gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham) (06/04/91)
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. The thing is, I've never really seen convincing biblical arguments that social justice is as important in the Christian scheme of things as ``making disciples.'' It's not that I'm (consciously, at least) unwilling to be convinced, but every time I read a book about this, I feel like the author has to stretch the scriptures. For example, several years ago I read Yoder's POLITICS OF JESUS. At the time, I was really open to this book and wanted to agree with its premise, but I found myself saying again and again, ``I'd like to agree with that, but the biblical support for it seems really flawed.'' One example that I find a lot in such writings is a strong emphasis on propagating the Old Testament social order into Christan practice. Theologically I have trouble with this. I see Christ as the fulfillment of the Old Testament, and in order to understand things like the Jubilee, for example, I have to see what Christ does with the concept. As far as the New Testament goes, I see almost no arguments for explicit pursuit of social change, in fact, Christ's statement that ``my kingdom is not of this world'' seems to argue against such a course. Certainly the gospel has implications in this area, as in Philemon, for example, but these implications are set in the context of the way being a Christian makes relative all social relations. It seems to me that trying to apply them in a broader sense, as in efforts to modify the legal system, not only are a sort of unbelief, but can actually lead to the same kind of oppression that occurred after the Christianization of the Roman Empire. Another problem I have regarding the emphasis on justice is the sort of feeling of self-righteousness it engenders. People who ask for justice are assuming that they will ``win the case.'' But one of the cornerstones of my own thinking about my life with God is that I can not expect to stand before God in my own goodness. Most of us can look back on various ways we have been treated unjustly. But if we were to ask for reckoning, we would be like the slave who was forgiven millions of dollars who wanted to beat the $1.98 he was owed out of the other slave. It is even possible that emphasis on `justice' for the oppressed can have a bad effect on the oppressed. Someone who focuses on the oppressor with hatred is as dehumanized, if not more so, than the oppressor. This is one of the things I miss from the '60s -- the idea that the oppressor and the oppressed person are equally enslaved, and that freedom for one must involve freedom for the other (idealistic though this may sound). From a Christian perspective, the message I find in the Gospels and Paul's letters seems to be the relativization of social relationships that I mentioned above that makes the oppressed person free on a different level. And in Philemon, we actually see the way the gospel frees both the slave and the master, and the implications of that. One can object that this is an excessive 1) personalization and 2) spiritualization of the Gospel. Again, I'd like to be convinced. I know all this is easy for me, a future DWM, to say. But this brings me to another point. There's a piece of commonplace wisdom that says, ``You can't preach the gospel to a hungry man.'' I used to think this was true, but one day it occurred to me that there was one person who could, namely, another hungry man. This made me flash on the first temptation of Christ, where he was told to make the stones into bread. His answer was, ``MAN does not live by bread alone....'' The point was that even (especially) in his hunger, his physical weakness, he identified with those he came to save. I think this is what's too often missing, and the key to what I would see as a biblical integration of social concern and evangelism. Someone who wants to preach the gospel to people has to identify with those people enough to share their plight. This seems to me to be the model that Christ, and Paul, gave us (all things to all men). I'd appreciate any comments people have on this matter. I'm still not completely convinced one way or the other. -- -Fred Gilham gilham@csl.sri.com [My memory of the discussions from the 60's, as well as some of the more recent ones, is that typically the social reformers quoted the prophets more than Jesus. Note that the prophets were addressing people who had social and political power and were abusing it, whereas Jesus was addressing primarily people without such power. (When he did run into such people we get denunciations of the Pharisees, and the cleansing of the Temple, both of which look rather Prophetic, I think.) I'm not convinced that Christians should really try to recreate the OT theocracy, so it may not be possible to move all of the prophets' message directly into 20th Cent. American politics. But it seems clear to me that to the extent that Christians have influence on our government, that influence should be used to make justice roll down like waters. It seems to me that the debate needs to focus, not on the question of whether Christians should attempt to see justice done, but on the question of whether there are right or wrong ways to do that. On the relationship between bread and the gospel, while people do not live by bread alone, you should note that Jesus fed the crowds who came to listen to him, healed their sicknesses, etc. It seems to me that he cared for the whole person, physical and spiritual. The Christian instinct to found hospitals, to care for the poor, etc., seems quite in keeping with Christ. Again, the question is not whether we should care for these needs, but at what point to strike a balance. --clh]
credmond@watmath.waterloo.edu (Chris Redmond) (06/10/91)
On a Friday afternoon when the sun is shining and I am feeling good about the world, I want to say some good things publicly about soc.religion.christian -- in particular, I want to say how grateful I am that it exists. Very often (maybe not every day, but often) I read something here that interests me, that I wouldn't have thought of before, that expresses an idea more cogently than I could have done it. In extreme cases, there are even paragraphs here that I know will permanently change some aspect of my belief or understanding. One of them appeared today, from the cursor of our moderator, Hedrick of Rutgers, who comes in for occasional criticism and probably nowhere near enough praise. I would like him to know that his knowledge and patience and wisdom, to say nothing of the hours of work that are obviously involved, are much appreciated, and that they do some good. Today's treasure came in this moderatorial note: >[My memory of the discussions from the 60's, as well as some of the >more recent ones, is that typically the social reformers quoted the >prophets more than Jesus. Note that the prophets were addressing >people who had social and political power and were abusing it, whereas >Jesus was addressing primarily people without such power. (When he >did run into such people we get denunciations of the Pharisees, and >the cleansing of the Temple, both of which look rather Prophetic, I >think.) . . . >--clh] I wish I'd said that. Other insights have come from other posters; I won't name specific names, because there are things I can learn from almost anybody who posts here, but certainly there are names I especially rejoice to see in the headers. I think it might be useful if others who have had the same experience, learning something here that becomes a part of their view of the world, would take a moment to say so. Thank you all! Chris