Meaningless Morass, Part II

Holy Discrimination

In Part I of "Meaningless Morass" we argued that the concept of social justice is meaningless because it can be expanded to embrace anything which a human being thinks is good.  Social justice, once the "good" is identified is a social or political order which delivers the good, whatever it may be.

Take, as an example, the evil of abortion.  Since some believe that a woman's "right" to her own body is axiomatic and ultimate, the rights of the unborn child are subordinate (at best), non-existent, at worst (the unborn is not human, therefore by definition cannot have human rights).  Therefore, abortion is a good thing, preserving a woman's control (or, property right) over her own body.  Consequently the cause of social justice must provide free, accessible abortion.  If not, injustice stalks the land. 

In addition, modern Nazi organizations assert they are committed to social justice for white people, which means getting for white people what they are due.  What white people are due, presumably, is their rightful position of racial supremacy.  Modern communist parties also claim they are committed to achieving social justice.  Naturally, the notion of what is just is worlds apart from Nazi ideology.  But both alike claim they represent the cause of social justice.

Christians are starting to get swept up in this errant nonsense.
  They are coming to believe that Christians, too, should be committed to social justice.  But which kind?  The social justice of the Greens, the Nazis, the Communists, or the abortionists?  Or all of them?  Christians would answer that we are to commit to the social justice taught in the Bible.  Which is fine, as far as it goes.  But maybe, in that case, it would be helpful to say that we ought to be committed to biblical social justice, not communistic, or abortionist social justice.  Yes, on balance, we think that would be helpful.  Discrimination can be a good thing.  So is discernment.  So is thinking beyond meaningless slogans.


But then the question is begged: what does the Bible teach about social justice?  The law of God is clear: we are to love our neighbours as ourselves.  We are commanded to love our neighbour; therefore, we owe love to our neighbour. And our neighbour owes love to us, by the same law.  Things start to go awry when the loved commanded by God, and therefore owed to our neighbour, is extracted by law or human demand, and vice versa.  As soon as human compulsion enters the picture, man is dehumanised and enslaved.

Consider this parallel: we are commanded in Scripture to believe in God.  Therefore, we owe faith and trust to God.  But if anyone comes along and compels our faith and belief in God, we are oppressed and violated on the one hand, and, on the other, whatever belief we have in God as a result is not free, not genuine, not belief in the heart, and out of love.  Similarly, if someone comes along to compel us to love our neighbour as the neighbour's rightful due, we are immediately oppressed and violated: whatever ends up being done to our neighbour is not love.

Moreover, consider the parable of the Good Samaritan--one of the most celebrated parables of our Lord.  The Good Samaritan was obligated to love the wounded man.  He owed him compassion (as did the other two passers by, who ignored his need).  The Samaritan gave freely, without external (or social) compulsion.  If folk are committed to this kind of biblical social justice, we can only endorse it with all our hearts.  But we must be clear: that is not the kind of social justice other folk--all Unbelievers--are talking about.  To make common cause with them in pursuing social justice is naive and credulous. 

Let's consider further what the Unbelieving social justice take on the the Parable of the Good Samaritan would be.  The victims and heroes of the story would be the thieves.  Here they were, no doubt poverty stricken and homeless.  They lurk on the road between Jerusalem and Jericho in an effort to get what is their due, what is rightly owed to them.  When the unsuspecting traveller came into view their desire for social justice rises ineluctably and righteously in their hearts.  They apprehend the actual thief, the true thief, and demand social justice from him.  They insist the traveller give them that to which they were justly entitled.  Since there are four of them, and one of the traveller, social justice can  only be served if the traveller gives up four fifths of all he carries.  But since the traveller is reluctant, they are justified in removing his excess possessions.

Note that in this parable, theft only occurs if the lurkers take more than what is their due, more than what is owed them.  Consequently the brigands reason that up to four fifths of the travellers possessions did not belong to him, but them, since there is a society of five people that day on the road to Damascus--four of them, and one traveller.  Only if they took more would it be theft. Since the traveller resists, he has to be forced to stop thieving.  They duly punish the malefactor and leave him by the roadside, after taking from him what was always rightfully theirs. 

That's Social Justice 101, Unbelieving version.  The Parable of the Good Samaritan is thus recast by pagans: it becomes the Parable of the Thieving Traveller.  This is inevitably what occurs when the biblical obligation to love is recast as a property right or a demand right.  That is why Christians must be very, very scrupulous when they use terms like social justice.  There are Unbelieving notions of social justice, and there are biblical notions.  The latter trades off freedom, conscience, and dignity; the other oppresses and enslaves.

Let us choose wisely and carefully--which is to say, let us be discerning and discriminating.