Get E-Mail Updates

Social Justice is a Virtue

Christianity promises, by grace and through faith, that believers will spend eternity with God in paradise. But many of us believers have become so obsessed with who gets into heaven -- and who doesn't -- and how that we have missed a central question of the gospel: How are we to live this life, here and now?

"For a long time ... evangelicals were so focused on the return of Christ that what was happening in the real world was almost incidental," Rev. Marty Duren, a Southern Baptist pastor and blogger, told CNN earlier this year in response to Fox News Channel commentator Glenn Beck's outlandish call for Christians to leave churches that advocate for social justice.

Any careful reading of the New Testament must lead us toward working for justice for all. We not only are called to address the physical needs of the poor and the sick, we must also recognize and work to change the societal injustices that contribute to poverty, disease, and any sort of disenfranchisement.

Social justice is a virtue.

We don't talk much about virtue these days, and by virtue, I mean moral strength. In his latest book, After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters, N.T. Wright, the Anglican bishop of Durham, England, challenges the church -- and broader society in general -- to return to virtue and the development of character.

Virtue, Wright says, is the only path out of this nervous time we're living in with its economic collapse, wars and rumors of wars, and natural disasters exacerbated by failed social systems that leave the poorest of the poor to fend for themselves.

"Virtue, to put it bluntly, is a revolutionary idea in today's world -- and today's church. But the revolution is one we badly need," Wright says in After You Believe. "And it is right at the core of the answer to the questions with which we began. After you believe, you need to develop Christian character by practicing specifically Christian 'virtues.' To make wise moral decisions, you need not just to 'know the rules' or 'discover who you really are,' but to develop Christian virtue. And to give wise leadership in our wider society in the confusing and dangerous times we live in, we urgently need people whose characters have been formed in much the same way. We've had enough of pragmatists and self-seeking risk-takers. We need people of character."

Whether you define virtue as Aristotle did with his "cardinal" virtues of courage, justice, prudence, and temperance, or within an explicitly Christian rubric, as St. Paul did with his fruits of the spirit -- love, joy, peace, great-heartedness, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control -- virtue is the road map for answering the question, How are we to live?

"Character is a slowly forming thing," Wright says. "You can no more force character on someone than you can force a tree to produce fruit when it isn't ready to do so. The person has to choose, again and again, to develop moral muscles and skills which will shape and form the fully flourishing character."

By developing virtue within ourselves, we can change the world. Qualities such as love, joy, gentleness, generosity, courage, and self-control are infectious. Just as a little leavening can make many loaves of bread rise, the virtue of even a few can elevate the many.

Virtue is not our salvation. That comes by grace alone. But we weren't meant to pass through this lifetime twiddling our thumbs, waiting for a heavenly bus to arrive. We are Jesus' hands in this world. There is much work to be done.

Cathleen Falsani is the author of the new book The Dude Abides: The Gospel According to the Coen Brothers. She blogs at The Dude Abides. This article first appeared in the June 2010 issue of Sojourners magazine.

+ Click here to subscribe to Sojourners magazine.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: rbrandsr

06-14-2010 @ 11:38am

For those who consider social justice a euphemism for socialism and redistribution of wealth, I submit to you that the Bush tax cuts and the deregulation of industry ie. oil banking have led to the greatest redistribution of wealth in U.S. history.

by: rbrandsr

06-14-2010 @ 11:38am

For those who consider social justice a euphemism for socialism and redistribution of wealth, I submit to you that the Bush tax cuts and the deregulation of industry ie. oil banking have led to the greatest redistribution of wealth in U.S. history.

by: BlueDeacon

06-11-2010 @ 3:56pm

I understand what you're saying. However, evangelicalism until fairly recently had gone the other way, often saying that social concerns have nothing to do with the Gospel -- after all, this is how and why white Southern churches were absent from the civil-rights movement that started in black Southern churches.

by: BlueDeacon

06-11-2010 @ 3:56pm

I understand what you're saying. However, evangelicalism until fairly recently had gone the other way, often saying that social concerns have nothing to do with the Gospel -- after all, this is how and why white Southern churches were absent from the civil-rights movement that started in black Southern churches.

by: rbrandsr

06-14-2010 @ 11:38am

For those who consider social justice a euphemism for socialism and redistribution of wealth, I submit to you that the Bush tax cuts and the deregulation of industry ie. oil banking have led to the greatest redistribution of wealth in U.S. history.

by: 1PeterW

06-14-2010 @ 2:51pm

Yes, I can see that you are speaking for the integrity of the whole Gospel, and I very much appreciate the wisdom and experience reflected in your comments.

Too many times I have seen evangelical--or "social Gospel" Christians for that matter--begin with the same premise that Cathleen Falsani did, which reduces the eschatology of the Gospel to individual immortality divorced from "social justice," so that the latter has to be grafted onto the former.

In the eastern Church, the words of the eucharistic prayer known as the Great Thanksgiving never lost a sense of expectation of Christ's return and God's transformation not only of the bread and wine, but the gathered Body of Christ in mission to the world, and the whole of creation. This was only relatively recently recovered in the west.

John Chrysostom's warning against honoring Christ at the altar while failing to see him in the needy in the public square is a profoundly beautiful statement of the whole Gospel.

by: 1PeterW

06-14-2010 @ 2:51pm

Yes, I can see that you are speaking for the integrity of the whole Gospel, and I very much appreciate the wisdom and experience reflected in your comments.

Too many times I have seen evangelical--or "social Gospel" Christians for that matter--begin with the same premise that Cathleen Falsani did, which reduces the eschatology of the Gospel to individual immortality divorced from "social justice," so that the latter has to be grafted onto the former.

In the eastern Church, the words of the eucharistic prayer known as the Great Thanksgiving never lost a sense of expectation of Christ's return and God's transformation not only of the bread and wine, but the gathered Body of Christ in mission to the world, and the whole of creation. This was only relatively recently recovered in the west.

John Chrysostom's warning against honoring Christ at the altar while failing to see him in the needy in the public square is a profoundly beautiful statement of the whole Gospel.

by: 1PeterW

06-14-2010 @ 2:51pm

Yes, I can see that you are speaking for the integrity of the whole Gospel, and I very much appreciate the wisdom and experience reflected in your comments.

Too many times I have seen evangelical--or "social Gospel" Christians for that matter--begin with the same premise that Cathleen Falsani did, which reduces the eschatology of the Gospel to individual immortality divorced from "social justice," so that the latter has to be grafted onto the former.

In the eastern Church, the words of the eucharistic prayer known as the Great Thanksgiving never lost a sense of expectation of Christ's return and God's transformation not only of the bread and wine, but the gathered Body of Christ in mission to the world, and the whole of creation. This was only relatively recently recovered in the west.

John Chrysostom's warning against honoring Christ at the altar while failing to see him in the needy in the public square is a profoundly beautiful statement of the whole Gospel.

by: BlueDeacon

06-14-2010 @ 4:27pm

As a Calvinist, I just can't comprehend otherwise. I've always believed (even more so than my fellow "Reformed") that Jesus has something to say about everything since it all falls under His dominion anyway, even though specifics are often hard to deduce.

by: cinnamon2005

06-14-2010 @ 5:07pm

I believe this article comes down to: Walking in the footsteps of Jesus. We are called to do this, which would mean we are all called to Social Justice. Why some get it and others don't is beyond me.

by: BlueDeacon

06-10-2010 @ 4:49pm

This is why about 15 years ago I reinterpreted Jesus' words to Nicodemus "You must be born again" as a reference to not the "afterlife" but the here and now.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

06-10-2010 @ 6:35pm

On a side note here, while Jesus IS the Christ, his name is NOT Christ. In the Greek Text of the New Testament, there is usually the Greek definite article ("the" in English) before the word Christos or it is implied with the suffix other than "os."

The real truth is that "Christ" should be translated into English as the noun "Anointed" and that is Jesus' heavenly position title.

Every believer in Jesus should be on a 1st name basis with Him and not talk about him using his title.

by: rustys1

06-10-2010 @ 6:31pm

This whole debate boils down to a definition game.

1. If by "social justice" you mean "seize from the rich, redistribute to the poor socialism" then it's not a virtue, it's a contentious political system.

2. On the other hand, if by "social justice" you mean "love thy neighbor" or "defend the cause of the poor and needy", then yes, it is a virtue.

I think Glenn Beck, Marty Duren, and everyone else agrees on the second definition of "social justice" being a great virtue. And we all know there is disagreement on the first definition.

by: BlueDeacon

06-10-2010 @ 6:34pm

The trouble is that even the second definition of social justice can and will cost them something down the road -- which is why they refer to the first definition so much.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

06-10-2010 @ 6:31pm

Jesus literally said (according to the Greek Text), You must be born from above."

Nicodemus wasn't listening closely because he was the one who thought Jesus used born again.

One is not spiritually living until one accepts Jesus' free gift of salvation by one's own deliberate choice.

I do agree that being born from above is an "in-the-now" spiritual experience that continues every day.

by: xfree9

06-10-2010 @ 6:54pm

Something we completely agree on!

by: Patricia

06-10-2010 @ 6:58pm

The problem is, that first definition has been specifically conceived by, promoted by, and applied by, people who are politically motivated to fit the faith concept of social justice into their human-conceived political beliefs regarding the limited role of government, and "anti-taxation". Talk about code words: "seize", "redistribute", and "socialism" are specifically and deliberately used to instill fear and mistrust.

I have never once heard any social justice Church or social justice Christian advocate "seize from the rich, redistribute to the poor socialism" as the definition of social justice.

I would think an important Christian virtue would be not to lie about, misrepresent, or distort the beliefs and positions with which one disagrees. Even if doing so happens to be politically expedient.

Only one side is playing the "definition game." And it's not the social justice Christian side.

by: xfree9

06-10-2010 @ 6:56pm

Except with the second, it is voluntary, not compulsory. The first does not arise from people exhibiting a change of heart or voluntary sacrifice, but the second does. I'm pretty sure God is more pleased with our willing sacrifice and attempts at justice than if we were forced to, or if we force others to,

by: BlueDeacon

06-14-2010 @ 4:27pm

As a Calvinist, I just can't comprehend otherwise. I've always believed (even more so than my fellow "Reformed") that Jesus has something to say about everything since it all falls under His dominion anyway, even though specifics are often hard to deduce.

by: BlueDeacon

06-14-2010 @ 4:27pm

As a Calvinist, I just can't comprehend otherwise. I've always believed (even more so than my fellow "Reformed") that Jesus has something to say about everything since it all falls under His dominion anyway, even though specifics are often hard to deduce.

by: cinnamon2005

06-14-2010 @ 5:07pm

I believe this article comes down to: Walking in the footsteps of Jesus. We are called to do this, which would mean we are all called to Social Justice. Why some get it and others don't is beyond me.

by: cinnamon2005

06-14-2010 @ 5:07pm

I believe this article comes down to: Walking in the footsteps of Jesus. We are called to do this, which would mean we are all called to Social Justice. Why some get it and others don't is beyond me.

by: rustys1

06-10-2010 @ 7:10pm

Actually, the author of this blog post plays the game. She defines "social justice" as loving thy neighbor and then calls anyone who advocates against it, "outlandish". Well in that definition, yes it is outlandish!

But what if those advocating against it are using the redistribution definition of "social justice"? It's not so outlandish to oppose unjust "social justice".

by: PastorGreg

06-10-2010 @ 7:33pm

Amen! Social Justice is a virtue!

by: Patricia

06-10-2010 @ 7:47pm

What right do they have to make up and use their own definition?

Especially when it distorts and misrepresents?

What responsibility do they have to take their brothers and sisters in Christ at their word when they self-define?

by: rustys1

06-10-2010 @ 7:54pm

I agree completely! However you don't seem to realize my point.

It goes both ways.

by: Patricia

06-10-2010 @ 7:43pm

Here's another part of the problem - equating human-conceived governance structures and tax systems with religious principles. The two may intersect, but they are not the same.

Governments levy taxes and distribute the income from those taxes. Fascist governments levy taxes. Socialist governments levy taxes. Democracies levy taxes. Dictatorships levy taxes.

Actually, I'm pretty sure God is more pleased when the poor, the weak, and the ill are actually cared for, whether it's through "voluntary" giving, or taxes, or a combination of the two, than God is when God's people sit around debating the minutae of whether or not or how or why or when or under what circumstances to be willing to sacrifice, as the most vulnerable of Gods children continue to suffer unaided and unattended all the while.

by: rustys1

06-10-2010 @ 7:50pm

"Here's another part of the problem - equating human-conceived governance structures and tax systems with religious principles. The two may intersect, but they are not the same."

Amen! They are not the same.

Most anti-"social justice" advocates are only against unjust governance structures not the religious principles of love and compassion.

by: BlueDeacon

06-10-2010 @ 4:49pm

This is why about 15 years ago I reinterpreted Jesus' words to Nicodemus "You must be born again" as a reference to not the "afterlife" but the here and now.

by: BlueDeacon

06-10-2010 @ 9:00pm

But what if those advocating against it are using the redistribution definition of "social justice"? It's not so outlandish to oppose unjust "social justice".

Those same people opposed the civil-rights movement in this country and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa -- because both called for economic redistribution in one sense. But not for its own sake -- it's always about access to the power structure, which they feared more than anything else because they wanted to remain in control.

by: BlueDeacon

06-10-2010 @ 4:49pm

This is why about 15 years ago I reinterpreted Jesus' words to Nicodemus "You must be born again" as a reference to not the "afterlife" but the here and now.

by: BlueDeacon

06-10-2010 @ 8:56pm

The first does not arise from people exhibiting a change of heart or voluntary sacrifice, but the second does. I'm pretty sure God is more pleased with our willing sacrifice and attempts at justice than if we were forced to, or if we force others to,...

Not necessarily. When I was attending the Urbana missions conference nearly 30 years ago I saw a film that depicted the "wealthy" giving the poor things that, bottom line, they didn't really need in order to make the "wealthy" person look generous. Indeed, the wealthy tried to "preach Christ" to the poor and had distributed Bibles; however, the poor pointed to a passage of Scripture that called for justice, not just charity, and the wealthy person responded, "I didn't mean it that literally!"

We have a Christianity in this country that is utterly without sacrifice -- "all this and Jesus too" -- that is so incredibly self-focused it's a wonder why He doesn't just pick up and leave. (And He still may do so.) MLK Jr. once reinterpreted the statement "You must be born again" as "Your whole structure needs to be changed."

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

06-10-2010 @ 6:35pm

On a side note here, while Jesus IS the Christ, his name is NOT Christ. In the Greek Text of the New Testament, there is usually the Greek definite article ("the" in English) before the word Christos or it is implied with the suffix other than "os."

The real truth is that "Christ" should be translated into English as the noun "Anointed" and that is Jesus' heavenly position title.

Every believer in Jesus should be on a 1st name basis with Him and not talk about him using his title.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

06-10-2010 @ 6:35pm

On a side note here, while Jesus IS the Christ, his name is NOT Christ. In the Greek Text of the New Testament, there is usually the Greek definite article ("the" in English) before the word Christos or it is implied with the suffix other than "os."

The real truth is that "Christ" should be translated into English as the noun "Anointed" and that is Jesus' heavenly position title.

Every believer in Jesus should be on a 1st name basis with Him and not talk about him using his title.

by: rustys1

06-10-2010 @ 6:31pm

This whole debate boils down to a definition game.

1. If by "social justice" you mean "seize from the rich, redistribute to the poor socialism" then it's not a virtue, it's a contentious political system.

2. On the other hand, if by "social justice" you mean "love thy neighbor" or "defend the cause of the poor and needy", then yes, it is a virtue.

I think Glenn Beck, Marty Duren, and everyone else agrees on the second definition of "social justice" being a great virtue. And we all know there is disagreement on the first definition.

by: Bob Roddis

06-11-2010 @ 6:14pm

With all due respect, Mr. Beck was not advising Christians to not do good works. He was warning them that "social justice" is code for "SOCIALIST JUSTICE" which leads to mass poverty and totalitarian government. Just as the term "social justice" is deceptive, so is the attack on Beck on this very topic.

by: Michael D. Bobo

06-10-2010 @ 9:37pm

Thanks for this reminder.

by: rustys1

06-10-2010 @ 6:31pm

This whole debate boils down to a definition game.

1. If by "social justice" you mean "seize from the rich, redistribute to the poor socialism" then it's not a virtue, it's a contentious political system.

2. On the other hand, if by "social justice" you mean "love thy neighbor" or "defend the cause of the poor and needy", then yes, it is a virtue.

I think Glenn Beck, Marty Duren, and everyone else agrees on the second definition of "social justice" being a great virtue. And we all know there is disagreement on the first definition.

by: Bob Roddis

06-11-2010 @ 6:14pm

With all due respect, Mr. Beck was not advising Christians to not do good works. He was warning them that "social justice" is code for "SOCIALIST JUSTICE" which leads to mass poverty and totalitarian government. Just as the term "social justice" is deceptive, so is the attack on Beck on this very topic.

by: xfree9

06-10-2010 @ 9:48pm

Jim Wallis himself has said the gospel is "all about" the redistribution of wealth. His most recent book advocates such, and this blog is full of anti-rich people rhetoric.

by: BlueDeacon

06-10-2010 @ 6:34pm

The trouble is that even the second definition of social justice can and will cost them something down the road -- which is why they refer to the first definition so much.

by: Ngchen

06-11-2010 @ 6:30pm

Maybe, if we cut out the loaded terms used by each side, we can reduce the debate to the following question.

Should government be providing any sort of monetary welfare to people it deems to be on the margins? (This welfare would include things like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamps, etc.)

If the answer is yes, then the question is to what extent should these programs run. If the answer is no, that does not mean that there is no "social justice" that the government can still be involved in. For instance, setting up fair bankruptcy laws, enforcing contracts, building streets, regulating pollution, and so forth.

Apparently, the real debate between liberals and conservatives is whether there should be government-run monetary welfare.

by: xfree9

06-10-2010 @ 9:50pm

Which is why indent accept the notion of having a "power structure" altogether! The problem never goes away so long as power is attainable for people to grasp hold of. Christianity is not about power over people, but about power "under" in the form of servanthood. Hence my disgust at Christians believing government is the primary means of justice. It's not that i don't think there is a role for government, it's that I don't think that should be the first focus of Christians. Servanthood and demonstrating the power of love instead of the love of power is where we start. A last resort should be to use government, if at all.

by: BlueDeacon

06-10-2010 @ 6:34pm

The trouble is that even the second definition of social justice can and will cost them something down the road -- which is why they refer to the first definition so much.

by: Ngchen

06-11-2010 @ 6:30pm

Maybe, if we cut out the loaded terms used by each side, we can reduce the debate to the following question.

Should government be providing any sort of monetary welfare to people it deems to be on the margins? (This welfare would include things like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamps, etc.)

If the answer is yes, then the question is to what extent should these programs run. If the answer is no, that does not mean that there is no "social justice" that the government can still be involved in. For instance, setting up fair bankruptcy laws, enforcing contracts, building streets, regulating pollution, and so forth.

Apparently, the real debate between liberals and conservatives is whether there should be government-run monetary welfare.

by: xfree9

06-10-2010 @ 9:41pm

I don't disagree with any of what you said, especially the nicodemus part. My pointvwas that government forcing others versus voluntary efforts.

Yes, christianity in the West is a consumerist religion by and large. We choose our churches and our faith beliefs based on what makes us feel good. No argumentvfrom me here!!!

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

06-10-2010 @ 6:31pm

Jesus literally said (according to the Greek Text), You must be born from above."

Nicodemus wasn't listening closely because he was the one who thought Jesus used born again.

One is not spiritually living until one accepts Jesus' free gift of salvation by one's own deliberate choice.

I do agree that being born from above is an "in-the-now" spiritual experience that continues every day.

by: xfree9

06-10-2010 @ 9:45pm

I'm sure God is happy when the poor are taken care of, but how that happens is important. The ends do not justify the means. Taxation, however, s never advocated in scripture as at the method by which the poor are taken care of. Taxes represent a taking of wealth (whether rightly or not isn't the issue); voluntary justice involves willing sacrifice. Should we as christians be satisfied with the status quo (taxation), or should we seek a Better Way as often and as passionately as we can? A society with less taxes needed to go to the poor because they are already being taken care of is a more just society than one which taxes are required in order to do so. Which means we have a long way to go in comopelling people to follow Jesus.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

06-10-2010 @ 6:31pm

Jesus literally said (according to the Greek Text), You must be born from above."

Nicodemus wasn't listening closely because he was the one who thought Jesus used born again.

One is not spiritually living until one accepts Jesus' free gift of salvation by one's own deliberate choice.

I do agree that being born from above is an "in-the-now" spiritual experience that continues every day.

by: liberalinlove

06-10-2010 @ 9:15pm

What are you most afraid of? The knee jerk reactions of those who automatically judge "Social Justness" as something bad lends me to believe that you have fears, whether imagined or justified, I'd like to hear them defined.
There isn't a one size fits all answer here. But there are those issues that are without question our responsibility to address. Just laws for one that protect the least. It is almost as if opposing view points stop at the term social justice and fail to even read about the issues or involve themselves in the solution.
Social justness is not an enemy to fight but a virtue to embrace.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: BlueDeacon

06-10-2010 @ 4:49pm

This is why about 15 years ago I reinterpreted Jesus' words to Nicodemus "You must be born again" as a reference to not the "afterlife" but the here and now.

by: BlueDeacon

06-10-2010 @ 4:49pm

This is why about 15 years ago I reinterpreted Jesus' words to Nicodemus "You must be born again" as a reference to not the "afterlife" but the here and now.

by: BlueDeacon

06-10-2010 @ 4:49pm

This is why about 15 years ago I reinterpreted Jesus' words to Nicodemus "You must be born again" as a reference to not the "afterlife" but the here and now.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

06-10-2010 @ 6:31pm

Jesus literally said (according to the Greek Text), You must be born from above."

Nicodemus wasn't listening closely because he was the one who thought Jesus used born again.

One is not spiritually living until one accepts Jesus' free gift of salvation by one's own deliberate choice.

I do agree that being born from above is an "in-the-now" spiritual experience that continues every day.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

06-10-2010 @ 6:31pm

Jesus literally said (according to the Greek Text), You must be born from above."

Nicodemus wasn't listening closely because he was the one who thought Jesus used born again.

One is not spiritually living until one accepts Jesus' free gift of salvation by one's own deliberate choice.

I do agree that being born from above is an "in-the-now" spiritual experience that continues every day.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

06-10-2010 @ 6:31pm

Jesus literally said (according to the Greek Text), You must be born from above."

Nicodemus wasn't listening closely because he was the one who thought Jesus used born again.

One is not spiritually living until one accepts Jesus' free gift of salvation by one's own deliberate choice.

I do agree that being born from above is an "in-the-now" spiritual experience that continues every day.

by: rustys1

06-10-2010 @ 6:31pm

This whole debate boils down to a definition game.

1. If by "social justice" you mean "seize from the rich, redistribute to the poor socialism" then it's not a virtue, it's a contentious political system.

2. On the other hand, if by "social justice" you mean "love thy neighbor" or "defend the cause of the poor and needy", then yes, it is a virtue.

I think Glenn Beck, Marty Duren, and everyone else agrees on the second definition of "social justice" being a great virtue. And we all know there is disagreement on the first definition.

by: rustys1

06-10-2010 @ 6:31pm

This whole debate boils down to a definition game.

1. If by "social justice" you mean "seize from the rich, redistribute to the poor socialism" then it's not a virtue, it's a contentious political system.

2. On the other hand, if by "social justice" you mean "love thy neighbor" or "defend the cause of the poor and needy", then yes, it is a virtue.

I think Glenn Beck, Marty Duren, and everyone else agrees on the second definition of "social justice" being a great virtue. And we all know there is disagreement on the first definition.

by: rustys1

06-10-2010 @ 6:31pm

This whole debate boils down to a definition game.

1. If by "social justice" you mean "seize from the rich, redistribute to the poor socialism" then it's not a virtue, it's a contentious political system.

2. On the other hand, if by "social justice" you mean "love thy neighbor" or "defend the cause of the poor and needy", then yes, it is a virtue.

I think Glenn Beck, Marty Duren, and everyone else agrees on the second definition of "social justice" being a great virtue. And we all know there is disagreement on the first definition.

by: BlueDeacon

06-10-2010 @ 6:34pm

The trouble is that even the second definition of social justice can and will cost them something down the road -- which is why they refer to the first definition so much.

by: BlueDeacon

06-10-2010 @ 6:34pm

The trouble is that even the second definition of social justice can and will cost them something down the road -- which is why they refer to the first definition so much.

by: BlueDeacon

06-10-2010 @ 6:34pm

The trouble is that even the second definition of social justice can and will cost them something down the road -- which is why they refer to the first definition so much.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

06-10-2010 @ 6:35pm

On a side note here, while Jesus IS the Christ, his name is NOT Christ. In the Greek Text of the New Testament, there is usually the Greek definite article ("the" in English) before the word Christos or it is implied with the suffix other than "os."

The real truth is that "Christ" should be translated into English as the noun "Anointed" and that is Jesus' heavenly position title.

Every believer in Jesus should be on a 1st name basis with Him and not talk about him using his title.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

06-10-2010 @ 6:35pm

On a side note here, while Jesus IS the Christ, his name is NOT Christ. In the Greek Text of the New Testament, there is usually the Greek definite article ("the" in English) before the word Christos or it is implied with the suffix other than "os."

The real truth is that "Christ" should be translated into English as the noun "Anointed" and that is Jesus' heavenly position title.

Every believer in Jesus should be on a 1st name basis with Him and not talk about him using his title.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

06-10-2010 @ 6:35pm

On a side note here, while Jesus IS the Christ, his name is NOT Christ. In the Greek Text of the New Testament, there is usually the Greek definite article ("the" in English) before the word Christos or it is implied with the suffix other than "os."

The real truth is that "Christ" should be translated into English as the noun "Anointed" and that is Jesus' heavenly position title.

Every believer in Jesus should be on a 1st name basis with Him and not talk about him using his title.

by: xfree9

06-10-2010 @ 6:54pm

Something we completely agree on!

by: xfree9

06-10-2010 @ 6:54pm

Something we completely agree on!

by: xfree9

06-10-2010 @ 6:54pm

Something we completely agree on!

by: xfree9

06-10-2010 @ 6:56pm

Except with the second, it is voluntary, not compulsory. The first does not arise from people exhibiting a change of heart or voluntary sacrifice, but the second does. I'm pretty sure God is more pleased with our willing sacrifice and attempts at justice than if we were forced to, or if we force others to,

by: xfree9

06-10-2010 @ 6:56pm

Except with the second, it is voluntary, not compulsory. The first does not arise from people exhibiting a change of heart or voluntary sacrifice, but the second does. I'm pretty sure God is more pleased with our willing sacrifice and attempts at justice than if we were forced to, or if we force others to,

by: xfree9

06-10-2010 @ 6:56pm

Except with the second, it is voluntary, not compulsory. The first does not arise from people exhibiting a change of heart or voluntary sacrifice, but the second does. I'm pretty sure God is more pleased with our willing sacrifice and attempts at justice than if we were forced to, or if we force others to,

by: Patricia

06-10-2010 @ 6:58pm

The problem is, that first definition has been specifically conceived by, promoted by, and applied by, people who are politically motivated to fit the faith concept of social justice into their human-conceived political beliefs regarding the limited role of government, and "anti-taxation". Talk about code words: "seize", "redistribute", and "socialism" are specifically and deliberately used to instill fear and mistrust.

I have never once heard any social justice Church or social justice Christian advocate "seize from the rich, redistribute to the poor socialism" as the definition of social justice.

I would think an important Christian virtue would be not to lie about, misrepresent, or distort the beliefs and positions with which one disagrees. Even if doing so happens to be politically expedient.

Only one side is playing the "definition game." And it's not the social justice Christian side.

by: Patricia

06-10-2010 @ 6:58pm

The problem is, that first definition has been specifically conceived by, promoted by, and applied by, people who are politically motivated to fit the faith concept of social justice into their human-conceived political beliefs regarding the limited role of government, and "anti-taxation". Talk about code words: "seize", "redistribute", and "socialism" are specifically and deliberately used to instill fear and mistrust.

I have never once heard any social justice Church or social justice Christian advocate "seize from the rich, redistribute to the poor socialism" as the definition of social justice.

I would think an important Christian virtue would be not to lie about, misrepresent, or distort the beliefs and positions with which one disagrees. Even if doing so happens to be politically expedient.

Only one side is playing the "definition game." And it's not the social justice Christian side.

by: Patricia

06-10-2010 @ 6:58pm

The problem is, that first definition has been specifically conceived by, promoted by, and applied by, people who are politically motivated to fit the faith concept of social justice into their human-conceived political beliefs regarding the limited role of government, and "anti-taxation". Talk about code words: "seize", "redistribute", and "socialism" are specifically and deliberately used to instill fear and mistrust.

I have never once heard any social justice Church or social justice Christian advocate "seize from the rich, redistribute to the poor socialism" as the definition of social justice.

I would think an important Christian virtue would be not to lie about, misrepresent, or distort the beliefs and positions with which one disagrees. Even if doing so happens to be politically expedient.

Only one side is playing the "definition game." And it's not the social justice Christian side.

by: rustys1

06-10-2010 @ 7:10pm

Actually, the author of this blog post plays the game. She defines "social justice" as loving thy neighbor and then calls anyone who advocates against it, "outlandish". Well in that definition, yes it is outlandish!

But what if those advocating against it are using the redistribution definition of "social justice"? It's not so outlandish to oppose unjust "social justice".

by: rustys1

06-10-2010 @ 7:10pm

Actually, the author of this blog post plays the game. She defines "social justice" as loving thy neighbor and then calls anyone who advocates against it, "outlandish". Well in that definition, yes it is outlandish!

But what if those advocating against it are using the redistribution definition of "social justice"? It's not so outlandish to oppose unjust "social justice".

by: rustys1

06-10-2010 @ 7:10pm

Actually, the author of this blog post plays the game. She defines "social justice" as loving thy neighbor and then calls anyone who advocates against it, "outlandish". Well in that definition, yes it is outlandish!

But what if those advocating against it are using the redistribution definition of "social justice"? It's not so outlandish to oppose unjust "social justice".

by: PastorGreg

06-10-2010 @ 7:33pm

Amen! Social Justice is a virtue!

by: PastorGreg

06-10-2010 @ 7:33pm

Amen! Social Justice is a virtue!

by: PastorGreg

06-10-2010 @ 7:33pm

Amen! Social Justice is a virtue!

by: Patricia

06-10-2010 @ 7:43pm

Here's another part of the problem - equating human-conceived governance structures and tax systems with religious principles. The two may intersect, but they are not the same.

Governments levy taxes and distribute the income from those taxes. Fascist governments levy taxes. Socialist governments levy taxes. Democracies levy taxes. Dictatorships levy taxes.

Actually, I'm pretty sure God is more pleased when the poor, the weak, and the ill are actually cared for, whether it's through "voluntary" giving, or taxes, or a combination of the two, than God is when God's people sit around debating the minutae of whether or not or how or why or when or under what circumstances to be willing to sacrifice, as the most vulnerable of Gods children continue to suffer unaided and unattended all the while.

by: Patricia

06-10-2010 @ 7:43pm

Here's another part of the problem - equating human-conceived governance structures and tax systems with religious principles. The two may intersect, but they are not the same.

Governments levy taxes and distribute the income from those taxes. Fascist governments levy taxes. Socialist governments levy taxes. Democracies levy taxes. Dictatorships levy taxes.

Actually, I'm pretty sure God is more pleased when the poor, the weak, and the ill are actually cared for, whether it's through "voluntary" giving, or taxes, or a combination of the two, than God is when God's people sit around debating the minutae of whether or not or how or why or when or under what circumstances to be willing to sacrifice, as the most vulnerable of Gods children continue to suffer unaided and unattended all the while.

by: Patricia

06-10-2010 @ 7:43pm

Here's another part of the problem - equating human-conceived governance structures and tax systems with religious principles. The two may intersect, but they are not the same.

Governments levy taxes and distribute the income from those taxes. Fascist governments levy taxes. Socialist governments levy taxes. Democracies levy taxes. Dictatorships levy taxes.

Actually, I'm pretty sure God is more pleased when the poor, the weak, and the ill are actually cared for, whether it's through "voluntary" giving, or taxes, or a combination of the two, than God is when God's people sit around debating the minutae of whether or not or how or why or when or under what circumstances to be willing to sacrifice, as the most vulnerable of Gods children continue to suffer unaided and unattended all the while.

by: Patricia

06-10-2010 @ 7:47pm

What right do they have to make up and use their own definition?

Especially when it distorts and misrepresents?

What responsibility do they have to take their brothers and sisters in Christ at their word when they self-define?

by: Patricia

06-10-2010 @ 7:47pm

What right do they have to make up and use their own definition?

Especially when it distorts and misrepresents?

What responsibility do they have to take their brothers and sisters in Christ at their word when they self-define?

by: Patricia

06-10-2010 @ 7:47pm

What right do they have to make up and use their own definition?

Especially when it distorts and misrepresents?

What responsibility do they have to take their brothers and sisters in Christ at their word when they self-define?

by: rustys1

06-10-2010 @ 7:50pm

"Here's another part of the problem - equating human-conceived governance structures and tax systems with religious principles. The two may intersect, but they are not the same."

Amen! They are not the same.

Most anti-"social justice" advocates are only against unjust governance structures not the religious principles of love and compassion.

by: rustys1

06-10-2010 @ 7:50pm

"Here's another part of the problem - equating human-conceived governance structures and tax systems with religious principles. The two may intersect, but they are not the same."

Amen! They are not the same.

Most anti-"social justice" advocates are only against unjust governance structures not the religious principles of love and compassion.

by: rustys1

06-10-2010 @ 7:50pm

"Here's another part of the problem - equating human-conceived governance structures and tax systems with religious principles. The two may intersect, but they are not the same."

Amen! They are not the same.

Most anti-"social justice" advocates are only against unjust governance structures not the religious principles of love and compassion.

by: rustys1

06-10-2010 @ 7:54pm

I agree completely! However you don't seem to realize my point.

It goes both ways.

by: rustys1

06-10-2010 @ 7:54pm

I agree completely! However you don't seem to realize my point.

It goes both ways.

by: rustys1

06-10-2010 @ 7:54pm

I agree completely! However you don't seem to realize my point.

It goes both ways.

by: BlueDeacon

06-10-2010 @ 8:56pm

The first does not arise from people exhibiting a change of heart or voluntary sacrifice, but the second does. I'm pretty sure God is more pleased with our willing sacrifice and attempts at justice than if we were forced to, or if we force others to,...

Not necessarily. When I was attending the Urbana missions conference nearly 30 years ago I saw a film that depicted the "wealthy" giving the poor things that, bottom line, they didn't really need in order to make the "wealthy" person look generous. Indeed, the wealthy tried to "preach Christ" to the poor and had distributed Bibles; however, the poor pointed to a passage of Scripture that called for justice, not just charity, and the wealthy person responded, "I didn't mean it that literally!"

We have a Christianity in this country that is utterly without sacrifice -- "all this and Jesus too" -- that is so incredibly self-focused it's a wonder why He doesn't just pick up and leave. (And He still may do so.) MLK Jr. once reinterpreted the statement "You must be born again" as "Your whole structure needs to be changed."

by: BlueDeacon

06-10-2010 @ 8:56pm

The first does not arise from people exhibiting a change of heart or voluntary sacrifice, but the second does. I'm pretty sure God is more pleased with our willing sacrifice and attempts at justice than if we were forced to, or if we force others to,...

Not necessarily. When I was attending the Urbana missions conference nearly 30 years ago I saw a film that depicted the "wealthy" giving the poor things that, bottom line, they didn't really need in order to make the "wealthy" person look generous. Indeed, the wealthy tried to "preach Christ" to the poor and had distributed Bibles; however, the poor pointed to a passage of Scripture that called for justice, not just charity, and the wealthy person responded, "I didn't mean it that literally!"

We have a Christianity in this country that is utterly without sacrifice -- "all this and Jesus too" -- that is so incredibly self-focused it's a wonder why He doesn't just pick up and leave. (And He still may do so.) MLK Jr. once reinterpreted the statement "You must be born again" as "Your whole structure needs to be changed."

by: BlueDeacon

06-10-2010 @ 8:56pm

The first does not arise from people exhibiting a change of heart or voluntary sacrifice, but the second does. I'm pretty sure God is more pleased with our willing sacrifice and attempts at justice than if we were forced to, or if we force others to,...

Not necessarily. When I was attending the Urbana missions conference nearly 30 years ago I saw a film that depicted the "wealthy" giving the poor things that, bottom line, they didn't really need in order to make the "wealthy" person look generous. Indeed, the wealthy tried to "preach Christ" to the poor and had distributed Bibles; however, the poor pointed to a passage of Scripture that called for justice, not just charity, and the wealthy person responded, "I didn't mean it that literally!"

We have a Christianity in this country that is utterly without sacrifice -- "all this and Jesus too" -- that is so incredibly self-focused it's a wonder why He doesn't just pick up and leave. (And He still may do so.) MLK Jr. once reinterpreted the statement "You must be born again" as "Your whole structure needs to be changed."

by: BlueDeacon

06-10-2010 @ 9:00pm

But what if those advocating against it are using the redistribution definition of "social justice"? It's not so outlandish to oppose unjust "social justice".

Those same people opposed the civil-rights movement in this country and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa -- because both called for economic redistribution in one sense. But not for its own sake -- it's always about access to the power structure, which they feared more than anything else because they wanted to remain in control.

by: BlueDeacon

06-10-2010 @ 9:00pm

But what if those advocating against it are using the redistribution definition of "social justice"? It's not so outlandish to oppose unjust "social justice".

Those same people opposed the civil-rights movement in this country and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa -- because both called for economic redistribution in one sense. But not for its own sake -- it's always about access to the power structure, which they feared more than anything else because they wanted to remain in control.

by: BlueDeacon

06-10-2010 @ 9:00pm

But what if those advocating against it are using the redistribution definition of "social justice"? It's not so outlandish to oppose unjust "social justice".

Those same people opposed the civil-rights movement in this country and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa -- because both called for economic redistribution in one sense. But not for its own sake -- it's always about access to the power structure, which they feared more than anything else because they wanted to remain in control.

by: liberalinlove

06-10-2010 @ 9:15pm

What are you most afraid of? The knee jerk reactions of those who automatically judge "Social Justness" as something bad lends me to believe that you have fears, whether imagined or justified, I'd like to hear them defined.
There isn't a one size fits all answer here. But there are those issues that are without question our responsibility to address. Just laws for one that protect the least. It is almost as if opposing view points stop at the term social justice and fail to even read about the issues or involve themselves in the solution.
Social justness is not an enemy to fight but a virtue to embrace.

by: liberalinlove

06-10-2010 @ 9:15pm

What are you most afraid of? The knee jerk reactions of those who automatically judge "Social Justness" as something bad lends me to believe that you have fears, whether imagined or justified, I'd like to hear them defined.
There isn't a one size fits all answer here. But there are those issues that are without question our responsibility to address. Just laws for one that protect the least. It is almost as if opposing view points stop at the term social justice and fail to even read about the issues or involve themselves in the solution.
Social justness is not an enemy to fight but a virtue to embrace.