Is social justice just ice?
One of the favorite words of President Obama and his supporters is “justice,” often combined with the adjective “social.” We hear calls for government-imposed economic redistribution through taxes and various kinds of welfare, and advocates of same-sex marriage also talk about “social justice.”
Education for “social justice” is now very big in public schools. At least three recent books push for teaching “social justice” even in math classes, which means spending less time learning the multiplication table and more time learning about the uneven distribution of wealth in the United States. (But isn’t one of the greatest injustices leaving kids without enough math knowledge to get a decent job and begin redistributing some money to themselves through hard work?)
Do Christians have an alternative? We should begin by asking, “What is justice?”—and that question should drive us first neither to Aristotle nor to Bill Ayers, but to the Bible. One observation: Over 50 times God’s inspired writers link the Hebrew word mishpat, “justice,” with the Hebrew word tzedek, “righteous.” They regularly declare that a central purpose of justice is to increase righteousness, as Isaiah 26:9 states: “When your justice is present, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness.”
The Bible also emphasizes justice between individuals. Psalm 112:5 praises the person who “deals generously and lends, who conducts his affairs with justice.” Jeremiah 22:13 pronounces: “Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness, and his upper rooms by injustice, who makes his neighbor serve him for nothing and does not give him his wages.” Justice isn’t charity—recipients pay back loans and work—but it is generally interpersonal rather than collective: We might call it “relational justice” rather than “social justice.”
Kings have an influence—they can walk in God’s way and tear down the high places of paganism—but righteousness still builds from the bottom up. Children who receive just treatment from their parents usually don’t grow up hating them. When husbands and wives act righteously toward each other, bitterness (of the sort that fueled the feminist movement) rarely takes root. Employers and employees who act righteously toward each other are less likely to feel the need to lobby or bribe officials to win by governmental force.
Deuteronomy 24:13 emphasizes person-to-person justice: A well-off person loaning money to a poor person is to “restore to him the pledge as the sun sets, that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you. And it shall be righteousness for you before the Lord your God.” We should rejoice over justice because it points to God, as in Proverbs 21:15, “When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.”
The justice-righteousness connection shows why entitlements that go equally to the reliable and to the profligate, whether rich or poor, are wrong. Isaiah 26:10 states, “If favor is shown to the wicked, he does not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness he deals corruptly and does not see the majesty of the Lord.” Ezekiel 13:22 shows that injustice works against faith in God: “You have disheartened the righteous falsely, although I have not grieved him, and you have encouraged the wicked, that he should not turn from his evil way to save his life.”
I’ve also examined the New Testament linkage of justice and righteousness: It’s similar, and there’s a telling emphasis on relationship. “Religion” comes from the Old French religare, to bind (same root as ligament), and most religions emphasize binding to a set of rules, but Christianity emphasizes bonding into a relationship with Jesus. Most religions are exchange religions: “I do this for Shiva, he will give me a son.” The apostle Paul, though, emphasized love for Christ—”We make it our aim to please Him” (2 Corinthians 5:9)—that leads to loving our neighbors.
Many other aspects of justice need consideration, and I’ll deal another time with what role modern government should and should not play. I’ll leave you for now with C.S. Lewis’ advice: “Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither.” Today, “social justice” aims at earth and produces just ice. Relational justice aims at heaven, and the just acts that occur along the way can melt many frozen hearts.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top57 Comments to “Is social justice just ice?”
“which means spending less time learning the multiplication table and more time learning about the uneven distribution of wealth in the United States.”
Well, that’s just plain indoctrination into socialism.
Of course, we go first to the Bible, and the Bible teaches us that doing justice is an individual obligation, not something we can foist off on the government to do for us. If God intended a redistribution of wealth, he would have created that system. He didn’t. He very clearly teaches us that if you want something, work for it. It isn’t justice to the man who has done the hard work to take the fruit of his labor (his paycheck today) and hand it to people who don’t want to learn in school, who don’t want to work hard and make the effort.
Social justice is a distortion of what Christ taught, and it leads to embracing sin, laziness, and it takes the individual’s focus away from his relationship with God. That’s a personal relationship. Social justice steals from the hardworking and gives to the supposed “poor.” And if you take it to the extreme, why not just give us all a 6 x12 cell, enough food and clothes that are always the same, and send us to work with our earnings going straight to the government.
Report comment to moderator
I really like this article because it digs into the Bible and starts there rather than at the predetermined political viewpoint. I think that in all our squabbling about human economic systems, we don’t ask about how to build a human economy, one that values people, their contributions, and their work rather than a grandiose set of ideals (whether they derive from Marx or Smith.) For liberals, I think, the Bible clearly tells us that the state is not our Lord and cannot alone achieve the aims we want. It also emphasizes the importance of hard work. For conservatives, I think the Bible is less clear than sometimes we’d like to think, as I saw nothing in these passages (or others) showing us that the use of government redistribution as a small part of the overall picture is part of building a flourishing human economy. It also clearly teaches us that all of us are the same broken sinners before God and encourages us to be merciful to our brothers and sisters who are poor, whether they “deserve” our help our help (after all, we did not deserve God’s help!)
For both sides, I think it’s clear that economic practice based on the Bible is going to be inspired by truth, righteousness, and justice but also mercy, compassion, and love. There need to be hard and fast rules, but there is also gross inefficiency and outright wastefulness built into the system. The practices of gleaning, giving a man back his pledge at night, and even forcing people to build good fences were all part of the Mosaic civil law enforced by the “government” that are all impinged upon profit, efficiency, and freedom! Yet the goal was to create a society in which God was honored and the image of God present in every man– whether he is a successful churchgoing businessman with an MBA or a homeless drug addict with schizophrenia who occasionally wanders into church– is held sacred.
Report comment to moderator
But we help our fellow man as individuals, not through our government, so I would disagree with you that the Bible is unclear. It very clearly tells you that if you don’t work, you don’t eat. It also gives charitable rules, no one was to starve, but no one was forced to hand over his wealth either.
Your government today does not exist to create a society in which God is honored — quite the opposite!
Report comment to moderator
#2-Thank you for your reasonable post. I’m not sure, however, that the goal of any society (at this time in history) is to have an “economic practice based on the Bible”.
As far as the early Church, this was the practice:
“And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.” (Ac 4:32)
I think the Church today (in general) would find it very difficult to live this way.
Report comment to moderator
A justice system sets the values of a society. Societies that value peace, property, life, prosperity establish laws that set a price on violating them. For example, the more a society values life, the higher the cost for taking it. If there is no punishment then life becomes cheap.
The problem with social justice is that it is not just. There is nothing just about wealth redistribution. There is nothing just about racial preferences.
You can tell whether someone is to the right or left by asking them to define the terms “equal opportunity”. To the right, equal opportunity means everyone plays by the same rules, but may the best ones win. To the left, equal opportunity means equal outcome. The rules are rigged to produce a desired outcome. There is nothing fair about that.
Report comment to moderator
The term social justice is contrived by the left in an attempt to justify socialism. Obama is linking social programs to righteousness and morality. He calls those who oppose his programs unjust.
If political systems were like basketball, then a street game would represent the laissez faire attitude of the right. The players would referee themselves. Moving slightly to the left, a referee (the government) would step in to make sure everyone played fair. Fairness is when both teams play by the same rules. May the best team win.
However, to the left, social justice is about rigging the rules to produce a desired outcome. A team with more minority players would play by different rules. And if the favored team falls behind, then the referees can change the rules in order to help the underdogs. Social justice would be achieving a tie score or a win for the underdogs.
There is nothing fair or just about social justice. It is fundamentally unjust.
Report comment to moderator
policies based on “social justice” are a grab for power. Once the power is obtained, there will be no justice for anyone. Owners of power (unless they fear God) dictate whatever they want for what ever reason they want. And only the Bible reveals why we should fear God.
Report comment to moderator
In my experience, the term “social justice” is used mainly to mean giving poor people more money or giving the disadvantaged more opportunities, or something to that effect. Obviously, this is a worthwhile goal, but the term justice as used by liberals (and, really, by most people who invoke it for their political goals) never involves the flip-side of the coin. Unless, perhaps, if they’re talking about taking away executives’ bonuses or taxing the rich to death.
But justice also means punishment that suits crime. It is unjust to let criminals go free. Justice demands compensation for wrongs committed. Why doesn’t this dimension play into the way we use the term “justice”? Is this what Obama means when he refers to social justice–locking up those who are guilty of crimes against the wider community? If not, “social justice” is merely your typical political language–language that has no rational content, that appeals to our pious sentiments but holds no logical water–language (in the words of Kent Brockman, the news anchor on the Simpsons) that warms the heart and fogs the mind.
Report comment to moderator
Also, please see The Mirage of Social Justice by Hayek.
‘Here, Hayek expounds his conviction that he continued unexamined pursuit of “social justice” will contribute to the erosion of personal liberties and encourage the advent of totalitarianism.’
Report comment to moderator
“who makes his neighbor serve him for nothing and does not give him his wages”
This woe can apply to the forced redistribution of wealth.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: But we help our fellow man as individuals, not through our government, so I would disagree with you that the Bible is unclear.
How many times do the Old Testament prophets pronounce God’s judgments upon entire nations because of their lack of care for the poor and lack of justice? Marvin’s picking and choosing verses that emphasize individual responsibilities and ignoring those that speak of national responsibilities. Both are in there.
What sorrow awaits the unjust judges
and those who issue unfair laws.
They deprive the poor of justice
and deny the rights of the needy among my people.
They prey on widows
and take advantage of orphans.
Isaiah 10:1-2
It very clearly tells you that if you don’t work, you don’t eat.
Those who WILL not work, not all who DO not work.
I agree on not just giving handouts to lazy people; I disagree that all or even most of those in need are lazy. Those who can’t provide for themselves are to be helped.
Report comment to moderator
PTL! I have been having an email conversation with a “Christ follower” who insists that Jesus was a liberal and referring me to a Social Justice website. WOW! Red flag #1 ecumenical: yoking with Muslims. Michael Barone said America has a rich heritage of providing through charitable organizations as noted in Alexis De Tocqueville’s book from 1835. Routing more AND MORE money through Obama’s Centralized Command and Control government takes away resources from America’s Godly heritage of providing helps and the GOSPEL through the Church. Let’s help people where they can be helped the most for all eternity, the CHURCH.
Report comment to moderator
“Those who can’t provide for themselves are to be helped.”
Who disagrees with this? The question is whether the government should take money earned legitimately by one person and give it to someone who did nothing to earn it.
Discrepancies are a fact of life. You might even say they’re part of the “diversity” of life. Discrepancies in wealth, the seemingly arbitrary determinism of economic upbringing, discrepancies in looks or talent, are all just part of the same reality. The alternative is to have a population of entirely conformist robotic clones. That is the utopia–the Brave New World–of liberals.
The poor will always be with you, Jesus said. Do you truly believe deep-down that we can permanently eradicate “poverty” by giving government bureaucracy control of distributing money? That we can permanently eradicate poverty, period?
We ought to do more for those in need, as individuals and as churches. But churches don’t do nothing. People receive when they ask. Members of every church I’ve ever gone to give offerings above their tithes for the help of the needy among them, those in the congregation and in the community generally.
Abstract talk about social justice and “those who can’t provide for themselves” is detached from specific situations and doesn’t do anything but appeal to our pious sentiments. Seeing that we all agree that poverty is difficult and should be relieved, can you be more specific about those in need and how we should do more to help them?
On the other hand, I think there is a disagreement about the spiritual element of poverty. The New Testament is full of condemnations of the rich. Jesus said repeatedly, “They have their reward here and now.” Wealth is not necessarily a blessing and poverty is not necessarily a curse. We need to be more thoughtful about what we mean about “disadvantaged” or “in need.” Everyone doesn’t need to own a $1,000 TV, an iPod, 2 cars, etc., etc. Everyone doesn’t need to go to college. There are many more assumptions like this that need to be analyzed before a fruitful discussion of economic injustice can be held.
Also, when you speak of “injustice,” who is the guilty party? A society can’t be held guilty for crimes against individuals in a courtroom.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG #11: That is a good point.
However, remember that “nations” is not the same thing as governments; nations are made up of individuals. So while unjust government is condemned, just laws will not make a nation just. Laws cannot change individuals. So a nation with good laws could be condemned just as well as a nation with unjust laws.
Also, a national responsibility is not the same as a government responsibility, although it can be a government responsibility.
I do not believe that Scripture teaches a certain economic system. It teaches against unfairness and injustice but does not tell us exactly what economic system is best.
Report comment to moderator
Xion #5 and #6,
You get to a very good point: it’s not about “justice” in the strictest sense, but more of justice linked to righteousness like Olasky talked about in the OP. As I pointed out above, laws about gleaning, returning a pledge, etc. are inefficient and perhaps “unjust” according to how you seem to be seeing justice. But God wanted to “rig” the Mosaic Law so as to create a flourishing human community in which “there shall be no poor among you” (Deut. 15:4). I do not think this should be the goal of our gov’t systems today, but I do think it indicates that God is perfectly alright with fudging the system in “inefficient” and “unjust” ways so that all people can benefit. Again, keep in mind that the greatest injustice in history– the death of the Lamb of God– involved the suffering of the righteous for the sake of the unrighteousness, bringing humanity into peace and harmony with God and forgiving our sins.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer #3,
As I pointed out before, not working = not eating should be an emphasis in our understanding of the government and the economy today. But there are many who cannot find work, or cannot earn enough with the skills that they have, or are disabled and unable to work. You might say, “the government should stop taxing us so hard so that businesses can hire more people!”, but even in times when free-market capitalism was uninhibited by the high taxes we have today (like, say, 100 years ago), there still wasn’t always enough work to go around.
I think you speak too quickly when you say that “no one was forced to hand over his wealth.” Landowners could stand to lose profit from the practice of gleaning, and many people lost plenty, I’m sure, that they earned through their own hard work in the sabbath years and the year of jubilee. Yet God still commanded it anyway. I do not think that we should have the same Mosaic practices (just as I don’t think that you should be banned from eating a goat cooked in its mother’s milk), but I think that the principles are still the same.
Report comment to moderator
35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37″Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40″The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.
Matthew 25.
Report comment to moderator
” I was sick and you looked after me”
Report comment to moderator
#15 MLTW “But God wanted to “rig” the Mosaic Law so as to create a flourishing human community in which “there shall be no poor among you” (Deut. 15:4).”
He didn’t “rig” the law to eliminate the poor. He was saying if they followed the law he would bless them so much that no one would be poor.
The purpose of the law wasn’t about creating a thriving community. The law was a teaching tool about the coming Messiah (Gal 3:24). It was a peculiar set of religious rituals given to a peculiar people who were tasked with carrying God’s message.
What does circumcision, animal sacrifice, strange feasts, dietary laws, a priesthood, tabernacle specs, jubilees, scapegoats, redemption rights, etc. have to do with creating a thriving community? They would thrive because God would bless them. The Mosaic law was a lesson about Christ, not a model for civil law. Galatians explains this very well.
I do not think this should be the goal of our gov’t systems today, but I do think it indicates that God is perfectly alright with fudging the system in “inefficient” and “unjust” ways so that all people can benefit.
How can God be unjust? How can he fudge his own system? God isn’t a cosmic pragmatist. He is always just and it is impossible for him to ever be unjust.
Report comment to moderator
Xion #19,
Just because all of the Mosaic Law (verily, even the whole OT!) is meant to point to Jesus Christ above all does not exclude the temporal meaning that it had for the people who received it, nor other spiritual and philosophical understandings that we can draw from it.
Galatians doesn’t comment so much on civil law as it does the understanding that our salvation is found in Christ’s redeeming work, not our human fulfillment of the law. Jesus fulfilled the Law & the Prophets, meaning that we no longer live by the Mosaic Law– but I think there are still many good things that we can glean from it! One important principle in the case we are discussing is how God “fudged” the system so to speak such that inefficient and wasteful practices such as gleaning allow for the poor to work and be cared for. A widow, for example, might not be able get a job being a reaper even if there was one available. But she could pick up the grain she needed for herself, even if the landowner was denied potential profit from it. I agree with you that we must,/i> understand that God’s blessing was the primary reason why there would be no poor in the land, but I think it is also important to recognize that God built systems into the civil law for people to obey in order to help accomplish that purpose.
God is wholly just, we have no doubt about that. But His justice clearly is certainly far more expansive than we can understand in a sense of criminal guilt/innocence– if it weren’t, He never would have submitted His Son to the injustice of suffering on behalf of our sins! I think this helps us to understand that just as mercy, love, and sacrifice influence His deeds towards us, so mercy, love, and sacrifice influence how we relate to one another as human beings. And yes, this will be primarily through charitable giving, community organizations, etc.– but I think that especially when it comes to large problems that have a number of big administrative issues, that there is no Biblical prohibition on a significant role of civil government and certainly some Biblical indication for it.
Report comment to moderator
David L. #13,
You ask for examples, and the way that I have found helpful to think of injustice in America today revolves around comparing how I grew up and how I was taught, encouraged, and rewarded with those who did not receive the same. I (and you, probably, too) were born into circumstances which we did not control that set us up for success. We worked hard, yes, but I know that my hard work was rewarded at every turn, I was encouraged by people who cared about me, and I was blessed with the financial and educational resources to know how and why to act in certain ways. When I gave in to my addictions and sins, my career and success were not affected, even though at times I have been neck-deep in repugnant evil.
You cannot say the same thing about the vast majority of the world’s population, especially the people who are already poor. Every day I walk past young men my age who have had almost none of those advantages, and oftentimes their hard work is not well-rewarded, encouraged, or helped. If they’re lucky, they have a place where he can work hard within walking distance that will offer him a job! And they’re even luckier if there’s a bank nearby where they can save their money. This may not fit the typical picture of “injustice” as is commonly understood by people who have not had to actually face it, but it is clear that there is brokenness or lack of shalom in this young man’s life. These sorts of structural or systemic injustices are things that can’t be taken to the courtroom, but through the work of God-fearing people in conjunction with community development and yes, even government support I think that change can come.
Report comment to moderator
ack sorry about that broken tag in #20. moderator?
Report comment to moderator
#4 and those who would use a scripture verse as an example. It is wise to look at several verses when commenting on a subject. Acts. 4:32-37 is apeaking of the Jerusalem Church only. They were, at that time, expecting the return Of Jesus at any moment.
When a famin came,Paul had to take up an offering from the Corinthian and Galatian churches to relieve the Jerusalem church. Paul admonishes in 2 Thess. 2:10 that those who would not work should not eat, (and there are very few who cannot do work of some kind). Also see 1 Tim.5:16 and James 1:27 as for those who truly need help. Again it is well to remember, that although we must be concerned for all people, the brethren in Christ is our frst concern then we can and should heap blessings on those who would need our help. All who truly need help should recieve it, but wisdom must play a part in giving it.
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
David L. at #13: The poor will always be with you, Jesus said. Do you truly believe deep-down that we can permanently eradicate “poverty” by giving government bureaucracy control of distributing money? That we can permanently eradicate poverty, period?
No, but I’ve never said we could. It’s not about eradicating poverty — the poor will always be with us yes. It’s about easing the lot of those in it, and trying to provide at least some of them a path out of it.
Nothing, no government program, no individual or church-based charity, can eradicate poverty. But I do believe that government can in many cases do more for more people than individuals can — and without forcing them into the indignity of having to come to their friends and church family begging for help week after week.
This does NOT mean I think government can do it all, or even that government should be the course of first resort for people (as I am sure my detractors will mischaracterize what I’m saying.) It only means I think the government should offer help for people who don’t have other and better ways to get it.
Report comment to moderator
So the wealthy will pay their “fair” share in a superior society. But when does income re-distribution become confiscatory. Is the Robin Hood theft on behalf of the poor – instituted by the political fiat of the majority – blatant thievery.
Report comment to moderator
Do Christians have an alternative? We should begin by asking, “What is justice?”—and that question should drive us first neither to Aristotle nor to Bill Ayers, but to the Bible.”
Should we also do this for other words? How about “economics”, “globalization,” or even “alternative”?
Report comment to moderator
When you redistribute the wealth as Obama wants to do, you create an permanent underclass, you lock people in and deny them the ability to move ahead, and you steal from those who have worked hard. That’s simply is unfair.
This isn’t about helping people who are in dire straits, not at all. There is no incentive for people who strive for something better if they are given housing, given medical care, given anything and everything they basically need — and at the expense of others. We really do have a lot of lazy people in our country. We have been spending millions and millions of dollars on cities and their school systems for as long as I can remember, certainly my entire adult life, and what we have are the permanently poor who are still whining about not getting anywhere. And we have their supporters (that would be SteveG and his ilk) who are unwilling to require that they change.
They will destroy this country, because those who do work will do less and less. You forget where the government gets its money, and when they no longer produce, you won’t be able to get blood from the stone. But I have no doubt you will be making soylent green.
Report comment to moderator
The path has been provided for over 40 years at least, and none of them have gotten on it.
Report comment to moderator
None? Not one, in 40 years?
Wow. Talk about a blanket condemnation. Did you get that tidbit from the homosexual in your office?
Report comment to moderator
Steveg advocates for governmnet care of the truly destitute (#24). It’s a valid argument, except that we already expend a great deal for their care. The problem is intractable. Social incrementalism for great causes will eventually destroy the concept of private property.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg advocates for governmnet care of the truly destitute (#24). It’s a valid argument and we do expend tax dollars to reduce poverty. The problem is insoluable. We’ll always have economic problems. But will social incrementalism destroy the concept of private property?
Report comment to moderator
Whoops
Report comment to moderator
When your justice is present, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness. – Marvin
Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral. – Mackie
Report comment to moderator
Steve (24)
Is there more “indignity of having to come to” government employees than to friends and family?
Report comment to moderator
Reader #34: Yes.
Report comment to moderator
Steve’s “indignity” comment is very telling, I think, and it illustrates the huge spiritual gap between biblical Christians on one side and fans of the Welfare State on the other.
Instead of “indignity,” you might have used the word “humility.” God doesn’t care if we are dignified in the sight of men but whether or not we are dependent upon Him for our daily bread. The poor are in a better position to see this than the wealthy. And being humiliated by our physical weakness is a spiritual blessing, an opportunity to grow spiritually. This is simply a question of living by faith in the presence of God rather than living by sight in the presence of men and treasures that rust and become corrupt.
“Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matthew)
“And others are the ones on whom seed was sown among the thorns; these are the ones who have heard the word, but the worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.” (Matthew)
“But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full. Woe to you who are well-fed now, for you shall be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.” (Luke)
“But the brother of humble circumstances is to glory in his high position; and the rich man is to glory in his humiliation, because like flowering grass he will pass away. For the sun rises with a scorching wind and withers the grass; and its flower falls off and the beauty of its appearance is destroyed; so too the rich man in the midst of his pursuits will fade away.” (James)
“Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?” (James)
And most pertinently, perhaps:
‘Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.’ (Revelation)
Report comment to moderator
Reader: Is there more “indignity of having to come to” government employees than to friends and family?
I’m not talking about people who have short term needs. If you get laid off and need some help to pay bills for a couple of months while you get back on your feet, your friends, family and church should (if they can) be the first place you can go to ask.
But there are people with longer term needs, who need some help every month. Try to picture yourself going to your friends and family every month for a span of several years to ask for the same help. Imagine how wearing it’s going to be on them to either help every month or finally have to tell you they can’t help anymore.
David L.
Instead of “indignity,” you might have used the word “humility.” God doesn’t care if we are dignified in the sight of men but whether or not we are dependent upon Him for our daily bread. The poor are in a better position to see this than the wealthy. And being humiliated by our physical weakness is a spiritual blessing, an opportunity to grow spiritually. This is simply a question of living by faith in the presence of God rather than living by sight in the presence of men and treasures that rust and become corrupt.
Do you live in poverty? If your circumstances don’t force it, do you give away every penny you have beyond what you absolutely need?
If not, then I think what you’re doing here is issuing high-handed opinions from a position of relative comfort where you don’t actually have to live up to your own words.
God doesn’t care if we are dignified in the sight of men but whether or not we are dependent upon Him for our daily bread.
But the people whom God loves do care if they have to shame themselves in front of their loved ones to beg for charity.
Report comment to moderator
Also, a government bureaucracy is not in as good a position to counsel individuals about their financial situations as friends and family members and churches. Bureaucracies treat everyone the same; they can’t possibly know what the real issues in a person’s life are, nor should they really be prying into them. Also, government rewards bad behavior, while friends and family members and churches reward good behavior. Like I said above, when you stop thinking in the abstract and start thinking on individual terms, the discussion takes on a new light. It’s not impossible to get out of a bad financial situation or to make it better, no matter what cards you’ve been dealt, but the government wants people to be dependent on it, not on their friends, families and churches. They’d go out of business.
For instance, what is going on in a person’s life that requires them to “beg for help” from their family and friends week after week? Are you saying they couldn’t be doing something better with the money they do get? Are you saying there’s really no behavior problems in that person’s life? And is the government really the one to find out about them and tell him to act differently?
I’m certainly not unsympathetic to the troubles of poverty, but if you truly want out of it, you have to deal with those areas where you do have agency, which you can control what happens. The trouble is, I think our system encourages people to stay in their bad situations rather than to take control of their lives.
Report comment to moderator
Steve,
This is just pure ad homimem (and lazily argued, to boot): “I think what you’re doing here is issuing high-handed opinions from a position of relative comfort where you don’t actually have to live up to your own words.” And it doesn’t address a single word of what I wrote. You claim to be a Christian yet you ignore a biblical argument based on reams of Scriptural support. Just because I’m not poor doesn’t mean what the Bible says about poverty isn’t true.
And no, I’m not poor. Sorry. But my life circumstances don’t invalidate what I’ve said. And this isn’t about me, anyway. Why are you trying to make this personal all of a sudden?
I have been much worse off than I am now, but my life contains a lot of humility and a lot of God’s discipline, and it continues with such on a daily basis. As I read the Bible, I am convicted about my riches (meager though they are) and am convicted about how little I give away and how much I keep to myself. I am selfish with my time and money. This is sin. And it’s by exposing myself to the Bible–not to Obama–that my sins are brought to light and I am moved to repent and do better.
And no, I don’t give away enough money. My wife and I give when we see a need among our friends (in addition to tithes), but we could do much more. On the other hand, there are things we do without because they aren’t spiritually edifying or materially justifiable, like cable TV and video games for our kids. We don’t eat out much; we shop at garage sales and Goodwill. We also live in a house that’s pretty humble for the number of people in it, but we’re content and actually quite grateful for what God has blessed us with beyond anything we deserve. Is that the attitude you encourage the poverty-stricken to cultivate?
This is a spiritual issue, and I don’t see any evidence that you’re capable of or interested in seeing it that way. I have to ask, Why is that?
We are all rich in this country, even those who are considered poor. This is like the only country in the world where the poor are so fat. Let’s get our perspective right. Poverty is relative. Treat the poor like they’re incapable of moving up, and they might just start to believe it themselves.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve had some experience helping the poor: buying and delivering bags of groceries, installing a phone, counseling a single mother to get an abortion and offering to help pay, taking people to doctors appointments, counseling against the rent-to-own joints, dragging people to the Salvation Army store, buying steel-toed workboots, taking people to more doctor appointments, helping people move, getting on ladders to change light bulbs, watching children for the afternoon, paying deposits for rent and utilities, moving, lending a car for a family to visit a distant prisoner, fixing a credit report, and doing dozens and dozens of taxes.
I do a poor job of it. I care, but am impatient, and my judgments are always implicit. With churches on every corner, why me?
Report comment to moderator
As someone mentioned, the Lord did say, “For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.” (Mr 14:7) No matter how much people (Christian or not) give, there will always be needs. We can never meet everyone’s need.
However, we cannot deny that He also said:
“Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.” (Lu 6:30-36)
God sees when we give (even to someone who seems underserving). He doesn’t forget and He will honor that giving. I really don’t see how it is our responsibility to make sure that others are learning their lessons and becoming upright, hard working citizens. Isn’t that His job? He is perfectly capable of doing any instructing that needs to be done. As I have said in another thread, no one gets away with anything and nothing done in His name is ever forgotten.
Report comment to moderator
Other stuff: crawling under someone’s car and getting grease on your face, setting up obsolete computers, taking people around to used car lots, going to Motor Vehicles to make sure the cars you give away aren’t still in your name, looking up stuff online. Saying no. Helping the poor is a pain the quadruped. Almost as irritating as helping rich old ladies! Rather than making you feel righteous and humanitarian, doing good will drive you to invent new ways of forgetting!
Report comment to moderator
I think that there is an underlying assumption by most conservatives here that if poor people would just work harder, they would be able to provide for themselves and their families in such a way that they would not need government assistance, and the only genuine needs that people might have are temporary. David L. seems to be espousing this position However, there are many adults who are permanently or temporarily disabled– 1% of our population (that’s millions of people!), for example, has schizophrenia, and most of them have at least a mild disability preventing them from working full-time like the rest of the population. There are also many, many people who can work, but the jobs they are able to work at simply don’t pay enough for them to support themselves or their families. Our changing economy plays a big role (for example, in my city of Baltimore a ton of manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last few decades.) I know plenty of people in my neighborhood and church who have these kinds of struggles, and many of them need long-term help making ends meet (not to mention good education for their children, health care because they may be working 60+ hours a week without it being provided for them by their company, etc.)
While there are plenty of lazy people out there taking advantage of the system, there are probably more who are working hard and simply unable to get what they need from their labor. And honestly, the majority are probably somewhere in between, genuinely needing help but also making poor decisions for themselves. I think we must be very careful to not make decisions about their welfare based solely from our comfortable position where our hard work has always earned us more than whatt we need and assume that everyone else would be better off if they just acted like we do.
Report comment to moderator
David: It’s not an ad hominem. If I called you a big stinkyface, that would be an ad hominem.
It is actually a valid observation, that it’s easy to say what you think poor people should do, should have, should feel, when you’re not one of them. (And this goes for me too, and probably most or all of us here.)
There really is no scriptural support either way on whether the government should be part of any help for the poor. There are arguments on both sides, and they have a lot more to do with political philosophies than with faith.
You said: The poor are in a better position to see this than the wealthy. And being humiliated by our physical weakness is a spiritual blessing, an opportunity to grow spiritually. This is simply a question of living by faith in the presence of God rather than living by sight in the presence of men and treasures that rust and become corrupt.
I agree with that, actually. However, we’re not talking about making poor people rich. We’re talking about helping poor people feed their families, pay rent and get medical treatment. They will still be poor, but they will be a little farther from the edge.
Also, a government bureaucracy is not in as good a position to counsel individuals about their financial situations as friends and family members and churches.
That is true. I agree with that. However, it is also true that friends, family members and churches are not in as good a position as the government (we the people, you know) to help meet longstanding, intractable needs.
If a relative comes to me and says “I’ve had some unexpected expenses recently and I need $1,500 to pay my rent, buy groceries and pay my electric bill this month,” I’ll send the money. But if the same relative is going to need $1,500 a month every month for a period of years, I can’t do that. Even if I want to, I can’t.
Bureaucracies treat everyone the same; they can’t possibly know what the real issues in a person’s life are, nor should they really be prying into them.
Which is precisely their advantage. It’s not judgmental. It’s just about helping to meet needs.
For instance, what is going on in a person’s life that requires them to “beg for help” from their family and friends week after week? Are you saying they couldn’t be doing something better with the money they do get? Are you saying there’s really no behavior problems in that person’s life? And is the government really the one to find out about them and tell him to act differently?
The government is not, but I do agree with you that people who really are needing help because they can’t manage money or some other changeable condition, they should get help and encouragement to change that. But I don’t think it’s fair to assume that that’s always the case.
In a lot of cases, people are caught in a cycle. They can’t better themselves, because every penny they earn goes to sustenance. There’s nothing left for college, or they can’t pay for child care so both could work (and often as not, conservatives are the ones opposing subsidies for child care or educational grants.)
And that, by the way, is the kind of welfare I advocate. I don’t think we should just be handing people checks for their whole lives and have them teaching their children to do they same. But I do think we should be paying for things such as child care, college or vocational training and whatever else might help at least some of the people caught in those circumstances to get out of them.
The trouble is, I think our system encourages people to stay in their bad situations rather than to take control of their lives.
You may be right, but what programs do you mean? There really is not a blanket “welfare” program that just hands out checks. There are things like WIC, which is only for women who are pregnant or have infants, and is limited to help buying things that are specifically for prenatal and then infant health. Food stamps may be more open-ended, but still limited to nutrition. And these are all means-tested.
It was also you who invoked Matthew 14:7, “The poor will be with you always…” That verse is so often abused. Jesus was admonishing his disciples to not kvetch about someone lavishing Him with luxurious ointment rather than selling it and giving te money to the poor. He wasn’t saying it’s ok to neglect the poor.
We are all rich in this country, even those who are considered poor. This is like the only country in the world where the poor are so fat.
Are they fat? All of them?
Maybe it’s because the food they can afford tends to be high-calorie, high-carbohydrate, low-nutrition food. It’s very easy to overeat when the most affordable food is also the worst for you.
Granted, the poor in America have it better than the poor in many other countries, but that is to some extent because they do get some aid.
This is a spiritual issue, and I don’t see any evidence that you’re capable of or interested in seeing it that way. I have to ask, Why is that?
I’m really, really, really tired of having my faith questioned every time I disagree with somebody politically.
It IS a spiritual issue, but part of that is how do we best help those who are in need … it’s not solely about figuring out how their condition is their own fault, so we can feel a bit less guilty about not doing much.
By the way, I’m no saint on this either and don’t claim to be. We’re all culpable.
Report comment to moderator
David L. Look at this comment from NJLawyer:
what we have are the permanently poor who are still whining about not getting anywhere. And we have their supporters (that would be SteveG and his ilk) who are unwilling to require that they change.
Now THAT’S an ad hominem. And another slander of hers to boot.
I seem to have misplaced my ilk, though. Maybe I left it at the office.
Report comment to moderator
I want to help the poor but I don’t think there’s one simple answer.And given our nation’s debt, the government can’t take this on unless they drastically re-direct current tax revenues.
Report comment to moderator
On my church’s website, I found a great scholarly and theological discussion of the American inner city (which is often the focus of the sort of poverty we’re talking about) that you can read here. It does not comment so much on welfare or the government role, but I think it might be helpful in understanding the issues that urban communities faces that those of us who grew up outside have difficultly relating to. It also proposes a lot of very Gospel-centered ministry approaches to dealing with the more general problem of segregation and division of these communities. I am thrilled that God has called me to be a part of a church that seeks to address these issues head-on, and for those of you who are passionate about these issues, I hope that you will take the time to investigate how you might contribute to a hurting community and do your part beyond just arguing about it on the internet (which is, honestly, why I haven’t been here much lately.) The Christian Community Development Association and the Christian Community Health Foundation are also great resources to look for opportunities to serve and information to learn.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not interested in defending or taking responsibility for NJLawyer’s comments.
What you did in your response to me above was ignore the evidence-based argument I made and pointed to my personal situation as a way of refuting it. That’s illogical; it’s fallacious, whether you call it “ad hominem” or the genetic fallacy or whatever. If you disagree with my argument based on Scripture, tell me why that is. Alternately, you could try changing your views to come more in line with Scripture.
It’s funny how you find yourself in agreement with so much of what I said above in the details, yet still find a way to disagree with me in principle. I think my position’s a little more nuanced than either you and MenLikeTrees above believe. My family has been on WIC before, and I’ve benefited from government student-aid, which I’m still trying to pay back. I’m not opposed to all government assistance, but I am opposed to the spiritual and ideological motivations than underlie the push for an ever-expanding welfare state. This kind of State at bottom replaces worship of God with worship of government. This is wicked.
From what you wrote above, I’d just like to pick out a couple of things: 1) The term “unexpected expenses” or “unexpected bills” is a cop-out, an abdication of responsibility. There are no unexpected expenses other than perhaps medical care, which I admit can really screw people over. I’ve been screwed by it before, when I had to have an emergency cholecystectomy in my early 20s. I was single and poor, living in a studio apartment, working 30 hours a week for about $8/hour. But I moved on past that, paid my bills and made progress. To say that, since I’m not dirt poor now, I don’t have any familiarity with financial distress is just an easy-to-hand rhetorical crowbar for you. It allows you to avoid dealing with the substance of the issues and shift attention to an easy enemy, e.g., those evil white conservatives who sit in their penthouse apartments and have black servants whose names they don’t even know bringing them Scotch and cigars.
But usually “unexpected expenses” means that a bill came due at an inconvenient time. Apparently, people don’t realize that they have to pay later for something they buy on credit today.
2) The reason people question your faith is not because you disagree politically with them but because you disagree theologically with them–and more importantly with the Bible. They know this, and so when it comes to political debates, they are already aware of your unbiblical version of faith. They see your policy arguments in this light.
Report comment to moderator
From what you wrote above, I’d just like to pick out a couple of things: 1) The term “unexpected expenses” or “unexpected bills” is a cop-out, an abdication of responsibility. There are no unexpected expenses other than perhaps medical care, which I admit can really screw people over. I’ve been screwed by it before, when I had to have an emergency cholecystectomy in my early 20s. I was single and poor, living in a studio apartment, working 30 hours a week for about $8/hour. But I moved on past that, paid my bills and made progress. To say that, since I’m not dirt poor now, I don’t have any familiarity with financial distress is just an easy-to-hand rhetorical crowbar for you. It allows you to avoid dealing with the substance of the issues and shift attention to an easy enemy, e.g., those evil white conservatives who sit in their penthouse apartments and have black servants whose names they don’t even know bringing them Scotch and cigars.
But usually “unexpected expenses” means that a bill came due at an inconvenient time. Apparently, people don’t realize that they have to pay later for something they buy on credit today.
You don’t believe there can be unexpected bills? Your response is a great deal more vitriolic than the statement really calls for.
Example: You earn enough month to month to keep all your bills paid, maybe even save a little now and then, and one day your car’s transmission goes bad and you have to come up with $3,000 to replace it. That’s going to destroy your equilibrium, but it’s a short-term hitch. And in those situations, as I said, your family, friends and church probably can and will help and that’ll be all you need.
But if you are not earning enough month to month to pay your bills, because maybe your landlord raised your rent by $500 a month when your lease expired, and there are no cheaper living options, suddenly you’ve got a long-term problem. And in many cases, family, friends and church are not going to be able to help.
That’s not about blaming “evil white conservatives” or any other stock response you may have. That’s about reality.
So you have some familiarity with a financial setback and recovering from it, (so do I) but I still don’t see any indication that you understand or believe that some people are stuck in situations that are neither temporary nor just a matter of working harder to overcome.
2) The reason people question your faith is not because you disagree politically with them but because you disagree theologically with them–and more importantly with the Bible. They know this, and so when it comes to political debates, they are already aware of your unbiblical version of faith. They see your policy arguments in this light.
Nothing in the Bible forbids government involvement in help, nor does anything in it specifically support it. This is a debate over political philosophy, not Biblical principles.
I disagree that my theology is unBiblical, but that’s a matter for another discussion.
See, this is the problem. You say: I am opposed to the spiritual and ideological motivations than underlie the push for an ever-expanding welfare state. This kind of State at bottom replaces worship of God with worship of government. This is wicked.
I am opposed to that too. You may not believe it, others certainly don’t, but what I am arguing is that I don’t believe the programs in existence do that. Again, we’re not disagreeing on basic principle, we’re disagreeing on what defines the kinds of programs that are good or are bad.
All of the scriptures you quoted, which you say I didn’t engage, make the point that the poor have an easier time than the wealthy at depending on God and trusting Him. I didn’t respond to that in detail, because it’s obviously true. We don’t disagree on that.
However, the fact remains that closer to God or not, the poor still need food, shelter, clothing and medical care. And if they’re not able to provide it for themselves, we who can help are obligated to help.
I assume we’re in agreement on that, yes?
So then the actual substance of the debate is only about how best to accomplish that.
Report comment to moderator
One of the big advantages of government-provided programs for the poor is welfare fraud.
Think about it. Welfare fraud usually happens when people fail to report changes in their circumstances that would cut their benefits. This means they are doing better, because someone in the household got a job, or a second job, or worked for some money on the side. Exactly what we want! I’ll admit that most of us are infuriated that welfare recipients could obtain higher benefits than they are entitled to, or receive them for longer than they are entitled to. That’s understandable, but not, I would argue, entirely rational.
If welfare was a lot of money — say the amount that rich farmers get from the farm program — we’d have good reason. But a few hundred dollars extra a month is a huge benefit to the working poor — perhaps a transformative benefit. It can help them get a more reliable car or help make the payments on a mortgage. The kind of people who climb up to circumstances that put them in jeopardy of fraud are the kind who are improving. They’re the “worthy” poor that Olasky claims are de-incentivized and hurt by government programs.
I wish somebody would do a big study of welfare fraud. I predict they would find that the existence of fraud proves 1.) welfare doesn’t cause laziness, and 2.) welfare and welfare fraud play a big role in the movement of poor people into the middle class.
Report comment to moderator
When MLTW mentioned schizophrenia in #43, I immediately thought of my younger sister, who was a victim of that cruel disease. She actually died several months ago, and around that time I heard about the Haven for Hope in San Antonio. The HoH was recently established to help reduce homelessness in the SA area by treating the root causes of homelessness with a variety of social services (include education, job training, day care, substance abuse treatment, medical care, etc.).
How was the HoH established? In 2006, San Antonio Mayor Phil Hardberger and a civic leader met to discuss the serious and growing problem of homelessness in the San Antonio area. Mayor Hardberger then established the Community Council to End Homelessness. The council, which consisted of community and business leaders, was given the task of developing a plan to reduce homelessness in San Antonio. The group conducted extensive research on homelessness and also visited and studied many successful homeless assistance centers and campuses around the country. There are now over 70 Partner agencies involved in Haven of Hope. Here is the vision statement:
Haven for Hope of Bexar County is an independent, non-profit organization dedicated to improving the lives of homeless men, women and children in the San Antonio-Bexar County area by providing a wide array of critical social services on a centralized campus. The Haven for Hope Campus is governed by an independent board of directors which appoints the President to oversee operations.
Our mission is to provide homeless individuals and families with the training, skills and assistance needed to help them become self-sufficient, and to do so in cost-effective and sustainable manner.
Our vision is to help transform and save lives.
With financial support from the public and private sectors, the Haven for Hope Campus offers various services to the homeless through its program agreements with non-profit and government Partner agencies.
They have a success rate of about 60% (defined as a year of totally self-sufficient living). I wish that such a place had been available to help my sister.
http://www.havenforhope.org
Report comment to moderator
Tychicus – 51
I have two friends who suffer from schizophrenia – one of them has been on my heart today, I’ve prayed – I hope she’s alright. They both have excluded most everyone from their lives –
I’m sorry about your sister, what a tragedy – God bless and comfort you.
Report comment to moderator
Roger Ebert gets Biblical.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: Thank you for your kind words.
Steve: Mr. Ebert fails to address a fundamental question – why should the government be the answer? (Especially when it would most likely greatly contribute to the problem.) If he wants to couch this discussion in terms of morality, he should realize that it’s actually immoral to force people to pay for the health care of others. God established government with a clear role, and it wasn’t to provide universal health care.
Deal with the outrageous costs of health care – yes. Come up with a plan to help those who are uninsured to get insurance if they choose to – yes. But universal health care coverage in a nation of 10-30 million people (and even such nations have great problems with their systems) is a completely different ballgame than in a nation of over 300 million people.
Concerning Mr. Ebert’s assertion that the USA is the only nation in the free world in which ’socialism’ is generally thought of in negative terms, he needs to get out more. Specifically, he should travel to the nations of Central Europe. Or talk to the people who I talk to in the UK.
And Mt 25:31-46 as a text to support universal health care? Please.
Honest question: Why do so many liberals equate compassion with government involvement?
Report comment to moderator
Honest question: Why do so many liberals equate compassion with government involvement?
Because the government can do things on a larger scale than individuals or small groups, and because government can maintain consistency year over year.
We actually don’t believe government can or should do everything. We’re all for people giving voluntarily. But we believe that some problems are too big for individual giving to do the whole job. The government can gain efficiences of scale and, by representing millions upon millions of people, has tremendous bargaining power. Government also has the infrastructure in place to undertake a national effort.
I don’t see any scriptural support pro or con. It seems more like a debate over political philosophy to me. Where does the Bible say that?
Report comment to moderator
“Because the government can do things on a larger scale than individuals or small groups, and because government can maintain consistency year over year.”
If this were true of our government, SS wouldnt be bankrupt.
SteveG, your aspirations are duly noted. We want to help the most people, via the most efficient means.
I agree that the government can assist at times. However, its track record isnt one that screams efficiency.
The claim that government can provide for those that the individual (via group, churches, charities) fails to help, is still dependent upon its source of income…but if the smaller pilot scale fails at this, why would the large scale succeed?
The government must still pull that source of provision from the same group of people. In other words, it’s still a deficit in the end, especially since needs, including medical care are only going to increase that burden over time.
Do you really want to hand over the reigns of healthcare to a government that cant manage FEMA, SS, Education, and the countless other deficit or mismanaged divisions? Sure they do one or two things well…but what can you really expect from a pitcher that is 2 and 19 with a 8.51 era? A loss. When they can balance their budget, and manage what they have now, then we should discuss their overtaking of healthcare, until then…this government cant handle it, and certainly not any better than the individual giving.
Remember, if you tax your source heavier, that means less goes to charity, church, etc for that support as well. Case in point, clunkers program trashed clunkers, and the normal charity giving of clunkers to organizations that do such charity, dropped dramatically. How many people couldve used a set of wheels? Transportation is huge when it comes to keeping a job in most cities..
Frankly, if the government reduced taxes, and focused solely on infrastructure, military, and basic free education…I think individuals would do a much better job of supporting those who truly need help. Meanwhile the government could balance its budget and learn how to manage effeciently.
And I do disagree with you that such help should be non judgemental.
Local people, need to understand and examine the specific needs for their areas. A government federal program, would not help the best when it comes to this. Local people also know who the real needy are, and who is just a bum. They need to judge whether or not they are truly being helpful, or if they are just enabling a worse condition.
Let’s see if we got rid of SS, Medicare, Medicaid taxes…I’d have another 500 a month or so…now what all can you or I do with another 500 a month? A lot…
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, Thorn – you saved me some time! I would only add that more and more dependency on government means less and less dependence on God.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!