Taking Aim

           As the title implies, there is a Part 1 that I will attempt to build on and round out here. In the initial post, I set out to give a Christian assessment of the social justice movement and its impact on Evangelical Christianity. I attempted this by defining justice, illustrating the importance of a right understanding of justice, and laying out the scriptural foundation that we should stand on as we critique the social justice movement. We will do a quick recap, but it may be hard to follow if you haven’t read the first post. In Part 1 we looked at a few texts that I believe give foundational truths about God’s view of justice. From those texts, we saw God’s standard of justice in the principles of proportionality, restitution, and impartiality. First, proportionality means that a punishment should fit the crime. Most famously stated as “an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth”. We also looked at the principle of restitution, where a person is owed repayment for what is stolen/taken from them. Finally, we saw God’s standard of justice in the principle of impartiality as given in Leviticus 19. Impartiality demands that everyone is treated equally and measured by the same standards. With these three principles, Proportionality, Restitution, and Impartiality in place, we will utilize them as we examine the social justice movement and expose where it comes up short of God’s standard.  

Bad Fruit from Evil Roots

I don’t think many Christians will disagree with most of what I said in Part 1, even those within the Social Justice movement. Generally, the disagreement comes in the application. 

Disagreement develops, at least in part, because of a fundamental difference in methodology. Modern social justice advocates will seek to apply Scripture’s principles by utilizing concepts that originated outside of Christianity, and I believe, are fundamentally opposed to it. The roots of social justice are buried in the soil of Critical Theory. Critical Theory is ultimately traced back to Karl Marx and has since been further developed by his followers. I expect many would object to this description of their position, and my associating it with Marx. While I do not doubt that most of them did not learn these concepts from someone identifying as a Marxist, nevertheless, the intellectual roots of the movement began with Marx. Classical Marxism was built around concepts of a class struggle between oppressors and oppressed. This dichotomy of oppressor vs oppressed is as central to the modern social justice movement as it is to historic Marxism. This part may seem like an unrelated tangent but stick with me. It is important because it gives the necessary background information to be able to understand what is being promoted. Critical Theory is essentially the idea that by examining society with the intention of revealing oppression and power structures, we can understand the driving forces of society. It assumes at the outset that society is more influenced by systems of oppression than by individual choice or ability. Critical Theorists, including Marx and modern social justice leaders, claim that a society can be broken down into two distinct and opposed groups, the oppressed and the oppressors. For historic Marxism, the oppressors are those who own the means of production and the oppressed are those who do the low-end labor, the bourgeoisie, and proletariat you learned about in high school history class. 

Critical Race Theory is simply the application of the Marxist framework of oppressor vs oppressed to the concept of race. Classical Marxism says the economic elite have their dominant position by the exploitation of those beneath them. Modern social justice advocates replace the economic class emphasis with minority status. 

When applied to race it reveals that ethnically white members of society are the oppressors, and ethnic minorities, are the oppressed. Oppression is the lens through which everything is viewed in Critical Theory. 

Not only is a sharp distinction drawn between the oppressed and oppressors, but the two are fundamentally at odds. Social, if not physical, warfare exists between the two. This is inevitable because the ideology assumes that those at the top can only exist if they continually work to hold down the masses at the bottom. This division, which is central to the social justice movement draws a sharp contrast to the unity provided by Christ in the Christian framework.

Ethnic Original Sin

I believe this error that many of my brothers and sisters have fallen into was inevitable once they adopted the framework of Critical Race Theory. Once categories of oppressor and oppressed are assumed as the fundamental way society functions, it is impossible to see justice in a Biblical way. When God’s Word is abandoned, the opinion of man becomes the standard. Evangelical social justice advocates abandon many biblical principles in their acceptance of enduring guilt. In the social justice framework, an oppressor is guilty of a “sin” by being a member of the ethnic majority. This “guilt” rests on them not because of what they have done, but because of who they are. Since the “sin” of being white is inherent to who they are, it will remain with them their entire life. It is important to understand that the white skin itself isn’t what actually makes them guilty of sin. The guilt is the result of the benefits, or we might say blessings, they possess within society by having that white skin. Again, fundamental to the social justice movement is the understanding that a member of a majority is the oppressor, and any minority is the oppressed. A white person need not ever actually obtain anything at the expense of a black person to be guilty of oppression. The belief is that the societal system is composed in such a way that a white person will inevitably benefit at the expense of a black person. Since the system is built to function this way, a white person will continual be guilty of this oppression for their entire life. It should be obvious that proportional punishment and restitution cannot be applied to this scenario. Proportionality is not applicable where the amount is not tied to personal actions. Likewise, restitution of an infinite theft not associated with personal actions cannot be made. By redefining sin so that it makes a group of people inherently guilty, the social justice promoters have removed God’s standards from their system. We see here that the notion of enduring guilt is the outworking of the concept of systemic oppression or systemic racism. Because of the oppression that their philosophy assumes is central to the functioning of society, they are forced to abandon biblical categories of sin and make entire segments of society guilty by default. Sin is no longer personal, it is a characteristic some people are simply born with and some are born without. It is hardly worth noting that God’s law nowhere identifies being part of an ethnic majority as a sin. Nor does it assign guilt to those that are blessed with privileges not shared by everyone. 

God’s Word doesn’t view being born with blessings as anything to be repented of, yet this is demanded by the social justice ideology. By going beyond God’s standards of justice they must also add to God’s law. As we said earlier, when God’s Word is abandoned, man’s opinion will become the standard. By separating sin from the individual, biblical principles of justice have been made unachievable.  

Two Injustices Don’t Make a Justice

One of the early victories that the social justice movement won was making it culturally acceptable, to discriminate based on race. This, of course, is not the way it is presented, but as we will see in the next section, the social justice movement often handles words in a way that tends to blur and obscure rather than clarify and explain. We looked at the biblical principle of impartiality in the previous post and saw that God’s law requires that all of His image-bearers be treated fairly and with equal standards. For a review let’s look at Leviticus 19:15; “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” Here we see that God desires fair and equal treatment of all people, regardless of any distinctive, be it wealth and power or minority status. Social justice doctrine cannot uphold the principle of impartiality because showing preference to those it deems oppressed is their method of correcting injustice. Instead of establishing and enforcing justice the way God has designed, by adherence to His Law and righteous punishment for breaking that Law, they pursue justice by way of favoritism and preference. This method of attempting to balance the scales of injustice with more injustice leads to a society filled with corruption and theft. Turns out Mom was standing on a firm biblical foundation when she told you ”two wrongs don’t make a right”.

The False Robin Hood of Redistribution 

We hear the topic of redistribution come up within this discussion regularly. Thankfully, many Christians within the Social Justice movement reject redistribution in its fullest sense. Yet, to a lesser degree, redistribution is inherent to the movement. 

Justice is sought by the confiscation of some good thing from the possession of the oppressor class and then distributing it to the segments of the population that are deemed to be oppressed. 

The social justice movement sets itself up as a Robin Hood of sorts, where wrongs done by a preceding generation are “corrected” by the reallocation of property and social standing. This view of descendants as guilty for the sins of their forefathers is in flat opposition to Ezekiel 18 where God says “The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father,..” Another problem that is ignored is the injustice that must be done for this redistribution to take place. God’s law requires property rights to be honored, this is inherent in the Commandment to not steal. Redistribution requires the theft of an individual’s property so that it may be given to another. In social justice ideology, two wrongs can make a right. This understanding of justice and this method of promoting it are far removed from the biblical model. They may utilize the same name of justice, but the two concepts have little in common. When attempting to apply this system of promoting justice they must show partiality and discriminate based on some group-based minority status, such as skin color or gender. Individual and personal rights that are so central to biblical justice are overshadowed or abandoned entirely in favor of group identity. 

Sleight of Hand

Maybe the single biggest issue faced when addressing the social justice movement is one that it shares with most, if not all liberal and progressive theological movements, a redefinition of terms. All Christians should be deeply concerned with the issues involved in the social justice movement and should desire to join in the fight against racism. When Christians hear that racism is occurring, their immediate response is to oppose it. The problem is that what the social justice movement means by racism is fundamentally different than the historic and common understanding. In this debate, the same ole term is used, and the normal lines are drawn, but while nobody was looking the definition is changed. It is hard to find any willingness on the part of the social justice advocates to acknowledge this change of definition. The “racism” that draws the ire of the social justice movement need not have any actual beliefs or feelings of ethnic superiority. Simply by being white, a person is guilty of racism. Refusal to be upfront about this change can only lead those of us on the outside to believe that the misdirection is intentional and is actually a purposeful sleight of hand. It is important to the movement that the stigma attached to the old meaning of the word remains. The evil associated with the normal meaning of the word enables it to be a powerful tool in undermining the credibility of those that are against the social justice movement. 

Many terms that are central to the disagreement such as racism, justice, whiteness, etc. are filtered through the system of Critical Theory and redefined by the categories of oppressor and oppressed. This results in widespread confusion, misunderstanding, and the inability to communicate and discuss disagreements meaningfully. If social justice advocates desire to have an honest discussion, they should make this change clear and openly admit to their redefinition.

Charlie Brown Evangelicalism 

You may have heard various theologians or pastors attempt to define evangelicalism. It is a notoriously slippery term because it is so rapidly changing and has so many varieties. Emphasis on the Gospel, belief in the importance of conversion, and a focus on the Great Commission are often listed as its core tenants. These are certainly important aspects of the historic movement. 

But I would like to propose a commonly overlooked trait especially prevalent in American section of Evangelicalism, gullibility. Seemingly fundamental to being an American evangelical is being naive and gullible when it comes to new and popular cultural movements. I can say this because I am a proud, card-carrying American Evangelical. Christians that know the history of the American Church are familiar with the scene that is unfolding in front of us. They understand what’s happening because they’ve seen the culture run this play before. 

As I watch it develop, I am reminded of a well-known scene from Charlie Brown. One that perfectly describes our unquestioned acceptance of social movements. In this scene, Charlie is preparing to kick a football held in place by Lucy. Charlie, despite being tricked and embarrassed before by the notoriously unreliable Lucy, is sure this time will be different. He really doesn’t want to come across as judgmental, so he’s going to give it another shot. American Evangelicalism is, of course, Charlie Brown in my analogy. The Church’s never wavering commitment to being “relevant”, has it primed for another round of this “gotcha” play. So here we are, yet again faced with a cultural movement that is infiltrating the church with unbiblical concepts and a large section of the church is unquestioning swallowing it whole. If you are amongst my fellow Evangelicals, I beg you, examine what the world feeds you. 

Compare it to the Word of God and if it is found wanting, toss it on the trash heap where it belongs.

Light vs Darkness

Modern times have seen a slew of cultural hot topics come raging into the Church. Yet, even in times of trials, God remains faithful and He has blessed Christ’s church through these controversies by purifying her. They have caused the wavering, half-hearted souls to abandon Christ’s. Not so long ago the focus was on the culture's pending movement down the sexual revolution’s path to pedophilia, and this surely continues to march on. At least for now, even this favored emphasis of the progressives has been overshadowed by the so-called justice movement. Why the sudden Blitzkrieg on this issue? It is simple, modern secularism and unbelief have no concept of a final judgment where all will be made right. Equality must be achieved now or not at all. This is the backdrop to the urgency and emotion wrapped up in the culture's movements, for them, it is now or never. From a Christian perspective, every injustice will receive due punishment when the judge of all the earth pounds His gavel and brings the final court into session. (1 Pet. 4:5) This is fundamentally at odds with the secular concept of social justice. Looking ahead, the Christian Church must remember whose name she bears and whose Church she is. Christ is the only source of unity that will sustain in times of persecution and enable the Church to be a light shining in the darkness. The Church must remember that society is the darkness in need of illumination and not the Savior that is worthy of emulation. Cultural trends will come and go, often wrapped in stolen Christian concepts and utilizing Christian jargon that makes them sound good. 

Concepts such as justice, love, and unity cannot be maintained when separated from the just and loving Savior that purchased unity by His perfect life and atoning death. The wrapping is the same, but the content is very different. 

Any system that rejects the finished work of Christ, abandons God’s eternal principles of justice, and destroys the unity of Christ’s flock, has no place in a Christian’s heart. The American society that was built largely on those same godly principles and favorably treated those that honored them is long gone. Christians are no longer able to avoid conflict by sitting on the fence. This neutral ground between Christ and the world has always been a myth, and the rapid lurch to the left by our fellow American’s only revealed what already there. James’ words in chapter 4 of his letter have never been more relevant. This is a good time for the Church to carefully consider these words and pray for Christ’s sustaining grace in the times ahead. “Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore, whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.” (James 4:4)