Good Enough

During our first class on Catholic Social Teaching we were introduced to social justice (again) and presented with a historical look at the Church’s understanding of the poor, exploited, and underprivileged. All through this lecture I was nodding my head “yes” because I “get it”, while at the same time I was thinking “no” because so many people "don’t get it”. Near the end of this first class I voiced my confusion asking, “Why is it that so many bright people, many of whom are in every other way Christian so against the idea of social justice”?

Those that get the message of charity are nodding their heads during the homily and those that are unsure listen carefully, but some quietly get up and leave. What scares me is that this isn’t just a small fringe group of miss-informed Catholics; it is a large main stream group of Christians who firmly believe that it’s all a big lie created by liberals to force re-distribution of wealth and more big government. It was suggested that I might try to understand this other view and present it as a paper for this class, so consider the following headline:

The Apostasy of Social Justice Christians
Erik Rush wants no mercy for those preaching Marx-tainted Gospel

According to this article, “Social Justice Christians are those who profess Christianity but who adhere to politically entrenched concepts of equality and re-distribution of wealth. These ideas are ostensibly rooted in their faith, but in truth, they have been incrementally and insidiously insinuated into many American churches by Marxists, progressive politicians, and pastors whose religion has been tainted by those politicians.”

The article contends that through the misrepresentation of Gospel messages in the areas of charity and egalitarianism, many Christians have been (falsely) led to believe that; 1) the government has a right to enforce religious doctrines (such as those of charity and egalitarianism) and that, 2) Jesus Christ was the “first radical” and essentially commanded this in His teachings.

This same view argues that the methodology in play now is precisely how the left corrupted the black community; that is, through their pastors and their churches. In the 1960s the church was still the safeguard of the black community, and the Marxists-subverted black pastors interwove their social justice dogma into the Gospel. These clergymen simply crafted their message into a political one and ran blacks’ faith into a theological cesspool. As a result, Black Americans have been pawns of the left ever since and to this day don’t even know it.

The article concludes: “I declare that “Social Justice Christianity” is apostasy; its adherents have abandoned their faith for a cause and their religion has become perfunctory and pre-textual. While some are misguided Christians, others are out-and-out Marxist posers. Proverbially, they now stand with the Sadducees and Rome, against Israel. While I pray that God will have mercy on their souls, we must show them no mercy politically. They are but another well-organized group of traitors to this nation.”

Wow! I was initially stunned by the references to the civil rights movement and that I might be a traitor to my country. The idea that a sinister plot carried out by misled Christians destroyed black families and the character of black Americans isn’t what I remember about the civil rights movement. Could it be true that this sinister plot continues to delude people of faith into believing that social justice is central to the teachings of Jesus and our faith? Am I being deluded into believing that social justice is at the heart of the gospel message?

What makes this so hard for me to understand is that these people are reading the same scripture passages that I am reading. How can messages about caring for the poor divide Christians so strongly given the commandment to love our neighbor as our self? Since that first night my bewilderment has developed into a more complex question. Is it possible that we’ve been deceived by the messenger? Have we somehow gotten Jesus’ message of love wrong? Should we pick and choose our neighbors? Should social justice be moderated?

The Social Conservative Position

Socially conservative Christians believe that socially liberal Christians purposely generalize the scriptures in applying them to those outside the church. For example in the verse “if you have done this to the least of my brethren” (Matthew 25:40), both the meaning and application have been changed because we de-emphasize the word  my which they argue means Jesus’ immediate community of friends.

Legislating law is not an answer because they believe that the social justice agenda is nothing more than theft via the government. When a government enforces our moral duty to help others then God is being replaced by government, and all the Socialists and Marxists stand up to applaud. According to this line of reasoning you cannot enforce fairness; it must come from the heart. Jesus said to come to him, not the church or government, and they don’t believe that the Holy Spirit works with the corrupt men who run our government.

In fact, Marxists and Socialists’ calling for social justice is an oxymoron. Jesus never taught that one must give money to Caesar for him to distribute to the poor and needy (Acts 4:32 and 4:34-37). He said to give Caser what is due him (taxes), and He affirmed the church to help those among them in need. In the social justice model of compassion the state replaces God when it re-distributes wealth.

They would also argue that the meaning Christian socialists give to “Charity” is concealed behind new definitions. The Bible says to give freely to whom the Lord puts on your heart which means that charity is a voluntary program accomplished by obeying God, not the state, in giving time and money to assist those in need. Social justice on the other hand is a way to enforce governmental control over people, and as proposed by progressive politicians whom they label as socialists, it means taking money from those who work to give to those who don’t.

Believers who work hard for what they own acknowledge it is the Lords to do with as He wishes, but social conservatives also believe that they are under the Lord’s instruction as to when to give and what to give (Proverbs 13:4 and 21:25-26). Although the Bible makes it clear that we should take care of those who are unable to take care of themselves, the Bible calls this charity and it is to be done by individual choice. They insist that it is not fair to take from those who work to support those who will not work.

They agree that the Hebrews cared for the poor, but it was limited to “those within the nation” and it was “not intended to be a continuous handout” (Deuteronomy 14:28-29). They would also agree that the early church shared freely among those who believed (Acts 2:44-46), but they would counter that it was a relatively small group and they did not make any laws to take from one to give to outsiders. They were individually engaged in ministry to the brethren (not to everyone) which is charity motivated by love (Matthew 25:35-40). They did not rely on government or collective choice such as through taxes; it was about individual choice and the freedom to do good.

The Good Samaritan in Jesus’ parable found a man wounded and robbed by thieves along the road (Luke 10:30-37). He demonstrated compassion toward the victim of a crime not because he was socially or financially disadvantaged but because he was simply a “neighbor” in need; not as an act of social justice but through love. Furthermore, the Good Samaritan didn’t ask for money from the Roman government or the synagogue, he involved himself. Charity has empathy for those in need and is willing to share, comfort, and care for others, demonstrating God’s love from person to person, but the law of Christ to carry one another's burdens is not the same as a distribution of goods decided by one’s government.

Jesus told the rich young man to sell what he had and give to the poor, but he also said to follow him (Matthew 19:20-22). This teaching was intended to contrast the bondage of riches to the true riches he could have. Jesus did not mean for everyone who is rich to do the same; He treated people individually and not as a collective.

A Social Justice Christian’s Response

There is something that we can learn from those who oppose social justice. I would agree that we are all called to an encounter with the poor, not through some form of organized contributions via third party participation but up close and personal. Nevertheless, those who argue in favor of a more conservative justice position seem to forget that the process of conversion also deals with confronting attitudes of cultural superiority, indifference, and racism. True conversion of mind and heart leads to communion expressed through love and hospitality. We are all one human family and one people in Christ, which includes the scriptural call to welcome the stranger among us (Faithful Citizenship). We are they and they are us.

We do in fact take direction from the Church in the form of encyclicals and letters, such as Strangers No More issued by the USCCB in January of 2003. These documents attempt to lead us to an understanding of how we might “judge ourselves as a community of faith by the way we treat the most vulnerable among us.” Nevertheless, I would not agree that my concern for the poor has “been incrementally and insidiously insinuated” into my thinking. I’ve always believed that “Our common faith in Jesus Christ moves us to search for ways that favor a spirit of [community]. It is a faith that … bids us to overcome all forms of discrimination and violence so that we may build relationships that are just and loving” (Strangers No More). Thinking that it is OK to pick and choose our neighbors by dividing everyone into “us and them” is to be deceived by the messenger, because I do not believe that it is consistent with Jesus’ message of Love.
 
Those who accept the social conservative position argue that we who support social justice are lifting scripture out of context to validate our socialistic ideology, but my reading suggests that this same argument might apply to them as well. Jesus was constantly applying stories with every-day themes to the disciple’s lives trying to help them see the deeper meaning, and like the disciples social conservatives seem to be missing the deeper meaning. I believe that purposely limiting the meanings of the stories and parables is not consistent with Jesus’ teaching style. Scripture almost always has multiple levels of meaning and to moderate the lessons in scripture in an effort to be consistent with one’s own belief is how we always get Jesus’ message wrong.

Another argument against the social justice agenda I see above has a familiar ring to it: “Don’t Tread on Me”. It sounds a lot like the demographic that opposes immigration reform and argues against global weather change; putting emotion before reason. Both arguments are an extension of the belief that big government should not be imposed to limit personal freedom. Unfortunately, freedom is misunderstood by many as the right to choose “any of the above” rather than what brings us closer to God’s Kingdom on Earth.

I have little doubt that many who express the conservative argument do indeed participate in private charity. Nevertheless, their social compassion is not a primary part of their ideology and advocacy. As Pope Pius XI said, “Charity will never be true charity unless it takes justice into account. Let no one attempt with small gifts of charity to exempt him-self from the great duties imposed by justice.” No matter what their private charitable actions, if they do not make social compassion a primary part of their agenda then their essential ideology is an inaccurate representation of the God whom they claim to serve.

On the 28th Sunday in Ordinary Time my Pastor’s homily was titled Good Enough. The Rich Man humbly kneeling before Jesus wished to know how to inherit eternal life. He had proudly accounted for the goodness in his life which he had observed from his youth, yet he was unwilling to do more and instead went away sad. It seems to me that the social conservative argument hinges on being satisfied with “good enough”: Helping out a family member is good enough: Providing for the need of a close friend is good enough: Caring for an immediate neighbor is good enough: They too are unwilling to do more, and although Jesus knew that the young man had a good heart and knew the truthfulness of his response it was not enough to inherit everlasting life. Good enough simply isn’t good enough.

Jesus’ parable of the Sheep and the Goats is a metaphor for the final judgment at the end of this life. When the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory and all the nations are gathered before him “he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats”, placing the sheep on his right hand and the goats on his left. Then he explains why they’ve been separated and how they’re behavior towards the hungry, lonely, sick, and naked is to affect their eternal souls.

Jesus was a Jew, probably a Pharisee, who understood the word Love to be a verb which is an action word not an emotion. His instruction, “Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me” (Matthew 25:31-45) puts us on notice. Our Savior does not list swearing, cruelty, greed, the misuse of wisdom, or even sexual promiscuity as qualifications for goat-hood. It is our lack of charity and action toward those in need which is the most important factor in our final judgment. He would also have intimately understood the poor, exploited, and underprivileged, and I would argue that He did not mean to include only those who were in his immediate family, a few close friends, or his larger group of followers.

My wife and I just returned from a pilgrimage to Italy that was called The Shrines of Italy Tour. During our trip we were able to celebrate daily Mass in churches such as Saint Marks and Saint Lucy’s in Venice, Saint Mary’s in Florence, Saint Clare’s in Assisi, Saint Paul Outside the Wall and Saint Peters Basilica in Rome, as well as others. During one of the homilies the Priest on our trip reminded us that, “When we let peace and justice enter our hearts, only then will peace and justice enter the world”.

On our flight home I was encouraged by multiple articles in The Global Edition of the New York Times published Friday, November 9, 2012. One article said, “Part of the problem, I think, is the profusion of right wing radio and television programs. Democrats complain furiously that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity smear the left, but I wonder if the bigger loser isn’t the Republican Party itself. These shows whip up frenzy in their audience, torpedoing Republican moderates and instilling paranoia on issues like immigration.”

Another article said, “It’s time to put some compassion back in conservatism. The party needs more tolerance, more diversity, and a deeper appreciation for the concerns of the middle class”. A loyal supporter of Mr. Romney said that “his party will never earn their support until it finds a way to address illegal immigration. We need to check off that box, we need to get immigration reform done in 2013”. I was especially encouraged by the line “Social liberalism is ascendant and there is now no reason to believe the trend will stop”.

Conclusion

Of course there will always be those who insist that social justice amounts to coddling people, or that instead of having to learn to fend for themselves people will depend on the public dole, which makes them morally weak. Other well-known arguments insist that poverty is the just reward for a lack of character or responsibility: Supporting the poor in their idleness will not teach responsibility: Giving to the poor only makes them lazy: Social programs encourage people to play the system: Charity encourages dependency: Welfare rewards incompetence and shiftlessness.

So what! Jesus didn’t tell the rich young man to give all he had to the poor if they would commit to finding gainful employment, or when they could prove that their poverty was beyond their control, or only after submitting a realistic plan to become self-sufficient. Our Savior, whose atonement is offered to us whether or not we deserve it simply said “give what you have to the poor and come follow me” (Matthew 19:21).

If we are to err, as humanity will inevitably do, we must err on the side of compassion. My sense of the message in the scriptures leads me to believe that the Lord would judge us much more graciously were we to permit a few to take advantage of our charity in our determination to eliminate suffering, than He would if in our determination to prevent any such abuse we were to neglect even one of His children in need.

Assignment:

In this assignment I was supposed to develop a four page paper (double spaced) on one of the class session topics: 1) Immigration reform; 2) Global solidarity; 3) Faithful citizenship; or 4) Environmental issues. I was supposed to include what I have learned in the course regarding the chosen topic, and what made me feel diffently or see things differently. The paper was also to include how I would utilize what I have learned and how I would put this new learning into action in my life, my ministry, and my community.

As you can see above my paper turned out to be five pages (single spaced) and so I requested permission from the instructor to turn in a long paper. I didn't want to remove anything because once I understood the other view I felt it necessary to explain it fully and then provide an adequate response.


Evaluation:

This paper was submitted on time, and was eventually returned with a few comments. She put a couple checks near words that she liked and said "Yes" and "Good" next to sentences that she liked, and she thought the quote from Pope Pius XI was good. Luckily she didn't mark me down for a paper that was too long, and on the last page she wrote "Good paper Neale, Thank you".

No comments:

Post a Comment