What I’m concerned about it people lumping biblical calls to justice in with whole systems of theology that may leave a bad impression; that causes people to ditch the call to justice. I think Scot McKnight believes that the “social” prefix to the term can lead to a distortion, and perhaps he’s right. But the term “justice” covers a wide range of things, most of which Christians readily agree with without engaging social, workable empowerment of those who have less (in other words, to help them be self-sufficient wherever reasonable).

All I’m really trying to get at is how people think that call is Marxist. I think that’s anachronism and eisegesis, instead of solid exegesis to follow God’s command. It’s a lot like you saying just now that Rausch predated Liberationism, and therefore should not be confused with it: God predated Marxism, and therefore he should not be conflated with that system.

What “social justice” means, I agree, in some respect needs to be worked out in community; but since I’m not a Baptist (else I would have known about the roots of Rauschenbusch), I also think there’s something to be said for following a real authoritative definition given by leaders in the church, like Wright, and working out not just the definition but the practice.

Enforcing by the sword is obviously not a biblical call, given that Jesus told even Peter to “put the sword away.” But the biblical call to help those who have less than the rest of society does exist, and those who follow Christ should feel challenged to help in that way rationally, eventually.

you uncover a significant issue and that is the definition of terms
It seems to me that this was part of the Glen Beck flap last week. Language takes on different shades of meaning in different contexts, so what social justice means outside the church and what it means inside the church are different things. Differing contexts mean differing definitions.

the problem is, even within the church there are differing contexts and Wtherefore definitions. who gets to determine exactly what ‘rightly defined’ is? Liberation theology is certainly interested in social justice. and some forms of Liberation theology are informed by Marxism. I don’t think that can be denied.

The Social Gospel finds its roots in my own Baptist tradition and the works of Walter Rauschenbusch, who was not Marxist at all and pre-dated liberation theology. So I completely disagree with your assessment of Social Gospel.

Social Justice is not just one simply defined phenomena. it is a complex field of theology and biblical interpretation that is quite diverse. that’s not ‘firey-talk.’ I agree with Michael that standards of justice should not be coerced or enforced by the sword, absolutely. What is really great about these discussion is that we can work out exactly what defines social justice within the Christian context. But that can’t be done dogmatically in my point of view… there still should remain some room for diversity as we work out the definition.

I’m honestly still concerned about using the term “social justice” and then getting into talks about Liberation and Marxism. Those things came in form of a very different term here in the States: “Social Gospel.” So, Michael, your post is fantastic, and I hope you give more thoughts out here; and you had a point that people fall into it. But that is because the wrong terms are used, so let’s clarify that for certain.

The two terms are entirely different. Social Justice, rightly defined, is only what God commands to do for the groups I mentioned in my second response. It has nothing to do with overthrowing government systems, equalizing wealth (regardless of need, mind you), or letting property become entirely communal. It has to do with empowering the poor, least, orphaned, etc.

So really, Social Gospel might make better “firey talk” material, but let’s use that term when we talk about Marxist influence, instead of Social Justice.

I’ve learned so much from Wright and been so influenced its hard to pinpoint the specifics. The fact that he will argue against Rapture theology and still for the virgin birth lets say, really helps me keep my evangelical roots in touch with the more liberal branches that have developed in my life.

Great Post Kurt! and thanks for adding me to your blog roll.

If I may jump in on the social justice conversation. Looking to Michael Moore for help understanding social justice is a bit like looking to Glen Beck. I do believe that the Marxist influence in Social Justice thought comes through Liberation theology. There are some Liberation theologians (don’t ask me to name them)who were influenced by Marxist thought. For my own two cents, having read some Marx myself, his critique of capitalism does have some compelling points. When he talks about what can go wrong with capitalism, symptomatically I find him very interesting. When he begins to diagnose the symptoms (private property) I find his arguments much less compelling.

Unfortunately, many Christians are duped into supporting this, thinking that since Christ commanded it, and a majority supports it, then it’s alright, but the Kingdom of God cannot be brought about by force of arms. “Not by might, nor by power but by My Spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts!” Michael Moore, in interviews about his movie on Capitalism said that Christianity requires the equal and fair distribution of resources and he believes that this distribution can’t be done privately but must be done collectively. This necessitates forcing some who don’t want their money used for that purpose to be robbed so that their money can be used to support something that they don’t want to support.

Additionally, everything the government takes away to give to others, it thereby takes away their ability, and thus the responsibility of the person to put to it good use, and nearly half of what it takes these days goes to buy weapons to destroy people’s lives. There can be no virtue in a forced compliance and “that which is not of faith is sin.” In light of these things, how can we support any government plan for the redistribution of wealth? The apostles didn’t turn to the governments of their day to take care of the poor; they simply took care of each other. Shouldn’t our stance be one of holding the government as irrelevant and demonstrating the living Kingdom of God through our lives, not by turning to the government to take care of the poor for us but that we build the structural elements necessary to bring true justice to our world, not by force, but through a faith that can, like the apostles of old, turn the world upside down?

My definition of “social justice” (NB: not “Social Gospel”) is whatever God commands in the Scriptures to do for the poor, the alien, the orphan, the widow, the “Samaritan,” whoever is “my neighbor,” and whoever is “the least of these.” Obviously, I don’t have enough space to give a list of those verses.

What I’m interested in is how you learned that the social justice concept is Marxist. Could you share your sources for that information?