08-06-2008, 05:22 AM
The Social Justice Debacle:
When Religion Took a Hard Left Turn
The irony of ironies is that despite the fact that the Religious Left prides itself on being “different” than the Religious Right it is in reality basically the same: There is the same level of venom directed at conservatives that the right-wingers harbor for liberals; there is the hardcore belief that God is on their side; that any form of compromise would mean abandoning divinely given principles, and a tendency to make mountains out of molehills. What’s more, the double standard with the Right is almost laughable. Nancy Pelosi calls voting on environmental legislation an act of worship? Fighting against poverty is laudable, but the anti-abortion activists are not in the same position though they believe just as passionately? Jim Wallis thinks that his organization is neither left nor right? The truth is there a double standard of massive proportions going on, and a lot of self-deception too. If Rev. Wallis really believes that he is neither right nor left I have yet to hear his explanation for why his beliefs always seem to align with the Democratic Party-to which he is now a consultant, by the way. Social justice advocacy basically is religion for many progressives today, and even theologian Marcus Borg insists that building the kingdom of God is a major part of life for the Christian. What are we to make of this situation?
I don’t have an immediate solution, but I do have a few ideas. I think the Religious Right and Religious Left are essentially the same thing in terms of their general attitude, although they are perched on opposite sides of the fence. Both seem to have forgotten Jesus’ own assertion that “My kingdom is not of this world”. However their justifications are very different. The Religious Right bases its assertions on a strong belief in Biblical inerrancy, and a belief that morality must be enforced to some degree by the state. Theirs is a belief based on divine mandate, reinforced by an apparent social need, where the state must stop the individual’s sinful impulses. By contrast the liberal perspective does not see individuals, sinful or otherwise, but rather groups; and it is the persecuted groups, the poor, the minorities, whom God favors (God is the Universal Champion of the Underdog). Looking to the language of the Old Testament prophets (who indeed saw the nation of Israel as a whole more often than individuals, and were indeed deeply concerned with the poor) the liberals are convinced the system in place is one of injustice and persecution. The system must be overturned. Churches that engage in liberal political action often seem uncomfortable talking about God, spirituality, or (really) any type of personal responsibility, instead social responsibility overrides the personal. Rather than trying to satisfy personal hunger for knowledge for the Divine, this mentality assumes that such a discovery takes place through social justice activities.
This whole concept is full of holes. It doesn’t gel with the teachings of Jesus particularly easily, since Jesus seemed more deeply considered with people as individuals rather than as groups (it was his blatant disregard for social boundaries that enraged the religious elites of his day, not the fact that he was engaged in any type of real political revolution. What’s more it has a rocky history with theology: Feminist, queer and liberation theologies (from what I have read of them) are only loosely theology at all, since they see God through such narrow lenses. The social justice advocates of the Catholic Church operate at the fringes of their faith (CTA is in denial about their Catholicity), and though social justice is gaining traction in Evangelicalism most of us would still be comfortable saying that it is a far cry from representing the mainstream Evangelical perspective. But regardless of the theological justifications, or what motivates people to seek comfort in politics instead of faith, the consequences are not minor. No democracy or republic can operate when a political group believes that God is on their side (or that they are on God’s for that matter). It results in militant groups unwilling to compromise, and that leads to gridlock at best, or a theocracy, in a worse case scenario (should the unfortunate population witness one group prevail). Religion does not negotiate, especially when it views a particular stance as “what Jesus would do”, or if it assumes that their political platform has been stamped by God.. I am not suggesting that religion and politics be locked up away from each other and separated (it couldn’t be done anyway) but I do feel that the proper role for religion in politics is guiding the individual in their choices, not forming lobbyist groups bound by an agenda of making “thy kingdom come” via legislation. In other words the proper role is one where the individual brings religion into politics, not lobbyist groups. (Of course one could adopt the perspective of George Carlin and argue that if religion wants admission to the political playing field they can pay taxes like the rest of us, and help wipe out the national debt).
There are some things the social justice groups are right about of course-they are right that action is critically important to faith (no works = dead faith), and that working for the dignity of man, opposing the sins of racism, sexism, classism, and homophobism, represent exactly what Jesus would do. And their work on behalf of the poor is laudable. However much of their work is likely to spark more controversy than it is real spirituality. Granted I’m not much of a social justice guy so I’m a little biased, but the overtly political nature of some churches is likely to leave many hungry for something a little deeper. A possible solution lies in the idea of Charity and Justice. Specifically, many religious advocates separate the two, with charity being the idea of simple service to the poor (a band-aid), while justice is working for actual change-putting a stop for the need for charity. This view regards charity as insufficient in addressing problems such as poverty, and indeed can lead to almost heartless criticism of saints like Mother Teresa for feeding people and not asking why they are hungry (Mother Teresa, of course, never saw it as her calling to ask “why”). However what I observe is this: Charity, the compassionate service to the less fortunate in all its many forms, is virtually never the wrong thing to do. It embraces love, mercy, compassion, forgiveness, to the core. It embodies selfless, humility, service, and giving in more than just money. By contrast social justice is likely to breed controversy and create division. This is not to say that social justice is wrong-Martin Luther King was right in the Civil Rights movement of course, and many aspects of the Social Gospel can be called holy without exaggeration. But embracing a full, all-out political movement is more detrimental in the long run than it is healthy. For one not all such activities are necessarily holy-some of them embrace reverse racism, tolerate or even embrace personal sins (such as some the fringes of the gay rights movement, black power, and so forth), and they tend to become tainted by the world of politics, where morality is transient and useful only when it is politically expedient. While Borg and others are right to argue that avoiding politics altogether is wrong, their idea of embracing politics so openly-and assuming everything is all mapped out-is not healthy. Most people, liberals and conservatives, religious or not, can agree on the basic values of a healthy society (with some profound disagreements on a few matters of course). What they generally disagree with is the means to attain the ends. Despite trying to point this out to my pastor (suggesting that conservative, or in my own preferred case libertarian, -methods can yield results better than traditional liberal methods), she believed that only a “pure” approach can work-in other words it needs to be progressive. Anything else is a compromise or is inconsistent with faith.
The biggest problem I have, however, is that liberal religion of this ilk does not see people as individuals, or the true unity of all people, but rather sees them as groups, and this just doesn’t fit with how I understand the human race. We are all individuals, everyone, without exception. Christianity was supposed to eliminate distinctions between male and female, Jew and Gentile, black and white, gay and straight. It was not supposed to call attention to them at every opportunity. Religion is supposed to see all people as one, and every individual as a unique child of God-not merely a world of different groups. We are all more than our race, our gender and our sexual orientation. God, of course, transcends any of the above definitions. It is the job of the Christian-or a person of any measure of devotion to God from any faith-to work and build up the Kingdom, this is true. But the Kingdom is not a political reality, so much as a changed world where Love consumes the world. People need to change before society can though, and salvation will never come from legislation. Works of mercy and compassion are critical. We must protect the dignity of every person. But we do not need to adopt a naïve utopian vision to do so, jump in bed with the radical left (or right), seek a governmental solution to every problem, or make the Faustian bargain with politics to translate its agenda into reality. “Social justice” is not always right, and I would caution any church tempted to embrace it to think very carefully first. Rather than protests, lobbying and the like, maybe there is a better, more productive, use of our time. Maybe changing the world has less to do with politics, and more about changing ourselves and how we think about and relate to one another.
The church should not be commenting on foreign policy issues (no pastor is really qualified to talk about those anyway, let’s be honest with ourselves), and instead focus on God’s policy of compassion. The church should avoid dividing people into groups and instead help people build themselves up-it should assist in educating them, training them in righteousness, and helping them wrestle with the spiritual questions of meaning and understanding. The church shouldn’t politicize advocacy for the poor, or delegate that task to the government, but rather simply care for anyone who is in need. That’s what Jesus did. Rather than emphasizing gays, women and minorities the church should practice simple inclusion without continually calling attention to its inclusive practices (while I confess that I passionately believe in equal rights-and ‘rites’ (marriage and ordination)-for gays I believe homosexuality is simply a fact of nature, not something to celebrate the way some liberal churches do-acceptance and adaption is one thing, complete affirmation of the whole gay culture another matter), and work to change the hearts and minds of others. The current emphasis on inclusion can come across almost like bragging. Such a church would embody service, would give away till it hurt, and never loose sight of the spiritual and material needs of their fellow man. It would practice, it wouldn’t just preach. And it would know enough to stay from politics. Is social justice compatible with Christianity, or the new form of Unitarian-Universalism that I so passionately believe? The answer is a simple maybe. Social justice to protect those who are being persecuted, to stop racism or oppression (when said sins are real, such as the Civil Rights movement), or to protect the truly vulnerable, social justice is a very real part of spirituality. But when it is simply a buzzword for left-wing, controversial, political action (as it so often is), Social Justice is best left away from religion. On the other helping lifting people up or reforming themselves, practicing mercy and compassion, and giving of money and self in service, are always commendable. That’s where I would urge liberal religion to direct its efforts-not into political action. Let Unitarianism or Universalism sanctify individuals who enter politics, let it help us vote, but rather than use our faith as a weapon in a political battle, or dive into controversy simply in the name of “justice”, let us work on bettering each other and building up our world on a more personal level. That, after all, is the highest level of spirituality.