Social Justice Jesus

[Drummer4Christ]

I have a hard time believing that Social Justice (and collectivism in general) are biblical concepts. If anything, these concepts are antithetical to the teachings of Christ.
In other words, if concepts such as the redistribution of wealth, living wage, abolition of private property, were based in scripture Social Justice Jesus surely would have taught these concepts during His ministry. He would have reacted differently to specific situations. His parables would reflect collectivist themes.

Take the Widows offering in Mark 12:
<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-24715">41</sup> Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-24716">42</sup> But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-24717">43</sup> Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-24718">44</sup> They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.â€




Surely, Social Justice Jesus would not have said the the poor widow actually gave MORE than all the rich combined! He would've advocated that the poor widow keep her coins and that either the rich give additional money to her from their wealth or from the treasury.
This is why Jesus said in the Gospels:
"it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.â€
Because the rich man could not give up his financial security and trust in the Lord. Financial security through human efforts is not a biblical concept nor a teaching of Christ. “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.â€

How about the Parable of the Vineyard Workers:
"<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23794">1</sup> For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23795">2</sup> He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23796">3</sup> “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23797">4</sup> He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23798">5</sup> So they went.
“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23799">6</sup> About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’
<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23800">7</sup> “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.
“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’
<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23801">8</sup> “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’
<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23802">9</sup> “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23803">10</sup> So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23804">11</sup> When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23805">12</sup> ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’
<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23806">13</sup> “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23807">14</sup> Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23808">15</sup> Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’
<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23809">16</sup> “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.â€


Surely, Social Justice Jesus would not have told such a parable where the bourgeoisie vineyard owner exploits the unemployed proletariat by not paying them a living wage and by declaring he has a "right" to do what he wants with his money. A Social Justice Jesus parable would have the workers unionize and reject the denarius offer for higher pay plus benefits. God did not prophecy that the last will be equal through solidarity, and the first will be liquidated.




Lastly, consider where Jesus feeds the four and five thousand. Social Justice Jesus would not have multiplied a handful of loaves and a couple of fish. He would have divided a portion of each loaf and fish equally among the crowd. Nor would there be anything leftover (that would be profit).


Jesus died for us individually, not collectively. He suffered so that the sins of mankind as individuals would be redeemed through Him. For His individual glory, by His individual way: "I am the way, and the truth, and the light".


"You shall not covet..." Coveting is the sole motivation behind social justice.

 

[jasoncran]

while i neither buy the idea of christian socialism. the bible was written to the audiences of each book in their day. we need to look at prinicples. neither is capitalism clearly spelled out.

should we reject democracy and return to monarchies?

 

[handy]

Well I spent several years in the ELCA and still work for the church and they are big into Social Justice...

I think there are some things about Social Justice that can and should be embraced by all Christians...but here's my main thing against it...

Social Justice isn't going to save anyone.

It just isn't.

If Social Justice was the true goal of the Church...then Jesus would have commanded us to "Go therefore, into all the world and feed the poor, protect the weak against the strong and bring justice to all."

But, that's not what He said. He said to go and make disciples and baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I do think that the church has a role in opening food banks, free or drastically discounted used clothing stores, medical clinics, and things that will truly help the poor and needy among us. But, we should never forget what our prime directive is.

This is why I always cringe a bit when the ELCA sends out newsreports like this one:

"I have challenged that some steps should by taken like working together, Muslims and Christians, for justice in the world," said Younan. "To work for justice in the world, it cannot be only Muslims or Christians and cannot be only for our own interests, but it must really take into consideration what problems are facing us and need justice."
Younan cited a number of Muslim and Christian charities. He suggested forming a joint charity project which would consist of and be equally funded by Muslims and Christians. "There is poverty in the Muslim and Christian world and we cannot deal with them (issues of poverty) alone," he said.

ELCA and ELCJHL Bishops Deepen Conversations among Christians and Muslims - News Releases - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

Bishop Munib A. Younan is the Bishop of the ELCA in Jordan.

Again...I'm not saying that we Christians shouldn't strive to work side by side with other religions to better serve the poor and hurting...but, this seems to actually get into being unequally yoked. It seems as if the gospel is going to have to take a back seat in order to work this out.

And, if the gospel is taking a back seat...it won't do anyone any real good.

 

[Jake]

while i neither buy the idea of christian socialism. the bible was written to the audiences of each book in their day. we need to look at prinicples. neither is capitalism clearly spelled out.

should we reject democracy and return to monarchies?

I believe a monarchy is exactly what it is, the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords!

 

[Drew]

I have a hard time believing that Social Justice (and collectivism in general) are biblical concepts. If anything, these concepts are antithetical to the teachings of Christ.

Interesting. I take the opposite position. What is the kingdom of God if not, to quote from Jesus "good news for the poor".

And are you not familiar with any of a number of texts which advocate care for the poor and needy?

I have not yet the rest of your OP so perhaps you deal with these things. I will get back to you.

 

[Drew]

ITake the Widows offering in Mark 12:
<SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-24715>41</SUP> Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-24716>42</SUP> But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-24717>43</SUP> Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-24718>44</SUP> They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.â€

Surely, Social Justice Jesus would not have said the the poor widow actually gave MORE than all the rich combined! He would've advocated that the poor widow keep her coins and that either the rich give additional money to her from their wealth or from the treasury.

I do not believe its as simple as this. The fact that Jesus commends the woman for giving in no way implies that He does not also support "redistribution of wealth".

You appear to be presuming that Jesus would address all relevant moral imperatives in each situation He engages.

 

[Drew]

I would like to address the thinking that undergirds the view that Christians should not work for the establishment of "social justice".

Did Jesus teach the principle that his followers should care for needs of "the least of these"? I suspect that no one will dispute this.

Now what does it really mean for a Christain Fred to oppose establishment of social justice (e.g. welfare, taxing the rich to give to the poor, etc.)? It means that Fred believes these the teachings of Jesus about the "least of these" do not apply to the domain of how we order and structure our society. They only apply to how Fred acts as an individual.

A little thinking reveals that this is an entirely odd and unworkable state of affairs. What kind of a person will hold a set of values A to order his personal behaviour and yet hold an entirely different set of values B in respect to how to order society?

If it is fundamentally good for the individual to manifest care for the least of these, it is also fundamentally good for society to do so as well. The value is not context-dependent -it is true at both the individual level as well as at the societal level. Caring for others is not a "private" act - it is a decidedly corporate act. So why not enshrine this value in the institutions that implement our corporateness - the institutions of government?

I think that Christians forget that a society is going to make some decision about the degree to which tax dollars will be used, or will not be used, to provide social justice. So can a Christian, who truly believes in the value of caring “for the least of these”, really be responsible if he says to himself “Let’s let somebody else decide on what is the best way for our society to deal with the material needs of these people”?

Imagine how silly it would be to proclaim oneself to be a pacifist personally and yet promote the enshrinement of militarism in the institutions of government.

Or imagine how silly it would be to be environmentally responsible as an individual and yet vote for government policies that harm the environment (when other factors do not force one into such a position).<O></O>

 

[Drew]

Social Justice isn't going to save anyone.

It just isn't.

I trust we all understand that the gospel is not primarily about "being saved", even though this is very important.

The gospel is not, repeat not, news about "how you get saved", it is the announcement that, as promised, God has returned to His people (which now includes all believers) and has been enthroned as King.

Yes, personal salvation flows out of this, but why do so many seem to think that "its all about getting saved". That is not, I suggest the central thrust of the New Testament, which is much more about the in-breaking of God's kingdom here and now in this present world.

And, yes, that means social justice. Remember - the kingdom of God is good news for the poor. And let's not morph that into "its good news for them in the sense that they, too, can 'go to heaven when they die'". That is not what Jesus meant by that statement, as I am prepared to argue if need be.

If Social Justice was the true goal of the Church...then Jesus would have commanded us to "Go therefore, into all the world and feed the poor, protect the weak against the strong and bring justice to all."

But, that's not what He said. He said to go and make disciples and baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I think you have misunderstood the heart of Jesus' message and in so doing, have re-worded His teachings (I am not suggesting you did this intentionally). Lets remember what Jesus really said:

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit

Now I suspect you may try to argue that "all the nations" really means "all the individuals within the nation, but to the exclusion of those person's corporate national life". Well, you need to make that case, then. I suggest that Jesus uses the term "nations" to express His desire that societies as a whole are indeed transformed.

In event, I suggest that, in the Biblical context, "to make disciples" means to help transform people so that they will, among other things of course, seek to re-shape the very structures of our world.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

I do not believe its as simple as this. The fact that Jesus commends the woman for giving in no way implies that He does not also support "redistribution of wealth".

You appear to be presuming that Jesus would address all relevant moral imperatives in each situation He engages.

Obviously, Jesus told us to help those less fortunate than us. No one is disputing that. However, if this poor widow gave MORE than the rich, this clearly indicates that charity is the obligation of all believers regardless of income status to provide for those in need. Furthermore, the notion that Scripture contains moral imperatives relative to the teachings of Christ, yet not consistently addressed by Jesus is false. If that were the case, Jesus would not have consistently commended individuals on the biggest moral imperative of all: Faith.

If Jesus didn't espouse wealth distribution through charity at the most prime opportunity (the poor widows offering) where else does He advocate such an idea and why did he not address this moral imperative in all relevant situations?

 

[Drew]

Obviously, Jesus told us to help those less fortunate than us. No one is disputing that.

Well if that's so, why not advocate to have that principle inform the very structures that govern our society?

However, if this poor widow gave MORE than the rich, this clearly indicates that charity is the obligation of all believers regardless of income status to provide for those in need. Furthermore, the notion that Scripture contains moral imperatives relative to the teachings of Christ, yet not consistently addressed by Jesus is false.

The notion is correct.

I am pointing out what should be obvious - the fact that Jesus commends the poor widow, and does not, at the same time also say that the rich should give to the poor, does not mean that Jesus does not believe that the rich should help the poor.

My point is quite simple. One cannot use this kind of reasoning:

1. In interaction A with someone, Jesus stressed moral imperative X;
2. Jesus did not stress moral imperative Y in that same interaction;
3. Therefore, Jesus does not support moral imperative Y.

In the context of the account with the widow, this false reasoning becomes:

1. In interaction with the poor widow, Jesus stressed moral imperative of generosity on the part of all;
2. Jesus did not, in that same interaction, stress the moral imperative of the rich to give to the poor;
3. Therefore, Jesus does not support the idea of the rich giving to the poor.

Do you see the problem now? If Jesus were to address all moral dimensions of every situation He was in, He would never have time to do anything else. It is simply unrealistic to expect that Jesus will give a complete treatment of all the dimensions of some moral issue, each time he encounters a situation where that moral issue is in play.

If Jesus didn't espouse wealth distribution through charity at the most prime opportunity (the poor widows offering) where else does He advocate such an idea and why did he not address this moral imperative in all relevant situations?

How about this:

"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full

Now many people will say "well, we should give to the poor at a personal level, but why enshrine such a principle in our societal institutions are run?"

Do you realize how odd that sounds (I address this in a recent post).

Imagine someone saying "I personally choose not to murder but do not think we need to enshrine that principle in the laws of the land". Does that sound right?

 

[jasoncran]

I believe a monarchy is exactly what it is, the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords!

yes that is the only monarchy worthy for all time. all others are man's attempt to govern others or control them.

i dont believe in christian socialism at all. yes we should help the poor and have some means to give to the poor but the govt itsself whenever possible shouldnt be involved.

drew here fails to see this problem. in reality more so called christians and others vote for policies that a christian cant be involved in nor give to ie abortion. if taxes are my charity then given the ratio of the voters i would rather give my money to the local churches that give.

if more voters were real biblical in nature and did vote according to conscience of the bible and our god then perhaps this taxes might have a chance but.. power corrupts and i as a believer should be able to pull my funding of anything that the spirit tells me dont support.

if my pastor took my offerings and got drunk with them should i continue to give to that habit. i think not!

forgive if i am cynical but in america few if any believer or sinner really sacrifice for others imho. yes they are there but.. what if we all gave what we could and didnt buy the things?

what if those that could work did work? what if those that need to reign in exess did?

the problem with christian socialism is that one depends on man's taxes or instutions rather then on the lord.

i hate to say this but i see that neither system of economical solutions are working. capitalism is failing, socialism and the more command style ecomonies are in havoc. the euro is hurting.

people in the west want others to fix them. what about God?

we cant combined govt with any one religion and expect the athiest and sinners to be treated with rights to hold office. yes we should vote our views, but we cant tell the the lost that they have no rights to vote their world views either. the gospel isnt spread by opression. each must come willingly. american history ie the pilgrims and earlier christian non neutral govt has shown that to be the case.

we christians should vote yes and with the lord in mind. but the church isnt the state, and neither does it work in reverse.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

Well if that's so, why not advocate to have that principle inform the very structures that govern our society?

Because Jesus said in the Gospels:
"it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.â€
The rich man could not give up his financial security and trust in the Lord. Financial security through human efforts is not a biblical concept nor a teaching of Christ. “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.â€

You are not advocating that the Government facilitate charity but, to have men pass judgement on others based on income status.

I am pointing out what should be obvious - the fact that Jesus commends the poor widow, and does not, at the same time also say that the rich should give to the poor, does not mean that Jesus does not believe that the rich should help the poor.

What should be obvious is that by giving to the temple treasury, both the poor widow AND the rich folk were giving (in part) to those less fortunate. That was the point Jesus was making. That the poor widow made the bigger sacrifice because she gave all she had to live on. Nowhere does the ide of social justice advocate that poor people give to those who are less fortunate.

My point is quite simple. One cannot use this kind of reasoning:

1. In interaction A with someone, Jesus stressed moral imperative X;
2. Jesus did not stress moral imperative Y in that same interaction;
3. Therefore, Jesus does not support moral imperative Y.

In the context of the account with the widow, this false reasoning becomes:

1. In interaction with the poor widow, Jesus stressed moral imperative of generosity on the part of all;
2. Jesus did not, in that same interaction, stress the moral imperative of the rich to give to the poor;
3. Therefore, Jesus does not support the idea of the rich giving to the poor.

Nowhere in Scripture does Jesus teach that the "rich" have a separate obligation than the rest of humanity (all) to give to the poor.

How about this:

"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full

Now many people will say "well, we should give to the poor at a personal level, but why enshrine such a principle in our societal institutions are run?"

Because social justice does not simply advocate giving to the needy by all persons, regardless of wealth status. It advocates the elimination of poverty through human efforts, specifically at the expense of people judged by men as being "rich". This is Scripturally unfounded considering (as mentioned above)
“With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible†and that Jesus said the poor will always be with us when the disciples balked at the use of expensive perfume being used to anoint Him, rather than be sold for a sum of money to give to the poor. I'm sure you're aware of Jesus' teachings concerning judgement.

Imagine someone saying "I personally choose not to murder but do not think we need to enshrine that principle in the laws of the land". Does that sound right?

The redistribution of wealth is neither a command nor a law of God. Therefore, it is unnecessary to include it with laws that do come from God in order to shape the laws of men.

 

[Hitch]

Drew really hates private property

 

[Christ_empowered]

I don't like it when anyone, on either side of the political spectrum, tries to reduce Jesus' message to the political level. Christian values are transcendent and otherworldly; as C.S. Lewis pointed out in one of his writings on Christian politics, there's something in Christianity to both please and irritate everyone. Be kind to the poor and help the oppressed--awesome, score 1 for the liberals. He who does not work shall not eat--d'oh! score 1 for the conservatives. There is no male or female in Christ--hey, the feminists get one. Women should submit to their husbands--ummm...say what?

I tried my hand at liberal, social justice Christianity. I even get the Sojourner's newsletter (google them if you'd like). I don't even read it anymore; they've taken something spiritual and potentially life-changing and turned it into political ammo. To be fair, conservatives often do the same thing.

I will say this: I am fairly progressive (I hesitate to say "liberal") on many issues not because of specific Bible passages, but because my developing Christian worldview, my experience of being a marginalized member of society (if it wasn't for my middle-class parents, my mental illness would have left me homeless long ago), and what I consider compassionate common sense all combined to form a worldview that's probably on the left of the political spectrum.

I don't think Jesus would be opposed to social justice. Churches gave birth to the Civil Rights Movement and the Abolitionist Movement. I don't think that Christians are expected to focus solely on their own salvation and completely disengage from the struggles that many (both saved and unsaved) face, nor do I think Christians are expected to always work outside of the political/governmental systems to effect change and improve the lives of the oppressed (and society in general).

Its been said that Christians of all denominations have painted more pictures and built more orphanages and hospitals than unbelievers ever have. There may not be a specific verse that demands this sort of behavior, but I do think that "to whom much is given, much is expected." God's grace is the greatest gift imaginable, so I don't see how a Christian who has the means and ability to improve his/her world could possibly justify not doing so.

 

[Rageprophet]

capitalism failed?

 

[Rageprophet]

Q. Are Americans more or less charitable than citizens of other countries?
A. No developed country approaches American giving. For example, in 1995 (the most recent year for which data are available), Americans gave, per capita, three and a half times as much to causes and charities as the French, seven times as much as the Germans, and 14 times as much as the Italians. Similarly, in 1998, Americans were 15 percent more likely to volunteer their time than the Dutch, 21 percent more likely than the Swiss, and 32 percent more likely than the Germans. These differences are not attributable to demographic characteristics such as education, income, age, sex, or marital status. On the contrary, if we look at two people who are identical in all these ways except that one is European and the other American, the probability is still far lower that the European will volunteer than the American.




Let us look at the fruit and also remember that Hong Kong is more capitalist than America however remembering that america was built on Capitalism. You can fight capitalism and socialism all day long hurling scripture back and forth and no ones mind will ever be swayed one way or the other but, this the facts People who have more control over their money and are accountable to God will outgive any socialist country everyday of the week and that to me tells me where my political leanings should be.

 

[jasoncran]

capitalism failed?

name any stable economy that has no govt control of some market. pure free markets dont exist in this day as well if you have a complaint to whom do you take for these things

recalls? yup in the us the govt makes the business do that, just look at the fine toyota of america got for their car problems

child labor gone in america that wasnt a capitalist that pushed that? in fact a socialised. capitalism would work if the society is christian, america is moving rapidly to the same state as europe post christianity.


i like the idea of a free market but with the market doing what it is doing and people ignoring the tenets in the bible, greedy and godless capitalism will be just as evil as any other failed state.


what good is it if the taxes are low and the business still hire cheap labor from the third world countries. which is better to pay an illegal or legal alien who isnt used to the wealth we have become acustomed too or the american who wont pick front even if he has no job. or if he does wont work for the lower wages as he cant afford to.

yes there are americans who would. but let me ask you this. i throw paper seven days a week and why is it now when i need to sub and i pay what i make to the sub that given such a dire economy few of these jobless can be found. its easy money you just dont have a life.


something for nothing is what we have become.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

name any stable economy that has no govt control of some market. pure free markets dont exist in this day as well if you have a complaint to whom do you take for these things

recalls? yup in the us the govt makes the business do that, just look at the fine toyota of america got for their car problems

child labor gone in america that wasnt a capitalist that pushed that? in fact a socialised. capitalism would work if the society is christian, america is moving rapidly to the same state as europe post christianity.


i like the idea of a free market but with the market doing what it is doing and people ignoring the tenets in the bible, greedy and godless capitalism will be just as evil as any other failed state.


what good is it if the taxes are low and the business still hire cheap labor from the third world countries. which is better to pay an illegal or legal alien who isnt used to the wealth we have become acustomed too or the american who wont pick front even if he has no job. or if he does wont work for the lower wages as he cant afford to.

yes there are americans who would. but let me ask you this. i throw paper seven days a week and why is it now when i need to sub and i pay what i make to the sub that given such a dire economy few of these jobless can be found. its easy money you just dont have a life.


something for nothing is what we have become.

I have no problem starting another thread concerning free market economics in general and their relation to the Bible. However, the OP deals strictly with the values espoused by social justice in relation to the teachings of Christ. If there is any part of the OP you take issue with, I'd be more than happy to address it. Otherwise, I respectfully request we all stick to the subject at hand and debate the merits of capitalism in another thread.

 

[Potluck]

Drew really hates private property

Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Ok, so who here wants to be perfect first?
Drew? Care to show us by example and demonstrate for us the Christian way to social justice?

 

[Rageprophet]

I always liked Mt 25:14-30 The Parable of the Talents for the anti collectivism anti social justice scripture. Personal responsibility for what God has entrusted you with as well as reaping and sowing and accountability to God. The last couple lines of scripture there really destroy the redistributive idealogy, well sort of unless we look at God's redistribution plan where he takes from the unfruitful everything and gives it to the most fruitful.