Christians & Culture

…[Many in the "Christian Left" believe that] socialism best represents the Biblical law (including, perhaps, even the civil law) and provides the most efficient means for civil authorities to execute justice.

But then what is justice? What is biblical justice? If you have different camps both saying they represent biblical justice, doesn’t it make sense to see what the Bible has to say about justice? This next section is predominantly from the writings of Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, a Reformed author and economist.

“Therefore the LORD waits to be gracious to you, and therefore he exalts himself to show mercy to you. For the LORD is a God of justice; blessed are all those who wait for him.” (Isaiah 30:18 ESV)

“For I the LORD love justice; I hate robbery and wrong; I will faithfully give them their recompense, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.” (Isaiah 61:8 ESV)

“O house of David! Thus says the LORD: “ ‘Execute justice in the morning, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed, lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of your evil deeds.’”” (Jeremiah 21:12 ESV)

“Thus says the LORD: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place.” (Jeremiah 22:3 ESV)

What is justice? There are two chief images of justice in Scripture. Conformity with a right standard, and rendering to each his due.

Conformity with a right standard refers to integrity and truth in human relationships. Biblical laws on weights and measures come from this aspect of justice.

““You shall do no wrong in judgment, in measures of length or weight or quantity. You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin: I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.” (Leviticus 19:35–36 ESV)

“Shall I acquit the man with wicked scales and with a bag of deceitful weights?” (Micah 6:11 ESV)

This is also of particular relevance to any discussion on economics. Standards of measurement must be just and true. They must not vary. But justice does not stop at just truthfulness in transactions. These standards of rightness apply also in human interaction, in relationships – really, across the board. Truth matters. Deceit, dishonesty, lying – these things are prohibited.

The other image of justice in scripture is rendering to each his due. This means that whatever is owed will be paid; whatever is earned will be received.

““Therefore, hear me, you men of understanding: far be it from God that he should do wickedness, and from the Almighty that he should do wrong. For according to the work of a man he will repay him, and according to his ways he will make it befall him. Of a truth, God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice.” (Job 34:10–12 ESV)

Building on this, there are also two domains of justice – personal justice and social justice. The personal domain of justice is just that – personal. It is demonstrated by the upright living of what we might call “just men”. They can’t be swayed by other interests, and are self-controlled and honest. Borrowing from When Helping Hurts, it is a man who understands his proper relationship with God, self, others, and the rest of creation.

Now the next one, social justice, is where things get a little dicey because different groups assign a different definition to the term. It has definitely been co-opted by different people for different purposes. So what does it mean in a biblical context? Philosopher Russell Kirk says it is the communal equivalent of that right proportion and government of reason, will, and appetite which the just man displays in his private character. Or, as much earlier Socrates said, “And is not the creation of justice the institution of a natural order and government of one faculty by another in the parts of the soul? And is not the creation of injustice the production of a state of things at variance with the natural order?” Though we might prefer to use the term “Created order” instead of “natural order”, this basically means that societal or social justice ought to conform to the order God has created. Or basically, societal conformity with the standards of rightness. This doesn’t mean it gets into any particular distribution of goods, privileges, or powers to particular people. Just that social justice ensures that goods, privileges, and powers are distributed in conformity with the standards of rightness. Whatever distribution results from conformity to the standards of rightness is just, regardless of how far it strays from conditional equality, which is what the modern term “social justice” is usually getting at. It basically means that factors determining one’s station in life ought to be equalized, so that any person has an equal chance at anything.

But is this the way the created order works? It seems that the Bible recognizes that there are differences among people, differences in their stations in life, differences in giftings, differences in abilities, differences in rank, and so on. Classical philosophy held the same position. According to Kirk, borrowing from the work of Socrates, “The happy man is the just man, and the happy society is the just society. It is the society in which every man minds his own business, and receives always the rewards which are his due. The division of labor is part of this social justice, for true justice requires the carpenter and the shoemaker and the rest of the citizens to do each his own business, and not another’s. Injustice in society comes when men try to undertake roles for which they are not fitted, and claim rewards for which they are not entitled, and deny other men what really belongs to them.”

So, then, the varying gifts God has given people fit them for varying roles in society. Social justice is when people fill the roles for which God has fit them. Social injustice is when people are forced into roles for which God has not equipped them. Though justice requires equality – integrity, truth, fair measures, and each receiving his due – it does not mean that all roles are equal. So, then, the reward for those roles, may not be equal as well. The Bible recognizes such societal differences, even position, privilege, power, wealth, relationships. The one thing binding all men together is that they all bear the image of their creator and are therefore morally accountable and entitled to respect for their lives, liberties, and properties consistent with their behavior toward themselves and others. In all other significant ways, men differ. This is perhaps most notably depicted in the Body of Christ.

“For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith.” (Romans 12:3–6 ESV)

“For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose.” (1 Corinthians 12:14–18 ESV)

So, now that we’ve seen examples of the domains of justice – the areas of life justice addresses, we can proceed to the next question. What forms do Biblical justice take? Again, primarily referring to the work of E. Calvin Beisner, closely related to the two domains of justice – personal and social – are two forms of justice, commutative and distributive.

Commutative justice refers to exchanges between individuals. It’s the relationship wherein one man gives his goods or services to another man and receives an equivalent benefit, to the betterment of both. As stated earlier in the in that justice is the conformity with a right standard, here again we see that one of the major elements of conformity with a right standard is equal weights and measures. It is imperative that in an economic transaction, the quantity and quality of what is being exchanged be truthfully known. Things like removing a cup of grain from a basket, or clipping the edges off a coin so as to retain some precious metal, or otherwise adjusting or falsely representing the value of goods or money, is dishonest and prohibited.

“Take care that you do not offer your burnt offerings at any place that you see, but at the place that the LORD will choose in one of your tribes, there you shall offer your burnt offerings, and there you shall do all that I am commanding you.

“However, you may slaughter and eat meat within any of your towns, as much as you desire, according to the blessing of the LORD your God that he has given you. The unclean and the clean may eat of it, as of the gazelle and as of the deer. Only you shall not eat the blood; you shall pour it out on the earth like water.” (Deuteronomy 12:13–16 ESV)

Also, just as personal justice relates to social justice, so does commutative justice relate to distributive justice. Beisner notes that this very term can cause some misunderstanding, as depending on how people are predisposed it could lead some to immediately picture a central authority that distributes goods or services, or privileges and power. But distributive justice just refers to the societal inter-relationship between all individuals. What does distributive justice come back to? “Render all their dues”. This doesn’t mean “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – the Marxist saying that not only assumes, but requires, a central authority. This just means that each man must obtain what his nature and his labor entitle him to, without either oppression (taking by force) or evasion (refusing to pay in full). While commutative justice is honest dealings between individuals, distributive justice is honest dealings in society. Each person receiving what is rightfully his. Again, it doesn’t mean that one central authority is doing the distributing. Actually, in a way it does – but not as socialism would have you think. Where do rights come from? (God) So who is the authority over distributive justice – and all justice? (God.)

Building on this, it is Beisner’s opinion that distributive justice doesn’t demand some ideal distribution, subject to human whims and preferences. We’ll look into this in more detail later when we look specifically at what equality means. It also doesn’t mean someone can claim a privilege as a right and then say that all are entitled to equal things in the name of justice. Edmund Burke saw distributed justice this way: “All men have equal rights, but not to equal things.” A man’s due is in proportion to his investment, not his status. Reward is not for race, sex, handicap, or class. Reward should be directly proportional to what it is for and not adjusted, which would be use of an unjust measure, to attempt to equalize.

Ultimately, then, true social justice, and thus true distributive justice, is that each person’s role in society – basically, his contribution to society – determines his share in the benefits. Also, Beisner notes that the distributor in distributive justice really needs to be the individual, acting under the Biblical prohibitions against fraud, theft, and violence – as producer of services and provider of his own labor – as opposed to handing it over to a distributing authority, who pretends to know who ought to have what, and proudly forgets that it is not God.

Using “When Helping Hurts” as context, we can also understand another benefit to this method – if someone else has the authority to decide on behalf of another what is best for them, let alone on a large scale basis, it tends to elevate them. The prideful feelings that come from being like God – being able to give and take, affect well-being, and so on, is not a good thing for the spiritual condition of individuals to whom society gives that authority, feeding a prideful God complex.

Continuing the theme of justice, there are two other important functions of justice – remedial and retributive. Both are prescribed in Scripture and have been practiced throughout history.

Remedial justice deals with malicious injury to life, liberty, or property. It demands that when life, liberty, or property has been taken unjustly – without consent unless being punished for a crime – what has been taken must be returned. The Bible requires the exercise of remedial justice, and even contains explicit instructions regarding restitution. While these codes are part of the civil law, they are certainly influenced by the moral law and reflect God’s character in the area of justice.

““If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the stolen beast is found alive in his possession, whether it is an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double.

“If a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed over, or lets his beast loose and it feeds in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best in his own field and in his own vineyard.

“If fire breaks out and catches in thorns so that the stacked grain or the standing grain or the field is consumed, he who started the fire shall make full restitution.

“If a man gives to his neighbor money or goods to keep safe, and it is stolen from the man’s house, then, if the thief is found, he shall pay double. If the thief is not found, the owner of the house shall come near to God to show whether or not he has put his hand to his neighbor’s property. For every breach of trust, whether it is for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a cloak, or for any kind of lost thing, of which one says, ‘This is it,’ the case of both parties shall come before God. The one whom God condemns shall pay double to his neighbor.” (Exodus 22:1–9 ESV)

But not only is the offended party to receive back whatever was taken from him, or compensation if whatever was taken can’t be returned in the same state; justice also demands that the offender be punished in a manner consistent with the injustice he committed. This is called retributive justice. Contrary to the opinions that some hold on this, God has in fact ordained civil government to enforce justice, including inflicting punishment and taxation. (See Romans 13:1-7). We’ll return to the topic of governmental policy later, but for now, it’s enough to note two things: Government has a role in administering justice, and anarchy is not an option.

Another obvious aspect of justice is impartiality. This is why classical personifications of justice are wearing a blindfold and holding scales. Justice does not have favorites. There are no exemptions from the standards of morality. No one is above the moral law. Right and wrong is not subject to who a person is or what his or her rank or status is. God shows no partiality – either to the rich or the poor. God is not on the side of the poor, or the rich. This is an error that some on the Left make, by saying that God takes the side of the poor against the rich. No, He is on the side of righteousness and against wickedness. He demands justice. The view that God is inherently on the side of the poor or shows favoritism to the poor comes from the Marxist view that if wealthy, therefore guilty.

“There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.” (Romans 2:9–11 ESV)

“You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit.” “You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in his lawsuit.”(Exodus 23:2–3, 6 ESV)

“For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.” (Colossians 3:25 ESV)

“God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”” (Psalms 82:1–4 ESV)

“And I charged your judges at that time, ‘Hear the cases between your brothers, and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the alien who is with him. You shall not be partial in judgment. You shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God’s. And the case that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.’” (Deuteronomy 1:16–17 ESV)

““You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” (Leviticus 19:15 ESV)

Thus, in the sphere of economics, any law that gives advantage, or any predetermined favor toward anyone, rich or poor, violates justice. Anything that causes one in a position of executing justice to immediately tip the scales of justice one way or the other is unjust and a violation of Biblical social justice. Yes, this includes things like race and economic standing – but it is not a one way street. Affirmative action laws, for example, may have been written or at least supported with the intent on giving people equal rights for the sake of justice. But instead what it actually does is create a favored group at the expense of another. If you must give priority to one group in hiring practices, bidding for contracts, and so on, it’s unjust. If a system is crafted to by default hurt one for the benefit of another, it’s unjust. Justice demands impartiality. People differ in interests, gifts, capacities, stations, and so on – these will result in conditional equality, or some having more than others – but justice must be impartial.

Economic justice requires that people not be restricted from exchanging and using what they own – including their time, intellect, skills, and material objects – unless doing so violates another’s rights. This last part – unless doing so violates another’s rights – is very important and we’ll consider it more later. Socialists and other fans of central planning advocate policy that basically amounts to behavior modification through coercion, such as taxing some items and not others in order to achieve the desired result, or permitting some transactions and prohibiting others to achieve a desired result. This is not just. Also, the belief that justice somehow means that conditions all be equalized – no matter how much work one does, or how much one is owed, all receive the same thing – would appear to be a serious perversion of biblical justice. In fact, it stems from Enlightenment ideas that were the predecessor to socialism. This view denies different gifts, talents, interests, and abilities – all things that Scripture recognizes. The outcome of a view that justice demands equalization will result instead in having to actually neutralize gifts, talents, interests, and abilities, or attempt to change who people are. Left free, people would exercise their gifts in different ways and with different results, including different economic results. The only way to arrive at equal economic output is to equalize input, or people’s choices and behavior.

To again quote Russell Kirk, the 20th century philosopher, “The great classical philosophers of politics argued that justice amounts to this: “To each his own”. Every man, ideally, ought to be able to obtain the things which best suit his own nature; he ought to do the work for which he is fitted, and to receive the rewards of that work. Men’s talents and desires vary conspicuously from individual to individual; therefore, a society is unjust which treats all men as if they were all identical, or which allots to one sort of nature the rights and duties which properly belong to other sorts of human beings.”

Note again, though, that this refers to economic input and output – using of one’s abilities, skills, etc. This ought not be used to make a case for things such as racial superiority, which violates justice on the grounds of being predisposed against another simply for who they are.

Coming up next:  ”What about inequalities and the wealth gap between rich and poor?”

This and the next few posts are based on a church class I recently led.  The context of the class is poverty alleviation, and I took 3 weeks in March to explain why socialism is not a system that is beneficial to the task of poverty alleviation.

The next few posts will focus on understanding issues behind political systems and how they impact individuals. Most of the time will be spent on command-based systems, specifically socialism, and its more extreme form, communism, and its theoretically corporation-friendly form, fascism. The reason for this disparity is that most of us would agree that it is, at minimum, to care for the poor within the realm of a free market economy. Beyond that, many would probably also agree that freedom provides the best context for poverty alleviation. But nevertheless, there is a growing movement that says the free market system is not the best, or even that it has failed, and that it is time to give socialism a try. This is important issue today because we are seeing trends indicating a push toward socialism in the United States, like we have never seen before. But also, within Christianity, this push toward socialism is no longer just in the realm of liberal Christianity and mainline denominations. It is gaining acceptance within theologically conservative, evangelical denominations. Christians who support some or most of the socialist agenda do so on the grounds that they believe it this view most closely aligns with Biblical teachings on caring for the poor and poverty alleviation. Thus, analyzing this approach fits right in the context of this quarter’s material. Though I mentioned three forms of command economies – communism, where the state owns everything, fascism, where the state regulates and controls private industry, and socialism, which on one hand can include the other two, but is usually used today to describe the high-tax cradle-to-grave welfare states common in Europe – it’s socialism that will be my main focus. In America, hardly anyone except the far radical left says “communism – that sounds good”. Fascism also has a negative connotation. Even though our economy is showing a lot of signs of fascism, which we’ll get to later, no one really says “let’s be a fascist nation”. But socialism, on the other hand, is more and more referred to as a positive, even within the evangelical church.

But first, before we consider some of the reasons why this group – often called the Christian Left – believes socialism best fits Biblical commands on helping the poor, let’s review what socialism is and where it came from.

The history behind socialism and what is often given as reasons why it came into existence is actually very similar to why many Christians support it. The Industrial Age brought in entirely new means of manufacturing goods and creating both wealth and services. Through new methods of production, including team efforts where people may only see one portion of producing something, such as the factory assembly line or using multiple man-made items to make another man-made item, there was a boom in inventions and also ways of creating them. Owners of new companies and factories, however, struggled to keep up with the demand for new products at lower prices, and began having workers work longer hours in worse conditions, and even in some cases resorted to using child labor just so as to pack the factories and maximize output. Many of the writings of Charles Dickens, for example, were an exposé of labor practices of the day. What I will be saying about socialism does in no way at all excuse this. This isn’t a situation where one side’s wrongs justifies the other side.

As a result, some began to believe that society and ownership had corrupted man – falsely denying original sin and believing that these tendencies hadn’t existed prior to the industrial age – and so envisioned that by restructuring society and by limiting ownership, they could eliminate what they considered to be these new evils.

Another idea that was gaining acceptance in the late 1700s was that while individual people would be corrupt, if they were governed by a noble state – or a virtuous government – then they would not be, because a good government would keep them in line. This, too, was a denial of original sin, by assuming that those in government were somehow exempt from the sins of private individuals. Remember this term – virtuous state – because it’s at the heart of command economies like socialism today.

The founding fathers of the United States were aware of these ideals and rejected them. The new government of the United States was based on English Common Law, which the British government of the day had shown a tendency to deviate from, as demonstrated by the oppressive policy they placed over the Colonies. This Common Law, was itself based on the Bible. Government was not virtuous nor exempt from sin, and so its role needed to be limited to enforcing morality and protecting rights of life, liberty, and property. Because no man can be trusted when given unchecked power, they set up a system of government that would prevent any man or group of men from having absolute rule.

But meanwhile, over in Europe, the denial of original sin came to the forefront. The French revolution was a revolt not just against wealth and royalty, but also against historic Christianity. Various such ideas gained acceptance among the academic thinkers of the day in Europe, including a German named Karl Marx. Marx condemned free markets and capitalism due to leading to inequality, which he determined to be the root of evil. Without ways of building wealth and having private ownership, he predicted that men would become good. Marxist ideals include “total abolition of private property”, breakdown of the family resulting in allegiance only to the state, and a society without God. Marx, as we may recall from high school or college, is famous for saying that “religion is the opiate of the masses”.

Some of the earlier socialists simply called their view a higher form of Christianity or new Christianity, focusing on a brotherhood of equals. But, by cutting God out and just emphasizing Godless morality – the Law without the giver of the Law – it wasn’t long until the pretense of being within Christianity was dropped and socialism became anti-religion and for one primary goal: raising the poor classes while bringing down the rich. Socialists then began attempting to stamp out religion, or in the event that people insisted on clinging to it, replacing it with a state-centered religion. Some even borrowed religious imagery and terms to create hymns of praise to the state and to leaders.

Socialism also borrowed strongly from Darwinistic evolution, denying the spiritual and focusing exclusively on the material. This fit perfectly with Marxist belief that man’s soul was subordinated exclusively to economic concerns. Connecting this to our discussion in When Helping Hurts, it is one of the reasons that some think of poverty alleviation as being as simple as giving someone money, while ignoring all the other factors.

So then, what is socialism’s main goal? A classless, Godless society where all people are made conditionally equal – basically, having nothing that economically differentiates them from one another – and beneath a very powerful, God-like, morally-good State. It uses the Biblical principle of charity as a means of giving the state more power. It also seeks to disrupt the normal social order, so that loyalty is first and foremost given to the state and society, even at the expense of one’s own family. Thus, socialistic systems emphasize things like prostitution, pornography, and the so-called sexual revolution, so that there will be fewer family ties that get in the way.

That is a very rudimentary, basic introduction to why socialism is at odds with Christianity, and therefore with Biblical poverty alleviation methods (such as those presented in When Helping Hurts). But if we’re going to counter it from a Christian perspective, especially considering that there are an increasing number of Christians that believe it is actually biblical because it at least appears to be compassionate toward the poor, where do we begin? Stay tuned for the next post.