Micah 6:8 - "Let me say right off the bat: I believe Christians ought to seek social justice"

Where is “social” in Micah 6:8?
(NKJV) He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?

There’s a reason why this modern concept requires the phrase “social justice” and Micah 6:8 does not.

Technically “justice” isn’t in Micah 6:8 either. And the author of the article showed that church fathers rarely even focused on the word “justly” as mentioned in the verse. Even though the author of the article is sympathetic toward the church being involved in “social justice” he had to admit that the basis for such is not to be found in Micah 6:8 or in church history before the middle of the 20th century.

So just when did Micah 6:8 become the proof-text for Christians committed to social justice? Two possible sources that I don’t have time to research: Martin Luther King, Jr., … [and/or] his occasional co-laborer, the Jewish theologian Abraham Joshua Heschel… .

…is what you get from churches that deny the orthodox tenets of Christianity, as in most (all?) mainline denominations. After all, they need some kind of reason to exist if their theology is a bunch of teachings about what they feel God (whomever that might be) is and does. It is also attractive for Christians who are still subconsciously working their way into the Kingdom.

Calls for ‘social justice’ are usually based a mindset that demands an accompanying prooftext, not the other way around.

What an interesting study. Great work, really. One of the signs of vitality and true progress in the church is the appropriation of new biblical texts, or the re-appropriation of familiar ones in new ways, to excite the Christian consciousness.

The concepts of just/justly/justice in the Old Testament are very commonly employed in the sense we would today call “social justice,” though not to be identified with any particular plan of implementation on the contemporary scene. Justice is when Israel protects the rights of the poor and orphans, outlaws Israelite slavery, stands against economic oppression, lets the land rest, lets the land revert to its hereditary owners, etc.

Historically, Christians have always been concerned about the economic and physical welfare of the societies in which they have been a part. The original deacons headed up what we would now call a mercy ministry. Paul “asked” (read: demanded) contributions from Christians in more affluent cities to support those in less. James rails against economic exploitation, suggesting that the church ought to be vocal about such things.

The Patristic era was full of Christian charity. It’s called Christian charity because Christians invented it. Jews practiced some charity, but mostly just took care of their own. Christians really extended it to everyone. Tertullian describes a lively practice of Christian charity. Emperor Julian (the Apostate) complained that Christians (called “Galileans”) were shaming the Romans by taking care of both Christian and non-Christian poor (Epistle 49). Here’s a http://gratefultothedead.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/chrysostoms-fiery-pre… decent little article .

Really, concern for the poor was an overwhelming mark of the church well into the modern era. Only in the 20th century did some churches start turning away from that as an integral duty of the church. Protestant liberalism was a major factor there. Jettisoning the supernatural, they retained the horizontal elements of Christianity. The irony of the conservative anti-social justice reaction is that it is a protest against the one legitimately Christian element remaining in the mainlines.

Of course, I understand that many Christians are skeptical of what flies under the banner of social justice. It can be a cover for a particular social agenda that is neither Christian nor just. But, social justice was a Christian goal first, and we ought to be articulating an authentically Christian conception of it and putting it into practice.

“Is Social Justice an Essential Part of the Mission of the Church?”

Jim Wallis says “yes” and Al Mohler says “no.” Tonight they will debate — its says it will be simulcast on the web at 7 p.m. (central time).

http://www.henrycenter.org/programs/trinity-debates/

is that concepts of righteousness and justice are fundamental to the gospel, and when the gospel is properly applied to our lives, it will result in our seeking the welfare of those around us. But the danger (that we tend to react to) comes when movements and people try to achieve the results of the gospel (“social justice”) without having to submit themselves to the process of the gospel. But like Charlie, I don’t want to through the baby out just because the bathwater is dirty. (Now that’s a colorful metaphor. :-))

I’m more with Mohler on this one. The term has taken on a great deal of liberal social agenda baggage and for that reason I would not use it except critically.
Justice is about right and wrong. It has to do with “oppression” only in the sense that theft and violence against innocent people is oppression. What tended to happen in OT times (and still in much of the world today) is that it was easy to deny basic legal protections to the powerless (generally also the poor). So someone could steal from a poor/powerless person or beat him up/intimidate to get some action out of him, bribe a judge and get away with it.
This kind of “oppression” is indeed a breach of justice, but the word justice works just fine. There is no need for “social,” which brings in the idea that groups of people who are judged to have been denied “equality” must be brought up to the level of others—by civil government. Hence, redistribution of wealth, affirmative action, etc.

Though groups of people have been oppressed (sometimes for no other reason than being in the group they are in) at times and this is wrong, inequality of power, property and economic status is not in itself unjust.
And in every case of group injustice I can think of, achieving the justice of consistent legal protections (ordinary justice) regardless of group identity solves the real problem.
No “social” needed.

If not social justice, surely doing justly involves pursuing justice for those with whom one is personally involved. Enough people did that, general social justice might ensue.

Justice is inherently social. It’s always about using law to penalize and/or correct what somebody does to someone else—whether rob, murder, assault, etc.

To “do justly” is to refrain from theft, assault, murder, etc. in our relationships. So it’s still inherently social.

But the problem with the term “social justice” isn’t just that it’s added a redundant word, because this kind of thinking has a heritage that focuses on “society” as being the cause evil (rather than individuals) as well as the notion that inequality is in itself unjust—it has been seen as elements of society keeping other elements from enjoying their rights. (Usually a whole lot of murkiness about “rights” is also part of the mix… e.g., can a person have a “right to happiness” or “right to good health” when nobody has the power to secure these for himself much less for anyone else?!)

So the term “social justice”—wherever it came from exactly—was coined by people who did not understand what justice is and who wanted to communicate a significant (modern) shift in philosophy regarding “society.”

I’m missing your point Aaron. When the broad community is acting unjustly the action needed is social justice or communal justice. I’m old enough to remember The Civil rights movement and social justice was exactly what was needed because a society was acting unjustly. It was a broad unjust-ness not something dealing with an individual or small group. I’m newly back to this but don’t understand why this is such a big sticking point for many. I think the church could very easily be once again on the wrong side of something.

Paul,

I see your point, but 95% of the things advocated under the rubric of social justice are in and of themselves evil or at least wrongminded. http://www.socialjusticejournal.org/About.html Social Justice Journal describes itself thusly:

Founded in 1974, Social Justice is a quarterly nonprofit educational journal that seeks to promote human dignity, equality, peace, and genuine security. As one of the few independent journals from the 1970s to have survived, its contents reflect its origins and ability to renew its vitality through a series of often tumultuous decades. Its early focus on issues of crime, police repression, social control, and the penal system has expanded to encompass globalization, human and civil rights, border, citizenship, and immigration issues, environmental victims and health and safety concerns, social policies affecting welfare and education, ethnic and gender relations, and persistent global inequalities. The journal has framed its vision of social justice with an understanding of the international dimensions of power, inequality, and injustice. In doing so, it has formed part of an international community of progressive intellectuals, activists, and movements.

The first problem is that there is no intrinsic, objective definition of ‘justice’, even within the SJ community. So what we would consider as ‘just’ - the death penalty, for example - can be horribly unjust by the SJ Journal (and probably is). We appeal to a final source of authority that compels us to enforce the death penalty. For the socially just, justice is whatever they think is just (at the time).

The second problem is that social justice is usually aimed at evening out the injustices in society. As Christians, that is a small part of our primary task - to teach and make disciples. Injustice will never end until Christ sits on His Throne on Earth. Christ did not command us to manage issues of ‘globalization’, ‘immigration issues’, and ‘persistent global inequalities’…He calls all people to repent of their sin.

The third problem is the unholy commingling of God’s people and politics. There’s a lot I could say about this, but there are more than a few book length works on the subject. ” http://www.amazon.com/Government-Cant-Alternative-Political-Activism/dp…] Why Government Can’t Save You “, ” http://www.amazon.com/Blinded-Might-Cal-Thomas/dp/0310238366] Blinded by Might “, are just a few books I can think of offhand that cover that issue.

The solution to communal injustice is the Gospel, not civil disobedience. I will agree with you that the civil rights movement of the 60s was a good thing, but I’m not sure that the church’s mission is to drive sociological change by any means other than the Gospel.

I think sharing the Gospel and individual or societal justice go hand in hand. During the time of the civil rights movement churches in the south were sharing a narrow or misguided Gospel while condoning a racist culture. During the time prior to the civil war and the end of slavery churches were for slavery and they would have said the gospel too. The society in which they lived was corrupt and needed social justice. So why would Christian ever want to be seen as against social justice? I’m for it and here is how I’m for it statements would go a long way toward showing what you are for rather then always this is what you are against. For example, I’m for saving children from systematic enslavement due to abusive child labor or sex slavery caused by societal corruption or neglect. I’m for helping get food and clean water to those displaced by ethnic cleansing. Just my thought on why make a big deal about being against social justice.

The second problem is that social justice is usually aimed at evening out the injustices in society. As Christians, that is a small part of our primary task - to teach and make disciples. Injustice will never end until Christ sits on His Throne on Earth. Christ did not command us to manage issues of ‘globalization’, ‘immigration issues’, and ‘persistent global inequalities’…He calls all people to repent of their sin.

I find it interesting that we can so easily compartmentalize “to teach and make disciples” in a way that is divorced from social justice. Let me give you an example of what I mean. The church plant in which I am one of the leaders has a mission statement which is: To Make Disciples, period. Part of our strategy in making disciples is to adopt the elementary school where we meet at. The reason is that by adopting this underresourced, inner-city school, we can make contacts, build relationships so that we can share Christ with different people, whether they are children, parents, teachers, or even school administrators. So when we tutor, or when we mentor kids without any fathers, or when we come along side of the parents and provide a parenting or a financial management class, or helping write a grant to update technology, we are doing our part in “righting some of the wrongs” in our community. Really what we are doing is “loving our neighbor as our selves. Loving your neighbor is the context for making disciples. Social justice can be a part of what it means to love your neighbor as yourself.

So here is the reality in our neighborhood. In urban Grand Rapids all of the high schools (except one that only accepts A students) have been labeled by John Hopkins University as “drop-out factories.” All three of these are dangerous and the Grand Rapids school system from the top down is trying to keep all of its students from transferring into neighboring school districts because they have lost so many over the past several years. We have people in our congregation that can’t afford Christian education, they have been rejected for school choice to the neighboring school districts and the charter schools have the reputation of only accepting the brightest of the inner-city kids (to make sure that their test scores are competitive). If you are a pastor or leader in the community that has some clout and can be an advocate to help make change in the current systems for people in your congregation and even for neighbors that you are trying to reach out to, social justice in this situation is important. It is demonstrates loving your neighbor and linked to making disciples and the church.

I agree that the gospel of Christ is what transforms peoples lives. I once asked one of my student leaders that was once a gang-member/drug dealer if I had only helped him with his social needs such as his coaching him in basketball, or helping him in his education, and dealing with the his incarceration problems , and helping him get a job, would he have really changed? He said No. It was Jesus that changed him, not these things in his life. Then I asked him, what if I all I did was share Christ and hold Bible studies and try to get you into church, would your life have changed? He said no, because he also needed a father-figure in his life to really love him and be there for him through all of these difficulties in his life. He would not have trusted me and would not have listened to anything I had to say.

but I’m not sure that the church’s mission is to drive sociological change by any means other than the Gospel.

So was William Carey wrong to tirelessly work for social change in India (helped India get rid of widow burnings, child infanticide, usury, and etc….) as did evangelism and discipleship, planted churches and translated the Bible? Is it that cut and dry? Are we embracing a unhealthy dualism when we divorce making disciples from social responsibility (loving your neighbor as yourself)?

Joel, have you read DeYoung and Gilbert’s new book What Is the Mission of the Church? I’m reading it now and so far it is very good. I’d be interested to get your take on it.