+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 321 to 360 of 380

Thread: Social justice: A house divided against itself

  1. #321
    NazNet Host

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Osa Mountain Village, Costa Rica
    Posts
    1,415
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

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

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

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

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

    Friend,

    Wes

  2. #322
    Senior Member Craig Laughlin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lake Stevens, WA
    Posts
    2,925
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Smith View Post
    Craig,

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

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

    Friend,

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

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

    Edit - Your logical argument "That is either true, or it isn't." is correct. If there are consequences for using the phrase then it is functionally a ban, even if you call it coaching.
    Last edited by Craig Laughlin; June 13th, 2012 at 03:58 PM. Reason: Hit save to soon
    Fear not those who argue but those who dodge. -- Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach
    Thanks Todd Erickson - "thanks" for this post

  3. #323
    NazNet Host

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Osa Mountain Village, Costa Rica
    Posts
    1,415
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    "Yes, that is correct."

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

    "Yes, of course."

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

    Social Justice Is...

    1. Social Justice.

    2. Social Justice.

    3. Social Justice."

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

    Social Justice Is...

    1. Different Word/phrase.

    2. Different Word/phrase.

    3. Different Word/phrase."


    "Now, does this make sense to you?"

    "Yes, thank you!"

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

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

    Friend,

    Wes
    Last edited by Wes Smith; June 14th, 2012 at 06:34 PM.
    Thanks Jim Chabot, Craig Laughlin, G R 'Scott' Cundiff - "thanks" for this post

  4. #324
    Senior Member Craig Laughlin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lake Stevens, WA
    Posts
    2,925
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

    Wes,

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

    Peace,
    Fear not those who argue but those who dodge. -- Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach
    Thanks Wes Smith - "thanks" for this post

  5. #325
    NazNet Host

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Osa Mountain Village, Costa Rica
    Posts
    1,415
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

    Craig,

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

    Friend,

    Wes
    Thanks Craig Laughlin - "thanks" for this post

  6. #326
    Senior Member Roy Richardson's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Hobart, Indiana, United States
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Smith View Post
    Craig,

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

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

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

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

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

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

    "Yes, that is correct."

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

    "Yes, of course."

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

    Social Justice Is...

    1. Social Justice.

    2. Social Justice.

    3. Social Justice."

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

    Social Justice Is...

    1. Different Word/phrase.

    2. Different Word/phrase.

    3. Different Word/phrase."


    "Now, does this make sense to you?"

    "Yes, thank you!"

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

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

    Friend,

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

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

    The same holds true with these. The fight it worth it at times, but those times need to be carefully considered and not wandered into haphazardly.
    Thanks Peggy Gray, Jim Chabot, G R 'Scott' Cundiff, Wes Smith - "thanks" for this post

  7. #327
    Senior Member Wilson Deaton's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kenosha, WI, USA, Earth
    Posts
    2,164
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

    I sent a message (very soon after this thread began) to USA/Canada Regional Director, Dr. Broadbooks. I got the following reply about a week ago. I saw no need to share it because it had been so long I thought it no longer very relevant. However, since this thread continues to thrive, here it is:
    Dr. Broadbooks asked me to get in touch with you on his behalf regarding your question. To be clear, there is no offical ban on the phrase "social justice." You can find "social justice" mentioned in a link on our compassionate ministries site, as well as in an article on the Grace and Peace Magazine website. We find that the term is sometimes misunderstood by some Nazarenes so we prefer the use of other phrases, such as social righteousness, compassionate justice, works of mercy, Biblical justice, social action, Christian compassion, etc.

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

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

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

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

    Wilson
    "But by the grace of God I am what I am." (1 Cor. 15:10)

  8. #328
    Senior Member Billy Cox's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Olathe, KS
    Posts
    6,363
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

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

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

    It's been said a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Likewise, the most important thing to me, is that we Nazarenes practice social justice or, "social righteousness, compassionate justice, works of mercy, Biblical justice, social action, Christian compassion, etc.," regardless of what we call it.
    There are some who refuse to believe anecdotal evidence that conflicts with their preconceived notions of how the church operates. Exhibit 'A' includes some posts in this thread all but saying that Oliver is a disgruntled former GMC employee whose opinion is unreliable or hopelessly jaundiced.
    "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us wthout end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
    - C.S. Lewis

  9. #329
    NazNet Host

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Osa Mountain Village, Costa Rica
    Posts
    1,415
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

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

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

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

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

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

    Friend,

    Wes

  10. #330
    NazNet Host

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Osa Mountain Village, Costa Rica
    Posts
    1,415
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

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

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

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

    Friend,

    Wes

  11. #331
    Senior Member Craig Laughlin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lake Stevens, WA
    Posts
    2,925
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Friend,

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

  12. #332
    Senior Member Billy Cox's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Olathe, KS
    Posts
    6,363
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Smith View Post
    Billy,

    I'm sure you understand what you are saying, but could you try to interpret this into a language less cynical people can understand? Just kidding. I could have said, "Huh, what you saying here man?" But, it would help me if you did some Billy-thesauretical-magic and included fewer code words that folks like me can understand.
    Wes, since you invoked the 'dumb country boy' defense, here is an 'amplified bible' version of what I said.

    There are some who refuse to believe anecdotal evidence (testimony of firsthand experience) that conflicts (runs counter, contradicts, sounds alien) with their preconceived notions (what one thinks they know based on limited or no experience) of how the church operates. Exhibit 'A' includes some posts in this thread all but saying that Oliver is a disgruntled former GMC employee (one who presumably has nothing to lose and tries to even the score by shedding light on embarrassing truths about the organization) whose opinion is unreliable or hopelessly jaundiced. (presumed to be cynical, seasoned with hatred, accuser of the brethren, infidel, servant of Satan)
    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Smith View Post
    How would you respond to, "You seem to trust Oliver's statements over "how the church operates."? That is what came through to me. Was that what you were trying to say?
    Do I believe Oliver's story over what a marketing committee beholden to the BGS or someone angling for a a higher position in the hierarchy would say? Yes, all day long.
    "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us wthout end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
    - C.S. Lewis
    Thanks Gina Stevenson, Rich Schmidt, Wes Smith - "thanks" for this post
    Laughing Wes Smith - thanks for this funny post

  13. #333
    NazNet Host

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Osa Mountain Village, Costa Rica
    Posts
    1,415
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy Cox View Post
    Wes, since you invoked the 'dumb country boy' defense, here is an 'amplified bible' version of what I said.

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

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

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

    Now, back to doin' my chores!

    Friend,

    Wes

  14. #334
    Full Member Oliver Phillips's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    76
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Smith View Post
    Billy,

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

    Now, back to doin' my chores!

    Friend,

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

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

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

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

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

  15. #335
    Senior Member Jim Chabot's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Norton, MA Connor, ME
    Posts
    9,310
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

    Quote Originally Posted by Oliver Phillips View Post
    This thread has divagated into corollaries of accusation of my being “disgruntled.” This is a blatant misreading of the intent of the original thread. Nevertheless, let me attempt to bring some closure:

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

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

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

    4. Fourthly, it seems to me that the usage of the term is being coerced by the political operatives. The onus is on us to “Christianize” the culture. As leaven in the world, what we mean by social justice must be allowed the opportunity to make a difference, rather than to accede to the definitions set by the culture around us.
    Thanks for the response Oliver. And you are correct, there have been two conversations going on in this thread with the background conversation rising to the top.

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

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

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

    To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.

    Garrison Keillor
    Thanks Wes Smith - "thanks" for this post

  16. #336
    Senior Member Rich Schmidt's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Valparaiso, IN, USA
    Posts
    4,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Chabot View Post
    Your initial post contained a charge levied against the regional director under which you served. Surely it is appropriate to question the inner motivations and interactions which may have led to this, and surely it is appropriate to discuss the validity of your claim. Personally I think that your claim distracts from the conversation, yet you were the one who introduced it into the mix.
    It seems to me that his claim/charge/statement that the phrase "social justice" was being discouraged/banned/coached-away in USA/Canada publications was the very heart of what this thread was about: it's what makes the house divided. So I'm not sure how it can distract from the conversation.

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

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

  17. #337
    Senior Member Jim Chabot's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Norton, MA Connor, ME
    Posts
    9,310
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

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

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

    I'm sure the conversation about social justice will continue in our USA/Canada publications, just in different terms. For some this will be helpful, while for others it will be discouraging. And life goes on...
    Sorry, I should have been clearer. This was a specific charge, given against a specific individual. Thus there are two conversations, the primary being that concerning the appropriateness of the phrase in common usage. The second conversation brought on by the specificity of the charge goes toward speculation regardind banning or coaching. This conversation is, as Oliver has suggested, a distraction from the first.
    -Jim

    To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.

    Garrison Keillor

  18. #338
    Senior Member Paul DeBaufer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Auburn, CA
    Posts
    3,461
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

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

  19. #339
    Host Fun & Prayer forums Gina Stevenson's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    6,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

    One contronym not seen there is cleave. We read how a man is to leave his parents and cleave (stick close to) his wife, yet we all know, too, what the kitchen tool known as a cleaver does ... just the opposite, cleaving asunder the chicken from its head!
    Life beats down and crushes the soul and art reminds you that you have one.
    ~ Stella Adler ~

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    It takes a great deal of maturity to accept that trying to eliminate all risk eliminates life.
    ~ Susan Lapin ~

  20. #340
    NazNet Host

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Osa Mountain Village, Costa Rica
    Posts
    1,415
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

  21. #341
    Senior Member Jim Chabot's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Norton, MA Connor, ME
    Posts
    9,310
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

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

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

    Regarding the second sentence, no one has said there are not “faithful followers” of your understanding of “social justice.” The concept of “coaching” stems for the “others who disagree.” That seems obvious, however you seem to suggest that use of the phrase should not be coached even though there are, in your words, “others who disagree with such a position.” To be clear, are you suggesting that no “coaching” is needed just because you side with the “faithful followers” you referenced?
    Wes; this paragraph didn't jump out at me until I read your point by point analysis. I am seeing a problem here and it's a big one, I think. To say that the only cure is to properly explain the term and to educate indicates a certain blindness. I've read and followed this thread and I have listened to those who would properly explicate this term. And I've come out just a little stronger in opposition to the term. This isn't a very good term at all, it's more of a class warfare and disharmonious buzzword than it is anything else, and I don't see it as biblical in origin and import either. Thus education isn't the answer at all.

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

    To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.

    Garrison Keillor

  22. #342
    Full Member Oliver Phillips's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    76
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Smith View Post
    I keep reading that there is something “we mean by social justice,” but nothing follows. Please do me and, I think, us all, a favor and get that definition on the table.
    Friend,
    Wes[/COLOR]
    Let me attempt to define social justice by the use of a three-step progression as was employed by Kevin Blue, author of Practical Justice.
    1. Compassion is the alleviating of the pain caused by “in-justice” in our world. The evangelical church has heartily endorsed and embraced this response through ministries of mercy like soup kitchens, homeless shelters, food pantries, etc. Compassion, therefore, is something we do “for” others.

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

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

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

  23. #343
    Senior Member Jim Chabot's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Norton, MA Connor, ME
    Posts
    9,310
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

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

    3. Social justice is the collective response of a people to deal with the structural and systemic power bases that perpetuate in-justice. Compassion could be likened to feeding someone a fish because he or she is hungry. Social justice is the engagement with the power structures to help that someone fish in a healthy and equitable environment. Social justice means fixing the pond.
    And herein lies the problem Oliver. This has little to do with living and acting out our faith in this world. This is simply left wing politics, nothing more, political activism has no place in the church.

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

    To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.

    Garrison Keillor

  24. #344
    NazNet Host

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Osa Mountain Village, Costa Rica
    Posts
    1,415
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Not one word about "fixing the person."

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

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

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

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

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


    Friend,

    Wes
    Thanks Dwayne Petry - "thanks" for this post

  25. #345
    Senior Member Rich Schmidt's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Valparaiso, IN, USA
    Posts
    4,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

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

    I'm all in favor of teaching folks how to swim, I'm in favor of swimming beside them. Don't tell me the pond is broken, for while I will agree that it is broken, our "solutions" will look radically different because this is nothing more than politics.
    Just for the record, I see nothing in Oliver's post (especially the part you quoted) that has to do with "left wing politics." Yet you see it as nothing more than that.

    Interesting that we can see things so very differently.

  26. #346
    Senior Member Billy Cox's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Olathe, KS
    Posts
    6,363
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Chabot View Post
    ...political activism has no place in the church.
    Heh... unless that political activism involves political opposition to abortion and gay marriage?
    "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us wthout end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
    - C.S. Lewis
    Thanks Gina Stevenson, Paul DeBaufer - "thanks" for this post

  27. #347
    NazNet Host

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Osa Mountain Village, Costa Rica
    Posts
    1,415
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

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

    Interesting that we can see things so very differently.
    Rich,

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

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

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

    Friend,

    Wes
    Last edited by Wes Smith; June 19th, 2012 at 07:10 AM.

  28. #348
    Senior Member Rich Schmidt's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Valparaiso, IN, USA
    Posts
    4,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Smith View Post
    I'd say, then, "herein lies the problem" that folks cannot see politics from one end to other permeated with passion regarding this issue.
    I can see how it looks like left-wing politics to someone committed to right-wing politics. But as Billy's post mentions, if we agree with it then it's "living out our faith." If we disagree with it, then it's "political activism, nothing more."
    Thanks Mike Schutz - "thanks" for this post

  29. #349
    NazNet Host

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Osa Mountain Village, Costa Rica
    Posts
    1,415
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

    Rich,

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

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

    Friend,

    Wes
    Thanks Jim Chabot - "thanks" for this post

  30. #350
    Regular Member David Stevens's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    28
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

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

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

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

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

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

    "I am, and always shall be, your friend."
    David
    Thanks Wes Smith, Jim Chabot, Bill Morrison - "thanks" for this post

  31. #351
    Full Member Oliver Phillips's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    76
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

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


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

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

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

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

    In the words of Francis of Assisi, “Preach at all times, using words whenever necessary.”
    http://www.ceci-orlando.org
    Thanks Gina Stevenson, Mike Schutz, Rich Schmidt - "thanks" for this post

  32. #352
    Senior Member Jim Chabot's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Norton, MA Connor, ME
    Posts
    9,310
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy Cox View Post
    Heh... unless that political activism involves political opposition to abortion and gay marriage?
    So tell me Billy. You think that we should go along, you see abortion and gay marriage as no big deal? You would preach that either one is ok, a matter of personal preference?

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

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

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

    To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.

    Garrison Keillor

  33. #353
    Senior Member Jon Bemis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Flintstone GA
    Posts
    1,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul DeBaufer View Post
    Just ran across this article from The Oxford Dictionaries about Janus words. Thought of "social justice" which seems is a Janus phrase.
    I should have known an ancient power is behind all this.
    Loving God . . . Loving others.

  34. #354
    Senior Member Jim Chabot's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Norton, MA Connor, ME
    Posts
    9,310
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

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

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

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

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

    In the words of Francis of Assisi, “Preach at all times, using words whenever necessary.”
    You are talking about compassion here, as opposed to justice. None of this is in dispute, I believe that everyone participating in thread would be right behind you here Oliver.

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

    To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.

    Garrison Keillor
    Thanks Wes Smith - "thanks" for this post

  35. #355
    Senior Member Jim Chabot's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Norton, MA Connor, ME
    Posts
    9,310
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Smith View Post
    Rich,

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

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

    Friend,

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

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

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

    To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.

    Garrison Keillor
    Thanks Wes Smith - "thanks" for this post

  36. #356
    Senior Member Dwayne Petry's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Crowley, LA
    Posts
    326
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

    Because we cannot "fix the person", (that is the work of the Holy Spirit, after being drawn by the Father to the sin cleansing blood of Jesus Christ), we must allow our "works" to be used by GOD to draw the lost to the "fix the person" miracle. The "works" are the relational Christian compassion taught by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, not the work of some career politician or bureaucrat trying to achieve a political objective.
    My Prayer: Father, use me until I am used up, then call me home and may I hear "well done good and faithful servant". Amen.
    Thanks Jim Chabot - "thanks" for this post

  37. #357
    NazNet Host

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Osa Mountain Village, Costa Rica
    Posts
    1,415
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Friend,

    Wes
    Last edited by Wes Smith; June 19th, 2012 at 11:03 AM.
    Thanks Jim Chabot - "thanks" for this post

  38. #358
    Regular Member David Stevens's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    28
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

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

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

    david
    Thanks Jim Chabot - "thanks" for this post

  39. #359
    Regular Member David Stevens's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    28
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

    Quote Originally Posted by Dwayne Petry View Post
    Because we cannot "fix the person", (that is the work of the Holy Spirit, after being drawn by the Father to the sin cleansing blood of Jesus Christ), we must allow our "works" to be used by GOD to draw the lost to the "fix the person" miracle. The "works" are the relational Christian compassion taught by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, not the work of some career politician or bureaucrat trying to achieve a political objective.
    Dwayne,
    Thanks for making this specific point. This is what I mean when I say, "fix the person." I did not elaborate and should have.

    david
    Thanks Dwayne Petry, Jim Chabot - "thanks" for this post

  40. #360
    Senior Member Ryan Pugh's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    New Orleans, La
    Posts
    485
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Social justice: A house divided against itself

    Quote Originally Posted by David Stevens View Post
    I wish to make note for everyone here that the quote by Assisi may not be accurate. It is something that he might have said, but probably did not. If anyone has a valid source for this quote, I wish to see it.
    His life is the source. That's kinda the point.
    Most good things have been said far too many times and just need to be lived. - Shane Claiborne

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts