Social justice: A house divided against itself

[Oliver Phillips]

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.

It seems that such a drastic move should demand a referendum of sorts. Such a move from one world mission region only serves to nurture divisiveness in the global family. The term social justice, it was explained, evinces concern by segments of the Nazarene tribe in the United States and Canada.

In no other world area has such a drastic step been taken. The Church of the Nazarene Manual makes reference to the term, but it has been quarantined from official literature from the UCRO department.

• The Manual reference is: 903.19. Value of Children and Youth
“Thus, holistic and transformational ministry to children and their families in every local church will be a priority as evidenced by:
• providing effective and empowering ministries to the whole child—physically, mentally, emotionally, socially, and spiritually;
• articulating Christian positions on current social justice issues that affect children;

• In a Grace and Peace article, (“What Makes a Nazarene a Nazarene”, May 22, 2010, Jeff Barker stated, “Let me just put it out there. As I’ve read, wondered, and reflected . . . I’ve tentatively concluded that part of what makes a Nazarene congregation Nazarene and helps to form “Christlike disciples in the nations” is a shared commitment to holiness, education, social justice and compassionate ministry and being an international church.

• In a Holiness Today, The Ancient-Future Generations, (March/April 2008) Keith Schwanz stated, “Evangelism shifts from a method to a journey as they share life with others moving closer to becoming Jesus followers. Their concern for social justice and environmental issues emerges from their identity in Christ.”

• At Trevecca --- “The J. V. Morsch Center for Social Justice is named in honor of the Rev. James V. Morsch, a former pastor of First Church of the Nazarene in Nashville, a lifelong church leader, and the founder and national volunteer liaison coordinator for Nazarene Disaster Response.”

• At Nazarene Theological Seminary --- “Students for Social Justice (SSJ) is a student organization that exists to be a resource for understanding issues of social justice around our world and in our community. It seeks to engage and implement the holistic message of the gospel in both compassionate practices and theological reflection as Christains seek to extend the love of Christ in the world.”

I hope the day would come soon when we would not be a house divided against itself.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Eventually, there will be a recension, or at least a revision. Probably there's already a reconsideration underway. Sometimes that is accompanied by an "oops."

Also, as recently as yesterday, this blog appeared in Holiness Today.
http://blogs.nazarene.org/holinesstoday/

Oliver is always at the front of new things: HT editors apparently didn't get the memo.

Oh, that's what you meant as a house divided.

[Charles W Christian]

It's time we get real theologians/ethicists dealing with these issues, and not just people who are populists/salespeople seeking to tickle ears of segments of the population.... Wow. Thanks for sharing, Oliver. I am saddened that a Mormon talk show host (Glen Beck) has such influence among our general leadership. Wow....God help us.

CWC

[David Stevens]

I agree. On this and several other issues the COTN remains a 'house divided'. I hope our leadership can move to a moderate position balancing Social Justice issues with all of the other issues that concern the voting membership. I have lately been wondering how long our 'representative' form of government will survive. The current elected representatives do not really represent all of the members around the Globe. It couldn't be helped, we started in the USA/Canada and then joined with those of similar conscience around the world. In a system that requires election, how can we avoid this kind of policy? No elected leader wants to 'ruffle the feathers' of the electorate.
One question: "Did the leadership you mention offer another, more acceptable term or label?"

[Hans Deventer]

Does make one wonder. The prophets of old were rarely appreciated, yet they did speak the word of the Lord. Of course, there were many false prophets as well. Seems our main problem is that we actually don't have a clue what the word of the Lord is for us, and nobody seems to have the authority to decide.

[Cam Pence]

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.

It seems that such a drastic move should demand a referendum of sorts. Such a move from one world mission region only serves to nurture divisiveness in the global family. The term social justice, it was explained, evinces concern by segments of the Nazarene tribe in the United States and Canada.

In no other world area has such a drastic step been taken. The Church of the Nazarene Manual makes reference to the term, but it has been quarantined from official literature from the UCRO department.

• The Manual reference is: 903.19. Value of Children and Youth
“Thus, holistic and transformational ministry to children and their families in every local church will be a priority as evidenced by:
• providing effective and empowering ministries to the whole child—physically, mentally, emotionally, socially, and spiritually;
• articulating Christian positions on current social justice issues that affect children;

• In a Grace and Peace article, (“What Makes a Nazarene a Nazarene”, May 22, 2010, Jeff Barker stated, “Let me just put it out there. As I’ve read, wondered, and reflected . . . I’ve tentatively concluded that part of what makes a Nazarene congregation Nazarene and helps to form “Christlike disciples in the nations” is a shared commitment to holiness, education, social justice and compassionate ministry and being an international church.

• In a Holiness Today, The Ancient-Future Generations, (March/April 2008) Keith Schwanz stated, “Evangelism shifts from a method to a journey as they share life with others moving closer to becoming Jesus followers. Their concern for social justice and environmental issues emerges from their identity in Christ.”

• At Trevecca --- “The J. V. Morsch Center for Social Justice is named in honor of the Rev. James V. Morsch, a former pastor of First Church of the Nazarene in Nashville, a lifelong church leader, and the founder and national volunteer liaison coordinator for Nazarene Disaster Response.”

• At Nazarene Theological Seminary --- “Students for Social Justice (SSJ) is a student organization that exists to be a resource for understanding issues of social justice around our world and in our community. It seeks to engage and implement the holistic message of the gospel in both compassionate practices and theological reflection as Christains seek to extend the love of Christ in the world.”

I hope the day would come soon when we would not be a house divided against itself.

Sad....once again politics take the day.

[John Dahl]

One question: "Did the leadership you mention offer another, more acceptable term or label?"

I think the "more acceptable term or label" is already being used. That label is "disciple of Christ". Being a disciple of Christ covers everything.

The term "social justice", in my opinion, is a politically charged and agenda driven title for a movement to try to balance out wealth distribution according to some third party's ideal.

[Gina Stevenson]

Good question, David (Stevens). Welcome to NazNet, BTW.

[Wilson Deaton]

I think the "more acceptable term or label" is already being used. That label is "disciple of Christ". Being a disciple of Christ covers everything.

While it is certainly and absolutely true that disciples of Christ will practice SOCIAL JUSTICE, the suggestion to replace the term with "disciple of Christ" is just downright silly.

Think of how that would work in other areas:

Statements like this:
As Christians we believe in the sanctity of marriage and also in the sanctity of human life.

Would become:
As Christians we believe in being a disciple of Christ and also in being a disciple of Christ.

Wilson

[Dan Henderson]

I don't think stringing these two words together make a lot of sense. Justice implies in modern language to give someone what they deserve, mostly compulsory. Under Christ, we are freely given gifts, we deserve nothing except death. So I think that for those of us who are rich (that's almost everyone in America) we have a charge from our Lord to care for the poor and the widows. Our social concerns should be coming out of the abundance of our love for one another. I agree with another post that Social Justice is a political term. I think that it implies forcing the wealthy to care for the poor, thus, I don't think it has any place in Christian liturature. An appeal among Christians to compassion is more appropriate than an appeal to justice.

[Dwayne Petry]

So that I may do my own biblical research, could someone please give the bible references for the belief listed below.

"Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution."

I am serious, so please do not snipe at me! I read where Jesus teaches taught me to sell my possessions (rich young ruler lesson) and help the poor, but I missed the biblical teaching that I should take your possessions and give to the poor. I know that their are many on NazNet with more theological education than I, and I would appreciate the scriptural references so that I might better understand this concept of redistribution.

Thanks

Dwayne

[John Dahl]

While it is certainly and absolutely true that disciples of Christ will practice SOCIAL JUSTICE, the suggestion to replace the term with "disciple of Christ" is just downright silly.

Think of how that would work in other areas:

Statements like this:
As Christians we believe in the sanctity of marriage and also in the sanctity of human life.

Would become:
As Christians we believe in being a disciple of Christ and also in being a disciple of Christ.

Wilson

Well then, just as in the examples you cite, a proper definition is vital to the discussion. What defines marriage and what defines life are central to these issues. So what is the definition of social justice? My working definition of social justice is guaranteeing equal protection under the law(rule of law) which would imply equal opportunity, private property rights, and free markets. Since my definition and yours are probably different, this is probably a good reason why this term should be removed from church literature. When up a half of your audience is working off of a different definition it breeds confusion.

As you can now see, by my definition, I'm all for social justice.

[Dennis M. Scott]

So that I may do my own biblical research, could someone please give the bible references for the belief listed below.

"Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution."

I am serious, so please do not snipe at me! I read where Jesus teaches taught me to sell my possessions (rich young ruler lesson) and help the poor, but I missed the biblical teaching that I should take your possessions and give to the poor. I know that their are many on NazNet with more theological education than I, and I would appreciate the scriptural references so that I might better understand this concept of redistribution.

Thanks

Dwayne

I'm a little behind everyone else, but where did this definition originate?

[Craig Laughlin]

I think the real issue here is not social justice itself but the assumption that a denominational leader can exercise the power we have given them to ban the debate itself. Banning the phrase is way over the line in my opinion. I would think both sides could agree on this. The issue is really about exercising power to truncate legitimate debate within our denomination. It flies in the face of both our congregational and compassionate roots. This is especially egregious if it has comes from someone other than the Generals. No one has the right to define our theology by edict.

[Wilson Deaton]

I'm a little behind everyone else, but where did this definition originate?

Dwayne's quote comes from the second paragraph of the Wikipedia article on social justice...

Wilson

[Craig Laughlin]

I posted to the Official Nazarene Facebook page and received the following response.

"We are unaware of any ban on any phrase. Such rumors are usually notoriously unreliable."

http://www.facebook.com/NazareneOfficial/posts/388241084562018?ref=notif&notif_t=feed_comment

Oliver could you provide some more clarity?
I think we need to be careful from this point forward.

[Dan Henderson]

I think the real issue here is not social justice itself but the assumption that a denominational leader can exercise the power we have given them to ban the debate itself. Banning the phrase is way over the line in my opinion. I would think both sides could agree on this. The issue is really about exercising power to truncate legitimate debate within our denomination. It flies in the face of both our congregational and compassionate roots. This is especially egregious if it has comes from someone other than the Generals. No one has the right to define our theology by edict.

Banning phrases and ideas are relatively common. Those in control of the media outlets, including our own, call it editing.

[Dan Henderson]

Selective reporting is also a form of banning words, phrases, and ideas.

[Wilson Deaton]

I think the real issue here is not social justice itself but the assumption that a denominational leader can exercise the power we have given them to ban the debate itself.

Speaking for myself, Craig, the fact that the issue happens to be "social justice" is an important part of this...

Wilson

[Dennis M. Scott]

Dwayne's quote comes from the second paragraph of the Wikipedia article on social justice...

Wilson

Maybe somebody from Wikipedia could best respond to Dwayne's question regarding that specific definition. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not the source of definition of social concern and responsibility as being taught in some Nazarene schools, which have intentionally moved away from such arbitrary terms.

[Craig Laughlin]

Speaking for myself, Craig, the fact that the issue happens to be "social justice" is an important part of this...

Wilson

I agree that our denomination's stance on social justice is important. However for me the larger issue, because it represents the possibility to shut down debate, is the exercising of power to ban the use of words or phrases. These are both important issues but they are distinct.

That being said they have officially stated that this is not the case. If the official response is mistaken I think we need to see some sort of evidence of that. I believe it is possible for such a directive to happen without official approval but until we see more I will give the official page the benefit of the doubt.

[Dan Henderson]

I agree that our denomination's stance on social justice is important. However for me the larger issue, because it represents the possibility to shut down debate, is the exercising of power to ban the use of words or phrases. These are both important issues but they are distinct.

That being said they have officially stated that this is not the case. If the official response is mistaken I think we need to see some sort of evidence of that. I believe it is possible for such a directive to happen without official approval but until we see more I will give the official page the benefit of the doubt.

Going back to the original post, you will note that the writer states he received that directive from the regional director under whom he served. Though it may not be Big Naz official, it was at least, according to this satement, official enough for a director to have made a pronouncement. It could have been that individual director's opinion or a comment heard from a superior then acted upon.

I see this happen in the military all the time. A general will make a small statment like I wonder if we should ... then their underlings will run all around the kingdom proclaiming the general's "will". I think some knights split a priests skull once off such an off-handed comment ....

[Dwayne Petry]

Maybe somebody from Wikipedia could best respond to Dwayne's question regarding that specific definition. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not the source of definition of social concern and responsibility as being taught in some Nazarene schools, which have intentionally moved away from such arbitrary terms.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that most people associate social justice with the above definition. I believe that is the definition that President Obama believes, which means that at least 45% of the citizens believe it. That is the problem with words having many meanings, we have difficulty communicating among ourselves. If 65% of people think social justice means the Wikipedia definition and 35% think that it is the CotN definition (what ever that is), all we have is confusion and misunderstanding. If I talk about marriage (with the age old meaning) or assault weapon (not the semi automatic military style) and someone applies the current media definition to the conversation, again, all we have is confusion and misunderstanding.

Words mean something.

What then is the definition of social justice?

[David Stevens]

Well, I stay very far away from politically charged debates, especially in election years.
Now, to wade right in to this one;
Did Jesus Christ specifically tell us to give anything to the poor? In the passage cited by another commentor: Mark 10:21 or Luke 18:22 the command was not generic. It was given specifically to the young man asking the question. In my opinion the 'real' question he asked was, "What is the least I must do to get to heaven?" And the answer is, "You must give all." I'm afraid the application to social justice today is stretching it a bit.
Taking care of the poor is specifically addressed by the Lord in Matthew 25:31-46. Feed the hungry, give water to the thirsty, and give clothes to the naked. One of the characteristics of the sanctified heart is to be compassionate and generous with everything I have. It becomes more difficult when you try to carry this to the governmental level. I would bring to your attention one of the earliest policy statements of the Church, 2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” (NIV1984)
We could lower ourselves in this discussion to arguing about words, something forbidden in the books of Timothy. Instead I will just give my humble opinion; It is about lost people. If we can help someone grow in grace and the knowledge of the Lord (2 Peter 3:18) through compassionate ministry, we must do it. If it is possible to accomplish this goal of "edifying" disciples or winning lost people through political activism for Social Justice, we should do this. The mistake is made when a Church organization begins to think of the activity as an end in itself that so many have lost their vision. When it stops being about redemption, it stops being our main purpose.

OK, Brother Phillips, what was the question? Should we use a politically charged term like "Social Justice" in our official publications? Only if it helps us reach lost people, or strengthen the faith of the existing disciples. If the use of a term like this detracts or distracts from the Mission and Vision of the COTN, then maybe we should find other labels.
Blessings on you all!
David

[Jim Chabot]

Going back to the original post, you will note that the writer states he received that directive from the regional director under whom he served. Though it may not be Big Naz official, it was at least, according to this satement, official enough for a director to have made a pronouncement. It could have been that individual director's opinion or a comment heard from a superior then acted upon.

I see this happen in the military all the time. A general will make a small statment like I wonder if we should ... then their underlings will run all around the kingdom proclaiming the general's "will". I think some knights split a priests skull once off such an off-handed comment ....

Bingo! There is a world of difference between a global directive and one given from a superior to a subordinate. Since Dr, Phillips is no longer in this position, perhaps we are discussing "much ado about nothing: here.

[Wes Smith]

I have something to say about the subject of this thread, but am going to decline adding anything until we discover if this is one of Oliver's "shoot and scoot" posts.

Friend,

Wes

[Dennis M. Scott]

What then is the definition of social justice?

Who, then, is my neighbor?

[Dwayne Petry]

Who, then, is my neighbor?

I, as well as you, understand the biblical teaching of you and I helping our neighbor. That, in my understanding, is not social justice. My wife and I took a 12 year old girl into our home because she was put out by her drug addicted mother. She stayed with us for about 6 months, until some of her family stepped up and took her in (talk about turn our world upside down). We have helped some in my family with drug and other problems. Don't need to bore you with how we as Christians live out the teaching of caring for the needy.

What I want is a definition of social justice, if it is not the one I submitted earlier, so that I might have a better understanding of how I, as a Christian, am to believe in social justice.

[Dennis M. Scott]

I, as well as you, understand the biblical teaching of you and I helping our neighbor.

Sounds to me like you are demonstrating a working definition. It also sounds like you believe in it. Keep believing and living out your belief. The Kingdom to which you and I are committed has its own behavior, leader and maybe even definitions.

[Sarah Smith]

If by social justice we mean trying to make the world of unsaved people live like Christians, ain't gonna work any better than prohibition did, methinks.

I've watched the right wing side of the SBC try to take over and rule the world, and am no more willing for the left leaning crowd to do so.

But saved people acting like it? All for it.

[Greg Farra]

It's time we get real theologians/ethicists dealing with these issues, and not just people who are populists/salespeople seeking to tickle ears of segments of the population.... Wow. Thanks for sharing, Oliver. I am saddened that a Mormon talk show host (Glen Beck) has such influence among our general leadership. Wow....God help us.

CWC

Charles, I would take your statement further. I am saddened that Glenn Beck has the influence that he does in the church as a whole. I've only listened to him a few times, and heard Mormon theology being taught. He is quite sly about it.

[Oliver Phillips]

I have something to say about the subject of this thread, but am going to decline adding anything until we discover if this is one of Oliver's "shoot and scoot" posts.

Friend,

Wes

Wes, I am not sure what you mean by "shoot and scoot." My only intention by posting is to encourage open discourse on a subject that is of grave concern to me, personally. I thought that the premise of my thesis was laid out succintly, i.e. the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene is not averse to the use of the term "social justice." The task of church leaders should not be to censor the use of theological terms, but to define them according to official policy, polity, preferences, and pronouncements.

IMHO, we should not allow the talking heads "outside" the evangelical community of faith to define what we mean by the terms we choose to use. Why should we allow others to colonize well-meaning terms? I doubt that John Wesley would have the difficulty that we have with the term; he would define those terms.

[Jim Chabot]

Wes, I am not sure what you mean by "shoot and scoot." My only intention by posting is to encourage open discourse on a subject that is of grave concern to me, personally.

I believe what Wes is saying here is that you do tend to post and then fail to stay engaged in the conversation. If you would like to discuss this subject, then great, we are here. If your intent is merely to foster a discussion among us, then may we remind you that the primary purpose of this site is for fellowship among Nazarenes and friends of Nazarenes.

In other words, if you come in to chat, great! However stopping in to encourage discussion and then leaving the room is considered impolite. No sense talking about a subject if the proponent of the discussion isn't also active.:smile:

[Paul DeBaufer]

Wes, I am not sure what you mean by "shoot and scoot." My only intention by posting is to encourage open discourse on a subject that is of grave concern to me, personally. I thought that the premise of my thesis was laid out succintly, i.e. the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene is not averse to the use of the term "social justice." The task of church leaders should not be to censor the use of theological terms, but to define them according to official policy, polity, preferences, and pronouncements.

IMHO, we should not allow the talking heads "outside" the evangelical community of faith to define what we mean by the terms we choose to use. Why should we allow others to colonize well-meaning terms? I doubt that John Wesley would have the difficulty that we have with the term; he would define those terms.

I think after Craig looked into it he found that maybe your OP wasn't as clear as maybe it could've been. In his post (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php/8388-Social-justice-A-house-divided-against-itself?p=140551&viewfull=1#post140551) he said that there was no official position denying the use of Social Justice and asked for clarification.

[Wilson Deaton]

...he said that there was no official position denying the use of Social Justice and ...

Actually, the Nazarene Facebook "guy" said he was not aware of such a position. That is not the same thing as saying there is no official position. That could simply mean that the Facebook guy "didn't get the memo." The jury is still out on this one.

Wilson

[Todd Erickson]

God's justice is restorative in nature, rather than focused necessary on the punative, though it may contain those elements.

When we speak of social justice, we speak of addressing society from a restorative, Christ centered mindset. Certainly, many things about the world are fallen and broken, and our attempts at justice will be imperfect.

All the same. If you keep having to rescue people who are helplessly floating down the river, at some point you have to begin addressing who is pushing them in, and what can be done to stop it...

[Oliver Phillips]

I believe what Wes is saying here is that you do tend to post and then fail to stay engaged in the conversation. If you would like to discuss this subject, then great, we are here. If your intent is merely to foster a discussion among us, then may we remind you that the primary purpose of this site is for fellowship among Nazarenes and friends of Nazarenes.

In other words, if you come in to chat, great! However stopping in to encourage discussion and then leaving the room is considered impolite. No sense talking about a subject if the proponent of the discussion isn't also active.:smile:

Point well taken, Jim. You should understand that as much as I am an avid follower of discussions that take place on Naznet, as an employee of the General Board, I have not been at liberty to be engaged as much as I would have loved. Now, as one without those restraints, I am released to be more engaged. Thanks for your understanding!

[Shea Zellweger]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that most people associate social justice with the above definition. I believe that is the definition that President Obama believes, which means that at least 45% of the citizens believe it. That is the problem with words having many meanings, we have difficulty communicating among ourselves. If 65% of people think social justice means the Wikipedia definition and 35% think that it is the CotN definition (what ever that is), all we have is confusion and misunderstanding. If I talk about marriage (with the age old meaning) or assault weapon (not the semi automatic military style) and someone applies the current media definition to the conversation, again, all we have is confusion and misunderstanding.


I would venture that the definition you linked to from wikipedia is, in fact, the current media definition, rather than the age old meaning. To say that progressive taxation is part and parcel with social justice is to assume that the term is intrinsically political. This is not the case. Actually, it is rooted firmly in religious tradition, and in the concept of Christian responsibility, and if you'd continued reading that same Wikipedia article, you'd have discovered that pretty quickly. The term was coined by a Jesuit priest (Luigi Taparelli) in the 1840s, who used it to describe Thomas Aquinas' social ethics. John A. Ryan and Charles E. Coughlin were both major proponents of Social Justice in the early 1900s. Ryan endorsed FDR and the New Deal, while Coughlin opposed both the man and the plan in favor of a 3rd party candidate. The founders of the CotN left the Methodist church in large part because they thought the Methodists were neglecting the Social Gospel, which had been a key aspect of Wesleyanism/Methodism until the Methodist church strayed away from it in the latter part of the 19th century. Ever since Social Justice entered the Christian lexicon, it has been a part of Catholic and Protestant Teaching (see: Social Gospel) but it has not been a Democrat or Republican thing. Until recently, the question was not "should we support Social Justice?" But "how should we go about achieving Social Justice?" It was only in the latter part of the 20th century that certain talking heads began to make Social Justice a partisan issue, which is not surprising, given that in the current political climate, I'm pretty sure the likeability of Bacon is the only thing which is not in danger of becoming a subject of partisan politics.

We, as Christians, are called not to conform to the patterns of the world. While that verse is extremely overused, I think a huge part of it is not allowing the secular world to define Christian reality. Social Justice is an explicitly Christian term, which connotes explicitly Christian ideals- helping the less fortunate (both by "catching fish" and "teaching them to fish," to reference the oft-used aphorism), embracing unity, forsaking excessive wealth, and just generally caring for our neighbor. It is the doctrine which evokes the spirit of the Good Samaritan. And while Democratic and Republican politicians might want to play fast and loose with the definition of that doctrine, and make it yet another battle-field in the ever-escalating war for America, I for one refuse to allow either party to tell me what side of the political spectrum my belief in Social justice falls on. In fact, I am increasingly convinced that true belief in Social Justice should lead us to forsake the political spectrum entirely, and return our focus to where it should be: Serving as Christ's body in a broken and needy world. And you'd better believe that includes Social Justice.

[Dwayne Petry]

I would venture that the definition you linked to from wikipedia is, in fact, the current media definition, rather than the age old meaning. ....and if you'd continued reading that same Wikipedia article,

Thanks Shea,

Shame on me, I did not continue reading. The term social justice did not register with me until it was used in Obama's campaign for president, (as I recall he talked about using the courts in order to implement social justice, but neither did I pay a lot of attention to radical Islam until 9/11). I just wish that the media and current politicians had the intellectual honesty to come up with a "new word" instead of concocting a new meaning for an age old word.

[David Pettigrew]

You know, we were once the Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene, but fear of being associated with "those" people led us to change our name. Now the term is entirely defined as tongues-speaking.

Maybe instead of waving the white flag on justice, we should just proclaim it all the louder until the world adopts our meaning.

[Mike Schutz]

Funny how we didn't give up on the word "compassionate" just because a Republican president tied it to the word "conservative."

[Shea Zellweger]

Thanks Shea,

Shame on me, I did not continue reading. The term social justice did not register with me until it was used in Obama's campaign for president, (as I recall he talked about using the courts in order to implement social justice, but neither did I pay a lot of attention to radical Islam until 9/11). I just wish that the media and current politicians had the intellectual honesty to come up with a "new word" instead of concocting a new meaning for an age old word.

Dwayne,
I wasn't intending to single you out or berate you, and apologize if that's how it came out. I assumed you read the incredibly partisan definition you quoted, and said "I'm not okay with that," which is an understandable reaction. In fact, I agree that we should not try to force our Christian views upon others via government. You or I or anyone else may disagree over the correct duties of the government, but I hope we can recognize that that is what we are doing- disagreeing over the role of government- and not allowing it to shape our understanding of our role as Christians. For instance, when it comes to Social Justice, I think we can all agree that there's quite a bit in the Bible about opposing evil, promoting God's restorative justice, speaking prophetically against oppression, and helping the poor. That agreement leads us to promote Social Justice as one aspect (and I would argue a large aspect) of being disciples of Christ. The problem is that we have seen some folks on the Left start promoting Social Justice via legislation, and some folks on the Right decide that because they disagree with the Left, they also oppose Social Justice. But it's not really Social Justice they oppose, but rather the institution of Social Justice via government fiat. Unfortunately, because President Obama has used the term, there are certain talking heads who have determined it's automatically a bad thing, and encouraged everyone to stay away from it, and oppose anyone who supports it.* So they've tied it to Socialism, forced redistribution of wealth, and worst of all (in their minds), Barack Obama. Maybe, just maybe, if we fight for true Social Justice, and we speak with a unified voice that this is something we as Christians believe, and are willing to agree to disagree over the particulars of implementation, we can finally take a term back from the talking heads... wouldn't that be lovely? :)

*It's too bad they didn't do this with Obama's support of Capital Punishment, or his occupation of Afghanistan...

[Wes Smith]

Wes, I am not sure what you mean by "shoot and scoot." My only intention by posting is to encourage open discourse on a subject that is of grave concern to me, personally. I thought that the premise of my thesis was laid out succintly, i.e. the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene is not averse to the use of the term "social justice." The task of church leaders should not be to censor the use of theological terms, but to define them according to official policy, polity, preferences, and pronouncements.

IMHO, we should not allow the talking heads "outside" the evangelical community of faith to define what we mean by the terms we choose to use. Why should we allow others to colonize well-meaning terms? I doubt that John Wesley would have the difficulty that we have with the term; he would define those terms.

Oliver,

Jim pretty much gave my answer re. the "shoot and scoot" comment. We've had at least a couple extended conversations about subjects you posted with pretty hot language and then you disappeared (Franklin Graham/Trayvon Martin). I doubt either of those were related in any way with your service to the General Board, but perhaps I missed something.

Also, I have not run on the inside circle with your ministry and/or concerns within the church of the Nazarene, but if your participation in General Board conversations and other arenas are similar to your posts mentioned above, along with this one, then it seems to me that the word that came to you from your upline authority could have been more personal to you rather than denomination-wide. I would like to read your response to this possibility.

There is no doubt in my mind that "social justice" means different things to different people within our church family. Based on what I have read of your sentiments in this regard, you and I would not share a lot of agreement regarding this issue. So, which of us is right? I do believe you are totally right, we need definition of terms here. Say what it is you mean by "social justice" and I will be quick to say what I think it means. It is quite possible that we, then, will need to find different words or phrases to express our sentiments, so that we are not presuming to speak for other people.

Friend,

Wes

[Dwayne Petry]

and apologize if that's how it came out.

No apology needed. I really should have read the whole article. I never associated social justice with Christian compassion. I guess the first thought that comes to mind is social justice via legislation. I have difficulty putting my trust in career politicians trying to legislate social justice when every decision they make is run through the filter of whether it will help or hurt their reelection. We agree that the better filter is that of the Bible and the teachings of Jesus.

[Wes Smith]

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.

It seems that such a drastic move should demand a referendum of sorts. Such a move from one world mission region only serves to nurture divisiveness in the global family. The term social justice, it was explained, evinces concern by segments of the Nazarene tribe in the United States and Canada.

In no other world area has such a drastic step been taken. The Church of the Nazarene Manual makes reference to the term, but it has been quarantined from official literature from the UCRO department.

• The Manual reference is: 903.19. Value of Children and Youth
“Thus, holistic and transformational ministry to children and their families in every local church will be a priority as evidenced by:
• providing effective and empowering ministries to the whole child—physically, mentally, emotionally, socially, and spiritually;
• articulating Christian positions on current social justice issues that affect children;

• In a Grace and Peace article, (“What Makes a Nazarene a Nazarene”, May 22, 2010, Jeff Barker stated, “Let me just put it out there. As I’ve read, wondered, and reflected . . . I’ve tentatively concluded that part of what makes a Nazarene congregation Nazarene and helps to form “Christlike disciples in the nations” is a shared commitment to holiness, education, social justice and compassionate ministry and being an international church.

• In a Holiness Today, The Ancient-Future Generations, (March/April 2008) Keith Schwanz stated, “Evangelism shifts from a method to a journey as they share life with others moving closer to becoming Jesus followers. Their concern for social justice and environmental issues emerges from their identity in Christ.”

• At Trevecca --- “The J. V. Morsch Center for Social Justice is named in honor of the Rev. James V. Morsch, a former pastor of First Church of the Nazarene in Nashville, a lifelong church leader, and the founder and national volunteer liaison coordinator for Nazarene Disaster Response.”

• At Nazarene Theological Seminary --- “Students for Social Justice (SSJ) is a student organization that exists to be a resource for understanding issues of social justice around our world and in our community. It seeks to engage and implement the holistic message of the gospel in both compassionate practices and theological reflection as Christains seek to extend the love of Christ in the world.”

I hope the day would come soon when we would not be a house divided against itself.

Oliver,

Your concern sights one rather obligue location in the Manual where "social justice" is officially used. Not sure what you are getting at. You seem to be suggesting that we are moving from the possibility of one obligue mention to none, although I doubt that is possible without General Assembly action. The other references you sight are scattered and surely do not support your thought that as a denomination we are moving from comfort with the phrase to discomfort. I doubt any of these references you mention are affected in any way by the statement you attribute to a regional leader. All of this makes me lean in the direction that this is a concern you have on your own, and/or, a concern that a regional leader has with you being fixated on the issue. Eager to see validation of your concerns in writing (from your Reg. Dir) or validated by someone else.

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

It's time we get real theologians/ethicists dealing with these issues, and not just people who are populists/salespeople seeking to tickle ears of segments of the population.... Wow. Thanks for sharing, Oliver. I am saddened that a Mormon talk show host (Glen Beck) has such influence among our general leadership. Wow....God help us.

CWC

Charles,

Your post stands out to me as an over-the-top response to a post that is amazingly shallow and devoid of supportive evidence. Who are the less-than-real theologians/ethicists who have been dealing with "social justice" that need to be replaced with real ones? Oliver sighted one appearance of the phrase in the Manual. Was that put in there by the populists/salespeople seeking to tickle ears of segments of the population? To jump from the lack of official documentation from Oliver to the suggestion that Glen Beck is influencing our general leadership is what I would say is beneath your usual approach to issues. Isn't there, at least, some possibility that God needs to help us from knee-jerk believing unsubtantiated NazNet assertions and from an automatic condemnation of our leadership?

Friend,

Wes

[Kevin Rector]

All the same. If you keep having to rescue people who are helplessly floating down the river, at some point you have to begin addressing who is pushing them in, and what can be done to stop it...

This sounds like something that somebodies' grandpappy would say, and it make a lot of sense.

[Hans Deventer]

I doubt that is possible without General Assembly action.

Remember the witch hunt on anyone who even only professed to speak in tongues in private? All of that was done without any General Assembly action whatsoever. The GA never said anything on the issue apart from stating that we oppose tongues as a proof of being filled with the Holy Spirit.

So I can relieve you of your doubts in this regard. :biggrin:

[Wes Smith]

Remember the witch hunt on anyone who even only professed to speak in tongues in private? All of that was done without any General Assembly action whatsoever. The GA never said anything on the issue apart from stating that we oppose tongues as a proof of being filled with the Holy Spirit.

So I can relieve you of your doubts in this regard. :biggrin:

Hans,

Sorry, you have not relieved my doubts in this regard. Our opposition to speaking in tongues was not a "Manual" issue (if I remember correctly, the GS statement is "extra-Manual"). This is, in the one specific reference offered by Oliver. My contention is that no one would be able to set aside a GA-accepted and approved statement without GA action. I know there is editorial freedom when they are putting the Manual together. Once it is published, however, I seriously question that any general leadership decision/statement could trump GA action.

I have two basic insights re. Oliver's post. One is, he makes his post and we are expected to agree with his assumption (that there is a general leadership conspiracy against the use of the phrase "social justice,") and several on this thread jump on it, agreeing like it is gospel truth and run with it. Two, he sights one reference of the use of the "social justice" phrase in the Manual and uses his unsubtantiated quotation of a Reg. Dir. to support his contention that we are having a meltdown re. the use of the phrase. It's not that I totally doubt such a mandate could happen. I'm just not buying it on the basis of Oliver's post.

As gently as I know how...we can sit back on this board and allow Franklin Graham to be labeled as a racist and we can sit in silence when folks do their knee-jerk assertion that the Trayvon Martin case is clearly about racial profiling, without the benefit of a trial, and, we can mindlessly assume that an unsubstantiated declaration re. a regional director eliminating the use of a phrase is gospel truth. (Or, as has now happened in all three cases, some declare agreement for reasons that are beyond my comprehension.) Come on. We are better minds than that. When they come after "you" (generally speaking), wouldn't you want people to maintain their objectivity until something is proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

Remember the witch hunt on anyone who even only professed to speak in tongues in private? All of that was done without any General Assembly action whatsoever. The GA never said anything on the issue apart from stating that we oppose tongues as a proof of being filled with the Holy Spirit.

So I can relieve you of your doubts in this regard. :biggrin:

Hans,

Not only do I remember, I participated in the dialogue surrounding that controversy. And, my sentiment was against the GS statement. I developed a statement that was subsequently published in a larger piece on the subject in the Herald of Holiness (anyone remember that magazine?). While I do not have that statement in my possession, it basically contained my belief that "tongues" could be a gift from God declaring himself to be true and real to a sincerely doubting seeker, much like Thomas's declaration that he would not believe until he touched the Master. Further, the statement contained my insight that "tongues" are not for believers but for unbelievers. Meaning that God will go to any length to prove himself (I Co. 14:22a). The bigger picture this allows is that justification can not only be by faith, it can be by feeling. But that is probably fodder for another thread. In my opinion, the GS declaration moved our denomination out of the jetstream of what God was/is doing, by limiting His movement into the context of our understanding of how God should work. I am a man fully under authority, so it is my responsibility to submit, but my counsel was and is that we would be far better off to take a more generous view re. (privately) speaking in tongues. Pretty sure there was/is room to allow for private tongues-speaking without abandoning Paul's counsel in I Co. 12-14.

Friend,

Wes

[Jim Chabot]

Point well taken, Jim. You should understand that as much as I am an avid follower of discussions that take place on Naznet, as an employee of the General Board, I have not been at liberty to be engaged as much as I would have loved. Now, as one without those restraints, I am released to be more engaged. Thanks for your understanding!

I'm sorry Oliver, while I am attempting to be charitable and patient, I do not understand. In the recent past you have started threads here and then have not engaged. Regardless of subject this is a place for conversation and relationship building. To be honest, I'm not seeing an attempt on your part to reach out, interact and build relationships here.

Folks have asked questions regarding your initial post, yet you have not reciprocated with conversation that would help bring some clarity. You haven't provided the specifics that would actually allow for a meaningful conversation. Yes you have incited conversation, will you return and interact. Will you be responsive to the questions that folks have brought forward?

Or should we get out the popcorn, sit back and watch?:)

[Wes Smith]

Oliver,

More mental mulling of your original post.

The more I think about it the more I believe that NazNet is not the place for your post at this time. I know everyone processes stuff differently, but you've raised some pretty heavy, accusatory issues about some specific people. I don't know which Regional Director you speak of, but it would be pretty easy to find out. Then, Craig says he checked with someone who runs on the inside track with stuff like this and that person wasn't aware of any declarations but would get back with him. I've had discussions with other people pretty close in to general leadership who are unaware of any general declaration re. the discontinuance of the phrase "social justice," but are checking with sources at the top. If this issue is confirmed, then "perhaps" we have something to talk about, but on the other hand this could also be an authority, process issue that our general leadership needs to work through.

I know people, in general, do not like teaching moments, but this thread reminds me of someone who speaks up in the context of a gathering that has no relevance to an issue and spills his guts over discontent with the pastor or a program or such and gets other people upset and involved without working through the legitimate (even biblical) process.

Seems to me that discussion of social justice outside the incrimination of a regional director and/or general leadership is legitimate. But, dragging them over the coals in a setting where it is pretty impossible for them to explain or defend is patently un-fair, and socially un-just.

Friend,

Wes

[Craig Laughlin]

Then, Craig says he checked with someone who runs on the inside track with stuff like this and that person wasn't aware of any declarations but would get back with him.

I want to be clear. I did not claim to check with someone on an inside track. I contacted the denominations Facebook page which claims to be official. I was greatly encouraged that the person monitoring the page answered quickly. I assume the response they gave me was official only in that it was posted on the official page. I have no idea of the identity of the person who posted.

Also, they did not offer to get back to me. They simply said that they "were unaware of any ban..." As has been pointed out this does not mean it didn't happen but I only think it fair that they be given the opportunity to respond.

Wes, I share your concern about a public airing of this sort of thing but I also believe that our denominational culture is to hide and cover these things up. In my opinion if this is true it needs to brought to light. That being said Oliver if you are going to make this charge you really do need to back it up. Many of us here are Nazarene insiders and know who your director was. If you can show more evidence of what happened I'm willing to create a stink but I am also reminded of the Biblical directive to not accept a charge against an Elder unless it has two or three witnesses.

[Dave McClung]

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.

It seems that such a drastic move should demand a referendum of sorts. Such a move from one world mission region only serves to nurture divisiveness in the global family. The term social justice, it was explained, evinces concern by segments of the Nazarene tribe in the United States and Canada.

In no other world area has such a drastic step been taken. The Church of the Nazarene Manual makes reference to the term, but it has been quarantined from official literature from the UCRO department.

• The Manual reference is: 903.19. Value of Children and Youth
“Thus, holistic and transformational ministry to children and their families in every local church will be a priority as evidenced by:
• providing effective and empowering ministries to the whole child—physically, mentally, emotionally, socially, and spiritually;
• articulating Christian positions on current social justice issues that affect children;

• In a Grace and Peace article, (“What Makes a Nazarene a Nazarene”, May 22, 2010, Jeff Barker stated, “Let me just put it out there. As I’ve read, wondered, and reflected . . . I’ve tentatively concluded that part of what makes a Nazarene congregation Nazarene and helps to form “Christlike disciples in the nations” is a shared commitment to holiness, education, social justice and compassionate ministry and being an international church.

• In a Holiness Today, The Ancient-Future Generations, (March/April 2008) Keith Schwanz stated, “Evangelism shifts from a method to a journey as they share life with others moving closer to becoming Jesus followers. Their concern for social justice and environmental issues emerges from their identity in Christ.”

• At Trevecca --- “The J. V. Morsch Center for Social Justice is named in honor of the Rev. James V. Morsch, a former pastor of First Church of the Nazarene in Nashville, a lifelong church leader, and the founder and national volunteer liaison coordinator for Nazarene Disaster Response.”

• At Nazarene Theological Seminary --- “Students for Social Justice (SSJ) is a student organization that exists to be a resource for understanding issues of social justice around our world and in our community. It seeks to engage and implement the holistic message of the gospel in both compassionate practices and theological reflection as Christains seek to extend the love of Christ in the world.”

I hope the day would come soon when we would not be a house divided against itself.

Oliver, I have been hesitant to jump into this conversation because I didn't know the facts. I have done some checking and find that there is a difference of opinions. What you consider "banning", others consider "coaching." The good folks at the GMC believe in the kind of justice that you call "Social Justice" just as much as you and I; however, they believe that because some in our society have attached a different meaning to the term there are better ways to communicate what we mean.

We are being coached to be careful when we communicate to communicate well. "Justice" is a beautiful Biblical word.

I support the efforts of our denominational leaders to communicate well and clearly for the church. If they feel that other terms communicate our positions on justice better, I support their efforts to communicate clearly.

What, hypothetically, would concern me, would be if the church took positions that indicated a lack of support for justice and equal opportunity for all. I have seen none of that. I can't get upset with people who are doing their best to communicate more clearly. We all need to work on that.

[Todd Erickson]

Could it be requested that if Wes and Jim have an issue with Oliver, that they pursue it in PM, perhaps in tandem with a moderator, rather than in open forum?

[Jim Chabot]

Could it be requested that if Wes and Jim have an issue with Oliver, that they pursue it in PM, perhaps in tandem with a moderator, rather than in open forum?

We are simply trying to help Oliver understand that while we are more than willing to converse. The purpose here is for fellowship. This is not the proper place to be dropping leaflets. I would hope that the moderators would be supportive of our gentle efforts.

[Todd Erickson]

We are simply trying to help Oliver understand that while we are more than willing to converse. The purpose here is for fellowship. This is not the proper place to be dropping leaflets. I would hope that the moderators would be supportive of our gentle efforts.

Wes has not been gentle.

[Wes Smith]

Could it be requested that if Wes and Jim have an issue with Oliver, that they pursue it in PM, perhaps in tandem with a moderator, rather than in open forum?

Todd,

The opposite would be the case. I have great respect and admiration for Oliver and his ministries. My response to you or Jim or anyone else presenting an issue in this way would have been exactly the same. Let's be open to discussing any subject unless the subject is unsubstantiated and it brings people into a situation where they cannot defend themselves.

I, however, would be happy to talk in PM with Oliver, Jim and a moderator if one of them feels it is necessary.

Friend,,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

My sincerest apology for any and all lack of gentleness on my part.

Friend,

Wes

[Craig Laughlin]

Thank you Dave for checking this out.

I appreciate your bringing the perceptions of the other side to the discussion. I have tried to stay out of this, other than my initial posts, because I didn’t think we had enough information. What you have written about leadership’s perception of events sounds very much like I think they understand the situation. I would offer some observations. These are not directed at you, they are more general and speak to how communication (even well intentioned) breaks down.

What a superior characterizes as coaching a subordinate often understands as a directive. This is especially true if the coaching is very direct and refusing such coaching in the past has resulted in penalties. Coaching can sometimes be a euphemism for; I don’t want to say this directly because I know it sounds bad. This is doubly true in highly hierarchal organizational environments. It is fair to characterize our general church as such an organization.

Such coaching should not have been done without Oliver on board. Oliver by office (and training) was the voice of multicultural ministries at HQ. He is uniquely qualified to speak to the issue and his voice should have been heeded. If he rejected it, it should have been rejected. Once again this makes the COTN look extremely bad, bordering on racist, to make this kind of a move without the multicultural person on board.

The issue remains. Social Justice is a broadly accepted and understood phrase that carries a clear and very important theological meaning among those educated in theology. The concern within the church is motivated by conservative politics and widely promoted by conservative talk radio. Honestly to encourage Nazarenes to not use this phrase makes us look backward and ignorant. All the rest of the theologically informed world uses this phrase carefully and intentionally. We should not, must not, allow the political whim of the moment to establish the agenda of the Church of the Nazarene. Additionally we must not let the voice of confused people take us out of the larger discussion of Social Justice in the body of Christ, which this “coaching” would effectively do. The right response to the concerns of the rank and file should have been to educate them. The purpose of clergy is to grow people spiritually and theologically. This means sometimes we have to tell them truth they don’t want to hear. (Witness the Concerned Nazarenes)

Finally, I do appreciate HQ’s desire to communicate effectively. I have argued for a long time that they need to put together a professional communications department and empower it to really do the job. However this directive sacrifices communication with large swaths of people in order to preserve happiness in a very narrow group of people. This coaching will cause us to lose even more credibility with the younger generations who see Social Justice as a key element in authentic church. This will also do great damage to our already severally tarnished reputation among many ethnic groups who care deeply about Social Justice. Frankly I think we are sacrificing our future (Young people and ethnic people) in order to keep politically conservative, probably older and middle class, Nazarenes happy. We seem to be interested in an increasingly small slice of the demographic pie to which we are willing to communicate.

I read just this week that the ethnic line has been crossed in American and over ½ of the babies born today are not white. - The writing is on the wall.

[Billy Cox]

It's time we get real theologians/ethicists dealing with these issues, and not just people who are populists/salespeople seeking to tickle ears of segments of the population.... Wow. Thanks for sharing, Oliver. I am saddened that a Mormon talk show host (Glen Beck) has such influence among our general leadership. Wow....God help us.

CWC

Heh, that one had some zing on it.

[Billy Cox]

I think the "more acceptable term or label" is already being used. That label is "disciple of Christ". Being a disciple of Christ covers everything.

The term "social justice", in my opinion, is a politically charged and agenda driven title for a movement to try to balance out wealth distribution according to some third party's ideal.

The denomination's leadership seems not too concerned about political activism as long as it plays well with American evangelical conservatives. Methinks the big tent is becoming smaller.

[Billy Cox]

Remember the witch hunt on anyone who even only professed to speak in tongues in private? All of that was done without any General Assembly action whatsoever. The GA never said anything on the issue apart from stating that we oppose tongues as a proof of being filled with the Holy Spirit.

So I can relieve you of your doubts in this regard. :biggrin:

Yeah, but historical myopia goes down so much smoother.

[Oliver Phillips]

Thank you Dave for checking this out.




The issue remains. Social Justice is a broadly accepted and understood phrase that carries a clear and very important theological meaning among those educated in theology. The concern within the church is motivated by conservative politics and widely promoted by conservative talk radio. Honestly to encourage Nazarenes to not use this phrase makes us look backward and ignorant. All the rest of the theologically informed world uses this phrase carefully and intentionally. We should not, must not, allow the political whim of the moment to establish the agenda of the Church of the Nazarene. Additionally we must not let the voice of confused people take us out of the larger discussion of Social Justice in the body of Christ, which this “coaching” would effectively do. The right response to the concerns of the rank and file should have been to educate them. The purpose of clergy is to grow people spiritually and theologically. This means sometimes we have to tell them truth they don’t want to hear. (Witness the Concerned Nazarenes)
.

Well said, Craig. As tender as the "coaching" may have been, the fact remains that magazine articles and commentaries using the term "social justice" were considered too volatile for the Nazarene constituency. The prophetic impulse in me mandates that I accept the responsibility to educatively explicate issues that are somewhat ambivalent.

This is obviously a delicate issue that must be dealt with within the context of two venues, the Regional Office and the Region. I would much rather use the term Regional Resource Center, since technically, that’s what it more appropriately represents.

My claim that it is the unofficial policy of the UCRO that the term “social justice” is unacceptable could be refuted by those involved. Having worked there, I am only stating a fact that appears to be a “house divided against itself” since other world areas are not so inclined. If, as has been opined by one responder, that the RD’s position might be a reaction to my fixation on the term, then it is a censorship that affects the broader faith constituency. The RD’s discomfort with the term is surely understandable in light of the disparate voices and positions that are present among us.

However, to insist that regional resource personnel should avoid the term is to be imbalanced and shortsighted in representing the various constituencies. Among some of our ethnic congregations “social justice”, the term, is widely accepted, endorsed, and embraced. Their preferences are as authentic and genuine as others are. We cannot, and should not simply allow theological terms to be colonized by those who fear that association with certain terms may illicit unwanted implications. Furthermore, there are authentic expressions of holistic compassion taking place through more than 170 Compassionate Ministry Centers throughout the US & Canada. I would wager that "social justice," as a term is not offensive or ambivalent.

What I hope to see accomplished through this discourse is not the impugning of anyone's character, philosophy, or modus operandi; but to seek a reconciling of disparate voices within our beloved tribe. As an ordained elder in the COTN, I make no apologies for the use of the term "social justice." To accede to those who are discomfitted by its use is to cheapen the intent and purpose of the term. I totally agree that there are other terms that might be less conflictive. But to always avoid terms because of those who might be offended does not help advance enriched dialogue, growth, and maturity.

This has been a healthy engagement by those of you who care about our tribe. I thank you dearly for your comments, pro and con.

Let's remember that Matthew 18:11 was never really helpful to the readers of the text. However, the inclusion of Luke 19:10 gives us ultimate hope.

[Billy Cox]

To accede to those who are discomfitted by its use is to cheapen the intent and purpose of the term. I totally agree that there are other terms that might be less conflictive. But to always avoid terms because of those who might be offended does not help advance enriched dialogue, growth, and maturity.


That's the rub though. What does one do if some of those discomfited folk are at the highest levels of leadership? At what point to we 'give them up' to their particular vision/ambitions and pitch our tents elsewhere?

This is a very real question for me.

[Wes Smith]

Oliver,

Thank you for your most recent post. It is good to read your thoughts and, I think, your thoughts about "social justice" are more legitimate and helpful than your original statement: Social justice, the term, has been officially banned from all literature and communications from the US/Canada Regional Office.

Whether "coaching" is a better way to go, or not, is certainly debateable, but does suggest that our general leadership recognizes diversity as an issue within our tribe and desires to be respectful of those from both (all) sides of the spectrum. Who would be happy if our general leadership declared intensive use of the phrase across the board? Who would be upset/dismayed if they truly had banned the use of the phrase? My conclusion, then, is that they are doing what is absolutely necessary...coaching.

Ordained elders can use the phrase "social justice" any way they choose. As can local congregations. So, perhaps this is a good venue for a discussion about the use and mis-use of the phrase. What does it mean to you and why do you think your definition should be assumed throughout the denomination? (Which is somewhat of an overstatement, but it seems confusing if we continue to use the phrase without defining it. Also, it seems un-helpful if we use the phrase and allow it to have several definitions.)

By the way, my favorite sentence from your current post, "The prophetic impulse in me mandates that I accept the responsibility to educatively explicate issues that are somewhat ambivalent." That is a fine string of words!!!

Friend,

Wes

[Charles W Christian]

Charles,

Your post stands out to me as an over-the-top response to a post that is amazingly shallow and devoid of supportive evidence. Who are the less-than-real theologians/ethicists who have been dealing with "social justice" that need to be replaced with real ones? Oliver sighted one appearance of the phrase in the Manual. Was that put in there by the populists/salespeople seeking to tickle ears of segments of the population? To jump from the lack of official documentation from Oliver to the suggestion that Glen Beck is influencing our general leadership is what I would say is beneath your usual approach to issues. Isn't there, at least, some possibility that God needs to help us from knee-jerk believing unsubtantiated NazNet assertions and from an automatic condemnation of our leadership?

Friend,

Wes

It probably was a knee jerk reaction, and I've thought about quite a bit. Let me be less "knee-jerky" here.

1) The term "social justice" was NOT the kind of politically loaded term until Glen Beck made it a "bad word". Unfortunately, instead of standing up to him and those like him, many conservative Christians tended to just bow to Beck and go along and start condemning the term as "unbiblical"! Wesleyans have ALWAYS used this and related terms, but we have defined these terms clearly to speak of God's peace and justice ruling and reigning in the world through our being His hand extended to the poor and needy. So, I was probably responding more to the blind way in which many Nazarenes and other Evangelicals have suddenly been "against" terms like social justice just because Beck and others attacked it. Just Google "Evangelicals" and "social justice", or check out the CN sites, etc., to see what I mean. Therefore, it didn't surprise me that another Nazarene would shy away from the term instead of defining it.

2) My intent was not to disparage our leaders. Not every church leader has to be an ethicist or theologian. My intent was to point out that we probably need more balance in our leadership. As others on NN have pointed out, we seem to have such a division (in general) between our academic leaders and our pastoral leaders that we have a noticeable absence of theologians (like William Greathouse or John Knight or Orton Wiley, etc.) from our general church decision-making bodies. The danger of this is that our leadership could revert to simply appeasing instead of teaching/instructing about theological terms and issues (like "social justice" and its history among Wesleyans, for instance). This does current and future Nazarenes a disservice, in my mind, although again I am not saying that our current leaders are bad or wrong, etc.

Thanks for point out my flippant response, though, truly. In my frustration I was painting too big of a picture and unintentionally sounding more disparaging than I intended. I humbly concede your point on that. However, I hope that you will at least consider the other aspects of what I am saying here....

God bless,
Charles

[Wes Smith]

Charles,

Saying it like that, I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying.

I'm not sure how much Beck has influenced anyone in the Church of the Nazarene. No pastor that I've talked to has a speech to make about their opposition to "social justice" because of Beck's influence. The only thing I can relate to in regard to your concerns about Beck's influence is that there is considerable concern that "social justice" is a liberal/left way of saying "wealth re-distribution." My personal opinion is that such a concern has actually been more driven by the liberal/left leaning of this President than by Beck's conservative/right leaning.

So, (pregnant pause), if anyone in the CotN wants to opine that "social justice" is fundamentally "wealth re-distribution," that creates a gulf that will not be bridged by that simple opinion. And my suggestion is that some pretty heavy defining of "social justice" must take place in order for folks from diverse understandings of the phrase to pull their chairs up to the same table. I hope that makes sense.

Re-reading what I've written before pulling the trigger, it seems apparent that my post could motivate a political argument. That is not my hope at all. My hope is that someone could lay a definition of "social justice" on the table that would unite us rather than divide us.

Friend,

Wes

[Ryan Scott]

If people are being confused by the current political intonations of an important biblical concept, the job of the denominational publications should be to educate their readership to the proper usage and understanding of the term.

It was social justice that led early Nazarenes to form orphanages and homes for unwed mothers. Social holiness has been a core principle of Wesleyan theology from the beginning - the idea that it's not just about what you believe, but about how you act and interact with society at large.

Social justice is 100% what it means to be a Nazarene - the no one deserves to be left out or forgotten or unloved and it is our call as a people to devote our lives to that purpose.

We seem to be very forthright about correcting common misconceptions on the definition of marriage - another important, bibilical term. Why can't we have the same fervor for something so theologically central to everything we've ever stood for?

Dave's response makes practical sense from an organizational standpoint; it seems ludicrous from a theological or missional perspective.

[John Kennedy]

Remember the witch hunt on anyone who even only professed to speak in tongues in private? All of that was done without any General Assembly action whatsoever. The GA never said anything on the issue apart from stating that we oppose tongues as a proof of being filled with the Holy Spirit.

So I can relieve you of your doubts in this regard. :biggrin:

Hans -

I don't know about any 'witch hunts' on anyone who spoke in tongues. I was probably out of the denomination by that time (I assume sometime during the 70's). In all fairness, however, I think there may be another relevant perspective to that story.

My parents were both Nazarene ministers. They were pastoring a church in the South in the late
40's. There were several families in the church who were strongly influenced by the Pentecostal movement, which was pretty militantly asserting itself in that part of the country at that time.

It wasn't a matter of practicing a private prayer language - Oh no. They had absolutely no hesitation about coming into non-Pentecostal worship settings and attempting to take over the service. I personally knew Nazarene pastors, besides my parents, who had to deal with these situations.

These people 'got the blessing' - tongues - and instead of seeking out a Pentecostal church and becoming a part of it, they chose to 'evangelize' the Nazarene congregation of which they were a part.

Unfortunately, they decided to proclaim that their newly acquired experience should be the norm, that anyone who didn't speak in tongues wasn't truly Spirit-filled. I saw Nazarene congregations and pastors that experienced real difficulties from these groups and individuals.

This was in the days before more moderate Pentecostals began to soft-pedal the tongues-speaking aspect of their doctrines and the charismatic movement began to branch out into heretofore non-Pentecostal setting. And it wasn't a pretty sight.

I have no desire to condemn people who practice glossolalia. Other things being equal, I would consider them to be my brothers/sisters in Christ. But when their practice leads to de-Christianizing others who don't have 'the blessing' I draw the line. I'm pretty minimalist in my beliefs, but I don't have any trouble in seeing spiritual pride as probably being the cardinal sin.

I simply felt that some of the back-story on this issue would be helpful.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans -

I don't know about any 'witch hunts' on anyone who spoke in tongues. I was probably out of the denomination by that time (I assume sometime during the 70's). In all fairness, however, I think there may be another relevant perspective to that story.

John, I know the circumstances that provoked the hunt. But it is also true that Nazarene pastors were driven out of their ministry for the sole reason of admitting to speaking in tongues only privately. No promoting, no nothing in that regard. Only privately. I actually got a message from a pastor's spouse who had that happen to her husband in the late 80's. And that, John, was a witch hunt with no warrant from the Manual at all. All that was presented to him was a worn out copy of the 1976 statement from the BoGS. There was and has never been any foundation of this in the Manual, and that was my point.

[Jon Bemis]

I've had encounters with the militant pentecostal types that have left me a bit jaded concerning the authenticity of much of what happens within their circles. One of the better explanations (IMO) regarding speaking in tongues was given by Kenneth Kinghorn (http://www.amazon.com/Gifts-Spirit-Kenneth-C-Kinghorn/dp/068714695X/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1338324369&sr=1-3) . His view was that some is psychological manipulation, some is of the devil, and some is authentic. I would add that some is mimicry because folks don't want others to think they haven't "gotten the Spirit."

[Billy Cox]

I don't know about any 'witch hunts' on anyone who spoke in tongues. I was probably out of the denomination by that time (I assume sometime during the 70's). In all fairness, however, I think there may be another relevant perspective to that story.

I'm curious as to how you could know so much about Pentecostals trying to 'evangelize' Nazarenes and their dead worship practices, yet be totally unaware of the denomination's McArthyesque campaign against anyone on the denomination's payroll who gave the Pentecostal adversary the mere appearance of a foothold. I know of a former Nazarene pastor who was ordered to surrender his credentials at the mere suggestion that he wasn't sure that he would squash a Pentecostal incident if if occurred at his church. Now if that isn't characteristic of a witch hunt, I don't know what is.

[Billy Cox]

If people are being confused by the current political intonations of an important biblical concept, the job of the denominational publications should be to educate their readership to the proper usage and understanding of the term.

It was social justice that led early Nazarenes to form orphanages and homes for unwed mothers. Social holiness has been a core principle of Wesleyan theology from the beginning - the idea that it's not just about what you believe, but about how you act and interact with society at large.

Social justice is 100% what it means to be a Nazarene - the no one deserves to be left out or forgotten or unloved and it is our call as a people to devote our lives to that purpose.

We seem to be very forthright about correcting common misconceptions on the definition of marriage - another important, bibilical term. Why can't we have the same fervor for something so theologically central to everything we've ever stood for?

Dave's response makes practical sense from an organizational standpoint; it seems ludicrous from a theological or missional perspective.

Ryan, I'm sure you know that not every stream of the holiness movement that was duct-taped together in 1908 had an affinity for 'social holiness'. I don't think it's intellectually honest to impute social holiness to those other groups just because they united under one banner. Yes, there is a percentage of Nazarene tradition that embraces social holiness, but it's far less than 100%.

[Billy Cox]

I've had encounters with the militant pentecostal types that have left me a bit jaded concerning the authenticity of much of what happens within their circles. One of the better explanations (IMO) regarding speaking in tongues was given by Kenneth Kinghorn (http://www.amazon.com/Gifts-Spirit-Kenneth-C-Kinghorn/dp/068714695X/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1338324369&sr=1-3) . His view was that some is psychological manipulation, some is of the devil, and some is authentic. I would add that some is mimicry because folks don't want others to think they haven't "gotten the Spirit."

Maybe some of that tongues speaking is due to drunkenness. We can at least borrow a criticism that has a biblical basis in Acts 2:13. :)

[Oliver Phillips]

Maybe we can begin by viewing this excellent video prepared by Trevecca Nazarene University, entitled "Rethinking Social Justice."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0EkW6Px7uE

[Gina Stevenson]

*{was answering some posts above, & then I see something else snuck in between the one I was answering--Billy's}*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Have yet to forget something strange (extremely repetitive, therefore unfortunately burned into my brain!) heard years ago when visiting some church with my sis & then-bil. Could not even pray, tho' was supposed to be "prayertime," this guy was so annoyingly loud):

(written phonetically) "sheek-HA-ba-SEE-ah, sheek-HA-ba-ba-SEE-ah, sheek-HA-ba-ba-ba-SEE-ah," adding another "ba" to the string until there were 7-8 of those, like this (faster, the more added): sheek-HA-ba-ba-BA-ba-ba-BA-ba-ba-SEE-ah," then back to just one "ba" & started the adding of "ba's" all over again! Would think that just might fall into the "vain repetition" category ... a total of only five varying syllables !?!?!?

However, won't trash all of it in spite of that strange experience. The C&MA, based on where we see gifts are given ( I Cor 12:11) I guess (yes, we do realize there is also a place that suggests seeking the "better/greater gifts," I Cor 12:31), seems to have a decent stand re glossolalia: "Forbid not, but seek not."

[Craig Laughlin]

Excellent video. - Thanks Oliver.

[Jon Twitchell]

seems to have a decent stand re glossalia: "Forbid not, but seek not."

I've always thought that C&MA had a good stance on this.

[Wes Smith]

If people are being confused by the current political intonations of an important biblical concept, the job of the denominational publications should be to educate their readership to the proper usage and understanding of the term.

It was social justice that led early Nazarenes to form orphanages and homes for unwed mothers. Social holiness has been a core principle of Wesleyan theology from the beginning - the idea that it's not just about what you believe, but about how you act and interact with society at large.

Social justice is 100% what it means to be a Nazarene - the no one deserves to be left out or forgotten or unloved and it is our call as a people to devote our lives to that purpose.

We seem to be very forthright about correcting common misconceptions on the definition of marriage - another important, bibilical term. Why can't we have the same fervor for something so theologically central to everything we've ever stood for?

Dave's response makes practical sense from an organizational standpoint; it seems ludicrous from a theological or missional perspective.


1. I agree. But we may be making an assumption about where such a “glossary” exists as a reference point for those who want to teach these lessons. There are some here who insinuate that we have a historic definition. I, personally, do not remember seeing such a definition in print.

2. Was it called “social justice” when we opened orphanages and homes for unwed mothers? How far back does the phrase go? Not saying that is wasn’t “social justice,” just wondering when that phrase emerged and what it meant. Does it still mean what it meant, or has the last hundred years, or so, altered its meaning?

3. 100% is fairly close to…all, total, no exceptions. This statement absolutely necessitates a powerful definition of the phrase. If it is currently true, I’d be curious what percentage of our members if asked what it 100% means to be a Nazarene would answer, “Social Justice!” Not arguing at all, but does this definition of “social justice” include: evangelism, worship, theology, ethics, missions, Sunday School, small groups, benevolence, and etc.? (Trying to think of things that may have been thought of in the 100% arena in the past.)

4. Is “social justice” a biblical term? My search did not bring back one reference to “social justice” in the entire Bible. Not saying it isn’t a good phrase, but it does not appear to be a “biblical term.” Marriage, on the other hand, showed up 43 times.

5. Is it possible that there are no organizational components to our theological and missional perspectives? It seems strange to me to say that we may need “coaching” in an organizational sense, but not when it comes to our theology and mission. Ludicrous is such a strong word and just to show how difficult these conversations can be, it seems patently ludicrous to me that the process of communicating (organizational) theology and mission and their understanding and practice would not benefit greatly from coaching in best words/phrases in order to articulate "social justice" between each other and to the new folks looking in on us.

Friend,

Wes

[John Kennedy]

John, I know the circumstances that provoked the hunt. But it is also true that Nazarene pastors were driven out of their ministry for the sole reason of admitting to speaking in tongues only privately. No promoting, no nothing in that regard. Only privately. I actually got a message from a pastor's spouse who had that happen to her husband in the late 80's. And that, John, was a witch hunt with no warrant from the Manual at all. All that was presented to him was a worn out copy of the 1976 statement from the BoGS. There was and has never been any foundation of this in the Manual, and that was my point.

Hans -
Understand your position. As I pointed out, I was pretty well out of the denomination by the 70's. And since I am no longer a member I have tried to make it a policy on NN to refrain from comment on matters I consider to be internal to the denomination, regardless of what my opinion may be on the subject.

The situation to which I was referring was far from the scenario you describe. Old time, classic Pentecostals would have regarded private practice of glossolalia as quenching the Spirit. Probably some of the older ministers on this forum experienced the kind of situation to which I referred and don't have particularly fond memories of it.

The attempt to introduce this doctrine and practice certainly didn't contribute to a sense of community in the body of Christ. There were people who were strongly opposed - ironically some of the strongest opponents were people from Pentecostal backgrounds who simply wanted no part of it whatsoever.

Were I a part of a church where a group came in and attempted to introduce such a practice and doctrine, I would be in opposition and, if they prevailed, I would leave.

[John Kennedy]

I'm curious as to how you could know so much about Pentecostals trying to 'evangelize' Nazarenes and their dead worship practices, yet be totally unaware of the denomination's McArthyesque campaign against anyone on the denomination's payroll who gave the Pentecostal adversary the mere appearance of a foothold. I know of a former Nazarene pastor who was ordered to surrender his credentials at the mere suggestion that he wasn't sure that he would squash a Pentecostal incident if if occurred at his church. Now if that isn't characteristic of a witch hunt, I don't know what is.

Billy-
I know what was talking about because I was there. By the time the events to which refer took place, I had gone elsewhere.

I am not aware of any instance in which the introduction of the practice of speaking in tongues in a public worship Nazarene setting resulted in anything positive happening. Old-time Pentecostals would have regarded keeping the practice private as a lily-livered quenching of the Spirit.

[Hans Deventer]

Were I a part of a church where a group came in and attempted to introduce such a practice and doctrine, I would be in opposition and, if they prevailed, I would leave.

So would I. But as famous theologian Paul David Hewson (aka Bono) once said: "Don't become a monster in order to defeat a monster". Remember, this was triggered by Wes' remark that GA action is needed for such a serious issue. Well, it wasn't when it came to tongues.

For the record, I voted in favour of retaining the current statement (it's in the 900's and hence automatically brought before the GA every 12 years). It's a good statement that I wholeheartedly support. And I definitely do not like the actions of the folks you described.

[Lucas Finch]

Maybe we can begin by viewing this excellent video prepared by Trevecca Nazarene University, entitled "Rethinking Social Justice."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0EkW6Px7uE

Great video! It's interesting to note the connection with The Heritage Foundation, which is certainly not known for supporting left-wing/liberal/socialistic causes.

[Hans Deventer]

I guess I need to finally read Timothy Smith's main work: Revivalism and Social Reform. (http://www.amazon.com/Revivalism-Social-Reform-American-Protestantism/dp/080182477X)

[Jon Bemis]

Probably some of the older ministers on this forum experienced the kind of situation to which I referred and don't have particularly fond memories of it.

My last encounter wasn't all that long ago - perhaps 8 or 10 years in my previous church. A man who called himself a "prophet" showed up and after attending several services wanted to meet with me. He said the Holy Spirit had sent him to bring the Spirit to our church. When I questioned him about how he envisioned that happening he said that when the Spirit told him, he would get up in a service and address the congregation about being filled with the Spirit, which he believed always was manifested by speaking in tongues. He also said that if I resisted it would mean I was resisting God. I explained to the "prophet" that:

1. I believed he was a false prophet, and according to OT rules that meant he should be stoned.

2. If he as much as twitched suspiciously during one of our services two of our very large ushers would forcibly remove him.

I never saw him after that.

[Hans Deventer]

I explained to the "prophet" that:

1. I believed he was a false prophet, and according to OT rules that meant he should be stoned.

2. If he as much as twitched suspiciously during one of our services two of our very large ushers would forcibly remove him.

I never saw him after that.

You gotta love a thoroughly Biblical approach.

[Ryan Scott]

1. I agree. But we may be making an assumption about where such a “glossary” exists as a reference point for those who want to teach these lessons. There are some here who insinuate that we have a historic definition. I, personally, do not remember seeing such a definition in print.

2. Was it called “social justice” when we opened orphanages and homes for unwed mothers? How far back does the phrase go? Not saying that is wasn’t “social justice,” just wondering when that phrase emerged and what it meant. Does it still mean what it meant, or has the last hundred years, or so, altered its meaning?

3. 100% is fairly close to…all, total, no exceptions. This statement absolutely necessitates a powerful definition of the phrase. If it is currently true, I’d be curious what percentage of our members if asked what it 100% means to be a Nazarene would answer, “Social Justice!” Not arguing at all, but does this definition of “social justice” include: evangelism, worship, theology, ethics, missions, Sunday School, small groups, benevolence, and etc.? (Trying to think of things that may have been thought of in the 100% arena in the past.)

4. Is “social justice” a biblical term? My search did not bring back one reference to “social justice” in the entire Bible. Not saying it isn’t a good phrase, but it does not appear to be a “biblical term.” Marriage, on the other hand, showed up 43 times.

5. Is it possible that there are no organizational components to our theological and missional perspectives? It seems strange to me to say that we may need “coaching” in an organizational sense, but not when it comes to our theology and mission. Ludicrous is such a strong word and just to show how difficult these conversations can be, it seems patently ludicrous to me that the process of communicating (organizational) theology and mission and their understanding and practice would not benefit greatly from coaching in best words/phrases in order to articulate "social justice" between each other and to the new folks looking in on us.

1. We're making that assumption about marriage (although we seemed to have been silent for decades when the public definition of marriage was made a sham by society; we only perked up when it stopped being a sham between genders and became a sham between people of the same sex. By doing something like this, we're basically saying social justice is not important enough for us to even define; we'll just ignore it.

2. Wesley used the term social holiness, but it meant the same thing. I think the problem is more that we've stopped using it in a practical and theological sense in our congregations - so the only frame of reference people have is from a political perspective.

3. I do believe it's 100% - because it is what makes us distinct. I don't see any difference between the definition of holiness and the theological understanding of social justice. It may or may not include things like evangelism, worship, discipleship, etc - but those things are not distinctive to the Church of the Nazarene. Our reason for existence is holiness - embodied in life and practice; that is the definition of social justice, at least theologically.

4. Perhaps I should have substituted concept for term. Quite honestly, the bible speaks much more about social justice than it does about marriage - and when it does speak about marriage, it's often not in line with how we'd define marriage today (in the negative). God seems quite concerned, throughout scripture, with how the poor and outcast are treated by God's people - that's really all it is.

5. It's not coaching, it's pandering. Our leadership would rather just put fires out and keep people happy than have real theological discussions about real issues. We've consistently shown that we don't trust our clergy, let alone our laity, to have real discussions about difficult topics. This is just more of the same. Organizations can't succeed by putting their own continued survival as the primary goal. I see this move as giving up our theological foundations in exchange for our continued existence. That's sad.


I just wonder if we're now entirely incapable of holding tension. Some people use their commitment to social justice as a means of supporting heavy governmental influence in society. Others use their commitment to social justice as a means of avoiding governmental influence at all cost. The same way some use a commitment to peace to justify war, while others use a commitment to peace to swear off all violence.

The discussion needs to be ratcheted up - to ask ourselves what is social justice and how does our shared commitment to it play itself out in our lives. We also have to be comfortable enough with each other to allow members of the same tribe to exercise their beliefs in different ways. We can't reach that level of trust with each other without talking. What this "coaching" seems to be doing is avoiding the conversation.

We may not be mature enough to handle the conversation - but avoiding it doesn't solve the problem. It's not like Thanksgiving dinner, where we can skip politics and religion for an hour until everyone goes home. We have to live together.

[Wes Smith]

So would I. But as famous theologian Paul David Hewson (aka Bono) once said: "Don't become a monster in order to defeat a monster". Remember, this was triggered by Wes' remark that GA action is needed for such a serious issue. Well, it wasn't when it came to tongues.

For the record, I voted in favour of retaining the current statement (it's in the 900's and hence automatically brought before the GA every 12 years). It's a good statement that I wholeheartedly support. And I definitely do not like the actions of the folks you described.

Hans,

What in the world are you talking about here?

Let me be clear. Oliver said that our general leadership was banning the phrase "social justice" from our publications and dialogue. He referenced one appearance of the phrase from our Manual and, at least, the insinuation was that the phrase would be expunged by genneral leadership. I said it would take a vote of the GA for that to happen.

You referenced the witch hunt of the GS's sniffing down tongue-speakers and expelling them from ministry as an example of the GS's being a higher authority than the GA/Manual. My belief was and is that they did not contradict the Manual since there was no statement there that they opposed or contradicted. Simply, if there was a statement by the GA that said, "No pastor can be removed from ministry because of his private participation in speaking in tongues," such action by the GS's would have been impossible and every threatened pastor would be able to fall back on that Manual Statement.

As I understand it, our GA is our highest level of human authority in our denomination.

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

Ryan,

Was it "pandering" that caused the word "eradication" to basically disappear from our terminology? Or, was it our need to find a better way to communicate our doctrine?

The same might be said of holiness and sanctification. Do we adjust our terminology to the times and cultures or hold to a belief that terminology is timeless and unchangeable? Earl Lee was rather famous on the West Coast for substituting the world "wholeness" for "sanctification." Pandering?

Friend,

Wes

[Ryan Scott]

Was it "pandering" that caused the word "eradication" to basically disappear from our terminology? Or, was it our need to find a better way to communicate our doctrine?

The same might be said of holiness and sanctification. Do we adjust our terminology to the times and cultures or hold to a belief that terminology is timeless and unchangeable?

We eliminated eradication after lengthy discussions about its purpose and meaning - as a theological matter. That was also a part of our articles of faith and a specific doctrine of the denomination.

This is, relatively, a far less important matter. It just seems like we're choosing to ignore a difficult conversation because of popular misconceptions of "social justice." It just makes us look afraid to have difficult discussions - like we're running away because political and media types have a bigger platform. It just doesn't sit well with me. It's almost like we're giving in to the soundbite culture where people react to superficial ideas without digging deeper. That may be how our society works now, but it should never be how the people of God operate.

[Ryan Pugh]

Wesley used the term social holiness, but it meant the same thing. I think the problem is more that we've stopped using it in a practical and theological sense in our congregations - so the only frame of reference people have is from a political perspective.

This doesn't really change anything you're saying, but when Wesley used the term "social holiness", he wasn't referring to something like social justice or activism. He used it to say that one cannot experience holiness outside of community (social relationships) - that there is no such thing as an individual Christian. One could argue that holiness in community very much incorporates social justice as well (like you did in #3), but Wesley didn't mean "social justice" by "social holiness".

[Wes Smith]

We eliminated eradication after lengthy discussions about its purpose and meaning - as a theological matter. That was also a part of our articles of faith and a specific doctrine of the denomination.

This is, relatively, a far less important matter. It just seems like we're choosing to ignore a difficult conversation because of popular misconceptions of "social justice." It just makes us look afraid to have difficult discussions - like we're running away because political and media types have a bigger platform. It just doesn't sit well with me. It's almost like we're giving in to the soundbite culture where people react to superficial ideas without digging deeper. That may be how our society works now, but it should never be how the people of God operate.

Well, I suppose it is possible that we are choosing to ignore a difficult conversation, but it is also possible that we are simply at an identifiable place in the process and the discussions will come when people have worked through the thought process in order to have some meaningful conversations.

I'm still waiting for you or Oliver or someone to offer that classic, historic, biblical definition of "social justice." It would give us a good platform for further discussions.

Friend,

Wes

[Ryan Scott]

Well, I suppose it is possible that we are choosing to ignore a difficult conversation, but it is also possible that we are simply at an identifiable place in the process and the discussions will come when people have worked through the thought process in order to have some meaningful conversations.

I'm still waiting for you or Oliver or someone to offer that classic, historic, biblical definition of "social justice." It would give us a good platform for further discussions.


I've said it over and over again - the biblical concept of social justice is the firm commitment that all people have value and deserve to be loved, included, and cared for. It's pretty simple. Social justice is speaking up and pointing out those times when people are left out or forgotten or abused and trying to do something about it.

It's not difficult to see how people can assume government is the only solution to these problems, but that is merely one interpretation. I'd hate to see our denomination stick to such a narrow understanding of a big, biblical concept.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans,

What in the world are you talking about here?

About the mere fact that people were thrown out of the ministry without having violated the Manual at all. So we apparently do not need a Manual statement (= GA action) to start a witch hunt.

But it seems I'm not very succesful these days in explaining what I mean. Perhaps someone else can be my interpreter?

[Ryan Scott]

but Wesley didn't mean "social justice" by "social holiness".

I don't see a difference. Those two terms are absolutely synonymous to me. Holiness and justice both mean a world made right. We're working, individually and corporately, to live in absolutely loving relationship with God. On a personal level, we call it holiness (albeit with the caveat that personal holiness requires social relationships); on a corporate level we call it justice (albeit with the caveat that justice requires personal involvement).

[Ryan Pugh]

I don't see a difference. Those two terms are absolutely synonymous to me. Holiness and justice both mean a world made right. We're working, individually and corporately, to live in absolutely loving relationship with God. On a personal level, we call it holiness (albeit with the caveat that personal holiness requires social relationships); on a corporate level we call it justice (albeit with the caveat that justice requires personal involvement).

I agree with you. It just doesn't seem to be what Wesley meant when he used the term:


“Holy Solitaries” is a phrase no more consistent with the gospel than holy adulterers. The gospel of Christ knows of no religion, but social; no holiness but social holiness.

He was particularly concerned with the individual spirituality of mystics, and he wanted his listeners to know that one cannot be holy without being part of the church. His concern was with Christian fellowship, through which Christians were made holy in love, joy, peace, patience, kindess... and justice. But again, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[Dan Henderson]

I don't see a difference. Those two terms are absolutely synonymous to me. Holiness and justice both mean a world made right. We're working, individually and corporately, to live in absolutely loving relationship with God. On a personal level, we call it holiness (albeit with the caveat that personal holiness requires social relationships); on a corporate level we call it justice (albeit with the caveat that justice requires personal involvement).

Justice is earned...its what we deserve. I don't want justice.

[Wes Smith]

I've said it over and over again - the biblical concept of social justice is the firm commitment that all people have value and deserve to be loved, included, and cared for. It's pretty simple. Social justice is speaking up and pointing out those times when people are left out or forgotten or abused and trying to do something about it.

It's not difficult to see how people can assume government is the only solution to these problems, but that is merely one interpretation. I'd hate to see our denomination stick to such a narrow understanding of a big, biblical concept.

Ryan,

Who have you said that "over and over" again to? My point is that we do not have a denominational glossary where we can turn and read your definition, or anyone's definition.

the biblical concept of social justice is the firm commitment that all people have value and deserve to be loved, included, and cared for.

Where is the pen? Where do I sign?

My only nervousness would center on what you mean by "cared for." In a general sense, "Yes, of course!" In a general, cultural entitlement sense, "No, of course not!"

With some discussion, coaching, I think we could get there!

Friend,

Wes

[Ryan Pugh]

Justice is earned...its what we deserve. I don't want justice.

You don't want all things to be made right and whole and in shalom?

Do you view justice as punitive or restorative?

[Jon Twitchell]

Hans,

What in the world are you talking about here?

Let me be clear. Oliver said that our general leadership was banning the phrase "social justice" from our publications and dialogue.

No... I'm pretty sure he said that our USA REGIONAL leadership was banning the phrase.


He referenced one appearance of the phrase from our Manual and, at least, the insinuation was that the phrase would be expunged by genneral leadership. I said it would take a vote of the GA for that to happen.

I don't think he was insinuating that at all. I think he was insinuating that whatever (dictate/mandate/coaching) he had received from REGIONAL leadership was not consistent with the Manual's use of the term.

[Jon Twitchell]

About the mere fact that people were thrown out of the ministry without having violated the Manual at all. So we apparently do not need a Manual statement (= GA action) to start a witch hunt.

But it seems I'm not very succesful these days in explaining what I mean. Perhaps someone else can be my interpreter?

I understand all too well. I strongly suspect that in the last 5 years we could find examples of some people who have been thrown out of the ministry without violating the Manual at all... this time, not regarding tongues, but regarding their political position on whether or not the Government should offer the same rules/regulations/benefits to homosexual couples that they offer to heterosexual couples.

[Billy Cox]

Billy-
I know what was talking about because I was there. By the time the events to which refer took place, I had gone elsewhere.

I am not aware of any instance in which the introduction of the practice of speaking in tongues in a public worship Nazarene setting resulted in anything positive happening. Old-time Pentecostals would have regarded keeping the practice private as a lily-livered quenching of the Spirit.

I'm not suggesting that the Pentecostal interlopers were in the right, just that the denomination's hamhanded response probably did at least as much lasting harm to the denomination (including local congregations and clergy) as the intruders did.

[Wes Smith]

About the mere fact that people were thrown out of the ministry without having violated the Manual at all. So we apparently do not need a Manual statement (= GA action) to start a witch hunt.

But it seems I'm not very succesful these days in explaining what I mean. Perhaps someone else can be my interpreter?

Hans,

One of your points is well-taken and I thoroughly agree. There has been a sort of "witch hunt," but it had nothing to do with the Manual. It had to do with a statement by the General Supts. You are right, in your words, "we apparently do not need a Manual statement (+GA action) to start a witch hunt.

My point was that the GS's are not the supreme authority in the Church of the Nazarene. The General Assembly is. If there was a statement from the GA saying that it is okay for Nazarene pastors to have a personal prayer language there would not have been, could not have been a "witch hunt" because the GS's would have had to submit to the higher power/authority of the GA.

The same is true with Oliver's concern about banning the use of "social justice" with the possibility of expunging the phrase from the Manual. They do not have that authority. General leadership would/does have the authority to declare to all the downline people that the phrase is banned in periodicals (not the Manual) and literature, or to declare that "coaching" regarding the useage of the phrase is in and the actual useage of the phrase is out. Their inter-GA declaration could be reversed by a subsequent GA.

I don't think you need an interpreter!

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

I'm not suggesting that the Pentecostal interlopers were in the right, just that the denomination's hamhanded response probably did at least as much lasting harm to the denomination (including local congregations and clergy) as the intruders did.

Billy,

Just so you know, my life would be severely diminished were you not in it. In the stuff you write with which I disagree, you are still very entertaining! Thank you.

However, today you write something with "witch" I agree and you included a word I wouldn't have thought of in a thousand years, "hamhanded." Where did that come from?

And, I must say that John's use of "lilly-livered" added to my day, too!

Friend,

Wes

[Billy Cox]

About the mere fact that people were thrown out of the ministry without having violated the Manual at all. So we apparently do not need a Manual statement (= GA action) to start a witch hunt.

But it seems I'm not very succesful these days in explaining what I mean. Perhaps someone else can be my interpreter?

Hans, some people are uncomfortable with the idea that day-to-day operation of the denomination requires that considerable power to be delegated from the General Assembly to various individuals, some of whom have very little accountability beyond their own conscience and reputation. Some people need to believe that the BGS is a monolithic committee in which no GS is anymore powerful/influential than any other and that they wouldn't implement any substantial operating policy (whether written or de facto) without first checking the GA's pulse.

[Marcus Kibbe]

You don't want all things to be made right and whole and in shalom?

Do you view justice as punitive or restorative?

Both. As soon as we acknowledge that there is such a thing as final judgement, you must concede at least one case where judgment cannot be corrective/restorative. There is no after, no second chance, no possibility of rehabilitation.

C.S. Lewis depicts the horrific consequences of a penal system detached from the principle of retribution in his famous essay "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment":
We demand of a deterrent not whether it is just but whether it will deter. We demand of a cure not whether it is just but whether it succeeds. Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether; instead of a person, a subject of rights, we now have a mere object, a patient, a 'case'.

[Billy Cox]

Billy,

Just so you know, my life would be severely diminished were you not in it. In the stuff you write with which I disagree, you are still very entertaining! Thank you.

However, today you write something with "witch" I agree and you included a word I wouldn't have thought of in a thousand years, "hamhanded." Where did that come from?

And, I must say that John's use of "lilly-livered" added to my day, too!


Initially, I used the word 'heavy-handed', but opted for the more colorful term to suggest that the denomination's response was not simply draconian but also inept.

[Ryan Scott]

Justice is earned...its what we deserve. I don't want justice.

I recognize justice is going to cost me something; it will be painful... but I still want justice.

[Ryan Pugh]

Both. As soon as we acknowledge that there is such a thing as final judgement, you must concede at least one case where judgment cannot be corrective/restorative. There is no after, no second chance, no possibility of rehabilitation.

Doesn't that depend on what "final judgment" actually is? I don't think we need to rabbit trail into final judgment, heaven, hell, etc. Ryan's response to Dan is good enough for me.

[Dan Henderson]

You don't want all things to be made right and whole and in shalom?

Do you view justice as punitive or restorative?

Restorative is mercy, punitive is justice. I'll take mercy every time

[Ryan Pugh]

Restorative is mercy, punitive is justice. I'll take mercy every time

What makes you say that justice is punitive?

And, why would anyone use the term social justice if justice=punitive?

Justice, especially when talking about social justice, has to be about people and societies being restored, or else it's not really "just" at all.

[Craig Laughlin]

Justice is only punitive if you are the one perpetrating the injustice. Justice is restorative if you are the one being done an injustice.

Maybe that is the problem. Most of us are on the winning side of the issues addressed by Social Justice so we perceive it as an attack on us.

[Todd Erickson]

One of the great problems of being an American trying to identify with the Jewish heroes in the bible is that we are more properly roman citizens than Jewish ones.

Never mind that most of our active participants are white males...

Making clear statements about justice may escape us completely.

[Kevin Rector]

Justice is earned...its what we deserve. I don't want justice.

Did you watch the video from Trevecca? Because if you did you'd realize that your statement does not at all address the topic of this thread.

[Dan Henderson]

Justice is only punitive if you are the one perpetrating the injustice. Justice is restorative if you are the one being done an injustice.

Maybe that is the problem. Most of us are on the winning side of the issues addressed by Social Justice so we perceive it as an attack on us.

These are legal terms and the legal profession owns the definitions. Us mere mortals don't get to redefine what justice means. If you want a term that is a closcer approximation of how we should act, try Social Mercy. No one owes you anything. Here's a translation for you,

...The wages of sin is death (justice), but the gift of God is enternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (mercy)

[Dan Henderson]

Did you watch the video from Trevecca? Because if you did you'd realize that your statement does not at all address the topic of this thread.

Yes, and they are still hanging their argument on poor word pictures. That is, the word picture does not match the argument. "Social Justice" is most closely related to compusary wealth redistribution (socialism). I still maintain that it has no place in Christian literature, at least not in the US. It might fare better in European countries but not here. The term is lost to us as to any meaningful or valuable working definition.

[Jim Chabot]

These are legal terms and the legal profession owns the definitions. Us mere mortals don't get to redefine what justice means. If you want a term that is a closcer approximation of how we should act, try Social Mercy. No one owes you anything. Here's a translation for you,

...The wages of sin is death (justice), but the gift of God is enternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (mercy)

Bravo Dan! I think you might be on to something here. I'm for sure one of those whom the good people at headquarters may have been thinking of as they applied "coaching" to avoid the term "social justice." Generally once I see this term, I go and read something else. Not interested in being preached at by someone who needs to get a better idea as to how to get the word out.

But yeah, "Social Mercy." YEAH and AMEN to that! I like it and I like it a lot because it actually fits what we should be doing. We should be looking to extend mercy whenever and wherever we can, as we do this we lose the wrong perspective that the term "justice" brings with it. For as we seek to impose justice, and yes that's what happens. We impose justice rather than extend it, we start to look at how others should pitch in rather than to concentrate on our own efforts. We begin to lose faith in the Spirit's ability to speak, and we start to talk over Him.

Social Mercy! Very nice indeed! I like it a lot!

[Jon Twitchell]

Fascinating that God doesn't seem to see justice and mercy as quite so opposite as has been painted here.

After all, through Micah, we are told to act justly and to love mercy.

Perhaps, instead of letting the (western) legal community define the word justice, we ought to be interested in what the (eastern) ancient Hebrews understood as justice.

Let's not be so willing and agreeable to let someone else define theological terms.

[Craig Laughlin]

These are legal terms and the legal profession owns the definitions. Us mere mortals don't get to redefine what justice means. If you want a term that is a closcer approximation of how we should act, try Social Mercy. No one owes you anything. Here's a translation for you,

...The wages of sin is death (justice), but the gift of God is enternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (mercy)

Actually they are theological terms. Most certainly for the purposes of this discussion they are theological and moral. Law is simply the codification of public morality as Christians we are held to a much higher standard than the law of man.

Edit - both justice and mercy are much broader than the simple teleological implications.

[Kevin Rector]

Yes, and they are still hanging their argument on poor word pictures. That is, the word picture does not match the argument. "Social Justice" is most closely related to compusary wealth redistribution (socialism).

I find your statement utterly fascinating. When the people in the video (these are people who daily are living and working in the field in question) say that social justice is NOT about compulsory wealth redistribution... why would you say that it is? It's like a medical doctor saying, "hemophilia is not a liver disorder" and then you saying, "hemophilia is a liver disorder."

[Doug Ward]

So only non-whites have knowledge of justice and can make clear statements about it? That sounds racist.

[Kevin Rector]

So only non-whites have knowledge of justice and can make clear statements about it? That sounds racist.

Doug, it's generally good form to quote others so that people know what you're talking about. I typically don't have time to read all posts in a thread and I have zero idea what you are referencing here.

Just a friendly suggestion to make conversation easier for all of us. :)

[Jon Twitchell]

So only non-whites have knowledge of justice and can make clear statements about it? That sounds racist.

I'm not sure that was said.

I *think* that the suggestion was made that if the people defining justice are the ones who are not oppressed in any way, that the definition will look drastically different then how it might be defined by those suffering any form of oppression.

One of the best insights I received regarding the Book of the Revelation came from Jim Garlow. He suggested that Revelation is best read through the lens of the oppressed and suffering. Justice looks different when you're looking down on it from a life of ease then when you're looking up at it from a life of discomfort, poverty, or oppression.

[Eric Frey]

I find your statement utterly fascinating. When the people in the video (these are people who daily are living and working in the field in question) say that social justice is NOT about compulsory wealth redistribution... why would you say that it is? It's like a medical doctor saying, "hemophilia is not a liver disorder" and then you saying, "hemophilia is a liver disorder."

I'm not a medical doctor, but I have a son with severe hemophilia. I can assure it it is not a liver disorder, though interestingly some of the innovative gene therapy developments have involved the liver.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/health/research/hemophilia-b-gene-therapy-breakthrough.html

Now back to your regular theological programming...

[Doug Ward]

Never mind that most of our active participants are white males...

Making clear statements about justice may escape us completely.

OK - I thought who I was responding to was self-evident, as it appears in relation to this statement. I have explicitly cited it now.

So white males cannot understand or speak clearly about justice? That sounds racist.

[Dan Henderson]

Actually they are theological terms. Most certainly for the purposes of this discussion they are theological and moral. Law is simply the codification of public morality as Christians we are held to a much higher standard than the law of man.

Edit - both justice and mercy are much broader than the simple teleological implications.

Next you are going to tell me that our judicial system is rooted in Judeo-Christian thought...

I think Don Henley has far better theology than most regarding this subject.

[Rich Schmidt]

OK - I thought who I was responding to was self-evident, as it appears in relation to this statement. I have explicitly cited it now.

I know this is off-topic, but just FYI...

On my screen (viewing the forum in Linear Mode), Todd's post was #114. Your first comment in response to it was #122, and on a different page. I'd read Todd's comment (and a few after it) over an hour ago, before stepping away from NazNet for a while. When I returned and read your post, I had no idea what you were referring to.

Quoting the person you're responding to always helps.

Now, back to the topic...

[Paul DeBaufer]

One of the great problems of being an American trying to identify with the Jewish heroes in the bible is that we are more properly roman citizens than Jewish ones.

Never mind that most of our active participants are white males...

Making clear statements about justice may escape us completely.

You make an excellent point as to privilege. Even IF we can make fair statements about justice ours are tainted by our privilege, especially when we cannot or will not acknowledge that we come from a position of privilege.

[Paul DeBaufer]

OK - I thought who I was responding to was self-evident, as it appears in relation to this statement. I have explicitly cited it now.

So white males cannot understand or speak clearly about justice? That sounds racist.

Todd isn't saying that white males cannot understand or speak about justice. We can, but we have to realize that much of what we think and feel about the subject has been coloured by the fact that we are the ones in the position of privilege. That is we represent the oppressor class to many of those who are oppressed. This is something that we need to recognize and understand. I'm not sure how we correct for it, and in the eyes of many we will never be able to correct for it. But I do think that there needs to be a place for our voice in the discussion, when we recognize our status and admit it.

[Doug Ward]

You make an excellent point as to privilege. Even IF we can make fair statements about justice ours are tainted by our privilege, especially when we cannot or will not acknowledge that we come from a position of privilege.

This is exactly where this argument over-reaches. White male does not equal privilege. White does not equal privilege. Minority does not equal victim. This is itself a position tinged by more than a bit of racism.

[Doug Ward]

Todd isn't saying that white males cannot understand or speak about justice. We can, but we have to realize that much of what we think and feel about the subject has been coloured by the fact that we are the ones in the position of privilege. That is we represent the oppressor class to many of those who are oppressed. This is something that we need to recognize and understand. I'm not sure how we correct for it, and in the eyes of many we will never be able to correct for it. But I do think that there needs to be a place for our voice in the discussion, when we recognize our status and admit it.

This is explicitly what Todd said. I will take your word for it, but you are far more able to read minds than I am, so i will bow to your correction. I will not understand what Todd explicitly stated.

[Todd Erickson]

OK - I thought who I was responding to was self-evident, as it appears in relation to this statement. I have explicitly cited it now.

So white males cannot understand or speak clearly about justice? That sounds racist.

John Scalzi wrote a great article a few weeks back about how being a white male is like playing the game of life on easy mode (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/). Most people have no idea how good they have it, especially in America.

When a White American Upper Class Male makes broad statements about what is just for everybody...(dare I throw "extroverted" into that list as well?)...you get very biased views on justice.

When the outlook on justice comes from a classic/modern hermeneutic where God wants to punish mankind, but through the amazing power of Penal Substitutionary atonement, Jesus tricked God into punishing Himself instead, you get a view of justice which is mostly negative, and centers around who gets to go be tortured in hell forever.

When the people who have the majority of the wealth and resources in the world claim that they are oppressed and they fear justice...you begin to fall into the realm of absurdism.

Will I live my life struggling with isolation and depression while other males around me happily discuss sports? Yes, probably, but that's nothing on children working in slavery in africa, or sex slaves, or single parents trapped in dead in jobs, or male rape victims in africa who are now rejected by everybody they come into contact with, or...

Justice has many faces and many facets. It's purpose, God tells us, is shalom, wholeness, healing.

We who have much may have a great deal of difficulty adequately speaking of justice, especially when we are often busy defining who we are not required to give justice to.

Isaiah 1:17-28 "learn to do good. Seek justice: help the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow. Come now, and let's settle this, says The Lord. Though your sins are like scarlet, they will be white as snow. If they are red as crimson, they will become like wool. If you agree and obey, you will eat the best food of the land. But if you refuse and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword.
"This faithful town has become a prostitute! She was full of justice; righteousness lived in her, but now murderers. Your silver has become impure, your beer is diluted with water. Your princes are rebels, companions of thieves. Everyone loves a bribe and pursues gifts. They don't defend the orphan, and the widow's cause never reaches them. Therefore, says the Lord God of heavenly forces, the mighty one of Israel; Doom! I will vent my anger against my foes; I will take it out on my enemies, and I will turn my hand against you. I will refine your impurities as with lye, and remove all of your cinders. Then I will restore your judges as in earlier times, and your counselors as at the beginning. After this, you will be called the Righteous City, Faithful Town."

[Benjamin Burch]

John Scalzi wrote a great article a few weeks back about how being a white male is like playing the game of life on easy mode (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/). Most people have no idea how good they have it, especially in America.

When a White American Upper Class Male makes broad statements about what is just for everybody...(dare I throw "extroverted" into that list as well?)...you get very biased views on justice.

When the outlook on justice comes from a classic/modern hermeneutic where God wants to punish mankind, but through the amazing power of Penal Substitutionary atonement, Jesus tricked God into punishing Himself instead, you get a view of justice which is mostly negative, and centers around who gets to go be tortured in hell forever.

When the people who have the majority of the wealth and resources in the world claim that they are oppressed and they fear justice...you begin to fall into the realm of absurdism.

Will I live my life struggling with isolation and depression while other males around me happily discuss sports? Yes, probably, but that's nothing on children working in slavery in africa, or sex slaves, or single parents trapped in dead in jobs, or male rape victims in africa who are now rejected by everybody they come into contact with, or...

Justice has many faces and many facets. It's purpose, God tells us, is shalom, wholeness, healing.

We who have much may have a great deal of difficulty adequately speaking of justice, especially when we are often busy defining who we are not required to give justice to.

Isaiah 1:17-28 "learn to do good. Seek justice: help the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow. Come now, and let's settle this, says The Lord. Though your sins are like scarlet, they will be white as snow. If they are red as crimson, they will become like wool. If you agree and obey, you will eat the best food of the land. But if you refuse and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword.
"This faithful town has become a prostitute! She was full of justice; righteousness lived in her, but now murderers. Your silver has become impure, your beer is diluted with water. Your princes are rebels, companions of thieves. Everyone loves a bribe and pursues gifts. They don't defend the orphan, and the widow's cause never reaches them. Therefore, says the Lord God of heavenly forces, the mighty one of Israel; Doom! I will vent my anger against my foes; I will take it out on my enemies, and I will turn my hand against you. I will refine your impurities as with lye, and remove all of your cinders. Then I will restore your judges as in earlier times, and your counselors as at the beginning. After this, you will be called the Righteous City, Faithful Town."

That article is gold.

[Paul DeBaufer]

This is exactly where this argument over-reaches. White male does not equal privilege. White does not equal privilege. Minority does not equal victim. This is itself a position tinged by more than a bit of racism.

Actually, white male is THE privileged class. Straight white male to be more specific. But I agree, just because one is a straight, white male doesn't mean that he has experienced the benefits of the privilege while still being of that group. I mean I get no benefit from it and have suffered marginalization, disenfranchisement, and even oppression, not to the degree that POC have and do. While I do not feel or experience privilege I still recognize that I am of it. Maybe I did benefit as a child: I was afforded good public schools, lived in a decent neighbourhood that was free of crime and poverty, I never went hungry or have to rely on government assistance.

[Dan Henderson]

Actually, white male is THE privileged class.

Actually, its not. I can personally attest to that.

[Doug Ward]

When a White American Upper Class Male makes broad statements about what is just for everybody...(dare I throw "extroverted" into that list as well?)...you get very biased views on justice.


OK - now we are getting somewhere! Look at all the qualifiers we now have. Before you stated white=privilege. I thought the single parent working in a N. Carolina Mill might find that funny, if it were not so sad. I thought about the coal miner in West Virginia, or the Iron ore worker in the UP, and the word "privilege" never entered my mind. Now we have not only white, but American, and especially Upper Class. Jackpot!!!

No one would argue this, except to say that Upper Class is the definitive word here. Yet that was not your original post. To view the world in a monochromatic manner, as if black and white were the determinitive factors seems antiquated, and just wrong. There are social factors, cultural factors, regional traits, and most importantly economic realities. This latest post is better, although that article you cited was more caricature than descriptive.

[Paul DeBaufer]

This is explicitly what Todd said. I will take your word for it, but you are far more able to read minds than I am, so i will bow to your correction. I will not understand what Todd explicitly stated.

Explicitly Todd said "May not...." and you chose to see a statement of "cannot" rather than what was actually said. So it really has nothing to do with reading minds but that actual words that were used, what Todd actually wrote. I am not a mind reader, just a reader, which to some may make it seem like I read minds.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Actually, its not. I can personally attest to that.

Then you really have no idea what privilege is or its history.

[Doug Ward]

While I do not feel or experience privilege I still recognize that I am of it. Maybe I did benefit as a child: I was afforded good public schools, lived in a decent neighbourhood that was free of crime and poverty, I never went hungry or have to rely on government assistance.

Paul, this is non-sensical. It is the same as saying, "I am rich. While I do not have money or have experienced money, I am of it." Huh? There are a huge number of whites that live in bad neighborhoods and are locked in social welfare programs. There are a majority of minorities that do not fit this description. Yet many continue to perpetrate this idea, seeking to keep this world going. For what purpose? When we have to describe a world that is not to bolster our position, perhaps there is an issue.

[Dan Henderson]

Then you really have no idea what privilege is or its history.

Its a priveledge to have an opinion. What is your point? I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't agree with you?

If the aforementioned statement applies at all, it would only be to recent history, a drop of water in the ocean of human history.

[Doug Ward]

Then you really have no idea what privilege is or its history.

Sorry, it is you that have no idea at all. Devoid of any historical reality. Privilege is not a color. Privilege is not determined by pigment. There are layers of influences from culture, to region, to family, to faith, to ECONOMICS. Different sub-groups of whites have had vastly different outcomes. Different sub-groups of blacks have had vastly different group outcomes. Wait - that is not possible, because privilege is a mere pigment.

[Todd Erickson]

We live in a nation where skin color only stopped being something that fell under the law within the last 50 years, and where there are daily news items that show that, for instance, being black and wearing a hoody is the same as trying to kill somebody. Or firing a gun into the ceiling of your own home to stop your abusive husband from killing you.

We may, as individuals, have some idea of what justice is, though Dan's continuing "nope, I know better, and I'm entitled to my opinion, but you're wrong" answers only go to illustrate how far off we can be, especially from those with more of a baptist than wesleyan worldview.

If you have to fear it, it isn't justice, it isn't what three quarters of the world are crying out for.

[Dan Henderson]

We live in a nation where skin color only stopped being something that fell under the law within the last 50 years, and where there are daily news items that show that, for instance, being black and wearing a hoody is the same as trying to kill somebody. Or firing a gun into the ceiling of your own home to stop your abusive husband from killing you.

We may, as individuals, have some idea of what justice is, though Dan's continuing "nope, I know better, and I'm entitled to my opinion, but you're wrong" answers only go to illustrate how far off we can be, especially from those with more of a baptist than wesleyan worldview.

If you have to fear it, it isn't justice, it isn't what three quarters of the world are crying out for.

Precicely, the reason I prefer grace and mercy is because I know what I deserve. I don't want justice.

And though I prefer original meanings versus co-opted meanings, I'm realist enough to know that in the American landscape, justice is a useless word.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Paul, this is non-sensical. It is the same as saying, "I am rich. While I do not have money or have experienced money, I am of it." Huh? There are a huge number of whites that live in bad neighborhoods and are locked in social welfare programs. There are a majority of minorities that do not fit this description. Yet many continue to perpetrate this idea, seeking to keep this world going. For what purpose? When we have to describe a world that is not to bolster our position, perhaps there is an issue.

Except that historically for whites opportunity was more possible than for POC. Consider the poor white communities, even the coal miners and the iron miners (I lived on the iron Range in Minnesota), as poverty stricken as these areas can be, as poor as conditions can be and have been, they are better than the conditions and opportunities for POC in those same areas.

It is probably more a class issue these days than one of colour, but we bring our legacy to the table. We inherit the legacy of those who looked like us.

[Todd Erickson]

Precicely, the reason I prefer grace and mercy is because I know what I deserve. I don't want justice.

And though I prefer original meanings versus co-opted meanings, I'm realist enough to know that in the American landscape, justice is a useless word.

Love has become more about sex than anything. I think we should abandon that term.

Christian has become identified with hate and judgement. We should abandon that term.

Christ...well, really, do I need to go there? Let's just dump all of the langauge, and the bible with it while we're at it. We'll all be better off, right?

[Doug Ward]

Except that historically for whites opportunity was more possible than for POC.

It is probably more a class issue these days than one of colour, but we bring our legacy to the table. We inherit the legacy of those who looked like us.

YES! YES! and YES! Yet this was not the original statement - not even close. We cannot even hope to address the real issues, unless we will describe the reality, and not be held hostage by a monochromatic worldview.

[Dan Henderson]

Love has become more about sex than anything. I think we should abandon that term.

Christian has become identified with hate and judgement. We should abandon that term.

Christ...well, really, do I need to go there? Let's just dump all of the langauge, and the bible with it while we're at it. We'll all be better off, right?

Careful not to drip all that sarcasm on your other posts ...

[Paul DeBaufer]

Sorry, it is you that have no idea at all. Devoid of any historical reality. Privilege is not a color. Privilege is not determined by pigment. There are layers of influences from culture, to region, to family, to faith, to ECONOMICS. Different sub-groups of whites have had vastly different outcomes. Different sub-groups of blacks have had vastly different group outcomes. Wait - that is not possible, because privilege is a mere pigment.

The people who have controlled the wealth and have been the oppressors in the West have been white male, not black, not brown, not yellow, or blue or any other colour, just white. I am sorry you feel it necessary to defend the legacy you have inherited, I do not, matter of fact I decry that legacy and want to shed it. But we cannot shed it IF we refuse to admit it was there and still resides vestigially.

[Todd Erickson]

Careful not to drip all that sarcasm on your other posts ...

I hand it out for free.

Still, if we're going to drop justice because you see people using it differently, where do we stop? At what point do we say "no, I claim this word, i refuse to drop it, and in fact, I will redeem it?" You're all for abandoning things that are inconvenient to you; I refuse. You're twisting mercy to mean something that it can't, out of balance with justice. All very nice for you, but still, wrong.

[Paul DeBaufer]

YES! YES! and YES! Yet this was not the original statement - not even close. We cannot even hope to address the real issues, unless we will describe the reality, and not be held hostage by a monochromatic worldview.

I think we are closer than we ever thought.

[Dan Henderson]

I hand it out for free.

Still, if we're going to drop justice because you see people using it differently, where do we stop? At what point do we say "no, I claim this word, i refuse to drop it, and in fact, I will redeem it?" You're all for abandoning things that are inconvenient to you; I refuse. You're twisting mercy to mean something that it can't, out of balance with justice. All very nice for you, but still, wrong.

Its not because its different, its because its become mutually exclusive, like the term "gay". Both terms can only be used one way in modern american culture.

Another example, inerrant has been coopted to mean exclusively mechanical dication. It can't be used with any other meaning with "fundie" opponents.

[Todd Erickson]

"inerrant" and "gay" are adjectives. Justice, on the other hand, is an ideal.

I can change my adjectives all of the time. But if I give up my ideals...

I honestly had no idea what inerrant was until I encountered all of the ways it was used badly. I still haven't seen it used in a way which is appropriate.

And justice still has very clear, unadultered meaning outside of the U.S., unlike inerrant and gay.

[Doug Ward]

The people who have controlled the wealth and have been the oppressors in the West have been white male, not black, not brown, not yellow, or blue or any other colour, just white. I am sorry you feel it necessary to defend the legacy you have inherited, I do not, matter of fact I decry that legacy and want to shed it. But we cannot shed it IF we refuse to admit it was there and still resides vestigially.

Paul - this is not the issue, and you have just changed the topic. Plus this statement is just false. There is no legacy I have defended. Go back and check. I simply have stated white does not equal privilege. Pretty simple. In junior high, some cool girls made fun of me. Therefore girls=oppression, right? So my wife and my daughter must admit they are oppressors. No, just because cool girls made fun of me, means that all girls are oppressors.

No one has denied anything, except for you. You seem to deny what the original statement was. White=privilege. Most who have been privileged have been white - not all. But that does not mean white equals. There are millions of people where this is plain silly on its face.

[Dan Henderson]

"inerrant" and "gay" are adjectives. Justice, on the other hand, is an ideal.


Adjective is to noun as ideal is to ____?

From dictionary.com, look up justice and scroll down to Bible dictionary:

... is rendering to every one that which is his due. It has been distinguished from equity in this respect, that while justice means merely the doing what positive law demands, equity means the doing of what is fair and right in every separate case.

[Dan Henderson]

I'd be willing to take "Social Equity" for a spin.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I'd be willing to take "Social Equity" for a spin.

This might fit with distributive justice. When we think of justice we tend to think in terms of retributive justice rather than distributive. I think that what is most often meant in social justice is distributive rather then retributive. So, maybe Social Equity is a good term.

[Dan Henderson]

This might fit with distributive justice. When we think of justice we tend to think in terms of retributive justice rather than distributive. I think that what is most often meant in social justice is distributive rather then retributive. So, maybe Social Equity is a good term.

As long as its not done by the government or compelled in any way by law

[Lance Schmitz]

I do not understand the apprehension about the term social justice, well actually I do but that is a whole other conversation. Social Justice is not about overthrowing the tables of power, but rather ensuring that all persons have a voice in our world and have representation. It is about making sure that all persons are cut back into the fold and freed from the margins of society. Salvation is about including those who are forgotten, it is about the now and not just the later. Our world is unjust, we as clergy and Christians must be about insuring that all voices are heard, that all persons have their dignity recognized, that each human persona and all of creation is recognized and treated as God created. We must be engaged in our political world as well as our spiritual world. To seek the welfare of the city and those person damned to the margins of society. I don't get why this is so controversial.
A quote that explains the necessity of social justice.

It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I do not understand the apprehension about the term social justice, well actually I do but that is a whole other conversation. Social Justice is not about overthrowing the tables of power, but rather ensuring that all persons have a voice in our world and have representation. It is about making sure that all persons are cut back into the fold and freed from the margins of society. Salvation is about including those who are forgotten, it is about the now and not just the later. Our world is unjust, we as clergy and Christians must be about insuring that all voices are heard, that all persons have their dignity recognized, that each human persona and all of creation is recognized and treated as God created. We must be engaged in our political world as well as our spiritual world. To seek the welfare of the city and those person damned to the margins of society. I don't get why this is so controversial.
A quote that explains the necessity of social justice.

It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

I agree it is not about turning the tables, all revolution accomplishes is a new boss, a new oppressor. No, social justice, in the biblical sense, seems to me to subvert the hierarchical system that allows for the oppressor, whomever that may be, new or old.

[Dan Henderson]

I agree it is not about turning the tables, all revolution accomplishes is a new boss, a new oppressor. No, social justice, in the biblical sense, seems to me to subvert the hierarchical system that allows for the oppressor, whomever that may be, new or old.

As stated by "St" Pete Townsend:
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

[Todd Erickson]

As stated by "St" Pete Townsend:
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

You mean Pharaoh, I mean, King Solomon?

[Paul DeBaufer]

As stated by "St" Pete Townsend:
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Had his words melodically in my head as I wrote :o

Yet, we never seem to live out his prophecy, we always get fooled again

[Jim Chabot]

I'd be willing to take "Social Equity" for a spin.

Nope, you had it nailed with "Social Mercy" that it biblical! Only positive thing I've read yet in this depressing thread.

Equity carries the connotation that something is deserved, which is absolutely not biblical in the sense of our obligation to the less fortunate. Clearly they do not "deserve" anything from us. It is Love which compels us, it's compassion, it is mercy, not justice nor equity.

[Kevin Rector]

Nope, you had it nailed with "Social Mercy" that it biblical! Only positive thing I've read yet in this depressing thread.

Equity carries the connotation that something is deserved, which is absolutely not biblical in the sense of our obligation to the less fortunate. Clearly they do not "deserve" anything from us. It is Love which compels us, it's compassion, it is mercy, not justice nor equity.

But they do deserve something from us, they deserve to be treated with dignity, love, and respect.



de·serve [dih-zurv] Show IPA verb, de·served, de·serv·ing.
verb (used with object)
1. to merit, be qualified for, or have a claim to (reward, assistance, punishment, etc.) because of actions, qualities, or situation.

Therefore they must merit, be qualified for, or have a claim to something plus it must be because of action situation or qualities they possess.

The poor qualify for being treated as creatures beloved by God because of the quality they have as being creatures beloved by God.

[Rich Schmidt]

But they do deserve something from us, they deserve to be treated with dignity, love, and respect.



Therefore they must merit, be qualified for, or have a claim to something plus it must be because of action situation or qualities they possess.

The poor qualify for being treated as creatures beloved by God because of the quality they have as being creatures beloved by God.

You're reminding me of Romans 13:8 - Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another...

A debt is an obligation, something I am required to pay. And, of course, we know that love isn't just words but includes actions, including financial actions (1 John 3:16-18).

It's no wonder there's a long tradition in Christian thought that says wealthy Christians owe their extra wealth to the poor...

[Paul DeBaufer]

Nope, you had it nailed with "Social Mercy" that it biblical! Only positive thing I've read yet in this depressing thread.

Equity carries the connotation that something is deserved, which is absolutely not biblical in the sense of our obligation to the less fortunate. Clearly they do not "deserve" anything from us. It is Love which compels us, it's compassion, it is mercy, not justice nor equity.

No argument, just a comment. You and I sure see things differently and I am sure that's the philosophies we bring with us to the biblical narrative. As I see it, at the very least, our obligation is to God who tells us to treat the poor, the oppressed equitably, if He didn't actually create an obligation amongst us, one for the other.

[Wes Smith]

No argument, just a comment. You and I sure see things differently and I am sure that's the philosophies we bring with us to the biblical narrative. As I see it, at the very least, our obligation is to God who tells us to treat the poor, the oppressed equitably, if He didn't actually create an obligation amongst us, one for the other.

Paul,

Just wanted to highlight a phrase in your post and my comment: absolutely true. And huge energy and thought process is wasted in an effort to charm people from one conviction to another. Your statement advocates strongly for "coaching."

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

You're reminding me of Romans 13:8 - Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another...

A debt is an obligation, something I am required to pay. And, of course, we know that love isn't just words but includes actions, including financial actions (1 John 3:16-18).

It's no wonder there's a long tradition in Christian thought that says wealthy Christians owe their extra wealth to the poor...

Rich,

That suggests to me that it wouldn't take long for everyone to be poor.

I'd be more attracted to, "People with more than enough are compelled to invest in programs and activities that will enhance the life-skills and life-opportunities for the poor."

Friend,

Wes

[Paul DeBaufer]

You're reminding me of Romans 13:8 - Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another...

A debt is an obligation, something I am required to pay. And, of course, we know that love isn't just words but includes actions, including financial actions (1 John 3:16-18).

It's no wonder there's a long tradition in Christian thought that says wealthy Christians owe their extra wealth to the poor...


Rich,

That suggests to me that it wouldn't take long for everyone to be poor.

I'd be more attracted to, "People with more than enough are compelled to invest in programs and activities that will enhance the life-skills and life-opportunities for the poor."

Friend,

Wes

Wonder about Exodus 16:18 and 2 Corinthians 8:15 (itself a repeat of the Exodus statement) "Those who gathered much had nothing over, and those who gathered little had just enough." This seems to me the biblical way of God.

[Jim Chabot]

But they do deserve something from us, they deserve to be treated with dignity, love, and respect.

I think you might be missing what I'm saying, it is at the core of my repulsion regarding the term "social justice." But no, they deserve absolutely nothing from us, we have not contributed to their station, nor do we shoulder responsibility. No one is deserving of anything, except possibly Hell, nothing else.

Yet that has nothing to to with the compassion we feel as we are moved by the Love within us. We cannot help ourselves as we are moved by the very Spirit of God. It has nothing to do with whether anyone is deserving or not, that would be works. We should not be able to resist the urge within us to be merciful and benevolent.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I think you might be missing what I'm saying, it is at the core of my repulsion regarding the term "social justice." But no, they deserve absolutely nothing from us, we have not contributed to their station, nor do we shoulder responsibility. No one is deserving of anything, except possibly Hell, nothing else.

Yet that has nothing to to with the compassion we feel as we are moved by the Love within us. We cannot help ourselves as we are moved by the very Spirit of God. It has nothing to do with whether anyone is deserving or not, that would be works. We should not be able to resist the urge within us to be merciful and benevolent.

Would you, please, demonstrate this position to me as I really cannot see it in the biblical narrative. I do understand that there is some doctrinal positions that are similar which I don't see how they are arrived at either.

[Hans Deventer]

I guess the misunderstanding here is a too limited concept of justice. God's justice includes His mercy and His setting things right. So if we are merciful, in God's eyes, that is justice. If we do it to one another, that is social. So if we leave the Tea Party politics out of a decent interpretation of the Scriptures, than we understand that we are to be merciful as our heavenly father is merciful. And that this, in the very best Biblical meaning of the term, is God's justice. So Jim is right in talking about mercy. We indeed deserve nothing but hell. But since we received mercy, it is justice to grant mercy as well. Otherwise, the King who has been so merciful, will throw us in jail after all. (Matth 18:21-35). And that, my friends, is God's justice too. You'll notice God has a different concept of justice in mind than we do. Thankfully, I might add.

[Jim Chabot]

I guess the misunderstanding here is that God's justice includes His mercy and His setting things right. So if we are merciful, in God's eyes, that is justice. If we do it to one another, that is social. So if we leave the Tea Party politics out of a decent interpretation of the Scriptures, than we understand that we are to be merciful as our heavenly father is merciful. And that this, in the very best Biblical meaning of the term, is God's justice. So Jim is right in talking about mercy. We indeed deserve nothing but hell. But since we received mercy, it is justice to grant mercy as well. Otherwise, the King who has been so merciful, will throw us in jail after all. (Matth 18:21-35). And that, my friends, is God's justice too. You'll notice God has a different concept of justice in mind as we do. Thankfully, I might add.

Thanks Hans! Yes the Mercy is indeed just as we give from what we have been given. I noticed something in Ephesians last night where it said "let the thief steal no more, but let him work so that he can give." So yes we are benefactors, we are grateful and we seek to extend the mercy given us to others. All the while they don't deserve it, then again neither did we.

[Ryan Pugh]

But no, they deserve absolutely nothing from us,
You seem to be bent on the belief that the poor deserve nothing from us. Maybe you should respond to Kevin's post. (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php/8388-Social-justice-A-house-divided-against-itself?p=141317&viewfull=1#post141317) And, as Paul has asked, how do you reach that conclusion through the biblical narrative?


we have not contributed to their station, nor do we shoulder responsibility.

You won't like this, but oh well...

"I am convinced that God did not mess up and make too many people and not enough stuff. Poverty was not created by God but by you and me, because we have not learned to love our neighbors as ourselves." - Shane Claiborne

[Wes Smith]

Major insight that will, no doubt, greatly impact the rest of my life.

The odds of proving someone wrong are far greater than getting him to agree with my opinion.

Friend,

Wes

[Ryan Pugh]

As i think about this thread, I keep thinking this, an adaptation of a Mother Teresa quote:

If we have no justice, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other.

Or put a different way...

If we have some with more than enough and some with not enough, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other.

[Ryan Pugh]

You won't like this, but oh well...

"I am convinced that God did not mess up and make too many people and not enough stuff. Poverty was not created by God but by you and me, because we have not learned to love our neighbors as ourselves." - Shane Claiborne

And I will be clear that social justice is not just about "stuff". Providing and partnering to provide resources is a huge part of it, but it's not the only part.

[Jim Chabot]

You seem to be bent on the belief that the poor deserve nothing from us. Maybe you should respond to Kevin's post. (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php/8388-Social-justice-A-house-divided-against-itself?p=141317&viewfull=1#post141317) And, as Paul has asked, how do you reach that conclusion through the biblical narrative?

Ah but I did respond to Kevin's post. As to the Biblical Narrative, I would simply ask "what's your problem?" Have I not said that we give and we help due to the unction of the Spirit? Have I not said that the love extended to us constrains us to share with others? What am I missing? Oh don't worry I get it. I'm missing the "blame" aspect of this. And I'm missing it because I will not bend to the false notion that folks are "deserving" nor will I bend to the moutebank's incessant cry for justice. Sorry but my response is in the positive, my response to God is "thank you so much" it is a constant response, while my response to those in need is "how can I help" because I've been helped.


Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise:Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler,Provideth her meat in the summer, [and] gathereth her food in the harvest.How long wilt thou sleep, O sluggard? when wilt thou arise out of thy sleep?[Yet] a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep:So shall thy poverty come as one that travelleth, and thy want as an armed man.



You won't like this, but oh well...

"I am convinced that God did not mess up and make too many people and not enough stuff. Poverty was not created by God but by you and me, because we have not learned to love our
neighbors as ourselves." - Shane Claiborne

Of course he is entitled to his opinion. And your right, I don't like it. I have no use for the guilt peddlers. Should one want to read someone with a real commitment I would suggest that R.G. Letourneau would be a much better resource.

[Jim Chabot]

And I will be clear that social justice is not just about "stuff". Providing and partnering to provide resources is a huge part of it, but it's not the only part.

Yes, and social mercy is still far superior!

[Ryan Pugh]

Ah but I did respond to Kevin's post.

You didn't really seem to respond to what he actually said though. IMO.


Of course he is entitled to his opinion. And your right, I don't like it. I have no use for the guilt peddlers. Should one want to read someone with a real commitment I would suggest that R.G. Letourneau would be a much better resource.

So you're saying Claiborne doesn't have a "real commitment" to helping the poor? Interesting.

A brief glance at LeTourneau shows that he was an inventor of machinery and other engineering stuff. What should I look for that suggests that he is a much better resource when it comes to social justice?

[Sarah Smith]

Again, whether or not we "owe" the poor anything depends on which poor.

There are certainly those poor because of no opportunity, no jobs available, mental or physical defect or disease, poor education,etc. We need to help.

There are those poor by deliberate choice--think Mother Theresa. We need to not meddle.

And there are those poor because they choose not to avail themselves of available work for which they qualify. Personally, I think the Biblical and Wesleyan adage of if any WILL not work, neither should they eat applies.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Ah but I did respond to Kevin's post. As to the Biblical Narrative, I would simply ask "what's your problem?" Have I not said that we give and we help due to the unction of the Spirit? Have I not said that the love extended to us constrains us to share with others? What am I missing? Oh don't worry I get it. I'm missing the "blame" aspect of this. And I'm missing it because I will not bend to the false notion that folks are "deserving" nor will I bend to the moutebank's incessant cry for justice. Sorry but my response is in the positive, my response to God is "thank you so much" it is a constant response, while my response to those in need is "how can I help" because I've been helped.






Of course he is entitled to his opinion. And your right, I don't like it. I have no use for the guilt peddlers. Should one want to read someone with a real commitment I would suggest that R.G. Letourneau would be a much better resource.

All I really wanted was to try to understand where the idea of undeserved comes from as I truly do not know. The passage you cite certainly applies to the sluggard, but not all in poverty are there because they are sluggards. In fact I'd say most are not. They are there due to the oppressive nature of hierarchical power structures which by necessity send some into the margins by disenfranchising them. God tells us throughout the Isaiahs that we are to loosen the bonds of oppression, to quit looking solely to our own interests and to look to the interests of others. God sort of seems to imply that this is what people deserve. So, again, I am just trying to understand something I do not understand buit you seem to have a good handle on. Yet, you ignore my request, then get all militant saying that people deserve other than Hell is false. How is it false? How is undeserved true and show me biblically, please. I would really like to understand. I'd really like to know your reasoning and support. Not that it will change my mind, but I seek to understand, or at least try.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Again, whether or not we "owe" the poor anything depends on which poor.

There are certainly those poor because of no opportunity, no jobs available, mental or physical defect or disease, poor education,etc. We need to help.

There are those poor by deliberate choice--think Mother Theresa. We need to not meddle.

And there are those poor because they choose not to avail themselves of available work for which they qualify. Personally, I think the Biblical and Wesleyan adage of if any WILL not work, neither should they eat applies.

Social justice, restorative justice, distributive justice is NOT about supplying the needs of the sluggard as Jim rightly points out. It is about restoring opportunity to those who have traditionally been denied opportunity. It means to level the playing field. If one chooses to not avail herself of opportunity then her situation is her own fault. However, for many, the vast majority of the disenfranchised this is not the case. They have been denied meaningful opportunity. These include POC, who traditionally, since the founding of America, have bore the brunt of the disenfranchisement, as well as the poor white. I think it is less today about race than class. Classism is alive and well even within our churches. There are others who are denied meaningful opportunity because they for whatever reasons don't measure up to someones standards. Think for instance the ex-convict, opportunity for this class of individual is meager at best, when it actually exists.

So you are right lets not confuse issues here.

[Jim Chabot]

You didn't really seem to respond to what he actually said though. IMO.

So you're saying Claiborne doesn't have a "real commitment" to helping the poor? Interesting.

A brief glance at LeTourneau shows that he was an inventor of machinery and other engineering stuff. What should I look for that suggests that he is a much better resource when it comes to social justice?

No I didn't say that Clairborne doesn't have a real commitment, rather I compared him with LeTourneau. I know little about Clairborne other than the offensive self serving quotes that seem to appear from time to time with his name on them. To wit, I'm pretty uninterested in him. Which is of course the whole point of this thread, if the term "social justice" is offensive, then I agree with those at headquarters who "coach" folks to be less offensive.

LeTorneau deserves much more than a passing glance, but a horse may only be led to water so that would be up to you.

Briefly he was a fellow with a deep commitent to charitable work, at one point he was giving 90% of his income away. He attributed all of his inventions and success to that of the Lords hand, his faith was simple and secure. He is also responsible in huge part for paying the way for R.A. Forrest here:

http://www.tfc.edu/

As I don't know much about Clairborne, I don't want to dismiss him out of hand only buy reason of the quotes offered. Has he made a real difference directly that would compare with Bob LeTourneau. Not that I'm looking for a competition, just that I much prefer Bob'e leadership by example.

[Ryan Pugh]

No I didn't say that Clairborne doesn't have a real commitment, rather I compared him with LeTourneau. I know little about Clairborne other than the offensive self serving quotes that seem to appear from time to time with his name on them.

Examples?


To wit, I'm pretty uninterested in him. Which is of course the whole point of this thread, if the term "social justice" is offensive, then I agree with those at headquarters who "coach" folks to be less offensive.

It's not offensive :)


LeTorneau deserves much more than a passing glance, but a horse may only be led to water so that would be up to you.

That's why I asked for specific direction.


Briefly he was a fellow with a deep commitent to charitable work, at one point he was giving 90% of his income away. He attributed all of his inventions and success to that of the Lords hand, his faith was simple and secure. He is also responsible in huge part for paying the way for R.A. Forrest here:

http://www.tfc.edu/

As I don't know much about Clairborne, I don't want to dismiss him out of hand only buy reason of the quotes offered. Has he made a real difference directly that would compare with Bob LeTourneau. Not that I'm looking for a competition, just that I much prefer Bob'e leadership by example.

They don't really seem comparable at all, based on the kinds of work each of them have committed themselves to.

[Jim Chabot]

All I really wanted was to try to understand where the idea of undeserved comes from as I truly do not know. The passage you cite certainly applies to the sluggard, but not all in poverty are there because they are sluggards. In fact I'd say most are not. They are there due to the oppressive nature of hierarchical power structures which by necessity send some into the margins by disenfranchising them. God tells us throughout the Isaiahs that we are to loosen the bonds of oppression, to quit looking solely to our own interests and to look to the interests of others. God sort of seems to imply that this is what people deserve. So, again, I am just trying to understand something I do not understand buit you seem to have a good handle on. Yet, you ignore my request, then get all militant saying that people deserve other than Hell is false. How is it false? How is undeserved true and show me biblically, please. I would really like to understand. I'd really like to know your reasoning and support. Not that it will change my mind, but I seek to understand, or at least try.

I'm sorry Paul, really I am. I'm not trying to ignore you, rather I'm trying to stay out of this incredibly depressing thread. And I'm doing a poor job, as already I feel mired in and depressed. better I should have talked with you.

Just quickly though. I am not militant necessarily, perhaps it comes across this way as my feelings here are akin to that which I feel for the telemarketers and the constant calls to aid in some good cause that I've yet to hear of.

Perhaps there is a bit of misunderstanding here, because I agree with most of what your saying. Look at the part where we are instructed, commanded, encouraged or whatever to act. Good, I'm with you there, no problem. But no one needs to be "deserving" for this to happen, it isn't required nor does it need to be related. It's merely fodder to those seeking to instill guilt. I don't care what people deserve, I want to help regardless. You may be seeing implications where I am not. I don't see a call to cry over the situation of the poor, rather I see a call to action. I don't need the guilt implied by justice, it's a distraction and it's a de motivator.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I'm sorry Paul, really I am. I'm not trying to ignore you, rather I'm trying to stay out of this incredibly depressing thread. And I'm doing a poor job, as already I feel mired in and depressed. better I should have talked with you.

Just quickly though. I am not militant necessarily, perhaps it comes across this way as my feelings here are akin to that which I feel for the telemarketers and the constant calls to aid in some good cause that I've yet to hear of.

Perhaps there is a bit of misunderstanding here, because I agree with most of what your saying. Look at the part where we are instructed, commanded, encouraged or whatever to act. Good, I'm with you there, no problem. But no one needs to be "deserving" for this to happen, it isn't required nor does it need to be related. It's merely fodder to those seeking to instill guilt. I don't care what people deserve, I want to help regardless. You may be seeing implications where I am not. I don't see a call to cry over the situation of the poor, rather I see a call to action. I don't need the guilt implied by justice, it's a distraction and it's a de motivator.

Thank you.

[Jim Chabot]

Examples?

I've yet to see one that moved me in a positive manner. Not trying to be difficult, but I'm not going to go reading through his stuff it's not going to be beneficial/.


It's not offensive :)

Thanks, that has been my understanding so far. You guys have fun, I'm out.


That's why I asked for specific direction.

No problem, that's why I provided some.


They don't really seem comparable at all, based on the kinds of work each of them have committed themselves to.

Thanks, this is helpful. I'll continue to ignore Clairborne then. LeTorneau has been a great motivator for me. Maybe Clairborne is following his call and filling his spot as a particular part of the body. I'm more inclibned to follow along with LeTorneau, although his shoes are enormous compared to mine.

[Jim Chabot]

Thank you.

You are most welcome Paul.

[Kevin Rector]

Sorry but my response is in the positive, my response to God is "thank you so much" it is a constant response, while my response to those in need is "how can I help" because I've been helped.

So effectively, what you are saying is that you believe in social justice, you just seem to have some sort of visceral negative reaction to the nomenclature "social justice". Sounds to me, like you are all for social justice as described in the video from Trevecca.

So you don't like being "guilted"... great neither do I. Constructive practitioners of social justice would not engage in "guilting" you, and you can reasonably ignore those who do.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but this article from catholic.com attempts to strike a balance on the subject of how the term "social justice" is used. The author explains the meaning of the phrase but confesses that it has been repurposed in a way similar to the way "gay" has changed meaning. He points out that in the case of "gay" though, the context provides a definition. "Social Justice" however, can be a purely Christian concern or a "liberal" hot button term. Which of these two can be rather unclear to the listener.

The writer of the article argues for keeping the term. You can decide for yourself whether or not he makes his case.

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/social-justice-isn%E2%80%99t-left-or-right

[Todd Erickson]

Religion is another term, btw, which has gained negativity in the overall culture, though not through use in the classic sense.

Or as another theologian has said "when I run into Atheists, and they tell me about the god they deny, I tell them that's okay, I deny that god too..."

We can let the people with the negative publicity define the terms, or we can fulfill them in love.

[Wes Smith]

So effectively, what you are saying is that you believe in social justice, you just seem to have some sort of visceral negative reaction to the nomenclature "social justice". Sounds to me, like you are all for social justice as described in the video from Trevecca.

So you don't like being "guilted"... great neither do I. Constructive practitioners of social justice would not engage in "guilting" you, and you can reasonably ignore those who do.

When are we going to come around to and face up to the controversy that got this thread started in the first place? The premise was that we have a historic definition of "social justice" that should work for 100% of us. Does the roller coaster, back and forth dialogue suggest to any of you that perhaps some "coaching" would be good for the denomination? What's the name of that river in Egypt again?

Friend,

Wes

[Cynthia Prentice]

I think we all probably agree that what happened on Pentecost is incredibly important but what some might not know is that God chose to have this event occur on a Jewish holiday...which in addition to other things was a day that focused on sharing with the poor. Leviticus 23:15-22, Numbers 28:26-31, Deuteronomy 16:9-12

Here are the last two sentences from the Lev. and Deut. portion.

22 “‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and for the foreigner residing among you. I am the Lord your God.’”

11 And rejoice before the Lord your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name —you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, the Levites in your towns, and the foreigners, the fatherless and the widows living among you. 12 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt, and follow carefully these decrees.

The book of Ruth is read during the Festival of Shav'uot...a book that at its heart is about a poor, widowed, outsider, gleaning the corners of the field, who is marvelously brought into the tribe of Israel.

I don't think it was accidental that God poured his Spirit out onto believers on this day. It would not have been lost on the followers of Jesus that of all days...the day when all of Israel shared with the poor (literally shared their feast with them) was the day that God moved from the Temple to enthrone himself on the altar of the heart. Literally, just like at the dedication of the temple in the past, fire fell onto the "new" temple...the believers. I think it is a powerful message to see that the day we celebrate as the birth of the church occurred on a day with such a tremendous focus on the poor.

edited to add: I just wanted to note that I believe that it is almost certain that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit occurred on the believers while at the Temple. It was 9am on the morning of Shav'uot, they all would have been at the temple for morning prayers (along with all the Jews in Jerusalem). The temple was commonly referred to as the "house." There were several dozen ceremonial baths (mikvehs) for baptism. And even more amazing is the passage that would have been read that morning...Ezekiel chapter 1 where God showed up in wind and fire...and then told Ezekiel he would put his words in Ezekiel's mouth.

During the second temple period the giving of the law was celebrated on Shav'uot, which, at the time it had originally been given almost 3,000 died. On the morning of the Shav'uot following Jesus' ressurection, God wrote his law on their hearts, not stone tablets, and almost 3,000 believed. When we look at this festival...at the parallels with what happened at Pentecost...in addition to all this we must look at the message regarding the poor....sharing with and caring for the poor.

Acts 2:44-47 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.


(I apologize if this has already been mentioned...I've read a lot of the thread, but not all of it)

[Gina Stevenson]

Thanks, Cynthia. If I have heard Pentecost was on a holiday (probably did), it has been forgotten. Thank you.

[Billy Cox]

So effectively, what you are saying is that you believe in social justice, you just seem to have some sort of visceral negative reaction to the nomenclature "social justice". Sounds to me, like you are all for social justice as described in the video from Trevecca.

So you don't like being "guilted"... great neither do I. Constructive practitioners of social justice would not engage in "guilting" you, and you can reasonably ignore those who do.

What if some of the guilt is legitimate? Who among us claims to be innocent?

[Jim Chabot]

What if some of the guilt is legitimate? Who among us claims to be innocent?

Maybe thats where the real social justice comes in. You know the kind of justice that Haggai and Malachi speak of. Go ahead, be a cheapskate, keep what you have, don't give to those you could help. Or at least you can try to keep it. What did He say in Haggai? The losses will continue until generosity improves.

Give it a try, hold back on giving for a while. Don't be surprised if your furnace doesn't make the winter, or the car needs a transmission. You will give, one way or the other. That's the social justice that comes from a failing of social mercy.

[Billy Cox]

Maybe thats where the real social justice comes in. You know the kind of justice that Haggai and Malachi speak of. Go ahead, be a cheapskate, keep what you have, don't give to those you could help. Or at least you can try to keep it. What did He say in Haggai? The losses will continue until generosity improves.

Give it a try, hold back on giving for a while. Don't be surprised if your furnace doesn't make the winter, or the car needs a transmission. You will give, one way or the other. That's the social justice that comes from a failing of social mercy.

I'm uncomfortable with the apparent distinction between social justice and social mercy. In God's economy, mercy and justice are not opposites.

[Todd Erickson]

My Dad often says "the only thing that's eternal are souls". And then goes on to say that soup kitchen are a needless distraction from saving the lost from the fires of hell.

I think that the culture we inhabit has a number of myths (entitlement, consumerism, manifest destiny) that we just can't see past very well.

Jim, if things people say here don't apply to you, then they don't. Stop arguing that the term can't apply to anybody because it doesn't apply to you, please? And, if you really don't like the argument/discussion, why are you still participating in it?

[Rich Schmidt]

That suggests to me that it wouldn't take long for everyone to be poor.

I'd be more attracted to, "People with more than enough are compelled to invest in programs and activities that will enhance the life-skills and life-opportunities for the poor."

Hmm... I think that what you described might satisfy the "debt of love" that Romans 13 says we owe to one another. The passage in 1 John 3 that I referred to earlier doesn't specify how our compassion must be shown to our brother or sister in need. It just says that the love of God in us will by necessity lead to our showing compassion. The similar passage in James 2:14-17 says we have to do something about their need for clothes and daily food... but it doesn't say how we must do that.

Just today, I told a homeless man over the phone that our church had nothing extra to give him beyond what we had already given to two other organizations in town that are specifically focused on helping people in his situation. I wasn't going to pay for his continued stay at a motel when we help provide a multi-church men's homeless shelter program that would give him a place to sleep & eat for free (so long as he's willing to play by their very reasonable rules).

Of course, none of this gets me any further from the demand of those passages of Scripture. I find it interesting that Paul used the idea of "debt" there. If I owe a debt of love to those around me, then they deserve to be paid. At least, that's how it seems to me.

I'm comfortable with the phrase "social justice" because of how it's been used by Christians for centuries and because I was taught that justice is broader than punitive/retributive justice. But that's already been covered by others. If I knew (or accepted) no definition of justice beyond the retributive, then I would probably reject the "social justice" phrase... because it wouldn't make much sense. But, ultimately, the labels don't matter nearly so much to me as whether or not we're all doing the work Christ calls us to do for our brothers and sisters and neighbors in all kinds of need.

[Jim Chabot]

Jim, if things people say here don't apply to you, then they don't. Stop arguing that the term can't apply to anybody because it doesn't apply to you, please? And, if you really don't like the argument/discussion, why are you still participating in it?

If people don't tell you that they are offended by a certain term and why, then how will you ever know?

[Jim Chabot]

I'm uncomfortable with the apparent distinction between social justice and social mercy. In God's economy, mercy and justice are not opposites.

I understand the concept regarding mercy as justice, no problem there. However there are times when God extracts a pound of flesh from us. I'm sure that it's merciful that He doesn't extract more, yet still. Perhaps not opposites, but for sure the motivation isn't always by positive reinforcement. The economic stories of the OT, pretty much tell the story that there are consequences. I've both felt the consequences and the rewards. Call me foolish if you like, but whenever I'm feeling an economic tightness in the chest, I look for ways to give. The economic pain has always given way when I act this way.

In any case we are to exercise mercy, while God holds justice in His hand. Are they opposites? Are they not? Yes, I guess so.

[Todd Erickson]

If people don't tell you that they are offended by a certain term and why, then how will you ever know?

I came to terms a long time ago with the fact that A. most people didn't care about anything I had to say, and B. if I let what people thought of what I had to stay get in the way of me saying it, I'd never say anything.

Which means that I generally care less about whether I offend people than a lot of other people might, I suppose.

[Oliver Phillips]

I'm comfortable with the phrase "social justice" because of how it's been used by Christians for centuries and because I was taught that justice is broader than punitive/retributive justice. But that's already been covered by others. If I knew (or accepted) no definition of justice beyond the retributive, then I would probably reject the "social justice" phrase... because it wouldn't make much sense. But, ultimately, the labels don't matter nearly so much to me as whether or not we're all doing the work Christ calls us to do for our brothers and sisters and neighbors in all kinds of need.

I really like your approach and position Rich! Following is a "censored" magazine article (2011) that I thought is relevant to the discussion.

"Sticks and Stones May Break my Bones: In Defense of Social Justice"

Oliver R. Phillips

One wonders today whether this old children’s rhyme holds any sane degree of truth in an age when the content, context, meaning, and scope of terms we use sometimes get buried beneath the covering of our own biases and prejudices, likes and dislikes. Could it be that children can seize and explore a teachable moment for a church that has become intolerably divisive about terms and words that are by themselves innocent references to life and its boundaries and responsibilities?

Of late, the term “social justice” has come on hard times. Sadly, the history of any reference to the collective responsibility of society to aid in making our world a better and more equitable place in which to live has been plagued with both inhospitality and intolerance. The emergence of the Social Gospel in the nascent years of the twentieth century has bequeathed the Evangelical church with a sense of fear that the Pauline admonishment to exercise fidelity to salvation by faith might be coopted by a works theology. While this fear has been proven to be based on an imbalanced biblical interpretation, the vestiges of discontent remain. The prophetic enunciations of justice run the risk of becoming muted, having been fueled by the voices of media mercenaries and godless materialism.

We don’t have to look too far around the globe to discover the result of religious intolerance.

Words and expressions used in the Bible carry certain baggage, yet we have learned to be open and accepting of these changes. Kings and Kingdom no longer are acceptable expressions of political, economic, or social democracy. Gone is the age of such monarchical systems that pit the authority of the few against the collective wisdom of the majority. Yet references to Jesus as King, albeit the disconnect with emerging global democracies, still resonate as an acceptable term even to the degree that Jesus is about restoring the kingdom. I wonder how this concept of kingdom reflects democratic ideals within a Christianity that is witnessing monumental gains in the global East and South! We need to remind ourselves that the concept of a king got Israel in trouble. God was brought kicking and screaming, in response to their request for a king, like the other nations.

The word “slave” also carry malcontent within cultures that have recent memories of the human indignities that have been practiced through trade and colonial expansionism. Yet, in spite of these memories, we sing about being slaves for Christ in a vernacular to which such references is alien and repulsive.

The children’s rhyme holds true, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” The analogy falls apart however, when the term “social justice” is used. Suffice it to say that there might be some baggage concomitant with its usage, but that is no reason for the faith community to dissociate with the intent, message, meaning, and substance of the term. Social justice, though hijacked by some, and misused by others, is a biblical principle that demands no apology.

We have no greater example than John Wesley, who undoubtedly understood the mandate to practice social justice as an integral component of Christian discipleship.

[Billy Cox]

If people don't tell you that they are offended by a certain term and why, then how will you ever know?

Are you saying that you're offended by the term 'social justice'? Maybe the political activist segment at GMC is on to something.

[Oliver Phillips]

Elected in 2008 as the first woman general superintendent in the history of The Wesleyan Church and its precedent bodies, Lyon has spoken to some of the largest gatherings in the evangelical movement. She has been a proponent of the relevance of the holiness movement in the 21st century, especially as it relates to holy character and social justice. Lyon was ordained in The Wesleyan Church in 1996.

Well, it was indeed refreshing to note that the solo General Superintendent of the Wesleyan Church has been an advocate of "social justice," and is apparently comfortable with the term without seeming reservations. Also comforting is the fact that NCN News did not find it necessary to modify or qualify the use of the term in relating her background. Right On, Wesleyans!

[Wes Smith]

All,

I'm not offended by the phrase "social justice." I am offended by the supposition that some have that the phrase has a universal definition and understanding among the folks.

Here is simple differentiation that works for me.

Some believe that "social justice" is mindlessly doling out money and other resources to "poor" people with no thought being given to the positive target of permanently lifting people out of the cycle of poverty.

Some believe that "social justice" is methodically strategizing and participating with poor people to break the cycle of poverty.

I am not trying to say there aren't other issues, but it seems inarguable that good people hold to either of these definitions. For either to speak for all is impossible. Let's not be afraid of developing useful terminology.

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

I really like your approach and position Rich! Following is a "censored" magazine article (2011) that I thought is relevant to the discussion.

"Sticks and Stones May Break my Bones: In Defense of Social Justice"

Oliver R. Phillips

One wonders today whether this old children’s rhyme holds any sane degree of truth in an age when the content, context, meaning, and scope of terms we use sometimes get buried beneath the covering of our own biases and prejudices, likes and dislikes. Could it be that children can seize and explore a teachable moment for a church that has become intolerably divisive about terms and words that are by themselves innocent references to life and its boundaries and responsibilities?

Of late, the term “social justice” has come on hard times. Sadly, the history of any reference to the collective responsibility of society to aid in making our world a better and more equitable place in which to live has been plagued with both inhospitality and intolerance. The emergence of the Social Gospel in the nascent years of the twentieth century has bequeathed the Evangelical church with a sense of fear that the Pauline admonishment to exercise fidelity to salvation by faith might be coopted by a works theology. While this fear has been proven to be based on an imbalanced biblical interpretation, the vestiges of discontent remain. The prophetic enunciations of justice run the risk of becoming muted, having been fueled by the voices of media mercenaries and godless materialism.

We don’t have to look too far around the globe to discover the result of religious intolerance.

Words and expressions used in the Bible carry certain baggage, yet we have learned to be open and accepting of these changes. Kings and Kingdom no longer are acceptable expressions of political, economic, or social democracy. Gone is the age of such monarchical systems that pit the authority of the few against the collective wisdom of the majority. Yet references to Jesus as King, albeit the disconnect with emerging global democracies, still resonate as an acceptable term even to the degree that Jesus is about restoring the kingdom. I wonder how this concept of kingdom reflects democratic ideals within a Christianity that is witnessing monumental gains in the global East and South! We need to remind ourselves that the concept of a king got Israel in trouble. God was brought kicking and screaming, in response to their request for a king, like the other nations.

The word “slave” also carry malcontent within cultures that have recent memories of the human indignities that have been practiced through trade and colonial expansionism. Yet, in spite of these memories, we sing about being slaves for Christ in a vernacular to which such references is alien and repulsive.

The children’s rhyme holds true, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” The analogy falls apart however, when the term “social justice” is used. Suffice it to say that there might be some baggage concomitant with its usage, but that is no reason for the faith community to dissociate with the intent, message, meaning, and substance of the term. Social justice, though hijacked by some, and misused by others, is a biblical principle that demands no apology.

We have no greater example than John Wesley, who undoubtedly understood the mandate to practice social justice as an integral component of Christian discipleship.


Oliver,

First, what do you mean by "censored?" Explain that.

You are posting this here on NazNet. NazNet is not censoring your article. Who did? And, to what degree?

Speaking only for myself, I am quite put off by the generality of your accusations. Instead of being a persuasive voice for good deeds and creative involvement in culture you are spiting the hand that feeds.

My impression is that David Platt's book, "Radical" and World Vision's, Rich (old what's his name), "The Hole In The Gospel" have done MUCH to marshall the forces of Christianity to get involved in helping people. Yet your, almost venemous, words describe it like this, "...a church that has become intolerably divisive about terms and words that are by themselves innocent references to life and its boundaries and responsibilities? " Who are you talking to/about?

For the life of me, I do not get your article and I do not get your general statements, nor do I get the benefit of using the word, "censorship." Pretty sure the power of your words, abilities, personality and influence can be put to far better use.

On a gentle note here. Oliver you are addressing people here on NazNet who are sympathetic to your ministries and to your causes. Treat us like friends and we will enthusiastically dialogue with you. Can't, obviously, speak for others, but treat us like your enemy and you will always get significant pushback. Not sure what demons you are fighting, but we aren't them.

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

Are you saying that you're offended by the term 'social justice'? Maybe the political activist segment at GMC is on to something.

Billy,

They are.

Friend,

Wes

[Oliver Phillips]

Oliver,


On a gentle note here. Oliver you are addressing people here on NazNet who are sympathetic to your ministries and to your causes. Treat us like friends and we will enthusiastically dialogue with you. Can't, obviously, speak for others, but treat us like your enemy and you will always get significant pushback. Not sure what demons you are fighting, but we aren't them.

Friend,

Wes

Wes, I think you may have misunderstood the purpose of the article. The article was originally written for publication in a magazine, and intended to address the hostility that is evident from some segments of the magazine's readership. The only purpose for posting was to further bolster the position that we should not be disposed to the censorship of such terms as "social justice."

I would be the first to confess that I am confident that Naznetters are not my "enemy." Over the years I have found NTers to be very well balanced in the manifold views represented. I apologize if that is the perception that is conveyed.

Let me elucidate a bit, for clarification's sake: My original post, IMHO was an attempt to call for a more unified voice among our denomination's leadership ranks. What the thread suggested was that we create the semblance of instititutional chaos if among the regional leadership there is not a unified voice with respect to terminology. What I stated was that "social justice" the term, was eschewed by US/Canada Regional leadership. Some have suggested that it might have been merely a matter of "coaching," but I hold to the fact that it was much more than coaching, sadly.

The change I was advocating for in the thread was not change by Naznetters, but by leadership.

Well, I may have muddied the waters unintentionally, but it is my frail attempt to clarify things a bit.

SHALOM!

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Years ago I was privileged to spend some time ministering in Australia. Early on in that trip I used the word "bum" in a sermon. A friend came to me and gently told me that, apparently, the word had a different meaning there than it did for me. He didn't "censor" me, but he advised me that I might be wise to use a different word with the same meaning.

Another time, I was preaching about "minding God" -- "we ought to mind God." My Australian friend, again, gently explained to me that for him and many of my listeners, "minding God" felt to them as if I was suggesting we put God on a leash and take him for a walk, as in "minding the dog" or taking care of it.

I could have told my friend that "I" knew what those words meant and that, in context, so did my listeners. Instead, I took those words as good advise and avoided using those terms for the rest of the trip. I was much more interested in getting my message across than I was in arguing for the use of a particular phrase. In fact, to this day, I say, "obeying God" rather than "minding God."

These days, "social justice" is a term that, unfortunately, has for many some negative baggage with it. It's a shame. I think that in some circles it's a perfectly good term that is understood by all. However, in other circles it means something different than intended - with political overtones.

Really, the issue is more important than the phrase. Why make the issue about the words used when there are much bigger fish to fry?

[Hans Deventer]

Good post, Scott. Still, I remember reading how John Wesley kept contending for the word "perfection", though he was attacked and ridiculed for it. But it was a proper Biblical word, so he kept explaining it.

Now for all I know, social justice as a phrase isn't in the Bible. So we have room there. But the concept behind the phrase, properly understood, is so thoroughly Biblical that we can't let go of it.

[Billy Cox]

I'm not offended by the phrase "social justice." I am offended by the supposition that some have that the phrase has a universal definition and understanding among the folks.

My question about offense was intended for Jim.



Some believe that "social justice" is mindlessly doling out money and other resources to "poor" people with no thought being given to the positive target of permanently lifting people out of the cycle of poverty.

Sounds like you nailed the GMC unwritten policy that Oliver was referring to.


I am not trying to say there aren't other issues, but it seems inarguable that good people hold to either of these definitions. For either to speak for all is impossible. Let's not be afraid of developing useful terminology.

When a term like 'social justice' becomes strongly identified as a buzzword for liberal political causes, and the Nazarene audience in the USA has a fair amount of affinity for knee jerk movements like the Tea Party, usage of the term guarantees that a portion of the audience stops listening at that point.

[Glenn Messer]

When a term like 'social justice' becomes strongly identified as a buzzword for liberal political causes, and the Nazarene audience in the USA has a fair amount of affinity for knee jerk movements like the Tea Party, usage of the term guarantees that a portion of the audience stops listening at that point.

Is "knee jerk" a favorable term? I hope so because I kinda like where they are pushing us. After the recent Wisconsin voting I actually think they are beginning to have an influence that crosses party lines. Who knows, they may open the door to political 'compromise'.

[Craig Laughlin]

Is "knee jerk" a favorable term? I hope so because I kinda like where they are pushing us. After the recent Wisconsin voting I actually think they are beginning to have an influence that crosses party lines. Who knows, they may open the door to political 'compromise'.

I'm assuming you mean the Tea party is having the influence across party lines not the COTN?

[Mike Schutz]

Let's not be afraid of developing useful terminology.

OR

Why can't we take the time to listen to each other as we clarify what we mean, which is exactly the purpose of the video posted earlier in this thread - featuring Dan Boone and the faculty and students of TNU.

Constantly defining our terms is something we do all the time - and is a helpful exercise. For example, in the ten years I have pastored in my current assignment, I have said each of the following at least 100 times:
"When I say 'sanctification,' I mean ..."
"When I say 'holiness', I mean ..."
"When I say 'means of grace', I mean ..."
"When I say 'saved', I mean ..."

This is necessary because other people mean other things when they use the terms. However, they are still useful terms, that the Church of the Nazarene values, and I want my people to be connected both to the historical church and to the truth behind those terms.

I feel the same way about 'social justice.'

Just because a circus clown from a non-Christian tradition can line up Christians from other streams of the faith to say "The sky is falling" and "Beware of the evil pastors who use this evil term, for they will do evil things in an evil way", and "You know, the most evil man in the world, that H- - - - - guy, also used this term!" doesn't mean those of us who actually have a clue should acquiesce.

Let's just teach our people.

I know it sounds crazy, but I actually showed the video referenced above in my Sunday morning worship service - the entire thing, all 20 minutes.
Why? Because my folks, most of whom do not have a college education, if taught properly, can get it.

[Jim Chabot]

Are you saying that you're offended by the term 'social justice'? Maybe the political activist segment at GMC is on to something.

Why yes I am. It's a lousy term and best left to the political left, I see no basis in the church for Scripture doesn't talk about "justice" but rather "mercy." We give of ourselves and our resources for the reason of Love and Mercy, not for justice. Or at least I do, I give nothing for justice.

Dave McClung made an excellent point on this in another thread.




1 Timothy 6:17 Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18 Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 19 In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.

First, God doesn't need our stuff. God owns and controls the entire world. Why does he provide us "everything?" According to this scripture, it is "for our enjoyment." How do we get the most enjoyment? By doing good, but being rich in good deeds, by being generous and willing to share.

It seems to me that church leaders often present stewardship as something that must bring pain to the steward and a benefit for the church. Properly understood, faithful stewardship benefits the steward more than it does the church. The happiest people I know are those who do lots of good deeds and are willing to share. It is all about attitude.



This makes sense and I'll freely admit that when I hear folks talk about social justice, that's what I hear, I hear about punishing rich folks. And I think one very brief thought before I enter ignore mode. "Get Lost!"

Dan hit it out of the park with his offering of "Social Mercy", perhaps it's time to worry more about the cause than claiming the term.

[Ryan Pugh]

Why yes I am. It's a lousy term and best left to the political left, I see no basis in the church for Scripture doesn't talk about "justice" but rather "mercy." We give of ourselves and our resources for the reason of Love and Mercy, not for justice. Or at least I do, I give nothing for justice.


People have said over and over again that justice and mercy are not opposites. Are you listening?

But, if you are bent on them being opposites, I wonder if we could agree that we give out of love and mercy for justice. I don't understand why you say you give "nothing for justice."

In my mind, social justice is about people being set free to be who they were created to be, especially those considered on the outside. The actions we make to work with God in people being set free to be who they were created to be are actions committed out of love and mercy. They are committed so that justice can be realized.

You don't think social justice is in scripture?

Mark 1:40-42
Jesus encounters a man with leprosy. The man was the marginalized of the marginalized. Yet Jesus becomes so close to him that he actually touches him, healing him, and inviting him into new life and the kingdom that Jesus was ushering in. That's social justice.

Mark 2:1-12
A paralytic, one who would have had no chance at real life without others fighting for him, is brought to Jesus. He is forgiven and healed, sent off to live his new life. That's social justice.

Mark 2:13-17
Jesus invites a tax collector, one whose very work belonged to the corrupt systems of the world that keep people in oppression, to come and follow him. Many tax collectors and sinners eat with Jesus and many of them follow him. That's social justice.

And who was it that got upset with all this happening? The religious folk.

Three examples, and that's in less that two chapters of scripture, but I'm sure you don't read these the same way I do. There are beter example, but these are what I've been reading through in prep for Sunday.

[Dan Henderson]

Ryan,

In all three of your examples above (and the rest as you read throug them), the focus (the reason for the social interaction/relief) was to invite people into a new life ... aka "leave your life of sin. The so-called "social justice" was secondary or incidental to the main focus of Jesus' actions. This term called "social justice" is putrified because it places the focus on the act of relieving people's social issues. This is not what we are called to do. We are called to declare the Gospel. To invite people into a new life. We do this by eating with [re]publicans and sinners, establishing rapport and inviting them into a new life. Food, clothing, shelter, and anything else you want to put under the label of Social Justice is a secondary concern to our call to proclaim. If that is not first, I don't care how much you care for the poor ... you don't really care, if you are not focusing your primary mission on saving souls. Social outreach without the declaration of the Gospel is noting more than a bandaid on an amutated appendage ... its worthless.

Your job is to communicate. If you know that I am not going to listen to you if you continue to insist on using the phrase "social justice", you are not communicating. By not communicating, you lose any opportunity to make your point.

Am I being hardheaded by insisting on not using the term "social justice"? Is it any more hardheaded than you insisting that I do?

You continually insist that it is over the top (unreasonable) for me to shut down when this term is used, yet your dogmatic view of

[Paul DeBaufer]

Ryan,

In all three of your examples above (and the rest as you read throug them), the focus (the reason for the social interaction/relief) was to invite people into a new life ... aka "leave your life of sin. The so-called "social justice" was secondary or incidental to the main focus of Jesus' actions. This term called "social justice" is putrified because it places the focus on the act of relieving people's social issues. This is not what we are called to do. We are called to declare the Gospel. To invite people into a new life. We do this by eating with [re]publicans and sinners, establishing rapport and inviting them into a new life. Food, clothing, shelter, and anything else you want to put under the label of Social Justice is a secondary concern to our call to proclaim. If that is not first, I don't care how much you care for the poor ... you don't really care, if you are not focusing your primary mission on saving souls. Social outreach without the declaration of the Gospel is noting more than a bandaid on an amutated appendage ... its worthless.

Your job is to communicate. If you know that I am not going to listen to you if you continue to insist on using the phrase "social justice", you are not communicating. By not communicating, you lose any opportunity to make your point.

Am I being hardheaded by insisting on not using the term "social justice"? Is it any more hardheaded than you insisting that I do?

You continually insist that it is over the top (unreasonable) for me to shut down when this term is used, yet your dogmatic view of

Our primary concern is to love, not proclaim. Jesus repeatedly tells us to love, never to proclaim. Make disciples, not proclaim. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, visit and give comfort to the sick and those in prison, not proclaim Love is action. God tells us to release the bonds of oppression, that IS social justice. If you do not like the term, fine, coin a new one.

[Dan Henderson]

Our primary concern is to love, not proclaim. Jesus repeatedly tells us to love, never to proclaim. Make disciples, not proclaim. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, visit and give comfort to the sick and those in prison, not proclaim Love is action. God tells us to release the bonds of oppression, that IS social justice. If you do not like the term, fine, coin a new one.

Already have

[Paul DeBaufer]

Already have

Social justice works for me because I refuse to let the politicos hijack it. But am open to using a different term in different company. I'm not married to terms.

[Jim Chabot]

People have said over and over again that justice and mercy are not opposites. Are you listening?

Listening just fine Ryan. But I'm not buying.

While they aren't opposites, there are differences. You are describing mercy, why can't you be kind enough to simply call it that?

[Jim Chabot]

Social justice works for me because I refuse to let the politicos hijack it. But am open to using a different term in different company. I'm not married to terms.

your a good man Paul. And not just for this post, I'm thinking overall, and I'm thinking that I would be remiss and unloving if I missed the opportunity to say so.

[Dan Henderson]

Social justice works for me because I refuse to let the politicos hijack it. But am open to using a different term in different company. I'm not married to terms.

You don't have a choice, its already been done. Therefore you cannot use it to convey meaningful information. If you use the term you do not get the luxury of defining it for the average listener.

[Paul DeBaufer]

You don't have a choice, its already been done. Therefore you cannot use it to convey meaningful information. If you use the term you do not get the luxury of defining it for the average listener.

Sure I do. That's how words gain their meanings, by usage

[Paul DeBaufer]

your a good man Paul. And not just for this post, I'm thinking overall, and I'm thinking that I would be remiss and unloving if I missed the opportunity to say so.

Thank you Jim. Now I'm all verklempt

[Wilson Deaton]

Why yes I am. It's a lousy term and best left to the political left, I see no basis in the church for Scripture doesn't talk about "justice" but rather "mercy."

The Scripture doesn't talk about justice? You must be reading from the RVV (Revised Vision Version).

Wilson

[Ryan Pugh]

Food, clothing, shelter, and anything else you want to put under the label of Social Justice is a secondary concern to our call to proclaim.

Then why is offering food, clothing, and shelter to those who need them the one thing Jesus says we will be judged by?


If that is not first, I don't care how much you care for the poor ... you don't really care, if you are not focusing your primary mission on saving souls.

What does "saving souls" mean? What does it look like?


Social outreach without the declaration of the Gospel is noting more than a bandaid on an amutated appendage ... its worthless.

If the poor need a gospel "declared" to them so badly, why did Jesus say the kingdom belongs to them?

[Wes Smith]

Our primary concern is to love, not proclaim. Jesus repeatedly tells us to love, never to proclaim. Make disciples, not proclaim. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, visit and give comfort to the sick and those in prison, not proclaim Love is action. God tells us to release the bonds of oppression, that IS social justice. If you do not like the term, fine, coin a new one.

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

[Jim Chabot]

The Scripture doesn't talk about justice? You must be reading from the RVV (Revised Vision Version).

Wilson

My, my, my. Lets keep things in context shall we. We are talking about "social" justice, are we not?

[Wes Smith]

Then why is offering food, clothing, and shelter to those who need them the one thing Jesus says we will be judged by?



What does "saving souls" mean? What does it look like?



If the poor need a gospel "declared" to them so badly, why did Jesus say the kingdom belongs to them?

Ryan,

You and Paul are articulating some issues that raise huge questions in my mind.

My experience has been that there is a balance or sharing between Matt. 25 and the various evangelistic teachings of the Bible and historic Christianity. One of the reasons there is a Nazarene Church, I've been told, is because of this necessary blend.

"Saving souls" in my symbolic universe would be presenting Jesus in such a way that people leave what they were doing and follow Him!

Did Jesus say that the Kingdom of God belongs to the poor to the exclusion of the non-poor? I'd like some references/validation for that. If the non-poor are eliminated, then who defines "poor"? Poverty even here in Costa Rica is substantially different than poverty in North America. And, I've heard there are parts of the world where Costa Rica's poor would be defined as quite wealthy.

This is just my personal evaluation, but I see aspects of Christianity that are suffering these days and my own insight is that proclamation of Jesus is decreasing and social justice, sans Jesus, is on the rise.

Friend,

Wes

[Ryan Pugh]

Ryan,

You and Paul are articulating some issues that raise huge questions in my mind.

Great. Questions are good. :)


My experience has been that there is a balance or sharing between Matt. 25 and the various evangelistic teachings of the Bible and historic Christianity. One of the reasons there is a Nazarene Church, I've been told, is because of this necessary blend.

"For I tell you, when you evangelized to one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did it for me." :smilies0717:

Obviously we proclaim good news (that's where the word evangelism comes from) through word and action to people. But my contention is that one can't holistically love the other when one's primary concern is getting the other "saved".


"Saving souls" in my symbolic universe would be presenting Jesus in such a way that people leave what they were doing and follow Him!

Ok, great, but still, what does it mean to "present Jesus" to someone? And specifically, what does it mean to "present Jesus" to the poor? Is "presenting Jesus" the reason for our relationship with them?


Did Jesus say that the Kingdom of God belongs to the poor to the exclusion of the non-poor? I'd like some references/validation for that.

I don't think Jesus's words were meant to exclude anyone, but all we know is what is recorded that he did say: Blessed are the poor for the kingdom belongs to them. What do we do with that and how does it affect our relationship with the poor? And how does it affect how we live?


This is just my personal evaluation, but I see aspects of Christianity that are suffering these days and my own insight is that proclamation of Jesus is decreasing and social justice, sans Jesus, is on the rise.

I appreciate your thoughts. You can rest assured that I don't think social justice occurs and exists without Jesus. Social justice is all about what Jesus is doing to restore people to who they were created to be.

[Paul DeBaufer]

There I was laying in bed praying, thinking and it occurred to me that I am drawn to the marginalized, the disenfranchised, the outcast and oppressed precisely because I am one. I can see their plight and understand the import of Jesus coming to the least of these. People who have traditionally been, for whatever reasons, unable to participate in society at large and the religious community (which was more important socially then than now). People looked down upon, despised. Being despised I can feel their pain, their rebellion against those in the main, those of the classes of privilege.

So, I used to get dragged to all these endless and boring vacation slide shows of people returning from missions trips. I would be chastised, whether actually or it just my fancy or, most probably, both, for not being as enthusiastic as it was thought I should be. I've always been more interested in mission in my own backyard. I don't think it is wrong not to share someones passion and enthusiasm for a particular aspect of our Christian life and calling. But, it would be wrong of me to tell those whose call is foreign missions that they are wrong just as it is wrong for them to tell me I must be as enthusiastic and passionate about it as they. I think that maybe that is what we have going on here. We have a group of us who see passages such as Matthew 25:31-46, the Sermon on the Mount, and Jesus call to love as primary and that all of our evangelizing efforts flow from these. We take seriously OT passages such as Isaiah 58, they are important to us. We are called to expose and subvert the hierarchical power structures, what we call social justice whether that is the best term or not it is what we have and how we use it. Then there are those whose only exposure to the term is from political pundits who have co-opted it to mean something else. These people seem to have a different calling, to a different area of Christian duty. Both sides, IMHO, think the other wrong, when that just may not be the case. We are passionate about leveling the playing field, ushering in the Kingdom of Heaven which, in our view, tears down the oppressive structure of the kingdom of the world, what I consistently refer to as Empire. Others are not so passionate about this, as a matter of fact because of what they are passionate about, the place God has them, the work God has called them to, they cannot see what us social justice people are about. I'm not sure either of us are wrong. We both just see our duty differently because we have different callings and different passions. We should not force upon you, neither should you force upon us. We should try to see the other understanding that he is called differently than we.

Anyway that's what happens when I get alone with my thoughts too long in the insomniac hours.

[Rich Schmidt]

I don't think Jesus's words were meant to exclude anyone, but all we know is what is recorded that he did say: Blessed are the poor for the kingdom belongs to them.

Luke 6:20, for those looking for it.

[Dwayne Petry]

Luke 6:20, for those looking for it.

Is that a different writer recording the same event as: Blessed are the poor in spirit...?

[Rich Schmidt]

Is that a different writer recording the same event as: Blessed are the poor in spirit...?

I couldn't say. But it's clear that Jesus in Luke is talking about actual (not spiritual) poverty, because a few verses later he proclaims woe to those who are rich.

[Wes Smith]

Luke 6:20 is why I phrased my question to Ryan above the way I did. Does this scripture along with all the other "poor" references exclude the non-poor?

Which brings me to the questions I raised above concerning the definition of social justice. Some would say that we are called to social justice and that means giving stuff/money to the poor carte blanc. Others (myself included) say that we have an obligation to develop opportunities for the poor to raise or be raised from poverty to productivity (not trying to pick a fight with the use of those words). In this way a cycle of productivity is created that has the potential to constantly and positively impact the lives of all people.

My revelation in an ancient post (a few days ago) that it is probably easier to prove someone else wrong than to win a convert to another viewpoint is poignently revealed in this specific discussion. If the, as they call themselves, true, historic, social justice folks were truly living out their stated sentiments/beliefs, they would now be fully immersed in their own poverty after having given all to the poor, appealing to people like me to help them and then come and join them. Won't happen. Knock yourselves out trying. We just have a fundamental disagreement.

For me, I'd prefer to be described as someone who the Lord called to give food, water, clothes, visits, etc., AND DID!!! And, that probably describes the difference in these philosophies the best. (Many focus on the poor/needy with no spiritual or philosophical proclamation. I, and others, focus on our ability to give when and where our Lord directs with a focus on helping people rise from poverty...in the Name of our powerful and profound Lord and Savior!)

There is much more to be said about this. Why did Jesus not choose his leadership team from among these "poor," "Kingdom of God" people? Why does He, from the splendor of heaven not just somehow keep the loaves and fish conduit constantly and miraculously open in the direction of the poor? Is it possible that the One who did the work of scorning the shame and enduring the cross would develop an althernative way for a group of followers (Relax, stay put and I'll send some people by to feed, clothe, water & visit you.)? This is such nonsense to me that it bankrupts my imagination and is a clear example of what Scott Peck described in The Road Less Traveled as...folks who like to eat the frosting first.

This line of logic, as I see it, would have as a goal and an end (earthly) result to increase the number of poor. The outcome would be a society where no one is able to help others. My energies will "forever" be to increase the number of thos who are able to help. (Words of Jesus, "I was hungry and YOU fed, YOU watered, YOU clothed, YOU visited. I cannot comprehend anyone, then, not wanting to increase stewardship in order to hear the words...WELL DONE!!!) And, by the way, this debate also has significant political and governmental implications.

Friend,

Wes

[Rich Schmidt]

Which brings me to the questions I raised above concerning the definition of social justice. Some would say that we are called to social justice and that means giving stuff/money to the poor carte blanc.

Who says this?


Others (myself included) say that we have an obligation to develop opportunities for the poor to raise or be raised from poverty to productivity (not trying to pick a fight with the use of those words). In this way a cycle of productivity is created that has the potential to constantly and positively impact the lives of all people.

It seems to me that all of us are saying this... with differing ideas on how best to raise people up out of poverty.


This line of logic, as I see it, would have as a goal and an end (earthly) result to increase the number of poor. The outcome would be a society where no one is able to help others.

How so? It seems like as long as we're following the idea contained in Ephesians 4:28*, I'm not sure how we'd be increasing the number of poor...?

* "Anyone who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with their own hands, that they may have something to share with those in need."

[Dan Henderson]

Luke 6:20, for those looking for it.

I knew that was where he was coming from and why I didn't respond. I could not come up with any reference that actually has the poor inheriting

[Ryan Pugh]

There is much more to be said about this. Why did Jesus not choose his leadership team from among these "poor," "Kingdom of God" people?

He kinda did, didn't he? Fishermen would have belonged to our lower class, maybe middle class if they were real successful.

And the early apostles were homeless, so...


Why does He, from the splendor of heaven not just somehow keep the loaves and fish conduit constantly and miraculously open in the direction of the poor?

Maybe he wants to do that through his Church, which we are learning to do, but we still largely prefer our own comfort.


Is it possible that the One who did the work of scorning the shame and enduring the cross would develop an althernative way for a group of followers (Relax, stay put and I'll send some people by to feed, clothe, water & visit you.)? This is such nonsense to me that it bankrupts my imagination and is a clear example of what Scott Peck described in The Road Less Traveled as...folks who like to eat the frosting first.

I don't really understand what you're saying here.


This line of logic, as I see it, would have as a goal and an end (earthly) result to increase the number of poor. The outcome would be a society where no one is able to help others.

Even if one does think that the best way to love and serve the poor is to join the poor, becoming poor themselves, I don't think your conclusion is the only one. And I definitely don't think anyone has the goal of creating more poverty.

Mother Teresa seemed to have a pretty big impact by becoming poor herself.

[Rich Schmidt]

I knew that was where he was coming from and why I didn't respond. I could not come up with any reference that actually has the poor inheriting

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

[Jim Chabot]

I knew that was where he was coming from and why I didn't respond. I could not come up with any reference that actually has the poor inheriting

Perhaps you couldn't find a reference because it's a prooftext for a particular theological bent. Everyone who follows Jesus inherits the kingdom. If the poor had stayed away and the rich had showed up He might have said "blessed are the rich." Bottom line is that blessed are those who seek and find him, rich or poor, yellow, red, brown, black or white.

[Jim Chabot]

There I was laying in bed praying, thinking and it occurred to me that I am drawn to the marginalized, the disenfranchised, the outcast and oppressed precisely because I am one. I can see their plight and understand the import of Jesus coming to the least of these. People who have traditionally been, for whatever reasons, unable to participate in society at large and the religious community (which was more important socially then than now). People looked down upon, despised. Being despised I can feel their pain, their rebellion against those in the main, those of the classes of privilege.

Amen, and same here. I've never been able to really fit in for very long, it's just a matter of time. Never felt comfortable being around self assured and comfortable people, I keep my back to the wall if you know what I mean. But I would rather that the playing field never be level, I can be comfortable among those who don't fit in.

[Jim Chabot]

Mother Teresa seemed to have a pretty big impact by becoming poor herself.

Mother Theresa? Poor? She worked and lived with the poor, yet she was never poor herself. She had offices around the world, she flew wherever she needed to at will, never was she hindered by a lack of money, her order is probably the richest in the world. My cousin is also a nun, she says that sisters have both nothing and everything at the same time. They are poor in that they claim nothing for their own, while they are incredibly rich because every need is met.

[Rich Schmidt]

If the poor had stayed away and the rich had showed up He might have said "blessed are the rich."

Hmm.... when I read this, I couldn't help but think of Matthew 19 (and its parallel in Mark 10 and Luke 18), when a man who was rich actually did show up. Rather than saying, "Blessed are the rich," Jesus instructed him to sell everything and give it to the poor... and when the man didn't, Jesus proclaimed, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"

Seems like kind of the opposite of "blessed are the rich."

[Wes Smith]

Luke 6:20 is why I phrased my question to Ryan above the way I did. Does this scripture along with all the other "poor" references exclude the non-poor?

Which brings me to the questions I raised above concerning the definition of social justice. Some would say that we are called to social justice and that means giving stuff/money to the poor carte blanc. Others (myself included) say that we have an obligation to develop opportunities for the poor to raise or be raised from poverty to productivity (not trying to pick a fight with the use of those words). In this way a cycle of productivity is created that has the potential to constantly and positively impact the lives of all people.

My revelation in an ancient post (a few days ago) that it is probably easier to prove someone else wrong than to win a convert to another viewpoint is poignently revealed in this specific discussion. If the, as they call themselves, true, historic, social justice folks were truly living out their stated sentiments/beliefs, they would now be fully immersed in their own poverty after having given all to the poor, appealing to people like me to help them and then come and join them. Won't happen. Knock yourselves out trying. We just have a fundamental disagreement.

For me, I'd prefer to be described as someone who the Lord called to give food, water, clothes, visits, etc., AND DID!!! And, that probably describes the difference in these philosophies the best. (Many focus on the poor/needy with no spiritual or philosophical proclamation. I, and others, focus on our ability to give when and where our Lord directs with a focus on helping people rise from poverty...in the Name of our powerful and profound Lord and Savior!)

There is much more to be said about this. Why did Jesus not choose his leadership team from among these "poor," "Kingdom of God" people? Why does He, from the splendor of heaven not just somehow keep the loaves and fish conduit constantly and miraculously open in the direction of the poor? Is it possible that the One who did the work of scorning the shame and enduring the cross would develop an althernative way for a group of followers (Relax, stay put and I'll send some people by to feed, clothe, water & visit you.)? This is such nonsense to me that it bankrupts my imagination and is a clear example of what Scott Peck described in The Road Less Traveled as...folks who like to eat the frosting first.

This line of logic, as I see it, would have as a goal and an end (earthly) result to increase the number of poor. The outcome would be a society where no one is able to help others. My energies will "forever" be to increase the number of thos who are able to help. (Words of Jesus, "I was hungry and YOU fed, YOU watered, YOU clothed, YOU visited. I cannot comprehend anyone, then, not wanting to increase stewardship in order to hear the words...WELL DONE!!!) And, by the way, this debate also has significant political and governmental implications.

Friend,

Wes

Hey, I really appreciate your sentiments about some kind of super-collision between poverty appreciation and poverty solutions. And, I really mean that. We may, then, be closer than I thought in regards to a working definition of "social justice." I've been spending an inordinant amount of time here and I have some projects that have been suffering as a result, so I think this is a good time for me to kick back and just check in and respond briefly (if I can do that!) from time to time. No pressure on anyone but I really do feel like my post raised some issues that should be a quality part of ongoing discussions on this subject. This thread created the new thought for me that it was the givers and not the receivers in Matt. 25 that received the "Well done" of our Lord.

Ryan my thought about Jesus taking the more difficult path to the fulfillment of His Father's will, coincides with His invitation for us to participate also in taking up our cross and following Him. Just trying to say that the "poor" do not escape the way of the cross. No one that I know who has emerged beyond poverty has simply fallen off a log, awakened and found himself with resources enough to share.

Friend,

Wes

[Jim Chabot]

Hmm.... when I read this, I couldn't help but think of Matthew 19 (and its parallel in Mark 10 and Luke 18), when a man who was rich actually did show up. Rather than saying, "Blessed are the rich," Jesus instructed him to sell everything and give it to the poor... and when the man didn't, Jesus proclaimed, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"

Seems like kind of the opposite of "blessed are the rich."

It says that Jesus looked upon the rich man and He loved him. And that He invited this man to follow Him. Sound like "blessed is the rich" to me. So far I've only heard this preached this way once by Jorge Barros, I quickly messaged Dave McClung to tell him about it because he had once remarked that he had never heard this preached. It seems most preachers just read the "rich" part and off they go without really thinking it through.

[Wes Smith]

Hmm.... when I read this, I couldn't help but think of Matthew 19 (and its parallel in Mark 10 and Luke 18), when a man who was rich actually did show up. Rather than saying, "Blessed are the rich," Jesus instructed him to sell everything and give it to the poor... and when the man didn't, Jesus proclaimed, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"

Seems like kind of the opposite of "blessed are the rich."

Let's just not forget the rest of that teaching, "...but with God ALL things are possible!" That is SUCH good news!

Friend,

Wes