What is the relationship of social justice to Christianity?

Faith & Science Conversation
72

God designed and defined marriage as between one man and one woman for life. It is not our prerogative to redefine what God has decreed. Of course, we live in a fallen world, and God’s design for marriage is not always followed. But when it is not, there are always negative consequences.

Homosexuality is also not God’s original design. God’s law is designed to promote human flourishing. God did not give his law because he is a cosmic killjoy, but for our flourishing. We are always better off when we embrace and follow his law. And there are always negative consequences when we do not.

God’s design is also clearly seen in the design of our bodies. Male and female human bodies are designed to fit together for a purpose. Male and male, or female and female are not. For example, there are also “male” and “female” electrical components. Our electrical outlets only work when used as designed, male into female, and our bodies also only work properly when used as designed.

There is a narrative that is ubiquitous in our society. This is that we must affirm a person’s behavior to affirm a person. If we do not, we are disrespecting (or worse) that person. That is absolutely false and a lie from the pit of hell. Must we affirm an alcoholic or addict’s behavior to affirm their value? Of course not.

Yes, each person is created in the image of God and has immeasurable value. Because of this, we must also respect and value each person as God does. It is the very fact that we see all people as created in the image of God and having immeasurable value that we do not affirm their destructive behavior and want to help them change.

In Romans chapter one, starting in verse 18, Paul describes the terrible consequences when we deny God’s creative order. These awful consequences are not just personal, but affect the whole of a society or nation.

First, there is a suppression of the truth, and it unleashes God’s righteous wrath. God can be plainly known through his creation. His eternal power and divine nature is clearly evident. But when we reject what we know, our thinking becomes futile and distorted. It is not as if we don’t know God’s righteous decrees. We do, but ignore them. As a result, we are given over to shameful lusts.

This is the prelude to individual and societal degradation and decline as described in Romans 1:29-31 and following: “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.”

Scripture is clear on these issues, and we can see all of these destructive behaviors on the increase in American society. More and better laws and structures cannot stem this tide—only a return to God and his word.

There is one further issue with same sex marriage. The Bible uses marriage as a picture of Christ’s relationship to the church—believers—in Revelation and other scriptures. Same sex “marriage” profanes this beautiful and holy relationship, and in this way is an abomination. God does not agree with our redefining what he has instituted, and it is evil for us to try and do that.

73

Where did God ever clarify this as law, so people knew where they were supposed to stay, while they were nomadically staying in one place, while they were being hauled off as slaves, or while they were being sent in as colonizers to dilute the local population?

At what point did God forbid travel?

Where did God provide the boundary descriptions along with some sort of description of the populace that should stay put in that spot?

Or is it simply written on our hearts?

Aaach my heart belongs in Michigan with my beautiful lakes and forests and farms. But my gene pool??? Which parts of myself do I return to where? Or shall I continue in disobedience to God in this matter?

You?

2 Likes
74

Kendall,

Thank you for your good questions. Of course there is and can be immigration. It has been occurring since the tower of Babel. We are all immigrants, and as believers, even strangers and sojourners on this earth.

But it is also reasonable and consistent with God’s laws to have national boundaries and laws to determine who can immigrate and live within those boundaries. What we are seeing at our border is more than just immigration and asylum seeking; it is a virtual and unfettered invasion. And unless “more stuff” is the immigrants’ goal, for many it is merely an illusion that their lives will be better. Wherever we go, we will still be there. The ultimate good in life is knowing God.

Of course he does not forbid travel.

One example–God gave Israel the promised land, and each tribe was assigned their portion, with specified boundaries. That is another whole discussion which goes farther than this topic, so I will leave it there.

Excellent question and one which I have recently thought about. Several of the school boards in our area begin their meetings with an acknowledgement that we are living on the un-ceded lands of the first American nations. And of course, those who make such acknowledgement of “un-ceded land” are also likely proponents of unfettered immigration. Confusing at the least.

And I ask myself the same question you are asking. Where is the nation or land that I belong in, if not this one? After all, I am part Swiss, German, French, Roma (Gypsy), English, Irish, Jewish and Scottish. Does one arm go to one nation, and a foot to another? No, I am here because my great grandparents immigrated legally, respecting the immigration laws of our country. You are likely here for the same reason. This is now our country.

Beth, my wife, and I lived for 13 years in Nigeria. We were there as guests with the permission and at the pleasure of the people and government of Nigeria. To become citizens, we would have needed to stay 15 years consecutively. We respected their laws. Every year, we sought and received new visas, new resident permits, and new work permits in Nigeria. These were all predicated on us contributing to Nigeria something in addition to what Nigerians could contribute. We had to have something to contribute to be allowed to live in Nigeria.

We were required to train Nigerians to take our place, and that is what we did. We also helped many Nigerians to start their own businesses–economic development. And we paid a couple of thousand dollars a year for all of our permissions.

That is as it should be. We respected Nigeria’s laws, and in turn, they allowed us to remain for 13 years as their guests. And we are grateful for the opportunity God gave us to serve in Nigeria.

75

I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.
Matthew 25:35

Let mutual love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it. Remember those who are in prison, as though you were in prison with them; those who are being tortured, as though you yourselves were being tortured.
Hebrews 13:1-3

I can’t imagine that Jesus would look on those people and just say, “Tough luck.”

What is deceptive about it? They are leaving countries full of crime and killing. Don’t you think the US is much better than those places?

Great, then come up with policies that fix it.

3 Likes
76

Not everyone believes that. We tend to think that we shouldn’t be forced by law to live by the beliefs of a religion we don’t belong to.

I don’t believe that. You can disagree with how a person lives their life while also supporting their right to do so.

1 Like
77

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I agree that we should let people live as they wish to the extent reasonable, and not be forced by law to conform to a religion one does not hold. But marriage was instituted by God. Let’s not appropriate that word for same sex relationships. Just choose another word for same sex relationships.

Good, we agree on that. What you said here is what I believe as well. You said it more succinctly.

78

Again, not everyone believes that.

It was already appropriated by the government.

If we were simply talking about a religious ritual, you might have a point. But that isn’t the case. There are legal ramifications tied up in marriage licenses which makes it a secular issue, not a religious one.

3 Likes
79

tell me something…if i were to come into your house and call your spouse awful names…or better yet, to remove any inhibition, in a pub…how long do you think it would be before i got bopped on the nose?

i worked in a bar as a security guard many years ago…i saw a fellow go charging across a dance floor through a crowd of people to “glass” another individual who was making gestures at his girlfriend!

Your point here is not particularly relevant to be honest as modern social standards deny your claim and the others you also presented actually. Generally speaking, it is socially frowned upon to curse.

80

Do you think people should be jailed for speaking blasphemy? If our laws were based on the 10 Commandments, would people be put in jail for speaking blasphemy?

2 Likes
81

Yeah, I agree. My concern (and the concern of some theologians) is that The Gospel of Social Justice sometimes can supersede The Gospel (of Jesus). Note that I am using The Gospel of Social Justice different than “social justice” in its standard form. I am very much in support of social justice, and found many theologians like Howard Thurman to be very influential to my own view (Jesus and the Disinherited is a must-read in my opinion, one of my pastors recommended it to me). I even agree with James Cone on a lot of stuff, and I know he is considered a controversial figure.

The Gospel of Social Justice is a mostly Marxist take on social justice, which emphasizes a personal transformation in terms of becoming “woke” (a secular take on being “born again”) and confessing one’s “sins” to social media and the public (instead of confessing to God). It has its own “sacred texts” and “prophets,” though it does not use these words. It behaves as a religion according to Emile Durkheim’s definition of a religion and has all the bells and whistles of religion under a functionalist view (functionalism as a sociological concept).

Why do I make this distinction? Because it is clear to me when people start taking about “liberating people from oppressive ideologies” and include Christianity and the message of Jesus that it becomes problematic to us as Christians. Jesus did not come to emancipate people from the idea of Jesus, or God, or from the idea of Sin as an oppressive concept. He came to liberate us from sin itself and the effects of sin (death). The “hope” offered by Marxist takes on religion and liberation becomes a debilitating nihilism that denies the ontological status of right and wrong because these are deemed oppressive concepts in themselves.

The social gospel and social justice are different things and I find both of these to be solidly Christian (after all Jesus came to give good news to the poor, the oppressed, etc). There are plenty of good Christians (Gregory Boyle comes to mind) living this out to good effect.

3 Likes
82

The Gospel of Social Justice IS The Gospel of Jesus. Nothing else matters.

86

Giving them their small share of the commons and making everyone else pay rent for their use (historical and continuous theft) of it will actually address inequality and give everyone a stake. Add from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. You know, the way the first Church did.

87

This is a very interesting take on SJ that I haven’t heard before and I can’t find any fault with it.

No Craig, we aren’t, and it’s a fact, not an opinion. By saying that, you’re marginalising disadvantages faced by majority of actual immigrants. Especially those coming from poor countries to America, as I assume that’s what you were mainly talking about.

3 Likes
88

When I receive good advice, I try to take it. So, I am working at marimbaing. And I’d like not to have this discussion hanging over my head.

I marimba where this can go, and I don’t want to go there. I don’t want to spar with you about things we fundamentally disagree on and won’t agree on.

It’s a preamble, a sign pointing to the work of savation that Jesus would accomplish:

Ephesians 2:8-10
2 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Pragmatically, I am moving to what I hope can get to agreement and action. In spite of my understanding that the Gospel is different from Social Justice/Social Gospel, I see the end of this passage among many others as a yet one more biblical reminder for Christians to obey Jesus’s commands. All of them. Not just what we call the Great Commission. And certainly not as it conceives of people as masses of souls to be saved, rather than persons to be valued and loved for their own sake as well as Jesus’s. Persons who have all sorts of needs that God cares about, which we are commanded to minister to.

Romans 6:15-18
What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

Our sins of ommission count as much as commission. Christians assume a double responsibility here. We are bound by basic human ethics as well as the commands of the God we claim to love and serve. We have no excuse for avoiding social justice.

2 Likes
89

Oh noooooooo … the patriarchy … sooooooo evil.

90

Sometimes. For example, I support the Catholic Church’s decision never to ordain women as priests.

91

Said by an old white male.

1 Like
92

Thank God for that … there’s still hope for humanity!

All nations that have embraced feminism now have aging populations due to low fertility rates - ie, more people are dying than born. Please explain.

93

Oh goody, you’ve quoted Paul. Does Galatians 3:28-29 mean Paul supported feminism?

I can quote Paul too …

“As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”
(1Cor 14:33-35)

“Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”
(1Tim 2:11-15)

Clearly, the Word of God and feminism are incompatible.

94

I yet to encounter anyone who truly believes in free speech. Everyone wants to shut someone up.