Friend Xerxes laments that social justice is a hard sell to a black congregation in Barbados. He believes it is because “Evangelicals” are concerned only with individual salvation, and not with social issues.
But isn’t it odd to find a poor black congregation unreceptive?
After all, “social justice” is supposed to be largely for the benefit of blacks. It also seems probable that a black congregation in Barbados is poor; Barbadian GDP per capita is only $15,000 US. Social justice is supposed to be for the poor.
Nor is social engagement alien to Evangelicals. The Salvation Army is evangelical. From their mission statement: "The Salvation Army, an international movement, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian church." Evangelicals give more than their fellow citizens to charity and volunteer more at food banks, soup kitchens, and the like. Perhaps next to the Salvation Army, the biggest presence in helping the poor in downtown Toronto is the Scott Mission, which is evangelical. They run a food bank, homeless shelter, children, youth, and camp ministry. George W. Bush, an evangelical, pushed hard for "faith-based initiatives," exploiting the eager participation of evangelicals in the government's own social programs.
The problem is with “social justice.” Which is manifestly something other than charity, in their understanding. Social justice is not something done for the poor or the working class. When left-wing sources criticize movements like Trumpism, the PPC, Brexit, or France’s National Rally, as “populist,” they are acknowledging as much: the uneducated common rabble, the poor, are the enemy. If poor blacks identify themselves by class, they are likely to be hostile to the left and its “social justice.” If they identify themselves instead by race, they may be for it. This, unfortunately, gives the left an incentive to divide people by race, and this again becomes a stumbling block for sincere Christians.
Nor is there any clear connection between what is currently called “social justice” and the Christian virtue of charity. Charity is giving to others in need. Social justice is demanding that others do it instead of you. And social justice seems more to be about power and coercion. It looks like people who consider themselves better than others trying to control others’ lives, including the lives of the poor, in the process validating the power structure and fixing it in place.
Are the social elites who push the “social justice agenda” nevertheless well-intentioned?
I wonder. They call the common working people “rednecks”—a pejorative term those who work outside for a living. Hillary Clinton called the working poor “deplorables.” Obama called them “bitter clingers.” One can hear the classism, the sense of privilege, and the contempt.
No comments:
Post a Comment