N.T. Wright on Social Justice and the Gospel

I can't understand Wright because I don't know what he means by some of the terms. By "social justice" does he mean charity or state redistribution of wealth? If he means charity, then I can agree completely. If he means state redistribution, then I disagree entirely.

And what does he mean by justice? Does he mean equality of wealth, as do socialists? Or does he mean justice as preventing or correcting criminal behavior, as the Western world has understood the term for millennia? If the former, I completely disagree.

Respectfully, I do not see where Wright is simply talking about charity or social justice - at least a sense of social justice in the libertarian sense of working for the poor and disadvantaged. Rather, I see Wright as speaking to the issue that God's work is at hand now - the salvific work of God is active here and now as He is reconciling the world to himself. Justice should not be so limited but should be understood in the Scriptural sense - that is as being in right relationship, both with God and with our fellows - which includes the discussed notions of charity but also transcends such a notion. I would have to acknowledge there is an issue with being "forced" whether by church or by government, but to withhold under a claim of rightful possession and freedom to do as you will with what is yours, are both denials of God and the sense of justice (hesed) of God.

"dichotomy between "social justice" meaning either charity or redistribution is the straw man that we need to get past. It has never implied "redistribution" to me, but it is MUCH richer than mere personal charity."

The only option besides charity is forced distribution. There is nothing else. And social justice has meant state redistribution from the day it was invented because the inventor was a socialist. State redistribution has always been the primary meaning. Only recently have socialists shied away from that meaning and added private charity to it.

You're having difficulty defining justice because if you use it in the traditional, Biblical sense, it destroys your argument. Socialists always try to define terms in such a way that their argument always wins. Besides, if you succeeded in defining justice in the way you want, using it would be dishonest because no one else would understand what you meant by the term.

There you go again...lying about who invented the term "social justice". We've had this conversation before, and you've admitted before that socialists were not the first to use the term - that it originated in the Church - why try to backtrack and re-tread that lie again?

Even the American Enterprise Institute (not my cup of tea) admits the term originated in the Catholic Church:

"Olasky traced the provenance of social justice. It originated in Roman Catholic social thought in the late nineteenth century, he said, especially in Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum. The phrase came to the United States in the 1930s with Charles Coughlin, who became famous as "Father Coughlin" for his radio sermons. The left adopted the term widely in the 1960s, Olasky said."

You're calling Pope Leo XIII a socialist?!

And, Father Coughlin was a notoriously uber-conservative/reactionary church voice in the 1930s - hardly a socialist - come to think of it, Father Coughlin sounded (without the overt anti-semitism, of course, - so many of today's religious conservatives are all in Israel's corner, egging them on to hasten the world's end) an awful lot like the Republicans and "conservatives" of today! He was a precursor to the likes of Limbaugh and Beck.

And speaking of trying to redefine terms and use them as you want to - aren't you doing exactly that with your broad-brush "definition" of socialism...you know, because, as you also previously admitted, if you use the actual common definition, there wouldn't BE any socialists, any more?

Thank you. You've hit the nail on the head.

Lord_Voldemort's dichotomy between "social justice" meaning either charity or redistribution is the straw man that we need to get past. It has never implied "redistribution" to me, but it is MUCH richer than mere personal charity. This false understanding appears to me to be where Beck went wrong as well.

"Justice" by itself is too tied to its usual meaning of "legal justice". That is not at all what we mean when we advocate building a society that will be pleasing in God's sight. "Biblical justice" is not quite right, either -- it implies to me the legal part of our relationship with God -- rightousness. Thus "social justice" (or maybe "Biblical social justice", but that is an awkward phrase) is the best way I can find to easily express the condition of right human relationships.

I notice you haven't answered my question regarding social security and medicare...are you intending to partake, or not?

win back your ex...

Great post, thanks for taking time to write this....

Fundamentalist: "No one has a right to education, healthcare, or even shelter. Where do rights come from? From God and only God. The only rights God gave mankind are the rights to life, liberty and property, nothing else. You can mint rights as you would paper money."

Can you please elaborate that? How do argue your case? To me, it just looks like an assertion and a pretty outrageous one to that. But maybe you have some good arguments. I'd love to hear them.

Social justice is not about taking money away from rich people and redistributing it.
Social justice is not about equality of wealth.
Social justice is about equality of opportunity.
It is about insuring that an unfair advantage is not lining the pockets of the wealthy through usury, monopolies, or fraudulent practices.
It treats all citizens regardless of color, race, creed, religious affiliation, financial status or gender the same regarding opportunities for; education, loans, job bids, contracts, property ownership and rent.

Charity is entirely different. You can be as mean spirited or as charitable as you want. It most likely won't amount to a hill of beans long term. Bringing a casserole to a sick person dying from cancer, may make you feel good. It may even help out for a minute or two.

Caring for a nation's citizens isn't necessarily about charity. If everyone currently on welfare or receiving assistance suddenly lost their help, what kind of country do you think we would have.

We already have elderly people starving to death or freezing to death in their own homes. Many of them worked hard their whole life. Or how about those who truly can't work for any number of health reasons. Mentally ill people, disabled people, mentally deficient people, those who have lost limbs or body use due to diabetes or stroke to name a few possibilities.

Or what about the young mother who is beaten up regularly by her spouse. What if her kids are also at risk? Do these people deserve your tax dollar to pay for basic needs or are we stealing from others to make it happen.

How about the person, who has always worked but due to a car accident finds himself, because of catastrophic medical bills, losing his home and his job and unable to rehabilitate. What if he has a family and can't feed them.

Let us just say those who are scamming the system and unwilling to do much else have children. We all know that happens. How about we teach those children a thing or two by taking away their lunch programs and maybe free breakfasts at school.

You all may be right! Stealing from some members of society so that other members of society may have basic needs met is just plain wrong.

Have you figured just how much of your tax dollar actually goes to the programs you worry about? I think I figured out one year and laughed. I couldn't buy a new sofa with it. Even a cheap one.

Have you checked to see how many people in your community, your town, your state fall under any of these categories. Have you looked at a good solid dollar figure of what it would take to all by yourself with the help of your church or favorite charity, see to it that jobs are provided for those willing to work who can't find a job. Are you willing to work on behalf of just even those in honest need of help. What would it take?

My daughter's medications were $700.00 monthly. She couldn't go to school because she was sick. She didn't qualify for our insurance because she was no longer in school. We didn't find a church body or group anywhere who wanted to help. The state of Oregon invited her to dumpster dive and live in a homeless shelter. We were fortunate to be able to keep her safe and off the streets until treatment became effective. Yes we did receive help from the state for her medication. But had she been on the street she would not have qualified.

Any other suggestions? I can see the headlines now. Maybe euthanasia and abortion would be kinder than allowing someone to slowly starve or freeze to death. What would be the difference? If life isn't precious after birth then maybe as a society of real honest to goodness deserving hard working people, we could just weed out all those people and set them out on the curb. Because if it is wrong to steal from one member of society to feed another, we need to roll up our sleeves and get cracking.

In the meantime, try not to get hit by a bus. Chances are you would need some of the socialistic services provided by our country. Because auto insurance won't cover more than a week of hospital care and all that traction's gonna cost ya.

Just a note: Fr. Coughlin started out as sympathetic to certain socialist ideas (he was initially very pro-New Deal), but his views changed to that of a nationalistic "Third Way" that was neither pro-socialist, nor pro-capitalist. His hatred of communism, socialism, and capitalism were legendary.

I think a lot of capitalists forget that there are other economic theories than just those three.

Though they should be intertwined, social justice and charity are not exactly the same. And neither can succeed without the other.

Charity involves freely giving love regardless of merit -- helping and serving others whether or not they have "earned" it. Charity attempts to fulfill immediate needs. If you want people to be free from the long term cycle of need you have to seek justice.

Generally, justice (social and usually legal) relates to protecting the good of the whole society, ensuring that everyone has their basic freedoms. Within society, these freedoms are our rights. Justice involves treating people as they deserve to be treated; and treating them equally. Not all laws of a society treat people equally (even though they should), so social justice is basically the concept and implementation of social equality.

Social justice has little to do with equality of material wealth. It has to do with equal distribution of important social opportunities everyone should have -- like a right to an education, a right to health care, a right to shelter, etc. If more people have the same basic social opportunities, there will be less long term need.

Christians have a special responsibility to live charitably and seek justice because they are called to love their neighbors, and everyone is considered a neighbor -- even their "enemies."

Though essential, no amount of charitable giving "can substitute for faith-based efforts to restructure society so that it creates
fewer victims" of inequality. We should always put the priority on love, and justice is needed to correct the structural wrongs that perpetuate social inequalities.

Christians must recognize and address the needs of today, while working to prevent the unjust needs of tomorrow.

WHOOPS!

Post above should read that I don't see a reference to "social JUSTICE" in Wright's article. He does refer to a social gospel, though it isn't clear this is somehting he endorses, at least not without some qualifications.

Sorry 'bout the mixup.

LV

I agree with you fundamentalist. Charity is what we as Christians are called to do. Government forcing people to give to those in need comes between you and Christ.

"Socialists always try to define terms in such a way that their argument
always wins. Besides, if you succeeded in defining justice in the way
you want, using it would be dishonest because no one else would
understand what you meant by the term."

1. I am not a socialist and I resent your attempt to paint me as such.
2. I am not attempting to define "justice". That is the whole point.
We are talking about "social justice". I suggest that more people (and
more Christians) understand "social justice" to mean
just-social-relationships than understand it to mean simply socialism.
We already have the term "socialism"; why would we need another to mean
exactly the same thing? Rather, it is Glen Beck who is attempting to
redefine a useful term (useful to hone ideas about something he opposes)
in order to make it useless. "Social justice" does NOT mean socialism.
Please stop trying to hijack the word.

Try to get beyond your narrow dichotomy that charity and redistribution
are the only options ("There is nothing else.") -- I'm talking about a
legal framework that prevents exploitation. Even anti-slavery laws are
neither charity nor redistribution.

"And social justice has meant state redistribution from the day it was invented because the inventor was a socialist."

So basically you are saying that Joseph was a socialist when he (by God's command) saved the entire near east from an ancient famine, or Moses was a socialist when he instituted the Levitical code and commanded the rest of the tribes to feed the priests or that David was a socialist because he payed restitution for breaking a treaty or... It's obvious you really don't know what socialism is or how those economies worked because they don't fit that definition. All of those states I mentioned were theocracies or pagan or theocratic dictatorships.

p

"Is the Church's role to fight house fires? Should the church have its deacons out chasing thieves and murderers? Why can't socialists see a difference in roles for different institutions?" fundamentalist

Do I understand you to reference me as a socialist?? Would you explain?

I asked the question to Jesusfreak because he made a blanket statement about the government coming between our resources and Christ when it decides to deliver services.

I apologize, maybe you are calling Jesusfreak the socialist.

I asked the question as clarification of the blanket statement.

Maybe you would like to provide the clarification as to when a government service is legitimate and when it comes inbetween Christ and us?

btw, i never said we simply allow people to suffer. but "doing something about it" never means using violence to accomplish social justice.

Kinda funny how Wallis et al want to use violence (governmental action against those who would rather not comply) to accomplish social justice. Wright's vision for the gospel requires no such force or coercion.

"Government forcing people to give to those in need comes between you and Christ." jesusfreak123123

If your house catches on fire--do you want me to call 911???

Darn. I guess the system ate my comment. Ok. I'll try for a short version here.

Just social relationship, as Stein so eloquently put it, includes respect for other views, other ways of doing things and other ways of being. That does not mean you necessarily approve of what everyone else does, just that you respect their right to be different. Just social relationship also means just economics, as an economy that exploits or abuses certain classes or people creates unjust relationships.

When Jesus delivered the sermon on the mount, he was not saying anything new. Most of what he was saying reflected the teachings of rabbi Hillel, who preceded him by about a hundred years. That does not diminish Jesus' message in any way, any more than citing Martin Luther King, Jr. diminishes his accomplishments and message of essential justice.

In keeping with the theme that Glenn Beck recently stirred up, that churches that promote social justice or economic justice are essentially Communist or Nazi (now there is an interesting juxtaposition) propaganda machines, I will stick to the idiotic charge that social (and economic) justice is not in keeping with the gospels.

I would like to challenge the right-wing to read Amos and Habakkuk, as well as the sermon on the mount, and then offer a bible-based argument for their case. I do not believe it can be done.

Furthermore, for extra credit, if you will, since the bible spends much more space declaring the evil of usury than it does denouncing homosexuality, I would like to challenge the right to spend a biblically proportionate amount of time and energy attacking the practices of the banking and financial sectors that create poverty, abuse the poor and exploit the middle-class as they do trying to say that American citizens who happen to be gay should not enjoy the same rights and responsibilities as the rest of us, as per the US constitution.

As RubyLou points out above, there are more economic theories than capitalism, socialism and communism. In fact, some economists today are proposing ideas that are quite different from all of these. Are we too cowardly to consider fresh ideas and learn something new, or are we doomed to slavery to centuries-old ideologies?

I can't understand Wright because I don't know what he means by some of the terms. By "social justice" does he mean charity or state redistribution of wealth? If he means charity, then I can agree completely. If he means state redistribution, then I disagree entirely.

And what does he mean by justice? Does he mean equality of wealth, as do socialists? Or does he mean justice as preventing or correcting criminal behavior, as the Western world has understood the term for millennia? If the former, I completely disagree.

There you go again...lying about who invented the term "social justice". We've had this conversation before, and you've admitted before that socialists were not the first to use the term - that it originated in the Church - why try to backtrack and re-tread that lie again?

Even the American Enterprise Institute (not my cup of tea) admits the term originated in the Catholic Church:

"Olasky traced the provenance of social justice. It originated in Roman Catholic social thought in the late nineteenth century, he said, especially in Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum. The phrase came to the United States in the 1930s with Charles Coughlin, who became famous as "Father Coughlin" for his radio sermons. The left adopted the term widely in the 1960s, Olasky said."

You're calling Pope Leo XIII a socialist?!

And, Father Coughlin was a notoriously uber-conservative/reactionary church voice in the 1930s - hardly a socialist - come to think of it, Father Coughlin sounded (without the overt anti-semitism, of course, - so many of today's religious conservatives are all in Israel's corner, egging them on to hasten the world's end) an awful lot like the Republicans and "conservatives" of today! He was a precursor to the likes of Limbaugh and Beck.

And speaking of trying to redefine terms and use them as you want to - aren't you doing exactly that with your broad-brush "definition" of socialism...you know, because, as you also previously admitted, if you use the actual common definition, there wouldn't BE any socialists, any more?

Your comments have nothing to do with the Kingdom of God. Take them to
some secular blog.

Is the Church's role to fight house fires? Should the church have its deacons out chasing thieves and murderers? Why can't socialists see a difference in roles for different institutions?