While I’m just as "avid" a fan of Glenn Beck as my co-group-blogger Rusty (i.e. only really catch him on the occasional web snippet), I have read the transcript of his "social justice" rant, and I really don’t think Beck said what his detractors say he said.
Beck was talking about churches/denominations for whom one of their driving forces is implementing aid to the poor and oppressed via government force, and seem to think that almost every time Jesus opened His mouth He was speaking economics. (I’ve seen the parable of the sower turned into one where the birds taking away the seed were priests taking temple tithes and tribute, and the thorns choking out the seed were the Roman tax collectors stealing from these humble farmers. Jesus said plainly what He meant, but some can still wrangle an economic message out of it they find more palatable.) The term "social justice" seems to figure prominently in these forms of theology, and Beck was just saying that you should avoid them completely if you see that they do.
What his critics are doing are quoting Bible verses that show we should help the poor. Thing is, I don’t think Beck would disagree, and it doesn’t appear at all that he was saying he disagreed. What he was saying is that churches where the phrases "social justice" and "economic justice" figure prominently are the ones trying to "spread the wealth around" via legislation and are going to bankrupt us in doing so; a political message. Of the reports so far, only Hannah Siegel, reporting for ABC news, even mentioned this:
Stu Burguiere, executive producer at "The Glenn Beck Radio Program," sought to clarify Beck’s comments today.
"Like most Americans, Glenn strongly supports and believes in ‘social justice’ when it is defined as ‘good Christian charity,’" he said. "Glenn strongly opposes when Rev. Wright and other leaders use ‘social justice’ as a euphemism for their real intention — redistribution of wealth."
So Beck is in favor of the concept of social justice (without the quotes) but against those who use that term to couch ends that he finds immoral.
But the reactions from critics seem to miss this completely. When Wallis insinuates that Beck is lined up against Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu and Mother Teresa, or National Council of Churches President Rev. Canon Peg Chemberlin says, "Justice is a concept throughout the scriptures", they’re both completely misrepresenting what Beck actually said.
Beck does need to clarify, on-air, that he is in favor of the concept of social justice, though, if you fairly read his words, he never once insinuated that he wasn’t in favor of giving to the poor; this clarification would be for those who didn’t realize that the first time. I understand that he did just that recently, though I haven’t heard or read what he said yet.
Albert Mohler has the most balanced analysis of this issue. Read the whole thing. However, I want to quote one bit from it, showing how many Beck critics really missed the point. Mohler notes that Beck’s aims are political. However…
My concern is very different. As an evangelical Christian, my concern is the primacy of the Gospel of Christ — the Gospel that reveals the power of God in the salvation of sinners through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The church’s main message must be that Gospel. The New Testament is stunningly silent on any plan for governmental or social action. The apostles launched no social reform movement. Instead, they preached the Gospel of Christ and planted Gospel churches. Our task is to follow Christ’s command and the example of the apostles.
There is more to that story, however. The church is not to adopt a social reform platform as its message, but the faithful church, wherever it is found, is itself a social reform movement precisely because it is populated by redeemed sinners who are called to faithfulness in following Christ. The Gospel is not a message of social salvation, but it does have social implications.
I grew up in the Salvation Army; a social services arm of the Christian church if ever there was one. But one that stays true to this concept of creating social change by implementing the Gospel, not a government program.
Doug Payton blogs at Considerettes.
Loading ...
35 users commented in " "Social Justice" vs Social Justice "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a Trackback[...] » "Social Justice" vs Social Justice – Blogger News Network Tags: Hollywood, judge, Justice, Taurus [...]
This is a typical defense in this sort of situation. The person says something extreme, then when there’s a reaction, they and their defenders say it was a misunderstanding and they really meant something moderate.
You are now essentially saying that Glenn Beck is telling his viewers to abandon their churches if the churches are LIBERAL. If that was what he said, no one would have noticed. Of course Beck would say that, who cares?
But he didn’t say that. He said something much more extreme. He went beyond saying that the church shouldn’t advocate liberal solutions to social justice. He said that churches shouldn’t care about social justice AT ALL.
[...] » "Social Justice" vs Social Justice – Blogger News Network [...]
Carlos got it right. It’s the same old Neocon/ Religious Right shell game. But it should be noted that Glenn Beck and other conservatives if taken at their word would tell the same thing to Christians in the 19th century that if their church was advocating the government prohibit slavery and use all its resources to enforce this prohibition against slavery -Beck would say leave those “Dens of Inequity”. There are numerous examples of the Church forcing governments to deal justly and fairly with all citizens not just those who are as well off as Glenn Beck. So passing laws to protect citizens from discrimination in the work place or purchasing houses or renting apt. he and other conservatives believe this is not the business of a “Good Gov’t”. Beck himself ends up riding a slippery slope to Libertarian Anarchism. GORD.
He talked about the words, specifically, not the concept. And yes, Beck’s is a political show, and so his comments, all of them, should be taken in that light, unless he specifically notes that he’s preaching or something.
What Beck would have been saying, in the crowd, while Jesus Christ was on the cross:
“Take that, you peace loving, sandal wearing, long haired, scummy lazy hippy! You’re getting what you deserve, with all of your preaching about justice and kindness and compassion. You make me sick!”
Jim, what specifically in Beck’s words say to you that he’s against any help for the poor “AT ALL”? What I believe happened here is not Beck having to backpedal from supposedly extreme views, but willful misinterpretation on the part of his critics. So would you explain to me how his words can be interpreted in a way that says to avoid any church that helps the poor?
“I believe happened here is not Beck having to backpedal from supposedly extreme views, but willful misinterpretation on the part of his critics.”
Oh, poor Glenn! Finds himself caught up in the same kind of extreme deliberate misinterpretation he practices… It’s not supposed to happen to me, just to other people – yes?
Um, no.
Glenn says A, critics respond as if he said B. When critics are asked to back up their interpretations, other critics respond “he started it.”
Waiting for a straight answer.
Good points. Al Mohler actually discusses social justice and the role of the church in a new DVD curriculum called Seek Social Justice (which can be accessed for free at http://www.seeksocialjustice.com). This is my favorite resource for thinking about the term “social justice” and an incredibly instructive tool for individual and community-based efforts in serving the poor.
Mohler and Chuck Colson seem to be using the phrase in a well-balanced manner. Thanks for the pointer.
Doug…
Beck does need to clarify, on-air, that he is in favor of the concept of social justice, though, if you fairly read his words, he never once insinuated that he wasn’t in favor of giving to the poor
I’m glad that Beck clarified. His clarification is quite different than what he said. MOST churches teach Doing Justice. The Bible teaches Doing justice. It is a strong biblical theme.
I’d be wary of any church that DIDN’T emphasize doing justice. But Beck didn’t say that initially, he cast one large net that would cover most faith traditions and his words were extremely poorly chosen if today’s clarification is what he meant.
Aside from that, he is now making the mistake of conflating charity and justice. These are two separate words with two separate meanings. They are two separate biblical concepts.
Micah 6 tells us that God REQUIRES three things from God’s people: 1. TO DO JUSTICE, 2. To love mercy, 3. To walk humbly with God.
Loving mercy, that would be more closely akin to doing charity – providing emergency assistance to those in need – food for the hungry, clothes for the naked. These actions are acts of charity, of mercy, both of which simply mean acts of love.
Doing justice is a separate expectation that God has of humanity. Doing justice (as you can see throughout the Bible and in the context of Micah 6) is standing against oppression, making sure that the RIGHTS of the poor are protected.
Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed, the psalmist tells us. THESE sorts of actions are Doing Justice, or at least that’s what the churches who say that we are to stand for economic/social justice believe the Bible is saying.
As a side note: Most churches and Christians today appear to be most comfortable with trying to “walk humbly with God,” and slightly more comfortable with “loving mercy.” But rare are the churches who put talk about or strive to put into practice God’s expectation of doing justice. Does there seem to be some imbalance there?
Micah 6 tells us that God REQUIRES three things from God’s people
And God’s people should do it, and are doing it. Nowhere does the Bible suggest that God’s people should force others to do so.
You may say that the church isn’t doing enough, but to make a deal with this kind of devil is something not even the founding fathers, many students of history, would make. The result is financial burdens on future generations that they may not be able to afford.
Social Security hit the tipping point this year; paying out more than it took in. Now we’re going to heap this on our children. Moral? I think not.
The term “social justice” has been co-opted by churches who are mostly acting as PACs. Looking out for that phrase is a good filter, IMHO, and that’s what Beck said, rather precisely actually.
You are making assumptions that aren’t borne out wholly by reality, Doug. My church and the others here in town who “have ‘social justice’ on our websites,” (not literally, in our case, but it’s certainly a common theme for us, as it is the Bible) and others I’m aware of beyond our town believe that the Bible clearly speaks of Doing Justice. We preach this regularly. We ACT ON it regularly (for what is the good of preaching social justice if one does not act upon it). But you are conflating “churches who (along with the Bible) emphasize social justice” with “churches that call for gov’t to take care of everything.”
Although our church and our sister churches regularly speak of social justice, it is not the same thing as saying “We need gov’t solutions and ONLY gov’t solutions.”
THAT is where you (and Beck) are speaking in error. Are there SOME churches that are too overtly political? Sure. On the Left and Right we have that problem. But I see nothing to suggest that this is a particular problem with churches who (along with the bible) emphasize social justice.
Now, is that to say we NEVER strive to hold our gov’t officials accountable, to press for what we think are Just solutions from the gov’t where it makes sense? Yes, we, like the God followers in the Bible, sometimes expect our gov’t to act justly and hold them accountable to standards of justice. Do you think this is wrong?
I doubt that you do, since clearly there is biblical precedent for it. Doing justice, we agree (I believe) is essential Christian teaching. And SOMETIMES, it may even involve speaking out against gov’t corruption, as the prophets did. I can’t imagine that you disagree with me there.
So, if that’s the case, it seems you seem to be misconstruing/misunderstanding churches who emphasize social justice. Are there some churches who do so poorly? Yes, I’m sure there are. The bigger problem, it seems to me, is that there are too many churches who don’t do it at all.
Yes? No?
(Do you have any actual examples of churches that are calling for social justice in a bad way? Examples with their actual words, rather than innuendo or rumors?)
“I don’t know how you can do ministry without having social justice as a piece of what you are doing.” – Pastor Jeremiah Wright
So he said that, and a million other thing all fully condemning the US government, giving little credit where much credit was due. And that church heavily influenced Barack Obama to remake the government in the image of social engineer. Just what Al Mohler warned against.
And please read that article by Mohler again, Dan. Yes, social justice is something that Christians should strive for. However, government is a tool that should be used in the right way for those aims and not used when it is inappropriate.
Health care reform is way more than speaking out against corruption. It’s far more than holding politicians accountable. I doubt you’ll find any church seeking “gov’t solutions and ONLY gov’t solutions”, so that’s a straw man. But you will find many churches, virtually all on the liberal end of the spectrum, willing to turn over health care to the government and support big and ever-increasing programs that waste millions continually.
And Beck is a conservative. This we should be fully aware of. And a huge health care bill could be in our imminent future. We all remember this, right? And in this very plain context Beck is voicing his opinion that folks should leave these liberal churches where the phrase “social justice” has been redefined to include the government forcing you to buy something in order to live in this country and at the same time putting us in debt beyond our means. While the Sojourners aren’t a church, they’re a big influence in this. They’re liberal, and they’ve redefined the term that way, making the phrase “social justice” their clarion call and catch phrase. This has influenced a number of churches to take up that call and co-opt the phrase.
Your attempt, and the attempts of so many of his critics including Wallis, to purposely misinterpret what he said and shoot back lines like, “But Jesus said to give to the poor” to insinuate that Beck is somehow against it is so utterly disingenuous that it amazes me Christians are doing it.
I’d ask that you read my actual words, Doug. No where in what I wrote did I ever suggest that Beck is “somehow against” giving to the poor. What I DID do was point to Beck’s own words, wherein he condemned all churches who care about social justice.
His words again:
I beg you, look for the words ‘social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words.
Now… am I advising people to leave their church? Yes.
Now, I am glad that he clarified that he didn’t mean exactly what he said, but something different than what he said. That’s good. I was just initially agreeing with you that IF he believed this other thing, he stated it poorly, sounding like – to many reasonable people – he was against social justice.
Because I find that problematic, I criticize THAT as absurd. Now I hear that he didn’t mean it and I’m glad. We all agree, then, that social justice IS a good thing.
And now, Doug, I’d ask you again if you can point to any church that you think actually DOES have a problem with social justice, taking it in a wrong way? Something that you can support with their own words?
You offered a quote from Wright…
“I don’t know how you can do ministry without having social justice as a piece of what you are doing.”
But there’s nothing wrong with that quote, is there? How CAN you have a ministry without having social justice as a piece of what you are doing? OR, as the Bible puts it, THREE things God requires of you, o man: Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with God.
THREE things that we are to be about, one of those is loving justice. How can a church operate without a love for – and actions in support of – justice?
Sorry for the double post, just a glitch. Also, sorry that one of my links was mistakenly back to this very page.
I’d be curious as to your take on what my church is actually doing to work for justice.
My suspicion is that many conservatives SEE “social justice” as code words for “secret meetings to plot the overthrow of America and steal money from the rich to give it to the poor at the end of a gun.”
If that is your impression of what churches who are concerned about social justice are doing, then I don’t think it exists in the real world, or anything remotely like it. Thus, I ask you if you can identify any ACTUAL problems with “social justice” churches based on their ACTUAL WORDS and actions.
Doug…
Yes, social justice is something that Christians should strive for. However, government is a tool that should be used in the right way for those aims and not used when it is inappropriate.
On this we agree.
Creating a law forbidding marriage to gays? That would be an inappropriate use of gov’t by churches to implement their religious beliefs (not for justice, because, in face, that action creates an injustice against gay folk who would marry and enjoy the benefits that straight folk freely have).
Asking courts to implement a program that would strive to restore a wayward youth to his/her community rather than imprison them? That sounds like to us a legitimate goal of social justice and use of gov’t.
Creating laws that would ban some faith groups from having free speech? That would be an inappropriate use of gov’t.
For instance. That’s why I’m asking you if you can point to some actual examples of “problem churches” who try to use gov’t inappropriately.
I’m not saying they don’t exist – I’m sure they do, on both the Left and Right-ish sides of church. But I don’t think they’re many or representative of the VAST majority of churches who believe in social justice.
Oh, come on guys…
What exactly is “social justice” or social justice? Justice is basically righting a wrong or someone who is a judge. I’ve heard the term tossed about so often, everyone thinking they know what it is, but no real definition that makes sense. Jesus told us that the poor would always be with us, when Judas decried the cost of the alabaster jar filled with a year’s wages of perfumed oil.
There won’t be any way to right social wrongs until Jesus comes again, because the trials and tribulations we face are common to man. I think Beck’s tirade against socialism is good because everything I hear from the left actually sounds good. However, I know it will be like the book John was told to eat in Revelation, but it will taste like honey, in the stomach it will burn more bitter than gall.
There won’t be any way to right social wrongs until Jesus comes again
And yet, in the meantime, you DO agree that we have an obligation to work for justice, yes? Not simply do charity, but actually DO justice, like the Bible says?
Dan, if we can’t agree that Wright’s TUCC church isn’t a bad example anything, I don’t think that any example I give will convince you.
I don’t want, in this comment thread to get into other unrelated areas of appropriate use of government, but if you are a proponent of economic justice, I’d ask you to think about what we’re saddling future generations with. I’ve written 6 blog posts on why I’m against the HCR bill, and address moral concerns as well as economic ones. This is not justice.
I’d ask that you read my actual words, Doug. No where in what I wrote did I ever suggest that Beck is “somehow against” giving to the poor.
Fair enough about your words, but your response (as the comment to my original post) was, it appeared, in support of those condemning Beck by doing exactly that (Wallis, et. al.).
I will say that I think Beck’s general filter (look for “social justice” on the website) is a pretty good one for determining which churches lean left and support this awful health care bill as a moral imperative. If your church is one of those, regardless of the contents of the website, I’d say that, yes, you’re part of this particular problem. (Which would be another example that I’d give, but that you’d clearly disagree with, so, again, not much use in going down that road.) But that’s what he said, very clearly, and his high-profile critics have misrepresented it. You didn’t? That’s great, Dan. This post was about those representatives of the Christian Left that did, in a big way. (Think Pat Robertson for just a moment, for an example you’ve previously taken to task from the other side.)
You cite the HCR, but is it not possible that Christians of good faith can disagree with the Just nature – or lack thereof – of that particular bit of legislation?
My point is that the Becks of the world tend to paint with a broad and ridiculous brush.
1. Churches SHOULD be concerned with social justice, a point on which we appear to agree.
2. It appears to me that there’s a MUCH greater problem with churches that have NO concern at all for social justice than churches on the Left who have an inappropriate notion of what that social justice should look like. Concern for justice is an integral part of being God’s people.
3. Being involved for social/economic justice MAY rightly involve interacting on political issues, a point on which I think we agree.
4. Just because we may disagree on the just-ness of a particular position is no reason to suggest that people “run” from a whole group of churches. IF Wallis supports HCR, I’m sure he does so out of concern for the poor out of love for his God.
5. So, the appropriate response to churches who disagree with you on a particular issue of social justice is interaction on their specific and actual position on that specific issue, NOT general claims to abandon such churches as not being Christian churches at all, nor general dismissal of their positions based upon strawman mischaracterizations of their actual positions.
Doug…
I will say that I think Beck’s general filter (look for “social justice” on the website) is a pretty good one for determining which churches lean left and support this awful health care bill as a moral imperative.
It’s a ridiculous and offensive filter to have. Do you have ANY support whatsoever for that suggestion? Have you looked at actual church websites that proclaim concern for social justice and then proceeded to discern that there is some real world reason to encourage people to abandon such churches? This is what I’m talking about, general broad brush dismissal of whole groups of people based on stereotypes and not any actual evidence. Even your one citation of Wright’s former church has gone without any support.
What I know of Wright indicates to me that he is a Christian who has said some spectacularly stupid and offensive stuff. He has spoken with a broad brush much like Beck has and they were BOTH wrong for doing so.
BUT, what I know of their church (very little, to be honest) does not say to me that there is anything spectacularly wrong with them.
Here, this is an actual church website where they cite social justice concerns. What do you perceive to be wrong with Joy Mennonite Church?
Or, I’ve already referenced my church’s blog, where we speak of concern for economic justice regularly. What specifically in our actual words do you find problematic?
Or here is First United Methodist church where they speak of concern for social justice.
What specifically in their actual words do you find problematic? Why would you suggest people “run” from that church?
Do you get my point? MANY churches speak of social and economic justice and rightly so, because it is a biblical mandate. But the Becks of the world would wildly and BASED ON NOTHING but spurious rumor and innuendo tell us to abandon such churches. It is a form of slander and rumor-mongering.
No. Looking to see “social justice” mentioned on a website is a ridiculous measure of whether or not someone should abandon a church, or to insinuate that such churches are not churches at all. It is nearly blasphemous (calling unholy that which God has called holy) and you should not support Beck on this point.
Doug…
I will say that I think Beck’s general filter (look for “social justice” on the website) is a pretty good one for determining which churches lean left and support this awful health care bill as a moral imperative.
You go from supporting social justice in general to the assumption that such churches all support the current HCR bill.
1. Do you have any reason to suspect that this is the case? That churches such as mine have spoken in support of this bill (Jeff St hasn’t, for what it’s worth)?
2. Do you think that some church MIGHT think this a good bill and disagree with your take on how just it is, do you think that is sufficient cause to call to “abandon” such churches? Should those churches encourage people to abandon their churches that DON’T support that bill? Is there no room for disagreement on specific political ideals in your view?
Dan, again, this isn’t some spat over holding politicians accountable. It’s about affecting a sizable chunk of our economy, and taxing us and our children into insolvency to do it. It’s not just how just this may be, it’s how moral the whole shebang is.
And, like Wallis, you too now go into territory where you’re misrepresenting Beck. To quote you, I’d ask you to read his actual words. You accuse him of “general claims to abandon such churches as not being Christian churches at all”. Patently false. He never said anything approaching that. In fact, if you’ll read his actual words, you’ll find that he passes no judgment on any other aspect of a church’s ministry other than this particular political issue. In fact, he’s not even asking people to leave their particular faith tradition if it’s not warranted. His words, “If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish.” This doesn’t sound like a guy who wants people to condemn their church as not being Christian at all.
This is much ado about a guy giving his opinion on TV. Now, I happen to agree with his generalization, so you’re trying to make this about me. But I’ll have to insist on dragging this back to the topic at hand; how Beck’s critics are misrepresenting his plainly stated words, and that the vast majority of them are coming from the Christian Left, and that, no matter the politics of the critic, misrepresenting someone’s words while criticizing them is not very Christian. And, since most of these critics are from the Left, it sort of confirms Beck’s assertion.
If critics would concentrate on what he really said, then yes, there would be room to debate this particular issue. But if they’re going to argue against a point he’s not making, there’s little discussion that can take place.
But we’re NOT misrepresenting his words. He said, as you quoted…
“If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish.”
IF you have a priest (preacher, church…) who is pushing social justice, leave that church. Is that NOT what he’s saying? That is all I’m saying that he said initially – that it was a blanket condemnation of those who “push” social justice.
You know, like God pushes it.
It seems we all agree now that there is nothing wrong with pushing social justice and that Beck was wrong to suggest there IS something wrong with it.
What am I misrepresenting?
1. He initially condemned those who “push” social justice.
2. He backed off from that, acknowledging (correctly) that social justice is a good thing. A point which you seem to agree with, too.
There is no misrepresentation happening. Or, to put it another way: Quote what I’m saying that is misrepresentational and explain why.
“Dan, when you say, ‘_____’, it is misrepresenting Beck because _______.”
Like that.
No misrepresentation has happened by me or by Wallis that I can see – not in our actual words
This seems to me to be the problem. Beck and his supporters SEEM to be reading things into words that aren’t there. “Social justice and economic justice, they are code words…” for communism, forced taking of money, etc. No. They’re not. Not for the vast majority of Christians who “push” social justice. Not that I see ANY evidence of.
When Jeff St speaks in favor of social justice, of economic oppression, what we mean by that is just what we say. So, please, brother, don’t read things into what we say that aren’t there.
I’ve provided some actual and random links to some actual churches that “push” social justice. IF there is a problem there, cite some specific problem.
Otherwise, you (not “you” specifically, Doug – those who do this in general) are just engaging in slander and false witness. And that is wrong, according to the Bible (and would probably be another example of the sort of injustice we ought to work against.)
Dan, you’re really ignoring what the phrase “social justice” has come to mean by those who’ve co-opted it. And this health care reform bill fits into the Left’s idea of it; redistribution of wealth and government control of yet another portion of the economy. The title of this piece, indeed, points out this very distinction; the catch-phrase being used to advocate for this vs. the love that Christians are called to.
Beck is dealing with the former, again clearly when he talked about looking for said catch phrases on websites and from the pulpit. You conflate the two when it fits your argument, and that could also be bearing false witness. It’s a shame that such a great phrase has been co-opted by those that find bankrupting our children is such a good thing.
And I understand that we disagree on what the concept of social justice should entail from a secular governmental standpoint. I’m good with that. I’m just asking Beck critics to deal with him in a straightforward fashion.
Soo… can you NOT point to something that I have actually said that makes you think I’m misrepresenting him?
This is a problem that many of us have with many like Beck (and perhaps you, on this thread, Doug – although in general, I have found you to be quite reasonable, as conservatives go) – you are criticizing something that we have not said, claiming that you are criticizing our positions.
Doug said…
you’re really ignoring what the phrase “social justice” has come to mean by those who’ve co-opted it.
The term “social justice” has no one meaning. It is not a term that is in the dictionary. Christians striving to be faithful to the Bible have used that concept for over 2000 years and that term for over 100 years easily.
Do SOME people use it to mean “communism” or “socialism”? I guess it’s possible, although I’ve seen no one support that with some actual evidence. But that some people use that term in what might be a negative way, does not mean that this is the one and only accepted definition of that term. Speaking as one coming from a church that DOES “push” the notion of economic justice, WE don’t use it that way. And, as noted, we’ve been using it for decades if not centuries.
You seem to be conflating “social justice” with “socialism” and mistaking churches who “push” social justice for chapters of the socialist party. When we use the term, we mean something else, as you can see in our actual words.
WHICH, again, is why I ask for support for the charges. I don’t believe that they can, in general, be supported. As such, they amount to nothing more than rumors and innuendo, a bearing of false witness.
Beck may not be (or may be, I don’t know that much about him), but you’re better than that, Doug. If you want to criticize someone or a group, criticize them for actual positions they actually hold based on their actual words, rather than demonize them by innuendo that can’t be supported.
Doug said…
It’s a shame that such a great phrase has been co-opted by those that find bankrupting our children is such a good thing.
Again, do you have ANY support whatsoever for this? What are you speaking of? If you give an actual example, we can look at the specifics and see if your charge holds water.
As it is, I’m forced to suspect that you’re stereotyping and don’t have any actual support for the charge.
But, to the extent that it’s true – to the extent that some church or churches use words like “justice” or “economic justice” to mean something OTHER than justice in the classic and/or biblical sense of the word – that IS a shame.
I just haven’t seen any evidence that this is a particular problem among churches on the so-called Left, as I believe the insinuation is.
Doug, could you answer a couple of questions for me, please, to help clarify?
I am correct, aren’t I, that you agree with me that the Bible clearly teaches that humanity (and more specifically, God’s people) ARE to work for justice – against oppression, against false weights, against discrimination against the poor, against mistreatment of foreigners, the widows, the poor, the orphaned, etc?
What are some examples today that you would consider GOOD examples of working for justice (not charity, but justice)?
Thanks.
The Salvation Army, in 2007, created an International Social Justice Commission to deal with issues such as these. The main focus so far as been in slave trafficking, though not the sole focus. (I’d give you a link, but client is blocking SA sites.) And the Army was a social justice (no quotes) movement long before “social justice” (with quotes) became a catch phrase, and without requiring huge transfer payments. Simply using those funds voluntarily donated.
Dan, if you’ve read my previously noted blog posts, I already gave examples of how the cost of this bill, no matter the CBO numbers, is going to be massive. Today comes another example of gaming the system to make the bill more palatable. True, it’s probably a overall good thing to stop automatically dropping Medicare payments to doctors — that’s why Medicare is losing so many of them — but if you go into a potential health care reform bill thinking it’ll actually reduce the deficit, you’ve been snookered.
Look at the graph of the costs in the “CBO years” and notice the trend. And here’s more shenanigans going on with the numbers. The degree of faith in this big government program, and more importantly the blind acceptance of its claimed cost, is astonishing.
At this point, Doug, I’m not really talking about health care reform bills. It’s not an issue that has been in the forefront of justice issues for me or my church. So, I’m not sure why you keep bringing it up.
I think the general issue of health care may well be an issue of justice and, given time and specifics, I might have a strong opinion. But right now, on this particular version of the bill, I have no opinion at all.
You DO know, don’t you, that for those of us who are concerned about social justice (no quotation marks on it on our end), there are MANY issues we might be concerned about and, on any one of those issues, there might be several takes on what is a more just solution?
This is why I keep asking about SPECIFICS. What specifically about ANY SPECIFIC church are you speaking of? The “push” for social justice at anabaptist, catholic, methodist, ucc and other churches is not a push for any single issue like health care. Rather, it is a constant reminder of being true to biblical tradition for concern for the least of these and actions on behalf of justice.
So, no, I have not been “snookered,” I have NO opinion on the current health care initiatives. Why do you keep bringing that up?
I asked Doug for an example of what he thinks is a “good” social justice concern. Doug said…
The main focus so far as been in slave trafficking, though not the sole focus
And I agree, that IS a good issue for us, as Christians, to be concerned about. It is, in fact, one which we’ve tackled in various ways over the last two years.
And you know WHY we’ve done so? Because we “push” social justice issues.
So, once again, I think that perhaps you have been “snookered” into believing that churches who “push” social justice issues are actually plotting the overthrow of the free enterprise system.
Perhaps there ARE code words, but they’re ones that the Christian Right has been seduced/deluded into seeing anytime someone in the church mentions social justice.
For OUR part, when we talk about social justice, we’re simply talking about justice of the sort that is discussed in the Bible.
Naught else.
Now, is it possible that Christians of good intent will disagree with other Christians of good intent on how best to address a particular injustice, or even IF a particular issue IS a matter of justice? Sure, but that’s no reason to suggest that Christians need to “run” from the church with whom we are merely having a disagreement on approaches.
The ones we MIGHT need to run from are the ones who say we have no business being concerned with matters of justice, now THAT would be problematic. But merely disagreeing on approaches? Well, that’s just life in the body of Christ. Ask Paul and Peter and Barnabas and Mark, they can tell you all about it.
I have NO opinion on the current health care initiatives. Why do you keep bringing that up?
Because, while you may have no opinion on the subject, that just happens to be the major issue of they day, and the context in which Beck made his comments. I keep bringing it up because it is the primary political subject matter, and in all likelihood what he was referring to.
And while you say, “For OUR part, when we talk about social justice, we’re simply talking about justice of the sort that is discussed in the Bible”, that’s all wonderful but is a complete non sequitur. Wallis et. al. DO have a pretty firm position on, specifically, the health care reform bill, and DO consider it a “social justice” issue. Criticizing my response to them because YOU don’t have an opinion on it and don’t find it a compelling issue makes no sense at all.
Wallis et. al. DO have a pretty firm position on, specifically, the health care reform bill, and DO consider it a “social justice” issue.
So, then, cite Wallis’ actual position and make your case that it is not – and CAN not – rightly be considered a matter of justice. Isn’t it possible that Wallis, in seeking to follow the God of the Bible and his Lord Jesus Christ, sees the issue of health care to be a matter of justice?
AND, that being the case, isn’t it possible that he’s supporting a particular position on that topic?
AND, if that’s the case, is that reason to say you ought to “run” from Wallis’ church, as if it were a false religion?
Again, is there no room for disagreement between fellow Christians on how best to deal with matters of justice?
For my part, even if I were to disagree with Wallis’ position on health care (and I don’t know his position, so I have no great opinion on it), I wouldn’t think it meant anything other than we have a difference of opinion on how to pursue justice in the arena of health care. I would find a church that held NO positions on justice issues to be much more problematic (from a Christian point of view) than one that merely held a different opinion about how best to approach a particular justice issue.
Leave A Reply