the blog
Global Justice
by bruce
June 15, 2010 | Life | 8 responses
Until recently I have been totally mystified by Christians who say they cringe at the words “social justice.” My confusion comes from my understanding that Christians are called to give to the poor, support the widows and orphans, and participate in our community by helping our neighbors. I have wondered how someone can call himself or herself a Christian and yet reject global justice as a basic tenet of scripture.
Recently this hit home when Rachel blogged about some encouraging efforts. Then I read Deep Church and began to understand. Apparently there are some Christians who–when they hear the words “social justice”–read a lot into it. For some people, when you say “global justice” or “social justice” they apparently interpret your words something like this: “I do not believe it is important to tell people about the love of God, but instead believe that by feeding the hungry I can escort them directly into heaven.” Or something like that.
For the majority of people I know who strive to actually live out the words of scripture by doing what it says, this couldn’t be further from the truth. They see their actions as living out Christ’s commands. If you fall into this group my friend, be aware that behind you is trailing a line of baggage. The stink eye you’re getting from your brothers and sisters is a sure sign that they, too, are aware of the baggage.
This baggage goes back a long way. In 1891, Pope Leo XIII circulated a letter through the catholic church called “Rights and Duties of Capital and Labour,” now known simply as Rerum Novarum. Of course the anti-Catholic sentiment among many protestants today is probably sufficient excuse for many to just shelve these ideas (which didn’t originate here, by the way). But if not, the document itself is a pretty nice roadmap for Christians who believe the way to achieving the kingdom is through political means. The document argues that the role of the state is to promote social justice through the protection of worker’s rights–establishing unions and a minimum wage, for example. The modern Catholic expression of the preferential position of the poor, and that God is on their side, comes directly from this letter. All those Catholic charities you see–Rerum Novarum. Global Justice.
It’s squishy ground. On one hand, it could be easy to get so caught up in doing good just for the sake of doing good that we forget to tell people about Christ. The quote attributed to Assisi (another Catholic) applies here, “Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary.” The flip side to this is John 13:35: “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” And therein lies the rub–do you only believe one or the other? Do you believe you don’t need to tell anyone about Christ because he or she will see it in your life through your loving actions? Or do you believe the actions of your faith are only valuable if you verbally announce Christ with every action?
Of course it’s a false dichotomy, but such is the nature of these kinds of arguments.
source: jamesfischer
Bruce said: For some people, when you say “global justice” or “social justice” they apparently interpret your words something like this: “I do not believe it is important to tell people about the love of God, but instead believe that by feeding the hungry I can escort them directly into heaven.” Or something like that.
To be honest, I never run across this characterization in the real world. On blogs? Sure. But not from people I can actually talk to. People I know have problems with it because they feel that the term points fingers at people for being unjust. Seeking justice implies someone practiced injustice. But these people absolutely believe that they should "give to the poor, support the widows and orphans, and participate in our community by helping our neighbors", and actively do so.
I've suggested this many times – can we please abandon that term and find something that speaks to the real mission? This whole debate reminds me of what happens during a strategic planning process as people try to codify a mission statement. Words mean things.
"Justice" is just a piece of the program. We really want restoration and reconciliation, right? Restoration of dignity and opportunity, and the restoration of the soul. Why leave these ideas out of the term we use?
Isn't "social" a bit narrow? Is how we live together the lone banner? Aren't we more than just our interactions with one another? What about the context of our existence as created beings?
I believe in the "social justice" movement within a Christian perspective, I just don't think the term creates a sense of common purpose – in fact, it divides. Time to dump it.
I agree. Social justice has as many different meanings as post-modern.
Does the weight of scripture lean towards words or deeds? "Faith without works is dead" and " and "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" and the scripture in Isaiah about a true fast being giving aid to the poor and widows comes to mind. Of course there are supplications to "preach" and to "tell", but most often these are accompanied by calls to action, such as "go".
It seems to me that both the action (service) and the words (telling) are important, but scripture suggests that if I cannot do them both equally, service should win out.
I was told by a person finishing their masters in this field that "social justice" is no longer politically correct, probably because it has all sorts of baggage, and that the appropriate term is "civil engagement."
Yes, and let's not forget "go and make disciples… ***teaching*** them…"
Deeds are not an end unto itself – it is only genuinely fruitful if it comes from a heart of faith and love. I am reminded of an early post here about service and guilt.
by the way, did you see this statistic from Barna: Only 4% believe that poverty is an issue that is primarily the responsibility of the Church
that is sad
Isn't social justice a pathway to be able to share the Gospel? With the history of the church and the new ways of thinking about life it is almost impossible to bridge the gap between people's ideas about the church (hypocrites, homophobic, anti-abortion, republicans, etc.) and sharing Jesus. By living out our actions we have the the opportunity to share about why we are doing these things because we are overcoming their stigmas about Christians.
But I agree, we need to be practicing salt and light to individuals no matter where they are. Justice takes a spin when you bring up the idea of contextual poverty. In places that don't have water we need to give them water. But in suburbs maybe their poverty is materialism or debt and by working in that area we are participating in bringing about reconciliation.
When I have heard someone cringe at the phrase, "social justice", it's usually because they are tying it to a political agenda. Two years ago I made a new year's resolution to read through the Bible in a year. Of the many things that struck me over the course of that year, the biggest was the literal and spiritual application of social justice in God's commands to His people. You can't read through God's Word without seeing the pure connection of God's commands to care for the least of these.
While I have heard a very vocal few lament the use of the phrase "social justice" in the church, they are very much the minority whose focuse seems to be more on political agendas than the hurting and marginalized in society. It's important for me to remind myself not to condemn the church with blanket statements because I'm upset at the vitriol they spew. Instead, I focus on how I can be the change and exemplify it in my little corner of the world (and raise my kids with an awareness of God's call on our lives).