Regarding all this hubbub about churches that "push" social justice, my guess is that for some - like Glenn Beck - the term "social justice" IS a code word. They hear it mentioned at a church and they jump to they only (to them) logical conclusion: That such churches MUST be talking about socialism. When they have "social justice" meetings planned, they are actually figuring out ways to use our military to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, all the while sitting at a shrine of Joseph Stalin.
Of course, in the real world, that is just absurd. Such nightmare scenarios are all just part of the brainwashing that has happened amongst some on the Right who can ONLY imagine something like that must be happening at these churches. For this reason, it seems reasonable to them to tell people to "run" from such churches.
So, to that end, I thought I'd provide some real world examples of what we, at Jeff St, do to promote social justice, in our own words and actions.
We educate about the homeless, as we do here, here and here
We sing songs, as we do here or hymns that include these lines...
If you give food to the hungry
and set the oppressed free
then your light will rise like a light out of darkness
and the Lord will be your guide
you'll be like a well-watered garden
like a spring that never runs dry...
(...which the biblically astute will recognize as coming from the prophet Isaiah).
We preach sermons about it, as you can see here
For example. So, in any of our words, are there any actual problems, or just a people striving to be faithful to God's Way?
And yes, sometimes, we take what might be called political action. For instance, just this week, our church and about 20 others around Louisville will ask our school officials and state courts to implement a program called "restorative justice." The concept is that for many of our children, they get introduced early on to prison life for horrible mistakes they've made and actions they've committed. The problem is that, statistically, once that happens, these children will tend to become lifelong problems, with many repeat visits to prison and thus leading an unproductive life.
Restorative justice is a way of intervening early to stop that cycle of a school-to-prison pipeline. I won't go into the details here, because that's not the point. The point is, we have researched an existing justice problem, one we know well because of our own families and friends, and found a positive, productive solution. In this case, that solution can only be implemented by schools and courts. We can believe that restorative justice is a good idea, but it is only a good idea if the powers that be implement it.
And so we'll take political action, asking our elected and court officials to implement a positive change for justice.
Justice for some of the least of these, as is a repeated theme throughout the Bible.
But in any of these ACTUAL real world examples of what churches that "push" social justice do, is there anything that says, "This isn't a real church - you should RUN from it, leave it!"?
Even if someone disagreed with a particular song or action that we're doing, clearly these are actions taken in an effort to follow God. So, it would seem the most anyone could complain about is that we are mistaken. We are mistaken, some might say, to think that this "restorative justice" program is a good idea.
But even IF someone thought we were mistaken, well, churches are mistaken about things all the time. Shall we tell everyone to "run" from churches that ever make any mistakes? Obviously, that would leave our churches empty.
And so, I ask: Is there some problem with any of our actual words or actions - a problem that would call for leaving such a church? OR, is that a good, healthy, Christian political thing to be doing?
36 comments:
Hi Dan,
I'm a restorative justice mediator from PA, working with juvenile offenders, and author of a new book titled "Grace Goes to Prison" about a woman who advocated for RJ and alternatives to incarceration in PA for over 30 years. I'm on a cross-country speaking tour to raise awareness about restorative justice and related concerns about what's happening in our criminal justice system. I will be coming thru Kentucky from April 26-30 and would love an opportunity to talk with a group of your folks who are working to implement RJ there, if you'd be interested in having me come and speak. Let me know. My email address is melanie@melaniegsnyder.com. You can get more info about me and my speaking tour at melaniegsnyder.com/books
Peace,
Melanie
They hear it mentioned at a church and they jump to they only (to them) logical conclusion: That such churches MUST be talking about socialism.
Take, for example, Jim Wallis' God's Politics. I read it about a year ago. Wallis advocates the use of state force to carry out his vision of social justice, including income distribution. Christians and Christian organizations that talk about social justice sometimes do, like Wallis, advocate socialist policies.
Thanks for the note, Melanie. I'll be in contact.
John, do you have a quote for Wallis on "income redistribution"?
"Income redistribution" happens all the time, John. For the past quarter century, we've had a combined tax/fiscal/monetary policy that, combined with an anti-union industrial labor policy has redistributed incomes upward and increased socio-economic stratification and income disparities. Since these policies redistribute incomes in ways that are harmful to the common good, it seems to me there is nothing wrong with advocating for policies that are in the best interest of society. Does that mean we Christians are socialists, or, argued another way, does it mean that enacting policies that liberal Christians support make our a more "Christian" country? To the first, obviously not. To the second, and I cannot stress this enough - absolutely not. Even when policies that we liberal Christians support become law, this does not mean our country is more Christian, at least not in my mind.
Yes, Dan. In an article I wrote, I quoted a passage from God's Politics:
The government’s budgets are a disaster for the poor, a windfall for the wealthiest, and thus directly conflict with biblical priorities. Budgets are moral documents. It may be controversial, but it is not inappropriate to name the federal budgets being passed as ‘unbiblical.’ And it is time for religious people to clearly and prophetically respond. We need a ‘faith-based initiative’ against budget priorities that neglect poor people.
I don't have the book, nor is a preview available on Google Books, so that's the only direct passage that I have from God's Politics. I've ordered it from another library.
One of the things that really bothered me about the book was that Wallis never grappled with the question of whether or not it was proper for him to advocate the conversion of his religious beliefs into public policy -- including imposing them on people who did not share his beliefs. The closest he came was to raise the issue, and then refer to some Alabama politician's support for the idea. It was just an appeal to authority, not an argument.
Geoffrey wrote:
"Income redistribution" happens all the time, John. For the past quarter century, we've had a combined tax/fiscal/monetary policy that, combined with an anti-union industrial labor policy has redistributed incomes upward and increased socio-economic stratification and income disparities. Since these policies redistribute incomes in ways that are harmful to the common good, it seems to me there is nothing wrong with advocating for policies that are in the best interest of society.
Who determines what is in the "best interest" of society or what is "the common good"? If an individual disagrees with what other people think constitutes those best interests or common good, can he opt out?
I agree what income distribution happens all the time. It is evil. So I propose that we minimize that evil by creating a minimal state, supported by a flat tax.
Does that mean we Christians are socialists, or, argued another way, does it mean that enacting policies that liberal Christians support make our a more "Christian" country? To the first, obviously not. To the second, and I cannot stress this enough - absolutely not. Even when policies that we liberal Christians support become law, this does not mean our country is more Christian, at least not in my mind.
I'm really not concerned with what Christians do with their own money -- build churches, monuments, feed the hungry, etc. But I do get distressed when Christians use government power to take my money and use them to live out their religious beliefs. If your religion teaches you to care for the needy, then by all means do it. But with your own money, and not mine. Otherwise, the free exercise of your religion is impugning on mine.
John wrote: "I'm really not concerned with what Christians do with their own money -- build churches, monuments, feed the hungry, etc. But I do get distressed when Christians use government power to take my money and use them to live out their religious beliefs. If your religion teaches you to care for the needy, then by all means do it. But with your own money, and not mine. Otherwise, the free exercise of your religion is impugning on mine."
Well, that's fine John, but I hate to be the bearer of bad new, but it isn't your money. "My" money isn't mine. In the first instance, it is the government, which created it, gives it value,creates a legal and moral and political and economic framework and infrastructure to maintain that value. Also, since, as a Christian, I do not lay my treasure up where moth and rust can destroy, I don't consider it "my money" but rather a tool I can use - to feed my family and gain a bit of security by keeping the creditors at bay; but I also consider it necessary to put it back in the pot, as it were, to do some good. I give to my church and its various institutional methods for working in the world. And I pay taxes to the government that has the dirty little job of making sure the whole thing doesn't fall apart.
You don't like paying taxes for stuff you don't like. Me neither. But guess what - we all pay for stuff we don't like. My taxes help pay the salary of John Boehner and John Roberts and they pay for nuclear weapons and drones that bomb civilians and pay the salaries of people who try to figure out new and horrible ways for us to kill one another. I don't like that, but it is part of the price I pay.
Your argument really has nothing to do with principle, John, so please just admit it. Every time I hear a conservative talk about how their principles are offended because "their" money is being used in ways they don't like, I have to wonder - what is it, exactly, about helping the poor, the hungry, the friendless, the homeless, those who have nothing, no resources; what, exactly, don't you like about that?
If you can answer that question first - in all honesty, don't give me a lot of crap about political ideology; I just want to know what it is about making our world a little more livable, our country a little more humane, our society a little more just that you don't like. If you can give me an answer to that question, with references to your faith and how that plays a role - well, then I might just buy the whole "it's my money" business. Otherwise, not so much.
Well, that's fine John, but I hate to be the bearer of bad new, but it isn't your money. "My" money isn't mine. In the first instance, it is the government, which created it, gives it value,creates a legal and moral and political and economic framework and infrastructure to maintain that value.
No. No. Not at all correct. Government prints currency, but I earned my money fair and square by rendering services to my employer for which my employer was willing to pay me.
My employer could pay me in gold, or in trade of some other kind, and then we can eliminate the US Mint and the Federal Reserve.
Also, since, as a Christian, I do not lay my treasure up where moth and rust can destroy, I don't consider it "my money" but rather a tool I can use - to feed my family and gain a bit of security by keeping the creditors at bay; but I also consider it necessary to put it back in the pot, as it were, to do some good. I give to my church and its various institutional methods for working in the world.
I won't try to stop you. All that I ask is for the same in kind.
And I pay taxes to the government that has the dirty little job of making sure the whole thing doesn't fall apart.
You don't like paying taxes for stuff you don't like. Me neither. But guess what - we all pay for stuff we don't like. My taxes help pay the salary of John Boehner and John Roberts and they pay for nuclear weapons and drones that bomb civilians and pay the salaries of people who try to figure out new and horrible ways for us to kill one another. I don't like that, but it is part of the price I pay.
Here's my perspective: government is a necessary evil, emphasis on evil. Government is a criminal enterprise that deprives people of their lives, liberties, and properties. At best, its destructive power (government is never creative; all of its wealth is taken by force) can be harnessed to protect people from crime, invasion, and enforce contracts. These may be necessary, but they are certainly evil because they require the use of force against others, if for no other reason than to raise revenue.
And because government is inherently criminal, intrinsically evil, it should be kept to a bare minimum.
Your argument really has nothing to do with principle, John, so please just admit it.
No. My argument is all about principle. I'm not sure how you can say otherwise.
Every time I hear a conservative talk about how their principles are offended because "their" money is being used in ways they don't like, I have to wonder - what is it, exactly, about helping the poor, the hungry, the friendless, the homeless, those who have nothing, no resources; what, exactly, don't you like about that?
1. I'm not a conservative.
2. I'm not adverse to taking money out of my wallet and giving it to a needy person. I am adverse to you -- or anyone else -- taking money out of my wallet without my consent and giving it to a needy person.
One is charity, the other is theft.
If you can answer that question first - in all honesty, don't give me a lot of crap about political ideology; I just want to know what it is about making our world a little more livable, our country a little more humane, our society a little more just that you don't like. If you can give me an answer to that question, with references to your faith and how that plays a role - well, then I might just buy the whole "it's my money" business. Otherwise, not so much.
I care about the poor. I want people to have a better life. I've given money that I don't have to those in need and helped the agonized, the hurting, and even the suicidal.
I'm also very concerned about myself and my family. I don't want to be taken advantage of, and I have my own personal goals for my life, and I have a responsibility to take care of my family.
I want to be, as much as possible, the sole determinant of which of those goals I prioritize, how, and when. When I want to give, I'll give. When I want to keep, I'll keep. Keep your hands out of my wallet, and I'll keep my hands out of yours.
Deal?
So, in other words, you have no coherent principle or ideology other than greed and self-centeredness. At least you are honest about that.
As for your claim that your employer could pay you in gold, or whatever - good luck with that. You just proved to me how ignorant you really are. 'Nuff said. I no longer need to take you seriously.
So, in other words, you have no coherent principle or ideology other than greed and self-centeredness. At least you are honest about that.
Yes. Unlike those who are not.
As for your claim that your employer could pay you in gold, or whatever - good luck with that. You just proved to me how ignorant you really are. 'Nuff said. I no longer need to take you seriously.
Do you find ad hominem attacks to be effective? Do they convince anyone? Do they cause people to be impressed by your intellectual prowess?
John, calling you "ignorant" is a result of reading your take on economics and money. In the real world, money is the property of the state, its value is created by the state and sustained by the state through laws and regulations of state institutions like central banks. You may think the state is a necessary evil, that interferes with your life in numerous ways, and that's fine. If you were willing to live your philosophy out, I would invite you to go somewhere that doesn't happen, like Somalia, or Afghanistan, or Yemen. Have fun in those Randian, libertarian, small government paradises.
It would be ad hominem if you displayed intelligence and understanding in an argument and I said, "Boy, are you ignorant." Instead, you displayed ignorance and I named it. It's that simple.
And you have yet to address the central point of this post, or my related question - the relationship among justice, faith, and political action. Instead, you go off on a libertarian rant about money, which really isn't the issue at hand, or at best a sidelight rather than central to the issue.
John, calling you "ignorant" is a result of reading your take on economics and money. In the real world, money is the property of the state, its value is created by the state and sustained by the state through laws and regulations of state institutions like central banks.
So you're saying that the state has every right to confiscate all money -- its property -- at will?
You may think the state is a necessary evil, that interferes with your life in numerous ways, and that's fine. If you were willing to live your philosophy out, I would invite you to go somewhere that doesn't happen, like Somalia, or Afghanistan, or Yemen. Have fun in those Randian, libertarian, small government paradises.
There's a difference between a chaotic region where no one respects each other's rights and a civilized society where people respect the right of others to manage their own lives, liberties, and properties. And your false analogy would still only work if I advocated a stateless society, which I haven't.
It would be ad hominem if you displayed intelligence and understanding in an argument and I said, "Boy, are you ignorant." Instead, you displayed ignorance and I named it. It's that simple.
I'm curious: is your behavior and manner typical of Christians?
And you have yet to address the central point of this post, or my related question - the relationship among justice, faith, and political action. Instead, you go off on a libertarian rant about money, which really isn't the issue at hand, or at best a sidelight rather than central to the issue.
No, I directly addressed the topic. I just came up with a different answer. Justice is where the individual's life, liberty, and property is respected by everyone else. I want political action that enforces those rights and then stops taking action. My faith or lack thereof does not require me to force any belief on anyone, including using the collective force of the state.
Do yo have kids, John?
Because I don't and I've been paying for your kids' public education and I want my money back.
Thanks.
Yes, Alan, I have a kid. No, she doesn't use public education. And yes, I'd like to be returned the money that I've been paying into public education, too.
I'd like that money back, and I'd like to stop paying taxes from this day forward, and I'll take care of educating my child, myself.
I'm glad to know that we agree on the privatization of public schools.
I didn't say anything about privatization. At all. If you think talking about taxes is the same as privatization, then perhaps if I were you, I wouldn't be quite so quick to want to educate your kids yourself. ;)
BTW, those tax credits you get for having kids? I think they're called "deductions". I'd like that money back too, since those of us without kids end up having to pick up your slack.
Thanks.
I agree. You should get your money back, as should I.
Let's go further and eliminate the income tax.
Great. Feel free to let me know when I should expect my check from you. (If you're taking the deduction, I wouldn't expect much of a check if I were you. That's not actually how deductions work. Look it up.)
Or do you actually live out your convictions and not take the deductions for your kids? That would be refreshing at least, but improbable.
I find it amusing to watch people blow smoke when it's easy to do so, but don't actually follow through with their beliefs.
Me? I don't have the money. The government does. Remember?
My tax refund was much smaller than my paid tax, so I didn't get any of that money. In fact, money was taken from me.
You and I both deserve checks from the thieves in Washington.
If a mugger robs both of us, then you deserve to get your money back from the mugger -- not from another victim.
I find it amusing to watch people blow smoke when it's easy to do so, but don't actually follow through with their beliefs.
Such people are easy to find, but clearly I'm not one of them.
So you don't claim a deduction for your kids? That's good to hear. And I assume that, when it comes time, your kids will not avail themselves of any federally supported grants or federally insured student loans, and that you did not avail yourself of them either.
I'd hate to think you didn't actually practice what you preach.
Heh. It's like shooting fish in a barrel here. LOL
And, I'm assuming John doesn't watch television, or listen to radio, because the airwaves are the property of the state, with specific frequencies licensed to private corporations as long as they serve the public interest.
I'm assuming he doesn't call the police, or the fire department, or use public libraries. Or drive on roads in safe cars that get regulated mileage and don't pollute nearly as much because of emission standards set by the state.
What a goofball.
Alan wrote:
Heh. It's like shooting fish in a barrel here. LOL
You keep saying that, Alan, but you haven't made a case.
Yeah, I claimed a deduction. The state mugged us both. It decided to mug me less for purely arbitrary reasons. How do I owe you money?
I'm sorry I've been too busy to get involved with this conversation, but let me insert a comment or two here...
re:
What a goofball.
Alan, Geoffrey, I know it can be hard to keep up with who has said what and think of those who disagree with us as one group, but I would like to point out that commenter John is not of the same type as the Marks, Bubbas, Marshalls, etc. He is a fairly serious libertarian-leaning fella who does not typically engage in name-calling or any of the more unsavory types of behavior.
Yes, I disagree with his positions re: libertarianism and progressive taxation and yes, I know that "goofball" is not that serious a name, but lets treat him with respect nonetheless, please. As you would a brother with whom you disagreed.
Thanks.
John, I would have to say that while I don't think you're a goofball in the least, getting rid of income tax IS sort of a goofball idea, unless someone has a better idea that does not unjustly penalize the poor. And a flat tax ain't it.
We DO have a commonwealth into which we DO need to pay, if we're going to function as a society.
Aside from that, the point of this post, everyone, was merely to say "HERE is what some churches are actually doing and saying. Do you have a problem with THESE ACTUAL ideas?" as opposed to generally ignorantly demonizing "social justice" churches as being Stalinist anti-churches. Do you have a problem with what I've actually offered from Jeff St?
Me: "I'd hate to think you didn't actually practice what you preach."
John: "Yeah, I claimed a deduction."
QED.
Dan wrote:
John, I would have to say that while I don't think you're a goofball in the least, getting rid of income tax IS sort of a goofball idea, unless someone has a better idea that does not unjustly penalize the poor. And a flat tax ain't it.
Until 1862, the United States had no income tax. We paid for all functions of the federal government through tariffs and excise taxes.
Now eliminating the income tax would require a vast reduction in the scope of activities of the federal government, but I see that as a benefit, rather than a harm.
And let me offer this enticement, which I think might move you closer to my position: without an income tax, it would be difficult for the United States to fight wars beyond its own borders. Any war would thus require a massive tax increase, making it unpopular and thus less likely.
Aside from that, the point of this post, everyone, was merely to say "HERE is what some churches are actually doing and saying. Do you have a problem with THESE ACTUAL ideas?" as opposed to generally ignorantly demonizing "social justice" churches as being Stalinist anti-churches. Do you have a problem with what I've actually offered from Jeff St?
No, from what I remember that you've posted about Jeff Street, it seems like a marvelous church. I think that churches should mostly avoid lobbying, but in general, it looks like your church does the dirty work of social justice itself, rather than delegating this responsibility to the state. That's good.
But when I hear Christian leaders like Jim Wallis urge the state-adoption of their religious views, I get antsy. I don't see it as any different from secretly gay conservative evangelicals calling for the suppression of gay rights.
Alan, as I see it, the federal government is robbing from both of us. It chooses, for arbitrary reasons, to rob me less. If I accept the mugger's alleged generosity to steal my wallet but not my watch, have I stolen from you? Should I force my watch into his hands?
Is this analogy inaccurate? If so, how?
No problem, John. I don't actually care if you live up to your ideals or not. If it doesn't bother you, then who cares? I'm simply saying that I think it's amusing for someone to go on about the evils of socialism and income redistribution when that person seems perfectly happy to benefit from income redistribution.
You and your family consume more in government services than I do and you're content to pay much less (1 kid = 1K, right?). That is simple redistribution of wealth based on the lifestyle choice you've made to procreate. Lucky you.
So stop complaining and enjoy it. When people who benefit from redistribution of wealth complain about it, it just seems pretty silly.
Ah, but I'm not benefiting from the redistribution, if for no other reason than the fact that I paid taxes last year. I experienced a net loss, rather than a net gain in taxes, so income was not redistributed to me.
Your argument would apply if my refund exceeded my withholding, but it didn't, so it doesn't.
This is what would make me a hypocrite: if, offered the opportunity to opt out of a government program in exchange for a tax rebate for the amount that I paid into that program, I refused.
" I paid taxes last year."
Refund or not, you paid less than less than you would have otherwise. So like I said, enjoy it! You're lucky enough to make life choices that the rest of you countrymen approve of, so we all get to pay for them.
BTW, to get back to the, you know, actual topic... I'd point out that there are plenty of religious folks who would scream bloody murder if this particular method of income redistribution (ie. the procreation deduction) were ended, and they're certainly not the "social justice" folks that Beck is talking about.
Once again the pot calling the kettle black.
This is yet another example (see also the other recent thread on inciting violence here) in which it is impossible to find one example of the left doing something the right does not do itself. (or vice versa) And yet everyone does so enjoy playing their roles in the silly hypocrisy play that they don't apparently even realize they're just doing it over and over and over. (While mistakenly believing that playing these little roles constitutes penetrating and trenchant commentary.)
But by all means, continue on if repetition constitutes entertainment. :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
BTW, to get back to the, you know, actual topic... I'd point out that there are plenty of religious folks who would scream bloody murder if this particular method of income redistribution (ie. the procreation deduction) were ended, and they're certainly not the "social justice" folks that Beck is talking about.
Probably.
Refund or not, you paid less than less than you would have otherwise.
How does this constitute a wrong on my part?
So like I said, enjoy it! You're lucky enough to make life choices that the rest of you countrymen approve of, so we all get to pay for them.
No, you didn't pay for my choices. The mugger simply stole less money from me. How is that my fault? How have I robbed you? The fact that the state chose, for arbitrary reasons, to take less money from than from you does not constitute any wrongdoing on my part. I wasn't the agent of theft -- the state was.
"No, you didn't pay for my choices."
Somebody has to. You and your family consume government services that have to be paid for, and you get a discount. Unless you're claiming that your kids are paying their fair share of taxes? (These days even many local and state services are partially paid for by federal money.) So yeah, public services are getting paid for, just not by the people who use them.
My point is that people who benefit from such discounts and thus pay less taxes than the rest of us have little room to complain about "income redistribution."
But enjoy your roads, sewers, clean water, police and fire protection, etc. You're welcome. ;)
Somebody has to. You and your family consume government services that have to be paid for, and you get a discount. Unless you're claiming that your kids are paying their fair share of taxes? (These days even many local and state services are partially paid for by federal money.) So yeah, public services are getting paid for, just not by the people who use them.
My point is that people who benefit from such discounts and thus pay less taxes than the rest of us have little room to complain about "income redistribution."
I hereby authorize all governments to which we are both subject to remit to you all taxes for activities that I believe should not be handled by those same governments.
That should do it, right?
And if not -- if I'm not allowed to opt out of these government activities and allow you to opt out of these same government activities -- how can you hold me responsible for the actions of government?
I posit that, as a fundamental concept of ethics, one cannot hold a person morally responsible for something that he cannot control. Is this a false assumption?
Yer still not getting it. That's fine. But pardon me if I don't take your complaints about paying taxes for things you don't agree with seriously when you get discounts for procreating.
Post a Comment