Social Gospel

[readselerttoo]

There is a reason people insist on "social" justice as opposed to just justice. Every reason I have ever heard from people who prefer to include the descriptor "social" with justice has revolved around group identity as opposed to individuals. If I am mistaken about that, I would gladly listen to some one who rejects group indents politics explain why it is important to advocate for social justice as opposed to mere justice.

When you say "mere justice" it's connected to "individual" justice.  And "social justice" is connected to "groups," more than individuals.

There are all kinds of instances when social justice or social change have to do with groups but not with what you call "group idents politics." 
Affordable housing
Public school education
Police policy
This could go on and on and on.  All of it would have to do with more than individual justice or change.  And none of it would per se be limited to let's say racial group A or B.

As an example, two teenagers were murdered a few blocks from our church last week.  Shots were fired at the prayer vigil, which pre-COVID, I would have been attending.  Our community organizing entity works specifically with NYPD to engage in strategies to keep our neighborhoods safe(r).  The strategy employed, which benefits a group of everyone in that neighborhood, was to put a mobile precinct outpost (a big trailer) on that corner and coalesce with neighborhood leaders.  That's the development of policing policy with and by people for social justice - the safety of the community - with everyone who lives there being included.

Affordable housing is something I know a little bit about, and it has always been a place where social justice includes all in need of affordable housing - a large large group - through the development of public policy that encourages developers and community organizations to bring housing into the affordable zone. 

"Groups" that include the residents of a community are going to be diverse.  In some locations due to long periods of discriminatory housing practice, for instance, the majority - even the overwhelming majority - of the people will be non-white.  But they won't only be black, or Latino.  The policy and the opportunity are inclusive, usually based on income.

Dave Benke

You seem to be applying the term "social justice" to just about anything that tries to help anyone. I bought a condo in order to provide housing for my children and niece who otherwise would not have been able to afford the rent on their own. Was I doing "social justice" by providing affordable housing to them? Are gated communities, designed to keep neighborhoods safe, examples of social justice? How do you decide whether something is an example of social justice? Is it always a government program? Is what is seeks to redress always an injustice?

So I and really tens of thousands of people around the country have been working in community organizations representing mostly houses of worship that cross all the various ecumenical and interfaith as well as racial lines for decades for the things I mentioned in my post as well as many others.  And the faith leaders across those lines have always said we were interested in social justice and social change across all those boundaries.  Because affordable housing on a large scale - say 10000 units, say a national housing act, is an example of social justice.  More opportunity for more people without access to decent and affordable housing to have that access.  It's worked, it's working now, it's demonstrable, it's quantifiable.  That's for one example. 

You asked if someone not committed to your description - identity politics - could point to social justice issues that affect more than individuals on a large group scale with policy implications that affect groups of people.   That's what I've done. 

Dave Benke

I get that use a term—social justice— to refer to various programs that assist people. But not all things that help people. Walmart does more for poor people than either of us will ever do, but I never hear Walmart described as an agent of social justice. What makes you call some things social justice and not other things that help people? Where is the injustice? I have foster kids— am I doing social justice? Again, I get that Alinsky disciples and leftist churches use the term all the time. And I can sort of predict what they'll use it on and what they won't use it on. But why they call helping people in need a matter of social justice and not simple charity stems from a particular diagnosis of society that is purely political, power-obsessed, and false. 999 out of 1000 people who use the term social justice regularly also support group identity politics. I'm glad to know you are the exception who sees group identity politics as inherently unChristian and unjust.

I know a lot of people who think this way about social justice, Peter.  And act on those thoughts.  The Bible distinguishes between justice and mercy.  Mercy is the way charity is parsed as a term.  Justice is the way equity across the board is parsed as a term.  Eleemosynary institutions - mercy institutions - are called social service institutions or agencies.  There is corporate service to a group of senior citizens in a nursing home, etc.  The Bible often speaks of "the poor" and "the rich" as groups and calls for justice for "the poor and the oppressed" in society - i.e. social justice.  That's the distinction I make and have made for most of my adult life, in collaboration with people of all ages, races, and religious backgrounds. 



Dave Benke

So how do you decide whether giving poor people things they can't otherwise afford is an act of mercy or social justice? It seems to me you have the idea that the mere existence of rich people and the existence of poor people is an injustice, and that social justice is the act of equalizing wealth. This is where injustice to the individual comes in. If there is any just correlation between work and wage in human relations, then it is an injustice any time someone enjoys the rewards of labor without laboring proportionally. In mercy, we care for those can't labor, and in justice, we refuse to care for those who won't labor. In the normal course things, the worth of any given labor is determined by what anyone is willing to pay for it. Those who have nothing and who can't do anything of marketable value are in need of charity. Justice is the last thing they need.

Social justice in practical terms devolves into social engineering, which requires group identity politics. The people involved in it nearly always object to the idea that they are not engaged in social justice but in works of mercy or charity. Therein lies the problem. They're operating under the assumption that they are righting a wrong, not merely helping someone in need.

Preach it, Pr. Speckhard.  Nice distinction-making here between mercy, and social justice as political agenda, imo

[readselerttoo]

Dave, I get it. You're big into social justice. Home ownership is social justice in your view. As are good schools. As is pretty much everything. But you refuse to answer any of my questions, so this isn't going anywhere.

In mercy, you helped people who could not afford to buy a house to buy a house. You insist that it was social justice, not mercy or charity. But you won't explain why. Why is it a matter of justice to give people things they can't afford? Why not call a thing what it is— mercy or charity?

You aren't the only person who is into social justice that I read. The typical social justice warrior has an answer to my question. They call it social justice because people are entitled by rights to a house, a job, good schools, etc. and only ever lack them because of the inherent injustice of capitalism. It is offensive to say one is engaged in charity when one is only giving people what they're rightfully owed and what was taken from them by some injustice, usually capitalism. They have a Marxist mindset, and I understand them on their terms without agreeing. You claim not to be like them, but for whatever reason insist on using their lingo. You say you aren't involved in group identity politics by embracing social justice, but you are. Group identity is what puts the social in social justice. If it were not based on race, class, or some socio-economic group, it would just be individuals on a case by case basis, and it would just be charity or justice (not social justice) as the case may be.

Social justice means entering into the political environment where issues of fairness are always involved.  Are these the same as the Christian Gospel, ie. issues of fairness?  I don't think so.  I'm, not saying one is better than the other.  I'm saying the mode of operation is different under the law than under the Christian Gospel.  Was it fair that Jesus got what he got at Golgotha under the law?  Yes, if the law gets what it is due it...and No, if those who falsely accused Jesus at his trial were the basis for his execution.

[readselerttoo]

Part of the problem that I see in these discussions is that we no longer have a common agreed upon vocabulary with which to discuss. Seems to me that we have at least two different definitions of what "social justice" is, maybe more, being used here. There is also wide disagreement over how best we as Christians can assist those who are less fortunate. Part of that is a disagreement not so much in whether those who are hungry, lacking adequate shelter, and the like, should be assisted, but what to call it. We sometimes talk past each other and also disagree about who should be helped and especially how.


So long as we are dealing with people there are going to be those who would rather receive a hand out than a hand up. In the long run, those would be best served by being given the choice between trying to support themselves and going without. Allowing people who are capable of being productive to mooch off of others is no blessing. However, there are several problems with this realization. One is the difficulty of distinguishing between those who cannot provide for themselves and those who will not. Especially when dealing with a large system and many people. The likelihood of error, either way, is large. It is more important that people are helped who need it than that people who are capable of fending for themselves become dependent. Another problem is that those who have been or are trying to simply be dependent need assistance in preparing for and obtaining employment. In the long run, in order to fulfill the mission of assisting those in need a certain amount of those who scam the system is to be expected, lest in rooting out the weeds of the moochers, we start rooting out the wheat of those we came to serve.


it will likely need to be phrased differently when dealing with secular politics, but for us Christians it should be enough to realize that these are our neighbors whom God calls us to serve. For secular politics we may need to distinguish between justice, social or otherwise, and mercy. For Christians, they are our neighbors, fellow people whom God created in His image, whether they acknowledge Him or not, and so when they are hurting, for whatever reason, we are to help as we are able. The Good Samaritan did not stop to enquire whether the man beset by robbers had acted foolishly, or whether he was a good person. He saw a need and assisted.


That said, we should also be wise in our assistance, helping in ways that will help most, which means not always as the people want, or a particular political party or movement wants. There have been many failures among the successes of America's attempts to help the poor. The massive high rise blocks of public housing projects have mostly been torn down as ultimately failures, for example. A common political accusation is that if you do not support our programs, you just don't care about the poor. Sometimes, for some programs it is because people care about the poor that they oppose certain programs.

Yes, our terms for conversation vary according to speaker.  Meaning of terms may need clarification and adjustment

[readselerttoo]

Dave, I get it. You're big into social justice. Home ownership is social justice in your view. As are good schools. As is pretty much everything. But you refuse to answer any of my questions, so this isn't going anywhere.

In mercy, you helped people who could not afford to buy a house to buy a house. You insist that it was social justice, not mercy or charity. But you won't explain why. Why is it a matter of justice to give people things they can't afford? Why not call a thing what it is— mercy or charity?

You aren't the only person who is into social justice that I read. The typical social justice warrior has an answer to my question. They call it social justice because people are entitled by rights to a house, a job, good schools, etc. and only ever lack them because of the inherent injustice of capitalism. It is offensive to say one is engaged in charity when one is only giving people what they're rightfully owed and what was taken from them by some injustice, usually capitalism. They have a Marxist mindset, and I understand them on their terms without agreeing. You claim not to be like them, but for whatever reason insist on using their lingo. You say you aren't involved in group identity politics by embracing social justice, but you are. Group identity is what puts the social in social justice. If it were not based on race, class, or some socio-economic group, it would just be individuals on a case by case basis, and it would just be charity or justice (not social justice) as the case may be.

One of the problems is that biblically, δικαιοσύνη, carries nuances beyond "justice". That is one way the word can be translated, "righteousness," "doing what is right," "doing what God requires," "to put in a proper relationship," are some other translation possibilities. The breadth of meanings for this word are also indicated by the fact that it is used to translated 12 different Hebrew words in the LXX. However, the most common one, צַדִּיק, carries the same sense of "rightness."


Joseph Sittler often told the story of a time he was in Jerusalem and his car broke down. He took it to a mechanic to have it fixed. When the mechanic had finished and started up the engine to hear it running perfectly he said, "Zadik." Zadik is the Hebrew word translated as righteousness. In this context it means simply: "it works." Sinners and the world are made to "work" in and through the ministry of the One who fulfills all righteousness. [p. 58, Richard Jensen, Preaching Matthew's Gospel]


"Social justice" from this perspective is "Doing what is right for society." Or even, from our Christian perspective, "Doing what God requires of us." Both your terms of "mercy" and "justice" can fall under doing what God requires. They are not opposed to each other, but takes a discerning spirit to know when each is doing what God requires of us.

Yes.  Staking a claim on which nuance of a term one is using will help to find agreement in conversation.  Sort of like how St. Paul uses the Greek term "nomos" in Romans depending on the audience.  Is he addressing the Jewish Christian part of the assembly?  Is he addressing the whole assembly disregarding their ethnic differences ie. both Jew and Greek?

[Dave Benke]

Here are links to two articles I've written on the thread topic.  I think there's another one out there somewhere called the Unio Mystica and Mission, will keep looking:

http://thedaystarjournal.com/the-church-is-christs-mission-to-society/

http://thedaystarjournal.com/social-ministry-and-church-fellowship/

The one on church fellowship has a longer portion on the unio mystica/baptismal identity (speaking of identity) and engagement.

Dave Benke

[John_Hannah]

Social justice in practice "devolves" into 5000 owner occupied homes in Brooklyn for people who had no home ownership option.  It devolves into thousands of affordable rental units.  It devolves into a national housing act to provide funds for affordable homes in cities across the country.  It devolves into small classroom public schools as a better option than warehousing, with community input in every aspect of those schools, which began here but has become a national model.  It devolves into concentrated efforts to build ties between community and police through more serious community involvement, and to a decrease in crime at the same time as holding police accountable appropriately. 

There are wrongs.  It's not wrong to right them on behalf of the Church.  These efforts by people of faith in God's Realm of the Left are biblical and to Lutherans who believe there is such a thing as civil righteousness, are an aspect of corporate and individual vocation.  I'm going to provide links to articles I've written on this topic.  A Lutheran theologian of great impact in this area was Bp. William Lazareth (+).  There is extensive Roman Catholic theology and practice on the topic as well - that tradition is full-bodied, and, I would say, useful for Lutherans.  The short form is the "seamless fabric of life" and the "dignity of the human person":  https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching/seven-themes-of-catholic-social-teaching

Who are the "people who almost always object to the idea that they are not involved in social justice but in works of mercy or charity?"   Who's on that list?

Dave Benke

Pr. Benke,

Thank you for the work you do. I honestly do not care whether it is called mercy or charity or social justice.  I know that it proceeds from your faith, and I appreciate your tireless dedication to performing it.

I'm learning a lot in this thread, and I think that when I ask you questions the starkness of the Internet often makes them seem more pointed than they are meant.  So I just wanted to say this.

I agree. His work is indeed admirable and to the glory of God.

There is also this where I fully agree. " I honestly do not care whether it is called mercy or charity or social justice." "Mercy" or "social justice"? It is a distinction without a difference. One could easily recognize that advocating and voting against abortion is "social justice" for it advocates on behalf of the unborn. "Unborn lives matter!" "Black lives matter" too. One could call opposition to Obamacare working for social justice because it is unjust to some taxpayers. Opposition to voting by mail qualifies since it could be unjust as well. 

Peace, JOHN

[peter_speckhard]

Social justice in practice "devolves" into 5000 owner occupied homes in Brooklyn for people who had no home ownership option.  It devolves into thousands of affordable rental units.  It devolves into a national housing act to provide funds for affordable homes in cities across the country.  It devolves into small classroom public schools as a better option than warehousing, with community input in every aspect of those schools, which began here but has become a national model.  It devolves into concentrated efforts to build ties between community and police through more serious community involvement, and to a decrease in crime at the same time as holding police accountable appropriately. 

There are wrongs.  It's not wrong to right them on behalf of the Church.  These efforts by people of faith in God's Realm of the Left are biblical and to Lutherans who believe there is such a thing as civil righteousness, are an aspect of corporate and individual vocation.  I'm going to provide links to articles I've written on this topic.  A Lutheran theologian of great impact in this area was Bp. William Lazareth (+).  There is extensive Roman Catholic theology and practice on the topic as well - that tradition is full-bodied, and, I would say, useful for Lutherans.  The short form is the "seamless fabric of life" and the "dignity of the human person":  https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching/seven-themes-of-catholic-social-teaching

Who are the "people who almost always object to the idea that they are not involved in social justice but in works of mercy or charity?"   Who's on that list?

Dave Benke

Pr. Benke,

Thank you for the work you do. I honestly do not care whether it is called mercy or charity or social justice.  I know that it proceeds from your faith, and I appreciate your tireless dedication to performing it.

I'm learning a lot in this thread, and I think that when I ask you questions the starkness of the Internet often makes them seem more pointed than they are meant.  So I just wanted to say this.

I agree. His work is indeed admirable and to the glory of God.

There is also this where I fully agree. " I honestly do not care whether it is called mercy or charity or social justice." "Mercy" or "social justice"? It is a distinction without a difference. One could easily recognize that advocating and voting against abortion is "social justice" for it advocates on behalf of the unborn. "Unborn lives matter!" "Black lives matter" too. One could call opposition to Obamacare working for social justice because it is unjust to some taxpayers. Opposition to voting by mail qualifies since it could be unjust as well. 

Peace, JOHN

The distinction matters greatly in the arena of rights and citizenship. Justice is a matter of people getting what they are owed. Mercy is a matter of them getting what they are not owed. Social justice claims to be fixing an injustice. It is therefore accusatory. Not to favor x, y, or z, government program is to be on the side of oppression and injustice. These are standard political talking points that the Christian should resist and the parish should have no part of.

As for pro-life, that is indeed a matter of justice. A person is owed protection of his life by society. Not killing an innocent person is not an act of mercy, it is an act of justice. 

[Brian Stoffregen]

Terminology matters. It offers flavor and nuance, and often carries freight of a larger mental framework. When someone talks about the "proletariat" I know something about where they're coming from, even if someone else using the term "blue-collar" might be referring to the very same thing. If someone says the "herstory" of BLM is interesting, they are referring to the very same events and telling of those events as someone else would be referring to with the word "history." But the former clues the listener/reader into a mindset.

Social justice can mean many things, obviously. But in its mainstream usage in the major media, it does not refer to doing God's will or even anything religious. So why use the term and then labor to disentangle yourself from all the other people who use the term? Either embrace the neo-Marxist, group identity politics of the social justice warriors, or reject it and stop speaking in their lingo.

Will you stop using the word "God," because it means something different when non-Christians use it? Or when it's used by the Masons. Can you not believe that when a Lutheran Christian uses "social justice," they might be using it in a different way than a Marxist?

[Brian Stoffregen]

The distinction matters greatly in the arena of rights and citizenship. Justice is a matter of people getting what they are owed.

Owed by whom?

Mercy is a matter of them getting what they are not owed.

Owed by whom?


Actually, mercy is about not getting the punishment what we deserve to get. Grace is about getting what we do not deserve.

Social justice claims to be fixing an injustice. It is therefore accusatory.

Proclaiming the Word of God means that we proclaim Law and Gospel. We are called to expose injustices. We accuse society of doing wrong when they are doing wrong.

Not to favor x, y, or z, government program is to be on the side of oppression and injustice. These are standard political talking points that the Christian should resist and the parish should have no part of.

How did "government program" get into the mix? It seems to me that most often the government was doing nothing. Social justice reforms called the government into doing what was right.

As for pro-life, that is indeed a matter of justice. A person is owed protection of his life by society. Not killing an innocent person is not an act of mercy, it is an act of justice.

"Innocent person"? As folks often tell me, Theology 101 should have taught you differently.

[John_Hannah]

Social justice in practice "devolves" into 5000 owner occupied homes in Brooklyn for people who had no home ownership option.  It devolves into thousands of affordable rental units.  It devolves into a national housing act to provide funds for affordable homes in cities across the country.  It devolves into small classroom public schools as a better option than warehousing, with community input in every aspect of those schools, which began here but has become a national model.  It devolves into concentrated efforts to build ties between community and police through more serious community involvement, and to a decrease in crime at the same time as holding police accountable appropriately. 

There are wrongs.  It's not wrong to right them on behalf of the Church.  These efforts by people of faith in God's Realm of the Left are biblical and to Lutherans who believe there is such a thing as civil righteousness, are an aspect of corporate and individual vocation.  I'm going to provide links to articles I've written on this topic.  A Lutheran theologian of great impact in this area was Bp. William Lazareth (+).  There is extensive Roman Catholic theology and practice on the topic as well - that tradition is full-bodied, and, I would say, useful for Lutherans.  The short form is the "seamless fabric of life" and the "dignity of the human person":  https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching/seven-themes-of-catholic-social-teaching

Who are the "people who almost always object to the idea that they are not involved in social justice but in works of mercy or charity?"   Who's on that list?

Dave Benke

Pr. Benke,

Thank you for the work you do. I honestly do not care whether it is called mercy or charity or social justice.  I know that it proceeds from your faith, and I appreciate your tireless dedication to performing it.

I'm learning a lot in this thread, and I think that when I ask you questions the starkness of the Internet often makes them seem more pointed than they are meant.  So I just wanted to say this.

I agree. His work is indeed admirable and to the glory of God.

There is also this where I fully agree. " I honestly do not care whether it is called mercy or charity or social justice." "Mercy" or "social justice"? It is a distinction without a difference. One could easily recognize that advocating and voting against abortion is "social justice" for it advocates on behalf of the unborn. "Unborn lives matter!" "Black lives matter" too. One could call opposition to Obamacare working for social justice because it is unjust to some taxpayers. Opposition to voting by mail qualifies since it could be unjust as well. 

Peace, JOHN

The distinction matters greatly in the arena of rights and citizenship. Justice is a matter of people getting what they are owed. Mercy is a matter of them getting what they are not owed. Social justice claims to be fixing an injustice. It is therefore accusatory. Not to favor x, y, or z, government program is to be on the side of oppression and injustice. These are standard political talking points that the Christian should resist and the parish should have no part of.

As for pro-life, that is indeed a matter of justice. A person is owed protection of his life by society. Not killing an innocent person is not an act of mercy, it is an act of justice.

It is still a distinction that is not important for me. I'm not sure why you think it should be.

Peace, JOHN

[peter_speckhard]

The distinction matters greatly in the arena of rights and citizenship. Justice is a matter of people getting what they are owed.

Owed by whom?

Mercy is a matter of them getting what they are not owed.

Owed by whom?


Actually, mercy is about not getting the punishment what we deserve to get. Grace is about getting what we do not deserve.

Social justice claims to be fixing an injustice. It is therefore accusatory.

Proclaiming the Word of God means that we proclaim Law and Gospel. We are called to expose injustices. We accuse society of doing wrong when they are doing wrong.

Not to favor x, y, or z, government program is to be on the side of oppression and injustice. These are standard political talking points that the Christian should resist and the parish should have no part of.

How did "government program" get into the mix? It seems to me that most often the government was doing nothing. Social justice reforms called the government into doing what was right.

As for pro-life, that is indeed a matter of justice. A person is owed protection of his life by society. Not killing an innocent person is not an act of mercy, it is an act of justice.

"Innocent person"? As folks often tell me, Theology 101 should have taught you differently.

Brian, I already know that your cat's breath smells like cat food. You don't need to keep posting it.

[D. Engebretson]

Will you stop using the word "God," because it means something different when non-Christians use it? Or when it's used by the Masons.

Interestingly, some in the Jewish community will not use the word "God" but substitute "G-d". 

[Brian Stoffregen]

The distinction matters greatly in the arena of rights and citizenship. Justice is a matter of people getting what they are owed.

Owed by whom?

Mercy is a matter of them getting what they are not owed.

Owed by whom?


Actually, mercy is about not getting the punishment what we deserve to get. Grace is about getting what we do not deserve.

Social justice claims to be fixing an injustice. It is therefore accusatory.

Proclaiming the Word of God means that we proclaim Law and Gospel. We are called to expose injustices. We accuse society of doing wrong when they are doing wrong.

Not to favor x, y, or z, government program is to be on the side of oppression and injustice. These are standard political talking points that the Christian should resist and the parish should have no part of.

How did "government program" get into the mix? It seems to me that most often the government was doing nothing. Social justice reforms called the government into doing what was right.

As for pro-life, that is indeed a matter of justice. A person is owed protection of his life by society. Not killing an innocent person is not an act of mercy, it is an act of justice.

"Innocent person"? As folks often tell me, Theology 101 should have taught you differently.

Brian, I already know that your cat's breath smells like cat food. You don't need to keep posting it.

Thank you for the thoughtful and cogent answers to my questions and comments.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Will you stop using the word "God," because it means something different when non-Christians use it? Or when it's used by the Masons.

Interestingly, some in the Jewish community will not use the word "God" but substitute "G-d".

Yes. It's a way of avoiding writing a name of G-d, to avoid the risk of the sin of erasing or defacing the Name. I've known some Christians who do the same thing.

[peter_speckhard]

Just for the sake of lurkers, I should explain: the reason I often don't bother engaging with Brian is amply illustrated in his series of questions and comments just upstream, all of which tend to derail the topic down into rabbit holes by mixing usages and applications of words. For example, his last point objected to the idea that abortion killed an innocent person, because, as he points out, everyone knows from theology 101 that there are no innocent people. In other words, he mixes theological/spiritual definitions into what was obviously a discussion of law and the civil realm, glibly gliding back and forth to prevent genuine communication of ideas. There is no point in engaging with someone who makes comments like that. He is the sort of person who would make the point that George Floyd justly deserved God's wrath and displeasure, temporal death, and eternal damnation, as though somehow that applied to what anyone else was talking about.