by CNN reports today that evangelical progressive Jim Wallis is calling on Christians to boycott Glenn Beck’s Fox News television show in response to Glenn Beck’s call for Christians to boycott churches that preach economic and social justice. I suspect that neither social justice churches nor Glenn Beck will take much of a ratings hit—there is probably not much overlap in their fan bases.
The dueling boycotts raise an old issue that should be put to rest. In the 19th century, following the explosive evangelical growth of the Second Great Awakening, evangelical Christians preached the good news of salvation in Christ and led English and American social justice causes, including the anti-slavery, women’s suffrage, and child labor movements. The role model for many was William Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect, which led England’s fight against the slave trade and established Bible and missions societies. But in the early-twentieth century, evangelicals rejected Christian social responsibility and limited themselves to saving souls. Thankfully, the last few decades have seen a growing recognition that evangelicals have a responsibility for both. Evangelical-rooted groups such as International Justice Mission, World Vision, and Habitat for Humanity are witnessing for Christ and caring for people’s physical needs. The need for such action is the theme of World Vision CEO Rich Stearns’ moving new book “The Hole in Our Gospel.” As Nicholas Kristof reports in a recent New York Times column evangelicals are having a huge world-wide impact on a host of social issues.
Jesus prayed, “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” God appears to be concerned with people’s physical, as well as their spiritual well-being. The Christian Bible is full of God’s expressions of concern for the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner. Judging from provisions in the Mosaic law and the words of the Hebrew prophets, government and law have a role to play in their care. We should determine how best to fulfill that responsibility and get busy.
I would add the Lausanne Covenant movement, which is meeting in South Africa this year, as another evangelical group during the second half of the twentieth century dedicated to worldwide evangelization and for physical caring.
Justice and righteousness are more important to the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Isaiah than simply satisfying duties of religious worship.
Beck apparently advised believers who heard the words “social justice” to immediately depart their place of worship and not return. If so, I think he is improperly directing persons to leave responsible places of worship.
Authentic Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Mainline and evangelical Christians cherish God’s Word and God’s passion for the material and spiritual interests of widows, orphans, and sojourners. Beck deserves sharp criticism for his assertion that the words “social justice” themselves indicate something terribly wrong with a place of worship.
However, “social justice” has and will continue to be a contested term. For the avant-garde in literary and historical interpreation, “social justice” is an ultimately meaningless term that enshrines the temporary power of some privileged group. For many sharing that “postmodern” view, “social justice” then requires violent revolution led by and then institutionally preserved by an elite vanguard of the proletariat, such as the Communist elites of China. Like Solzhenitsyn or Lech Walensa, one can legitimately ask where these socialist revolutions carry individuals. To a new worker’s paradise, or to new horrors of enslavement? To some, “social justice” requires the creation of a “watchman” state with the barest of bare concepts of community limited to protection of individual property. This is the theory of “laissez faire” where large corporations and trusts are free to operate without significant restraint. Americans traditionally found that “Social Justice” included a robust system of checks and balances in both federal and state governments, with healthy local government and a civil society full of flourishing “little brigades” of caring associated with Judeo Christian faiths. Within that system, we added social insurance elements, like “workers compensation” “federal college aid” “Social Security”, “Medicare” medicine for the elderly, and “Medicaid” medicine for the indigent. The promises inherent in these social insurance elements are so generous that our formerly wealthy, powerful nation is now largely bankrupt. Yet many insist that these elements are inadequate and that nothing short of a major enlargement of the terms of social programs to cover everyone, not just the elderly and poor, is needed. At the same time, many are asking whether the concept of social justice requires concern for unborn human beings? Americans have been discussing or avoiding open discussion of that issue for decades.
We should be able to study God’s words, particularly
Righteousness and Justice. Where the term social justice is spoken, we must admit that it is legitimate and necessary. However, there is a contest. The contest isn’t decided by those who most dutifully fulfil the motions of public worship, by the fleeting polemical and electoral victories of a majority, or by a consensus evolving within the thought of credentialed elites. The Hebrew prophets rightfully lamented the consensus of their days. We need God to reach the right understanding and practice of justice. We should expect to hear of justice and righteousness and their social dimensions when we gather to worship.
Thanks to Peter Griffith for his thoughtful comment. He is right about the term “social justice.” As an evangelical, I want to wrestle with what it would mean biblically. In the New Testament, we have the example of the wealthier churches helping the poor churches. Individual Christian care for the poor is clearly modeled. The Mosaic law seems to me to suggest a safety net model. Farmers were to cut their fields so that food was left for the poor to pick up, giving them a level of dignity as they work for their food. What might be modern day analogues?
there are lots of social issues that we face these days due to hardships and disease.”~”
there are lots of social issues these days mostly due to our culture and economic situation”;
there are many social issues today that bothers us, hope we can solve everyone of them”;:
there are many social issues that we face today but the biggest issue i think is poverty:*`
there are many social issues these days and we have different solutions for different social problems `~~