Social justice: A house divided against itself [Archive] - Page 2

Paul DeBaufer

June 8th, 2012, 04:25 PM

Paul,

Could you perhaps broaden out your thoughts here? I'm open, but I must say those are strange thoughts to me.

I was raised with Romans 1:16 being quite a focal piece.

So, do we baptize without making a proclamation?

Do we receive/share the sacraments without making a proclamation?

Do we disassociate miracles from the Name of Jesus?

Without experiencing a conversion to whatever it is that leads you to make your statements, I'd say the opposite, "Our primary concern is to love and proclaim the Name of Jesus, Jesus repeatedly tells us to love and proclaim (the Kingdom of God!), we should proclaim the Name and make disciples, and, we should participate in all the activities of Matthew 25 because of the One to/for whom we are doing them.

Not sure how your last sentiment connects with your earlier thoughts.

Friend,

Wes

Well the great commission is to make disciples. Yes, when we make discies we must also proclaim. But far too often we make the proclamations and neglect the actually making of disciples. Of course we proclaim while immersing people in Christ, but making disciples involves so much more than just proclamation.

It is my opinion that in feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, etc., we are proclaiming Christ and the gospel. Silent witness. I feel that when we do for others, loving others, we are proclaiming. The proclamation flows from the action, not necessarily subordinate to it but an integral part of it.

I don't know what the Romans passage has to do with this. No where did I suggest that I am
Or that anyone should be ashamed of the Gospel. I believe quite the contrary, one cannot be ashamed while living it, IMHO.

Wes Smith

June 8th, 2012, 04:33 PM

Romans 1:16 was cited as an example in favor of proclamation. Good deeds and charity of all kinds are good. Only the proclamation of the gospel saves.

Friend,

Wes

Paul DeBaufer

June 8th, 2012, 04:37 PM

Romans 1:16 was cited as an example in favor of proclamation. Good deeds and charity of all kinds are good. Only the proclamation of the gospel saves.

Friend,

Wes

We have different understandings, I'm okay with that.

Wes Smith

June 8th, 2012, 04:37 PM

Of course! With God it is possible for those of us with wealth to obey Jesus when he tells us to give it to those in need... even if he tells us to give ALL of it to those in need.

I'm not going to universalize Jesus' instructions to the wealthy man in Matthew 19 (Mark 10, Luke 18)... but neither am I going to dismiss them as irrelevant.

Fine. I am SO thankful for Christian, faithful, well-to-do folks! They have instructed me. They have made significant contributions to my life and ministry. And, I have watched them make profound gifts and contributions to the Kingdom. May their tribe increase!

Friend,

Wes

Steven Burton

June 8th, 2012, 04:38 PM

The proclamation flows from the action, not necessarily subordinate to it but an integral part of it.

This is something that I see increasing lacking in the Western Church. The Orthodox Church has a strong root in that you can not have one with out the other. So if you are doing one you will automatically do the other. They see no separation of faith and works they are one. This is what has driven me crazy about the Western Church. We seem to separate them out and then put them in some order where one is above the other. That is not so in the East they are not separate entities ever. When they speak of one they will always talk of the other.

Jim Chabot

June 8th, 2012, 04:46 PM

Hey! I've preached it this way... Wait... maybe I stole it from Jorge...

Jorge's title was "The Thirteenth Apostle" In typical Jorge fashion he teased around leaving us to wonder who he considered the thirteenth Apostle for ten minutes or so before revealing the one. He did a great job, first time I've heard this passage preached with some thought given to it.

Paul DeBaufer

June 8th, 2012, 04:54 PM

This is something that I see increasing lacking in the Western Church. The Orthodox Church has a strong root in that you can not have one with out the other. So if you are doing one you will automatically do the other. They see no separation of faith and works they are one. This is what has driven me crazy about the Western Church. We seem to separate them out and then put them in some order where one is above the other. That is not so in the East they are not separate entities ever. When they speak of one they will always talk of the other.

I don't think it was ever separated in the Gospels either. I really want to blame it on post-Enlightenment Modernity, but James was addressing something that seems similar. I just know that I cannot separate the two.

Rich Schmidt

June 8th, 2012, 04:59 PM

Fine. I am SO thankful for Christian, faithful, well-to-do folks! They have instructed me. They have made significant contributions to my life and ministry. And, I have watched them make profound gifts and contributions to the Kingdom. May their tribe increase!

I'm thankful for them, too! And I am one myself! :)

Dan Henderson

June 8th, 2012, 05:05 PM

I think you got cut off mid-thought there, Dan...

Happens a lot but others have carried the conversation. I have difficulty relating poor in spirit to poor. it doesn't seem to follow. I looked more carefully at the beatitudes when I learned from an English teache rthe old enlish and thus the KJV meaning of meek and learned that only a person of power could display meekness. I'm sure that some of you can give us the original greek and I suppose I could look up a transliterated version myself. It would not be my point though. Meek means weak in modern language but when used in old english its more like restraint by someone with power.

Please understand that I believe that we have a tremendous responsibility to the poor, downtrodden, oppressed. My main point I want to make is that it is not the primary purpose of the Church. It is an concurrent responsibility, incidental to our primary mission but by no means our most important one, nor do I believe it should be our primary focus. Even in Ryan's quick examples of taking care of base needs each interaction had another more primary motive such as "go and leave your life of sin", "sin no more". Jesus didn't eat with sinners just so he could be hip and cool, he did it to bring his message to those who would listen (the "church" folk weren't listening).

Nothing personal to Ryan but I have and will contiinue to ignore the question" What does (conceptual thought) look like? Its a question that, doesn't have an answer and leads to nowhere in addition to not being truly inquisitive. I am willing to answer questions that are inquisitive. I am trying my best to stay away from questions designed to be argumentative (I usually fail and fall right into the trap).

Rich Schmidt

June 8th, 2012, 05:20 PM

Happens a lot but others have carried the conversation. I have difficulty relating poor in spirit to poor. it doesn't seem to follow.

If you read Luke 6, you don't have to worry about relating "poor in spirit" to anything... because there, it's just "poor."

Looking at his disciples, he said:

“Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
21 Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh.
22 Blessed are you when people hate you,
when they exclude you and insult you
and reject your name as evil,
because of the Son of Man.
23 “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.

24 “But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
25 Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep.
26 Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you,
for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

Granted, he's speaking to his disciples here... but that's also true in Matthew 5. (And, of course, many of the world's poor are our brothers and sisters in Christ, to whom we have a responsibility, etc, etc, etc.)

Please understand that I believe that we have a tremendous responsibility to the poor, downtrodden, oppressed. My main point I want to make is that it is not the primary purpose of the Church. It is an concurrent responsibility, incidental to our primary mission but by no means our most important one, nor do I believe it should be our primary focus. Even in Ryan's quick examples of taking care of base needs each interaction had another more primary motive such as "go and leave your life of sin", "sin no more". Jesus didn't eat with sinners just so he could be hip and cool, he did it to bring his message to those who would listen (the "church" folk weren't listening).

I don't think I disagree with you much here, Dan. There's a part of me that wants to push back and insist that proclaiming the kingdom includes the life of the kingdom, that Jesus wasn't just bringing a message but was also bringing life itself (love, healing, etc) to these folks, and that if we bring the message without the life, we're not really accomplishing the mission. But there's another part of me that just wants to acknowledge that we agree that "we have a tremendous responsibility to the poor, downtrodden, oppressed," and leave it at that. :)

Paul DeBaufer

June 8th, 2012, 05:29 PM

The original senses of meek are in unassuming, gentle, humble. And that from around 1200 AD http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=meek&allowed_in_frame=0 I do not see anything indicating in those in positions of power, neither does that sense seem to fit the context of the Sermon on the Mount.

Craig Laughlin

June 8th, 2012, 06:02 PM

Dan Henderson

June 8th, 2012, 06:08 PM

Dan Henderson

June 8th, 2012, 06:10 PM

Jim Chabot

June 8th, 2012, 06:13 PM

The title of this thread is Social justices: A house divided against itself.

Well north of 250 posts it would certainly appear that we are divided. Glen Beck won and that is sad. At the time I spoke out pretty strongly against his intrusion into the church. I am even more convinced that I was right. When pundits start passing judgment on the theologians and meddling in the church bad things happen. :(

Well this was all George Bush's fault. And I say this with all sincerity. Faith Based Initiatives were, while well intentioned, in my estimation that worst idea of his Administration. Sure it sounds good, the government recognizes that the church is interested in charity, so the government moves to support the churches efforts. Sounds great!

Excepting that the dumb as a rock church was willing to grant government a little control in exchange for money. Money that would have gone to help the poor with or without the aid of the church. And to make matters even worse, somehow those doling out the government money actually think that they are doing something good. Remember that the poor would get the money anyway. So, is Glen Beck wrong? No not in a million years, the church brought this criticism upon itself. The church invited this meddling when it partnered with the government. I guess the question in my mind is this. Did the world co-opt our term, or did we give it to them?

Ryan Pugh

June 8th, 2012, 06:16 PM

Please understand that I believe that we have a tremendous responsibility to the poor, downtrodden, oppressed. My main point I want to make is that it is not the primary purpose of the Church. It is an concurrent responsibility, incidental to our primary mission but by no means our most important one, nor do I believe it should be our primary focus. Even in Ryan's quick examples of taking care of base needs each interaction had another more primary motive such as "go and leave your life of sin", "sin no more". Jesus didn't eat with sinners just so he could be hip and cool, he did it to bring his message to those who would listen (the "church" folk weren't listening).

I'm ok with this. I don't see it the same as you, but that's ok. Even if I wouldn't explicitly say that our primary mission is to proclaim good news to the poor (I might say that - it was good enough of a mission for Jesus), I do think we find God's mission among the least of these and we find ourselves among the least of these.

Nothing personal to Ryan but I have and will contiinue to ignore the question" What does (conceptual thought) look like? Its a question that, doesn't have an answer and leads to nowhere in addition to not being truly inquisitive. I am willing to answer questions that are inquisitive. I am trying my best to stay away from questions designed to be argumentative (I usually fail and fall right into the trap).

Actually, I have only asked questions that I truly hoped would be answered from however you believe. I have not asked any questions designed to be argumentative. I have truly sought to understand what you/others have said and believe. I'm sorry it came across otherwise.

I truly do want to understand why you don't think taking care of the least of these is our primary concern when it seems, because of Jesus's words, it should be. I truly do want to understand what you mean by "saving souls" and what that looks like.

Paul DeBaufer

June 8th, 2012, 06:18 PM

Let me help a little here, the oppressed are subdued (thus "oppressed"), they cannot display tameness.

But they can be humble, unassuming, and gentle.

Craig Laughlin

June 8th, 2012, 06:20 PM

This you speak of happened long before the CoTN, Glen Beck and anyone posting on these threads.

Division has always existed, true enough. That this little division has expanded to the level of "coaching" in our publications can be laid at the feet of Glen Beck and those who marshal to his cause.

Dan Henderson

June 8th, 2012, 06:35 PM

I truly do want to understand why you don't think taking care of the least of these is our primary concern when it seems, because of Jesus's words, it should be. I truly do want to understand what you mean by "saving souls" and what that looks like.

The best model I know of is the Salvation Army model for saving souls while caring for those in need. That is the closest word-picture I can give you. It you are a Naz Pastor, consider being loaned out to them for a time and see how and why they minister they way they do.

Give a child a piece of bread so they don't starve...you've done a good thing, then fail to offer them the Bread of Life ... cruel, uncaring, downright evil. This is the end result when caring for the poor takes the spotlight role over preaching the Gospel. It becomes an extension of the welfare state and has no lasting value.

Oliver Phillips

June 8th, 2012, 06:43 PM

Romans 1:16 was cited as an example in favor of proclamation. Good deeds and charity of all kinds are good. Only the proclamation of the gospel saves.

Friend,

Wes

Francis of Assisi is said to have said, "Preach the gospel at all times; when necessary, use words."

Mike Schutz

June 8th, 2012, 08:36 PM

Give a child a piece of bread so they don't starve...you've done a good thing, then fail to offer them the Bread of Life ... cruel, uncaring, downright evil.

Hope you don't mind being interrupted by someone who has the blessed opportunity and calling to do both - offer bread and the gospel. The "cruel, uncaring, downright evil" thing is to do neither. In fact, if you happen to believe the teachings of a certain Galilean - which I think we both do - and had to choose one or the other, it seems he favors the pagan who meets physical needs over the orthodox believers who offer blessings, but no physical healing.

Wes Smith

June 8th, 2012, 08:58 PM

Francis of Assisi is said to have said, "Preach the gospel at all times; when necessary, use words."

Have heard that all my life. Have used it many times.

But these days, I cannot help but wonder how transferable that concept is to other life disciplines and endeavors. We would never say that to a teacher/instructor/professor/etc, entertainer, attorney, salesman, merchant, spouse, "Practice a vital aspect of your life, but use words as a last resort." Why does that apply to the gospel? Is that how we do Sunday School, small groups, Sunday services. It seems we want to say something like, "Let the pornographer, videographer, drug pushers, humanists, gamers, and on-and-on have center stage. They are free to use their best proclamations to convince children and unbelievers with their best eloquence. You Christians, yes, you, dole out your stuff, but don't say anything. Your actions will adequately communicate your proclamation.

It seems to me that otherwise intellgent people are challenging people to a game of basketball with their hands tied behind there backs. Where is this coming from? I've heard folks on NazNet making reference to this (lack of proclamation), but I must say it totally mystifies me. Play your horn, but don't use your lips. Play the piano, but don't use your fingers. Preach the gospel, but only use your voice, your capacity to testify, your ability to declare historical evidence re. Jesus Christ, proclaim the gospel that is the power that brings salvation, as...a last resort.

Did I go into a coma and wake up on another planet?

Friend,

Wes

Wes Smith

June 8th, 2012, 10:12 PM

Division has always existed, true enough. That this little division has expanded to the level of "coaching" in our publications can be laid at the feet of Glen Beck and those who marshal to his cause.

Craig,

Nice opinion.

Let's do a little experiment. Everyone on NazNet who attributes their definition of "social justice" to Glen Beck, please use this thread to tell us.

It seems like we should at least get a sampling of such GB influence.

And, I'd bet my weed eater that you have no evidence to support your opinion about the "coaching" in our publications being laid at the feet of GB.

But, then, eveyone has a right to their opinion.

I'll buy you lunch at Diquis in Palma Norte, Costa Rica, if you are right.

Friend,

Wes

Dan Henderson

June 8th, 2012, 10:22 PM

I don't watch Glen Beck. In a conversation with my daughter, she told me of a "hymn" sung in a Sunday morning service with a phrase something like: Jesus smiles on those who love social justice. Her comment: Really? You have one hour a week and that is what you choose to sing in your service? It made me look into it a little more. I have yet to find a published definition with which I agree with as a model for the Church.

Ryan Pugh

June 8th, 2012, 10:23 PM

The best model I know of is the Salvation Army model for saving souls while caring for those in need. That is the closest word-picture I can give you. It you are a Naz Pastor, consider being loaned out to them for a time and see how and why they minister they way they do.

My wife and I hang out with and care for kids each week at the Salvation Army Booth Home in Boise. I love what SA does, and I hope to keep learning about their model.

Give a child a piece of bread so they don't starve...you've done a good thing, then fail to offer them the Bread of Life ... cruel, uncaring, downright evil. This is the end result when caring for the poor takes the spotlight role over preaching the Gospel. It becomes an extension of the welfare state and has no lasting value.

"There are people in the world so hungry that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread." - Indira Gandhi

Ryan Pugh

June 8th, 2012, 10:28 PM

Here is a post that I think is really helpful. It appeared on World Vision's blog in February: What does "social justice" really mean? (http://blog.worldvision.org/advocacy/what-does-social-justice-really-mean/)

Social justice is a catch-all term that has gone through many seasons of being en vogue and then going out of favor, often suffering from competing definitions and vastly different interpretations. It’s like Silly Putty — that popular substance we used to play with as kids that can be twisted and contorted into whatever shape your heart desires.

Don’t be fooled or distracted by the word “social” in social justice. Many Christians are more comfortable with the word “justice,” but if Christ is truly Lord over every aspect of our lives, then clearly this must also include the social realm.

...

Biblical references to the word “justice” mean “to make right.” Justice is, first and foremost, a relational term — people living in right relationship with God, one another, and the natural creation. From a scriptural point of view, “justice” means loving our neighbor as we love ourselves and is rooted in the character and nature of God. As God is just and loving, so we are called to do justice and live in love.

...

Social justice becomes less about “what” and more about “who” we are called to prioritize as followers of Christ. So often we get ensnared in disagreements around the “what” in relation to social justice, because it deals with often-contentious issues like budgets, taxation, labor laws, social protections, safety nets, and others.

...

Social justice is about creating kingdom space in the here and now, giving witness to the ultimate just society yet to come. So every time we use our voice and influence to get in the way of injustice — whether it’s human trafficking, economic exploitation, human rights abuses, or infants dying needlessly from disease and malnutrition — we provide a foretaste of God’s kingdom to come.

On this World Day of Social Justice, I pray that, as fellow Christians, we can re-envision God’s call for social justice, which is rooted in Scripture and faith. Let us then recommit to advancing social justice, not as an extracurricular or optional part of our faith, but as an imperative.

I quoted a lot of it, but I hope you'll read the parts I left out.

Rich Schmidt

June 8th, 2012, 11:57 PM

Where is this coming from? I've heard folks on NazNet making reference to this (lack of proclamation), but I must say it totally mystifies me. Play your horn, but don't use your lips. Play the piano, but don't use your fingers. Preach the gospel, but only use your voice, your capacity to testify, your ability to declare historical evidence re. Jesus Christ, proclaim the gospel that is the power that brings salvation, as...a last resort.

Did I go into a coma and wake up on another planet?

I don't recall anyone here saying, "Don't proclaim," or "Don't use words." I've heard people say it's both words & actions, not one or the other. And I've heard some say that tangible service is a worthy end in itself, not only as a means for gaining a hearing for the gospel message.

If you're referring to the Assissi quote, I take it as a bit of hyperbole (the "if necessary" part) to drive home the point that preaching the gospel is more than just words but includes our actions/lives. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the quote, because the hyperbole can be too easily missed, so that people take it as a sort of permission to hold back on the "use words" part.

Paul DeBaufer

June 9th, 2012, 12:27 AM

I don't recall anyone here saying, "Don't proclaim," or "Don't use words." I've heard people say it's both words & actions, not one or the other. And I've heard some say that tangible service is a worthy end in itself, not only as a means for gaining a hearing for the gospel message.

If you're referring to the Assissi quote, I take it as a bit of hyperbole (the "if necessary" part) to drive home the point that preaching the gospel is more than just words but includes our actions/lives. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the quote, because the hyperbole can be too easily missed, so that people take it as a sort of permission to hold back on the "use words" part.

Rich, Wes is probably referring to me in this post (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php/8388-Social-justice-A-house-divided-against-itself?p=142960&viewfull=1#post142960) where I said that our primary concern is to love, not proclaim, to do rather than say. I also said that our proclamation flows from our action is an integral part of our action (although that was in a different post)

Jim Chabot

June 9th, 2012, 05:03 AM

Craig,

Nice opinion.

Let's do a little experiment. Everyone on NazNet who attributes their definition of "social justice" to Glen Beck, please use this thread to tell us.

It seems like we should at least get a sampling of such GB influence.

And, I'd bet my weed eater that you have no evidence to support your opinion about the "coaching" in our publications being laid at the feet of GB.

But, then, eveyone has a right to their opinion.

I'll buy you lunch at Diquis in Palma Norte, Costa Rica, if you are right.

Friend,

Wes

I'm not a Glen Beck listener/watcher or whatever. I heard of his call for people to leave churches that preach "social justice" right here on naznet. And I learned that he is a Mormon, right here on naznet.

My first thought went to liberal churches who appear to be all caught up in doo gooderism while not preaching/proclaiming. We have some of these churches in our area, they are all about soup kitchens, shelters, boy scouts and the United Way, and funded by the government. And yet one could attend there for a very long time and never come to the point of conviction that would lead them to Christ. So yeah, my first though regarding Glen Beck is "right on", he has a point there are churches who aren't really churches after all, folks need to be careful. Is your church practicing "social justice" as a partner with the U.S. government? If the answer is yes, then by all means run, run as fast as you can.

Wes Smith

June 9th, 2012, 05:13 AM

Rich, Wes is probably referring to me in this post (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php/8388-Social-justice-A-house-divided-against-itself?p=142960&viewfull=1#post142960) where I said that our primary concern is to love, not proclaim, to do rather than say. I also said that our proclamation flows from our action is an integral part of our action (although that was in a different post)

Paul and Rich,

My post was not a specific response to any one post, rather, a response to the philosophy of "good works sans the proclamation of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord." You will read references to such in several places in this thread and it is strongly associated with "social justice" in many conversations and writings, "You know, just do good stuff. In your heart you know you are doing this for Jesus. You don't have to say anything. They will know."

To be honest, this is one of my greatest concerns about the church these days. We seem to be losing our ability to articulate the way to the Way.

Friend,

Wes

Wes Smith

June 9th, 2012, 05:25 AM

My wife and I hang out with and care for kids each week at the Salvation Army Booth Home in Boise. I love what SA does, and I hope to keep learning about their model.

"There are people in the world so hungry that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread." - Indira Gandhi

Ryan,

Your Gandhi quote in response to Dan's post seems to me to indicate that you are, at least, down on the proclamation of Jesus Christ. Not an accusation, but a question. I would expect something like, "You know Dan, you have a point there. We can give bread and God will give us opportunities to proclaim His truth." Instead, your response "seems" to me to indicate a comfortable detachment from proclamation of Jesus Christ as the true bread of life. Thoughts?

Friend,

Wes

Ryan Pugh

June 9th, 2012, 06:50 AM

Ryan,

Your Gandhi quote in response to Dan's post seems to me to indicate that you are, at least, down on the proclamation of Jesus Christ. Not an accusation, but a question. I would expect something like, "You know Dan, you have a point there. We can give bread and God will give us opportunities to proclaim His truth." Instead, your response "seems" to me to indicate a comfortable detachment from proclamation of Jesus Christ as the true bread of life. Thoughts?

Not at all down on the proclamation of Jesus Christ, but words aren't the only way we proclaim Love, are they? And as the quote stresses, there are some people who don't need words, they need the presence of someone who will care for them. Again, like Paul and others have stated, why do we have to see proclamation through words and proclamation through actions as such different things? But just so you know I care about proclaiming with our mouths, I preached at the Boise Rescue Mission last night with about 30 guys before dinner.

I think you miss the point, though. Proclaiming the Truth is proclaiming that Jesus has come that you might have life and life to the fullest. Life to the fullest is a holistic life, so giving bread to someone who needs bread is just as important as giving "spiritual" food to someone. As one popular speaker/author has said, "Everything is spiritual." I think we need a more holistic approach to life and the gospel.

Is saying, "Jesus is the true bread of life and he is what you need," really how we should approach the hungry/sick/diseased/lonely person? Most of the poor that I know are already aware of their need for Christ and faith in him because they are lonely, needy, addicted, sick, or hungry. Maybe that's what Jesus meant when he said the kingdom belongs to them - they know what it's like to be at the bottom and in need of a Messiah. So perhaps instead of viewing our relationship in such a way that we are bringing and giving Jesus to them, maybe we should view our relationship as a chance for the poor to teach us about the kingdom. And maybe if we did that, we would begin a mutual relationship founded on searching for deeper faith in Jesus together through all the messiness of life. And maybe if we did that, we would see social justice as we all learn to love our neighbor as ourselves.

Wes Smith

June 9th, 2012, 07:02 AM

Ryan,

No, words aren't the only way, they just seem like a vital part of the mix and I was just asking.

Thanks for your response.

Agree with your sentiment though perhaps not in detail. Which is fine. Just fine!

Friend,

Wes

Ryan Pugh

June 9th, 2012, 09:35 AM

Francis of Assisi is said to have said, "Preach the gospel at all times; when necessary, use words."

Sister Margaret put it, “We are trying to shout the gospel with our lives.”

Benjamin Burch

June 12th, 2012, 06:54 PM

Alright, I'm going to jump in here, and probably not on the side that most would expect, considering so many think I'm just a stealth liberal. :smilies1722:

I do think there is a rightful caution to be called for with the term "Social Justice." The term is not only intimately tied to Rauschenbusch's "social gospel", but also the Mainline manifestation of that throughout the mid-to-late 20th century. Now, while I have no problem with the Gospel having social ramifications (and I believe it does), and while I have no problem with us using phrases like "justice" (Paul and the Prophets use it a lot), and I have no problem seeing the need for such justice to be sought for by the Church, as part of our holistic Gospel.... I do have a problem with the road that has been traveled, and I do think that we need to take some serious stock in where that road has traveled, and what road we want to travel.

In my church (ECUSA), if you're talking to people, including elders, it becomes rare to hear words such as "sin." It has been traded for a much more fashionable phrase - injustice. In my friends' local reality in her denomination (UCC, Southern California) the word "sin" is off-limits. After all, when we use terms like "justice" and "injustice", it is now only systems of power that need changed, or that are "unjust." After all... certainly I am not unjust! But sin.... well......

In many ways, the community advocates from my denomination and her denomination here in San Diego are nothing more than campaign advertisers for the Democratic Party. And I suspect this is not terribly different in other areas of Mainline Protestantism. Well, in many ways, in my reading, this phrase didn't finally get popular in evangelical culture until the rise of the Emerging Church which, in my opinion, is, in many ways, nothing more than Evangelicals who are late to the party on things like GOP co-opting of the Evangelical churches, Biblical criticism, and the ultimate lack of holistic gospel in those churches. For me, they're just new Mainline Christians who, for some reason, want to still be evangelical, and who use more deconstruction than the Hegelian progress models of 20th century Mainline Protestantism. And, well, unsurprisingly, I've seen a growth in evangelicals who relate with this segment of the Church..... suddenly voting Democrat, while talking about social justice. Therefore, I don't think the caution is misplaced at all; instead, I think it's pretty right on target.

The problem, for me, is not that we talk about things which are important parts of the Gospel (justice, social ramifications). No. The problem for me is that we're so tied to politics and civil religion in America that it becomes almost impossible to divorce such a term from those relations and manifestations.

At the end of the day I agree with Stanley Hauerwas:

the first task of the church is to make the world the world, not to make the world more just, is a correlative of this theological metaphysics. The world simply cannot be narrated - the world cannot have a story - unless a people exist who make the world the world. That is an eschatological claim that presupposes we know there was a beginning only because we have seen the end ... [C]reation names God's continuing action, God's unrelenting desire for us to want to be loved by that love manifest in Christ's life, death, and resurrection.

And "social justice", usually, too often implies a lingering hope that we might actually make the world more just, instead of making the world the world.

So, I'm okay with the term. I think it means a lot of great things, and we shouldn't let guys like Glen Beck, or the GOP media arm dictate our language. However, nor should we be ignorant of the reality of that language, and how it often manifests itself theologically. I've seen, and am very much inside where the use of this term has traditionally led, and it seems to handicap the Church from talking about sin. Therefore, I think some caution is very good advice.

Billy Cox

June 12th, 2012, 09:54 PM

Craig Laughlin

June 13th, 2012, 12:39 AM

What's really sad is when the church collectively can't discern the difference between a pundit/political activist and a theologian.

Billy, this is the most insightfull thing said in this thread.

Jim Chabot

June 13th, 2012, 05:58 AM

What's really sad is when the church collectively can't discern the difference between a pundit/political activist and a theologian.

Maybe we do discern? While I would take exception to the negative connotations given in your descriptor of pundit/politician. I would defend the proper relationship between leaders and advisers. The last thing we need would be to have theologians running the ship. Mercy me, the best pastors meaning the best leaders of local churches are certainly not the theologians. It takes a politician to effectively lead a church, for one must care about people, one must care about ministry and those two things aren't generally foremost on the mind of a theologian.

I can read their books and I can trust that our leaders listen to their advice. Yet a theologian is seldom the best choice to lead a church or a denomination. It's not what they do well.

Wes Smith

June 13th, 2012, 08:03 AM

What's really sad is when the church collectively can't discern the difference between a pundit/political activist and a theologian.

That may be a good statement, an insightful statement, a well-worded statement and on-and-on, but that does not make it a true statement.

To what "collective church" does this statement refer?

Not one person on NazNet has stepped forward to say (in response to Craig's statement) that his/her concept of social justice is based on Glen Beck or that his/her theology is advised by him. Seems to me that there is significant shadow boxing going on with Billy's post and Craig's affirmation of that post.

I'd say further that this thread is not about Glen Beck, it is simply and merely about the use of the phrase "social justice." Does the phrase need defining/coaching?

To use this thread as a forum to try and convict the collective church of being incapable of making a judgement concerning the theological value of Glen Beck is just plain silly. To vote for this silly comment as being the most insightful thing that has been said on this thread is pitiful and makes me wonder about the true political motivations of the posters! (Said playfully with due love and respect to both Billy and Craig!!!)

My advice...go back and read the first and early posts. If you still believe that Glen Beck is the issue here, then I have nothing more to say simply because GB does not dictate my theology, nor does he dictate the theology of any person/pastor with whom I am familiar. And I do not have the time or interest for such shadow boxing.

Friend,

Wes

Wes Smith

June 13th, 2012, 08:09 AM

After reading Ben's post, I feel somewhat like Fonzi trying to say, "I'm sorry, I was wrong."

Not kidding you. I had to read the post slowly and twice and then I had to take my other hand and tightly grasp the other hand and force it to hit the button. Was able to connect on the fifth attempt. Folks, there is joy in Mudville! Wes just thanked Ben. A day that will go down in...infamy? This is hot, hot, hot!

Friend,

Wes

Craig Laughlin

June 13th, 2012, 08:34 AM

Maybe we do discern? While I would take exception to the negative connotations given in your descriptor of pundit/politician. I would defend the proper relationship between leaders and advisers. The last thing we need would be to have theologians running the ship. Mercy me, the best pastors meaning the best leaders of local churches are certainly not the theologians. It takes a politician to effectively lead a church, for one must care about people, one must care about ministry and those two things aren't generally foremost on the mind of a theologian.

I can read their books and I can trust that our leaders listen to their advice. Yet a theologian is seldom the best choice to lead a church or a denomination. It's not what they do well.

If you think and talk about God you are a theologian. Some are just better trained and more disciplined in their thinking. - I would argue that the way we relate to our scholar/theologians is not leader/adviser or leader/follower but student/teacher. I think the heart of this is the idea that my opinion is equally valid with anyone else's opinion. It is not. In any given field there are folks with vastly better informed, carefully contemplated and thoroughly challenged opinions than mine. They are the teachers I am the student. I may not always agree with them but the nature of our relationship is not changed for that.

Craig Laughlin

June 13th, 2012, 08:45 AM

That may be a good statement, an insightful statement, a well-worded statement and on-and-on, but that does not make it a true statement.

To what "collective church" does this statement refer?

Not one person on NazNet has stepped forward to say (in response to Craig's statement) that his/her concept of social justice is based on Glen Beck or that his/her theology is advised by him. Seems to me that there is significant shadow boxing going on with Billy's post and Craig's affirmation of that post.

I'd say further that this thread is not about Glen Beck, it is simply and merely about the use of the phrase "social justice." Does the phrase need defining/coaching?

To use this thread as a forum to try and convict the collective church of being incapable of making a judgement concerning the theological value of Glen Beck is just plain silly. To vote for this silly comment as being the most insightful thing that has been said on this thread is pitiful and makes me wonder about the true political motivations of the posters! (Said playfully with due love and respect to both Billy and Craig!!!)

My advice...go back and read the first and early posts. If you still believe that Glen Beck is the issue here, then I have nothing more to say simply because GB does not dictate my theology, nor does he dictate the theology of any person/pastor with whom I am familiar. And I do not have the time or interest for such shadow boxing.

Friend,

Wes

You assume that politics is what is driving me. (thus trying to question the purity of my motives, so I accept that you think political association corrupts motivation) Consider that you may be projecting on me what is driving you, which would make Billy's statement spot on. - I rarely share this because I find politics to be divisive in the church (which is what I really care about) but for the record.... I am not for either party, I'm not even sure I could be called an independent. I vote but in anything other than races in which I really know the folks (local) I vote for third party candidates and I spread my vote around to keep from helping one party. I vote because I believe in democracy, I will not vote for either (major) party because both have deep moral flaws. I have voted this way for more than 20 years. - So... not much in the way of politics motivating me, I really don't have a dog in the fight. - Wes, since you brought it up, can you say you are as apolitical as me?

Craig Laughlin

June 13th, 2012, 08:53 AM

Dwayne Petry

June 13th, 2012, 09:10 AM

If you think and talk about God you are a theologian. Some are just better trained and more disciplined in their thinking. - I would argue that the way we relate to our scholar/theologians is not leader/adviser or leader/follower but student/teacher. I think the heart of this is the idea that my opinion is equally valid with anyone else's opinion. It is not. In any given field there are folks with vastly better informed, carefully contemplated and thoroughly challenged opinions than mine. They are the teachers I am the student. I may not always agree with them but the nature of our relationship is not changed for that.
My emphasis added.

Speaking to my opinion on opinions!

As Children of GOD, living in the Kingdom of GOD, the only "opinion" that matters is GOD's. Some Christians are of the opinion that a woman has the right "to choose" whether or not the baby growing in her womb may be aborted. Other Christians are of the opinion that the intentional termination of the most innocent of life is murder. (I am not wanting to start a discussion on the pros and cons of abortion) I am of the opinion that GOD has an "opinion" on the matter and we had better get it right.

I know it is fashionable, in todays Christian opinion, to believe that we live in a "gray world", but I am of the opinion that Kingdom Living is more "black and white". Gray leads to misunderstanding and confusion, and we all know that GOD is not the author of confusion!

G R 'Scott' Cundiff

June 13th, 2012, 09:42 AM

Let's see, Glen Beck says that churches using the words Social Justice have a political agenda, no one else is talking about it. A few months later, despite the fact the the phrase has been used for a long time without much objection, suddenly the powers that be are coaching people not to use the word because they are getting feedback from the rank and file. - clearly no connection there. :smilies1447:

As to Naznet confessions, what we have is a couple of folks saying they had hardly even heard the word up until it became politically hot, but now they are experts and teachers correcting those that have used it and lived it for a very long time. - :smilies0717:

Craig, is your biggest concern that Glenn Beck created a stir about the term "social justice"? Is this something similar to the CN's saying the church shouldn't use some terms because they are too Catholic?

If this whole "we'd prefer our writers use alternate phrases" business is based on Glenn Beck's vilifying "social justice" -- well, I'm with you all the way. Glenn Beck should have zero influence on what terms Nazarene leaders, educators, authors, etc. use.

I don't think that's the case - but if it is, I can join you in seeing it as shallow, knee jerk, and worthless. Those who argue for using alternative terms are being shallow and led by an over-the-top, Mormon, right-wing political pundit.

I'm no expert on this stuff. I googled "Social Justice as a political term" and found a scholarly paper related to the subject on the Western Kentucky University website. It refers to material from John Rawls, who, according to the paper is "one of the most important political philosophers of the second half of the twentieth century." The primary source of the paper is a book from Rawls, named: "Political Liberalism" and, apparently, it's all about social justice.

Perhaps this can put your mind at ease that the suggestion that Nazarenes find alternative terms isn't fueled by Glenn Beck, but is a result of a linkage of "social justice" to "political liberalism" that has been made outside Glenn Beck's influence.

http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/ethics/matrawls.htm#pcj

Craig Laughlin

June 13th, 2012, 10:13 AM

Craig, is your biggest concern that Glenn Beck created a stir about the term "social justice"? Is this something similar to the CN's saying the church shouldn't use some terms because they are too Catholic?

If this whole "we'd prefer our writers use alternate phrases" business is based on Glenn Beck's vilifying "social justice" -- well, I'm with you all the way. Glenn Beck should have zero influence on what terms Nazarene leaders, educators, authors, etc. use.

I don't think that's the case - but if it is, I can join you in seeing it as shallow, knee jerk, and worthless. Those who argue for using alternative terms are being shallow and led by an over-the-top, Mormon, right-wing political pundit.

I'm no expert on this stuff. I googled "Social Justice as a political term" and found a scholarly paper related to the subject on the Western Kentucky University website. It refers to material from John Rawls, who, according to the paper is "one of the most important political philosophers of the second half of the twentieth century." The primary source of the paper is a book from Rawls, named: "Political Liberalism" and, apparently, it's all about social justice.

Perhaps this can put your mind at ease that the suggestion that Nazarenes find alternative terms isn't fueled by Glenn Beck, but is a result of a linkage of "social justice" to "political liberalism" that has been made outside Glenn Beck's influence.

http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/ethics/matrawls.htm#pcj

We are largely together. We simply disagree about the sources for the current debate. -

Let me ask you and the others who would argue that Social Justice is a phrase that should be avoided this question. How intimately acquainted with the phrase "social justice" were you before Glen Beck?

I'll bet most of you have been Googling. The very fact that you had to look it up says a lot. I would argue that the folks on Naznet are on the whole better informed both politically and theologically than rank and file Nazarenes. If you had to look it up. (I'm guessing some of our clergy had to look it up) Do you really think that it was so alive among rank and file Nazarenes that they were calling up HQ complaining? --- Nope, and you all know it. -

Here is what I think happened - pure speculation, but everyone else is speculating as well. - I think the folks heard the phrase for the first time by Glenn Beck, some had possibly heard it or read it, maybe even a little irritated by it but for the most part were not at all engaged with it. Honestly, they only had a vague understanding of the meaning if any understanding at all. (Tell me this isn't true) Then Glenn Beck comes along. - He provides them a clear, easy to understand and sinister definition. (Political conspiracy invading the church!!!!) A few months later HQ has received enough complaints that they are willing to coach writers to avoid the phrase. - My explanation fits the facts and is plausible. It may not be true but it is vastly more reasonable than that out of the blue folks started calling up HQ deeply concerned about this phrase that had been around and published for a long time.

As to my biggest concern, the use of the phrase is certainly not it. That the church doesn't practice Social justice a lot and many are opposed to it is far larger concern for me. But that is not the topic of this thread.

As to the phrase being used by political people, absolutely. Just like the words justice, fairness, compassion and on and on go the list of terms that cross over. I would assert that the church should not abandon those terms, even if the political folks twist their meaning.

As the to CN - It is the folks that want to redefine the phrase and run in fear from it that are far more like the CN's than me. I stand in the mainstream and with the experts and practitioners.

G R 'Scott' Cundiff

June 13th, 2012, 10:30 AM

We are largely together. We simply disagree about the sources for the current debate. -

Let me ask you and the others who would argue that Social Justice is a phrase that should be avoided this question. How intimately acquainted with the phrase "social justice" were you before Glen Beck?

I'll bet most of you have been Googling. The very fact that you had to look it up says a lot. I would argue that the folks on Naznet are on the whole better informed both politically and theologically than rank and file Nazarenes. If you had to look it up. (I'm guessing some of our clergy had to look it up) Do you really think that it was so alive among rank and file Nazarenes that they were calling up HQ complaining? --- Nope, and you all know it. -

Here is what I think happened - pure speculation, but everyone else is speculating as well. - I think the folks heard the phrase for the first time by Glenn Beck, some had possibly heard it or read it, maybe even a little irritated by it but for the most part were not at all engaged with it. Honestly, they only had a vague understanding of the meaning if any understanding at all. (Tell me this isn't true) Then Glenn Beck comes along. - He provides them a clear, easy to understand and sinister definition. (Political conspiracy invading the church!!!!) A few months later HQ has received enough complaints that they are willing to coach writers to avoid the phrase. - My explanation fits the facts and is plausible. It may not be true but it is vastly more reasonable than that out of the blue folks started calling up HQ deeply concerned about this phrase that had been around and published for a long time.

As to my biggest concern, the use of the phrase is certainly not it. That the church doesn't practice Social justice a lot and many are opposed to it is far larger concern for me. But that is not the topic of this thread.

As to the phrase being used by political people, absolutely. Just like the words justice, fairness, compassion and on and on go the list of terms that cross over. I would assert that the church should not abandon those terms, even if the political folks twist their meaning.

As the to CN - It is the folks that want to redefine the phrase and run in fear from it that are far more like the CN's than me. I stand in the mainstream and with the experts and practitioners.

Just a note that I googled "Social Justice as a political term" not just "social justice." I also visited wikipedia - before I ever read the first word, I saw the photo for the article. Guess what - it was from occupy Wall Street. The article is fine. It talks about the history and meaning of social justice. The photo, though, wasn't of Glenn Beck...it was from a politically charged movement that is using the term in a way considerably different than did the early Methodists as is described in the article.

I suggest you yield the focus on Glenn Beck and realize that the term has at least been compromised and like "gay" it is now claimed by those who use it to describe something different than it has historically meant.

Paul DeBaufer

June 13th, 2012, 10:34 AM

If I recall correctly I first heard the term "social justice" four or five years ago in connection with Bono. "Is he a real Christian or a social justice Christian?" So, it was presented, in a personal conversation, with a negative connotation, or so I got from the statement. I have heard it since and always look for the context. The negative I first heard has been countered by uses that are very positive and quite biblical, IMHO. Of course I have and still do hear it used in negative ways. So, when I hear "social justice" I look to the context to see that is actually being talked about, if it is the political, anti-liberal term or the more biblical, orthopraxy term, I think both senses are real senses in use today. And let's face it, use determines meaning. Not unlike many words and phrases "social justice" has different meanings that are almost mutually exclusive, but that is the way with English. Context tells us which sense of a word is being used with all other words, why not with social justice?

Wes Smith

June 13th, 2012, 11:14 AM

You assume that politics is what is driving me. (thus trying to question the purity of my motives, so I accept that you think political association corrupts motivation) Consider that you may be projecting on me what is driving you, which would make Billy's statement spot on. - I rarely share this because I find politics to be divisive in the church (which is what I really care about) but for the record.... I am not for either party, I'm not even sure I could be called an independent. I vote but in anything other than races in which I really know the folks (local) I vote for third party candidates and I spread my vote around to keep from helping one party. I vote because I believe in democracy, I will not vote for either (major) party because both have deep moral flaws. I have voted this way for more than 20 years. - So... not much in the way of politics motivating me, I really don't have a dog in the fight. - Wes, since you brought it up, can you say you are as apolitical as me?

Craig,

Perhaps it is good for me to say that your assumption about my assumption is disconcerting. Perhaps now we need to begin another thread about cognitive dissonance.

I reply regarding Billy's statement that the church is incapable of seeing the difference between a theologian and an influential media figure. You response is that I am making a political statement about you. Yikes. I'm not following. Your voting record in this regard is irrelevant to me as mine should be to you.

Again, go back and read Oliver's initial post, then the first 10, or so, that follow. My participation in this thread has nothing to do with yours or anyone else's political or theological beliefs. It simply has to do with what I believe is a need...we can appreciate an historic definition of social justice and then do some coaching about cultural adaptations to terminology that seeks to bring as many people under the social justice tent as possible. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Again, PLAYFULLY! Have a nice day.

Friend,

Wes

Craig Laughlin

June 13th, 2012, 12:25 PM

I suggest you yield the focus on Glenn Beck and realize that the term has at least been compromised and like "gay" it is now claimed by those who use it to describe something different than it has historically meant.

Two separate issues (Beck and compromised definition)

Scott, this is exactly the point. Just because Naznet or Nazarene leadership says it is so, does not make it so. This word is widely understood in the circles that live it. This storm will blow over with the end of the election and the term will continue to be used, except of course among Nazarenes. We are arrogant beyond all imagining to think that we (Nazarenes) can ban the use of the word. The word has always been used in both political and religious ways. Banning this word makes us look foolish.

It would be like saying we can't use the word Leadership because people write secular books about it and some leadership is bad. I suppose we could do that but all the rest of the world would rightly consider us fringe. - It really blows my mind. Your illustration with the word Gay makes my point. The reason it refers to sexual orientation rather than mood is that folks widely accept that as the meaning. - That Social Justice in the church means political agenda is not at all widely accepted.

Glenn Beck is simply the vehicle that made it an issue among Nazarenes. - I would entertain other plausible scenarios for how we got where we are but none seem to be offered.

Craig Laughlin

June 13th, 2012, 12:40 PM

Craig,

Perhaps it is good for me to say that your assumption about my persumption is disconcerting. Perhaps now we need to begin another thread about cognitive dissonance.

I reply regarding Billy's statement that the church is incapable of seeing the difference between a theologian and an influential media figure. You response is that I am making a political statement about you. Yikes. I'm not following.

To vote for this silly comment as being the most insightful thing that has been said on this thread is pitiful and makes me wonder about the true political motivations of the posters! (Said playfully with due love and respect to both Billy and Craig!!!)

It may have been said playfully, with love and due respect but lots of things that one believes to be true are said playfully and "with due respect" to deflect the direct confrontation.

Please don't post like I was making it up.

Wes Smith

June 13th, 2012, 12:44 PM

Two separate issues (Beck and compromised definition)

Scott, this is exactly the point. Just because Naznet or Nazarene leadership says it is so, does not make it so. This word is widely understood in the circles that live it. This storm will blow over with the end of the election and the term will continue to be used, except of course among Nazarenes. We are arrogant beyond all imagining to think that we (Nazarenes) can ban the use of the word. The word has always been used in both political and religious ways. Banning this word makes us look foolish.

It would be like saying we can't use the word Leadership because people write secular books about it and some leadership is bad. I suppose we could do that but all the rest of the world would rightly consider us fringe. - It really blows my mind. Your illustration with the word Gay makes my point. The reason it refers to sexual orientation rather than mood is that folks widely accept that as the meaning. - That Social Justice in the church means political agenda is not at all widely accepted.

Glenn Beck is simply the vehicle that made it an issue among Nazarenes. - I would entertain other plausible scenarios for how we got where we are but none seem to be offered.

Craig,

Now you are touching on the issue that got me involved in the first place...ban, banning. I take those two words to mean that the phrase "social justice" cannot be used under any circumstances. Dave looked into this and found this was not the case. However, "coaching" is being used to modify terminology to make communication fit people from varying perspectives.

So, do you have some other information that makes Dave's discovery invalid, or, are you simply perpetrating Oliver's unfounded assumption? If you have it, get it on the table. I'm getting tired of being a broken record.

Friend,

Wes

Billy Cox

June 13th, 2012, 12:57 PM

Craig,

Now you are touching on the issue that got me involved in the first place...ban, banning. I take those two words to mean that the phrase "social justice" cannot be used under any circumstances. Dave looked into this and found this was not the case. However, "coaching" is being used to modify terminology to make communication fit people from varying perspectives.

So, do you have some other information that makes Dave's discovery invalid, or, are you simply perpetrating Oliver's unfounded assumption? If you have it, get it on the table. I'm getting tired of being a broken record.

So one person says 'banned' and someone else uses the more corporate-friendly 'coaching' term. In either case, there is evidence suggesting a directive stronger than mere advice that the term 'social justice' is verboten among some quarters of the church. Do we still need to quibble about whether the directive is moderately strong or very strong?

Craig Laughlin

June 13th, 2012, 01:01 PM

Craig,

Now you are touching on the issue that got me involved in the first place...ban, banning. I take those two words to mean that the phrase "social justice" cannot be used under any circumstances. Dave looked into this and found this was not the case. However, "coaching" is being used to modify terminology to make communication fit people from varying perspectives.

So, do you have some other information that makes Dave's discovery invalid, or, are you simply perpetrating Oliver's unfounded assumption? If you have it, get it on the table. I'm getting tired of being a broken record.

Friend,

Wes

You appear to be assuming that the people being "coached" are free to disregard the coaching without penalty of any kind? If that is the case I withdraw my objection. If that is not the case then how is this not banning? I lived in KC long enough to know that it is unlikely that this coaching has no penalties associated with ignoring it. Remember coaching feels very different to the one being coached than the one doing the coaching.

G R 'Scott' Cundiff

June 13th, 2012, 01:03 PM

Two separate issues (Beck and compromised definition)

Scott, this is exactly the point. Just because Naznet or Nazarene leadership says it is so, does not make it so. This word is widely understood in the circles that live it. This storm will blow over with the end of the election and the term will continue to be used, except of course among Nazarenes. We are arrogant beyond all imagining to think that we (Nazarenes) can ban the use of the word. The word has always been used in both political and religious ways. Banning this word makes us look foolish.
...
Glenn Beck is simply the vehicle that made it an issue among Nazarenes. - I would entertain other plausible scenarios for how we got where we are but none seem to be offered.

First of all, no one in the denomination banned the phrase. Dave M explained that it was more "coaching" than anything else. The idea was to urge writers to avoid using a term that is politically charged and diverts attention away from an important spiritual concept. Claiming the phrase was "banned" feels like an effort to prejudice the conversation and certainly doesn't advance it.

Again, you would be wise to drop the Glenn Beck argument. I've already shown that the political left claimed the phrase before Glenn Beck ever mentioned it. I've shown that even a reasonable wikipedia article illustrates social justice with a photo of occupy Wall Street. Pretending that objections to the use of the term is Glenn Beck's fault ignores the fact that the horse is already out of the barn.

Wesley disliked the term "Perfection" but persisted in using it (although he did consistently re-brand it "Christian Perfection") because it is a Biblical term. Your making a big deal out of "social justice" is a harder sell because it isn't a Biblical term (concept-yes, term-no) in the first place.

Shouting "Glenn Beck" simply doesn't work, at least not with me and especially in light of all the evidence that "social justice" has, indeed, been claimed (and somewhat ruined) by the political left in the country.

So, feel free to use it "in house" or with some carefully worded definition - just avoid using it in situations where it will add unnecessary baggage to the point you are making.

Craig Laughlin

June 13th, 2012, 01:16 PM

First of all, no one in the denomination banned the phrase. Dave M explained that it was more "coaching" than anything else. The idea was to urge writers to avoid using a term that is politically charged and diverts attention away from an important spiritual concept. Claiming the phrase was "banned" feels like an effort to prejudice the conversation and certainly doesn't advance it.

Again, you would be wise to drop the Glenn Beck argument. I've already shown that the political left claimed the phrase before Glenn Beck ever mentioned it. I've shown that even a reasonable wikipedia article illustrates social justice with a photo of occupy Wall Street. Pretending that objections to the use of the term is Glenn Beck's fault ignores the fact that the horse is already out of the barn.

Wesley disliked the term "Perfection" but persisted in using it (although he did consistently re-brand it "Christian Perfection") because it is a Biblical term. Your making a big deal out of "social justice" is a harder sell because it isn't a Biblical term (concept-yes, term-no) in the first place.

Shouting "Glenn Beck" simply doesn't work, at least not with me and especially in light of all the evidence that "social justice" has, indeed, been claimed (and somewhat ruined) by the political left in the country.

So, feel free to use it "in house" or with some carefully worded definition - just avoid using it in situations where it will add unnecessary baggage to the point you are making.

I'm not sure how to move forward. I don't want to sound patronizing but at this point you're offering evidence to refute what I never said. I never said that the word was not used in secular circles. What I objected to then and now, and you avoid in your replies to me, is that Glenn Beck asserted that when the words "Social Justice" were used in the church that it was a part of a political conspiracy invading the church and if I recall correctly that people should leave those churches. This is a HUGE difference from saying that the phrase is also used in civil and political circles. (It has been that way for a long time without much dust up) It is that last step into the churches use of the term that I suspect stirred up the controversy and was WAY over the line.

Really to refute what I have said you need to offer an alternative scenario to why all of a sudden this phrase that has been around for a long time is suddenly a "hot button" issue, so hot that people are being coached about it's use.

G R 'Scott' Cundiff

June 13th, 2012, 01:34 PM

I'm not sure how to move forward. I don't want to sound patronizing but at this point you're offering evidence to refute what I never said. I never said that the word was not used in secular circles. What I objected to then and now, and you avoid in your replies to me, is that Glenn Beck asserted that when the words "Social Justice" were used in the church that it was a part of a political conspiracy invading the church and if I recall correctly that people should leave those churches. This is a HUGE difference from saying that the phrase is also used in civil and political circles. (It has been that way for a long time without much dust up) It is that last step into the churches use of the term that I suspect stirred up the controversy and was WAY over the line.

Really to refute what I have said you need to offer an alternative scenario to why all of a sudden this phrase that has been around for a long time is suddenly a "hot button" issue, so hot that people are being coached about it's use.

Member: Hey pastor, I want you to know I really appreciated your sermon last Sunday - especially that one part.

Pastor: I'm so glad - thanks for the encouragement - might I ask which part you're talking about?

Member: Sure, it was the part about social justice. I'm glad to see our church taking a stand on that. I've been wondering whether or not you are with us.

Pastor: Us?

Member: You know...I've wondered where you stand on the issues, after all big business is bleeding this country dry while the little guy is getting the shaft. Like the President said, we need to spread the wealth around.

Pastor: Well, I really wasn't talking about that stuff - you know, just caring for the poor, extending a helping hand in Jesus' name.

Member: Right...we need to do more of that, and if we vote for the right people it will happen.

Pastor: I wasn't making a political statement, just encouraging us to do what Jesus wants us to do for the needy.

Member: Ah, I get it.... (wink-wink) we don't want to alienate some of those Glenn Beck fans do we - I'm with you, social justice for all.

Pastor: Again, let me be clear, this is a Biblical concern not a political one.

Member: Don't worry, pastor, you and I know what social justice is - you have my full support.

Pastor: I'm not sure you do but thanks for the support. (Note to self - "I need to find a different way to talk about social justice")

Billy Cox

June 13th, 2012, 01:42 PM

Craig,

Perhaps it is good for me to say that your assumption about my assumption is disconcerting. Perhaps now we need to begin another thread about cognitive dissonance.

I reply regarding Billy's statement that the church is incapable of seeing the difference between a theologian and an influential media figure. You response is that I am making a political statement about you. Yikes. I'm not following. Your voting record in this regard is irrelevant to me as mine should be to you.

Again, go back and read Oliver's initial post, then the first 10, or so, that follow. My participation in this thread has nothing to do with yours or anyone else's political or theological beliefs. It simply has to do with what I believe is a need...we can appreciate an historic definition of social justice and then do some coaching about cultural adaptations to terminology that seeks to bring as many people under the social justice tent as possible. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Again, PLAYFULLY! Have a nice day.

Is it so hard to imagine that a fair number of Nazarenes take their political cues from various far-right media figures, and then complain loudly when Nazarene publications and personalities use so-called 'liberal buzzwords' that their media personalities have warned them about?

Doug Ward

June 13th, 2012, 01:47 PM

Really to refute what I have said you need to offer an alternative scenario to why all of a sudden this phrase that has been around for a long time is suddenly a "hot button" issue, so hot that people are being coached about it's use.

Might I tenderly suggest an alternative explanation? it seems to me that Glenn Beck has said something that is rather dumb - which is not news. However, due to his following, we will undoubtedly have a number of people who are sensitive and ready to pounce. This does seem to be the default position of a segment of the church.

At the same time we have a term (social justice) that has been used by many, but at times is used in a way that seems to claim ownership of the term. Unless you think like me, then you re against social justice. The folks who do this usually are identified with the political left. So we have a situation where the political right, and the left (or at least elements of both) seem to be poised for battle over the term or concept of social justice.

Maybe the desire to avoid the term is a means to avoid this battle within the church. Hopefully then, in the meantime, we can educate our people about the term, in a manner that lifts it out of a politically charged context. I am not defending or decrying the wisdom of this effort, just perhaps putting it in a different context.

Wes Smith

June 13th, 2012, 01:47 PM

You appear to be assuming that the people being "coached" are free to disregard the coaching without penalty of any kind? If that is the case I withdraw my objection. If that is not the case then how is this not banning? I lived in KC long enough to know that it is unlikely that this coaching has no penalties associated with ignoring it. Remember coaching feels very different to the one being coached than the one doing the coaching.

This is a classic example of the difficulties of communication in a public forum. Here is my simple statement of sequence:

1. The first post makes unfounded, baseless, general assumptions about "banning" the phrase "social justice."

2. I respond that such an action does not sound like it has credibility and is an attempt to publically desparage our general leadership and, potentially, specific person/people (Regional Director). Unless proof of a ban is offered then back away from the assertion.

3. I ask my general leadership sources if they have knowledge of such a ban. They don't, but promise to ask other general leadership people if such is the case.

4. Dave relates a message from general leadership saying "there has been no ban," but a "coaching" effort is being used.

5. Now, Craig indicates that evidently "coaching" is another way of saying "banning." He knows this because he lived in Kansas City long enough to be conversant in such matters. (Wonder if anyone told him that headquarters has moved? Again, a playful, lighthearted question! Olathe has an entirely different set of rules.)

6. Lastly, I'm being asked to explain if "coaching" can be ignored without any repercussions. That just seems so in so incredibly strange to me. Let me ask you a question not exactly related. As a Lead Pastor or Dad or position of authority, you lay down the law about something. All you are mandating is that something be generally avoided. But if your staff, your children, or whoever, are in your face arguing about the issue and defying your rule, would there be repercussions? I'm not in a position to answer for General Leadership, but there does seem to be some Biblical support for submitting to authorities, so I'll venture that the answer is "No!" (to the question if any employee can ignore the coaching mandate.) And, I doubt that anyone is nervously waiting for you to "withdraw your objection."

7. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. (see reason for editing below)

I'll try this one more time. Terminology changes and enlarges. In light of that, let's try to have a little grace and mercy towards those whose definition of "social justice" may be different.

Friend,

Wes

Jon Twitchell

June 13th, 2012, 01:48 PM

So... In 2010, I preached a series on the Twelve Prophets. During one of the weeks on Amos, I said the following:

Justice. It’s an interesting word… and if you ever want to have a little fun, you can get in a room full of ministers and toss out the phrase “Social Justice,” and sit back and watch. Social Justice is often used as a phrase to describe all sorts of programs for the poor, outcasts, or marginalized of society. Soup Kitchens, the liberation of modern-day slaves, childhood education, neighborhood improvement projects, and even fair trade consumerism, can all fall under the umbrella of “Social Justice.”

Unfortunately, in much of Christianity, we’ve bought into a false dichotomy between Evangelism and Social Justice. There are some who believe that Evangelism should be enough on its own… without any acts of justice… and there are others who believe that we simply ought to work on making the world a better place, and that there’s no need for evangelism… witnessing and preaching.

I believe that in order for the Church to move forward in the 21st Century, we must stop seeing this as an either/or approach, and begin seeing it as a both/and approach. The fact is that God calls us to be agents of Social Justice in the world… He calls us to care for orphans and widows… to look out for the homeless and the needy. And, He calls us to preach the Good News of Salvation in Jesus’ Name. We must come to the place where we understand that building the Kingdom of God is both about this world and the world to come… It’s about seeing His Kingdom coming… His will being done… on earth as it is in heaven.

You might describe this call for Justice this way—seeking justice is about looking for the broken things in this world… the things that should not be… and doing what we can to set them right. At its core, justice is about making right the things that are wrong.
The point isn't whether or not you agree with my statements... but to point out how I was talking about the phrase two years ago. Clearly, in 2010, I was not thinking of Social Justice as a political term... instead, I framed the term in a debate between liberal and conservative churches.

By May of 2011, I used the term slightly differently, in what appears to be more of a political context. In a message where I was considering the different ways people see God, I said:

We would frame it differently today… sometimes it might seem that the democrats worship a god who values social justice and equality… and the republicans worship a god who values personal piety. Some television preachers worship a god who showers his people with blessings… while others worship a god who is always threatening judgment. I suspect that the god invoked by our currency is different from the god that was invoked after 9-11.
And while I can't find it, I'm confident that these words escaped my lips during a sermon, sometime during the last year. (I suspect it was an unscripted drop-in, which is why I can't find the quote today.)

Social justice is not simply a codeword for liberal politics.Don't know exactly the point I'm trying to make... but I suspect that my progression of language is an indicator of how the 40-some-odd people in my pews have seen the term subtly shift over the past two years. In 2010, I was framing the debate in terms of conservative and liberal churches. By 2011, a political tone had crept in to the way I talked about it... and in this last quote, I appear to be attempting to correct what I perceived as a misconception among my people.

Jon Twitchell

June 13th, 2012, 01:54 PM

The previous post was a serious post, hoping to be helpful. Please thank the post if you found it helpful.

Now you can all click "Laughing" at the following portion of the above quote... provided that you find it at least mildly amusing... keeping in mind that it was written back in 2010:

Justice. It’s an interesting word… and if you ever want to have a little fun, you can get in a room full of ministers and toss out the phrase “Social Justice,” and sit back and watch.

Craig Laughlin

June 13th, 2012, 02:57 PM

Might I tenderly suggest an alternative explanation? it seems to me that Glenn Beck has said something that is rather dumb - which is not news. However, due to his following, we will undoubtedly have a number of people who are sensitive and ready to pounce. This does seem to be the default position of a segment of the church.

At the same time we have a term (social justice) that has been used by many, but at times is used in a way that seems to claim ownership of the term. Unless you think like me, then you re against social justice. The folks who do this usually are identified with the political left. So we have a situation where the political right, and the left (or at least elements of both) seem to be poised for battle over the term or concept of social justice.

Maybe the desire to avoid the term is a means to avoid this battle within the church. Hopefully then, in the meantime, we can educate our people about the term, in a manner that lifts it out of a politically charged context. I am not defending or decrying the wisdom of this effort, just perhaps putting it in a different context.

I'm voting for you for General. (Sorry don't have a vote) - I think your analyses of the situation is spot on. However restricting (covers both coaching and banning) the term is exactly the wrong response. The right response would be to do a bunch of articles educating our people as to what is meant by Social Justice in the church. - Why not rush into production an education program. - Distance us from the politics of it (I always like that option) and articulate a compelling Kingdom vision.

Craig Laughlin

June 13th, 2012, 03:03 PM

Jim Chabot

June 13th, 2012, 03:13 PM

Wes, if you could explain to me the difference between coaching that can not be refused and a ban? I think it would help a great deal with our communication.

I can tell you one thing that is quite different between the two. Coaching is part of the interaction between soperiors and subordinates. While a ban would indicate a systemic policy.

As senior pastor, I'm guessing that you have participated in coaching from time to time. You are responsible for the vision and the voice emanating from your ministry to a much greater extent than your assistants are you not? Should they stray into areas where you are uncomfortable, surely you will "coach" them back, no?

I can tell you from personal experience that I have "coached" employees on occasion. Should you work for me and should you offend a fellow worker or a customer. You will be "coached", persist and you may be "coached" again, or just let go.

Craig Laughlin

June 13th, 2012, 03:31 PM

I can tell you one thing that is quite different between the two. Coaching is part of the interaction between soperiors and subordinates. While a ban would indicate a systemic policy.

As senior pastor, I'm guessing that you have participated in coaching from time to time. You are responsible for the vision and the voice emanating from your ministry to a much greater extent than your assistants are you not? Should they stray into areas where you are uncomfortable, surely you will "coach" them back, no?

I can tell you from personal experience that I have "coached" employees on occasion. Should you work for me and should you offend a fellow worker or a customer. You will be "coached", persist and you may be "coached" again, or just let go.

Exactly.

I have coached but in my context I was coaching other pastors. There were no consequences other than natural ones for refusing what I said. This is the distinction that needs to be made.

Edit - I am talking about coaching other Sr. Pastors. - When I "coach" my staff we have an ongoing conversation and they have a strong voice in the outcome. They are professions like me and often know more about their field than I do. If I make a decision against their will, I don't call it coaching. I am clear that I am exercising my authority as Sr. Pastor.

Maybe the coaching was just friendly guidance. Maybe it was the beginnings of progressive discipline. If it was just friendly no consequences coaching for a man like Oliver I'm fine with it. If they were functionally, if not explicitly, banning the use of the word for someone like Oliver I think that is a deep problem and exactly the wrong response.

Like I said near the beginning of this thread. One of the main purposes of the clergy is to educate. They should have put Oliver, who actually knows what he is talking about, in charge of the education campaign.

Doug Ward

June 13th, 2012, 03:34 PM

I'm voting for you for General. (Sorry don't have a vote) .

I am making the campaign signs even as I type.;)

Wes Smith

June 13th, 2012, 03:43 PM

Wes, if you could explain to me the difference between coaching that can not be refused and a ban? I think it would help a great deal with our communication.

BTW - Turned out #1 was wrong. There may have been a difference of perception but Dave confirmed that something which restricted in some way the use if the term social justice indeed happened. - That means the charge was not baseless, maybe over stated, but not baseless.

Craig,

Yes. Banning is banning. And, "coaching" that totally disallows the use of a word or phrase would be the same as "banning." There has not been any evidence to indicate that, in this case, "coaching" meant "banning."

And, I stand in disagreement with your sentiment re. Dave's response from Olathe. Here is Oliver's opening statement, Social justice, the term, has been officially banned from all literature and communications from the US/Canada Regional Office. At least, that was the directive given by the Regional Director under whom I served. That is either true, or it isn't. If "banned" means the same as "coaching" we need a new dictionary.

Friend,

Wes

Craig Laughlin

June 13th, 2012, 03:55 PM

Craig,

Yes. Banning is banning. And, "coaching" that totally disallows the use of a word or phrase would be the same as "banning." There has not been any evidence to indicate that, in this case, "coaching" meant "banning."

And, I stand in disagreement with your sentiment re. Dave's response from Olathe. Here is Oliver's opening statement, Social justice, the term, has been officially banned from all literature and communications from the US/Canada Regional Office. At least, that was the directive given by the Regional Director under whom I served. That is either true, or it isn't. If "banned" means the same as "coaching" we need a new dictionary.

Friend,

Wes

I don't think it is at all clear. If my boss comes to the office and says "don't use this term anymore" I hear that as a ban. She/he may perceive that they are just coaching folks to keep them out of trouble. This is especially true if the one coaching does not grasp the importance of the term. They think it is no big deal so the word "ban" seems like a strong word them. They are just coaching...

It is true that we have no proof. Either way.

Edit - Your logical argument "That is either true, or it isn't." is correct. If there are consequences for using the phrase then it is functionally a ban, even if you call it coaching.

Wes Smith

June 14th, 2012, 08:09 AM

I don't think it is at all clear. If my boss comes to the office and says "don't use this term anymore" I hear that as a ban. She/he may perceive that they are just coaching folks to keep them out of trouble. This is especially true if the one coaching does not grasp the importance of the term. They think it is no big deal so the word "ban" seems like a strong word them. They are just coaching...

It is true that we have no proof. Either way.

Edit - Your logical argument "That is either true, or it isn't." is correct. If there are consequences for using the phrase then it is functionally a ban, even if you call it coaching.

Craig,

One of my "foundations" in my Christian life is that I am a man...under authority. So when you speak of the possibility of confusing "banning" and "coaching," it makes no sense at all to me. None.

The neat thing about human communication is that we can ask questions and clear things up.

"We would like for all our writers and speakers to be sensitive in using the phrase, 'social justice.' Please look for and use other word/phrases that will help communicate with the maximum audience."

"What do you mean by that? Could you help me/us understand? Are we not to use the phrase at all?"

"We are not 'banning' the phrase, just asking you, when appropriate, to look for other words or phrases in order to connect with as many of our readers/adherents as possible."

"Just to be clear on this, you are not 'banning' the phrase, just asking us to include other words/phrases that will reflect the same principle, when appropriate?"

"Yes, that is correct."

"Could you give us a description of what you mean?"

"Yes, of course."

"Prior to this directive, you probably would preached this message,

Social Justice Is...

1. Social Justice.

2. Social Justice.

3. Social Justice."

"Now We Recommend using some different words for your main points. Something like this would be very appropriate...

Social Justice Is...

1. Different Word/phrase.

2. Different Word/phrase.

3. Different Word/phrase."

"Now, does this make sense to you?"

"Yes, thank you!"

To be honest, if I had to go to such extremes to get my people to understand "coaching," I'm pretty sure that I would question whether I had the right people working for/with me! But, I agree that such clarification is sometimes necessary.

Now, if there really is a ban, that is another issue altogether. But in such a case, being a man under authority, I see a couple options open for me: communicate my way through the issue and arrive at a mutually embraced understanding, or, look for other work.

Friend,

Wes

Craig Laughlin

June 14th, 2012, 08:37 AM

Wes,

If it went down like you describe I would not have a problem with it. You did reveal what is a major difference between us. You call your process extreme I would call it collaboration and SOP. As has been pointed out, this is all speculation and I have a hard time believing Oliver would react like he has if what you describe was the case. (I know him, have worked a little with him and had him hold special meetings (revival) in my church) I am glad to know that if the phrase was in fact banned that you would have a problem with that.

Peace,

Wes Smith

June 14th, 2012, 10:14 AM

Craig,

Not a major point, but when I wrote the above post, I was thinking about some specific people sitting in an office at GMC. Was hard for me to imagine that such a conversation would take place in that setting. But, maybe. Or, maybe it should have!

Friend,

Wes

Roy Richardson

June 14th, 2012, 10:21 AM

Craig,

One of my "foundations" in my Christian life is that I am a man...under authority. So when you speak of the possibility of confusing "banning" and "coaching," it makes no sense at all to me. None.

The neat thing about human communication is that we can ask questions and clear things up.

"We would like for all our writers and speakers to be sensitive in using the phrase, 'social justice.' Please look for and use other word/phrases that will help communicate with the maximum audience."

"What do you mean by that? Could you help me/us understand? Are we not to use the phrase at all?"

"We are not 'banning' the phrase, just asking you, when appropriate, to look for other words or phrases in order to connect with as many of our readers/adherents as possible."

"Just to be clear on this, you are not 'banning' the phrase, just asking us to include other words/phrases that will reflect the same principle, when appropriate?"

"Yes, that is correct."

"Could you give us a description of what you mean?"

"Yes, of course."

"Prior to this directive, you probably would preached this message,

Social Justice Is...

1. Social Justice.

2. Social Justice.

3. Social Justice."

"Now We Recommend using some different words for your main points. Some thing like this would be very appropriate...

Social Justice Is...

1. Different Word/phrase.

2. Different Word/phrase.

3. Different Word/phrase."

"Now, does this make sense to you?"

"Yes, thank you!"

To be honest, if I had to go to such extremes to get my people to understand "coaching," I'm pretty sure that I would question whether I had the right people working for/with me! But, I agree that such clarification is sometimes necessary.

Now, if there really is a ban, that is another issue altogether. But in such a case, being a man under authority, I see a couple options open for me: communicate my way through the issue and arrive at a mutually embraced understanding, or, look for other work.

Friend,

Wes

Our lack of clarity on the terms is a the root of many of our disagreements. Social justice, emerging, missional, church etc. When we spend a significant portion of our time arguing over what the words mean, it just leads to rancor. Honestly, I can see why avoiding the use of terms that are "loaded" for some people would be beneficial. Some people are listening for certain words to check off, not listening for what is said.

I've been here 2 years and someone told me they have never heard me preach on sanctification. I was stunned because it has happened repeatedly. I told her that I do it often, and another congregant jumped in and said I call it "surrender" and not sanctification. Because I didn't say the word it wasn't real I guess.

The same holds true with these. The fight it worth it at times, but those times need to be carefully considered and not wandered into haphazardly.

Wilson Deaton

June 14th, 2012, 11:14 AM

I sent a message (very soon after this thread began) to USA/Canada Regional Director, Dr. Broadbooks. I got the following reply about a week ago. I saw no need to share it because it had been so long I thought it no longer very relevant. However, since this thread continues to thrive, here it is:

Dr. Broadbooks asked me to get in touch with you on his behalf regarding your question. To be clear, there is no offical ban on the phrase "social justice." You can find "social justice" mentioned in a link on our compassionate ministries site, as well as in an article on the Grace and Peace Magazine website. We find that the term is sometimes misunderstood by some Nazarenes so we prefer the use of other phrases, such as social righteousness, compassionate justice, works of mercy, Biblical justice, social action, Christian compassion, etc.

I hope this helps clarify the matter for you. Please let me know if you have any more questions.
As far as the debating here goes, I see two main issues:

First, there is the issue of "banning" or "coaching:" The letter I quoted says "there is no official ban," but, "we prefer the use of other phrases." Even though it is not an "official ban" is it "functionally banned" due to the weight of the preference against it? We could debate that point forever and not come to an agreement. Without presently working in that particular office we just can't know. However, I do believe the net result will be that even though "there is no official ban" we will not see new uses of the phrase "social justice" come out of that office in the forseeable future.

Secondly, concerning the phrase itself: The reply I quoted concedes that the precipitating problem is that the phrase is being "misunderstood by some Nazarenes." Personally, when an important term is being misunderstood I find it preferable to educate toward proper understanding rather than abandoning the term.

It's been said a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Likewise, the most important thing to me, is that we Nazarenes practice social justice or, "social righteousness, compassionate justice, works of mercy, Biblical justice, social action, Christian compassion, etc.," regardless of what we call it.

Wilson

Billy Cox

June 14th, 2012, 01:32 PM

First, there is the issue of "banning" or "coaching:" The letter I quoted says "there is no official ban," but, "we prefer the use of other phrases." Even though it is not an "official ban" is it "functionally banned" due to the weight of the preference against it? We could debate that point forever and not come to an agreement. Without presently working in that particular office we just can't know. However, I do believe the net result will be that even though "there is no official ban" we will not see new uses of the phrase "social justice" come out of that office in the forseeable future.

Secondly, concerning the phrase itself: The reply I quoted concedes that the precipitating problem is that the phrase is being "misunderstood by some Nazarenes." Personally, when an important term is being misunderstood I find it preferable to educate toward proper understanding rather than abandoning the term.

It's been said a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Likewise, the most important thing to me, is that we Nazarenes practice social justice or, "social righteousness, compassionate justice, works of mercy, Biblical justice, social action, Christian compassion, etc.," regardless of what we call it.

There are some who refuse to believe anecdotal evidence that conflicts with their preconceived notions of how the church operates. Exhibit 'A' includes some posts in this thread all but saying that Oliver is a disgruntled former GMC employee whose opinion is unreliable or hopelessly jaundiced.

Wes Smith

June 14th, 2012, 01:35 PM

Wes Smith

June 14th, 2012, 01:45 PM

There are some who refuse to believe anecdotal evidence that conflicts with their preconceived notions of how the church operates. Exhibit 'A' includes some posts in this thread all but saying that Oliver is a disgruntled former GMC employee whose opinion is unreliable or hopelessly jaundiced.

Billy,

I'm sure you understand what you are saying, but could you try to interpret this into a language less cynical people can understand? Just kidding. I could have said, "Huh, what you saying here man?" But, it would help me if you did some Billy-thesauretical-magic and included fewer code words that folks like me can understand.

How would you respond to, "You seem to trust Oliver's statements over "how the church operates."? That is what came through to me. Was that what you were trying to say?

Friend,

Wes

Craig Laughlin

June 14th, 2012, 03:15 PM

We find that the term is sometimes misunderstood by some Nazarenes so we prefer the use of other phrases, such as social righteousness, compassionate justice, works of mercy, Biblical justice, social action, Christian compassion, etc.

Without feeling the need to get another train of thought going, I submit that there is a subliminal issue going on here revolving around integrity and trust. Too bad that Dr. Broadbooks or some other official from the Regional Office can't show up for a few hours to answer questions! In his/their absence all we are left with, it seems to me, is whether or not the people speaking from the Regional/General level have integrity and do we trust them.

The nuance I have tried to make over and over again is that it is entirely possible to trust someone's integrity and honesty but question their perception and judgement.

Coaching is perceived differently depending on whether or not one is doing the coaching or being coached and the relative power the one doing the coaching has over the one being coached. I do not believe the situation to be an issue of integrity but rather one of poor judgement.

Frankly, "coaching" is a deliberately vague word that probably does not bring much clarity.

Changing the subject. Regarding the statement approved by Dr. Broadbooks...while I am quite sastified with the fact that there is no official ban (I'd recommend removing the word 'official'), I do take issue with the flat out statement that "the term is sometimes misunderstood by some Nazarenes." That implies to me that there is a spelled-out, official, accepted definition somewhere. I've asked several times in this thread for someone to declare that definition. I read back through the posts last night and could only find Ryan Scott's personal definition of social justice. How in the world can we misunderstand something that doesn't exist?

Furthermore, if a statement does not exist, then isn't it possible that the people who think they understand it misunderstand it? This gets complicated and I'd prefer to read that "various understandings of the phrase occur among Nazarenes and we would like to be, as much as possible, inclusionary, by using terms/phrases like, social righteousness, compassionate justice, works of mercy, Biblical justice, social action, Christian compassion, etc." [italics & underline obviously mine]

Before anyone gets all huffy about my premise (inclusionary), I'd suggest you first come up with a definition upon which people can disagree. Until then, I'm very happy with the Regional Office statement, but would prefer mine!

Friend,

Wes

I think the meaning of the phrase is far more settled than you think. This is especially so among those who actually work in the field. (Which are the ones that really count) That people who do not work in the field are not familiar with it is not surprising. That they would jump in and want to redefine it is the problem. I suggest you pole a dozen folks who work full time in the religious end of Social justice and you will get a pretty standard core understanding. I've heard the term for a very long time and used it often when working among the poor. I understood those who spoke to me and they came from a very broad spectrum of the Christian church. When I have used the phrase in those same circles they seemed to understand me as well.

Billy Cox

June 14th, 2012, 03:23 PM

Billy,

I'm sure you understand what you are saying, but could you try to interpret this into a language less cynical people can understand? Just kidding. I could have said, "Huh, what you saying here man?" But, it would help me if you did some Billy-thesauretical-magic and included fewer code words that folks like me can understand.

Wes, since you invoked the 'dumb country boy' defense, here is an 'amplified bible' version of what I said.

There are some who refuse to believe anecdotal evidence (testimony of firsthand experience) that conflicts (runs counter, contradicts, sounds alien) with their preconceived notions (what one thinks they know based on limited or no experience) of how the church operates. Exhibit 'A' includes some posts in this thread all but saying that Oliver is a disgruntled former GMC employee (one who presumably has nothing to lose and tries to even the score by shedding light on embarrassing truths about the organization) whose opinion is unreliable or hopelessly jaundiced. (presumed to be cynical, seasoned with hatred, accuser of the brethren, infidel, servant of Satan)

How would you respond to, "You seem to trust Oliver's statements over "how the church operates."? That is what came through to me. Was that what you were trying to say?

Do I believe Oliver's story over what a marketing committee beholden to the BGS or someone angling for a a higher position in the hierarchy would say? Yes, all day long.

Wes Smith

June 14th, 2012, 06:41 PM

Wes, since you invoked the 'dumb country boy' defense, here is an 'amplified bible' version of what I said.

Do I believe Oliver's story over what a marketing committee beholden to the BGS or someone angling for a a higher position in the hierarchy would say? Yes, all day long.

Billy,

Another "dumb country boy" question. What distinguishes Oliver from those in the marketing committe, or angling for a higher position in the hierarchy? My understanding is that he spent several years in that context.

And, note to Oliver, I'd be interest in your further response to this issue, knowing that you follow NazNet pretty closely.

Now, back to doin' my chores!

Friend,

Wes

Oliver Phillips

June 15th, 2012, 03:32 AM

Billy,

And, note to Oliver, I'd be interest in your further response to this issue, knowing that you follow NazNet pretty closely.

Now, back to doin' my chores!

Friend,

Wes

This thread has divagated into corollaries of accusation of my being “disgruntled.” This is a blatant misreading of the intent of the original thread. Nevertheless, let me attempt to bring some closure:

1. The first issue seems to be whether “coaching” and “banning” are synonymous in this context. This could only be determined by the existing “power distance” that is the context in which each is used. When peers coach each other into the preferential use of words, it cannot be compared with the coaching of a subordinate. To coach a subordinate to “not use a term” is IMHO synonymous with a “subtle ban.”

2. Secondly, the inhospitality towards the use of the term “social justice” can only be mitigated by those who use the term to clearly explicate its usage, and to present a justification for its usage. As is evidenced by the attention paid to this thread, “social justice” surely can boast of faithful followers who are as Nazarene as any other who disagrees with such a position.

3. Thirdly, prior to 2008 “social justice” as a term was widely used within the department and such usage was never really met with diffidence by any segment of the Nazarene tribe, at least not with any collective voice. My conclusion, having been deeply immersed in the conversations by those who were on the cutting edge of compassionate ministry, locally and internationally, was that a war was being fought without both parties being in agreement that an impasse had been reached.

4. Fourthly, it seems to me that the usage of the term is being coerced by the political operatives. The onus is on us to “Christianize” the culture. As leaven in the world, what we mean by social justice must be allowed the opportunity to make a difference, rather than to accede to the definitions set by the culture around us.

Jim Chabot

June 15th, 2012, 05:40 AM

This thread has divagated into corollaries of accusation of my being “disgruntled.” This is a blatant misreading of the intent of the original thread. Nevertheless, let me attempt to bring some closure:

1. The first issue seems to be whether “coaching” and “banning” are synonymous in this context. This could only be determined by the existing “power distance” that is the context in which each is used. When peers coach each other into the preferential use of words, it cannot be compared with the coaching of a subordinate. To coach a subordinate to “not use a term” is IMHO synonymous with a “subtle ban.”

2. Secondly, the inhospitality towards the use of the term “social justice” can only be mitigated by those who use the term to clearly explicate its usage, and to present a justification for its usage. As is evidenced by the attention paid to this thread, “social justice” surely can boast of faithful followers who are as Nazarene as any other who disagrees with such a position.

3. Thirdly, prior to 2008 “social justice” as a term was widely used within the department and such usage was never really met with diffidence by any segment of the Nazarene tribe, at least not with any collective voice. My conclusion, having been deeply immersed in the conversations by those who were on the cutting edge of compassionate ministry, locally and internationally, was that a war was being fought without both parties being in agreement that an impasse had been reached.

4. Fourthly, it seems to me that the usage of the term is being coerced by the political operatives. The onus is on us to “Christianize” the culture. As leaven in the world, what we mean by social justice must be allowed the opportunity to make a difference, rather than to accede to the definitions set by the culture around us.

Thanks for the response Oliver. And you are correct, there have been two conversations going on in this thread with the background conversation rising to the top.

As to the first, I will agree with you that we are to be a peculiar people, we are to Christianize the world, it is not for the world to change us, we have already been changed. I agree wholeheartedly that implicit in our call is the inner urging of the Spirit to seek comfort for those less fortunate. I don't see this as accurately described in the term "social justice" and I take exception to the term as it is not reflective of that which Christ calls us to do.

This doesn't speak to the reason that the use of this term is being discouraged. Perhaps Billy is right, it is possible that the motivation is political in the sense that either the term is considered to be politically charged and thus divisive. And it is also possible that those overseeing our communication sense an offense brought about by usage of this term and they seek a better communication. What I'm not seeing or hearing is that anyone is discouraging the promulgation of our mission toward those less fortunate. I'm not seeing a problem here, rather this appears to be similar to a conversation between children who cannot agree on the term for a particular color of crayon. While they both agree that they like the color, one insists that it is "orange" while the other is sure that it is "burnt sienna." I believe that the urging, coaching, banning or whatever it's called, is a move toward better communication.

As to the side conversation, I will agree that it is not responsive to your initial query, yet this is a valid concern. Your initial post contained a charge levied against the regional director under which you served. Surely it is appropriate to question the inner motivations and interactions which may have led to this, and surely it is appropriate to discuss the validity of your claim. Personally I think that your claim distracts from the conversation, yet you were the one who introduced it into the mix. Yes, you indicated that your superior made policy to which you disagree, and you have made this claim public. You are disgruntled, you have said so yourself. As to the conversation regarding whether a superior should "coach" someone with authority, yes absolutely. The charge and responsibility of communication rests with the superior and not with the subordinate.

Rich Schmidt

June 15th, 2012, 07:12 AM

Your initial post contained a charge levied against the regional director under which you served. Surely it is appropriate to question the inner motivations and interactions which may have led to this, and surely it is appropriate to discuss the validity of your claim. Personally I think that your claim distracts from the conversation, yet you were the one who introduced it into the mix.

It seems to me that his claim/charge/statement that the phrase "social justice" was being discouraged/banned/coached-away in USA/Canada publications was the very heart of what this thread was about: it's what makes the house divided. So I'm not sure how it can distract from the conversation.

Personally, I see no reason to doubt Oliver's "claim," especially as it seems to be confirmed by the regional office itself, in different terms.

I'm sure the conversation about social justice will continue in our USA/Canada publications, just in different terms. For some this will be helpful, while for others it will be discouraging. And life goes on...

Jim Chabot

June 15th, 2012, 08:41 AM

It seems to me that his claim/charge/statement that the phrase "social justice" was being discouraged/banned/coached-away in USA/Canada publications was the very heart of what this thread was about: it's what makes the house divided. So I'm not sure how it can distract from the conversation.

Personally, I see no reason to doubt Oliver's "claim," especially as it seems to be confirmed by the regional office itself, in different terms.

I'm sure the conversation about social justice will continue in our USA/Canada publications, just in different terms. For some this will be helpful, while for others it will be discouraging. And life goes on...

Sorry, I should have been clearer. This was a specific charge, given against a specific individual. Thus there are two conversations, the primary being that concerning the appropriateness of the phrase in common usage. The second conversation brought on by the specificity of the charge goes toward speculation regardind banning or coaching. This conversation is, as Oliver has suggested, a distraction from the first.

Paul DeBaufer

June 16th, 2012, 12:39 AM

Gina Stevenson

June 16th, 2012, 02:20 AM

One contronym not seen there is cleave. We read how a man is to leave his parents and cleave (stick close to) his wife, yet we all know, too, what the kitchen tool known as a cleaver does ... just the opposite, cleaving asunder the chicken from its head!

Wes Smith

June 18th, 2012, 02:00 AM

This thread has divagated into corollaries of accusation of my being “disgruntled.” This is a blatant misreading of the intent of the original thread. Nevertheless, let me attempt to bring some closure:

“Blatant misreading?” The author, obviously, knows what he was trying to say. However, if the readers have a different estimation, there is still some “perception is reality” involved. Not sure that labeling divagations into corollaries of accusation of being “disgruntled” as a misreading is going to suffice!

1. The first issue seems to be whether “coaching” and “banning” are synonymous in this context. This could only be determined by the existing “power distance” that is the context in which each is used. When peers coach each other into the preferential use of words, it cannot be compared with the coaching of a subordinate. To coach a subordinate to “not use a term” is IMHO synonymous with a “subtle ban.”

If “coaching” and “banning” are synonymous in this, or any, context, we are going to have to do some serious tweaking of the English language. Label it whatever, but “coaching” has never been and never will be “banning.” It is that simple. Any reading of your concerns in this regard revolves tightly around the issue of “banning” and yet we have a list of words/phrases from Dr. Broadbooks that could be used as synonyms for “social justice.” If a subordinate cannot get on with “coaching” and sees it as a “subtle ban” and chooses not to comply there are limited possible outcomes. One is to talk through the issue and come to agreement with the superior issuing the statement.

2. Secondly, the inhospitality towards the use of the term “social justice” can only be mitigated by those who use the term to clearly explicate its usage, and to present a justification for its usage. As is evidenced by the attention paid to this thread, “social justice” surely can boast of faithful followers who are as Nazarene as any other who disagrees with such a position.

I’m usually pretty good at understanding what I read. Your first sentence doesn’t make sense to me. If it is important for me to understand, could you re-state it for me? (Why would those inhospitable to the phrase…”present a justification for its usage?”)

Regarding the second sentence, no one has said there are not “faithful followers” of your understanding of “social justice.” The concept of “coaching” stems for the “others who disagree.” That seems obvious, however you seem to suggest that use of the phrase should not be coached even though there are, in your words, “others who disagree with such a position.” To be clear, are you suggesting that no “coaching” is needed just because you side with the “faithful followers” you referenced?

3. Thirdly, prior to 2008 “social justice” as a term was widely used within the department and such usage was never really met with diffidence by any segment of the Nazarene tribe, at least not with any collective voice. My conclusion, having been deeply immersed in the conversations by those who were on the cutting edge of compassionate ministry, locally and internationally, was that a war was being fought without both parties being in agreement that an impasse had been reached.

I have a dear friend who is rather famous in certain circles for the use of the phrase, “It is what it is.” So, because there was a shift in the understanding of “social justice” in 2008 (as you say) should we just go on like nothing happened? Instead of “coaching” to deal with “what is,” the better route would be to “ban” the words/phrases that Dr. Broadbooks has suggested? As I see it, “coaching” results in win/win. Going back to your pre-2008 world would result in win/lose. Doesn’t that seem obvious?

4. Fourthly, it seems to me that the usage of the term is being coerced by the political operatives. The onus is on us to “Christianize” the culture. As leaven in the world, what we mean by social justice must be allowed the opportunity to make a difference, rather than to accede to the definitions set by the culture around us.

Fine. But could you be generous enough to admit that “political operatives” operate throughout the entire political spectrum? It is possible, I think, that the “onus” for us would be to take a foot and pat out the line in the sand in order to work together for the common good. If social justice must be performed under that phrase/term in order to actually be “social justice,” I doubt we will see as much Christianizing of the culture as we would like. On the other hand, who cares what it is called as long as it reaches hurting people with our love and with the love of Jesus Christ?
I keep reading that there is something “we mean by social justice,” but nothing follows. Please do me and, I think, us all, a favor and get that definition on the table.
Friend,
Wes

Jim Chabot

June 18th, 2012, 05:09 AM

2. Secondly, the inhospitality towards the use of the term “social justice” can only be mitigated by those who use the term to clearly explicate its usage, and to present a justification for its usage. As is evidenced by the attention paid to this thread, “social justice” surely can boast of faithful followers who are as Nazarene as any other who disagrees with such a position.

I’m usually pretty good at understanding what I read. Your first sentence doesn’t make sense to me. If it is important for me to understand, could you re-state it for me? (Why would those inhospitable to the phrase…”present a justification for its usage?”)

Regarding the second sentence, no one has said there are not “faithful followers” of your understanding of “social justice.” The concept of “coaching” stems for the “others who disagree.” That seems obvious, however you seem to suggest that use of the phrase should not be coached even though there are, in your words, “others who disagree with such a position.” To be clear, are you suggesting that no “coaching” is needed just because you side with the “faithful followers” you referenced?

Wes; this paragraph didn't jump out at me until I read your point by point analysis. I am seeing a problem here and it's a big one, I think. To say that the only cure is to properly explain the term and to educate indicates a certain blindness. I've read and followed this thread and I have listened to those who would properly explicate this term. And I've come out just a little stronger in opposition to the term. This isn't a very good term at all, it's more of a class warfare and disharmonious buzzword than it is anything else, and I don't see it as biblical in origin and import either. Thus education isn't the answer at all.

We are called to mercy rather than justice. And yes mercy is actually justice, so there should be no issue and no resistance to the use of the term "mercy" as primary in our message. Yet there are times when justice is simply that, mercy isn't either primary nor is it contemplated. I'm getting the impression that those who insist upon promulgating the term "social justice" aren't primarily concerned with mercy, and I'm out.

Oliver Phillips

June 18th, 2012, 05:34 AM

I keep reading that there is something “we mean by social justice,” but nothing follows. Please do me and, I think, us all, a favor and get that definition on the table.
Friend,
Wes[/COLOR]

Let me attempt to define social justice by the use of a three-step progression as was employed by Kevin Blue, author of Practical Justice.
1. Compassion is the alleviating of the pain caused by “in-justice” in our world. The evangelical church has heartily endorsed and embraced this response through ministries of mercy like soup kitchens, homeless shelters, food pantries, etc. Compassion, therefore, is something we do “for” others.

2. Justice, contrary to compassion, asks the question “why.” Compassion deals with the effects of injustice; justice is a response to the structures that are responsible for the injustice in the first place. Compassion places a Band-Aid over the wound; justice addresses the disease that caused the wound to fester. Justice is done “with” others to bring about systemic change.

3. Social justice is the collective response of a people to deal with the structural and systemic power bases that perpetuate in-justice. Compassion could be likened to feeding someone a fish because he or she is hungry. Social justice is the engagement with the power structures to help that someone fish in a healthy and equitable environment. Social justice means fixing the pond.

In 1 Corinthians 12 we learn that when one member suffers, all suffer. There is, I believe, no clearer case to be made for social justice than the treatment of Native Americans. Compassion leads us to address the poverty issues caused by centuries of injustice to a people. We readily do acts of compassion for the Native peoples; social justice calls us into a deeper response like advocating and working towards political sovereignty, economic development, constitutional reform, cultural and language maintenance and promotion, land and water rights, religious freedom, health and social welfare, and education."

Jim Chabot

June 18th, 2012, 06:48 AM

2. Justice, contrary to compassion, asks the question “why.” Compassion deals with the effects of injustice; justice is a response to the structures that are responsible for the injustice in the first place. Compassion places a Band-Aid over the wound; justice addresses the disease that caused the wound to fester. Justice is done “with” others to bring about systemic change.

3. Social justice is the collective response of a people to deal with the structural and systemic power bases that perpetuate in-justice. Compassion could be likened to feeding someone a fish because he or she is hungry. Social justice is the engagement with the power structures to help that someone fish in a healthy and equitable environment. Social justice means fixing the pond.

And herein lies the problem Oliver. This has little to do with living and acting out our faith in this world. This is simply left wing politics, nothing more, political activism has no place in the church.

I'm all in favor of teaching folks how to swim, I'm in favor of swimming beside them. Don't tell me the pond is broken, for while I will agree that it is broken, our "solutions" will look radically different because this is nothing more than politics.

Wes Smith

June 18th, 2012, 07:25 AM

Let me attempt to define social justice by the use of a three-step progression as was employed by Kevin Blue, author of Practical Justice.
1. Compassion is the alleviating of the pain caused by “in-justice” in our world. The evangelical church has heartily endorsed and embraced this response through ministries of mercy like soup kitchens, homeless shelters, food pantries, etc. Compassion, therefore, is something we do “for” others.

2. Justice, contrary to compassion, asks the question “why.” Compassion deals with the effects of injustice; justice is a response to the structures that are responsible for the injustice in the first place. Compassion places a Band-Aid over the wound; justice addresses the disease that caused the wound to fester. Justice is done “with” others to bring about systemic change.

3. Social justice is the collective response of a people to deal with the structural and systemic power bases that perpetuate in-justice. Compassion could be likened to feeding someone a fish because he or she is hungry. Social justice is the engagement with the power structures to help that someone fish in a healthy and equitable environment. Social justice means fixing the pond.

In 1 Corinthians 12 we learn that when one member suffers, all suffer. There is, I believe, no clearer case to be made for social justice than the treatment of Native Americans. Compassion leads us to address the poverty issues caused by centuries of injustice to a people. We readily do acts of compassion for the Native peoples; social justice calls us into a deeper response like advocating and working towards political sovereignty, economic development, constitutional reform, cultural and language maintenance and promotion, land and water rights, religious freedom, health and social welfare, and education."

Oliver,

Perhaps you are assuming some things that I do not see in your definition?

"Dealing with structural and systemic power bases that perpetrate in-justice," "engaging with the power basis to help someone fish in a healthy and equitable environment," and "fixing the pond."

Not one word about "fixing the person."

The treatment of American Indians has been of great interest to me since my first nine years of life were spent living next door to the Rosebud Reservation in South Dakota.

Kevin's three foci in point #3 nearly perfectly describe the US government fix for the American Indian tragedy. My observation is that entitlement estabishment and enforcement has destroyed nearly an entire Race of people.

There are some tribes that have emphasized personal responsibility and people in those tribes have prospered and flourished, but all-in-all I do not think there is a better example of the failure of a particular definition of "social justice," than in this case, Kevin Blue's, when applied to the plight of the American Indian.

Add in a statement about "fixing the person" and I (speaking for NO ONE else), I have some interest. Leave out such a statement and I have no interest whatsoever in that process/journey. It has already and profoundly demonstrated excellence in the expertise of can kicking.

Now, I'm not sure what outcome we are supposed to have with this thread. As for me, I think I have responded as much as I want to about the assumptions in your original post. If there is interest in working on a definition of "social justice," count me in.

Friend,

Wes

Rich Schmidt

June 18th, 2012, 09:34 AM

And herein lies the problem Oliver. This has little to do with living and acting out our faith in this world. This is simply left wing politics, nothing more, political activism has no place in the church.

I'm all in favor of teaching folks how to swim, I'm in favor of swimming beside them. Don't tell me the pond is broken, for while I will agree that it is broken, our "solutions" will look radically different because this is nothing more than politics.

Just for the record, I see nothing in Oliver's post (especially the part you quoted) that has to do with "left wing politics." Yet you see it as nothing more than that.

Interesting that we can see things so very differently.

Billy Cox

June 18th, 2012, 09:58 AM

...political activism has no place in the church.

Heh... unless that political activism involves political opposition to abortion and gay marriage?

Wes Smith

June 18th, 2012, 11:00 AM

Just for the record, I see nothing in Oliver's post (especially the part you quoted) that has to do with "left wing politics." Yet you see it as nothing more than that.

Interesting that we can see things so very differently.

Rich,

I'd say, then, "herein lies the problem" that folks cannot see politics from one end to other permeated with passion regarding this issue.

The heart of my concern about the issue at the heart of this thread (social justice) is that people cannot see and will not try to see what other people clearly see.

IF, we want to stick with a worn out definition of "social justice," those who see it differently will lose. If we want to replace that definition and ignore it entirely, those who see it that way will lose. The only way I see us coming to any meaningful collaboration for "social justice" or whatever folks want to call it, is to begin at the point where we admit that we are now quite a diverse group, but every serious, proactive student of human salvation has something valuable to offer. Let us concern ourselves much more about getting the job done and much less about the terminology of the process.

Friend,

Wes

Rich Schmidt

June 18th, 2012, 11:40 AM

I'd say, then, "herein lies the problem" that folks cannot see politics from one end to other permeated with passion regarding this issue.

I can see how it looks like left-wing politics to someone committed to right-wing politics. But as Billy's post mentions, if we agree with it then it's "living out our faith." If we disagree with it, then it's "political activism, nothing more."

Wes Smith

June 18th, 2012, 11:46 AM

David Stevens

June 18th, 2012, 11:13 PM

My heart is aching right now. After reading a few weeks of comment and debate in one sitting, my reaction is, "What a waste of bandwidth and time!" My heart is aching because I live and minister in a region where the Native Americans live. I witness daily the plight of the young African Americans in a nearby city. Many of them live defeated, sin-enslaved lives. I pray for them. I reach out to them when I can. I preach from the context of scripture what our attitude and our action should be. Though my wife and I live at the poverty level ourselves, we give what we can to the poor. We need a solution for them. However, the solution will not come through social programs, politics, legislation, or litigation.

I wrote several paragraphs in response. Just deleted them. I submit to you that some of you have arrived at the conclusion I stated earlier. The only way to solve the problem is to make true disciples of Jesus Christ. As it was stated, "Fix the person."

The real solution cannot be reached with legislative or judicial action. Having a clear definition of "Social Justice" will have no more effect on the culture of the USA than any of the other articles in our Manual. Becoming politically active will not solve the problem. Just ask the Catholics. Becoming more socially active, feeding and clothing and etc, will not have a long-lasting influence if it is not a pathway to becoming a holy follower of Jesus Christ. Just ask the Methodists. "Fix the person."

If we allow anything to distract us from the mandate of the Master, it will cause us to waiver from the Plan of God. Go and make disciples and then teach them everything. A Spirit-filled disciple will reach out to the lost people around him or her. She or he will come alongside them and do whatever is possible to lift them up from their fallen condition and their sad situation. There is your social justice. "Fix the person."

In the same way that we Nazarenes have really forced ourselves to give up some old, much loved terminology; I suggest that this term should also be relegated to classrooms. Unless by its use someone can be saved and sanctified, another term should be found.

"I am, and always shall be, your friend."
David

Oliver Phillips

June 19th, 2012, 03:53 AM

If we allow anything to distract us from the mandate of the Master, it will cause us to waiver from the Plan of God. Go and make disciples and then teach them everything. A Spirit-filled disciple will reach out to the lost people around him or her. She or he will come alongside them and do whatever is possible to lift them up from their fallen condition and their sad situation. There is your social justice. "Fix the person."

"I am, and always shall be, your friend."
David

Dave, I really admire your passion for the proclamation of the Gospel. It is what we need more than anything else. You seem, however, to conclude that the “only” solution to the malady that afflicts us is to “fix the person.” This, IMHO, is to be devoid of the other mandates that we find demonstrated by John Wesley, by the prophets, and by Christ. We must also attend to the physical, political, systemic, and structural artifacts that affect the quality of life.

John Wesley – in his discourse about the Sermon on the Mount, he stated, “performing our duty to God will not excuse us from our duty to our neighbor: that works of piety, as they are called, will be so far from commending us to God, if we are wanting in charity, that, on the contrary, that want of charity will make all those works an abomination to the Lord.” To Wesley, faith and works were always inseparable; but the evidence of authentic faith was works of mercy. He consistently taught his followers to “be more zealous for works of mercy, than even for works of piety.” If it had to be either one or the other, Wesley's choice was unmistakable: “works of mercy are to be preferred. Even reading, hearing, prayer, are to be omitted, or to be postponed, ‘at charity's almighty call,’ when we are called to relieve the distress of our neighbor, whether in body or soul.”

The Prophets – they were insistent on God’s command for just relationships within society. Amos insisted, “They sell the righteous for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals – they… trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth.” Amos 2:6,7. To Amos, religious ceremonies were pointless and dishonest without justice. (5:21-24).
Micah laid the mistreatment of the poor at the feet of the rulers: “You who hate the good and love the evil, who tear the skin off my people, and the flesh off their bones; who eat the flesh of my people, flay their skin off them, break their bones in pieces, and chop them up like meat in a kettle, like flesh in a cauldron.” Micah 3:2-4. His classic response is well known, “He has told you … what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? 6:6-8

Jesus – In the liberation passage found in Luke 4:16-21, it is clear that Luke depicted Jesus’ ministry to be the fulfillment of God’s concern to alter the physical conditions of the people of Israel. When John the Baptist (Luke 7:18-23) sent messengers to Jesus for validation of his messiahship, Jesus’ response is interesting, “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news brought to them. And blessed is anyone who takes offense at me.” And, of course, the pronouncement of Matthew 25 is condemning of “us” who refuse to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the imprisoned, and give water to the thirsty. It is by so doing that we bring “Good News” to others.

In the words of Francis of Assisi, “Preach at all times, using words whenever necessary.”

Jim Chabot

June 19th, 2012, 05:58 AM

Heh... unless that political activism involves political opposition to abortion and gay marriage?

So tell me Billy. You think that we should go along, you see abortion and gay marriage as no big deal? You would preach that either one is ok, a matter of personal preference?

Is the killing of an innocent unborn child sinful, or is it not? Is same sex marriage sinful or is it not? If you can show how these things are not sinful, if you can show that our acceptance of these practices are not a stench that reaches God's nostril and brings real tears to His eyes, then go for it, I'll listen. But if your not willing, or your not of the persuasion that would declare that these things are good, then do me a favor and knock it off.

On the other hand, I will confidently say that "social justice" is not Christian, not even close. There is not one bit of scripture that would say that "justice" is the goal of our compassion. There is not one bit of scripture that would indicate that we should seek to compel folks to be compassionate. Not one bit, never mind the whole counsel!

Perhaps I was careless when I made the statement that political activism has no place in the church. I do believe that the activism demonstrated by Wesley and Bresee do have a place, theirs was an activism to which we can be proud. Those who speak up against sin are activists we can be proud to stand alongside. "Social Justice?" Justice? Really?

Jon Bemis

June 19th, 2012, 06:03 AM

Just ran across this article from The Oxford Dictionaries about Janus words (http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/06/contronyms/). Thought of "social justice" which seems is a Janus phrase.

I should have known an ancient power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus) is behind all this. :smilies0723:

Jim Chabot

June 19th, 2012, 06:05 AM

Jim Chabot

June 19th, 2012, 06:10 AM

Rich,

I'm not arguing left, right, middle "politics." It seems to me that every conceivable piece of politics has its own prejudice concerning "social justice!"

Going back to Oliver's post/point, "The onus is on us to “Christianize” the culture. As leaven in the world, what we mean by social justice must be allowed the opportunity to make a difference, rather than to accede to the definitions set by the culture around us." That is a statement with which I agree, unless of course, someone comes back with mindless entitlements.

Friend,

Wes

Same here Wes, this is agreeable to me as well, yet the while the mindless entitlements are not contemplated in this statement, they are here nevertheless.

3. Social justice is the collective response of a people to deal with the structural and systemic power bases that perpetuate in-justice. Compassion could be likened to feeding someone a fish because he or she is hungry. Social justice is the engagement with the power structures to help that someone fish in a healthy and equitable environment. Social justice means fixing the pond.

In 1 Corinthians 12 we learn that when one member suffers, all suffer. There is, I believe, no clearer case to be made for social justice than the treatment of Native Americans. Compassion leads us to address the poverty issues caused by centuries of injustice to a people. We readily do acts of compassion for the Native peoples; social justice calls us into a deeper response like advocating and working towards political sovereignty, economic development, constitutional reform, cultural and language maintenance and promotion, land and water rights, religious freedom, health and social welfare, and education."

Dwayne Petry

June 19th, 2012, 07:44 AM

Because we cannot "fix the person", (that is the work of the Holy Spirit, after being drawn by the Father to the sin cleansing blood of Jesus Christ), we must allow our "works" to be used by GOD to draw the lost to the "fix the person" miracle. The "works" are the relational Christian compassion taught by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, not the work of some career politician or bureaucrat trying to achieve a political objective.

Wes Smith

June 19th, 2012, 07:59 AM

Dave, I really admire your passion for the proclamation of the Gospel. It is what we need more than anything else. You seem, however, to conclude that the “only” solution to the malady that afflicts us is to “fix the person.” This, IMHO, is to be devoid of the other mandates that we find demonstrated by John Wesley, by the prophets, and by Christ. We must also attend to the physical, political, systemic, and structural artifacts that affect the quality of life.

John Wesley – in his discourse about the Sermon on the Mount, he stated, “performing our duty to God will not excuse us from our duty to our neighbor: that works of piety, as they are called, will be so far from commending us to God, if we are wanting in charity, that, on the contrary, that want of charity will make all those works an abomination to the Lord.” To Wesley, faith and works were always inseparable; but the evidence of authentic faith was works of mercy. He consistently taught his followers to “be more zealous for works of mercy, than even for works of piety.” If it had to be either one or the other, Wesley's choice was unmistakable: “works of mercy are to be preferred. Even reading, hearing, prayer, are to be omitted, or to be postponed, ‘at charity's almighty call,’ when we are called to relieve the distress of our neighbor, whether in body or soul.”

The Prophets – they were insistent on God’s command for just relationships within society. Amos insisted, “They sell the righteous for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals – they… trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth.” Amos 2:6,7. To Amos, religious ceremonies were pointless and dishonest without justice. (5:21-24).
Micah laid the mistreatment of the poor at the feet of the rulers: “You who hate the good and love the evil, who tear the skin off my people, and the flesh off their bones; who eat the flesh of my people, flay their skin off them, break their bones in pieces, and chop them up like meat in a kettle, like flesh in a cauldron.” Micah 3:2-4. His classic response is well known, “He has told you … what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? 6:6-8

Jesus – In the liberation passage found in Luke 4:16-21, it is clear that Luke depicted Jesus’ ministry to be the fulfillment of God’s concern to alter the physical conditions of the people of Israel. When John the Baptist (Luke 7:18-23) sent messengers to Jesus for validation of his messiahship, Jesus’ response is interesting, “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news brought to them. And blessed is anyone who takes offense at me.” And, of course, the pronouncement of Matthew 25 is condemning of “us” who refuse to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the imprisoned, and give water to the thirsty. It is by so doing that we bring “Good News” to others.

In the words of Francis of Assisi, “Preach at all times, using words whenever necessary.”

Oliver,

There was good thought put into your 3 references to John Wesley, OT prophets and Jesus. Thank you. I am not in disagreement with any of them. If I am, I am wrong and they are right.

However, your premise is pretty well laid out in your personal paragraph to David and really speaks to the heart of my concern with your first post and pretty much all the way through. With you it seems to be an either/or proposition. In this case you throw David out with your spiritual justice bath. There he is neck deep in doing what it seems to me that you are campaigning for and instead of an undiluted compliment, a lecture is given.

Our denomination, (and Christianity in North America) and I speak this from a total personal standpoint, is pretty much dead in the water. Dead in the water not because we lack what I'm confident you would label as "social justice", or, at least, related activities. We have more churches and more people involved in Matt. 25 activities than ever before due to such books as "Radical" and "The Hole In The Gospel." The issue is, again the way I see it, ANYONE can practice that which seems to be at the heart of that for which your are advocating: "Social justice is the collective response of a people to deal with the structural and systemic power bases that perpetuate in-justice. Compassion could be likened to feeding someone a fish because he or she is hungry. Social justice is the engagement with the power structures to help that someone fish in a healthy and equitable environment. Social justice means fixing the pond."

On the other hand, we are also called to proclamation. This is not either/or. This is clearly both/and. ONLY followers of the robed and sandaled One can proclaim the Kingdom. We have always suffered in this regard, only a few people have "used words" to exalt Jesus Christ as Son of the Living God, Savior and Lord. But now many people who seem to be somewhat at the forefront of our movement are cautioning those who might proclaim if they were encouraged, to... proclaim without words. No wonder we are dead and listing/leaning. We brag on nearly everything else in life (brand of car, kind of dog, sports teams, fashion, technology), why not some outright bragging, proclaiming, marketing Jesus?

Let me ask you, what would have happened on the Day of Pentecost if Peter had not proclaimed, "Act 2:14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say.
Act 2:15 These people are not drunk, as you suppose. It's only nine in the morning!
Act 2:16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
Act 2:17 "'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.
Act 2:18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.
Act 2:19 I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and billows of smoke.
Act 2:20 The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
Act 2:21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'
Act 2:22 "Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
Act 2:23 This man was handed over to you by God's deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.
Act 2:24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him."?

I can see Peter, if inflicted with the non-proclamation syndrome, saying something like, "Well there you have it. We'd prefer not to 'use words' here. Anyone who has questions should just follow us around. Our deeds will give you somewhat of a clue. In the meantime, meeting is over. Go on home. You are dismissed." Who in their wildest imagination believes that 3000 precious lives would have received Christ and been baptised had not Peter seized the proclamation moment?

Social justice? Yes! Acts of compassion and mercy? Yes! Sanctified scheming leading to intentionally pulling in the gospel net? Absolutely. This is not either/or. It is both/and. If our generation and the ones to come do not get a grip on both/and, we will most assuredly become a mere asterick in the new millenium history books. How sad! With all of our modern advantages? I'd say we are in danger of not hearing "well done" not because we didn't pay attention to Matt. 25, but because we failed to "know the times" and take advantage of the awesome proclamation/Matt. 25 moments.

Friend,

Wes

David Stevens

June 19th, 2012, 10:11 AM

Brother Phillips,
As "one of the least" of the workers in the COTN I appreciate that you would reply to me. I will stand by my statement.
When a person is filled with and following the lead of the Lord Holy Spirit, he or she will fulfill all of these things which you quote.

I wish to make note for everyone here that the quote by Assisi may not be accurate. It is something that he might have said, but probably did not. If anyone has a valid source for this quote, I wish to see it.

david

David Stevens

June 19th, 2012, 10:13 AM

Ryan Pugh

June 19th, 2012, 10:17 AM

I wish to make note for everyone here that the quote by Assisi may not be accurate. It is something that he might have said, but probably did not. If anyone has a valid source for this quote, I wish to see it.

His life is the source. That's kinda the point.

Paul DeBaufer

June 19th, 2012, 10:31 AM

You are talking about compassion here, as opposed to justice. None of this is in dispute, I believe that everyone participating in thread would be right behind you here Oliver.

But you are sidestepping. David's post was in response to your call for justice regarding what you describe as systemic evil. The complaint was in regard to the orange, your reply describes an apple. Can you not see the difference here?

I think the Micah passage speaks directly to doing justice as well as speaks to systemic evil. I don't think that Oliver is doing apples and oranges at all. I think that a false dichotomy that is being applied here. I don't think that we can "fix" the person without doing something about the systems that lead to her situation. Of course we cannot fix the systems (dismantle and rebuild) and not work on "fixing" the person. That would simply result in reestabishment of the same old broken and evil systems. It's a holistic thing. But I do not look to political processes to accomplish anything except for more of the same ol' stuff & nonsense, oppression.

Jim Chabot

June 19th, 2012, 10:41 AM

I think the Micah passage speaks directly to doing justice as well as speaks to systemic evil. I don't think that Oliver is doing apples and oranges at all. I think that a false dichotomy that is being applied here. I don't think that we can "fix" the person without doing something about the systems that lead to her situation. Of course we cannot fix the systems (dismantle and rebuild) and not work on "fixing" the person. That would simply result in reestabishment of the same old broken and evil systems. It's a holistic thing. But I do not look to political processes to accomplish anything except for more of the same ol' stuff & nonsense, oppression.

What Oliver is promoting here is exactly what has decimated Native American and African American society in this country. The "fixes" envisioned to mitigate the illusory descriptor explicated as "systemic evil" are in and of themselves far worse than the imaginary problem said to be in need of help.

At present our minority populances are generally described as needy in some form or another. Yet the "system" provides advantage to these folks in many ways. Oliver appears to favor more advantage as opposed to equality, we have enough history to show this to be regressive. We are called to compassion, I don't believe that we are called to perpetuate slavery disguised in the form of advantage and handouts.

David Stevens

June 19th, 2012, 10:59 AM

No offense, Ryan.
I am just uncomfortable quoting things as truth when they are fabrications. Those who criticize Christians use that kind of thing to feel that they are justified in their criticism. Frances of Assisi was an admirable man.

Paul DeBaufer

June 19th, 2012, 11:01 AM

What Oliver is promoting here is exactly what has decimated Native American and African American society in this country. The "fixes" envisioned to mitigate the illusory descriptor explicated as "systemic evil" are in and of themselves far worse than the imaginary problem said to be in need of help.

At present our minority populances are generally described as needy in some form or another. Yet the "system" provides advantage to these folks in many ways. Oliver appears to favor more advantage as opposed to equality, we have enough history to show this to be regressive. We are called to compassion, I don't believe that we are called to perpetuate slavery disguised in the form of advantage and handouts.

I do not see in Oliver's posts that which you see. I do not see him wanting any greater advantage for minorities. Handouts are not what social justice is about. It is about changing the playing field, it is about Kingdom values over empire values. It requires changing hearts and minds of those within and without the traditionally marginalized communities. Not the haves giving to the have-nots, you are right that perpetrates oppression.

I do see an underlying, probably unconscious, thread of the privileged not wanting to give up any advantage so that it can be distributed evenly and fairly. I am not necessarily talking about material advantage, but potential. There seems to be a reluctance to leveling the playing field for all and instead a blaming the disenfranchised for their being in the margins. It is quite clear in looking at only the one side of the coin, "'Fix' the person".

Narrow focus on either side of this coin, "'Fix' the person" or rebuild the system, without consideration of the other is doomed to failure and is divisive. As it is one thing we need both simultaneously, one is not more important than the other, both as of paramount importance. Matter of fact I do not think you can have one without the other and call it good deeds.

Wes Smith

June 19th, 2012, 11:27 AM

His life is the source. That's kinda the point.

Ryan,

Weak. Really weak.

Friend,

Wes

Ryan Pugh

June 19th, 2012, 05:58 PM

Ryan,

Weak. Really weak.

Friend,

Wes

What? Why?

Jim Chabot

June 19th, 2012, 06:18 PM

I do not see in Oliver's posts that which you see. I do not see him wanting any greater advantage for minorities. Handouts are not what social justice is about. It is about changing the playing field, it is about Kingdom values over empire values. It requires changing hearts and minds of those within and without the traditionally marginalized communities. Not the haves giving to the have-nots, you are right that perpetrates oppression.

You're right we do appear to be seeing something different. I will say that in the beginning my objection was to the term alone, not to "social justice" itself. But I've been educated somewhat by Oliver's view. Now I must say that I'm just plain opposed to "social justice" in toto as revealed by Oliver. He is looking for some to have advantage over others and he says so in his reference to Native Americans. My read is that he is advocating for their sovereignty while at the same time advocating for material support.

There is, I believe, no clearer case to be made for social justice than the treatment of Native Americans. Compassion leads us to address the poverty issues caused by centuries of injustice to a people. We readily do acts of compassion for the Native peoples; social justice calls us into a deeper response like advocating and working towards political sovereignty, economic development, constitutional reform, cultural and language maintenance and promotion, land and water rights, religious freedom, health and social welfare, and education."

This is what I'm reading here;

Political sovereignty= Just what it says, they should have the right of self determination and self governance. They become a separate and foreign nation.

Economic development= Realize that this is listed among things that "we" should be doing. In my mind, you're either sovereign or you ain't. Giving the right of self determination and support is giving advantage.

Constitutional reform= I've gotta admit that I have no clue here. Again, your either sovereign or you ain't.

Cultural and language maintenance and promotion= Again realize that this is listed among things that "we" should do. While this is giving advantage it also qualifies as molly coddling.

Land and Water Rights=These come with sovereignty.

Religious Freedom=I suppose that would be up to them if they are a sovereign nation. Big advantage if you ask me. The Catholics have to kiss the ring on birth control funding and the Indians get to sit around and smoke peyote.:smilies0717:

Health and social welfare, and education.=Keep the checks rollin in baby!

Bottom line is that we give these people complete freedom and also support them so that their freedom is without consequence. Can you spell spoiled little rich kid here?

I do see an underlying, probably unconscious, thread of the privileged not wanting to give up any advantage so that it can be distributed evenly and fairly. I am not necessarily talking about material advantage, but potential. There seems to be a reluctance to leveling the playing field for all and instead a blaming the disenfranchised for their being in the margins. It is quite clear in looking at only the one side of the coin, "'Fix' the person".

Privileged? Who would you describe as privileged here? Minorities have the benefit of affirmative action, they are privileged regarding opportunity. Minorities get preferred hiring status on State contracts out here, they are privileged. Luckily there is a workaround because women are considered minorities, so you make your wife the head of the corporation and presto, your a minority contractor. Where was I? Oh yeah privilege. If we are going to level the playing field then we need to remove privilege. Mr. Social Engineer, tear down that wall!

Rich Schmidt

June 19th, 2012, 06:28 PM

Oliver,

There was good thought put into your 3 references to John Wesley, OT prophets and Jesus. Thank you. I am not in disagreement with any of them. If I am, I am wrong and they are right.

However, your premise is pretty well laid out in your personal paragraph to David and really speaks to the heart of my concern with your first post and pretty much all the way through. With you it seems to be an either/or proposition. In this case you throw David out with your spiritual justice bath. There he is neck deep in doing what it seems to me that you are campaigning for and instead of an undiluted compliment, a lecture is given.

I think you're reading Oliver's post exactly backwards, Wes. He's clearly describing a both/and approach, responding to what he sees as an either/or approach in David's post. In fact, reading the part you highlighted again, I'm hard pressed to understand how you managed to read it as an either/or that falls to your critique of "non-proclamation syndrome."

Wes Smith

June 19th, 2012, 06:34 PM

I think you're reading Oliver's post exactly backwards, Wes. He's clearly describing a both/and approach, responding to what he sees as an either/or approach in David's post. In fact, reading the part you highlighted again, I'm hard pressed to understand how you managed to read it as an either/or that falls to your critique of "non-proclamation syndrome."

Rich,

Same to ya buddy!

Did you miss this, "You seem, however, to conclude that the “only” solution to the malady that afflicts us is to “fix the person.”

How is that reading what Oliver is saying backwards? Seems impossible (to me) for anything to be clear-er!

Friend,

Wes

Paul DeBaufer

June 19th, 2012, 07:22 PM

You're right we do appear to be seeing something different. I will say that in the beginning my objection was to the term alone, not to "social justice" itself. But I've been educated somewhat by Oliver's view. Now I must say that I'm just plain opposed to "social justice" in toto as revealed by Oliver. He is looking for some to have advantage over others and he says so in his reference to Native Americans. My read is that he is advocating for their sovereignty while at the same time advocating for material support.

This is what I'm reading here;

Political sovereignty= Just what it says, they should have the right of self determination and self governance. They become a separate and foreign nation.

Economic development= Realize that this is listed among things that "we" should be doing. In my mind, you're either sovereign or you ain't. Giving the right of self determination and support is giving advantage.

Constitutional reform= I've gotta admit that I have no clue here. Again, your either sovereign or you ain't.

Cultural and language maintenance and promotion= Again realize that this is listed among things that "we" should do. While this is giving advantage it also qualifies as molly coddling.

Land and Water Rights=These come with sovereignty.

Religious Freedom=I suppose that would be up to them if they are a sovereign nation. Big advantage if you ask me. The Catholics have to kiss the ring on birth control funding and the Indians get to sit around and smoke peyote.:smilies0717:

Health and social welfare, and education.=Keep the checks rollin in baby!

Bottom line is that we give these people complete freedom and also support them so that their freedom is without consequence. Can you spell spoiled little rich kid here?

Privileged? Who would you describe as privileged here? Minorities have the benefit of affirmative action, they are privileged regarding opportunity. Minorities get preferred hiring status on State contracts out here, they are privileged. Luckily there is a workaround because women are considered minorities, so you make your wife the head of the corporation and presto, your a minority contractor. Where was I? Oh yeah privilege. If we are going to level the playing field then we need to remove privilege. Mr. Social Engineer, tear down that wall!

You have made my point, thank you.

Jim Chabot

June 19th, 2012, 08:24 PM

You have made my point, thank you.

And here I was, thinking that you were taking this conversation seriously. Silly me, my mistake, have a nice day Paul.

Paul DeBaufer

June 19th, 2012, 09:21 PM

And here I was, thinking that you were taking this conversation seriously. Silly me, my mistake, have a nice day Paul.

I was being quite serious.

Jim Chabot

June 19th, 2012, 09:45 PM

I was being quite serious.

Sorry Paul but I'm out. Twice you have become completely disconnected. First you accuse me of constructing a false dichotomy, when it was clearly and explicitly constructed and alliterated by Oliver. Now you say that Oliver is not seeking greater advantage for minorities. I show you clearly where he says this and you then say that I make your point? Nope, not playing the I know you are but what am I game.

Paul DeBaufer

June 19th, 2012, 10:01 PM

Sorry Paul but I'm out. Twice you have become completely disconnected. First you accuse me of constructing a false dichotomy, when it was clearly and explicitly constructed and alliterated by Oliver. Now you say that Oliver is not seeking greater advantage for minorities. I show you clearly where he says this and you then say that I make your point? Nope, not playing the I know you are but what am I game.

I am sorry you feel that I accused you of creating a false dichotomy. I was not making any such accusation. I simply said that I see one being applied. That people, on both sides, tend to be looking at this as a This or That when that is not a good way to look at it. We must work both with individuals, ourselves included, both within and with out the marginalized groups AND work to change the systems that oppress and marginalize. Doing one without doing the other is doomed to failure. Seeing it as one or the other is the false dichotomy. It was created long, long before you or I came along Jim. Again, I am sorry that I led you to believe I attacked you by making an accusation.

My point was that there are people of the privileged classes who, whether consciously or unconsciously, cannot see that they are of privilege. Many of these very same people defend their privilege by denying it and blaming the marginalized. You did just that, thus proving my point.

I chose not to engage how you viewed Oliver's statement because we have agreed that we see it differently. I do not see Oliver promoting special advantage for minorities, you do. Nothing I say will change that so I chose not to engage.

Rich Schmidt

June 19th, 2012, 11:07 PM

Rich,

Same to ya buddy!

Did you miss this, "You seem, however, to conclude that the “only” solution to the malady that afflicts us is to “fix the person.”

How is that reading what Oliver is saying backwards? Seems impossible (to me) for anything to be clear-er!

Friend,

Wes

Nope, I didn't miss it. In that sentence, Oliver is pointing out that David is using an either/or approach. He sees David saying that the "only" solution is the one focused on saving individual souls. If that's the only solution, then it excludes the other.

Oliver then proceeds to describe a both/and approach.

Wes Smith

June 20th, 2012, 03:35 AM

Nope, I didn't miss it. In that sentence, Oliver is pointing out that David is using an either/or approach. He sees David saying that the "only" solution is the one focused on saving individual souls. If that's the only solution, then it excludes the other.

Oliver then proceeds to describe a both/and approach.

Rich,

I didn't interpret David's post the way that Oliver did, "My heart is aching because I live and minister in a region where the Native Americans live. I witness daily the plight of the young African Americans in a nearby city. Many of them live defeated, sin-enslaved lives. I pray for them. I reach out to them when I can. I preach from the context of scripture what our attitude and our action should be. Though my wife and I live at the poverty level ourselves, we give what we can to the poor. We need a solution for them. However, the solution will not come through social programs, politics, legislation, or litigation."

That just seems pretty balanced to me.

Friend,

Wes

Rich Schmidt

June 20th, 2012, 08:01 AM

Rich,

I didn't interpret David's post the way that Oliver did, "My heart is aching because I live and minister in a region where the Native Americans live. I witness daily the plight of the young African Americans in a nearby city. Many of them live defeated, sin-enslaved lives. I pray for them. I reach out to them when I can. I preach from the context of scripture what our attitude and our action should be. Though my wife and I live at the poverty level ourselves, we give what we can to the poor. We need a solution for them. However, the solution will not come through social programs, politics, legislation, or litigation."

That just seems pretty balanced to me.

Friend,

Wes

Perhaps Oliver misinterpreted what David wrote. That's no reason to misinterpret what Oliver said in response. :)

Wes Smith

June 20th, 2012, 01:07 PM

Perhaps Oliver misinterpreted what David wrote. That's no reason to misinterpret what Oliver said in response. :)

Rich,

Thanks for sharing your opinion!

(Do I get brownie points for being nice here?)

Friend,

Wes

David Stevens

June 20th, 2012, 04:56 PM

My answer seems simplistic. And some have observed that it is one sided.
Is it possible to transform the very society without legislating some kind of regulation to insure that people are not taken advantage of? Yes, this is possible, if the leader(s) of the society, the ones who are making and enforcing the laws, are absolutely perfect and infallible.
Socialism has failed not due to flaws in the theory, but due to flaws in the administrators. IMHO socialism has much in common with Christian values. The Church has always taken care of the widows and orphans.The Law of Moses has many items that might be labeled "social justice". It failed to do more than declare everyone guilty. The only long term solution for all mankind is to Make Christ-like Disciples in the Nations, (for lack of a better term).
My assertion that the only real solution is to "fix the person" is actually two-sided. We must "fix" the ones who wield the power, and the ones who need "social justice." Of course only God can do this. And Jesus Christ is the only ruler who will finally sort this problem out. Maranatha.
In the mean time, what can we actually do? I know my answer is like the story of the boy and the starfish. "It made a difference for this one." We are a tiny Church. We cannot steer governments. But we can make a difference for one at a time.

Gentlemen and Ladies, I was not made for all this debating. You all seem to be having a great time. God bless you, and pardon me for horning in. And please do not take offense in my use of the term socialism. It was the best word I have in relation to Social Justice.

"Have mercy upon me, oh God! According to your lovingkindness..."
David