Social Justice and the Temptation of a Personal Faith

A few months ago, Glenn Beck took on Jim Wallis at Sojourners.  He lambasted the concept of social justice, and Jim Wallis has gotten a bunch of mileage out of the controversy.  First, I must offer my props.  Glenn Beck has loudly turned the attention of his audiences to history and the American founding.  If people watching his show actually read Federalist Paper #10, the republic would be in a much better position.  Likewise, Jim Wallis has always couched his political agenda in the language of faith.  As a result, he has forced me again and again to go to the Scriptures to examine my own positions.  Both Beck and Wallis play an important role within our media culture.  I tip my hat to both.

That being said, I have my concerns.  Both men offer simplistic soundbites and surface understandings.  I have written before about Jim Wallis.  Those familiar with my blog know my criticisms.  Glenn Beck however is a newcomer to my comments.  My wife got me to listen to him years ago, and he can be entertaining and thoughtful.  However, I frankly don't trust Glenn Beck on matters of religion.  Hurried show-prep read through the lens of Mormonism is a bit suspect.

Beck has equated "social justice" with Communism and Nazism.  He claims that "social justice" and "economic justice" are codewords for "the redistribution of wealth."  However, Beck ignores a long tradition of Christian teachings on social issues.  The term "social justice" has been adopted by the overwhelming majority of Christians including the Roman Catholic Church.  To be fair and to give Beck some credit, there are folks who lurk in the shadows of "social justice" who believe with all sincerity in "the redistribution of wealth."  In fact, there are some within the church who seem more influenced by the Communist Manifesto than the Sermon on the Mount.  Rather than telling parishioners to run, as Beck reportedly has, church members need to get facts and ask questions.  Particular political positions need to be examined in the light of Scripture, church tradition, and common sense.
.
Recently, Beck brought on a gathering of religious folk on his show.  In that conversation, I think he revealed a very basic and culturally, a very American attitude toward faith. He states,

...The reason why I want to talk to some preachers is George Whitfield.

We learned about George Whitfield on the show about a month ago. This guy came before the American Revolution. He had to bring people and open their eyes and say, wait a minute. God is personal. He works through me, and it's an individual thing. And it's not collective salvation. It's up to me to do these things.

There needs to be another Whitfield. And so we're talking tonight about the role of faith...

Lay aside whether or not this is an accurate understanding of George Whitfield.  Beck understands faith as a personal issue, an individual thing.  My religion is between God and me.  As a result, there is no "social justice".  There is no sense of God redeeming the community or the political order.

Again, my tradition is very different from Glenn Beck, but I also am thankful that salvation is not collective.  Jesus Christ redeems me--not my race, my tribe or the blood coursing through my veins.  I celebrate the fact that God loves this particular and individual person.  Like John the Baptist said, "..and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham" (Luke 3:8).  God touches us individually, and we respond as individuals.

However, the temptation contained in this theology is a rampant individualism.  If my faith is all about me and Jesus having warm fuzzies, then nothing else matters.  My religion may make me a better person, but my God has little to say about politics, work or family life.  Church is no long about a community embodying Christ in this world.  Instead, we are a group of individuals gathered for our own individual needs.  Individual Christians are no longer a people with a message that "God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ."  We become either chaplains, endorsing the existing order, or we hide from the existing order in our own cultural ghetto.  
  

Beck's argument against Jim Wallis and those who carry the flag of "social justice" seems to be:  "Faith is personal.  Talking about the collective concern of justice in society is thus out of bounds."  However, Beck every night complains about the injustices in society.  By Beck's own argument, the modern prophet who speaks for the just and against the unjust cannot stand on his or her faith. 

Rather than a ad hominem condemnation of social justice, Beck would do better by arguing that his policies would benefit society including the poor, the orphan and the widow.  He should make the argument that Wallis, however well-intentioned, would make society more unjust.  If he can't make that argument, then perhaps he should rethink his position or at least be quiet. 

Pacifism, the Bible and the American Founding

Kurt Willems, a Mennonite pastor and seminary student from Fresno Pacific University has caused an uproar concerning an article he wrote for the Sojourners' blog.  His claim is that Christianity and July 4th are Incompatible.  Mark Tooley over at the Institute on Religion and Democracy has responded.  (Unfortunately, I noted at least one error in his article.  Stanley Hauerwas is not an Anabaptist.  He is United Methodist.  He is highly influenced by Mennonite writers, like John Yoder, but he's a Methodist.)

Clearly a pacifist would have a problem with any political system founded upon an act of violence.  Tooley has a point in suggesting that the one who condemns American Independence on the grounds of pacifism should rightfully be condemning Bastille Day or the Bolshevik Revolution.  For that matter, that same person should also condemn the blood spilled to liberate slaves in America or concentration camps in Europe.  Even further, one might even question the use of deadly force by a police officer in the line of duty.  I personally am not a pacifist, and I do not believe that rulers bear the sword in vain.  Nonetheless, I am respectful of the pacifist tradition in Christianity.  Hauerwas and Yoder are respected dialogue partners of mine.

The critique that I find more interesting comes from Mark Noll, a leading evangelical among academics.  Willems' own comments spring from an article that Noll wrote for Christianity Today.  I disagree with Noll when he suggests that America probably would have received independence freely as Canada and Australia later did.  Such conjecture is not possible because independence for other colonies only occurred after the Americans took their freedom by force.  Nonetheless, Noll's critique of the rhetoric at the time of the founding is helpful.  Many used and misused the Bible to further political ends.  He writes,

"An evil precedent was also established in America for later times of national crisis by employing the Bible eccentrically (instead of theologically) and by worrying about classical Christian justifications for warfare hardly at all."

Just because someone finds a slew of Biblical references and allusions does not make a country Christian.  For example, I find Newt Gingrich's "Walking Tour of God in Washington D.C." of only limited use.  Sure, you can find biblical quotes or references to Moses on public buildings, but does that baptize our system of government?  I personally find John Murray's book, We Hold These Truths, to be a more sober reflection on Christian tradition and the American founding than what we usually find on the left or right.

The United States of America is a nation is under God, which does not mean that everything we do is compatible with faith.  Instead, it means that we are always subject to God's judgment.  This country is not perfect, and I pray that God would mend her every flaw.  Our first allegiance must only be to God and only secondarily is our allegiance to nation.  That being said, our political freedoms and our understanding of limited government are wonderful gifts to the world.  Unlike Willems, I do think that celebrating America's founding is compatible with the Christian faith. 

Happy Anniversary

Fourteen years of wedded bliss. Happy Anniversary, Sara.

Pondering Self-Government

Over the years, Sojourners and Rev. Jim Wallis have tried to be a corrective to the politics of the Religious Right. They are the natural heirs of the social gospel movement from late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries. They have bathed (or perhaps baptized) their policy proposals in the language of faith. Although he comes from a very different perspective, the rhetoric that Wallis uses is almost as judgmental and condemnatory as a Fallwell or Robertson. Despite my own criticisms, I like reading Jim Wallis. Arguing about politics with the Scriptures in hand is a wonderful discipline.

Most recently, Rev. Wallis has turned his sights on the Tea Party Movement. Frankly, I find the Tea Party Movement so amorphous that I don't know exactly what it believes. There are no party platforms, and leaders are typically self-appointed. Anger at the status quo and politicians in general seems to be the unifying theme. I do also hear the rhetoric of limited government and devotion to the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Beyond these vague notions, I don't find much else. I'm sure there are racists in the movement, but that isn't the defining characteristic. People are simply frustrated and scared, and they have a right to assemble, speak, and vote. That seems a preferable way to deal with dissent.

Where I haven't found a governing philosophy, Jim Wallis has found "libertarianism", and he states that in "several major aspects of biblical ethics, Libertarianism falls short." Wallis is quick to build straw men, and warns us against libertarians who wish to sell liquor to our children and segregate lunch counters.

Wallis tells us that these libertarians "seem to believe in the sinless market and that the self-interest of business owners or corporations will serve the interests of society." I don't know if they were libertarians, but I have met a few people who suggested as much. Where it exists, I agree with Jim Wallis that the idolatry of the market should be unmasked.

However, Wallis seems to replace the sinless market with almost sinless government.

Revelation 13 depicts the state as a totalitarian beast -- a metaphor for Rome, which was persecuting the Christians. This passage serves as a clear warning about the abuse of governmental power. But a power-hungry government is clearly an aberration and violation of the proper role of government in protecting its citizens and upholding the demands of fairness and justice.

The word "aberration" suggests that power-hungry governments are against the norm. I would argue that governments that voluntarily limit their power are actually more the aberration. That doesn't mean that government isn't necessary or that it doesn't have an important role protecting citizens and upholding the demands of fairness and justice. Nonetheless, history, including biblical history, has shown us that tyranny is always a temptation for those in power. As a simple example, consider David and the unfortunate incident with Uriah.

I do not understand how we must mistrust the self-interest of business owners and corporate shareholders and not mistrust the self-interest of politicians and the voters. Devotion to the rule of law, the checks and balances of our political institutions, limited government and local rule help curb vice and encourage virtue. Other institutions outside of government such as families, businesses, and a free press also limit abuse. Finally, churches have a huge role to play in society. Along with social services and a prophetic voice, the church remains salt and light in the world.

Will a society of freedom, limited government, and competing institutions create some utopia? Of course not. However, a naive reliance on the government as a panacea for all our problems is even more utopian. A better question for Jim Wallis (and for that matter, the Tea Parties) might be: How best can a society of sinners provide justice for all, including the least and the vulnerable?

The Wisdom of Crowds

Contrarian to the core, I always take pause when I see something become a trend.

I appreciate self-organizing, adaptive systems. There is power in unleashing the creative talents of people. We see it market economies, freedom of the press, or even wikipedia. That's why I pay close attention to the collective wisdom of tradition, I disdain top-down organizations, and I prefer freedom to constraint. I am willing to accept messiness for the sake of empowerment.

Over the past few weeks, I have noticed several offering similar praise. Recently, a newsletter of the Lewis Center for Church Leadership began with the following...

I was struck recently by an article that begins with a statement about ants by Stanford biologist Deborah Gordon. "Ants aren't smart," she wrote in a National Geographic article; "ant colonies are." Today more and more people are recognizing the "wisdom of crowds" in which collective thought and action by groups are superior to the individual ability of even their most gifted members.

If the church is noticing something, that usually means that it's really old, old news. That's when I had to rethink my position.

I'm not being critical of the newsletter article. It encourages leadership training and teamwork. Congregations definitely would benefit from such talk.

However, I am a little squeamish about the "wisdom of crowds." I refuse to back away from my praise of adaptive systems. However, crowds make a lot of dumb decisions on the way to better ones. There is no wisdom in a lynch mob. There is nothing inherently superior to a crowd mentality. Wisdom comes from the interaction of ideas, and over a long period of time, the right decision usually emerges. In the meantime, let us not forget the suffering and hurt which can occur over the short term.

Uncivil Society

According to Stephen Kotkin, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Bloc was not the result of the forces of civil society. Instead it was the failure of "uncivil society"--"the bureaucrats, ideologues, political police, managers and other members of the Communist elite who ran the states of the Soviet bloc in partnership with the Kremlin."

If this analysis is true, then we should seriously rethink the idea that "God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom." Removing the barriers of a tyrannical government will never be enough. The desire for comfort and security often competes with freedom. Hence, Russia is toying with authoritarian rule.

Civil society needs to be cultivated. Freedom is never easy.

The End of a Free Government

James Madison's contribution to the science of government has primarily been attributed to his development of institutions and structures. His work in the development of the U.S. Constitution and the its ability to mitigate of competing interests is the stuff of high school government classes. The question remains has been to what end were these structures put in place.

A few have suggested that government was "to dull the edge of a fully participatory and democratic politics." At best, this was to curb the abuses of the rabble. At worst, a few scholars, such as Charles Beard, suggest that the institutions were to protect the rich elite.

Colleen Sheehan has suggested another possibility. Madison believed, according to Sheehan, that public opinion held the republic together. The institutions that Madison developed were meant to protect public opinion. Competing interests and balance of power found in the U.S. Constitution created space for "ongoing teaching, cultivating, arguing, and distilling of opinions."

The U.S. Constitution does not simply take the competing interests and pour them into a meat grinder where majority rules and minorities are protected. The end result is not the decisions of government. Instead, the end result should be a free citzenry.

Internet and Privacy

Michael Gerson questions whether the internet has led us to become a nation of exhibitionists. Demands for greater privacy and revealing everything online are basically two sides of the same coin. Gerson states, "Transparency has become disconnected from intimacy." The internet is not going away any time soon, and we probably need to discover the balance for ourselves individually if not as a society.

Meanwhile, Ross Douthat suggests that the internet is ideologically neutral. The advantage that Democrats had in internet organizing last year is being matched by some Republicans in 2010. Unfortunately, the politicians have not learned that the internet produces support more fickle than usual. Making it easier to write your congressman or contribute to a campaign does not suggest a depth of engagement.

In a way, the rule of law and the institutions that we have provide us a balance against the vagaries of public opinion. The balance I suggest is not in terms of scale. Instead, the balance I mean is like a clock. The weights of a clock keep the clock running, but not too fast or too slow. It's like waiting till the next day to send that awful e-mail to your boss. Perhaps, you might think better of it in the morning.

Douthat also talks about the inevitable problem of buyers remorse. Sending a few sheckels to a candidate on a whim means that you may not realize his or her positions on a variety of issues. Douthat writes, "The internet breeds utopian hopes...this utopianism needs to be tempered by a realism that only hard experience can teach. Better if both right and left learn their lesson quickly — that technology changes, but politics remains the same."

That being said, the ability to collect support and money quickly is very helpful. Douthat reminds us that support for Haiti relief has benefited greatly from the internet's ability to organize.

Haiti Relief

The most important information to share with you this week is relief efforts for the recent earthquake in Haiti. Please take the time to support relief efforts. I am encouraging folks to give to Presbyterian Disaster Assistance. If you would like to support another worthy cause, please do so, but always be careful about where your money is going. Also, check out The Haiti Connection, a clearinghouse for information about a variety of charities there. Be sure also to support Haiti long after it moves out of the headlines.

Friday Funnies: Pants on the Ground

For some bizarre reason, I like this song. I also enjoy the many remixes and the covers. Take a special look at Jimmy Fallon's cover in the style of Neil Young. To General Larry Platt, I salute you.

Snake Oil and Hubris

Both columnists Peggy Noonan and David Brooks have recently written about the failure of our institutions. Both articles seem to be in response to the terrorist act which occurred on Christmas Day, 2009 on a plane bound for Detroit. Although both are helpful reading, in a way, Brooks' article intrigues me more.

Brooks argues that in the past "there was a realistic sense that human institutions are necessarily flawed." In the good ol' days, according to Brooks, we accepted the mistakes of human institutions, and then we moved on. "Now we seem to expect perfection from government and throw tantrums when it is not achieved."

I don't know if that's exactly true. Rarely, do I hear of a government official losing his or her job for even failures of epic proportion ("Heckova job, Brownie.") George W. Bush was re-elected with an unpopular war in Iraq precisely because many gave him the benefit of the doubt. The election of 2004 was essentially a referendum on the mantra, "stay the course." Some of the tantrums we are experiencing may be the legitimate frustration that our institutions are not moving to meet challenges. Also, many feel that their trust has been betrayed, and our leaders have done little to rebuild it.

Laying aside the legitimate concern for reform, Brooks does have a bigger idea. The underlying problem is hubris. We believe that all problems are solvable. We just need another product, another government program, or another technological gizmo. Unfortunately, the worst offenders of hubris have been our leaders & politicians. They have encouraged us to be dependent on them. They tickle our ears with promises of easy wealth and safety without sacrifice. Elections are won by promising that all our wildest dreams will come true. I don't doubt the sincerity of our snake oil salesmen. They believe their own rhetoric, and they are shocked when we want our money back.

The title of Brooks article is apt, "The God who Fails." We have come to our human institutions expecting too much. We trust in the government, the media, business, the academy, and even religious institutions more than we trust in God. Perhaps, Noonan is correct. She suggests that our institutions have lost sight of their mission. Clearly, a sober reflection on the proper purpose and limits of these institutions would be greatly helpful. However, that isn't enough.

Instead, each one of us needs to ask the question of the psalmist, "...from where does my help come? My help comes from the Lord, the maker of heaven and earth" (Psalm 121:1-2).

Most Useless Machine Ever

The Most Useless Machine Ever. This machine probably is a metaphor for so many things. I need to use the blueprints just to build my own. I could take it to all sorts of meetings.

Mission or Identity

Peggy Noonan tells us that the crisis of the last decade has been the failure of institutions. Government, business, and even the church have received their lumps in the past ten years. The problem started long before that, but Noonan notes that we have now entered a crisis. She believes the problem is that our leadership have forgotten the mission.

I would say that we are in the midst of an identity crisis. We don't know what we believe or who we are.

Traditions in U.S. Foreign Policy

In Foreign Policy, Walter Russell Mead discusses the direction of America foreign policy in terms of four great traditions represented by Alexander Hamilton, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson.

Bono's Cultural Solution

Who knew that Bono was a guest columnist for the New York Times?

In a recent article, he suggested an annual arts festival to bring together followers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. He argues that music helped bridge gaps in Ireland during the "Troubles", and he places hope in the arts for the current problems in the Middle East.

Color me skeptical. Still, I agree with the unspoken premise under his proposal. A huge part of the problem is cultural. Until the culture changes, the political process will inevitably fail.

TFA Alumni and Civic Engagement

There has been a recent study of the post-corps experience of Teach For America teachers. They discovered that TFA teachers are not significantly more involved in voting, charitable giving or civic engagement. The poll takers credit the disappointing results to burnout and disillusionment. Thankfully, a former TFA teacher has shown some problems with the poll's numbers.

Since I can't find the poll on-line, I also wonder if it was measuring the wrong things. Among TFA alumni that I know, I notice a difference in their attitudes toward community change. Their young idealism has often given way to a tested and mature realism. They are still committed to solving inequality and injustice, but they have learned how to work within existing institutions. They are imaginative, but they are also pragmatic. Most importantly, many have also learned patience. The fight for justice is a marathon, not a sprint.

Getting the Name Right

Where the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are truly wars, Peter Breinart suggests that the so-called "War on Terror" is misnamed. As a result, we don't have a real plan to fight it. Looking at the example of the similarly misnamed "Cold War", Breinart suggests an effort at containment and ideological struggle.

Lessons from Toyota?

After failure of preventing the underwear bomber, we are reminded again that our intelligence agencies are a Byzantine collection of agencies. I found this article on organization with lessons from Toyota interesting.

Two mitigating thoughts:

(1) Spy agencies are different than car companies.

(2) Any efficiencies gained should not be at the cost of the rule of law.

Pastors, Protect Your Marriage

* I'm not always a huge fan of Rick Warren, but he is right on target when he warns pastors to protect their marriages. Pastors deal with emotions and vulnerabilities all the time. They need to work hard to keep lines of communication open with their spouses.

* Speaking about Rick Warren, apparently Saddleback Church had a $900,000 shortfall in 2009. About 10% of their parishioners are out of work. Clearly the economy stinks right now, and giving is down everywhere. I don't know if the shortfall was a surprise, but I wonder if it could be handled different.

Friday Funnies: The Parrot Sketch

It's not pinin,' it's passed on! This parrot is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late parrot! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed him to the perch he would be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolical processes are of interest only to historians! It's hopped the twig! It's shuffled off this mortal coil! It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible! This.... is an EX-PARROT!