Political pundit Glenn Beck, who has a TV show on the former state-run media outlet during the Bush Administration, FOX News, created quite stir recently in reference to his comments on social justice and leftist agendas. The Christian blogosphere has been quite abuzz with responses to Beck's very misinformed views. Even the current state-run media outlet under the Obama Administration, MSNBC, has made much of the hoopla simply as a way to bash Beck. Their views are just as misinformed.I have expressed on this blog that I struggle with the language of social justice, but it has nothing to do with Beck's rantings and ravings. I would like to think that my views on the subject are a little more informed, which of course doesn't necessarily make them right; but I hope the questions I raise are cause for some serious discussion and debate instead of resulting mainly in a battle between two woefully biased cable "news" outlets who are more interested in selling a political agenda instead of informing the public.
In his book A Community of Character: Toward a Constructive Christian Social Ethic, Stanley Hauerwas argues, among other reasons, that the problem with the language of social ethics is that it assumes there are ethics which are not social in nature. In so doing Christians have unwittingly reinforced the private/public distinction when it comes to ethical matters. As he rightly notes, "All ethics are social ethics."
I have the same problem with the language of social justice. By using the terminology only for certain issues (e.g. health care reform, feeding the poor), Christians unwittingly fall into the trap of suggesting that some matters of justice are not social in nature. But I say in response that all justice is social justice.
So I ask all the apologists for social justice as it is currently construed-- why isn't abortion a social justice issue? Is there anyone who would deny that the current practice of abortion on demand has huge social implications for the present and the future? There was recent outrage among the social justice crowd that some Christian political conservatives suggested a libertarian approach to giving to the poor. Without siding with them, let me ask, nevertheless, why is it that so many on the social justice side of the equation take a libertarian approach to abortion? How many times I have engaged "pro-choice" Christians in discussion who basically say, "Well, I don't approve of abortion, but I would never presume to make that choice for someone else." OK... fair enough. But then what is wrong with the statement, "Well, I think it is important that I pay more in taxes to the government for programs to feed poor children, but I would never presume to make that choice for someone else." It is true that those on the political right want to stop abortion through legal means, but want to leave care for children outside the womb up to the voluntary generosity of individuals. At the same time those on the political left want to use legal means to force people to pay more to care for hungry children, but when it comes to abortion, they want to leave that up to the individual with the strategy of working toward abortion reduction. Am I the only one who sees the problem here? If we should work for abortion reduction without legal means, what's wrong with working toward poverty reduction without legal means? If we are going to work to outlaw abortion, then why not work to increase taxes to feed poor children? As I have said before and will say again... the Christian political left and the Christian political right are simply two sides of the same coin, and they share more in common with the politics of the nation-state than with the politics of the Kingdom of God; they share more in common with the political platforms of RNC and the DNC than with the Sermon on the Mount.
If Christians are charged with defending those who cannot defend themselves, then I say that Christians should not only be concerned with defending children who are poor and hungry; they should also be defending the voiceless and defenseless unborn, and vice-versa.
And all I ask from both sides is consistency. If the left is going to force people through legislation to dig into their pockets to provide health care and food for hungry children, they should also utilize legislation to protect unborn children as well. And if the right is going to work toward outlawing abortion, then they better work to pass laws that provide more money for those children in need, who have already made their trip into this world.
Until both sides become consistent on these issues, their arguments will fall very short of the mark, as far as I'm concerned, and will be quite unconvincing.
All justice is indeed social justice.
5 comments:
But then what is wrong with the statement, "Well, I think it is important that I pay more in taxes to the government for programs to feed poor children, but I would never presume to make that choice for someone else."
This is an interesting idea.
Simplify the whole tax reporting system and make it "one correct tax for earning X". (With 20+ years' experience working in pension finance, I can buy a £25 program and do my own UK taxes; I have to hire someone to do my US taxes.) Keep the rates broadly as they are now - the 50% who are not paying tax this year and the approximately 25% who do not structurally pay taxes.
Then create an easy way for individuals to make extra tax contributions if they want to. It would be interesting to see what happened!
If Christians are charged with defending those who cannot defend themselves, then I say that Christians should not only be concerned with defending children who are poor and hungry; they should also be defending the voiceless and defenseless unborn, and vice-versa
Yep, absolutely. I'm totally with you there.
But I'm not so much into the "individual rights" thing. Especially as it seems to be becoming increasingly distorted to mean "If I have the means, I get to do whatever I want, whenever I want, and - if relevant - to whoever I want." I don't think our forefathers understood individual freedom in this way.
For me, the value is "community" - even within the secular state and even if others are not Christians. I think that the person who possesses individual responsibility and integrity also demonstrates responsibility to the community.
Again, the American right and the left are spouting values that seem to be flip sides of the same coin: the abdication of any kind of responsibility at all.
I think Pam makes some interesting points Allan as do you. However, I would argue that the questions of justice hang on more fundamental threads than the arguments you've presented.
The issue of abortion isn't so much about a woman's rights or our willingness to impose limitations as it is about how we view the unborn child. Our current determination is that an unborn child does not have rights and thus is not garnered any protection so the woman is free to do as she wills to enforce her rights.
Poor children are afforded some rights and the responsibility of caring for them is distributed somewhat to the society at various levels but there is no consistency because we don't have a common understanding of how we should treat each other, i.e. what our liberties and responsibilities are at every level of society, both individually and collectively.
Pam's comment about individual rights and how the founders of this country might view them today is close to the point. We've gotten caught up in the minutiae and have lost sight of the dynamic between individuality and community. It's not one or the other but both and.
The prophets all understood this and indicted Israel and Judah for their failure, among other things, to remember the communal aspect of the nations responsibilities. We have equally lost sight of the importance of community as Hollywood and Madison Avenue have pushed the individual to the pinnacle of attention all by itself.
Another point to consider that is often viewed as a social justice issue is housing and the relationship of affordable housing to industrial property. Most housing that is affordable for the poor in our cities occurs very near to industrial properties and often include very old housing stock that is riddle with lead paints and asbestos insulation. Yet more affluent communities reject lower income housing in their communities for fear of an imagined loss to property their values. Again it's the relationship of individual rights versus community responsibility.
Great question Allan!
Pam, I don't think you and I are very far apart on this one... and, yes, the individual rights thing is most of the time selfishly employed, but I actually think that is instrinsic to modern Liberal social contract theory (e.g. John Locke)... but that's another subject for another time.
Chuck,
I appreciate your insightful comments.
I would only say two things in response.
First, it is rights language that has primarily created the difficulties you highlight, which is why I think Christians should just jettison it (although that will never happen).
Second, you made a very common interpretive move on the OT prophetic texts that almost everyone accepts, but I think is mistaken... that is, that the prophetic words to Israel should be interpreted today primarily as admonitions to the nation states, when I think these admonitions should be read by Christians as referring first and foremost to the church, the people of God in the NT.
Again, that does not mean that there is not something secondarily for the nations, but when the prophets tell God's people Israel to seek justice, first and foremost God's people the church should hear that as referring primarily to them.
Thanks again.
Very good, stimulating post, Allan, and all great comments as well. I am open to the language of individual rights until I'm convinced otherwise, because of Nicholas Wolterstorff's book on the subject: Justice: Rights and Wrongs (some title to that effect, short on time here). But that would have to be within the larger framework of community in the kingdom of God in this world.
Again we Christians should be the exemplars of God's will on earth since we are salt and light in Jesus. The kingdom of God as Jesus said is not from this world, but it is present in Jesus for this world. And that presence is social, for society. And might be exemplified in some broken ways by nation states. But always with agendas that are contrary to God's kingdom in Jesus, to be sure.
Post a Comment