Ever since the Obergefell decision, conservative Christian leaders have been in near panic mode because of what appears to be confirmation that Christianity's, also their own, status has dropped in terms of being an influential source in society. From this came their lament that Christianity has lost the "Culture Wars."
What followed was Rob Dreher's proposal called the Benedict Option (click here for book info). That option called for Christians to circle the wagons in order to stay pure from an increasingly anti-Christian culture and society until what was lost was won again. As a result, topics that are broader than what the Church is concerned about were presented with an even more Christian edge than before. The edge was so strong that what was presented were proposals on subjects that affected all of society but could only be promoted by Bible believing Christians. And that becomes problematic in a society with a fair percentage of unbelievers. Social Justice has been the topic of those Christian proposals.
What is implied by such an approach has been to encourage an all-or-nothing approach to responding to the issues brought up by subjects that affect all of society. By an all-or-nothing approach what is meant here is what Christian leaders are promoting regarding these subjects in ways that demand that Christians must either lead (a.k.a., dominate) how society deals with these subjects or abstain from participating in or with groups led by unbelievers. To participate with groups led by unbelievers would likely lead one to significantly compromise one's faith. This is especially true should a Christian see the world even in part how Marx saw the world.
This charge to lead, or dominate, gives us two problems: any other approach to Social Justice which are not based on the Scriptures is no longer society's approach to Social Justice but the Christian approach to the same, and that Christians have now put themselves into the position of dominating society with its Social Justices proposals and solution while not facing the fact that domination is the root of oppression.
So what is being reviewed here? It is Thaddeus Williams's (click here for a brief bio) perspective on Social Justice as portrayed in an interview with Fred Zaspel and posted on the Books At A Glance website. And one could either read the rest of the review or read the interview to see how much the above analysis accurately portray's Williams's perspective on the subject of Social Justice (click here for the interview).
The interview is about Williams's recent book on Social Justice called Confronting Injustices Without Compromising Truth: 12 Questions Christians Should Ask About Social Justice (click here for a link to the book).
In the beginning of the interview Williams talks about growing up in a generation where one's feeling should determine what one should do. Then he starts comparing today's Leftist approach to Social Justice with Christianity because, he claims that both are addressing the same set of existential questions revolving around how does one become justified. This kind of answer shows a disconnect between Williams's understanding about what Social Justice is about and Social Justice itself. Social Justice is really about our horizontal relationships as we exist in our groups; it is not about our vertical relationship with God. And so perhaps Williams is trying to Christianize the subject here.
In answering the next question, Williams claims that Leftists, Marxists in particular, have co-opted Social Justice issues. BTW, his criticisms of Marxists in this article beg the question that they have nothing to contribute to the subject of Social Justice. He then lists examples of Christians who worked for Social Justice starting with the early Church and proceeding through Wilberforce, Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, Bonhoeffer, and Martin Luther King Jr. The trouble with his answer here is that he fails to address the vast number of examples of Christians visiting injustices on others. Examples could be taken from Europe's conquests of the New World to the Church's support for wealth in power during the pre-revolutionary times in France, Russia, and Spain as well as prior to the military coup in Chile. We see the same here with the Evangelical support for the Republican Party. In America, those injustices have often resulted from Christian support for white supremacy seen in slavery, Jim Crow, systemic racism, and the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land all of which received the support from many Christians.
At this point Williams start mentioning the differences he finds between Social Justice A and Social Justice B. Social Justice A is the Christian approach to Social Justice while Social Justice B is the Leftist approach. To take the Social Justice A approach to Social Justice, one must start with the Christian beliefs in the godhead of God. At this point, we see that unbelievers cannot take the Social Justice A approach. And so what becomes of the impact of that approach?
In saying that the Christian's pursuit of social justice, he cites Martin Luther King Jr in saying that unjust laws are those that do not reflect the transcendent laws of God. Now what Williams doesn't know is that King related this to how the law interacts with the human character.
Then Williams talks about the need for Social Justice to coincide with human nature. Here, Williams refers to our commonality found in our faith in Christ. Of course, this leaves many people out of that unity because there are so many unbelievers. But Williams later on includes our common humanity found in our relationship to Adam. But unbelievers don't need to believe in what the Scriptures say to understand our common humanity.
Williams then criticizes Social Justice B for being divisive. It is divisive, according to Williams because it strongly divides people into 2 kinds of groups and identity groups: those who are oppressed and those who oppress others. Such, according to Williams, causes endless divisions. Williams goes on to say that Social Justice B groups portray whites as oppressors. He gives two examples of people he knew who were caught up in identity groups who found their deliverance through the Christian faith. But are those divisions really caused by the Social Justice B approach or merely pointed out by the Social Justice B approach?
Williams then talks about his 12 questions for Christians to answer about Social Justice. Here, again, Williams tries to center the quest for Social Justice on the godhead of God in his first set of questions. In his second set of questions Williams asks legitimate questions about whether our different group identities are more important than our what we have in common with others through our relationship to Adam and our faith in Christ.
In the third set of questions, Williams, perhaps without knowing it, revisits the Social Justice debates between the Reagan Republicans and those who have been working for Social Justice from Martin Luther King Jr. to those promoting Critical Race Theory. For Williams looks at injustices as merely resulting from unjust laws resulting in, and these were not his words in the interview, equality of process. Such conservatives believe that because of the legislation that was inspired and passed by the Civil Rights Movement, the only substantial expressions of racism are practiced by individuals. Does Williams go that far in his analysis? He doesn't address that directly. But he does seem to believe his view of social injustices being a result of unjust laws.
However, he rejects the notion, used by Leftists, that social injustices could be also detected by 'disparate outcomes,' or what some have called the 'equality of results.' Kimberly Crenshaw defended using the equality of results to detect racism because without using results, businesses could just claim that they do not practice racism without having to show any evidence. But more importantly, Martin Luther King Jr, whom Williams cited as providing a Christian approach to Social Justice, also saw that the inequality in results is evidence of racism (click here to an King interview). Here, King included closing the wealth gap between the races as part of establishing true equality. As for what was accomplished before with the Civil Rights legislation, King thought of that as a quest for dignity, not 'genuine equality.'
In his last set of questions, Williams asks about the blaming of Christians for the injustices that have existed and still do. Again, our history provides quite bit of evidence pointing to the Christian participation in practicing social injustices.
Eventually, Williams closes with saying that justice outside of Gospel justice is a counterfeit justice.
So the question becomes whether what was said at the beginning of this article which described the current Christian approach to Social Justice is seen in Williams's approach to Social Justice. Perhaps the problem here is that while using the term 'Social Justice,' Williams is really referring to Biblical justice. Thus, it seems that Williams is conflating the two. And is such a conflation something that is neither helpful nor Biblical.
There is at least one other question we could ask. With what Williams says about the quest for Social Justice starting with the godhead of God, and thus with the Christian faith, does he not create a permanent and deep division between Christians who thus have come to believe that they have everything to teach unbelievers about Social Justice and nothing to learn from them, to adapt a Martin Luther King Jr. saying, and all others who follow other approaches? And if so, doesn't he do so despite criticizing Social Justice B for being divisive?
No comments:
Post a Comment