Yet, what some see as even more shocking in this upset is
that Ocasio-Cortez is affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America. As
a socialist she favors the redistribution of wealth in order to achieve
equality in the United States.[1]
She advocates this economic and political approach since she believes it will
achieve “social justice.”[2]
Thus, this candidate for congress from New York represents
what many in the United States have come to value: this thing called “social
justice,” which is why she and her like-minded colleague, Bernie Sanders, have
engendered excitement among no small number of people. Who could be against
justice, and especially as it is applied to the entire population? Surely this is a good thing, right? Many
think so. In fact a Christian ministry that is over forty years old, Sojourners, affirms that
social justice is a large part of what it is all about.[3]
Yet, we must ask what is social justice? One might think
that it is merely about pursuing justice in the social sphere, i.e. in society.
However, it appears that the phrase has come to mean something more specific. Michael
Novak explained: [4]
“Social
justice” is defined as follows in today’s culture: …a concept of fair and just relations between
the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms
for the distribution of wealth,[5] opportunities for personal activity,
and social privileges…. In the
current global grassroots movements for social justice, the emphasis has been
on the breaking of barriers for social
mobility, the creation of safety
nets and economic justice…. [In
other words,]
“uniform state
distribution of society's advantages and disadvantages.” (emphasis
added)
Elsewhere we find an even more detailed definition and
history:
Social
Justice as a concept arose in the early 19th century during the Industrial
Revolution and subsequent civil revolutions throughout Europe, which aimed to
create more egalitarian societies
and remedy capitalistic exploitation of
human labor. …early social justice advocates focused primarily on capital, property, and the distribution of
wealth.
By
the mid-20th century, social justice had expanded from being primarily
concerned with economics to include other
spheres of social life to include the environment, race, gender, and other
causes and manifestations of inequality.[6] (emphasis
added)
The current problem is not merely the history of the phrase
and what it has come to mean for some. It is also that many are either unclear
about what it means or at least unclear in articulating what it means.[7]
What is more, as Tony Evans highlights, for those who have
greater clarity about what it is, there is a great deal of baggage not
consistent with biblical truth.[8] William
Lane Craig agrees and adds to the problems associated with social justice when he
explains that critical theory undergirds the social justice viewpoint.[9] Craig
highlights the following four anti-biblical premises that make up critical
theory:
·
“Premise 1: human relationships should be
fundamentally understood in terms of power dynamics, which differentiates
groups into ‘oppressors’ and the ‘oppressed.’”
·
“Premise 2: Our identity as individuals is
inseparable from our group identity, especially our categorization as
‘oppressor’ or ‘oppressed’ with respect to a particular identity marker.”
·
“Premise 3: All oppressed groups find their
fundamental unity in their common experience of oppression.”
·
“Premise 4: The fundamental human project is
liberation from all forms of oppression; consequently, the fundamental virtue
is standing in solidarity against the oppressor.”
It is easy to conclude, then, that social justice can easily
become equated with absolute equality that is helping the oppressed to catch up.
Let me offer an example to help us understand what is meant and to introduce
the question, is this really a good idea, after all?
In 1930, because of the rubber industry in Akron, Ohio, a
man named Carroll Roush and “Chick” Morrison founded a trucking company named R
and M Transportation.[10] What
they hauled at first by drivers who owned their own trucks was almost
exclusively tires manufactured in Akron to automobile companies. Shortly after
the company was founded, Carroll’s brother, Galen, joined the company and by
the end of the year the company was re-named Roadway Express, Inc.
Though many companies suffered during the Great Depression,
Roadway prospered—both due to the growing need for tires in the U.S. and the
business prowess of Morrison and the Roush brothers. After World War II, with
more and more cars on the road, the improvement of roads, and trucks becoming
the preferred means of transporting goods, the company flourished even more.
They purchased their own fleet of trucks, hired more drivers, and have grown
throughout the decades.
The history of this company is particularly significant for
me since my dad, uncle, and my brother were all employed by Roadway Express,
Inc. for many years. It was a means of providing for several families close to
me (including my own). And, of course, it was not just our family that benefited,
but thousands through the decades who lived well above the material poverty
level because of their employment with Roadway Express.
Now, imagine that the United States in the 1930’s decided
that it was unjust or inequitable for a company to own more than ten trucks.
So, in the 1940’s when Morrison and the Roush brothers purchased a fleet of
trucks, a government agency we will name the Social Justice Enforcement Administration
informed Roadway when they had thirty trucks that they must get rid of twenty
of them. So the SJEA took the twenty trucks and distributed them equally to
five different men who had no business or entrepreneurial prowess. Though these
five men meant well and may even have worked hard, they never really grew and
flourished. And every time Roadway went over ten trucks the excess was taken
away. Eventually Morrison and the Roush brothers would have quit trying to
expand and would simply maintain where they were. They would have never been
able to grow into the successful company they did and to employ my dad, uncle,
brothers, and thousands of other employees through the years. So, would such
social justice equality have been a good or a bad thing? Would such “equality”
have been the road out of poverty and to greater material provision for a great
number of people (as was the case with the flourishing of the company)? Would
such equality have truly been just or not?
This example introduces some issues we must face in regard
to social justice. First, absolute equality may not always be the best thing. We
all understand this. We do not believe that all people without exception should
have equal access to driver’s licenses and we have good reason for this. For example,
we exclude those who are blind and we exclude small children.
A second issue that is raised in the example is
this: Who decides what justice is? This
is a huge issue. Though persons who are blind and who are pre-schoolers do not
have equal access to driver’s licenses as most of those do who are sixteen years
and older, would it be the compassionate or socially just position to take to
advocate for such persons to have equal access?
A third issue that is raised in the examples is this: What is the standard for justice? If there is
no recognized and agreed-upon standard, then the sky can become the limit for
what we term “social justice.” It might simply be this: “I perceive you have
more resources or more opportunities than I do and this needs to be equalized.
After all, it is not fair!” The end-result can be individual persons or voting blocks
or even a government advocating for their piece of the pie and whoever can make
the most noise (or have the greatest power) can get more resources and
opportunities. If that is the case, would it really be just?
It appears that for many people this is what social justice
has become—a fight for equality by my own standard against your standard or by
the government’s standards—and the end result doesn’t appear to resemble true justice.
For example, if you are a photographer or baker and serve all kinds of people
who come through your door, yet do not want to photograph or bake a cake for a
same-sex wedding since your religious convictions about marriage would be
violated, there is a strong push in the country to say the couple has the right
to force you to serve them, but you don’t have the right to hold to your convictions
in the public arena. Is this just? By
whose standards? Who decides? Which
definition of justice wins the day and is best for society as a whole?
This raises another problem with the current social justice
viewpoint. It has been recognized for decades centralized governments that
advocate socialism tend toward authoritarianism and the removal of personal
freedom.[11]
And yet, though there is this recognition, socialism is gaining popularity
among younger adults:
When
Bernie Sanders backer Kara Eastman in May became the Democratic nominee for a
Nebraska congressional seat centered in…[Omaha]…, many conservatives took that
as one more indication that America is oozing toward socialism.
Eastman,
born in 1971, upset an older liberal, former Congressman Brad Ashford. Fretting
conservatives added that data point to another: Millennials (sometimes defined
as those born between 1977 and 1996) are going politically left rather than
right by an almost 4-1 margin.
Other
data points were also troubling. One poll showed half of American millennials
saying they prefer socialism to capitalism.[12]
Membership in the imaginatively named Democratic Socialists of America has
grown sevenfold since the 2016 election. The number of chapters has almost
quintupled.[13]
It has been my observance that even young Christians are open to socialism since it appears, on the surface, to provide a means of
bringing about social justice. Now, I believe we can show the problems of a
social justice approach that is undergirded both by critical theory and
socialism by looking at their history and the results they bring. However, even
more important for the Christian should be the query, what does the Bible teach
about social justice?
That is the question I want to take up and answer in this
series of blog posts. What I will do in the next post is to define “justice”
according to the Bible (i.e. biblical justice). Then, in the following posts we
will discover how true biblical justice should shape all we do and how it
should move us to, “Live For A Great Cause, Not A Great Comfort: Move Toward
Need,” which is the title of this series of blog posts.
Along the way, what we will discover is that true God-honoring
biblical justice is different than the social justice that most advocate.
Joyfully Seeking Biblical Justice With You,
Tom
Joyfully Seeking Biblical Justice With You,
Tom
[2]
Alana Levene, “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Championed Social Justice At Boston
University,” Boston Globe (June 27, 2018,
on-line).
[3] Rose
Marie Berger, “What The Heck Is ‘Social Justice’?” Accessed 7/11/10 at sojo.net/magazine/february-2007/what-heck-social-justice.
[4] The
following is taken from Michael Novak, “Social Justice Not What You Think It
Is.” Accessed 6/17/18 at heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/social-justice-not-what-you-think-it.
[5] One
cannot miss the presence of Socialism or Communism here. Merriam-Webster
(on-line) defines socialism this way: “Any of various economic and political
theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of
the means of production and distribution of goods.” Merriam-Webster (on-line) defines communism
in this manner: “A system in which goods are owned in common and are available
to all as needed; …a theory advocating elimination of private property.” The
difference is that with socialism there is still private property, but the
government owns or directs means of production and distribution of goods. With
communism private property is also taken away.
[6]
“What Is Social Justice?” accessed 6/17/18 at pachamama.org/social-justice/what-is-social-justice.
[7] As
Steven C. Roy, “Embracing Social Justice: Reflections From The Storyline Of
Scripture,” Trinity Journal,
30, 1 (Spring 2009): 3-4, also affirms.
[8] Tony
Evans, Oneness Embraced:
Reconciliation, The Kingdom, And How We Are Stronger Together (Chicago: Moody,
2011), 215.
[9] William
Lane Craig, “The Dangers Of Critical Theory,” at reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/the-dangers-of-critical-theory.
[10] This
account of the founding of Roadway Express, Inc. (now known as YRC) is found at
ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Roadway Express.
[11]
See F. A. Hayek, The Road To
Serfdom (Chicago: The University Of Chicago Press, 1994, repr., fiftieth
anniversary edition).
[12] Merriam-Webster
(on-line) defines socialism as follows: “Any of various economic and political
theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of
the means of production and distribution of goods.” Merriam-Webster
(on-line) defines capitalism this way: “An economic system characterized by
private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are
determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution
of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.”
Merriam-Webster (on-line) defines “capital” in this manner: “relating to or being
assets that add to the long-term net worth of a corporation [such as] capital
improvements.”
[13] Marvin
Olasky, “Between Anywhere and Somewhere: An afternoon with U.S. Sen. Ben
Sasse,” in World (July
21, 2018).
No comments:
Post a Comment