In comment #23 of his blog post, “On the Bible and Civil Government,” John Mark Reynolds says:
I have never been sure what the phrase “social justice” means.
I am for justice.
Like him, I am also for justice. I suspect that Professor Reynolds and other conservative Christians are reluctant to use the expression “social justice” because it has been co-opted by progressive Christians (think Jim Wallis), academic elites (think Martha Nussbaum, author of Sex and Social Justice), and radical activists (think William Ayers, who edited a book called Handbook of Social Justice in Education). I sympathize with this reluctance, but we should not be afraid to reclaim “social justice” as a biblical principle and theme.
For a definition, go no further than my selected reading of scripture for today:
‘Cursed be anyone who perverts the justice due to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen’ (Deut. 27:19).
Cross-reference:
[God] executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing (Deut. 10:18).
Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world (James 1:27).
Recently radio and television host Glenn Beck instructed Christians to abandon their churches if they hear the code word of “social justice.” I, for one, expect to hear this biblical principle and theme sounded out in Christian colleges and churches, as Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says in his clear-sighted commentary, “Glenn Beck, Social Justice, and the Limits of Public Discourse“:
To assert that a call for social justice is reason for faithful Christians to flee their churches is nonsense, given the Bible’s overwhelming affirmation that justice is one of God’s own foremost concerns.
What we should oppose, as Mohler says, is the political captivity of the Gospel from the Christian Right or the Christian Left, although “social justice” tends to be the province of the Christian Left:
The last century has seen many churches and denominations embrace the social gospel in some form, trading the Gospel of Christ for a liberal vision of social change, revolution, economic liberation, and, yes, social justice. Liberal Protestantism has largely embraced this agenda as its central message.
The urgency for any faithful Christian is this — flee any church that for any reason or in any form has abandoned the Gospel of Christ for any other gospel.
I share Mohler’s well-articulated concern:
As I read the statements of Glenn Beck, it seems that his primary concern is political. Speaking to a national audience, he warned of “code words” that betray a leftist political agenda of big government, liberal social action, economic redistribution, and the confiscation of wealth. In that context, his loyal audience almost surely understood his point.
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.
Faithful Christians can debate the proper and most effective means of organizing the political structure and the economic markets. Bringing all these things into submission to Christ is no easy task, and the Gospel must not be tied to any political system, regime, or platform. Justice is our concern because it is God’s concern, but it is no easy task to know how best to seek justice in this fallen world.
And that brings us to the fact that the Bible is absolutely clear that injustice will not exist forever. There is a perfect social order coming, but it is not of this world. The coming of the Kingdom of Christ in its fullness spells the end of injustice and every cause and consequence of human sin. We have much work to do in this world, but true justice will be achieved only by the consummation of God’s purposes and the perfection of God’s own judgment.
Until then, the church must preach the Gospel, and Christians must live out its implications. We must resist and reject every false gospel and tell sinners of salvation in Christ. And, knowing that God’s judgment is coming, we must strive to be on the right side of justice.
Books that are worth checking out:
- Michael Sandel (editor), Justice: A Reader
- Nicholas Wolterstorff, Justice: Rights and Wrongs
- Karen Labacqz, Six Theories of Justice: Perspectives from Philosophical and Theological Ethics
- Robert Solomon & Mark Murphy, What Is Justice? Classic and Contemporary Readings
- Christian Buckley & Ryan Dobson, Humanitarian Jesus: Social Justice and the Cross
March 16th, 2010 | 8:17 am | #1
There is a very simple question you need to answer here and that is why the “social”? There is nothing you express a desire for above that can’t be adequately covered by the word “justice” all by itself. What does “social” get us? Are we worried that people might think we mean “chemical justice” or “musical justice”?
All “social” brings into the conversation is a loophole wide enough to import a whole lot of decidedly non-biblical politics in by stealth.
March 16th, 2010 | 8:40 am | #2
Jules:
When you say the word “justice” without any modifier, many people think almost exclusively of the criminal justice system: apprehending and punishing lawbreakers (what does the U.S. Department of Justice do?). As indicated by the Scripture passages quoted above, the Scriptural concept of justice includes our responsibility to care for the less fortunate in ways that do not involve the law or criminality. For all that it has been abused by political factions, “social justice” reminds us of that emphasis.
March 16th, 2010 | 8:52 am | #3
Nick,
To the limited extent that is true, why “social”? “Criminal justice” is social justice in the sense that it takes place in the social sphere. Is there any kind of imaginable “justice” that wouldn’t by definition also be social? What does the word “social” buy us? Other than a whole lot of confusion and a loophole big enough to smuggle an oil tanker worth of false gospel.
The English language is rich and powerful enough that we can say anything we need to without resorting to the term “social gospel”.
March 16th, 2010 | 8:55 am | #4
Quote:
“Bringing all these things into submission to Christ is no easy task, and the Gospel must not be tied to any political system, regime, or platform.”
That may be true – but there are some political systems, regimes, or platforms the Gospel must be against… or it fails to be the Gospel. Slavery, for example, in any of its forms cannot be acceptable to a Christian.
March 16th, 2010 | 9:35 am | #5
Good morning. Skimming through some of the latest Evangel posts, I can see there’s been considerable discussion on the general topic of justice. Mr. Benson, if I may, I would like to commend you on this post. I like the way you began, I like the way you ended, and I don’t think there’s anything in between with which I disagree either. To be honest, more often than not, in reading through what is asserted as beneficial in the blogosphere, I find myself frustrated and holding my tongue, especially when it comes to theology, but I think this post is a balanced communication of the theological truths of law & gospel, and therefore a beneficial offering.
I’ve read Mr. Mohler’s expressions once or twice before I saw them quoted in this post, and when I did, I thought they were a pretty good summary, but I think the way you began this post that, “we should not be afraid to reclaim ‘social justice’ as a biblical principle and theme”, and your particular references in Deuteronomy and James, are very good points that should never be forgotten or overlooked by those who purport to believe the Gospel of Christ.
The meaning of language changes over time and it is too bad that the term “social justice” has been associated with some agendas that have no biblical foundation. However, the danger in surrendering the term “social justice” to those who would assign it to agendas that are worthy of rejection, or considered evil by the Christian Church, is that Christians will extend that conception to all calls for justice in this world. Because of that likelihood, I would opt for trying to reclaim the term “social justice” as it has been associated with biblical examples of justice. Consider this: If euthanasia activists started using the term “social mercy” to describe their agenda, would the Church surrender, associate the term with evil, and remove the phrase “social mercy” from its vocabulary?
So once again, I think this post is a good balance of law and gospel and thank you for that.
March 16th, 2010 | 9:42 am | #6
The other problem with the term “social justice” is when people use it for caring for the poor. It’s an issue of compassion and love, an issue of the second-most important commandment–but not an issue of justice.
God does call us both to “live justly” and to “love mercy/kindness/steadfast love” (Micah 6:8), but he does not call it “justice” to care for people, or “injustice” not to care for people.
Nick–you said that the verses above indicate that “the Scriptural concept of justice includes our responsibility to care for the less fortunate in ways that do not involve the law or criminality.” But they don’t. Deut 10:18 is the closest, but look at it again. It says that God executes justice for orphans & widows, and that he loves the sojourner. It doesn’t say that giving them food is part of executing justice.
March 16th, 2010 | 10:23 am | #7
Christopher,
I didn’t sunder them when they are wed; if anything, I said I haven’t seen the wedding.
But I didn’t even say they aren’t “wed”. I agree that they are wed together in the sense that they’re part of Christ-like living; they’re part of God’s character. They’re complementary.
Can you tell me why you think Deut 10:18 (or any other passage) says that caring for those in need is part of executing justice, rather than complementary to it?
March 16th, 2010 | 10:27 am | #8
By the way–regarding “social justice” and the marginalized:
I agree completely with Mohler’s comment that “The Gospel is not a message of social salvation, but it does have social implications.” “Social justice” is a good term for some of that, aside from possible historical associations. It’s like “societal justice”–fixing large-scale societal injustices.
The American civil rights movement is a good example, seeking justice due to the vulnerable, marginalized, downtrodden.
March 16th, 2010 | 10:52 am | #9
What?
Where does that verse mention caring for the needs of the sojourner, fatherless, and the widow?
It says, don’t pervert the justice that’s due to them. That’s like Proverbs 31:9, “Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy”.
I asked why you think providing for their needs is part of “justice”. You pointed to a verse that said roughly, “Give them justice”.
March 16th, 2010 | 11:08 am | #10
Mr. Benson,
Thanks for holding on to the tag “social justice.” I think it is helpful still even if it has been co-opted by some (as most such phrases are, which is why they become popular phrases).
As I understand the phrase, it refers to the enactment of justice on a societal level and thus speaks to the order of creation rather than the order of grace. I think you are correct in talking about different modes of justice.
Historically, the phrase was used to distinguish talk of justice as applied to Jesus within a penal substitutionary model of the atonement (which is partly what Rauschenbusch was reacting against) from talk of justice with respect to the forces of sin at work in society. Thus Jesus’ death on the cross, for Rauschenbusch, was not simply to pay a penalty in order to satisfy divine judgment, but to deal with the forces of sin at work in the world. Rauschenbusch really resurrected a version of Christus victor it seems to me over against the satisfaction family of atonement theories. So, social justice is a different mode than talk of personal justice related to personal guilt.
I might add that Wesleyans in the 19th century talked about personal and social holiness. Where do we think all these social institutions (e.g., Salvation Army, YMCA. YWCA, orphanages, etc.) that we take for granted came from? They came mostly from holiness folk concerned with “social” holiness.
As a historian, let me shamelessly say that we all need to be better historians to find out where the theological vocabulary we have inherited comes from and the kind of work it was intended to do in the first place. So there all you theologians! :-).
March 16th, 2010 | 11:10 am | #11
Christopher,
It does seem we’re talking past each other, and yes, the difference between us is that you integrate compassion into justice, and I don’t.
But… That was my question. I’m asking, “Why do you integrate them?”
March 16th, 2010 | 11:15 am | #12
I’ll try to clarify something else, too:
The point of my original comment was, “These verses don’t say that compassion is integrated into justice. They teach us to have compassion for the needy, and they teach us to give justice to the needy, but they don’t teach us that compassion is part of justice.”
Maybe you have another biblical reason for saying that they’re integrated. Maybe you have a philosophical argument. Maybe it’s an unexamined assumption.
Either way, you might be right. But it’s something we should examine.
March 16th, 2010 | 12:35 pm | #13
I think “social justice” is one of those terms that might by synonymous with distributive justice–that which is according to one’s need. That is different from retributive justice which is according to one’s deserts. Both are a part of the biblical testimony concerning God’s justice, but in our political moment one is favored by the left (social) and the other is favored by the right (retributive).
March 16th, 2010 | 2:53 pm | #14
“Why should we tack the adjective “social” to justice? Because there are different types of justice: distributive justice, procedural justice, retributive justice, restorative justice.”
This isn’t getting us anywhere. All those other forms of “justice” are just as social as “social justice”. And, as I said before, it’s not enough to say we use the word “social” to distinguish the meaning from other meanings we might attach to justice. Any word or meaningless symbol grabbed at random could do that job as well. The word “social” must add something specific and clear to the specialized term “social justice” and that is what it doesn’t do here.
I’m sorry but all I see here—and in other attempts to defend the term—is a steadfast clinging to a term that has no clear meaning. One doesn’t have to go all Glen Beckish about this to wonder if the appeal of “social justice” isn’t this very lack of clarity.
March 16th, 2010 | 3:24 pm | #15
Maybe I should take a second swipe at this definition. Historically, in Reformed and other evangelical circles, penal substitionary atonement was used to explain the work of Christ on the cross. This created a strong tendency to talk about justice in relation to God and personal guilt. It would go something like God justly should condemn all humankind, but by an act of mercy on the cross he has extended salvation. This act of mercy settled divine justice in the sense of paying the penalty due to sin. Justice was then construed in almost exclusively personal terms with the implication that God saved the soul so that body did not matter so much.
Justice was then construed in terms of personal guilt for sin, and was not always construed in terms of the social dimension of life. Now, this may not seem like an implication you would draw, but it is what some thinkers did draw. In his examination of child labor and other practices in NYC, Rauschenbusch sought to extend the notion of justice beyond simply a God/human relation to human/human relation. Hence the category of “social” justice and “social” gospel.
Social justice is not talking about another kind of justice, but the expression of justice in human/human relations. It is a modern category designed to counter views that think of justice in exclusively divine/human relations and thus God’s justice is met with Christ’s death so that the sinner can receive mercy.
However, I would still argue that regardless of the modes of justice, there must be some common definition like rendering to each his/her due or the preservation of rightness for its own sake (Anselm’s definition), etc.
I can’t speak to the meaning of the phrase outside of its theological sphere.
March 16th, 2010 | 5:12 pm | #16
If you want to reply to this comment, and I have no illusions that many people will, it will be helpful if you can read the words I am typing, instead of the words you think I must be typing, first. So here goes:
Like, 85% of the time I have heard words in church like “soup kitchen”, “homeless shelter”, “womens’ shelter”, “Habitat for Humanity”, “volunteer”, “foster parent”, etc., I have been sitting in the pew of some rather conservative evangelical church somewhere.
Like, 85% of the time I have heard the phrase “social justice” in church, I have been sitting in the pew of a fairly liberal church and the speaker was indeed using this phrase to mean some degree or another of government directed economic redistribution.
So, based on my experience, Beck’s singular, limited point, which most people seem to want to dance around, that churches which in fact use this phrase do tend to have a redistributionist agenda, is correct. His call to get out, well, that we can argue about.
That was the main thing I wanted to say. If you want to keep reading: “Social justice” is not a Biblical term. It gained wide use in the Progressive era. It was tied to the social gospel movement, but the most notable Christians who employed it were more interested in bringing the church into service for the Progressive movement than they were in preaching the gospel. So: The church can’t reclaim it because we never owned it in the first place. That doesn’t make it evil. Maybe we can still put it to use. But that would involve a huge, I anticipate, effort to divest it of its many unhelpful connotations. We already have a great Biblical language of love, faith, hope, truth, redemption, etc., and justice per se. I vote we stick with that.
March 16th, 2010 | 5:24 pm | #17
Not much to contribute here, but I will say I liked this post. Thank you.
March 16th, 2010 | 6:44 pm | #18
Christopher,
Hmm…
“I integrate justice and compassion because they seem to be integrated in the scriptural passages we have examined (Micah 6:8, Deut. 10:18).”
So, maybe you’re reading the list in Deut 10:18 as an elaboration? Like, “I have run the good race, I have fought the good fight”? That’s a parallel elaboration, not a list of two separate things I’ve done. (As opposed to “I have prepared the ingredients, I have mixed them together, I have baked them.” Those are complementary, but distinct & separate.)
That’s reasonable. I’d say the verse is ambiguous–both are possible. It lists the two things, but doesn’t clearly indicate whether it’s an elaboration or a distinct list.
I wonder… How do we tell the difference?
We have to work that out. But it’s important to notice that it is ambiguous. The wording of the verse by itself doesn’t suggest that compassion is part of justice, instead of complementary.
“Practically, I am compelled to ask: how do we show justice “to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow”?”
I would answer: By standing up for their rights. By not cheating them & taking advantage of them. By judging righteously in court, ala Lev. 19:15, “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.”
And along with that, our compassion certainly moves us to care for their needs. Our love means we want to see justice for them, and it means we want to see their needs met and their tears dried and their pains comforted.
But… I would never think to say I’m executing justice by comforting a friend or clothing the cold. I wouldn’t necessarily think that I’m correcting an injustice.
Your “tandem” image is good, but it doesn’t suggest to me that you execute justice by showing compassion.
March 16th, 2010 | 7:10 pm | #19
Christopher,
One other thought–for simplifying things.
You said,
“Of course, integration of the virtues does not mean identification of the virtues, as if they were all indistinguishable from each other.”
Right, I realize you aren’t making them the same thing. But you are saying that caring for needs is part of justice.
I know that it would be unloving, if I don’t want my neighbor to see justice. (So: Seeking justice is part of love & compassion.)
But is it unjust, if I don’t care for their needs? (So: Is compassion part of justice?)
Hmm… I’ll have to think about that some more.
March 16th, 2010 | 9:42 pm | #20
Social justice has at least 3 elements: liberty, equality, and fraternity. Each member of a just society should be free to pursue his or her own goals in life. This will include things like freedom of speech and religion, but more generally it is a right to govern one’s own life, or a right of self-determination. In a just society, there is equality, and there are no unjustifiable inequalities. This means in part that the needs and interests of all people matter the same. Finally, there is fraternity, or what we now tend to call community. I take the good of others to be part of my good. This is a matter of justice because of the inherent dignity that human beings have as creatures made in the image of God.
I think we need to hold onto the social justice terminology as well. It was a desire for social justice which led Wilberforce to act on behalf of those who were enslaved. We shouldn’t shy away from this or any other term because some use it in different ways. And I’d say Jim Wallis has not coopted the term, but rather sought to promote and live out the values of social justice for years. Even if you disagree with some of his views about how to foster social justice, it is hard to say that the values driving his work are somehow misguided.
I strongly agree with the last point in the comments made by C. Benson. It isn’t personal justice or social justice, it is both. Persons make up societies and societies impact the character of persons.
March 16th, 2010 | 10:11 pm | #21
Yes, we must hold both personal and social justice together.
To get to your questions, Mr. Benson, I teach historical theology at Regent University.
I was intrigued by the title given to the work of St. Basil. My hunch is that is what the translator or St. Vladimir’s gave to the homilies that are contained in the volume. I don’t think it’s original to Basil. My comments were only intended to provide some historical context to the English phrase and its current usage.
I think you are correct that Christianity has always been concerned with issues of social justice, it just went under different names. Based on what I know, what we today call social justice would have been a feature of politics in the ancient and medieval sense of dealing with common life together. Unfortunately, in modern discourse politics means something quite different and thus other terms or phrases must be utilized to convey the meaning it lost. You might think of the way Yoder and Hauerwas, among others, have attempted to recover that ancient meaning in their writings.
March 17th, 2010 | 7:33 am | #22
Thanks, Mr. Benson, for these kind remarks.
March 17th, 2010 | 1:26 pm | #23
Christopher,
Mr. Sacamento: Yes, churches that use the phrase “social justice” do “tend to have a redistributionist agenda.” But rather than retire the phrase, I propose that we reclaim the phrase …
We can’t reclaim it because we never owned it in the first place. But I won’t bother re-typing the rest of my comment. Thanks for the response anyway. And thanks for agreeing with me (and, horrors!, Glen Beck) on the limited point of how the “social justice” language is, in fact, used.
Mike Austin,
It was a desire for social justice which led Wilberforce to act on behalf of those who were enslaved.
The key is how the term is actually used. The ideas contained in the term “Social justice”, as brought into the day-to-day modern language by the progressive movement, had basically nothing to do with Wilberforce’s work at all. He was fighting for what he would have understood as justice, pure and simple.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact