Is social justice evil?

The importance of checking your premises

July 20th, 2010 ~ View Comments ~ Christianity

There has been a backlash lately against churches and Christian leaders who advocate for social and economic justice. Spearheaded by Glenn Beck, they are arguing that messages of social justice are poisonous, evil messages trying to infiltrate the church.

For Beck, Falwell and their ideological peers, the argument basically goes like this:

  1. Christ commanded his followers to give to the poor and the needy.
  2. Christ did not suggest that the government’s job is to redistribute wealth. Individuals, not governments, are to help the poor.
  3. Therefore, social and economic justice are bad, dangerous ideas.

The flaw in the logic is in the assumption that because he didn’t say that it was government’s job to give to the poor, it follows that a government that does is evil. There is a huge leap there.

The reality is that Christ didn’t make arguments for government policy at all, in either direction. Part of the reason could have been because he lived in an empire, not a democracy. Who knows. But it’s folly to presume that because he didn’t say the government should prevent social injustice, that we should assume he preferred a government that perpetuates it.

I honestly don’t know how a political leader could hold those two ideas in their head at the same time. If you believe personally in giving to the poor, helping the widow and the orphan…why would you not want your government to protect and help those same people? Why would you promote a political or economic system that systematically marginalizes some and lavishly rewards others, and then work to alleviate the suffering of those same people when you leave work? Why would you not go beyond helping those who are already hurting in your neighborhood and try to address the systems and powers that lead to injustice in the first place?

It simply does not make sense that you would spend your weekends at the soup kitchen, would donate a 10th or more of your income, and go out of your way to help someone in need while at the same time desiring a government completely unconcerned with those same people.

There is a difference between a government that is run by the church, and a government that happens to operate in a way that is consistent with the personal beliefs of the citizenry. While the separation of church and state is a vital and necessary doctrine (one that Christ himself would not have disagreed with), it does not follow that the state and church should operate according to opposite or contradictory beliefs.

The funny thing is, the people who rail against economic and social justice are often the same people who vigorously work to have the government adopt their views on marriage, abortion and the like. Why is it acceptable for the government to address those issues and not issues of systematic injustice?

About Sean Johnson

Sean is a Chicago-based entrepreneur and product development executive, currently working as a partner at Digital Intent. He founded Jelly Chicago, designs, writes, and spends time with his beautiful wife and baby boy.

Follow Sean on Twitter.

  • http://www.johnmcree.com/ John McRee

    William Wilberforce was an early Evangelical Christian in English Parliament who was friends with and mentored by John Newton. John Newton was the composer of the song “Amazing Grace.” He was a member of the clergy and former slave ship captain. Wilberforce spent his entire life fighting (and winning) against the slave trade and eventually the practice of slavery in England. He also started a number of other programs that could easily be considered social justice. The evangelical church is founded on social justice and John Newton at one point discouraged Wilberforce from joining the clergy so that he could have an impact in government.

  • seanjohnson

    Amazing how much things change – the evangelical church has grafted itself
    so closely to conservative American politics it seems like it can no longer
    tell the difference between the two.

  • http://brianglass.wordpress.com/ Brian Glass

    Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person’s gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone? Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again. Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold form the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first – and then they will joyfully share their wealth.

    -St. John Chrysostom

  • http://jamesschuler.com James Schuler

    Hi Sean, I found this post because I was thinking about the ‘Saturday marble’ story I heard years ago and decided to search it up in goog . . . and found your blog and your question, “Is social justice evil?”

    I deduce from your blog you define social justice as egalitarianism, or taking from the ‘haves’ and giving to the ‘have-nots.’ I find that unfair because it does not account for the ‘earns’ and the ‘earn-nots.’

    Aside from that, I don’t believe ‘govt. caring for the poor’ is evil, per se, but it’s not equipped to do that job well and evidently hurts more than it helps. Being a skid row volunteer in LA for a year convinced me the longer a person stays on welfare the more ennui and the worse their quality of life.

    One reason: govt cannot make fair distinctions among welfare recipients, so truly needy people are treated equally with con-artists. Nor does a govt bureaucrat care because he’s distributing someone else’s money.

    A church or an individual can better make the distinction between the truly needy and the con artist because of personal contact. Individuals and churches are also more likely to be a better steward of their resources.

    Converse examples of the Christian God giving specific jobs to specific institutions is making war and executing criminals: God assigns govts THAT task and NOT individuals or the church (John 19:10-11, Romans 13:3-4). We are rightly repulsed reading how The Church used to execute heretics. A search of the scriptures reveals the church was never assigned that job.

    That’s why I see no contradiction when God commands the execution of capital criminals, but tells us to turn the other cheek: because he’s commanding two diff groups with two diff jobs to do two diff things.

    So while I believe what you call ‘social justice’ is well-intentioned, I believe it hurts the very people it tries to help. Govt is simply not equipped to do that job.

    Have a great day.

  • Eric

    The government already mishandles my tax money in ways known AND unknown, and one of the LAST things I want them doing is giving MY hard earned money to someone else who hasn’t worked for it, just for s&g. Charities exist to help the poor and handicapped, and I have given to a few because I felt ‘led’ to, like so many others do, to the tune of billions of dollars each year. WE choose where this money goes, not the intrusive government, as it SHOULD be. Government welfare doesn’t work. It gives the poor a feeling of entitlement and NO ambition to rise above their current level of survival, as long as their base needs are met. Yes, there are some in this world with real problems such as mental retardation or birth defects that keep them from being a ‘normal’ member of working society, but there IS help for them in the form of many different charities as I have already mentioned. There is NO morally justifiable basis for redistribution and/or socialism – and on the contrary, they have both been proven in the past MANY times to NOT BE A VIABLE (or just) SOLUTION to creating a more ‘ideal’ socio-economic structure (even the Pilgrims tried it at first – to their abject failure).

blog comments powered by Disqus