Social Justice Jesus

[Rageprophet]

and sorry about getting off topic a bit there, it is hard to debate collectivism, redistribution, social justice without getting into socialism no socialism.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

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.

Amen!

I agree that it's hard not to bring up capitalism when critiquing other "isms".
I meant address how the free market relates to the Scripture excerpted in the OP, not merely harp on capitalism.

 

[Drew]

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€

I do not see your argument here. You seem to be arguing thus:

1. Jesus says its hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (which, by the way has nothing to do with "heaven", but that's another debate);

2. Therefore Christians should not pursue a programme of social justice where money flows from the rich to the poor.

I just do not see the logic here.

 

[Drew]

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

I have never advocated anything like this.

 

[Drew]

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.

I have no idea what your point is in the last sentence. Please explain to us the fundamental Biblical argument against shaping the institutions of our world so that they implement "charity" - having money flow from the rich to the poor.

Jesus certainly seems to have embraced this idea when he instructs the rich ruler to give to the poor. Now, as I believe I have already argued, it makes no sense whatsoever to embrace this kind of value at the individual level, but to then reject it at the corporate (societal) level.

 

[Drew]

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

I have never stated that the poor should not give as well. But the Scriptures are clear: there is indeed a moral imperative for the wealthy to help the poor. The fact that all people, rich and poor alike, are encouraged to give to others does not change this.

 

[Drew]

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.

1. The fact that the poor will always be with is, of course, in no way an argument against trying to help the poor. If Jesus had said "there will always be murderers in human society", would that mean that we are not to try to eliminate murder? Of course not.

2. This whole "you are advocating human effort and it should be about God" line of thinking is simply not Biblical and is the wrong argument to make. We, the church, are clearly charged with the task of doing our part to make the kingdom of God more fully realized. It is, quite frankly, silly to suggest that we "sit on our thumbs and let God miraculously solve all human problems. No - we are called to be agents of transformation and healing. And one way we do that is by advocating for social justice in our world. When any New Testament writer (or Jesus) speaks against "human effort", it is clear that the issue is human effort that works against principle of the kingdom of God. Neither Jesus, nor Paul, or any other writer of scripture would ever reject the importance of human effort in advancing the kingdom of God.

 

[Drew]

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?

Are you asking me to give up all my "stuff" in order to not be hypocritical?

This is the problem we get when people read the scriptures as if it were a "technical manual", prescribing in precise, fully literal terms, how we should live.

The Bible is nothing of the sort - it is a narrative chock full of literary devices. And I suggest that we have one here. Jesus is not suggesting that every "rich" person give away everything they have. He is using exaggeration to make a point - those who are rich need to be very generous.

Are you asking me to pubically declare what fraction of my "wealth" I give to the needy. I will give that answer, if that is what you want to know. But when I do give it, I will remind you that you did ask me for it.

So, do you really want to know?

 

[Drummer4Christ]

I have no idea what your point is in the last sentence. Please explain to us the fundamental Biblical argument against shaping the institutions of our world so that they implement "charity" - having money flow from the rich to the poor.

Jesus certainly seems to have embraced this idea when he instructs the rich ruler to give to the poor. Now, as I believe I have already argued, it makes no sense whatsoever to embrace this kind of value at the individual level, but to then reject it at the corporate (societal) level.

Jesus advocated that everyone, REGARDLESS of wealth status, give to those less fortunate. If Jesus advocated that the essence of charity is the flow of money from rich to poor, why would He commend the poor widow for being charitable herself, rather than the recipient of charity by the rich? The social justice definition of charity is the flow of money from rich to poor, not from poor to poorer. The goal of social justice is to eradicate poverty by such "charity". If Jesus rebukes a rich man for not giving up everything yet, commends a poor woman for giving up everything, clearly the notion that "wealth" is to be distributed from rich to poor, and by such means of "charity" poverty will cease to exist, is false. Show me where in Scripture "charity" is anything other than an obligation of all beleivers, regardless of wealth.

Your murder analogy is irrelevant because God specifically, without equivocation, commands that murder is a sin. Nowhere in the Bible does God make a similar claim concerning wealth distribution. Simply pointing out the instances where Jesus instructs rich persons to give up everything, while ignoring instances where He commands the very same from poor and "working class" people does not mean Jesus advocated the redistribution of wealth exclusivelly from rich to poor.

Everyone has an obligation to feed the hungery, quench the thirsty, clothe the naked, comfort the sick, and visit the imprisoned, even if all you have to live on is two coins barely worth anything.

 

[Rhea]

Take the Widows offering in Mark 12:
41 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. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents. 43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

To me this always seemed very clear in meaning, especially when put alongside the eye of the needle verse.

That the charitable actions of the widow should have shamed the rich into giving much MUCH more. That the meager amount she gave was nevertheless a HUGE portion out of what she needed to live on and that the honor of the wealthy should demand that they give up to and including the point where they start digging into what they "need to live on".

The woman has put more into the treasury because she gave to the point of actual sacrifice; not just a few percent that would never change her lifestyle.

So to me this verse was always crystal clear that it meant those who had "discretionary" money should never balk at giving, even to the point that all their discretionary money became charity - because look at the heart of the woman who gave even out of her own mouth's food by comparison.

Surely, indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a man who has never gone hungry for the sake of the hungry to call himself charitable.

And I think Drew has a very good point to make. If charity to the point of giving up your own lifestyle is what Jesus commends, how can we possibly think "but only out of my own pocket when I feel like it, not as a matter of society."

It's kind of a weird reversal of arguments when compared to the gay marriage battle, now that I think of it. It is important to impose Christian will on others when it comes to sin, but never NEVER for the sake of charity. I'm comparing that to the words of Jesus and I find that a very interesting line to draw.

 

[Pard]

Just as a note... that passage on the "rich" man and the needle isn't referring to "wealth" in the monetary sense but "wealth" in the spiritual sense. And when the scripture says that Jesus is good news to all "poor" it isn't referring to being "poor" in the monetary sense but in the spiritual sense. Now that we have that all cleared up...

Social Justice a la Jesus...

Hmmm... By its very definition social justice doesn't comply with Jesus' teachings because Jesus never instructed to TAKE from people but instead commanded to GIVE to people. Social justice is specifically the REDISTRIBUTION of wealth. The non-progressive way of saying "redistribution" is to say "take from the rich and give to the poor". That's stealing...

How do I know it's stealing? Because Jesus wasn't of the government. Only the government can take and not have it labeled as stealing. As Christians we cannot take but can only receive that which is given to us.

Furthermore the Bible speaks for self-responsibility. Social justice creates a entitlement mentality. Jesus never said the monetarily poor were entitled to anything but His Love and Grace (just as the monetarily rich are also entitled to it). No man is entitled to any earthly property.

 

[Christ_empowered]

What, exactly, is wrong with social programs that reduce misery and suffering? I know I've benefited from government programs--I'm going to use grants and possibly student loans (subsidized, of course) to go back to school. Why is it that when the middle and upper-classes benefit from government largesse its OK, but when (gasp) poor people get fed and provided with decent housing, suddenly its a scandal?

Somebody quoted the parable of the vineyard workers and took it completely out of context. The moral of the story isn't that capitalism rocks, nor is it about individual responsibility, all the story is about is how we all work for our master (the Lord) from the point of our calling onward and receive the same reward: salvation. So, at 27, I get the same salvation that someone who has been a Christian since age 9, who gets the same salvation as the person who was called at age 89. Its also worth noting that those last workers would have been the most undesirable ones--the ones nobody else picked up for a day's work. The point there, I suppose, is that even the undesirables and deviants get the same reward as those picked in the first round.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

What, exactly, is wrong with social programs that reduce misery and suffering?

The only way to reduce misery and suffering is through faith in Jesus Christ, not the works of men.

I know I've benefited from government programs--I'm going to use grants and possibly student loans (subsidized, of course) to go back to school.

Matthew 6

<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23308">25</sup> “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23309">26</sup> Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23310">27</sup> Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life<sup class="footnote" value="[<a href=&quot;#fen-NIV-23310e&quot; title=&quot;See footnote e&quot;>e</a>]">[]</sup>? <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23311">28</sup> “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23312">29</sup> Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23313">30</sup> If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23314">31</sup> So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23315">32</sup> For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23316">33</sup> But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23317">34</sup> Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.


Why not advocate depending on God, instead of the Government?

Why is it that when the middle and upper-classes benefit from government largesse its OK, but when (gasp) poor people get fed and provided with decent housing, suddenly its a scandal?

Nowhere in Scripture does Jesus teach that the point of charity is to benefit from it, to be on the receiving end. He made it explicitly clear that the point of charity is to sacrifice, to deny ones self, to take the lowest seat at the table. No "class" should benefit from any government largesse.

Somebody quoted the parable of the vineyard workers and took it completely out of context. The moral of the story isn't that capitalism rocks, nor is it about individual responsibility, all the story is about is how we all work for our master (the Lord) from the point of our calling onward and receive the same reward: salvation. So, at 27, I get the same salvation that someone who has been a Christian since age 9, who gets the same salvation as the person who was called at age 89. Its also worth noting that those last workers would have been the most undesirable ones--the ones nobody else picked up for a day's work. The point there, I suppose, is that even the undesirables and deviants get the same reward as those picked in the first round.

You're confusing posts and parables. The OP contained the vineyard workers, another user posted the talents parable. Nowhere in the OP does it say anything about personal responsibility, let alone that "capitalism rocks". The only thing mentioned about the workers hired last is that they only worked one hour. That's what the workers hired first objected to, not because they were "deviants and undesirables".

 

[Drummer4Christ]

Just as a note... that passage on the "rich" man and the needle isn't referring to "wealth" in the monetary sense but "wealth" in the spiritual sense. And when the scripture says that Jesus is good news to all "poor" it isn't referring to being "poor" in the monetary sense but in the spiritual sense. Now that we have that all cleared up....

I agree. The point I am making is that the rich man lacked the spiritual wealth (faith) to give up the financial security that comes from monetary wealth.

 

[Rhea]

Nowhere in Scripture does Jesus teach that the point of charity is to benefit from it, to be on the receiving end. He made it explicitly clear that the point of charity is to sacrifice, to deny ones self, to take the lowest seat at the table. No "class" should benefit from any government largesse.

Question. If no one needs to benefit from charity, why would Jesus commend the widow for giving to the point of sacrifice? Someone needs it, or it would not be important to give it.

Question 2: if the point of charity is to sacrifice, then why the objections to giving charity through government? Those things that Christ_empowered spoke of, such as education, those are charities that we in society give each other. So why object to that if Jesus made it so clear one should not accumulate wealth, but should instead give all you have to help others?

 

[jasoncran]

because said politicians that arent christian would have say in what we "donate".

i wont give money for abortions and also other things that violate Gods commands. so why would or should i be made to support those things

after all to some abortion is a charity to be given so that some poor girl doesnt have an unwanted child, god forbid they support adoption these days.

the govt has a poor track record of helping the poor

aa and na dont really work. i have asked an aa atendee on that fact and he said it fails 90 percent of the time. aa doesnt make a person quit acohol but keeps them if they do quit. of course that is another subect

so a christian should donate to pflag? secular instutions that teach and preach contrary to the bible? no i am not saying we should banish the govt schools, but i am not going to hand money in the name of my god to the gslan and pflag groups or planned parenthood.

 

[Rhea]

As you probably know, Planned Parenthood does much much more for the health of women than just abortions. They are often the only low-income provider of any women's health services. Churches do not provide this. They do not care if women have undiagnosed cervical cancer, for example. Planned parenthood does care.

Just an aside. You probably already know all the good things they do.

 

[theLords]

As you probably know, Planned Parenthood does much much more for the health of women than just abortions. They are often the only low-income provider of any women's health services. Churches do not provide this. They do not care if women have undiagnosed cervical cancer, for example. Planned parenthood does care.

Just an aside. You probably already know all the good things they do.

I'm sorry Rhea, but have you visited every single world wide church to be able to make the statement that churches don't care if women are diagnosed with cervical cancer? My church and my pastor would care very much.

This is nothing but a slanderous claim (especially in the light of planned parenthood's infamous tax fraud/theft). Quite frankly, I expect better from someone like you.

 

[Christ_empowered]

I just don't think Jesus called his followers to transform their lives without transforming their world.

 

[Pard]

I just don't think Jesus called his followers to transform their lives without transforming their world.

No you're right. But the transformation you are speaking/referring of/to isn't the way Jesus wanted it done. Transformation through a secular government isn't good transformation for the Body of Christ.