Social Justice

This is one of those posts where I’m hoping that you, my wonderful readers, will comment at great length on your blogs and or in the comments below. I’m trying to figure out what the buzzword/catchphrase “social justice” means in terms of Christianity. Why?

Well maybe you heard about what Glen Beck said:

I’m begging you, your right to religion and freedom to exercise religion and read all of the passages of the Bible as you want to read them and as your church wants to preach them…are going to come under the ropes in the next year. If it lasts that long it will be the next year. 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 if you’re like me, you probably don’t much care what Mr. Beck says so I don’t want to make this about him. What I do want to do is take this and unpack it. I know the term gets used in both political and religious circles and means different things to different people. Apparently it was coined by A Jesuit priest name Luigi Taparelly. There wasn’t a great deal of explanation as to what he meant by it (at least not that I could understand), but I think it’s important to note that at its origins it wasn’t a liberal political/communist/socialist issue.

In our church it seems to be used in circumstances where we as believers are called to act in our community to see the needs of the poor and disadvantaged met. It’s not a call to influence the government or to seek solutions from them. As frequent commenter on this blog Chris Walker said, that just sounds like charity. I suppose he’s right, depending on how you define charity. With a broad definition that would fit. But is that all there is to it?

Jason Rennie points us to Leviticus 19:15 – “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” What does showing partiality to the poor look like?

I’m not sure. It seems like there’s more. What do you think? What are our responsibilities as believers in this arena? Is there anything that goes beyond charity that we’re called to do in the community?

  • Ed Thompson

    I disagree that social justice is about charity. Charity is not about change, social justice is-

    Social Justice is about changing Social Structures so that they are more just; whether that is the American Revolution and its bid for equality, or the 19th Amendment giving the woman the right to vote.

  • jwrennie

    The Jesuit priest that coined the term built up a social action program that was grounded in Thomas Aquinas' ruminations on Natural Law combined with Christ's command to help and care for the poor and needy. I think he would be utterly appalled by what has been done to the neologism he coined.

    As for the reference to Leviticus, i'm not suggesting that we show partiality and help the poor, I don't think that is what is it light in the passage. The passage is refering specifically I think in that case to judicial rulings (all men equal before the law) and I think that would apply to legislation as well.

    I don't think it could be construed as some sort of excuse for not helping the poor, but I think it is a clear injunction against government giving special rights to the poor. That strikes me as a bad idea, certainly as bad as giving special rights to the rich. I think the passage is really interesting as it puts “no special rights to the poor” before it puts “no special rights to the rich”. I note this is interesting because it would seem that people generally have a problem with special rights to the powerful, but giving special rights to the poor seems to be something they can go along with.

    I'm all for changing the law to make everybody equal before it, and laws that prevent that are a bad idea, but I don't think the state should ever be in the giving away other peoples money in the name of social justice business. Many evils spring from such attempts.

    I'm not sure what Ed Thompson means by social structures that are “more just”. Perhaps he could elaborate, I am guessing he thinks it is obvious but perhaps he could enlighten the rest of us that dont think it is obvious, given the number of times I have seen deliberate attempts at injustice promoted in the names of “social justice”

  • spiritualtramp

    The unfortunate thing about coining terms is that they'll get co-opted by all kinds of folks that will turn your hair white. Take the words “gentleman” or “Christian” for example. They both used to mean something particular. Now, not so much.

    As far as the Lev. passage is concerned, I agree that it means to treat everyone fairly. That doesn't mean that everyone gets treated precisely the same. In terms if judgment though a person's economic status shouldn't come into play.

    I totally disagree that the gov't should never use tax money to fund social programs. I'm totally okay with taxation and using that tax money for beneficial purposes, in spite of hte fact that it will get misused from time to time. It's a risk I'm willing to take.

  • jwrennie

    I think you are mistaken about tax money being used for social programs. though my reasons are two fold.

    The first is a pragmatic reason. Government wastes money and spends other peoples money to prop up these programs. I have a problem with somebody “supporting a cause” when the way they support the cause is to forcibly take money from someone else and then give that money they have taken by force to a third party they think is more deserving. That is what taxation is, the forced extraction of funds from people. If I was to walk up to you in the street, stick a gun in your face and extract a “charitable contribution” from you, that was given to someone I thought was more needy and deserving, presumably you would call that “theft”. How is the government doing essentially the same thing any different ? If it isn't ok for me to do as a private citizen, why is it ok for the state to do it as a collection of citizens ? Maybe an argument can be made for it, but it would seem this is a difficult hurdle to overcome.

    Secondly, “government charity” is bad for _everybody_ in the chain. In the normal case of charity, you have a person who sees a need and then freely chooses to contribute some of their money to the person in need because they think the need requires a remedy. The person giving the money has the sense that they have deliberately chosen to help their fellow man and the recipient has a sense of gratitude and obligation to the person giving them the helping hand. Notice how this actually mirrors our relationship with God and salvation in a small way ? I think it is supposed to.

    But when you turn it around and make the state the arbiter of the “charity” via the use of forcibly extracted funds it utterly corrupts the process. First the person having the money extracted is frequently resentful, as the money is taken by force and given to someone else whether that person approves of the “charity” in question or not. This makes them resentful for having the money taken, rather than cheerfully giving (and reasonably so IMO) and also resentful towards the recipients as parasites. So the entire purpose and benefits of charity for the person doing the giving is utterly corrupted and the results are all bad. But it gets worse.

    Next in the chain is the government official who can get a warm feeling out of helping his fellow man, but this feeling is entirely false because they have essentially stolen the money they are giving away. So any “credit” they deserve for the program is hollow and likely to give them inflated feeling of pride and accomplishment when they have done nothing at all.

    And finally the person receiving the “charity” is corrupted by the process. They come to view the money not as a charitable sacrifice by someone else for their benefit, with the reasonable sense of obligation and gratitude towards the giver, but instead they see this handout as an entitlement they are owed because it comes from the government. Thus the recipient is corrupted not only by losing the gratitude and obligation that goes with charity, but worse, they now consider it as something they are “owed”, even though they have not worked for it and have done nothing to earn it.

    Thus, I think government charity is a really bad, if not outright evil idea. Thoughts ?

    Jason

  • spiritualtramp

    Well my primary thought is that comparing taxation to armed robbery is a bit silly. We have had taxation in this country ever since it was founded. We didn't seek freedom from taxation, we sought freedom from taxation without representation. If you think that the gov't is robbing you blind (or sighted for that matter) I'd direct you to go elsewhere, but I'm not sure where you'd go. As it is, thankfully in this country you have the option to vote the politicians out or vote for one you think will do what you want them to do. Good luck not getting taxed though.

    As far as it being okay for the gov't to do something that it's not okay for you to do there are plenty of precedents. Ignoring the bad analogy, and I might try and come up with a better one here in a sec, it's okay for the government to enforce laws, go to war with a foreign power, and do any number of other things that it's not okay for you to do.

    A better analogy might be me as an employer taking a bit of money from everyone's check to pay for coffee and snacks in the break room. Not every employee would be happy, but I don't think it's illegal or immoral to do so. That analogy might not be any better, but I think it's a bit less hyperbolical.

    I'm not denying that individuals should be charitable. I do think that that's what God wants us to do and in fact I'd argue that if we were doing just that the gov't wouldn't have to step in. Since charitable giving's at a low ebb (and it could be argued I suppose that that's due in part to taxation, but I don't buy it entirely) there is a void that needs filling.

    Whether or not the person who's taxed is justified in their anger at having their money taken is an argument I don't think you've made successfully. I could argue as a Christian that Jesus said we should pay taxes (render unto Caesar) and that we as Christians (within reason) should pay taxes as joyfully as we tithe (maybe that's part of the problem?). If I start to view the recipients as “parasites” that's not a problem with the gov't, that's a problem with me.

    As far as people feeling entitled, I'm sure whether it came from the church or an individual or the gov't there are people that would feel that way. A feeling of entitlement is again a personal issue and nothing that the gov't can help.

    So I have a question for you. Should those that receive the grace that we receive from God feel that it was something they were owed since they've not worked for it nor done anything to earn it? I suppose some have, but God extends it anyway. I think that's a sound model. We give because we should. We don't choose not to give just because the recipient might not receive it in the way we believe they should. The gov't should be no less generous with its money (yes, money that comes from us, but as money goes from one hand to another it ceases to be yours and becomes there's doesn't it?) than we are with ours. Or am I wrong?

    So gov't charity is not evil. It is flawed, but no less flawed than charity of any other sort.

  • jwrennie

    I don't think comparing explicitly redistributive taxation to armed robbery is unreasonable at all. We aren't talking about taxes to directly fund something that is properly the duty of government, or even something to fund something the citizenry think is worthwhile. We are talking about money being taken (and it really is by force) from one group and given to another group as a substitute for that group receiving the money having to earn it. Even if the government was supposed to be directly involved in schools, hospitals etc, at least the people receiving the money are employees, the same is not true of government “charity” handouts. So I actually think comparing it to state sponsored armed robbery is actually reasonable. you'd object if the recipient of the funds decided to “cut out the middle man” and do the expropriating directly. I'm not sure why having the government act as bagman changes anything.

    http://www.acton.org/publications/mandm/111arti… <– This isn't a bad article that explores Aquinas' thinking on taxation.

    Keep in mind, that it is specifically redistributive taxation in view here and not taxes levied for services rendered.

    I will concede the point about government being given powers that the individual may not exercise, though actually I think it might be a reasonable rule of thumb for how the government acts towards it citizens.

    As for your other points. I'll offer come additional thoughts.

    First up, in terms of charitable giving, it is perfectly possible for the government to encourage charitable giving, it already does so by the method of offering tax deductions. There is no reason the government has to become directly involved in “charity”. It has indirect means that can increase giving without sabotaging charity in general.

    As to your next point, back up a second. I didn't say we should reject paying taxes. That isn't actually what is at issue. Once such laws, just or otherwise are enacted the argument could be made that we should pay the taxes as Christ commanded. But that is not the question, the question is, should Christians support such redistributive taxation methods as a matter of good public policy. Be careful not to confuse the two.

    Should we pay taxes joyfully ? I think it depends on how they are spent. If my tax dollars are uses to fund abortions or some other obvious evil, I think it is reasonable to have a problem with that.

    As for regarding the people as parasites who are the beneficiaries of redistributive taxation, given their entitlement mentality I don't think that is unreasonable. And in every sense of the word, the people in question _are_ parasites. They are leeching nutrients off of a body (in this case the body politic) and making it less “healthy”. It is perhaps a slight stretch, but it is an analogy and they always break down at some point. Suffice to say, they are using up resources and contributing nothing back. If the money was given voluntarily it wouldn't be an issue, but it is forcibly extracted.

    With the question of entitlement, the government approach fosters this sense of entitlement. the recipient doesn't see the person/church/group spending voluntarily contributed money on them (and with the attendant accountability that goes along with it) but instead they just get a cheque from the government. That encourages the entitlement mentality, and you can't just say that isn't an issue. It is clearly an issue as the entitlement mentality is encouraged, and it is obviously destructive.

    I have _never ever_ seen people lining up outside the salvation army and screaming and protesting that their “benefits” have been cut, but I have seen people collecting unemployment or various other government “charity” screaming about that sort of thing regularly. The whole mechanism is corrupted and fosters ungodliness at all levels.

    As to your last point. God's grace is freely given (an act of charity in every sense of the word) to us, not because we deserve it, but because we need it. That is the model I am encouraging with personal giving, that the government can incentivise if it wants to and thinks that is worth doing. But the gift from God is from Him to us, without some additional layers in between, and we rightly feel a sense of gratitude and indebtedness to God for this gift.

    Also, you forget a crucial truth about governments money. Government money that is it “generous” with is money that is taken by force from other people. It is easy to be generous with other peoples money. The government doesn't produce anything (except maybe red tape) and all of its funds are extracted from other people. The government has no right to be “generous” in that way with money it has taken by force. Is it even reasonable to call it “generosity” when you are spending someone elses hard earned money that you have expropriated ?

    So I stick by my original claim. Government “charity” and now “generosity” is nothing of the sort, it corrupts utterly everybody it touches and I suggest it is evil because of this inevitable corrupting influence on people that it has. I think Jesus and Paul had a few things to say about causing other people to sin, something about millstones if I recall correctly ;)

    Jason

  • spiritualtramp

    I still think it’s an unreasonable comparison. We disagree on whether the funding of certain social programs is properly the duty of gov’t. I think it is so naturally I’m going to take issue. There’s also a large part of the citizenry that agree with me. But even if you think that what the gov’t is doing is “improper” (your right, certainly) that’s a long way from un-constitutional or illegal and a heck of a long way from armed robbery.

    They really aren’t taking it by “force”, except maybe by force of law. You’re right, I would indeed object if individuals had the right to take money directly out of my paycheck without my say so, but again we afford gov’t rights that no individual has or should have.

    I think differentiating between “redistributive taxation” and taxes levied for service rendered is splitting hairs a bit. The Constitution gives the government the right to levy taxes against our income. It doesn’t specify how the government can spend them (to my knowledge. You haven’t (and to be fair probably can’t to my satisfaction) build a case that under no circumstances should we “redistribute” wealth on some level. The best you’re gonna get out of me is that the process could be improved.

    First up, in terms of charitable giving, it is perfectly possible for the government to encourage charitable giving, it already does so by the method of offering tax deductions. There is no reason the government has to become directly involved in “charity”. It has indirect means that can increase giving without sabotaging charity in general.

    There is a reason for the gov’t to get involved in charity. That reason is, we’re not giving enough. If someone loses their job, then until they get a new job they need access to basic human needs, food, water, shelter, clothes, etc. “Should” this come from their neighbor? Yes it should and often does. But it’s far from enough.

    As to your next point, back up a second. I didn't say we should reject paying taxes. That isn't actually what is at issue. Once such laws, just or otherwise are enacted the argument could be made that we should pay the taxes as Christ commanded. But that is not the question, the question is, should Christians support such redistributive taxation methods as a matter of good public policy. Be careful not to confuse the two.

    See I don’t think that this is a “Christian” matter in the way you do. I think Christ’s point in large part was that the government is going to demand things from you and those things aren’t always going to line up with God’s will. Were that the case then we’d be rendering to God what’s God’s. We should pay taxes (whether they’re “redistributive” or not) because it’s what Caesar demands. Now I’m not saying that we as Christians must bow to every whim of the gov’t, but I do think we’re to work within the system and that that system is not and never has been a Christian one. Trying to force the gov’t to play by Christian rules (if there is such a thing as a Christian gov’t) would seem to lead to madness.

    Should we pay taxes joyfully ? I think it depends on how they are spent. If my tax dollars are uses to fund abortions or some other obvious evil, I think it is reasonable to have a problem with that.

    Heh. See this is another area where we’re going to come to an impasse. I think every time the gov’t goes to war it’s funding an “obvious evil”, because I believe killing is wrong. There are plenty of evils, obvious and not so obvious that the gov’t funds and we can’t stop them. And why is funding a subtle evil better somehow? So is it really reasonable to have a problem with that? You’re not performing the abortion and in reality you’re not paying for it. The gov’t is.

    Suffice to say, they are using up resources and contributing nothing back. If the money was given voluntarily it wouldn't be an issue, but it is forcibly extracted.

    Okay, here’s the thing. I’m voluntarily paying my taxes. I’m not protesting. They’re taking it and I’m letting them. I want people who need resources to take them. If they can’t contribute back at the moment that’s okay with me. If they never can contribute back that’s okay with me too. Like I said, there are going to be people that get help that can’t ever give back and there are going to be people that are going to take advantage. The minute I look at them as a “parasite” no matter how close to a dictionary definition of the word they come, that doesn’t make it right.

    With the question of entitlement, the government approach fosters this sense of entitlement. the recipient doesn't see the person/church/group spending voluntarily contributed money on them (and with the attendant accountability that goes along with it) but instead they just get a cheque from the government. That encourages the entitlement mentality, and you can't just say that isn't an issue. It is clearly an issue as the entitlement mentality is encouraged, and it is obviously destructive.

    I have _never ever_ seen people lining up outside the salvation army and screaming and protesting that their “benefits” have been cut, but I have seen people collecting unemployment or various other government “charity” screaming about that sort of thing regularly. The whole mechanism is corrupted and fosters ungodliness at all levels.

    Regarding entitlement, yes if someone sees what they perceive as a right being taken away or reduced they are going to complain. I’m okay with that. We are extended certain rights in this country and we have the freedom to complain when they’re challenged. Anything the gov’t endorses or is responsible for is justly perceived as a right. Access to unemployment insurance, especially since I pay into it, is indeed a right I’d protest if it were taken away from me. Non-gov’t charities don’t afford us any rights. So does this argument apply to gun ownership rights, or rights to freedom of speech. We’re entitled to these things. Entitlement isn’t a bad thing.

    As to your last point. God's grace is freely given (an act of charity in every sense of the word) to us, not because we deserve it, but because we need it. That is the model I am encouraging with personal giving, that the government can incentivise if it wants to and thinks that is worth doing. But the gift from God is from Him to us, without some additional layers in between, and we rightly feel a sense of gratitude and indebtedness to God for this gift.

    God’s grace goes beyond charity. It’s given to us because we need it, but we explicitly don’t deserve it. He gives it to us anyway. I’m arguing that we be given as citizens things I think we do deserve, basic human rights. That’s not charity, but if you want to look at it as such then so long as it doesn’t prevent you from acting that’s okay. I would argue that the gov’t can serve as one of those layers, just as a person can. My point about God’s grace was simply that we don’t have to earn everything we’re given and we don’t even have to “deserve” it, in the sense that most people mean. You shouldn’t receive something good just because someone else thinks you “deserve” it. You should receive it because you’re human.

    So I stick by my original claim. Government “charity” and now “generosity” is nothing of the sort, it corrupts utterly everybody it touches and I suggest it is evil because of this inevitable corrupting influence on people that it has. I think Jesus and Paul had a few things to say about causing other people to sin, something about millstones if I recall correctly ;)

    But see you really haven’t proven that anyone has sinned here or even that the gov’t has caused it.

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
«
»