It parts ways with a right that disdains social justice.
It part ways with a left that imagines social justice can be achieved without regard for man's final end.”
I thought the biggest flaw in the CT Op-Ed was failing to acknowledge that the attachment of Christianity to politics was that it was one sided on the right. I’m not totally sure I agree with this simplistic view on social justice, but I think he’s in the ballpark.
I want to dig a little deeper with this.
While I do agree that the evangelical (right wing) church did get to a point that it was focused on personal salvation to the exclusion of engaging on social issues, I believe that there was a moment where this mistake was acknowledged and that there has been a move in the evangelical church to engage with both physical and spiritual needs. Further, I'm seeing progressive christians continue down the road toward excluding the spiritual even more from the social. What's interesting is that both extremes failed to grasp that Christianity includes loving God (spiritual) and loving neighbor (physical).
Where I see a continuing difference is that progressive christians tend toward government solutions for these problems. The ongoing problem with this approach and a healthy balance is that once care for neighbor is turned over to the government, then the spiritual piece of the puzzle is forcibly removed from the conversation.
To get back to the CT op-ed, and what it misses, is that as Christians or hope is not in the government, it's not in political candidates, it's in God. Whenever either side chooses to put more hope in politics than in God, we see problems.
I want to dig a little deeper with this.
While I do agree that the evangelical (right wing) church did get to a point that it was focused on personal salvation to the exclusion of engaging on social issues, I believe that there was a moment where this mistake was acknowledged and that there has been a move in the evangelical church to engage with both physical and spiritual needs. Further, I'm seeing progressive christians continue down the road toward excluding the spiritual even more from the social. What's interesting is that both extremes failed to grasp that Christianity includes loving God (spiritual) and loving neighbor (physical).
Where I see a continuing difference is that progressive christians tend toward government solutions for these problems. The ongoing problem with this approach and a healthy balance is that once care for neighbor is turned over to the government, then the spiritual piece of the puzzle is forcibly removed from the conversation.
To get back to the CT op-ed, and what it misses, is that as Christians or hope is not in the government, it's not in political candidates, it's in God. Whenever either side chooses to put more hope in politics than in God, we see problems.
15 comments:
I'm not really following what you're saying here. Could you elaborate please?
I’m saying that the progressive, politically liberal, christian left has latched onto the CT op-ed and used it as a club to attack their political opponents, while ignoring the fact that they’re doing the same thing.
What I don’t particularly buy is how the person treats the social justice piece. I think there is ample evidence that the Christian right is disproportionately active in personal acts of charity and attacks social justice issues from that perspective. While the christian left is much more engaged in using the power of the state and the coercive power of government to achieve their quasi religious social justice goals. As we’ve seen with Dan, he advocates using Christian principles to inform the policies of the secular government.
Christian right is disproportionately active in personal acts of charity and attacks social justice issues from that perspective.
Christian justice workers would say that this is a flawed view of "justice." That Charity is one level of helping others, but it's not justice, at least not usually.
It's like that old (and newly adapted) axiom...
"If you give a person a fish, you feed them for a day (charity).
If you teach a person to fish, you potentially feed them for a lifetime (a step towards justice)
IF you work for clean waters so that a person CAN fish, you truly empower them to be able to feed themselves for a lifetime (justice)"
"A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.”
~Dr King
"Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to
overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary (justice)."
~Dr King
“Overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice.”
~Nelson Mandela
"what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly (JUSTICE) and
to love mercy (CHARITY, at least in part) and
to walk humbly with your God (one's spirituality)."
~The Prophet Micah
I imagine you're familiar with this, but just in case, there's a bit of additional info.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/charity-is-not-a-substitu_b_7522750
As to this:
As we’ve seen with Dan, he advocates using Christian principles to inform the policies of the secular government.
I advocate using REASONABLE principles to inform good societal policies. Those reasonable principles DO coincide with Christian principles, I'd say, but they are not unique to Christianity.
The point you ignored is that those on the right, whose actions you misrepresent (not unexpected), are advocating for social justice through certain means, whine those on the left generally lean toward social justice imposed through government power.
The point remains that the problem isn’t which side you’re on, but alignment of government with religious views. But ignoring the actual point of the post is easier and more convenient.
As far as your fish argument goes, the problem with that is that the government is almost always not the best organization to teach self reliance.
I was just referring to YOUR words. YOU said that those on the right tend to approach justice through "personal acts of charity..." I agree that this is what passes for Justice work by those on the Right. I disagree (along with King and many others) that charity is the same as justice. Not the same, at all.
To the point of the post/quote, yes, people on the Left who are from faith traditions ALSO call upon those faith traditions to support the policies they advocate. I think they tend to be less dogmatic about it than those on the Right, but they/we ARE informed by our faith tradition.
One difference, I think, is that we don't say, "The Bible says it, therefore, everyone should agree with it..." We say that "Here is what we learn in our faith tradition about Justice (for instance)... we think this is supportable for civic reasons and we're not asking you to go along with it just cause we think 'God says...'"
As far as your fish argument goes, the problem with that is that the government is almost always not the best organization to teach self reliance.
We're talking about societal problems that need governmental answers. We can all agree (some of us, anyway) that drug policies that unjustly imprison poor and minority people at higher rates are not the answer... but the change NEEDS to come from the State which has implemented the policies.
Also, not all of our solutions are gov't policy solutions. We advocate personal responsibility, for instance, when it comes to living in smaller circles which is something we can try to do individually. AND YET, at the same time, gov't policies have been created that (sometimes unintentionally) encourage urban sprawl and more extravagant "larger" lives that are less sustainable. So, we advocate both - personal decisions to make individual decisions to live more sustainably AND a change in policies that, at the least, stop supporting/encouraging sprawl/overconsumption and, preferably, encourage more sustainable living.
For what it's worth.
I guess I don't even know what "Political Christianity" is, given that Christianity is.
"True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring."
And yet Dan says absolutely nothing about the "restructuring" by Donald Trump that has led to the lowest unemployment rate in half a century, thus producing fewer beggars. The principles of conservatism and the free market have resulted in more prosperity for more people than anything Dan and his ilk recommend. Indeed, Dan will continue to support leftists who implement leftist policies that lead to the very "injustices" he decries.
Dan,
My focus was on personal acts rather than the concept of charity. I probably shouldn’t have used that word. For what it’s worth, “living in smaller circles” just sounds idiotic. Like you have the standing to tell someone how they “should” live. The fact that you haven’t got a better example shows how often y’all advocate personal responsibility.
Stan,
Good point. Because the church has historically been very effective when it attaches itself to the state.
I still think the point stands that the christians whose hope is in Bernie or AOC are at least as misguided as those who put their hope in Trump.
Art,
Excellent point. I think most conservatives would agree that increased unemployment and rising wages are a better response to poverty that expanding welfare and government assistance. The left is clinging to UBI and the $15/hr minimum wage as the govt provided/mandated solutions. Meanwhile restaurants are already closing up here because of the minimum wage hike. Because that’s a much better solution.
Sounds like feodor is speaking the better part of wisdom. Blessings to you all.
Dammit, I accidentally published that. Since I usually don’t read him before I moderate him, the only thing I saw was the last line.
If Feo was interested in either conversation or Jesus, his actions would probably demonstrate it. Yet his actions don’t.
Unfortunately, I wonder if either of y'all would know wisdom if it but you.
"One difference, I think, is that we don't say, "The Bible says it, therefore, everyone should agree with it..." We say that "Here is what we learn in our faith tradition about Justice..."
A "difference" with no distinction whatsoever. Both cite Scripture, with one more honest about it and you (and those like you) pretending you're doing something different.
"We're talking about societal problems that need governmental answers."
First it must be confirmed that only government can solve the problem in question. Usually that's not the case.
"We can all agree (some of us, anyway) that drug policies that unjustly imprison poor and minority people at higher rates are not the answer..."
Poor and minority people are being caught at higher rates. That they then must face the consequences of their law-breaking is not "unjust" in any sense of the word. Indeed, it is the exact opposite given they broke the law and by doing so are brought to justice. It might also be argued that poor and minority people are breaking the law at higher rates percentage wise than are others. I have no stats at present to argue this possibility, but simply put it out there as a VERY possible reason why it appears there is some inequity.
"AND YET, at the same time, gov't policies have been created that (sometimes unintentionally) encourage urban sprawl and more extravagant "larger" lives that are less sustainable"
How? Which policies specifically encourage "sprawl". Typically, there are more jobs in urban areas and that's why there are more people crammed into the smaller spaces. Gov't policies? Which ones?
Wow! Wish I had seen that feo "wisdom". I'm sure it was a real laugher!!
Post a Comment