the end of social justice

Micah 6:8 says, "He has shown you, oh man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you. Do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your God."

Doing justice in a merciful and humble fashion is a bottom line dimension of the Christian faith. This brings individual and social redemption which leads to transformation of society. I think the word "justice" should be pushed to the forefront rather than diminished.

I am currently preaching a series entitled "Learning to Speak the Language of the Kingdom of Heaven". "Justice" is as vital a word to utilize in our daily speaking as the word "gracias" and should be a primary goal of us all.

I think what I'm trying to say (I don't always know, to be honest), is that the term "social justice" has lost its power, its meaning and its ability to spur to action. At least for me. It has become a buzzword we throw around that more identifies our theological and political leanings than the way we live our lives. It has become an idea that we can pay homage to but keep our feet firmly planted in the safe ground of consumerism, nationalism, liberalism, progressivism, or whatever ism we want. It does not move us. Or at least, it does not move me anymore.

I have heard it so much that the moment someone says "social justice," I tune out.

I also don't think social justice is a word that conveys the message of Jesus. I think social justice can, and often does, imply this idea that we, the bearers of Jesus' message, are bringing justice to the world. It is something we tend to do *to* people, rather than *with* people.

Some may think I'm playing word games. But, I would argue, that word games are incredibly important. Even repackaging the same idea with new terminology can offer reinvigorating freshness. Just look at the emerging church movement. Or the megachurch movement. Or any myriad repackaged movie that nevertheless rakes in cash. To be crass, sometimes it would do progressives well to think of marketing along with their forward-looking ideas.

(This is to say nothing of the thought that many conservatives think that true "social justice" is to put killers to death, to let the poor rot in the streets and the hungry starve.)

I floated the term "social redemption" as a bigger term and a more radical one. One can do social justice within a system, I would argue, because it is something, again, we do *to* another, to the least of these. Or, at least, it seems to have come to mean this. Social redemption, I am arguing, would imply our own inclusion, since the redemption we would seek would be not only our neighbors but our own at the same time. Social redemption cannot work within the system because we realize that the ultimate flaw in the system lies with us, with "we the people," if I may. (I think personal redemption and social redemption are the same thing. If we are working toward a better world, we, internally, are facing the darkness of ourselves, repenting of our oppression of others, implicitly or explicitly, and reaching out in fragile hope for something better.)

Let me frame it a different way. When we talk about social justice, what I most often hear is a church talking about their work in the inner cities, with the poor or with lobbying for liberal causes. These are all worthy and noteworthy. I do not want to take away from any of this. What I am saying, though, is that we might travel into the inner city and we might even work there, but more often than not, we go to do social justice, to help the poor. This, though, requires little sacrifice of us, other than an afternoon or two and perhaps a little discomfort.

What if, when we went to help the poor, we chose to live with them, instead? Fight their battles with them? Or, simply, listen to them? We often think we have the solution, and that the solution is for "them" (those that need social justice) to become more like "us." But what if the opposite is true, that the solution is for us to become like them?

What if, when we protest torture, we find a way to provide asylum -- here or abroad -- for those found innocent and released to their home countries where they will face more torture? What if when we protest inhumane immigration laws and practices, we (as some are doing) open up our churches as safe havens? What if we rejected the existence of luxury because we realized that these luxuries are given on the backs of the oppressed? What if we turned our backs on consumerism: what has built this country and razed the poor, the disenfranchised and the environment?

What if the answer isn't to reform the system, but to subvert it? Not to create a new one, necessarily, but to confess that to play ball in injustice raises the question as to whether we are complicit in the injustice.

I, personally, am nowhere near doing any of this. At all. I just thought I'd throw out an idea. And I could be preaching to the choir, of course.

Have I confused the issue enough? :)

Calling for justice means that there's the perception of an injustice that needs to be dealt with. Negative connotations are necessarily built into the word.

However, I don't think of it as a matter of judge/jury/executioner. It seems more like prosecutor/grand jury/indictment.

When the church calls for justice, we're acting as lawyers presenting a case to the grand jury of the public, asking for an indictment. The execution comes in the form of new behavior, be it new laws or changed private behavior or changed church practices.

Bill