Standing up for the poor invites the Antichrist?

[tabibito]

As a Southern Baptist myself, I am irritated at some of the attitudes people have towards the SBC concerning that. They accuse people about not seeing the gospel message as important, they call anyone who stands up for social justice as a Marxist and other slanderous names. Jesus did say we are to preach the gospel, but we also are called to alleviate sufferings of the poor when we are able (Proverbs 31:8-9; Galatians 2:10; James 2:2-4; Matthew 25:35-40; 1st John 3:17-18). Some people just want to pit one against the other for some reason.

John 13:35 By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you love one anotherfor our brothersamong yourselves
Matthew 25:40 whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Minefor our brothers. 17If anyone with earthly possessions sees his brother in need ...

Is some sort of pattern pattern apparent here?

[NorrinRadd]

My perception is that here in the U.S., "social justice" largely involves efforts to punish some so-called "privileged" classes to benefit other supposedly "victimized" classes.

Because this involves punishing people who may in fact be guilty of nothing harmful toward the alleged victims, and doing so with no due process, I generally view "social justice" as the exact opposite of ACTUAL justice.

[Sparko]

I specifically said I didn't have that in mind, though.

I was commenting on Cow Poke's post not yours.

I was saying how it is easy to mix up the meanings. A Christian can talk about Social Justice and mean charity and love your neighbor, and someone else can be meaning don't eat chickens.

[Joel]

For a lot of people, the term "social justice" itself is the issue, causing an automatic negative reaction. I think the phrase causes confusion at best and is best abandoned. It's never more than hand-wavingly defined. As NorrinRadd said, it's often used to refer to things that are actually injustice. And think it is a serious mistake to conflate charity with justice.

[Thoughtful Monk]

I had an exchange with another Christian today and I'm not sure why, but I'm really upset about this.

This person was ranting about how the Southern Baptist Convention had been taken over by socialists pushing social justice. My stance is that the Bible does call for social justice - Micah and Amos specifically focused on the issue. This isn't "social justice" in the same sense that most modern liberals meant, but it does mean looking out for the poor and their being exploited, and it does mean looking out for widows in need. I made this point, making clear that I was not interested in modern liberalism's social justice.

The response? These passages aren't really about social justice, they're about obeying God, and they're only there in the first place because Israel was a theocracy. Paul never mentions social justice, therefore, Christians must stay away from it, and in fact, involvement in any social justice leads to the one world government of Romans 13 and invites the Antichrist.

I will agree with the other person that a Christian should practice social justice because it is the command of God. On the other hand, I agree with your definition of social justice. For me as a Christian, how society defines social justice is a mixed bag. On some issues, I think they're right and other issues I think their position is anti-Christian.

I don't like the other's person position that these are only in the Bible because Israel is a theocracy. There is too much New Testament that indicates otherwise. On the other hand, there are days I think Christians take care of those in society at the expense of fellow church members.

Any hand you use, this is a tough issue.

[KingsGambit]

Yes, I don't think it's coherent to entirely deny the existence of socio-economic exploitation in the Old Testament, especially because God seems to take an interest in condemning usury there (which is still a problem today, but not one that most people talk about).

[Cow Poke]

For a lot of people, the term "social justice" itself is the issue, causing an automatic negative reaction.

Bingo!

I think the phrase causes confusion at best and is best abandoned. It's never more than hand-wavingly defined. As NorrinRadd said, it's often used to refer to things that are actually injustice. And think it is a serious mistake to conflate charity with justice.

A quick Google search shows

"social justice: justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.
"individuality gives way to the struggle for social justice"

I think it weaponizes the concept that "doing charity" needs to be forced on people against their will, which, by definition, is not charity at all. Hence, we have to have "social justice warriors".

[Joel]

I think the phrase causes confusion at best and is best abandoned. It's never more than hand-wavingly defined.

A quick Google search shows

"social justice: justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.
"individuality gives way to the struggle for social justice"

I'd say that's a good example of being hand-wavy. Does "in terms of" mean we're talking about a subset of justice? Or an application of justice? And it's unstated what those listed items have to do with justice, or what any of this adds to the concept of justice. Are we maybe saying that a particular distribution of them is (un)just, or that, for any given distribution there can be justice? Some people in this thread seem to think that "social justice" entails "standing up for the poor", but that doesn't follow from this definition.

And that definition is better than most things I find as I've tried to search around. There's even advocates of "social justice" that say things like,

"The enemy of social justice is precisely believing that the definition of it can be fixed in some way."
http://www.socialjusticesolutions.or...tice-part-one/

"there is no rigid rule set for it."
http://www.socialjusticesolutions.or...stice-part-ii/

"In reality social justice is what you make of it,"
http://www.socialjusticesolutions.or...ustice-part-v/

In which case there's no way to say whether you are for or against social justice or whether anything promotes or not. It seems like "social justice" is used merely to inoculate one's pet project against criticism, since how could anyone say they are against justice (or for injustice)? I've never seen anyone attempt to provide an argument that "social justice" is justice or that "social injustice" is injustice. It always seems to be assumed.

Nobel Laureate F. A. Hayek wrote a whole book The Mirage of Social Justice

I think it weaponizes the concept that "doing charity" needs to be forced on people against their will, which, by definition, is not charity at all. Hence, we have to have "social justice warriors".

I agree with you regarding forcing it by law.
I go further and say that even if it isn't forced, charity isn't justice. And that to label charity as "justice" actually rules out the possibility of charity. Justice is things like paying your contractual obligations. But nobody thinks you are being charitable by paying what you owe.