempt to give what belongs to the church to the government

Remember what Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". Giving Caesar what rightfully belongs in the church is an act of disobedience to the Lord. You are attempting to use the force of government to do the work of the church. That is wrong. What you need to do is change the hearts of the church goers, so that they will do the work required of them, and preach the benefits of the Christian life,( the new man) to those who are outside. Christianity is more than just a list of don't, it is a better life for those who are free from the bondage of sin and are living lives set apart in service of the Savior. Trying to force them to change will never work. Winning them to Christ will change them.

[79. BDB said the following at 1:42 PM on Jul 24:]

79

Jo (#69) wrote:

>>what happens in the US when a baby is born with an incurable disease that demands lifelong medication and healthcare costing A LOT of money? Does the insurance simply cost them a literal fortune, or are there systems in place to help people in situations like that?<<

Depends on the disease and the family situation at the time of diagnosis.

For something like treatable cancer, a lot of people will stay in a job they hate that has good health care benefits, to ensure that there is no "break in coverage." There are laws on the books that provide some protection to people who change jobs and go to a new insurance company - if they paid insurance before, the new insurance company must continue to cover the condition.

What is very common is that insurance covers part of the treatment, but not everything that is required. For example, a friend of mine's son was diagnosed at birth with a muscle disorder called Mytubular Myopathy. Typically, his insurance wouldn't cover home-health nursing, which is required for such a child to be at home. However, there are specific needs for regular nurse visits; the alternative is being hospitalized. So, through a negotiation process, and much prayer, the insurance is covering it; they recognize that it costs a lot less for his parents to care for him with nursing help than for him to be in the hospital all the time.

If the parents were less educated, they would have much more difficulty negotiating with the insurance company, and they would have much more difficulty learning how to do things like keep is trach tube clean. It is constant work to negotiate with the insurance company about what is and is not covered.

What is not covered will likely drain a family's financial resources. There are some tax deductions available, such as when medical expenses exceed 7.5% of income. Many families take out a home equity line of credit to pay for medical things. Again, the interest on such loans is tax-deductible. But for some the load is too much. About half of all bankruptcies in the U.S. are due to medical bills. Typically, the family leaves bankruptcy and keeps their car, their house, and $25,000 worth of other stuff, and all their debts, including debts to the hospital and medical providers, are wiped out. Many hospitals are non-profit and don't pay taxes; their losses from these unpaid debts are considered towards their "public benefit." In a way, the U.S. tax breaks for non-profit providers do the same thing as a "universal coverage" policy where the government underpays the hospital for treatment.

The underpayment in government programs like medicare and medicaid means that some providers don't break even - they can't cover their costs. That is why they stop accepting patients whose medical bills are paid by those programs.

But the same thing happens with cancer patients. In the U.S., someone with metastic breast cancer, like a good friend of mine, will survive for years with access to the right medications and treatments. The disease can be held in check for a surprising amount of time now, almost like diabetes, which can be considered chronic or terminal, depending on how well the patient manages the condition.

But in Canada or Europe, a diagnosis of metastic breast cancer is considered terminal, and such people are sent to hospice to die. My friend was given a six-month prognosis - six years ago. But she's worked in hospital administration, she's very good at negotiating with insurance companies. On her good days.

And frankly, there's lots of Canadian cancer patients who commute to the U.S. so that they can get treatment in time to do some good. If the waited for the government system, they'd die. Only the wealthier people can afford to do this. I suspect that if wealthy Canadians didn't have such easy access to high-quality care in the U.S., there would be more political pressure to change that system.

So, when I see suggestions that the U.S. move to a universal health care system like Canada, what I hear people saying is that we should kill off my friend so that some other person can live. It's not a change I'm willing to support.

I could write a lot more, but no one would read it...

[80. BDB said the following at 2:11 PM on Jul 24:]

80

Obewan (#74) wrote:

>>If MacDonald’s pays $8.50 an hour, the factory is going to pay $9.00 or $10.00 an hour.<<

Or they leave.

For example, the crackdown on illegal immigration has made it much more difficult for field workers to come to the U.S., work the harvest, and go home. It used to be pretty easy to go back and forth.

With U.S. unemployment so low, Americans are not signing up to work in the fields. Ask an unemployed American if they even went and inquired at a farm about working during harvest. I actually did do this as a kid - picked berries with a bunch of immigrants. They worked hard.

Without workers, the food rots in the fields. The solution? Grow the stuff in Mexico. The climate in Baja California is identical to Southern California. Put in some irrigation, you're all set. And frankly, there's less pesticide contamination because pesticides are so expensive. The labor is available in Mexico, and NAFTA makes it easy to import back to the U.S. The farming in these places is done under contract to U.S. firms who inspect for certain quality standards. It's only a half-day drive from San Diego; it's not hard to inspect. You can get there and back on one tank of gas.

McDonalds does not need to open more restaurants in Santa Monica. It can avoid the living wage law by simply opening them on the outside of the city.

This study examines the decline of opportunities for less-educated males in 97 urban populations. While pro living-wage, the study notes that the decline of manufacturing (an industry that typically employs less-educated individuals) corresponds to an increase in unemployment.

Hey, I even forgot about how overtime pay affects families. I guess one effect of living-wage laws is to cut overtime. The family takes home the same amount of money, the company pays the same amount, but a few less hours are worked. Interesting.

Here's an article written before the law went into effect, the predictions were pretty accurate.

But you really need to think through which industries are affected. Who are the non-unionized companies paying such low wages? Fast food companies can simply close unprofitable restaurants, as Starbucks is doing. When labor costs get much higher than automation costs, companies close plants, as Detroit is experiencing. True, competitors like Honda employ Americans who are happy to work there. But their better-engineered plants require a lot fewer workers per car.

It's like squeezing a balloon - you squeeze it in one place, and it pops out again in another.

[81. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:21 PM on Jul 24:]

81

Obewan:

As Thomas Sowell has often said, the real minimum wage is always zero.

[82. Chris said the following at 7:29 PM on Jul 24:]

82

Ted Slater writes:

If he and/or his family took personal responsibility for his hygiene, he'd still be alive.

Yep. Those 12 year olds are always acting immature and not taking personal responsibility for their actions. If they'd only act like grown ups or select better parents, things like this wouldn't happen.

I'll wager that Ted's kids are like mine. They eagerly brush and floss at every opportunity without any encouragement from me. Even if I were an irresponsible parent and didn't make them brush their teeth and take them to the dentist regularly, my young kids would realize that they have to look out for themselves and behave accordingly.

It's a sad, sad world when pre-adolescent kids don't take care of themselves...........

[83. Matthew said the following at 7:33 PM on Jul 24:]

83

this is kind of late in the game, but Marvin Olasky had a column in the latest WORLD magazine regarding the issue of social justice and conservatives. Y'all should check it out.

Tom Neven, I think if conservatives were more consistent with a message like this there would be far fewer people getting lost in the mire of Marxist ideas about poverty.

[84. Ted Slater said the following at 7:34 PM on Jul 24:]

84

Chris -- not to be rude, but what part of "and/or his family" do you not understand?

Yes, my daughters do love to brush their teeth, often without encouragement from either Ashleigh or me.

[85. Katie P. said the following at 9:49 PM on Jul 24:]

85

Farmer Tom,

You asked the biblical justification for taxation. I am not trying to get into an argument with you, but I am genuinely curious: what do you and others with your political leanings do with passages such as Matthew 22:17-21,

17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

You cited this passage briefly in post 78, but it seems to me that it supports the opposite view of the one you are arguing. Even you admit that the government has some role in society, however small. How is a government supposed to function without the necessary means?

[86. M. Sand said the following at 8:45 AM on Jul 25:]

86

Farmer Tom

"Only a simpleton would suggest that "politics" is simple.

Ok, let's consider the health care system, education and ?economic development?

Are you suggesting that government has a role in any of these things? So you would take tax payers money to fund these things?

By what Biblical principle is government authorized to take money from the taxpayers to fund these things?"

After reviewing many of your responses to others, it appears to me that some of the basic biblical prinicipals that encompass oh, say, love, have completely escaped you, which is sad at most; especially of you are a more "seasoned saint". That speaks volumes brother. I should hope that because you are on a Christian website that you would respond to everyone as a brother or sister in Christ...if this is what you profess.

Now to address your comment concerning being a simpleton. I believe you took that out of context as well as the rest of the statement you quoted so I will help you. "Politics" isn't simple however....YOUR CHRISTIAN RESPONSE TO THIS WORLD and the social ills that dominate the world should be. God is fairly clear that in as much as you do to the "least of these" you have done unto Him (very much biblical). Despite your obvious issues with the government (didn't the Word say it would rest on Christ's shoulders...biblical) I do believe that you as an individual, and highly opinionated one at that, have a social responsibility to others who are not as fortunate as you are. When I address education/healthcare and the like, of course the government has a resonsibility to work in these areas as our tax dollars are provided for these purposes...a historical and present day fact regardless of our views on this. However, my focus is on people, who appear to have strong opinions about what we shouldn't do, but refuse to make a difference "on the other side of the tracks." I notice you failed to mention this. Like A.M.C. I believe, as I said, God is waiting for the Church to be the Body of Christ/light/salt/etc in this world. He is not going to look at the "government" He is looking at and counting on US! Your simpleton statement aside; I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that particular idea; what is your responsibility? Do you have a responsibility?

[87. obewan said the following at 10:56 AM on Jul 25:]

87

BDB #80 Wrote:

“--Fast food companies can simply close unprofitable restaurants, as Starbucks is doing...When labor costs get much higher than automation costs, companies close plants, as Detroit is experiencing.--“

I think the fact that gas is $4 a gallon has more to do with it than anything else. I mean, when people get squeezed, $5 coffee and the SUV are the first things to go. Honda is doing well because they sell the right products for our current oil shortage.

As for the automation issue, when I worked for an automotive robotics company, the robots worked for $1.79 an hour. Less than a Mexican. The downside was that once the robots were installed and programmed, there was no more work. I was laid off 3 times in 5 years. One person there was laid off every year for 20 years. If there are no NEW car designs coming off the drawing boards, then the people in the robotics industry are REALLY hurting. The Europeans do things a bit differently. Some of them will run the same body style for 10 or 20 years, so I don’t know how their automation people make out except that it is a world wide industry – we supported auto work in Germany from the US.

Amir #81 Wrote:
“--As Thomas Sowell has often said, the real minimum wage is always zero…--“

And many very bad people in third world countries have used that very same logic to justify child prostitution or labor abuse in sweat shop clothing factories.

[88. Ian said the following at 1:05 PM on Jul 25:]

88

#82, Chris:

Thank you. Far too many people assume that the "have nots" have less because of laziness or some other vice. I submit that these same people are probably quite priveleged, inheritors of substantial "moral luck." How many people responding to this thread are NOT white, are NOT middle class or relatively wealthy?

Some people simply do not have a chance--or they have very few chances with limited resources. I don't see how some of the more libertarian responses here could be motived by anything other than ignorance or even avarice. We tried laissez-faire capitalism 150 years ago, kids. What did it get us? Children working in coal mines.

I'm pretty disgusted and I'm not even particularly "liberal." I really don't know what to make of some of the above posted responses, or other Christians in general, sometimes.

[89. pass the ammunition said the following at 4:57 PM on Jul 25:]

89

Thank you Ian and Chris, disgusted is exactly the right word. Its hard to believe these comments come from Christians--in fact, I don't.

The general meme I get from posts like this on Boundless? Poor = morally inferior and undeserving. Whoever made the the first comment about the toothbrush really needs to examine themselves. I've always had differences of opinion with the blog and things that get me riled up and angry, but after reading these comments, I'm just sad.

What was it Ghandi said again? Oh yeah: "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians."

[90. Ted Slater said the following at 5:13 PM on Jul 25:]

90

Ian -- the most loving thing anyone could have done for the boy who died of a tooth infection would have been to show him how to brush his teeth, provide him with a toothbrush, and regularly encourage him to brush his teeth. If his parents won't step up to the plate, perhaps someone else should have.

Why is it insensitive to offer such practical counsel? Why it is hateful to encourage healthy hygiene? Healthy hygiene, including brushing one's teeth, is something those of any socio-economic status can practice. Whether I'm "white" or "middle class" is entirely irrelevant.

Why bring up race or class, Ian?

"pass the ammunition" -- I disagree with you that "poor = morally inferior." I've never published anything that communicates such an unbiblical sentiment, and never will.

[91. Craig M. said the following at 5:42 PM on Jul 25:]

91

I'd say that the Church--the Christian community, acting in charity--should have stepped up to help the poor boy and his family with dental care if they couldn't afford it. But expecting the government to expertly assess and care for 300 million people is a recipe for disaster, and can't be done without grievously undermining self-reliance and liberty.

[92. pass the ammunition said the following at 8:05 PM on Jul 25:]

92

There's nothing wrong with pointing out that a toothbrush would have gone a long way. The point was that a better welfare/Medicaid program would have saved the boy's life in the presence of parental ignorance. You (and I'm not just talking to you) can disagree on that, but the general sentiment seems to be that by being ignorant and poor they are undeserving of not only government support but any sympathy. They certainly didn't get any sympathy from the commenters. I think that sometimes people get so married to their ideologies that their heart becomes hardened. Like people who go to Mexico on a missions trip to help but then comes back and continues to look down on the illegal immigrants in their own backyard.

And being white and middle class (not specifically you, just in general) has everything to do with it. People's opinions are based on where they come from in life, and your race, gender, and social/economic class has EVERYTHING to do with that.

example 1: Many Black conservative preachers are very pro-life and anti-gay marriage, but they see many more things in their community that are worth their time and energy.

example 2: In the country where I am from, Pentecostal holy roller genre Christianity does better than more rigid "genres" because it meshes more easily with the traditional, superstitious religions the people have had for thousands of years.

Anyways, my point is that Black people of all stripes, economic classes, and political parties recognize that being Black has a lot to do with how your opinions are formed and the way you see the world. I wish more White people would recognize that being White works exactly the same way. There's NOTHING wrong with that. Whats wrong is not acknowledging it.

[93. agnostic said the following at 8:52 PM on Jul 25:]

93

I'm not a christian, but found this conversation interesting and, in some cases (25. A.M.C.) encouraging.

[94. BDB said the following at 10:05 PM on Jul 25:]

94

pass the ammunition (#92) wrote:

>>I wish more White people would recognize that being White works exactly the same way. There's NOTHING wrong with that. Whats wrong is not acknowledging it. <<

My goodness...people's ideas are shaped by much more than just race and class. To a large extent they are shaped by the media they consume.

For example, if one white middle class family only watches Reality TV, they will end up with one worldview. (I know people who only watch that.) If another only watches FoxNews and listens to conservative talk radio, they will end up with a very different view of the world. Another who only listens to NPR and watches network news will come away with another view. These views will conflict.

To a large extent, we are all prisoners of our own time. Try reading some 100-year-old books sometime. You will start to realize just how many assumptions come from your time. An American of any race who travels to a non-Western country will discover quickly just how much of their worldview comes from being a Westerner.

[95. Ted Slater said the following at 10:49 PM on Jul 25:]

95

I will publish no more comments that imply that ethnicity (African American, in this case) and socio-economic class (poor) are in any way necessarily related. We will no longer promote such a demeaning stereotype.

Ethnicity is irrelevant here, folks.

And no more comments implying that white pastors are hung up on preaching against gay marriage and abortion, while black pastors have better things to talk about. Again, we will not tolerate racism of any kind here.

We'll have a good, healthy talk about ethnicity and "race" soon enough. I've solicited a series of articles on the subject. That'll be the place to wrestle with heritage and skin color.

[96. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:42 AM on Jul 26:]

96

I said:

As Thomas Sowell has often said, the real minimum wage is always zero…

Obewan replied:

And many very bad people in third world countries have used that very same logic to justify child prostitution or labor abuse in sweat shop clothing factories.

That's a red herring.

Are you saying that Jewish families of the early 1900s--whose children worked long hours before and after school, and in some cases in lieu of school--were practicing child prostitution or child slavery? Those mothers and grandmothers who made clothes--working extraordinary hours--and sold them for menial sums of money, and eventually were able to build what would become the Manhattan clothing district? Slavery? Come on...

With today's minimum wage laws, their dreams would have been shot down before they could get off the boat.

Their kids barely made any money, even though the families managed to survive without government asssistance, and some of them eventually built businesses that became great producers of wealth.

Think of all the Jewish-owned businesses that made American prosperity possible. Most of those businesses started with a family--many of them immigrants, and often included children--working very long hours just to scrape by, accumulating small profits that became large over time.

They made and sold clothing, they bought and resold produce...they were merchants who started small and built empires. That was free enterprise in action.

The alternative to a government-defined minimum wage is hardly child prostitution or slave labor.

Fact is, a higher minimum wage will only raise the marginal cost of doing business, which will hurt small business owners. Such laws will choke off opportunities for workers to improve their skills via apprenticeships. The biggest winners are the government regulators and the union bosses.

For my first three years out of college, I worked at a GM facility as a systems engineer at EDS, supporting plant floor operations. If you worked in an hourly position and wanted to make real money, you needed to get into a skilled trade (electrician, machinist, pipefitter, millwright...). To get into a skilled trade, you needed to get an apprenticeship. To get an apprenticeship, you had to have union connections. That meant (a) supporting the political work of the unions and (b) garnering brownie points with the right people.

Contrast that with a market that is free, without minimum wage laws or unions controlling access to apprenticeships. You could take your own risk, get an apprenticeship for a pittance salary, and--once your skills were good enough--you could hire into a plant or strike out on your own.

Those opportunities have comparatively dried up due to minimum wage laws and unions.

[97. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:50 AM on Jul 26:]

97

Katie:

Farmer Tom is not attacking taxation, but rather our system of taxation. There is no Biblical precedent wherein God mandated government wealth redistribution programs. Moreover, income taxes--beyond the tithe--are unheard of in the Biblical model.

To mention Jubilee is a red herring because Jubilee did not exist in a vacuum.

(In the Biblical model, for example, all domestic loans were interest-free whereas lenders could charge interest on loans made to foreigners. This actually encouraged national wealth-building by discouraging trade deficits. In such a scenario, we would be importing the wealth of other nations rather than exporting ours to theirs.)

[98. Jo said the following at 2:35 PM on Jul 26:]

98

Tom and BDB, thanks for your answers to my question. That clears a few things up in my head. :)

[99. farmer Tom said the following at 4:52 PM on Jul 27:]

99

Moreover, income taxes--beyond the tithe--are unheard of in the Biblical model.

Now let it be known that I disagree with a Bible student of Amir's caliber with genuine fear and trembling, but,...I believe that Genesis shows Joseph instituting an income tax on the people of Egypt prior to the famine which was coming. Several things to note here, first of all, this was not God's chosen people, rather the people of Egypt. God later instituted a different system for His chosen people. Second, It seems to appear from history that the income tax which was supposed to end when the famine came, was instead kept in place, so that the pharaohs had the people under a great tax burden after that time.(20 percent) I wish that was the limit today. Thirdly, some of these same scholars suggest that this high income tax may have been one of the things which caused the children of Israel to fall into slavery in Egypt, since as people with no real land holdings in Egypt the high taxes my have disproportionately affected the Jewish people.

I have never argued here that Christians should not pay taxes, rather that as citizens of a nation founded on Biblical principles that we should not have a tax system which is at direct odds with the examples of the systems God used for His chosen people.

Some of you here lack some basic knowledge about Biblical principles. First the principle of the first fruits. That everything I have belongs to or is a gift from God. Therefore God is entitled to the first fruits of my labor. Yet in our current system. The Federal Government takes the first cut out of your paycheck, before you ever touch it. In effect they are saying, what you have belongs to us. We will let you keep what we don't take.
Second, the income tax assumes that it is the governments business to know how much I make and what I do with that money. In reality, the government has no more business knowing how much money I make than they do knowing how often my wife and I have marital relations. The government should not have access to my personal financial dealing, period. It is none of their business. Thirdly an income tax is by it's very definition something which can change on the whim of a politician. Want to fund a war, raise the tax, want to go to the moon, raise a tax, think that the sheepherders of outer Mongolia are oppressed raise a tax to cover their needs. Never mind that I may not as a citizen of this nation believe that those are wise uses of our money. With the income tax in place the political class simply has to change the rates, without the input of the people who are supposed to be their bosses, you and me. Remember, government of the people, by the people and for the people. The income tax allows politicians to work around the will of the people.

Some political debate/comments along these lines,.....

"Tyrannical taxation, and excessive government spending and borrowing, are not only threats to our economy--they erode the resource base of our freedom and our moral responsibility.

The income tax is a 20th-century socialist experiment that has failed. Before the income tax was imposed on us just 85 years ago, government had no claim to our income. Only sales, excise, and tariff taxes were allowed. We need to return to the Constitution of economic liberty that our Founders intended to be a permanent bulwark of our political liberty.

The income tax in effect makes us vassals of the government--the politicians decide how much income we can keep. No mere "reform" of this slave tax, such as flattening the rate, can correct its fundamental denial of control over our own money.

Only the abolition of the income tax will restore the basic American principle that our income is both our own money and our own private business--not the government's.""Issues" Oct 1, 2007

"Under the current tax system, before you have put bread in the mouths of your children, before you put a roof over the head of those children, before you put a stitch of clothes on their backs today, you pay the government. We’re worse off than serfs. Serfs used to pay their masters after they were fed and clothed. We have to pay our master before we’re fed and clothed. I think, I think it’s a travesty. And I think it’s time we ended it."
Source: Phoenix Arizona GOP Debate Dec 7, 1999

"The income tax is a form of taxation that was advocated by Marx & Lenin because it cedes, in principle, to the government control of every dollar that is earned in the economy. Question: If I give you a percentage of my income and you get to determine the percentage, how much of my money do you control? Answer: All of it! This country was not founded with an income tax. The Founders [didn’t want] government dipping into our pocket to spend our money before we get a chance to say anything about it."
Source: Republican Debate at Dartmouth College Oct 29, 1999

Some of you continue to miss the point I'm trying to make. We are "to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's". Yes we are to pay our taxes, but under the system of government that this nation was founded upon, the role of the government was to be very limited, and since there is no Biblical mandate for government to be involved in social welfare, they are not entitled to that money. It is the job of the Church of Jesus Christ to care for the fatherless, the widows and orphans, the poor and the needy. Do not give Caesar a job which belongs to God's people(the church).

Later,

[100. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:09 AM on Jul 28:]

100

Farmer Tom says:

Now let it be known that I disagree with a Bible student of Amir's caliber with genuine fear and trembling, but,...I believe that Genesis shows Joseph instituting an income tax on the people of Egypt prior to the famine which was coming. Several things to note here, first of all, this was not God's chosen people, rather the people of Egypt. God later instituted a different system for His chosen people. Second, It seems to appear from history that the income tax which was supposed to end when the famine came, was instead kept in place, so that the pharaohs had the people under a great tax burden after that time.(20 percent) I wish that was the limit today. Thirdly, some of these same scholars suggest that this high income tax may have been one of the things which caused the children of Israel to fall into slavery in Egypt, since as people with no real land holdings in Egypt the high taxes my have disproportionately affected the Jewish people.

Good points. I was referring to God's Law to the Israelites: there is no income tax to be found (outside the tithe, of course). As for Egypt, God did not mandate that income tax; that was Joseph's idea. That the Egyptians would allow it to get out of control--subjecting their own people to bondage--is testament to the premises that (a) bureaucracies never die and (b) beware of any government that tells you a tax is "temporary".

Moreover, that 20% income tax was a flat tax--no extra tax on the wealthy--and there were no state income taxes, city income taxes, estate taxes on dead people, or extra sales taxes involved.

Your third point is a classic: the income tax, as implemented (and never rescinded) resulted in a large-scale transfer of wealth that may very well have contributed to the class-warfare that led to the slavery of the Israelites.

Ergo, this ought to give pause to anyone who believes in either the moral superiority of the income tax or the big-government infrastructure that it breeds.

[1. Carrie (the original) said the following at 8:53 AM on Jul 22:]

1

"The least they can do is say so."

Tom, you know as well as I do - perhaps better - that people like to admit their wrong. My step-dad and I got into a discussion about global warming (actually it's an on-going discussion) some time ago. I cornered him about his position and said "So, humans are a cancer to the planet?" when responding to his statement that parents should only have 2 children because there is no gaurantee that they can actually produce responsible citizens.
When people are confronted by the ridiculousness of what they believe, they won't admit it. Especially if they are educated.
There's this thing in innate to humanity that prevents us from recognizing truth. I'm sure the Fall had nothing to do with it! :)

[2. obewan said the following at 8:59 AM on Jul 22:]

2

The blog said:

“---in the end, "social justice" really means "not a conservative, pro-life, pro-marriage conservative who is easily caricatured in the popular culture.---"

And whose fault is that? Reality is that we have a polarized two party system where voters are forced into an all or nothing position on many issues when they are forced to vote the party ‘platform’ at the polls.

On the issue of social justice, there is only one party that has for nearly two decades consistently blocked fair and urgently needed raises to the minimum wage. The minimum wage of the 1970’s would be worth well over $9 an hour in today’s money if it were adjusted for inflation. That same party hangs their position on the false claim that by holding the working poor down, we help overall economy by keeping ‘inflation’ in check. Actually, if the working poor had a higher wage, perhaps they would go out and buy a new economy car and HELP the overall economy.

Even my current employer starts out new aerospace manufacturing technicians at $9 an hour with no medical benefits. I did the math for my own case, and with asthma to be treated, and no car payment, and an entry-level apartment at $650 a month, I come up $250 a month SHORT every month as a SINGLE. I don’t know how the families of those who work here are even supported. I was a radical conservative for most of my life until I was laid off and unfairly unemployed for several years. Now, I am a union sympathizer.

The Bible has over 2000 verses that speak to justice for the poor.

[3. Leigh Anne said the following at 9:06 AM on Jul 22:]

3

Wow, this is really off-base, in my opinion. I choose to read Boundless for the Christian perspective on things, not the Republican perspective (and they don't have to be synonymous).

[4. Jordan Peacock said the following at 9:19 AM on Jul 22:]

4

Which is precisely why each group wrestles with the specifics; how does one live what one professes? Does it mean opening our home to drug-abusing mothers-to-be to protect them and their unborn child, and if need be adopting one or both? Does it mean helping find work for ex-convicts, or building bridges with immigrant families, or living more humbly in order to help more? Does it mean nannying our gay friend's adopted daughter, or joining a Christian Peacemaker Team?

The 'social justice' tag can mean generic, feel-good, I'm vaguely involved in something that matters somewhat, and to the degree that it does, you are absolutely correct.

But more so I see people using it as a diving board from which questions and answers arise out of hard work, theological wrestling, community involvement, closeness of relationships, and divine love through the church. And these answers can, and should be, less than mere political pandering and empty slogans, and have little or nothing to do with the voting structures.

It has everything to do with how we live.

[5. Nathan said the following at 9:24 AM on Jul 22:]

5

Thanks for this Tom. I think you're spot on, because a lot of the discussion about social justice is fairly ill-defined and often a reaction against a certain caricature of conservatives as being pro-big business and uncaring about the little guy. And it's probably true that there are some conservatives who are terribly proud, convinced that they got to where they were solely by their own effort and that the poor are in their situation because of their own faults. But a reaction against some extremes is losing the Baby in the bath-water.

I've tended to think that the 'social justice' reaction against conservatives was more visceral than intelligible. Or, perhaps that is too harsh, the reaction was against certain conservatives or certain parts of the Republican Party.

BTW, why does nobody talk about President Bush's compassionate conservatism. It may not have worked out as perfectly as we would have liked, but I thought that was a genuine example of a conservative commitment to helping the least in society.

[6. pass the ammunition said the following at 9:33 AM on Jul 22:]

6

I go to a Catholic, Jesuit university where social justice is HUGE, and I have actually taken a "social justice" class. While this might seem like I am defining a word with the same word, social justice means working to correct injustices you see in society.

And you are correct--both liberals and conservatives can be involved in social justice when defined in this way. On my Catholic campus, abortion is a social justice issue. If one works to correct social injustices, it makes sense that you would lean Democratic if you are in favor of government involvement in fixing social problems. If you think it should be up to the private sector then you would more likely lean Republican.

My campus is a perfect example of the young people you are talking about. Our chapter of Students for Life is HUGE, but unlike at most schools these are the same students getting arrested to protest the War in Iraq, leaders of the Gay/Straight Alliance, leaders of the feminist organization, and studying abroad in Haiti or Latin America instead of London or Spain.

Many of theses students come to college as Republicans, but after seeing how wide spread these problems are, after working with charities that continuously run into government roadblocks, they begin to run to the Democrats. Although Republicans may support many of the issues, the politicians hardly talk about them or make those issues the centerpiece of their campaigns, like Edwards or Obama have. When conservative politicians talk about "personal responsibility" it turns them off--because they have seen firsthand how just a little help can go a long way.

[7. mindlab said the following at 9:35 AM on Jul 22:]

7

I hope you've got your Nomex suit handy, I predict you'll need it.

At least in the contexts that I'm familiar with, "social justice" is a friendly sounding code word for 'wealth redistribution' (which is a friendly sounding code word for 'armed robbery'), and the infringement of positive rights (i.e. the right to own property) in the name of negative rights (i.e. the right to not be offended).

Well. . . that offends me, and I demand my rights!

[8. mary kate said the following at 10:04 AM on Jul 22:]

8

yes, social justice has become a buzz word, but i think its roots among young christians are valid. many of us are tired of hearing people quote scripture about god and love and being kind and giving people the shirt off your back, and then turning around and hearing the same people talking about how god hates queers or aids is god's judgement on mankind. or how many upper middle class evangelicals refuse to get their hands dirty helping people who had the bad judgment to be born somewhere like south africa or china or haiti. at least, that's my take.

as for why you hear less from us on abortion, in my opinion it's because people at places like FotF and other large evangelical groups are already all up on those causes.

[9. Derek Wong said the following at 10:41 AM on Jul 22:]

9

As a fairly conservative person myself, I like this take on things. I think that I've said the same in much less elegant terms when I've discussed this with people.

[10. Dr. Ransom said the following at 10:52 AM on Jul 22:]

10

"Social justice" is a phrase currently often employed by "emergent church" types who, in their reaction to the Church's nonparticipation (actual or perceived) in the world, suddenly believe they're the only ones interested in helping the poor and feeding the hungry.

Apparently among many, these problems -- and the world entirely? -- are viewed to have begun yesterday. There's no perspective of history, the fact that people in both the Church and governments have been aware and trying to alleviate poverty before -- especially when it comes to the failed attempts of federal governments to overextend their constitutional (and worse, Biblical) bounds and take the place of the citizenry and religious institutions in terms of charity.

Among such "social justice" advocates, there's also very little perspective of the actual Scripture in these quasi-utopian visions, which indirectly contradict the Bible's portrayal of the rest of human history.

Christ-followers certainly disagree on what end-times events occur when, but there is (or was) an overall consensus against the notion that people would eradicate poverty, hunger, all that sort of thing, without Christ or at least before He comes back to take a look at our planetary renovations.

But now we're back to the same stuff -- and while it's very, very true that Christ-followers are to be a means of "common grace" toward the poor and abused among nonbelievers, this is not the be-all-and-end-all of the Gospel. "Social justice" is only an outgrowth: at the center should be the actual truths of God as Creator, humans as rebels against Him, and Christ as redeemed. Are these professing evangelicals using "social justice" as a means toward proclaiming the Gospel? Or do they operate completely the opposite?

As it is, many of them are advocating a clone religion of Christianity And, as His Utter Subliminity Screwtape (from C.S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters) said is such an effective strategy. In this case, the "new" idea is Christianity And Social Justice -- and it's not so new, either; it's a mere strain of "liberation theology" liberalism that's somehow been accepted as legitimately evangelical.

This next is from a recent review (mine) of Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be):

I wrote:

The emphasis of emergent authors [is often] living our best and most moral lives now on this Earth, cleaning up the environment, beating back poverty (because apparently no one else has ever tried that before) and restoring “authentic” spirituality. So the past 2,000 years of Church history mean little or nothing, and what C.S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery” runs rampant as such writers and leaders proclaim their own religious practices as the answer to all the world’s ills. Heaven and Christ’s return are nowhere in sight, [author Kevin] DeYoung contends:

[E]mergent leaders are hoping for heaven on earth before Jesus returns to earth to bring the new heaven and new earth. Emergent leaders dare us to imagine a world without poverty and war and injustice. That’s good. We need to be stirred to have faith in the God of the impossible. But we should not expect something God has not promised, especially when He has promised the opposite. Jesus said the poor would always be with us (John 12:8) and wars and rumors of wars would continue to the very end (Matt. 24:6). This doesn’t mean we are pro-poverty warmongers. But it does mean that wars won’t go away just because we follow the secret message of Jesus.

[11. obewan said the following at 11:04 AM on Jul 22:]

11

‘--BTW why does nobody talk about President Bush's compassionate conservatism. It may not have worked out as perfectly as we would have liked, but I thought that was a genuine example of a conservative commitment to helping the least in society.--’

The reason we don’t hear about it is because it failed miserably. Only something like 10% of the money promised actually made it to ministries that serve the poor. The person Bush appointed to work the program even resigned in disgust and wrote a book about it. Furthermore, many organizations refused the money because of Government restrictions that prohibited religious witnessing along with providing a meal or services to the homeless. At the same time, donations to many ministries actually went down because people assumed that the government (and their tax money) was picking up part of the tab now.

[12. Jen said the following at 11:10 AM on Jul 22:]

12

I find buzzwords and trite phrases annoying too. However, the liberals are not the only ones who use them. What about the conservative phrase "family values?" Or "personal responsibility"? It seems those phrases mean different things to whoever's using them.

[13. Tim H. said the following at 11:13 AM on Jul 22:]

13

Social justice = things that are cool to fight: AIDs in Africa, African debt, etc.
Social Justice does not include standing up for the life of the 3000+ babies killed each day.

[14. Christina (in green) said the following at 11:14 AM on Jul 22:]

14

Dr. Ransom, #10:

There's no perspective of history

The most popular statement I heard in high school was "there's no point in history". How many of our history teachers were sports coaches that the school gave an empty teaching position to?

Seriously, not a whole lot of appreciation for history...kinda leads to the lack of a historical perspective =p

[15. laura grace said the following at 11:21 AM on Jul 22:]

15

This really all boils down to eschatology, Tom. Do you believe that Christians have a solemn responsibility from God to work to increase the influence of the Kingdom of God on earth, even among those who will never know Christ, until his return? Or do you believe that the Church's task is primarily (or even solely) an evangelistic one, because we're all going to get zapped out of here before the really bad stuff starts to happen?

If we have what I'd call a "low" view of eschatology (pre-tribulation rapture, disembodied heavenly eternity), of course we would see social justice as secondary in importance or even unimportant. Of course we would circle the wagons, focus on purely "moral" issues, tsk-tsk at the culture, and hunker down in our Christian foxholes until Jesus comes to take us away from all of this.

But if our understanding of eschatology is that Jesus inaugurated the Kingdom of God, entrusted his Church with increasing its radically transforming influence throughout the earth, and will return to re-create this physical globe and reign here with his people in physical, resurrection bodies for all eternity in the consummation and renewal of God's once-fallen creation... well, that paints a slightly different picture of our actions in the here and now, doesn't it?

The question you have to ask yourself is this, Tom: if a situation will certainly not exist in the glorious (and tangible) future of God and his people in the New Heavens and New Earth, why should Christians stand by and allow that situation to continue unchecked NOW, given our responsibility to live Kingdom-focused lives here on Earth?? This addresses every issue you can think of -- homosexuality, abortion, genocide, AIDS, poverty, homelessness, stewardship of creation, oppression, war, forced prostitution, human trafficking, hunger, racism... everything! THAT is "social justice" for the Christian -- working to bring the Kingdom of God to bear on the world around us.

Honestly, I'm getting well and truly worn out with the Christian=Republican nonsense that pops up on the Line. You all are smarter people and better critical thinkers than that. Really.

[16. J. Tucker said the following at 11:22 AM on Jul 22:]

16

While I agree that "social justice" can be a vague and somewhat amorphous concept, I think everyone reading this article knows that Jesus was very active in helping the poor, caring for the elderly and widowed, etc. In fact, you could say that "social justice" is the original Christian concept, not a liberal political scheme to redefine normative social values. We can argue about the details later.

A few points:
1. Calling blue-collar and pink-collar workers "working families" is the respectful thing to do. It has nothing to do with "nudge and wink". It has everything to do with dignity and regard for our fellow citizens. Would you feel respected and equal if your representative said that he initiated legislation to help the "ditch-diggers" and "garbage men"?

2. I agree with Leigh Anne in #3 - Christianity is not synonymous with conservatism or Republicanism, and I think it's disgraceful that "educated" people in the Christian community could actually believe that after seeing all of the ungodly things that Republicans have done to our country and the world for the past 30 years. I am a republican politically, but I've had to repent for many of the votes that I've cast.

3. To mindlab in #7 - We wouldn't need "wealth distribution" if Christians hadn't dropped the ball in carrying out their Biblical duties of "social justice". I dislike taxes as much as anyone, but give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. And it's funny that you mentioned money, because that's exactly what it's all about. Republicans wouldn't hesitate to help the poor if it didn't cost money, would they?

[17. Khalil said the following at 12:10 PM on Jul 22:]

17

The medication and effects of my sinus infection are kicking in, so I'll keep this brief. The agency I am going overseas with uses James 1:27 as a theme. Using this example, are there not places in the Bible where we are told to look after the downtrodden, weak, and those in need? Perhaps it is how you define social justice, but I see this theme as a very Christ-like approach to life.

[18. Ken said the following at 12:53 PM on Jul 22:]

18

Tim H:
"Social Justice does not include standing up for the life of the 3000+ babies killed each day."

Care to cite or backup your statement?

Laura Grace:
Maybe some of us are tired of all the Republican, Bush bashing in the comments section.

Whatever kind of justice we strive for, no one party can claim total dominance in this area.

BOTH sides have done great and not so great things in regards to this issue.

[19. Ian said the following at 1:09 PM on Jul 22:]

19

As mindlab wrote above, "social justice" as buzzword probably stands for "wealth redistribution" in most contemporary contexts. I don't feel it's overly difficult to perceive this. Mr. Neven's post is curiously oblique and more than a bit defensive.

[20. Tom Neven said the following at 1:09 PM on Jul 22:]

20

laura grace (#15)

You miss my point. I refuse, for purposes of this post, to get into discussion of specifics about how best to do "social justice." Ditto for eschatology. (But, FYI, I'm definitely nota pre-trib rapture type, at least not in the Jerry Jenkins-Tim LaHaye model.)

My point is the use of meaningless political buzz phrases, often used as code to get around saying what you really mean.

[21. Ted Slater said the following at 1:20 PM on Jul 22:]

21

Another tired term that came to mind while reading your post, Tom: "sustainable."

[22. Dr. Ransom said the following at 1:28 PM on Jul 22:]

22

Christina, hearing that the who-cares-about-history statement made directly and aloud is somehow shocking to me. I really should be more disillusioned, though. ...

laura grace, you sound like my sister -- not in thought, but just in your name. That's my sister's name. But my sister would disagree with what you've written, particularly the false eschatological dichotomy.

Here's another personal note: I'm getting really, really tired of false either-or dichotomies ...

Anyway, here are some reactions to your comment (no. 15).

Do you believe that Christians have a solemn responsibility from God to work to increase the influence of the Kingdom of God on earth, even among those who will never know Christ, until his return? Or do you believe that the Church's task is primarily (or even solely) an evangelistic one, because we're all going to get zapped out of here before the really bad stuff starts to happen?

How about both? but not because "we're all going to get zapped out of here"?

Perhaps you simply aren't aware of more reasonable end-times views -- or lack of said views, as is my case -- that aren't so "Rapture"-heavy all the time, but also don't fall way too far into postmillennialism utopianism, which is an even less legitimate end-times view than the pre-trib view.

If we have what I'd call a "low" view of eschatology (pre-tribulation rapture, disembodied heavenly eternity)

How and why are you lumping these two together? Is it possible to believe in pre-trib, pre-mill stuff while also accepting the much more directly presented Biblical truth that the New Heavens and New Earth are yet to come, and will be a hybrid of both the remade heavens and the remade Earth?

(For example, even one of those Left Behind guys, writer Jerry Jenkins, mightily praised Randy Alcorn's Heaven, which does the best job yet setting the record straight about the supposed nonmaterial, super-spiritual idea of "heaven" in which many Christians somehow believe.)

But you seem to be taking the view that Earth will be remade to an unhealthful extent. Who will remake it and when will this happen? Scripture is clear that Christ will do this, sometime after He returns (a literal or allegorial 1,000-year "millennium" notwithstanding).

The Church is His Kingdom on Earth, to be sure. Yet unlike postmillennial memes would hold, it is not the Church's role or goal to change the world completely, fix it up pristine and shining before He touches down again.

of course we would see social justice as secondary in importance or even unimportant. Of course we would circle the wagons, focus on purely "moral" issues, tsk-tsk at the culture, and hunker down in our Christian foxholes until Jesus comes to take us away from all of this.

Here's another false dichotomy. (Sighs, and tries to smile.) Again, is it automatic that if we don't put social justice front and center (perhaps instead of the Gospel?) then we're behaving just like all them Legalists?

Guess what, though -- there are many other errors in the church besides withdrawing from the world into a safe subculture bubble and waiting for a rapture. Thers is also the error of substituting the Church, or a reasonable fascimile thereof, for Christ -- standing in for the "groom," rather than awaiting His arrival as His "bride."

While we're waiting for Him, we should indeed be busy and not focused on shying away from culture and tough issues. However, I'm just not convinced that is what the Church overall has done anyway. And the opposite error seems to be what you have advocated, laura: the Church as world-changer through politics all over again.

Really, what's different from what you've said and the position implied by the more "intense" of right-wing Christian activists, who put their "social" issues front and center rather than the Gospel, the Church's one foundation of Christ alone, sola Cristos?

But if our understanding of eschatology is that Jesus inaugurated the Kingdom of God, entrusted his Church with increasing its radically transforming influence throughout the earth, and will return to re-create this physical globe and reign here with his people in physical, resurrection bodies for all eternity in the consummation and renewal of God's once-fallen creation... well, that paints a slightly different picture of our actions in the here and now, doesn't it?

Here's where I just grin and clap and yell Ay-men (in a Southern accent, just to irritate people :-D). Indeed the Church is here to try to change the world before Christ arrives. But it won't revamp the whole place before Christ's return as some people more than imply it will.

I am thinking here of the emergent-ism authors, whom you may or may not agree with; if you do not, please clarify your view and correct my misunderstanding.)

But you have misunderstood Tom and the entire blog and have tried to wire what he said into your stereotype of Right Wingnut Christians Who Care Mostly About Low Taxes and Give Lip Service to Life Sanctity.

Again, it's a false dichotomy, which you may not have even recognized you were making. But as you seem to recognize, Christ-followers can work to alleviate poverty and hunger, stop slave trafficking, protest genocides, oppose laws that permit the slaughter of preborn children, help save otherwise unwanted children, and even pick up trash and do more to take care of God's creation. We can walk and the walk and chew solid doctrine at the same time. Not everybody is so severely flipping back and forth between sets of issues as you have implied above. Here's hoping this clarification has been helpful to both heart and mind. :-)

[23. SJ said the following at 1:41 PM on Jul 22:]

23

From discussions with other evangelical Christians from all over the political spectrum, I've come to see "social justice" used as a term to refer to a different prioritization of the activities and causes that Christian organizations fight politically. Its not that these Christians deny the brutality of abortion or the heresy of gay marriage, but the near singular focus on these issues seems to imply a neglect on other equally important issues such as religious persecution overseas, genocide, sexual slavery and trafficing, and the suffering of the poor both domestically and abroad. The frustration is compounded with the perception of non-Christians and more liberal factions in the government taking the lead or even ownership on these issues.

There certainly are a lot of good Christian organizations and missions that work on the issues I mentioned above. Also, despite disagreements, there is always room to work with secular factions when interests align; I have a lot of admiration for Senator Brownback, who crossed lines to speak out against the genocide in Darfur. Yet when the political capital is placed so heavily on a couple out of many injustices in this world, I can understand why there is such a call for a shift toward "social justice".

[24. mary kate said the following at 1:55 PM on Jul 22:]

24

right on SJ, #23. i totally agree.

[25. A.M.C. said the following at 2:08 PM on Jul 22:]

25

Well, this reminds me of a quote from the "How Do You Spell Success" section of Boundless Show #26:

"We [used to] have these really mixed neighborhoods where you meet all types. Now it is very likely that your neighbors are going to be about as identical to you as we've ever had in history of the country."

^ Since we're on the "social justice" topic, here's a very politically incorrect solution: Perhaps we should consider having Affirmative Action (by race/ethnicity, income, etc.) not in education or employment, but in the housing market. Namely, new homeowners would receive subsidies if their arrival in the neighborhood would increase diversity, while a mark-up would be applied if people wish to move into neighborhoods whose demographics are homogeneous to their own (e.g. in terms of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status).

==> The idea is based on the premise that segregation negatively affects everyone (and especially minority populations), an assertion that can be backed by actual data. And by "integration," I mean not only racial integration, but also having people of different socioeconomic backgrounds living in the same neighborhood. The main drawback of this policy, of course, is that it is politically impossible-- surely many middle-class Whites would strongly resent it as they see their property values plummet. Then again, that's exactly what the policy is trying to do, to use economic incentives to encourage integration without technically forcing people to move.

Ideally, such a policy would also reduce the effect of so-called "White flight," because there would be no escape; the new neighborhoods that they end up in will again be integrated thanks to the economic incentives provided by the policy. [Obviously, the practicality of this policy depends the frequency that demographics data are updated. In addition, different formulas have to be depending on the region-- a possibility is to define "fully integrated" as the city or state average in terms of demographic data.]

===================================

* Okay, I must admit that the "solution" above is probably too extreme. Even if it were ever implemented, such a policy would be full of loopholes-- just imagine people intentionally working less to reduce their income and thus benefit from the "handout" mandated by the policy. One could certainty remove the "income" part and just have Affirmative Action in the housing market by race/ethnicity, but even this would open a can of worms (some might be consider it a violation of the freedom of movement).

==> Perhaps some of you might even wonder, "why would a Christian who calls himself 'pro-life, pro-family, pro-traditional marriage,' etc. and considers himself conservative theologically EVER promote such a liberal policy?" Here's why: because I found segregation to be unbiblical, and the private sector isn't doing enough to solve this (few rich people would voluntarily integrate a poorer neighborhood by moving in). The underlying philosophy is simple: I'm willing to utilize any resource, whether from the private sector or a secular government, to do God's will.
Given my Biblical worldview, I would of course prefer a conservative solution-- the problem is that it's currently not working in the case of countering segregation. (While I'm certainly wiling to set an example myself, how much difference would that make?) That's why I would support the idea of the government using economic incentives to desegregate neighborhoods in principle, but only as a last resort when all else fails.

===================================

* Let's take a look at another example: wealth distribution. Many conservatives are against it, because they consider it an infringement upon their right to own property-- fair enough. But someone who's more liberal on economic issues might use Leviticus 25:8-24 and Acts 4:32-37 as Biblical examples of wealth distribution.

==> Now, here's where the disagreement starts. The conservative would argue that both instances are voluntary wealth distribution, or something that is akin to what we call "charity" nowadays. The liberal would then counter that by saying that people aren't perfect and would often give less than they should, and then cite statistics that show a negative correlation between net income and proportion of income given to charities. (If needed, the supposed failure of the Year of Jubilee in practice would also be cited. And if that's not enough, there's always the trump card of "technically, everything that we 'own' belongs to God, so the right to property should be limited in the first place anyway.")

===================================

* The point I'm trying to make is simply this: Christians should not dwell on the means of doing the so-called "social justice" because this is one area where people are bound to disagree. Rather, we should focus on the ends, i.e. repairing ALL kinds of broken relationships in this world (between God and people, between human individuals, and between humans and the rest of God's creation) caused by the Fall. As long as we remember to put faith before works and remember that everything must be done for God's glory and not our own, I don't see why the Biblical kind of social justice can be a problem.

[26. Ryan said the following at 2:51 PM on Jul 22:]

26

The problem, SJ (#23) with your premise, is that the reason why conservative Christians decry social justice is because it is used draw attention away from abortion and other matters that should be near and dear to the heart of the Church.

Case in point: the first time I ever heard about social justice was when I was at a college-age Bible study in Denver and i was asking what one of teh girls did there at her campus as a ministry. She replied she was with a social justice group, that chose to "deal with what we all can agree upon as being injustices, instead of focusing on less clear thigns like a woman's right to choose."

WHAT???

I'm so disgusted with social justice. One of the reasons is its redefinition of what justice truly is: the liberal presumes that justice is (and all the government programs are an effort to create) equality in outcome. This is antithetical to the Bible's view of justice: equality of opportunity. For instance: Not all people will become saved, but all will have the chance to accept or decline Christ. "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" If universalism is not taught in the Bible, then why effect it in terms of prosperity and call it "just?" God's idea of justice is far more different than ours--we just choose to redefine morality because us humans know better.

Another reason why I despise social justice is that it is a perversion of justice for the government to favor the poor. Case in point, Michael Medved's article:

"Leviticus 19:15 declares: "You shall not commit a perversion of justice: you shall not favor the poor and you shall not honor the great, with righteousness shall you judge your fellow."

"Concerning the crucial sentence, Rabbi SchlomoYitzhaki (Rashi), the great 11th Century sage commented: "'You shall not favor the poor' means that you should not say that a wealthy man is obligated to help the poor, therefore it is proper for a judge to rule in favor of the poor litigant. Torah insists that justice be rendered honestly; as important as charity is, it must not interfere with justice."

"Jewish tradition goes on to clarify the apparent contradiction between numerous Biblical injunctions to act compassionately to the poor, to the widow and the orphan, and this unequivocal insistence on avoiding favoritism. The essential point is that it's the individual that's primarily commanded to display compassion and give charity, while the government, particularly in its judicial aspect, must judge actions, not persons

"Leftists should take note: "loving your neighbor" doesn't involve protecting him against the just consequences of his own mistakes, or giving him special dispensation if he's unlucky, or punishing the productive in the name of helping the less fortunate.

"A just and loving society, in other words, doesn't enshrine victimhood and doesn't see a contradiction between justice and compassion. Both are attributes of the living God but they shouldn't be confused."

The complete article can be found here: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/04/11/biblical_liberation_from_liberalism

Finally, a big problem in this country, and the reason for the so-call "shrinking middle class" and "housing crisis" is that we are living outside our means. Fifty years ago the list of necessities totalled around twenty: things like running water, a roof, etc. Today it numbers in the hundreds: things like TV, internet access, cell phones... poverty in America is NOT the same as poverty overseas... And while we are told to have compassion on the poor in the Bible (as individuals--the Church is far more effective than the government anyway) it is with the sober realization that "The poor you will have with you always." There will always be an economic gap so long as there's greed and limited resources, and there will be always be greed so long as there's sin.

SIN is the root of man's problems, not poverty.

[27. Christina (in green) said the following at 3:12 PM on Jul 22:]

27

Hmmm...lets see (#23)

Lets break this down a bit...
Its not that these Christians deny the brutality of abortion...
Ummm...I think this qualifies as "social justice"...or do you not agree?

the near singular focus on these issues seems to imply a neglect on other equally important issues
Yeah, equally important, but you know...each group has its own battle. FOTF (and a lot of the "evangelical" world) seems to focus a lot on these. But your wrong that it implies a neglect.

such as religious persecution overseas
I met a woman who is studying to be a missionary at Reformed Theology Seminary in Orlando who was imprisoned for spreading the gospel in China. Religious persecution is greatly talked about over here. In fact, Randy Alcorn set up a fund and a project to inform people about the religious persecution. Neglect?

genocide
The Anglican Church of Africa and its mission churches here in the states focus on helping genocide victims. At my own church, we sponsor the economic revival and support of the victims of the Rwanda Genocide. Neglect?

sexual slavery and trafficing
The church has a HISTORY on this one, believe it or not...but history-ignorant, young, evangelicals who never had a teacher with enough sense to tell them how important it is wouldn't actually know this. Amy Carmichael specialized in this. My church in my hometown (an Episcopal church that wasn't mission oriented) sponsored a couple in our church who went once a year to check on the school that they started for young women in india, teaching them english and sheltering them from such practice. Neglect?

and the suffering of the poor both domestically and abroad.
World Vision (an evangelical group that is heavily sponsored by Casting Crowns) focuses specifically on the poor abroad. Domestically, you have soup kitchens, paper-bag ministries, and, ironically, the Episcopal Diocese of Central Florida is currently running an inner city missions project in the Orlando area, helping the not-so-fortunate people of this area. Providing vacation bible school in the projects, helping young, single mothers with dozens of babies clean their homes (which wasn't actually a part of the agenda...but the 4-5 12 and 13 year olds that helped a young mother with 3 boys clean her house were quite excited about it). Neglect?

Thing is, I don't know what anyone thinks to accomplish? Government programs? More social security? More of our tax money going to the government to fund multi-billion dollar programs to help all these people?

Seriously now.

Social Justice IS NOT LIMITED TO ONE PARTY. So stop talking about how the liberals are more into "social justice" than the conservative evangelicals. The conservative evangelicals have their own specific social justice that they have focused on, other denominations have their own...and each individual church has their own. Just like YOU will have your own to specifically focus on.

[28. laura grace said the following at 3:50 PM on Jul 22:]

28

Dr. Ransom, thanks for your response, brother. Let me clarify and/or rephrase a couple of things. I am NOT emergent. I am Reformed, and I am very wary, as you are, I'm sure, of the tendency of Christians to do one or the other when it comes to evangelism and social justice. In fact, that's the problem I was trying to point out. Perhaps I misspoke, but I certainly am not trying to perpetuate a "stereotype of Right Wingnut Christians Who Care Mostly About Low Taxes and Give Lip Service to Life Sanctity."

Perhaps it's only in the circles I've run in, but a distressingly high percentage of Christians I've known have a very weak view of what eternity will be like for the believer. Maybe I shouldn't have included the part about the "rapture" (although I still think that enters the equation in the "foxhole" mentality that can hamper outreach), but I think the point about a disembodied heavenly eternity still stands. If our souls go to heaven and we spend the rest of eternity in a sort of glorified worship service far away from the relationships and work of this life, what motivation do we have to work for the Kingdom here and now? On the other hand, the fact that believers, upon Christ's glorious return, will be raised to life (like Christ), have resurrection bodies (like Christ), and work and have relationships and perfectly rule creation as Adam and Eve could not (but the Second Adam did and will), ought to have some bearing on our actions in this life, oughtn't it?

I think it's too bad that Emergent-types (who are really just early 20th century classic Liberals, except with tattoos and hip glasses) have taken and twisted the Biblical language of justice to such an extent that even a Calvinist like me gets lumped in with them when I talk about fulfilling the commands of God regarding oppression and poverty and the like! :) As a Calvinist, I'm obviously realistic about how much can be done in a world so pervasively and comprehensively damaged by sin. But does that mean we throw in the towel, put on our flak jackets and head back in the bunker? No, it means we work, because we know God is at work -- a Sovereign God whose will is accomplished using means... the means of the labor of his people to bring his Kingdom's influence over every area of life.

I hope that clears up some of the issues, Dr. Ransom! God bless you, brother.

[29. Chris said the following at 4:16 PM on Jul 22:]

29

In regards to the definition of social justice, the Catholic church has long had a definition of it that includes both "pro-life" and "pro-poor/working class" components.

I've often found that many conservatives are hesitant to embrace such a definition, probably due to the "socialistic" (for lack of a better word) components. They're willing to support laws/leaders that deal with abortion/gay marriage/etc. These things do not affect the pocket book that much. The ones that do if actually enacted through law (living wages, a right to health care, the right to join a union, for example) tend to scare them away. For them, "justice" is a concept limited to criminal and civil law.

(Anecdotally, this supports my belief that people's political/social convictions shape their religious convictions, not vice-versa, but that's a whole other discussion......)

As to the claim about politicians on the left avoiding things by using the phrase "working family", I believe Tom Neven is burning a straw man. Ask any of these people if they're in working families, and they'll admit it and know exactly what it means.

It simply means a family where one or both parents must work weekly (sometimes 7 days/week) to simply provide basic necessities for their families. This is markedly different from the very well-to-do who, push comes to shove, don't have to worry about putting a roof over their heads, paying for food, or paying for medical care. It is not some "empty phrase" meant to avoid the truth or avoid being condescending. It's simply another way of saying lower/middle class families living day-to-day in not so many words.

[30. farmer Tom said the following at 4:44 PM on Jul 22:]

30

* The point I'm trying to make is simply this: Christians should not dwell on the means of doing the so-called "social justice" because this is one area where people are bound to disagree

And we have a winner,

Translation,......... we don't care who we beg borrow or steal from, we want to do good so therefore we are justified in using whatever means necessary to do that good.

How was it Paul put it?

Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound???

Some of you are so sure that "social justice" is something christians should be concerned about, you are willing to accept the tyranny of government to enforce "social justice".

And the proper response is, GOD FORBID

[31. Amir Larijani said the following at 4:58 PM on Jul 22:]

31

"Social justice" is a code term for taxpayer-funded abortions, undermining parental rights, waging war on masculinity, taxpayer-funded sex education, welfare-state socialism, universal health care, gay marriage that everyone must recognize, reparations to blacks and other 'preferred minorities', and appeasement of terrorists and other thugs.

[32. Amir Larijani said the following at 4:59 PM on Jul 22:]

32

Farmer Tom for President!

[33. Jaime said the following at 5:12 PM on Jul 22:]

33

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this as I only skimmed the posts, but the Bible never tells us that the government is in charge of this. The church is supposed to deal with social justice. Thus, it really shouldn't be an issue for political campaigns. Just my thoughts.

[34. Ting said the following at 5:21 PM on Jul 22:]

34

Social justice should never be an end in itself. Social Justice without evangelism is a works based, man made religion. Evangelism without social justice can be having faith without works. (I'm not advocating works based faith..just referring to James of how someone's faith naturally spurs them on to good works)

As one of the pastors Lisa interviewed said (paraphrase) , "Even the world will applaud us for doing good works for the poor. But they will not applaud us for evangelism."

[35. farmer Tom said the following at 5:26 PM on Jul 22:]

35

Tom Neven this is directed to you,

I asked you several questions the other day about the purpose and role of government. You failed to answer my questions. Until these young people here understand the Biblical role of government they will accept the idea of "social justice" as one of things government can and should do. Unless you admit that taking taxes from "each according to ability, and giving to each according to need" (look that one up), is an act of evil, people will continue to assert their right to use the power of government to satisfy "social justice".

This really is a question of what kind of government we will have, one that's sole purpose is to "punish evil doers" or one that is involved in every aspect of our lives, taking our God given rights away in favor of "social justice".

It is very alarming that so many who claim the name of Christ would accept the Darwinist/socialist view of the role of government.

By the way for all of you who can not understand politics outside of the Republican/Democrat dialectic, here's something to put in your pipe and smoke, I have not voted for a Repugnant for president in 16 years, and I refuse to vote for anyone from the opposite(Demoncrat) party which supports the very evils I just described and advocated the killing of the unborn. So do not attempt to paint me a Repugnant party hack.

[36. BC said the following at 5:28 PM on Jul 22:]

36

In general, social justice seems to be focused on immediate solutions to visible problems, operating under the auspices of the claim that any improvement in life is a worthwhile improvement. It offers people quicker access to a feeling of accomplishment without engaging any effective long-term planning.
Reactionist charity of that sort is more quickly accepted by leftist thinkers than rightist ones, which has allowed leftist thinkers to largely co-opt social justice ideas into their own long term plans. Their is nothing that inherently links social justice with leftist ideas, but the sheer number of leftists that have become involved with social justice easily sways gullible youth to believe that such a link does exist.

[37. A.M.C. said the following at 6:34 PM on Jul 22:]

37

Re: farmer Tom (#30)

All right, I see your point. What I meant to say by "not dwell on the means" was "it doesn't matter whether it's individuals or the government that is doing the job as long as the job gets done." Obviously, I would agree that the means of achieving the goal should be as "un-authoritarian" as possible-- that's why I mentioned in my previous post that I would only advocate the government stepping in "as a last resort" when efforts by the private sector alone are inadequate.

As for the quotation from Apostle Paul: Could you please explain why using a secular government to further God's will could count as a "sin"? (After all, there are many examples in the Bible where God has used people who did not believe in Him to do His will.)

Then again, is it the idea of taking away some of the privileges/rights/riches, etc. from those who earned them honestly and fairly that you are against? Fair enough, I won't contest that.

------------------------------

For further clarification, here's how I would define "Biblical social justice":

1. (n.) Acts done to repair the broken relationships between God and people, between human individuals, and between humankind and the rest of God's creation; and

2. (n.) Acts done to minimize or reverse the negative consequences of human sin.

------------------------------

==> By this definition, "liberal" issues such as helping the poor and feeding the hungry would qualify if the method is providing further education or job training (something that addresses the cause) rather than simply giving away money/supplies (handouts that may encourage irresponsible behavior, e.g. laziness or substance abuse).

* Issues such as stopping genocide, human trafficking, and prostitution obviously count as social justice as well. So would countering racism and, to a lesser extent, reasonable environmentalism (if and only if with the correct focus, i.e. "using our planet's resources responsibly without making nature an idol").

------------------------------

* On the other hand, several "conservative" issues would also qualify as social justice based on the definition above. For example, minimizing the number of abortions through overturning Roe v. wade AND. [***The "underlying causes of abortion" that some people talk about, such as poverty, are already covered under the "liberal issues" section.]

* The same applies to upholding biblical marriage and preaching that the opposite of homosexuality isn't heterosexuality but holiness. (Allowing the "gay agenda" to prevail, while seeming pro-equality in the minds of social liberals, would actually worsen the existing brokenness.)

* And here's the kicker: Yes, evangelism would count as social justice as well. Why? Because, above all else, Christ's sacrifice both repairs broken relationships AND reverses the negative consequences of human sin (i.e. spiritual death).

[38. Mike said the following at 7:10 PM on Jul 22:]

38

Is it safe to say we can be concerned for "social justice" (i.e. the well-being of our fellow man) without insisting it be enforced by the government?

Or is that too controversial?

[39. Eliza said the following at 7:35 PM on Jul 22:]

39

Deut. 10:17-19
17 For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. 18 He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. 19 And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt.

Psalm 10:12, 14, 17-18
12 Arise, LORD! Lift up your hand, O God. Do not forget the helpless. 14 But you, O God, do see trouble and grief; you consider it to take it in hand. The victim commits himself to you; you are the helper of the fatherless. 17 You hear, O LORD, the desire of the afflicted; you encourage them, and you listen to their cry, 18 defending the fatherless and the oppressed, in order that man, who is of the earth, may terrify no more.

Psalm 146:7-9
7 He upholds the cause of the oppressed and gives food to the hungry. The LORD sets prisoners free, 8 the LORD gives sight to the blind, the LORD lifts up those who are bowed down, the LORD loves the righteous. 9 The LORD watches over the alien and sustains the fatherless and the widow, but he frustrates the ways of the wicked.

Job 10:15-16
15 He saves the needy from the sword in their mouth; he saves them from the clutches of the powerful. 16 So the poor have hope, and injustice shuts its mouth.

Psalm 35:9-10
9 Then my soul will rejoice in the LORD and delight in his salvation. 10 My whole being will exclaim, "Who is like you, O LORD ? You rescue the poor from those too strong for them, the poor and needy from those who rob them."

Zechariah 7:9-10
9 "This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. 10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other.'

Luke 4:17-21
17The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."[a]

20Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

James 1:26-27
26If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. 27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

[40. farmer Tom said the following at 8:04 PM on Jul 22:]

40

#26 Ryan,

A sincere and hearty,

AMEN

[41. Sarah said the following at 8:22 PM on Jul 22:]

41

A few short comments:

To J. Tucker's first sentence in point #3 in comment 16: Dead on, my friend, dead on.

To Tom's comment 20 where he wrote, "My point is the use of meaningless political buzz phrases, often used as code to get around saying what you really mean.": welcome to politics.

As to this post, I mean no offense, but is this really that critical? It sounds like whining to me, and we've all fallen prey to a good time wasting game of semantics.

[42. Nat said the following at 8:41 PM on Jul 22:]

42

Arthur Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, recently wrote a book about the generosity of various American sub-groups. He found that Counservatives are more personally generous than their liberal counterparts, who prefer government involvement. He also found, though, that athere was a large difference between religious Americans and more secular Americans, and so; for example, religious conservatives were more generous with their personal wealth than secular liberals, and religious liberal more generous than secular conservatives, etc.
He also found that there are distinct differences in giving to charity around the world. Americans and British people give more to charity than continental europeans, for instance. He found other differences, too, in terms of the type of charity donated to, and in the prosperity of the giver. Poor- especially the working poor- and rich people tended to give larger percentages of their annual incomes than middle class people. It's a really interesting book, I reccomend it.

[43. Richard said the following at 8:45 PM on Jul 22:]

43

Amir,

I have certainly never considered my minority status as 'preferred' prior to reading your post, and feel even less 'preferred' after reading your comments.

I do think there are strong arguments on BOTH sides of the reparation debate. It doesn't seem fair to lump those not on YOUR side with terrorist and thugs!

[44. Tara said the following at 10:15 PM on Jul 22:]

44

I am grateful to everyone here who has pointed out all the ways people in the Church have been active in helping the needy and meding out social justice in the truest sense of the word.

I'm part of a denomination where missions and social action have been a huge focus practically since it's beginning (I'm an Anabaptist with Reformist leanings...:P )so I find it disconcerting to see peers in my Church talk as if this "social justice" movement is brand new. I see it as a slap in the face to all the work our parents and grandparents have done in Christ's name.

I'm not against pushing for social change in the political sphere (hello...how do you think the common man & woman got the right to vote? No one just *gave* it to us) but as Christians I think we have to be careful how entangled we let the Church become with politics. I see politics more as a tool...one of many. And ultimately politics will NOT make our world a more loving, equal place. You can make all the laws you want but true change comes from the Holy Spirit. Our actions don't define us. Christ is more concerned with our hearts. And I know you all know that already. ;) I guess the question is, are we willing to let Christ transform us from the inside out and that it's Christ they see in our actions...not our political leanings?

[45. JB said the following at 10:17 PM on Jul 22:]

45

Tom,

Maybe the reason you find "social justice" to be an empty phrase is because you're expecting too much from it. Someone who is talking about "social justice" may be trying to invoke an entire theory of justice, but I think the phrase is more commonly used to refer to a political orientation which is concerned with the justice of social systems as such. That is, I think frequently a person who expresses a concern for "social justice" isn't so much talking about a coherent system of thought so much as a belief that issues of justice ought to be addressed *at all.* In my, admittedly amateur, reading of political debates, it seems to me that progressives are more willing to discuss the effects of policies on various parties than conservatives, who more focus on the global effects. If we're discussing a new tax policy, the conservative debate focuses on whether it is good or bad for "the economy" while the progressive debate tends to ask how it would affect, say, "uninsured children," "single mothers," or "the middle class." The intrinsic critique of progressive "social justice" talk is, I think, that too often policymakers are so concerned with whether or not the system as a whole is working that they forget to ask exactly who is helped and harmed by a policy. Maybe when the people you mention say they're concerned about social justice, they're asking for us to make that kind of analysis at all. Exactly *how* we make that analysis is a separate issue.

If I'm right about that, I think it fits with how the debate about abortion is conducted between progressives and conservatives. Conservatives are frequently willing to call abortion a great moral evil that should be opposed with every possible means and leave it at that. Progressives, being concerned with social justice, are forced to grapple with the details - how, for example, an abortion waiting period would differentially affect a poor woman seeking an abortion for medical reasons and a more affluent woman who wants to terminate a pregnancy for other reasons. Even if you think abortion is wrong, from the perspective of someone concerned with social justice the issue is still pretty complicated and you might deemphasize it because you lack good solutions.

[46. BDB said the following at 11:34 PM on Jul 22:]

46

Somehow, it seems to me that the U.S. version of "social justice" has little to do with the actual condition of people. Let me walk through one example:

LIVING WAGE: In theory, a "living wage" allows someone to support a family on one income. In practice, the laws always exempt any worker covered by a collective bargaining agreement. The actual result is that companie have a huge incentive to allow unions to come in. The union promises them a lower wage than the "living" wage in the law, so the companies pay less. The union bosses get their "cut" of the union members' wages, and the workers are still making below the "living" wage.

There's a whole bunch of math on the business side, too. Some businesses such as hotels and fast food use minimum-wage employees. For hotels, the easy choice is to allow the union in - there are lots of unions in hotels.

For fast food, the answer is...automate. McDonald's deliberately designs their jobs to allow them to hire people with zero skills. They make a huge investment to train them, knowing that almost all of them will leave after being trained. If they hire teenagers, their friends will come visit them and buy something. It's part of the staffing plan.

Once you're not paying minimum wage anymore, you can start hiring people with skills. That allows you to put in more complex technology. Not every McDonalds uses the same kitchen technology. It's possible to adjust the configuration to require fewer employees, since more skilled employees work faster.

The result is teenage unemployement. They can't find a job anywhere because the jobs they'd normally get are filled by people supporting families.

Teenage unemployment tends to run as high as 20% some summers. It's much, much worse in European countries with living wage laws. That's one of the reasons for the riots in Paris a couple of years ago - a bunch of young people who couldn't find work and a combination of hopelessness and too much time on their hands.

So, that's a long way of saying that I agree that a certain party has spent too much time earmarking pork-barrel projects for their buddies, and seems to have ignored the real issues that impact working families and the poor.

Meanwhile, back in California, the state legislature missed the deadline to pass a state budget. They did, however, find time to try and take mylar balloons away from children.

Don't vote, it only encourages them...

[47. cn said the following at 1:12 AM on Jul 23:]

47

I'm in Israel and the other day I was talking to a friend who knew of a ministry in the land that goes and sits on buses targetted for attack. Contemplating their bold and risky move I asked, "Are they sitting there to pray?" My friend jokingly responded, "No, its some sort of demonstration... like 'social justice' or something."

My concern with the "social justice" movment is this: How effective is it? I'm sure some organizations are doing well. Personally I'm a fan of Ten Thousand Villages. But then I think about this bus sitting ministry and have to wonder how Rosa Parks they really think they are. Americans on a bus is surely not going to stop a terrorist, and "making a statement" doesn't really solve the problem as much as sharing the truth of Jesus and God's continued love of Israel with the Arabs. Sometimes it just seems that the whole Social Justice Movement is very surface oriented and not really getting at the bitter root, which is fallen people needing redeemed through Jesus, but if its getting young believers out there carying for the orphan and widow, then to God be the Glory. Hopefully everyone's learning about His heart in the process.

As for the abortion issue, I see plenty of people in our generation concerned for the unborn. Lou Engle has managed to round up thousands and thousands below 30 to pray for Roe v. Wade to be overturned all over America. Also, some early twenties twin sisters wrote a children's book called "Justice Loves Babies" as a means of teaching children about this issue. Find more info here: www.justicelovesbabies.com

Maybe its all a matter of what ministries you are exposed to.

[48. Adam said the following at 2:03 AM on Jul 23:]

48

It is amazing how abortion somehow seems to sneak into every slightly political discussion. Let me take a little bit different perspective on the abortion issue and social justice.

A few blogs ago, there was a discussion over child rapists being "monsters." Yet, when it comes to abortion, we view things rather differently. We blame the government for allowing it. We blame Planned Parenthood for performing the procedure.

Yet, we don't attack the root of the problem... 3000 cold-hearted killers every day. 3000 ladies who decide to murder the child growing inside of them. Not only that, but they are willing to take a financial hit to make sure the job gets done right.

No, we take a different tactic. We want to show the killers ultrasounds in hope they will change their mind. Or set up support groups for those who had abortions and later regret it. Quite the contrast to the "monsters" who many would rather just kill off.

It seems odd to me that Republicans seem to want to attack this issue through the government and the courts. Yet for most things - even social justice issues - the solution is for the government to keep their hands off and let the church, society, and the free market work things out.

---------------------------

I've noticed that there is very little about social justice that seems to seek to change laws. It seems to be much more about meeting particular needs. Taking care of people's health when they are dying from aids. Getting a bus to a poor neighborhood so they can get to work - and off of welfare.

Plus, there just seems to be a justified questioning of priorities in this country. We spend billions of dollars rebuilding Iraq, yet can't seem to get a few wells drilled in Africa?

[49. Zusanne said the following at 8:40 AM on Jul 23:]

49

Seems to be quite a bit of anti-conservative feeling from those interested in "social justice."

Here's my two cents:

As an on-again-off-again history teacher (a real one with real degrees, thank you very much--the coach/"teacher" frustrates me, too), I've seen plenty of students getting caught up in their causes and abandon the conservative ship--because they see the genuine flaws and the mistakes that the conservatives have made--and jump both feet into the left with very little investigation. By finding a community with the same soft-hearted desire to help others, they abandon the organizations that have been most successful at actually helping people. I know my students KNOW better because I've taught them better--we've studied the history, we've spent an hour on current events each week, and yet, the emotional takes over the intellect.

One of the best studies was published in a book called Who Really Cares? The author, a secular, liberal college professor was pretty shocked (he states in his introduction) when, after ten years of study, he discovered it was the most conservative and most religious who have been the most effective in creating "social justice" world-wide.

[50. M. Sand said the following at 9:48 AM on Jul 23:]

50

I have been visiting the Boundless website for a while now and have to admit that this is very interesting to me. It amazes me how we, Christains, claim we desire unity under Christ and yet we allow something as simple as "politics" to come between us. Social Justice includes a vast array of topics and I think we all know and understand that. Let's consider things like the education system, the healthcare system, economic development, etc. Where do we as Christans stand on these issues? I don't know of many Christians who support abortions. But I do know many who claim they believe that the strong should "bear the infirmities of the weak." There are plenty of lost, un-saved, disadvantaged people in the United States who need the help of the collective Church. As a matter of fact, the only way they will ever be helped or receive salvation is through the collective, unified Church/Body of Christ. Are we willing to give to the poor and homeless without assuming that they must have done something wrong to be in that conditioon? Are we willing to tell the government that we demand equal housing and access to eduation and healthcare for all United states citizens (or do we even want this)? Or do we secretly, or not so secretly for some, feel that these issues aren't our Christian duty or responsibility? Despite party lines WE ARE CHRISTIANS FIRST. Let us young adults who claim Christ remember that when we pass someone homeless on the street, listen to Republican or Democratic Presidential hopefuls "talk politics" (which is what they ALL do saved or not) or make a judgement on an issue based upon our own limited exposure to the world.

It amazes me that I know people who have traveled to impoverished countries and yet won't visit the "wrong side of the tracks" in their own city/state/country. I wonder how God feels about this?

Stop looking to Bush, McCain, Obama or anyone else to solve these issues. Sure He may use them but remember, God is looking to the Body of Christ. Let the Body stand up!

[51. mindlab said the following at 9:59 AM on Jul 23:]

51

29. Chris:

"I've often found that many conservatives are. . . willing to support laws/leaders that deal with abortion/gay marriage/etc. These things do not affect the pocket book that much. The ones that do if actually enacted through law (living wages, a right to health care, the right to join a union, for example) tend to scare them away. For them, "justice" is a concept limited to criminal and civil law."

Justice IS a concept limited to criminal and civil law. No one has a "right to health care." You have a right to use your property as you see fit; you do not have a right to steal my property because I can afford things you can't. Similarly, no one has a right to a "living wage." Again, you have a right to use your property, including your time, as you see fit. The fact that you are poorer than I does nothing to justify armed robbery (or wealth redistribution).

If you disagree, then I would be delighted to hear you justify wealth redistribution while condemning a mugger who make a living stealing purses and wallets at knife point.

[52. Jonathan said the following at 12:29 PM on Jul 23:]

52

Articles like this--and some of the responses to it--usually just tend to reinforce a split among Christians. A vague understanding of social justice is no worse than a vague understanding of "family values," for by the poster's admission, everyone is part of a family.

Many who espouse social justice, myself included, are just as firmly against abortion--because abortion is both murder and a breach of the justice God intends.

Yet we must not neglect the needs of others, even when it might endanger ourselves--financially or otherwise--to help them. The only reason the government is needed for that help is that most people are too selfish to do it willingly.

Someday the politicians and armchair Christian pundits will realize that there is no necessary conflict between faithfulness in justice and faithfulness in so-called "family values." That you don't have to choose which commands of Jesus you're going to try to obey. [That is, we should seek to obey Christ in all that he teaches in scripture.]

And then instead of voting for a lesser of two evils I might actually have someone I can support.

I have yet to see a political candidate, for president at least, that seems to support an agenda that Jesus could have endorsed. Let's not bicker about whether it's better to be wrong in one way or to be wrong in another.

[53. DP said the following at 2:52 PM on Jul 23:]

53

My comment was taken by #12

[54. Matthew said the following at 3:54 PM on Jul 23:]

54

A.M.C. (#37) seems to have one of the most thorough and helpful answers on this subject.

Mike (#38), I think that most Christian advocates for "social justice" want a lot of good things to be done by the church, but see many things that fall into the realm of governance to protect (criminalizing abortion, raising the minimum wage, enforcing laws on sex trafficking, etc.) Also, we've had the discussion on here before about how Planned Parenthood would give women some healthcare for gyn problems that they couldn't afford for themselves even though they were working, underscoring the fact that Christians aren't doing enough privately to address the needs in the world.

Many of us are divided on the issue of how much the government should be involved in social justice, but with the problems are enormous as they are it seems sometimes like the government is the only one with enough money to do something about it. Of course, the American church has plenty of money, but a life of radical giving away is quite unpopular and so you usually only hear wild-eyed people like Piper (whom I love) advocating it. Keep in mind that many of the problems of social justice are quite complex and that even going for an entirely politially "conservative" approach to ending poverty through job training and encouraging responsibility will be very, very expensive because of all the people (especially the homeless) who will need some sort of mental health treatment to be able to work and function and all the people who will simply need more and better training in order to thrive in an economy that values human life less and less.

Overall, I feel like growing up as a conservative Christian I was taught that abortion & gay marriage were the only "social justice issues" worth fighting about at the governmental level and that poor people were lazy. This is very easy to believe when you grow up not seeing injustice around you, which is a limited perspective that I think few of us in the middle and upper classes get. Thus, when I realized that the scope of injustices at home and around the world was much wider than I thought, I began to leave some of my conservative roots. This is not just an "emergent" thing, as numbers of well-respected theologically conservative Christians like John Piper, Tim Keller, N.T. Wright, Chuck Colson, and others have taught for years the importance of social justice. I would strongly recommend that people read some of Keller's thoughts on the matter, which you can browse through at http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/bio/timkeller.html

[55. Jethro said the following at 4:47 PM on Jul 23:]

55

Mindlab,

You see no difference between tax and armed robbery?

How about this: tax is part of the social contract. If you agree to live in this society you agree to pay tax. If you don't want to pay tax, go and find a country that won't tax you.

[56. Victoria said the following at 4:49 PM on Jul 23:]

56

As a British reader I often find this very issue on Boundless infuriating - being a Christian appears to be intrinsically linked with (often extreme) right wing political and economic views. No debate necessary - because after all those on the other side agree with abortion.

Surely this requires slightly more intellectual thought than that? I cannot agree more that abortion is wrong, homosexual marriage is wrong etc etc, but are we so shortsighted that we immediately throw away everything these political parties have to offer? Can there be nothing good? Can it be right that in the USA a boy dies because he cannot afford to see a dentist?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022702116.html

Why not have it both ways - why not stand firm on abortion AND make a stand against poverty? Why not oppose homosexual marriage AND protect the widows and orphans, the sick, the disabled, the poor? And why not think about the issues involved rather than just dismissing them out of hand because that is what the "enemy" believe?

In the UK there is no major political party that will repeal the abortion laws. But there are parties that will support those most in need, in the UK and abroad. I know how I will campaign on abortion laws. I know how as a medical professional I will respond to abortion in a medical context. I also know how I will vote - in an educated fashion, not as a reflex....

[57. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:23 PM on Jul 23:]

57

Richard says:

I have certainly never considered my minority status as 'preferred' prior to reading your post, and feel even less 'preferred' after reading your comments.

When I say "preferred", I mean by specially-selected by cultural elitists to benefit at everyone else's expense, even when those impacted had nothing to do with slavery.

(I for one oppose all racism, including affirmative action and other systems that lead to the use of quotas.)

I do think there are strong arguments on BOTH sides of the reparation debate. It doesn't seem fair to lump those not on YOUR side with terrorist and thugs!

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? You bet they are in the same boat. The former incited a deadly riot (Freddie's Fashion Mart) and led a political smear campaign based on a false rape charge. The latter is a well-established corporate raider. (Read Timmerman's book Shakedown, and you'll understand what I am talking about.

[58. farmer Tom said the following at 5:44 PM on Jul 23:]

58

. The only reason the government is needed for that help is that most people are too selfish to do it willingly.

So you are an advocate of armed robbery as long as it's done by the government?

I can also assume then that you consider the commandment which says, "Thou shalt not steal" to be authorization for the government to go ahead and take what they want in the name of "justice".

How very noble of you.

#50 said,

It amazes me how we, Christains, claim we desire unity under Christ and yet we allow something as simple as "politics" to come between us. Social Justice includes a vast array of topics and I think we all know and understand that. Let's consider things like the education system, the healthcare system, economic development, etc. Where do we as Christans stand on these issues?

Only a simpleton would suggest that "politics" is simple.

Ok, let's consider the health care system, education and ?economic development?

Are you suggesting that government has a role in any of these things? So you would take tax payers money to fund these things?

By what Biblical principle is government authorized to take money from the taxpayers to fund these things?

[59. Christina (in green) said the following at 6:21 PM on Jul 23:]

59

Adam,

Yet, we don't attack the root of the problem... 3000 cold-hearted killers every day. 3000 ladies who decide to murder the child growing inside of them. Not only that, but they are willing to take a financial hit to make sure the job gets done right.

Before you lump every woman who gets an abortion into that group, maybe you should meet some of them and actually come to terms of just what satan is capable of.

Which is WHY the church sticks with showing them ultrasounds and tries to change their mind rather than calling them outright killers.

[60. Jonathan said the following at 8:14 PM on Jul 23:]

60

I encourage everyone viewing this thread to reread post 10. My sentiments exactly. When will young evangelicals quit drinking the "liberal Kool-aid" and realize that the "social justice" tag is a lure to draw them away from a biblical perspective of helping the poor, taking care of God's earth and denying the paramount fight of our time: preserving traditional marriage and the sanctity of life.

[61. Ted Slater said the following at 8:50 PM on Jul 23:]

61

Victoria -- it seems that the boy died not because he couldn't afford to see a dentist, but because he couldn't afford to buy a tooth brush. If he and/or his family took personal responsibility for his hygiene, he'd still be alive. Seriously, that sounds harsh, but just a bit of prevention can deter a lot of problems.

Personal hygiene is taught in schools here. Whether anyone chooses to brush their teeth or not is up to them, not up to the government to enforce.

FWIW, all the Christians that I know of BOTH stand firm on abortion AND protect widows, orphans, sick, disabled, poor, etc. You cannot imagine the number of people I directly work with, or go to church with, or am friends with who have adopted one or more children, and at great expense to themselves. The Christians I know (not the ones in TV sitcoms) indeed do practice "social justice" in generous ways. Sure, we could do more, but saying that we do nothing is just inaccurate.

Regarding "homosexual marriage," who has dismissed them "out of hand," as you say? Not us. Boundless has a heart for those dealing with same-sex attraction, as does Focus on the Family. We graciously offer hope and help to leave their destructive lifestyle. Again, saying that Christians dismiss gay-identified people "out of hand" is a misrepresentation.

Yes, may we cast our votes in an informed way, not as a reflex.

[62. mary kate said the following at 9:01 PM on Jul 23:]

62

"but a life of radical giving away is quite unpopular and so you usually only hear wild-eyed people like Piper (whom I love) advocating it."

let's not forget shane claiborne and his 'irresistible revolution.' fantastic book, btw.

matthew (#54), i totally agree with you, and think you've hit the nail on the head. of course, my growing up experience was similar to the one you describe, so that's probably why.

like a lot of people have already said, i think many of my generation (i'm 29, btw) have just come to realize that there are other injustices happening all over the world, not just abortion (and homosexuality, though that's not a justice issue. but you get where i'm going, i'm sure). those of us who grew up like matt (#54) and have had our eyes opened to other problems often want to shed light on those problems.

whatever you think about the word social justice, at it's root it seems to mean people helping people live better. personally, i'm glad it's a buzzword because that means it's in the spotlight; it's cool to care. it's become a priority in many different circles (business, government, etc), and i think that's great. we're humans, so we're not going to always get it right. but i think it's a step in the right direction.

[63. Tom Neven said the following at 9:22 PM on Jul 23:]

63

Farmer Tom (#35)

Sorry, I didn't see your previous questions, so I wasn't being rude and ignoring you. (I leave on vacation shortly and I'm working like a madman to try to get ahead of my multiple deadlines.)

And not to sound rude here, but my position on certain political positions is irrelevant, especially to this post. I realize this is the Internet and discussions can head off on all sorts of tangents, but it's distressing (if not a little interesting) to see the direction this post has taken, which is not at all what I intended.

So, please pardon me while I decline to answer your questions.

[64. Tom Neven said the following at 9:27 PM on Jul 23:]

64

Victoria (#56)

I have many friends and family in the U.K., and the health system there is nothing to crow about. My brother-in-law got to the ripe old age of 48 before anyone discovered he had a congenital hole in his heart.

My mother-in-law went to the hospital with the medical condition where the lining of her aorta had torn away from the wall of the artery. (This is the same thing that killed the actor John Ritter.) In the States, she'd have been rushed into emergency surgery. There, she was put on a 3-month waiting list for heart surgery.

I could go on, but I find it significant that those who can afford private health insurance in Britain use that to see the doctors they want to see when they want to see them -- this despite still having to pay into the NHS.

[65. farmer Tom said the following at 9:46 PM on Jul 23:]

65

Tom Neven,

You have a right not to answer. But the point I was trying to make is related to the original question of this post, "What is Social Justice"?

And I think it is very clear from some of the answers that you received that "social justice" is really just a short hand term for socialism.

In the name of equality, fairness and compassion, many here who claim the name of Christ would use the power of the sword (government) to fulfill the following axiom, "From each according to ability, to each according to need."

And that philosophy is a vile and repugnant, unBiblical distortion of the Scriptural commands concerning widows, orphans, the poor etc. We have allowed the government to usurp their God-given authority and abandon their Biblical role to "punish evil doers" and replaced it with a system which takes from the haves and gives to whatever group it deems worthy.

Politics is about government and the type of government we are going to have, and those pushing "social justice" are the latest incarnation of the Marxist/Socialist tradition. And the most alarming things of all is that "christians" would embrace such a wicked idea.

[66. A.M.C. said the following at 10:16 PM on Jul 23:]

66

Re: Farmer Tom #35

Please forgive me for sounding "liberal" once again... but I do have a few questions.

1. You seem to be suggest that a progressive income tax is "an act of evil" because it can be considered a form of [government-sanctioned, rather than voluntary] wealth redistribution.

==> How would you reconcile this view with Leviticus 25, then? I'm asking this question because I'm getting the impression that the Year of the Jubilee is part of the law code to be followed (just like many other passages in Leviticus) based on the language style of the passage. By applying a bit of induction, these are the interpretations I reached:

(a) Judging from the "law code" context, one could say that the Israelites were EXPECTED (rather than simply encouraged) to redistribute property every 50 years.

(b) Since God says in verse 23 that the land is His, the ownership of property cannot be an unalienable right; rather, it is merely a privilege, because "ownership" is really "temporary stewardship" [in this context, it only lasts for up to 50 years].

* Given this "example," why, then, is government-sanctioned wealth redistribution evil? Is it evil because the modern context is different, i.e. because it is sanctioned by a secular government rather than by God Himself? [And if so, does that mean there are no Biblical ways of wealth redistribution other than in the form of charity?]


2. You said that the sole purpose of the government is to "punish evil doers," and that a government that does anything more in the name of social justice would be "taking our God given rights away."

==> May I ask you what those rights are? (Obviously, I would agree with you that the right to life would top the list. I am curious about the rest of the list, though.)

3. You said, "It is very alarming that so many who claim the name of Christ would accept the Darwinist/socialist view of the role of government."

==> I won't dispute that increasing government involvement can be seen as socialist. I do have to respectably disagree with the "Darwinist" part, however. As things now stand, if the government doesn't interfere, the rich would continue to build up advantages through inheritance. In other words, the offspring of rich parents would have an ahead start not because of their own hard work, but simply because they're blessed to have the "right" parents. In a sense, that's survival of the fittest in humans, which is Darwinian.

[Okay, I wouldn't go as far as to support a 100% inheritance tax to level the playing field for every generation. But you see the point.]

4. You also mentioned in your post that you support neither major party because you find neither of them acceptable.

==> Finally, there's something that we can agree on! :-) Based on your views, I guess you support the Constitution Party? [If so, then I guess we're going to disagree again, because my political ideology is better described as Christian Democratic-- which is popular in Europe but fairly unknown here in the U.S.]


==============================

P.S. Since I'm probably one of those (misguided?) "young people" you're talking about... here's a bit more background information so that you can understand where I'm coming from.


* Thanks to my involvement with InterVarsity over the past three years of college, I saw my views becoming more and more polarized (at least in political terms). With the adoption of a more conservative/biblical theology, I naturally shifted to the right on most social issues. Economically, though, I shifted to the left, mainly due to extensive exposure to the injustices in inner city neighborhoods (through a variety of service projects). [Hence my current views on social justice.]

==> Now, I do wholeheartedly agree with you that ideally, it is the church rather than the government that should be administering social justice. That's why I joined my local church (which has been able to do that while maintaining sound doctrine) after attending it for 2+ years. The problem is that the body of Christ isn't doing enough to address every injustice in our country. Ironically, this paradox is also caused by human sin, which had influenced church history negatively:

The problem basically boils down to church politics. Hadn't there been a false dichotomy that a church has to be either "liberal in everything" (i.e. focusing on social justice at the expense of preaching the Gospel) or either "conservative in everything" (i.e. focusing on preaching the Gospel at the expense of neglecting the needs of the poor and underprivileged), this problem would not have existed. As things now stand, those who want to administer social justice WHILE preaching the Gospel would be on their own.

[To take an example, my pastor is a victim of such false dichotomy. Back in 1982, his position of combining sound doctrine and evangelism with "living out the faith" almost prevented him from getting ordained. Then, in 1984, a nearby PCUSA church in the same city refused to provide any help for his nascent church simply because he's of the denomination that split off upon noticing the liberalization of theology in the mainline denomination.]

==> Since not every Christian who wants to both preach the Gospel and promote social justice is willing (or able) to risk the rejection from all sides, it is no surprise that efforts from the church in doing Biblical social justice is curtailed. Now you see why I would even bother to consider an inferior solution, namely allowing "liberal" policies that use the government fill in the gaps of administering social justice until the body of Christ would wake up, reconcile, realize their responsibility as Christians, and finally take over the job.

[67. BDB said the following at 10:54 PM on Jul 23:]

67

A.M.C. (

>>Given this "example," why, then, is government-sanctioned wealth redistribution evil?<<

If you look closely at Leviticus, the price paid for land was also supposed to be tied to the number of years until Jubilee. In other words, if it was 20 years until Jubilee, you paid a higher price. If it was only 5 years, you paid a lot less.

Nothing in the U.S. is priced this way. Every change in tax policy changes the "rules," and always disproportionally hurts some people and helps others.

"Redistribution" is wrong because it is the simple-minded taking from someone who has accumulated and giving it to someone who doesn't, REGARDLESS of the behavior of either individual.

And I'll use a personal example. When my grandfather worked for the school system, one of his jobs was to investigate truant students. He was specifically required to look for students of families on welfare, since education is the path out of poverty. He got really annoyed when he went to homes of the "poor" and discovered that they had nicer cars than he did. No doubt this is where he developed his propensity to buy new, rather than used, cars, later in life when he could afford it.

I had a miniature version of that myself once when delivering Christmas food baskets. Preferably, this is done very low-key. Sometimes the families invite you in to thank you. I was shocked at one house when I walked in and realized that they had thousands of dollars more invested in their TV and home electronics than I did. Something similar happened when I spent an evening working at our church's food warehouse. Our task was to load the boxes of food (enough for a family for 2 weeks) into their car. I was stunned to be loading food into a few brand-new cars.

Now, theologically, I do believe that we'll all answer to God for how we used resources; and North Americans will have a lot to explain. But if a church has trouble figuring out who is "needy" when they stand in front of them and ask for a box of food, I have even less confidence in a government bureaucracy to investigate and see if someone is being less than honest about how much they really need assistance.

And I am in regular contact with some of the people who work for these agencies. I think they are much better at determining need when someone makes an initial application for benefits. But once people get them; it is not uncommon for them to keep accepting them - not unlike when someone gets a job "under the table" and keeps accepting unemployment checks. Fraud is not necessarily the fault of the person who initially approved the benefits.

[68. khalil said the following at 6:08 AM on Jul 24:]

68

To #67...

I see this quite a bit myself in my current job. I work with inner city and at risk children and families. Many do have legitimate housing and financial issues, but there is a large number of those I work with that are as you described. Having nicer cars, furniture, electronics, $150 shoes on the kids, etc.

I imagine that much of this "wealth" comes from two sources, 1) drugs/prostitution and 2) rental stores. In the case of (1) they are not living a life of poverty or need because they are making more money than me or my coworkers in Juvenile Services, they just can't claim it as legal income. So they get Medicaid, foodstamps, and no responsibility. In the case of (2) they have the look of wealth and success, but it is only a facade as the things used to entertain them and decorate their house is rented and lasts only as long as they can keep up the payments. Often (2) is funded by (1).

It also doesn't hurt them that our tax system is set up to give away money to families like this in the form of the EIC, Earned Income Credit. Even if the family doesn't "work" or have a reportable/taxable income they can claim credits on the number of kids they have, etc. They get a tax rebate every year even if they don't pay a single cent of income tax. We have a segment of our population that is consistently getting handouts and has no motivation to change.

[69. Jo said the following at 9:30 AM on Jul 24:]

69

Tom (#64)

I'm in Britain too and I agree there are considerable problems with our own system. However perhaps you could answer a question I've asked before but never got a reply to: what happens in the US when a baby is born with an incurable disease that demands lifelong medication and healthcare costing A LOT of money? Does the insurance simply cost them a literal fortune, or are there systems in place to help people in situations like that?

[70. A.M.C. said the following at 9:37 AM on Jul 24:]

70

Re: BDB (#67), khalil (#68)

Regarding the abuse of welfare: This reminds me of a story from a family friend who lives on the West Coast. One day, when she was shopping at the local supermarket, she saw a Russian family paying for seafood and other expensive food items using food stamps. "Sure, there's no law against that," she said. "But as much as I hate to sound racist, I have little respect for immigrant families who would have 8 kids just to exploit our country's welfare system this way."

==> Anyway, I do agree that any government-sanctioned policy that attempts to administer social justice can be easily exploited. And so can the private programs, although to a lesser extent. After thinking about this issue more deeply last night, though, a revelation came to me:

Isn't the debate about government vs. private sector ultimately a conflict of worldview, i.e. choosing between "arbitrarily limiting people's options [playing God?]" and "allowing free will [even if it could allow more evil to occur]"? If that's the case, why not apply the model of "school vouchers" to social justice programs, i.e. let the government subsidize what the private sector is doing? That way, you get both the government's financial power and the private sector's efficiency.

==> Yes, I know that government subsidies tend to come with strings attached, e.g. "no evangelism." Well, let's invoke the First Amendment and get a few more conservative judges appointed to remove those restrictions entirely! [Personally, I would have no qualms about passing a new amendment that allows any religious non-profit group, even those of other religions, to proselytize, if only for the sake of fairness. After all, that would be one way of allowing Christian service organizations to do as much as they want to.]

------------------------------

Regarding the Year of Jubilee: that's why I would prefer applying this biblical model to the modern world as a means of wealth redistribution (as impractical as it may be). Surely that beats the progressive income tax system, or even applying a 100% inheritance tax and gift tax to (which, although arguably "fair," is authoritarian because that essentially forces people to donate everything to charity to prevent Uncle Sam from inhering their wealth).

[71. Steven Reeber said the following at 9:52 AM on Jul 24:]

71

We seem to have established that:

1. The majority of the issues under the "social justice" umbrella (poverty, ending genocide, etc.) are valid concerns. That is, they are legitimate things for Christians to oppose and work to end.

2. There are a number of issues that are also valid concerns that often are not included in the political use of the term "social justice" - abortion, homosexuality, etc.

All of these appear to be valid issues. Remember that we are all different and called to different work. Just because someone's priorities differ from your own does not make them any less a Christian. Feel free to discuss your priorities with them, but remember that these are all legitimate areas of concern. Condemning someone for focusing on genocide instead of abortion is like attacking them for being a missionary to New Guinea instead of China. Maybe one has more people than the other, but both need the Gospel. Let us focus on compromise, rather than over who is fighting the greater evil.

It is arguable whether or not the government ought to take an active role in these areas. Whether they should depend on individual citizens is really more of a question of political philosophy than any biblical principle. This discussion would be a lot more fruitful if we could speak openly with each other about our differences and priorities. Can we stay away from questioning our opponents' orthodoxy? It does not seem to have produced any valuable results so far.

[72. obewan said the following at 10:05 AM on Jul 24:]

72

Farmer Tom #35:

“---Until these young people here understand the Biblical role of government they will accept the idea of "social justice" as one of things government can and should do. Unless you admit that taking taxes from "each according to ability, and giving to each according to need" (look that one up), is an act of evil, people will continue to assert their right to use the power of government to satisfy "social justice".---“

Farmer Tom #58:
“---By what Biblical principle is government authorized to take money from the taxpayers to fund these things?---“

Farmer Tom #65:
“---And that philosophy is a vile and repugnant, unbiblical distortion of the Scriptural commands concerning widows, orphans, the poor etc.---“

Actually, the Biblical answer I come up with is the Tithe. According to the Old Testament law, it was a form of tax. Farmer Tom will love this part – only landowners and herders were required to tithe. The poor and city dwellers did not pay tithes – which were food only and not money.

Here is the social justice part. A full 1/3 of the tithe went to feed the poor, disabled, and orphans. The church for sure does not do this today, but I suppose some Christian charities fit the bill.

I suppose if Farmer Tom wanted to be Biblical, he could reduce his church tithe by the amount of his government taxes that go to feed the poor. I will take a lot of heat for this I am sure, but it is certainly food for thought.

Here is the whole thesis on the subject written by a PhD in seminary. It is a fascinating read, and many churches do not teach the Biblical position correctly in my opinion.
http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/

[73. Chris said the following at 10:17 AM on Jul 24:]

73

mindlab writes:

If you disagree, then I would be delighted to hear you justify wealth redistribution while condemning a mugger who make a living stealing purses and wallets at knife point.

What did I write to imply that I agree or disagree with anything? I was just pointing out what I see as the disconnect on the part of conservatives when it comes to concepts of social justice as defined by the Catholic Church (hardly a liberal organization).

If you do want to debate the difference, then I refer you to Jethro's post. You can also consider the fact that government takes money from people for the greater good (such as social security, for example) while the criminal steals for person gain.

This is not to say that all things that fall under the umbrella of social justice are right and beneficial to society. But the discussion and debate is slightly more nuanced than your "government = criminal when money is involved" argument.

[74. obewan said the following at 10:27 AM on Jul 24:]

74

BDB #46 said:

“---The union promises them a lower wage than the "living" wage in the law, so the companies pay less.---“

Actually, most studies I have read suggest that living wage laws raise all wages as companies compete for labor rather than take advantage of labor. As the saying goes, if the ocean rises, all boats float higher.

If MacDonald’s pays $8.50 an hour, the factory is going to pay $9.00 or $10.00 an hour. And believe me I have worked for only $8 an hour in Republican stronghold town factories when I was laid off. One was a semi skilled job that involved mold set-up, automation programming, and inspection, as well as inventory control and paperwork. I did it at a loss to my monthly budget because it was the only job I could find at the time.

Your comment opposing living wage laws ignores the fact that the minimum wage was not raised in America for 10 or 20 years. I think this week it goes up, but is still less than $7. If the wage of the 1970’s and 1980’s were adjusted for inflation, it would be worth well over $9 an hour today.

Yes, young people need jobs. However, they also need an education, which is an expense that is rising at a rate faster then general inflation. To be fair, should not their minimum pay rise at a rate that is tied to inflation so they can pay for a much-needed education?

If the conservatives really cared about social justice, this is an issue they might consider giving some bi-partisan support to. Perhaps if they passed a law that would tie the minum wage to inflation they would win some votes from the other side and have less worries about losing votes to ‘liberals’ and unions.

I would not be opposed to paying my fast food vendor $1.25 for my $.99 double cheeseburger so that a deserving high school student could save money for college BTW. I don’t think that kind of inflation is going to hurt a well to do engineer like myself.

[75. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:43 AM on Jul 24:]

75

Khalil says:

It also doesn't hurt them that our tax system is set up to give away money to families like this in the form of the EIC, Earned Income Credit. Even if the family doesn't "work" or have a reportable/taxable income they can claim credits on the number of kids they have, etc. They get a tax rebate every year even if they don't pay a single cent of income tax. We have a segment of our population that is consistently getting handouts and has no motivation to change.

And sadly, that won't change because it is a political hot potato. Any attempt to reform it will get shot down as an attack on poor people.

[76. mindlab said the following at 10:44 AM on Jul 24:]

76

55. Jethro

"How about this: tax is part of the social contract. If you agree to live in this society you agree to pay tax. If you don't want to pay tax, go and find a country that won't tax you."

Now we have arrived at another code word. "Social Contract" is a code word for what's more appropriately called the 'divine right of the majority.' This concept, descended from the 'divine right of kings,' says that anything the majority decides to do is ethical simply because the majority supports it. This is just as wrong as declaring that anything the king wants to do is ethical, since he's the king.

The forceful taking of property is ethically wrong, whether it is taken at the whim of a mugger, a neighbor, 3 neighbors, all my neighbors, all the senators, or all the voters. Who approves of armed robbery is irrelevant, it's still armed robbery.

Scripture clearly commands a non-resistive response to the specific sin of taxation (as opposed to armed robbery); that doesn't make it right.

[77. Tom Neven said the following at 11:28 AM on Jul 24:]

77

Jo (#69)

It's a good question. I happen to know a family with two children in this situation.

They receive Social Security disability payments and are eligible for Medicaid, which this family takes advantage of. And they don't have to impoverish themselves to do so, by the way.

But here's an important point: you have to be pro-active and diligent to get full service from the system. You cannot just sit back and expect everything to be dropped in your lap.

The boy in Maryland died needlessly, but as someone else pointed out, the family did not practice basic dental hygiene, which costs nothing but a toothbrush (you technically don't even need toothpaste) and dental floss.

And few dentists are part of the Medicaid system because it's so cumbersome to be paid and there's too much red tape.

[78. farmer Tom said the following at 12:57 PM on Jul 24:]

78

72. obewan

Nice try, except for the small fact that you are confusing the government of Israel and the USA. They are two completely different forms of government. One was a theocracy, their government and the religious system were one and the same. Therefore a tax paid to the government was also supporting the religious system.

We live in a Constitutional Representative Republic. The church and the government are two entirely different structures and never the twain shall meet.

A refresher. I believe in the reformers idea of a three fold social structure. First God ordained the family unit. It is the smallest system of government with a specific hierarchy, husband wife children etc. Then comes the church. It deals with the spiritual needs and concerns of the community as a whole and with the individual as well. It contains a specific hierarchy, and can not take the place of family. Finally we have the government itself, it should be the least powerful of the three, has limited roles in what duties it can perform, and is not to take the place of either the family or the church.

You sir are confusing taxing, a legitimate role of government,(although they are way outside the bounds of their legitimate role) and tithing, an act of obedience confined to the church, limited to the local church and done out of free will, not at the point of a gun.

Do not attempt to give what belongs to the church to the government

Remember what Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". Giving Caesar what rightfully belongs in the church is an act of disobedience to the Lord. You are attempting to use the force of government to do the work of the church. That is wrong. What you need to do is change the hearts of the church goers, so that they will do the work required of them, and preach the benefits of the Christian life,( the new man) to those who are outside. Christianity is more than just a list of don't, it is a better life for those who are free from the bondage of sin and are living lives set apart in service of the Savior. Trying to force them to change will never work. Winning them to Christ will change them.

[79. BDB said the following at 1:42 PM on Jul 24:]

79

Jo (#69) wrote:

>>what happens in the US when a baby is born with an incurable disease that demands lifelong medication and healthcare costing A LOT of money? Does the insurance simply cost them a literal fortune, or are there systems in place to help people in situations like that?<<

Depends on the disease and the family situation at the time of diagnosis.

For something like treatable cancer, a lot of people will stay in a job they hate that has good health care benefits, to ensure that there is no "break in coverage." There are laws on the books that provide some protection to people who change jobs and go to a new insurance company - if they paid insurance before, the new insurance company must continue to cover the condition.

What is very common is that insurance covers part of the treatment, but not everything that is required. For example, a friend of mine's son was diagnosed at birth with a muscle disorder called Mytubular Myopathy. Typically, his insurance wouldn't cover home-health nursing, which is required for such a child to be at home. However, there are specific needs for regular nurse visits; the alternative is being hospitalized. So, through a negotiation process, and much prayer, the insurance is covering it; they recognize that it costs a lot less for his parents to care for him with nursing help than for him to be in the hospital all the time.

If the parents were less educated, they would have much more difficulty negotiating with the insurance company, and they would have much more difficulty learning how to do things like keep is trach tube clean. It is constant work to negotiate with the insurance company about what is and is not covered.

What is not covered will likely drain a family's financial resources. There are some tax deductions available, such as when medical expenses exceed 7.5% of income. Many families take out a home equity line of credit to pay for medical things. Again, the interest on such loans is tax-deductible. But for some the load is too much. About half of all bankruptcies in the U.S. are due to medical bills. Typically, the family leaves bankruptcy and keeps their car, their house, and $25,000 worth of other stuff, and all their debts, including debts to the hospital and medical providers, are wiped out. Many hospitals are non-profit and don't pay taxes; their losses from these unpaid debts are considered towards their "public benefit." In a way, the U.S. tax breaks for non-profit providers do the same thing as a "universal coverage" policy where the government underpays the hospital for treatment.

The underpayment in government programs like medicare and medicaid means that some providers don't break even - they can't cover their costs. That is why they stop accepting patients whose medical bills are paid by those programs.

But the same thing happens with cancer patients. In the U.S., someone with metastic breast cancer, like a good friend of mine, will survive for years with access to the right medications and treatments. The disease can be held in check for a surprising amount of time now, almost like diabetes, which can be considered chronic or terminal, depending on how well the patient manages the condition.

But in Canada or Europe, a diagnosis of metastic breast cancer is considered terminal, and such people are sent to hospice to die. My friend was given a six-month prognosis - six years ago. But she's worked in hospital administration, she's very good at negotiating with insurance companies. On her good days.

And frankly, there's lots of Canadian cancer patients who commute to the U.S. so that they can get treatment in time to do some good. If the waited for the government system, they'd die. Only the wealthier people can afford to do this. I suspect that if wealthy Canadians didn't have such easy access to high-quality care in the U.S., there would be more political pressure to change that system.

So, when I see suggestions that the U.S. move to a universal health care system like Canada, what I hear people saying is that we should kill off my friend so that some other person can live. It's not a change I'm willing to support.

I could write a lot more, but no one would read it...

[80. BDB said the following at 2:11 PM on Jul 24:]

80

Obewan (#74) wrote:

>>If MacDonald’s pays $8.50 an hour, the factory is going to pay $9.00 or $10.00 an hour.<<

Or they leave.

For example, the crackdown on illegal immigration has made it much more difficult for field workers to come to the U.S., work the harvest, and go home. It used to be pretty easy to go back and forth.

With U.S. unemployment so low, Americans are not signing up to work in the fields. Ask an unemployed American if they even went and inquired at a farm about working during harvest. I actually did do this as a kid - picked berries with a bunch of immigrants. They worked hard.

Without workers, the food rots in the fields. The solution? Grow the stuff in Mexico. The climate in Baja California is identical to Southern California. Put in some irrigation, you're all set. And frankly, there's less pesticide contamination because pesticides are so expensive. The labor is available in Mexico, and NAFTA makes it easy to import back to the U.S. The farming in these places is done under contract to U.S. firms who inspect for certain quality standards. It's only a half-day drive from San Diego; it's not hard to inspect. You can get there and back on one tank of gas.

McDonalds does not need to open more restaurants in Santa Monica. It can avoid the living wage law by simply opening them on the outside of the city.

This study examines the decline of opportunities for less-educated males in 97 urban populations. While pro living-wage, the study notes that the decline of manufacturing (an industry that typically employs less-educated individuals) corresponds to an increase in unemployment.

Hey, I even forgot about how overtime pay affects families. I guess one effect of living-wage laws is to cut overtime. The family takes home the same amount of money, the company pays the same amount, but a few less hours are worked. Interesting.

Here's an article written before the law went into effect, the predictions were pretty accurate.

But you really need to think through which industries are affected. Who are the non-unionized companies paying such low wages? Fast food companies can simply close unprofitable restaurants, as Starbucks is doing. When labor costs get much higher than automation costs, companies close plants, as Detroit is experiencing. True, competitors like Honda employ Americans who are happy to work there. But their better-engineered plants require a lot fewer workers per car.

It's like squeezing a balloon - you squeeze it in one place, and it pops out again in another.

[81. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:21 PM on Jul 24:]

81

Obewan:

As Thomas Sowell has often said, the real minimum wage is always zero.

[82. Chris said the following at 7:29 PM on Jul 24:]

82

Ted Slater writes:

If he and/or his family took personal responsibility for his hygiene, he'd still be alive.

Yep. Those 12 year olds are always acting immature and not taking personal responsibility for their actions. If they'd only act like grown ups or select better parents, things like this wouldn't happen.

I'll wager that Ted's kids are like mine. They eagerly brush and floss at every opportunity without any encouragement from me. Even if I were an irresponsible parent and didn't make them brush their teeth and take them to the dentist regularly, my young kids would realize that they have to look out for themselves and behave accordingly.

It's a sad, sad world when pre-adolescent kids don't take care of themselves...........

[83. Matthew said the following at 7:33 PM on Jul 24:]

83

this is kind of late in the game, but Marvin Olasky had a column in the latest WORLD magazine regarding the issue of social justice and conservatives. Y'all should check it out.

Tom Neven, I think if conservatives were more consistent with a message like this there would be far fewer people getting lost in the mire of Marxist ideas about poverty.

[84. Ted Slater said the following at 7:34 PM on Jul 24:]

84

Chris -- not to be rude, but what part of "and/or his family" do you not understand?

Yes, my daughters do love to brush their teeth, often without encouragement from either Ashleigh or me.

[85. Katie P. said the following at 9:49 PM on Jul 24:]

85

Farmer Tom,

You asked the biblical justification for taxation. I am not trying to get into an argument with you, but I am genuinely curious: what do you and others with your political leanings do with passages such as Matthew 22:17-21,

17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

You cited this passage briefly in post 78, but it seems to me that it supports the opposite view of the one you are arguing. Even you admit that the government has some role in society, however small. How is a government supposed to function without the necessary means?

[86. M. Sand said the following at 8:45 AM on Jul 25:]

86

Farmer Tom

"Only a simpleton would suggest that "politics" is simple.

Ok, let's consider the health care system, education and ?economic development?

Are you suggesting that government has a role in any of these things? So you would take tax payers money to fund these things?

By what Biblical principle is government authorized to take money from the taxpayers to fund these things?"

After reviewing many of your responses to others, it appears to me that some of the basic biblical prinicipals that encompass oh, say, love, have completely escaped you, which is sad at most; especially of you are a more "seasoned saint". That speaks volumes brother. I should hope that because you are on a Christian website that you would respond to everyone as a brother or sister in Christ...if this is what you profess.

Now to address your comment concerning being a simpleton. I believe you took that out of context as well as the rest of the statement you quoted so I will help you. "Politics" isn't simple however....YOUR CHRISTIAN RESPONSE TO THIS WORLD and the social ills that dominate the world should be. God is fairly clear that in as much as you do to the "least of these" you have done unto Him (very much biblical). Despite your obvious issues with the government (didn't the Word say it would rest on Christ's shoulders...biblical) I do believe that you as an individual, and highly opinionated one at that, have a social responsibility to others who are not as fortunate as you are. When I address education/healthcare and the like, of course the government has a resonsibility to work in these areas as our tax dollars are provided for these purposes...a historical and present day fact regardless of our views on this. However, my focus is on people, who appear to have strong opinions about what we shouldn't do, but refuse to make a difference "on the other side of the tracks." I notice you failed to mention this. Like A.M.C. I believe, as I said, God is waiting for the Church to be the Body of Christ/light/salt/etc in this world. He is not going to look at the "government" He is looking at and counting on US! Your simpleton statement aside; I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that particular idea; what is your responsibility? Do you have a responsibility?

[87. obewan said the following at 10:56 AM on Jul 25:]

87

BDB #80 Wrote:

“--Fast food companies can simply close unprofitable restaurants, as Starbucks is doing...When labor costs get much higher than automation costs, companies close plants, as Detroit is experiencing.--“

I think the fact that gas is $4 a gallon has more to do with it than anything else. I mean, when people get squeezed, $5 coffee and the SUV are the first things to go. Honda is doing well because they sell the right products for our current oil shortage.

As for the automation issue, when I worked for an automotive robotics company, the robots worked for $1.79 an hour. Less than a Mexican. The downside was that once the robots were installed and programmed, there was no more work. I was laid off 3 times in 5 years. One person there was laid off every year for 20 years. If there are no NEW car designs coming off the drawing boards, then the people in the robotics industry are REALLY hurting. The Europeans do things a bit differently. Some of them will run the same body style for 10 or 20 years, so I don’t know how their automation people make out except that it is a world wide industry – we supported auto work in Germany from the US.

Amir #81 Wrote:
“--As Thomas Sowell has often said, the real minimum wage is always zero…--“

And many very bad people in third world countries have used that very same logic to justify child prostitution or labor abuse in sweat shop clothing factories.

[88. Ian said the following at 1:05 PM on Jul 25:]

88

#82, Chris:

Thank you. Far too many people assume that the "have nots" have less because of laziness or some other vice. I submit that these same people are probably quite priveleged, inheritors of substantial "moral luck." How many people responding to this thread are NOT white, are NOT middle class or relatively wealthy?

Some people simply do not have a chance--or they have very few chances with limited resources. I don't see how some of the more libertarian responses here could be motived by anything other than ignorance or even avarice. We tried laissez-faire capitalism 150 years ago, kids. What did it get us? Children working in coal mines.

I'm pretty disgusted and I'm not even particularly "liberal." I really don't know what to make of some of the above posted responses, or other Christians in general, sometimes.

[89. pass the ammunition said the following at 4:57 PM on Jul 25:]

89

Thank you Ian and Chris, disgusted is exactly the right word. Its hard to believe these comments come from Christians--in fact, I don't.

The general meme I get from posts like this on Boundless? Poor = morally inferior and undeserving. Whoever made the the first comment about the toothbrush really needs to examine themselves. I've always had differences of opinion with the blog and things that get me riled up and angry, but after reading these comments, I'm just sad.

What was it Ghandi said again? Oh yeah: "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians."

[90. Ted Slater said the following at 5:13 PM on Jul 25:]

90

Ian -- the most loving thing anyone could have done for the boy who died of a tooth infection would have been to show him how to brush his teeth, provide him with a toothbrush, and regularly encourage him to brush his teeth. If his parents won't step up to the plate, perhaps someone else should have.

Why is it insensitive to offer such practical counsel? Why it is hateful to encourage healthy hygiene? Healthy hygiene, including brushing one's teeth, is something those of any socio-economic status can practice. Whether I'm "white" or "middle class" is entirely irrelevant.

Why bring up race or class, Ian?

"pass the ammunition" -- I disagree with you that "poor = morally inferior." I've never published anything that communicates such an unbiblical sentiment, and never will.

[91. Craig M. said the following at 5:42 PM on Jul 25:]

91

I'd say that the Church--the Christian community, acting in charity--should have stepped up to help the poor boy and his family with dental care if they couldn't afford it. But expecting the government to expertly assess and care for 300 million people is a recipe for disaster, and can't be done without grievously undermining self-reliance and liberty.

[92. pass the ammunition said the following at 8:05 PM on Jul 25:]

92

There's nothing wrong with pointing out that a toothbrush would have gone a long way. The point was that a better welfare/Medicaid program would have saved the boy's life in the presence of parental ignorance. You (and I'm not just talking to you) can disagree on that, but the general sentiment seems to be that by being ignorant and poor they are undeserving of not only government support but any sympathy. They certainly didn't get any sympathy from the commenters. I think that sometimes people get so married to their ideologies that their heart becomes hardened. Like people who go to Mexico on a missions trip to help but then comes back and continues to look down on the illegal immigrants in their own backyard.

And being white and middle class (not specifically you, just in general) has everything to do with it. People's opinions are based on where they come from in life, and your race, gender, and social/economic class has EVERYTHING to do with that.

example 1: Many Black conservative preachers are very pro-life and anti-gay marriage, but they see many more things in their community that are worth their time and energy.

example 2: In the country where I am from, Pentecostal holy roller genre Christianity does better than more rigid "genres" because it meshes more easily with the traditional, superstitious religions the people have had for thousands of years.

Anyways, my point is that Black people of all stripes, economic classes, and political parties recognize that being Black has a lot to do with how your opinions are formed and the way you see the world. I wish more White people would recognize that being White works exactly the same way. There's NOTHING wrong with that. Whats wrong is not acknowledging it.

[93. agnostic said the following at 8:52 PM on Jul 25:]

93

I'm not a christian, but found this conversation interesting and, in some cases (25. A.M.C.) encouraging.

[94. BDB said the following at 10:05 PM on Jul 25:]

94

pass the ammunition (#92) wrote:

>>I wish more White people would recognize that being White works exactly the same way. There's NOTHING wrong with that. Whats wrong is not acknowledging it. <<

My goodness...people's ideas are shaped by much more than just race and class. To a large extent they are shaped by the media they consume.

For example, if one white middle class family only watches Reality TV, they will end up with one worldview. (I know people who only watch that.) If another only watches FoxNews and listens to conservative talk radio, they will end up with a very different view of the world. Another who only listens to NPR and watches network news will come away with another view. These views will conflict.

To a large extent, we are all prisoners of our own time. Try reading some 100-year-old books sometime. You will start to realize just how many assumptions come from your time. An American of any race who travels to a non-Western country will discover quickly just how much of their worldview comes from being a Westerner.

[95. Ted Slater said the following at 10:49 PM on Jul 25:]

95

I will publish no more comments that imply that ethnicity (African American, in this case) and socio-economic class (poor) are in any way necessarily related. We will no longer promote such a demeaning stereotype.

Ethnicity is irrelevant here, folks.

And no more comments implying that white pastors are hung up on preaching against gay marriage and abortion, while black pastors have better things to talk about. Again, we will not tolerate racism of any kind here.

We'll have a good, healthy talk about ethnicity and "race" soon enough. I've solicited a series of articles on the subject. That'll be the place to wrestle with heritage and skin color.

[96. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:42 AM on Jul 26:]

96

I said:

As Thomas Sowell has often said, the real minimum wage is always zero…

Obewan replied:

And many very bad people in third world countries have used that very same logic to justify child prostitution or labor abuse in sweat shop clothing factories.

That's a red herring.

Are you saying that Jewish families of the early 1900s--whose children worked long hours before and after school, and in some cases in lieu of school--were practicing child prostitution or child slavery? Those mothers and grandmothers who made clothes--working extraordinary hours--and sold them for menial sums of money, and eventually were able to build what would become the Manhattan clothing district? Slavery? Come on...

With today's minimum wage laws, their dreams would have been shot down before they could get off the boat.

Their kids barely made any money, even though the families managed to survive without government asssistance, and some of them eventually built businesses that became great producers of wealth.

Think of all the Jewish-owned businesses that made American prosperity possible. Most of those businesses started with a family--many of them immigrants, and often included children--working very long hours just to scrape by, accumulating small profits that became large over time.

They made and sold clothing, they bought and resold produce...they were merchants who started small and built empires. That was free enterprise in action.

The alternative to a government-defined minimum wage is hardly child prostitution or slave labor.

Fact is, a higher minimum wage will only raise the marginal cost of doing business, which will hurt small business owners. Such laws will choke off opportunities for workers to improve their skills via apprenticeships. The biggest winners are the government regulators and the union bosses.

For my first three years out of college, I worked at a GM facility as a systems engineer at EDS, supporting plant floor operations. If you worked in an hourly position and wanted to make real money, you needed to get into a skilled trade (electrician, machinist, pipefitter, millwright...). To get into a skilled trade, you needed to get an apprenticeship. To get an apprenticeship, you had to have union connections. That meant (a) supporting the political work of the unions and (b) garnering brownie points with the right people.

Contrast that with a market that is free, without minimum wage laws or unions controlling access to apprenticeships. You could take your own risk, get an apprenticeship for a pittance salary, and--once your skills were good enough--you could hire into a plant or strike out on your own.

Those opportunities have comparatively dried up due to minimum wage laws and unions.

[97. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:50 AM on Jul 26:]

97

Katie:

Farmer Tom is not attacking taxation, but rather our system of taxation. There is no Biblical precedent wherein God mandated government wealth redistribution programs. Moreover, income taxes--beyond the tithe--are unheard of in the Biblical model.

To mention Jubilee is a red herring because Jubilee did not exist in a vacuum.

(In the Biblical model, for example, all domestic loans were interest-free whereas lenders could charge interest on loans made to foreigners. This actually encouraged national wealth-building by discouraging trade deficits. In such a scenario, we would be importing the wealth of other nations rather than exporting ours to theirs.)

[98. Jo said the following at 2:35 PM on Jul 26:]

98

Tom and BDB, thanks for your answers to my question. That clears a few things up in my head. :)

[99. farmer Tom said the following at 4:52 PM on Jul 27:]

99

Moreover, income taxes--beyond the tithe--are unheard of in the Biblical model.

Now let it be known that I disagree with a Bible student of Amir's caliber with genuine fear and trembling, but,...I believe that Genesis shows Joseph instituting an income tax on the people of Egypt prior to the famine which was coming. Several things to note here, first of all, this was not God's chosen people, rather the people of Egypt. God later instituted a different system for His chosen people. Second, It seems to appear from history that the income tax which was supposed to end when the famine came, was instead kept in place, so that the pharaohs had the people under a great tax burden after that time.(20 percent) I wish that was the limit today. Thirdly, some of these same scholars suggest that this high income tax may have been one of the things which caused the children of Israel to fall into slavery in Egypt, since as people with no real land holdings in Egypt the high taxes my have disproportionately affected the Jewish people.

I have never argued here that Christians should not pay taxes, rather that as citizens of a nation founded on Biblical principles that we should not have a tax system which is at direct odds with the examples of the systems God used for His chosen people.

Some of you here lack some basic knowledge about Biblical principles. First the principle of the first fruits. That everything I have belongs to or is a gift from God. Therefore God is entitled to the first fruits of my labor. Yet in our current system. The Federal Government takes the first cut out of your paycheck, before you ever touch it. In effect they are saying, what you have belongs to us. We will let you keep what we don't take.
Second, the income tax assumes that it is the governments business to know how much I make and what I do with that money. In reality, the government has no more business knowing how much money I make than they do knowing how often my wife and I have marital relations. The government should not have access to my personal financial dealing, period. It is none of their business. Thirdly an income tax is by it's very definition something which can change on the whim of a politician. Want to fund a war, raise the tax, want to go to the moon, raise a tax, think that the sheepherders of outer Mongolia are oppressed raise a tax to cover their needs. Never mind that I may not as a citizen of this nation believe that those are wise uses of our money. With the income tax in place the political class simply has to change the rates, without the input of the people who are supposed to be their bosses, you and me. Remember, government of the people, by the people and for the people. The income tax allows politicians to work around the will of the people.

Some political debate/comments along these lines,.....

"Tyrannical taxation, and excessive government spending and borrowing, are not only threats to our economy--they erode the resource base of our freedom and our moral responsibility.

The income tax is a 20th-century socialist experiment that has failed. Before the income tax was imposed on us just 85 years ago, government had no claim to our income. Only sales, excise, and tariff taxes were allowed. We need to return to the Constitution of economic liberty that our Founders intended to be a permanent bulwark of our political liberty.

The income tax in effect makes us vassals of the government--the politicians decide how much income we can keep. No mere "reform" of this slave tax, such as flattening the rate, can correct its fundamental denial of control over our own money.

Only the abolition of the income tax will restore the basic American principle that our income is both our own money and our own private business--not the government's.""Issues" Oct 1, 2007

"Under the current tax system, before you have put bread in the mouths of your children, before you put a roof over the head of those children, before you put a stitch of clothes on their backs today, you pay the government. We’re worse off than serfs. Serfs used to pay their masters after they were fed and clothed. We have to pay our master before we’re fed and clothed. I think, I think it’s a travesty. And I think it’s time we ended it."
Source: Phoenix Arizona GOP Debate Dec 7, 1999

"The income tax is a form of taxation that was advocated by Marx & Lenin because it cedes, in principle, to the government control of every dollar that is earned in the economy. Question: If I give you a percentage of my income and you get to determine the percentage, how much of my money do you control? Answer: All of it! This country was not founded with an income tax. The Founders [didn’t want] government dipping into our pocket to spend our money before we get a chance to say anything about it."
Source: Republican Debate at Dartmouth College Oct 29, 1999

Some of you continue to miss the point I'm trying to make. We are "to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's". Yes we are to pay our taxes, but under the system of government that this nation was founded upon, the role of the government was to be very limited, and since there is no Biblical mandate for government to be involved in social welfare, they are not entitled to that money. It is the job of the Church of Jesus Christ to care for the fatherless, the widows and orphans, the poor and the needy. Do not give Caesar a job which belongs to God's people(the church).

Later,

[100. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:09 AM on Jul 28:]

100

Farmer Tom says:

Now let it be known that I disagree with a Bible student of Amir's caliber with genuine fear and trembling, but,...I believe that Genesis shows Joseph instituting an income tax on the people of Egypt prior to the famine which was coming. Several things to note here, first of all, this was not God's chosen people, rather the people of Egypt. God later instituted a different system for His chosen people. Second, It seems to appear from history that the income tax which was supposed to end when the famine came, was instead kept in place, so that the pharaohs had the people under a great tax burden after that time.(20 percent) I wish that was the limit today. Thirdly, some of these same scholars suggest that this high income tax may have been one of the things which caused the children of Israel to fall into slavery in Egypt, since as people with no real land holdings in Egypt the high taxes my have disproportionately affected the Jewish people.

Good points. I was referring to God's Law to the Israelites: there is no income tax to be found (outside the tithe, of course). As for Egypt, God did not mandate that income tax; that was Joseph's idea. That the Egyptians would allow it to get out of control--subjecting their own people to bondage--is testament to the premises that (a) bureaucracies never die and (b) beware of any government that tells you a tax is "temporary".

Moreover, that 20% income tax was a flat tax--no extra tax on the wealthy--and there were no state income taxes, city income taxes, estate taxes on dead people, or extra sales taxes involved.

Your third point is a classic: the income tax, as implemented (and never rescinded) resulted in a large-scale transfer of wealth that may very well have contributed to the class-warfare that led to the slavery of the Israelites.

Ergo, this ought to give pause to anyone who believes in either the moral superiority of the income tax or the big-government infrastructure that it breeds.