He Gets Us campaign

[RDKirk]

God demands that we implement social Justice in society, and not just retributive justice.

If that is the case, then we do have a really, really big problem that neither Jesus nor any of the Apostles categorically demanded the Roman Empire to end slavery.

 

[Merrill]

I think the problem here is that when I refer to the term "social justice," a number of you have one and ONLY one conception of what that could even be or ever be. I'm no SJW. I'm not a socialist, marxist, or communist. If anything, I abhor Communism, I eschew most of Marxism, and I think that only the most qualified and limited socialism, or Modified Ethical Capitalism, is anything that could be compatible with the Christian faith.

No, the "social justice" that I mean to refer to is what is found in numerous places throughout the Bible. If you all have read the Bible entirely like I have, I shouldn't have to quote what you already know. But if someone thinks they can challenge me on that point, well then....................................................name a book and we'll go through it line by line, sentence by sentence, page by page and see what we see.

And I'll bring a copy of D.A. Carson's, Exegetical Fallacies, with many others in tow behind him, along with me as we ponder over the biblical texts.

The problem is the term "social justice"

It is a neo-Marxist dog-whistle. There is no "social justice" there is only justice.

other leftist dog-whistles include "problematic", "hetero-normative", "anti-racist", etc. There is a whole lexicon of left-wing/neo-Marxist language that activists employ.

We have to be careful about the terms we use these days. That is why I never use neologisms like "cisgendered", "polyamory" or the terms above.

 

[FameBright]

This is a total misquoting of what I've stated. Our #1 effort should be evangelism. It is not foot washing.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the foot washing is centered around the concept of "Love thy neighbor". I'm guessing you're saying that evangelism is more important?

The ad is correct in one sense. Jesus does gets us. That is precisely why He created the Lake of Fire.

Is this Lake of Fire different than the one that was prepared for Satan and his angels?

 

[FameBright]

It is a neo-Marxist dog-whistle. There is no "social justice" there is only justice.

This overlooks historical context. "Social justice" emerged because conventional justice systems often failed marginalized groups. It addresses systemic inequalities - racial, economic, gender-based- beyond individual cases.

Conventional justice ensures fair rules, but social justice seeks to rectify the initial disparities.

 

[Clare73]

If that is the case, then we do have a really, really big problem that neither Jesus nor any of the Apostles categorically demanded the Roman Empire to end slavery.

There is no such thing as "social" justice. There is only justice i.e., giving everyone his due, what he is owed, what he has earned.
Anything more is charity, not justice.

 

[FameBright]

If that is the case, then we do have a really, really big problem that neither Jesus nor any of the Apostles categorically demanded the Roman Empire to end slavery.

Good point. The focus did seem to be more on spiritual transformation. The way that the Romans were, it's probably because He didn't want to be crucified before his time. Seems to me, Him and his disciples had to tread lightly.

 

[Merrill]

This overlooks historical context. "Social justice" emerged because conventional justice systems often failed marginalized groups. It addresses systemic inequalities - racial, economic, gender-based- beyond individual cases.

Conventional justice ensures fair rules, but social justice seeks to rectify the initial disparities.

"Conventional justice ensures fair rules, but social justice seeks to rectify the initial disparities"

rectifying disparities almost always involves "equity", redistribution, or even government seizure of property.

In Zimbabwe that took the form of farm seizures from white people, and killing them

now I know that is not at all what you mean, but it is what Marxists mean when they use the term "social justice"

we cannot "rectify historical wrongs" by punishing certain ethnic groups in the present, or creating a discriminatory system.

we can only make sure the existing system is fair, consistent, and allows for equal protection under the law.

 

[Clare73]

Good point. The focus did seem to be more on spiritual transformation. The way that the Romans were, it's probably because He didn't want to be crucified before his time. Seems to me, Him and his disciples had to tread lightly.

God ordained slavery (Lev 25:39-46).

The NT does not forbid slavery (Eph 6:5-8, 1 Tim 6:1, Tit 2:9-10, 1 Pe 2:18).

While slavery--like poverty, sickness and disability--is undesirable and is to be avoided if possible (1 Co 7:21), it is not immoral and is ordained by God (Ex 21:20-21), as are poverty (1 Sa 2:7, Mk 14:7), sickness (Dt 32:39) and disability (Ex 4:11, Jn 9:2-3).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If that is the case, then we do have a really, really big problem that neither Jesus nor any of the Apostles categorically demanded the Roman Empire to end slavery.

So what? I think the Christian faith is only partially dependent upon "categorical demands" that we find in the Bible. Those are often a good place to start, but God also gave us a brain. We are to use it while inhabiting our place within The Church. Some Christians do and some don't. And some just do it better than others when they use it.

The abolishing of slavery is one of those things that should never have been too hard to figure out for most Christians. However, during the centuries when the Roman Empire was in full swing, like during the time of Trajan for instance, Christians usually new better than to take on the empire with a full frontal assault of the Gospel. It was bad enough to proclaim that Jesus was Lord and not Caesar; it would have been doubly bad if Christians added to the Kerygma and Evangelion the direct judgement to the Roman face that conducting empire wide slavery was immoral.

It's funny, because in the U.S. and the Americas, African-American Christians don't seem to have had any trouble fully realizing that slavery is wrong, even before the Emancipation Proclamation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The problem is the term "social justice"

It is a neo-Marxist dog-whistle. There is no "social justice" there is only justice.

other leftist dog-whistles include "problematic", "hetero-normative", "anti-racist", etc. There is a whole lexicon of left-wing/neo-Marxist language that activists employ.

We have to be careful about the terms we use these days. That is why I never use neologisms like "cisgendered", "polyamory" or the terms above.

I'm not worried about dog-whistles that come from either the Left or the Right. I find that they melt in the heat of an Analytic Cauldron all the same and are made malleable for correction and reapplication.

Besides, it's not as if some one segment of the American population has some designated privilege to define all of reality for everyone else, although we do see certain segments claiming that they indeed have that privilege. They don't.

 

[FameBright]

"Conventional justice ensures fair rules, but social justice seeks to rectify the initial disparities"

rectifying disparities almost always involves "equity", redistribution, or even government seizure of property.

In Zimbabwe that took the form of farm seizures from white people, and killing them

now I know that is not at all what you mean, but it is what Marxists mean when they use the term "social justice"

we cannot "rectify historical wrongs" by punishing certain ethnic groups in the present, or creating a discriminatory system.

we can only make sure the existing system is fair, consistent, and allows for equal protection under the law.

I totally agree with everything that you're saying. Semantics can create a lot of disagreements. Unfortunately contemporary discussions on social justice encompass a broader spectrum of approaches. However, using just "justice" may easily guide the meaning out of context.

 

[FameBright]

God ordained slavery (Lev 25:39-46).

The NT does not forbid slavery (Eph 6:5-8, 1 Tim 6:1, Tit 2:9-10, 1 Pe 2:18).

While slavery--like poverty, sickness and disability--is undesirable and is to be avoided if possible (1 Co 7:21), it is not immoral and is ordained by God (Ex 21:20-21), as are poverty (1 Sa 2:7, Mk 14:7), sickness (Dt 32:39) and disability (Ex 4:11, Jn 9:2-3).

Very true. I was only offering a possible reason why slavery might have been overlooked. Your reasons are more plausible

 

[2PhiloVoid]

God ordained slavery (Lev 25:39-46).

Ordained? I think we need to be careful of this time dependent notion.

The NT does not forbid slavery (Eph 6:5-8, 1 Tim 6:1, Tit 2:9-10, 1 Pe 2:18).

And there's a reason why: because early Christians figured out that they needed to be as shrewd as serpents in carrying our their lives and ministries. Telling the Romans to "release the captives" would have been met by more than just ridicule ... it would have added to the already egregious reactions to Christians by the Romans.

While slavery--like poverty, sickness and disability--is undesirable and is to be avoided if possible (1 Co 7:21), it is not immoral and is ordained by God (Ex 21:20-21), as are poverty (1 Sa 2:7, Mk 14:7), sickness (Dt 32:39) and disability (Ex 4:11, Jn 9:2-3).

No, slavery is immoral. And I think we realize that Jesus came to set us on track to recognize this truth among all people in the world.

So, let's stop defending "slavery" as a biblical truth, especially what is known as Modern Slavery, especially Antebellum Slavery.

 

[FameBright]

So what? I think the Christian faith is only partially dependent upon "categorical demands" that we find in the Bible. Those are often a good place to start, but God also gave us a brain. We are to use it while inhabiting our place within The Church. Some Christians do and some don't. And some just do it better than others when they use it.

The abolishing of slavery is one of those things that should never have been too hard to figure out for most Christians. However, during the centuries when the Roman Empire was in full swing, like during the time of Trajan for instance, Christians usually new better than to take on the empire with a full frontal assault of the Gospel. It was bad enough to proclaim that Jesus was Lord and not Caesar; it would have been doubly bad if Christians added to the Kerygma and Evangelion the direct judgement to the Roman face that conducting empire wide slavery was immoral.

It's funny, because in the U.S. and the Americas, African-American Christians don't seem to have had any trouble fully realizing that slavery is wrong, even before the Emancipation Proclamation.

I see merit in what both of you guys are saying. While the NT doesn't explicitly condemn slavery, it taught that violence and oppression were wrong. Semantics again. There's a type of slavery that's brutal and oppressive and then there's a more moderate type of slavery that would be more along the lines of voluntary indentured servitude.

 

[RDKirk]

There is no such thing as "social" justice. There is only justice i.e., giving everyone his due, what he is owed, what he has earned.
Anything more is charity, not justice.

I did not use the term "social justice."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I see merit in what both of you guys are saying. While the NT doesn't explicitly condemn slavery, it taught that violence and oppression were wrong. Semantics again. There's a type of slavery that's brutal and oppressive and then there's a more moderate type of slavery that would be more along the lines of voluntary indentured servitude.

True. Unfortunately, not everyone has had the chance to study those differences, so when they hear the word "slavery," or worse, they hear the words "slavery is condoned in the Bible," it's not voluntary indentured servitude they're thinking of.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I did not use the term "social justice."

I did. I used it.

Unfortunately, I think Clare simply misunderstood what you were saying. It's the perlocutionary problem with statements.

But, y'know, I'm willing to change my nomenclature to "prophetic justice" for the sake of clarity and differentiation since so many here seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to the term, "social justice."

 

[RDKirk]

Good point. The focus did seem to be more on spiritual transformation. The way that the Romans were, it's probably because He didn't want to be crucified before his time. Seems to me, Him and his disciples had to tread lightly.

There is always more than one thing going on, and for sure Paul did not want Christianity declared a menace to Rome (at least not for any reason except the gospel itself).

In fact, Paul's teaching (and the OT as well) clearly made slavery a practice that was not compatible with the pure Christian lifestyle. The early Church had realized that, and the Church realized it again in the latter 1600s. Except for the small region of the American southeast in the 1800s, the Church had never validated slavery in doctrine. It was considered within the authority of earthly kings (Romans 13), but was always considered a vice in Christianity. To this day, Christianity remains the only religion that has created an anti-slavery doctrine.

However--and this is my point--it is a doctrine by Christians for Christians. Even as Paul invalidated it, he invalidated it for Christians and within the Church by a Christian argument (Ephesians 6:9, in particular). In the same way, making sure everyone is cared for by the giving and sharing of the resources of our common Master is also a doctrine by Christians for Christians, as we see practiced in Acts 2 and Acts 4.

If we actually think about how the sharing of resources in Acts 2 and Acts 4 had to be executed. How did it actually operate that people's needs could be met...that required a great deal of knowing each other's personal affairs. That is not a relationship with the world, but a relationship within a Body. Paul gets into even more details: Everyone has a resource, everyone has a need, and resources are shepherded to efficiently meet the needs.

We even see this in the distribution of manna in the OT. God specified the need: One ephah per person. Then as the people collected the manna, some collected "much" (more than an ephah) and some collected "little" (less than an ephah). But when the total was measured out ("meted" in the KJV means "measured") it came out to one ephah per person.

This stewardship requires the shepherd knowing which are his sheep, which is a reason congregations should have membership rolls. As a pastor once said to me, "I will be held accountable to the Lord for how I kept His sheep. How can I be held accountable if I don't know who they are?"

 

[RDKirk]

So what? I think the Christian faith is only partially dependent upon "categorical demands" that we find in the Bible. Those are often a good place to start, but God also gave us a brain. We are to use it while inhabiting our place within The Church. Some Christians do and some don't. And some just do it better than others when they use it.

The abolishing of slavery is one of those things that should never have been too hard to figure out for most Christians.

It apparently is hard to figure out without the Holy Spirit conforming the human mind to the mind of Christ. Or perhaps it's hard to figure out if Satan has made it too lucrative.

It has been Christianity and Christianity alone among religions to create an anti-slavery doctrine...and even secular philosophers of John Locke's era and afterward cannot pretend they were not "tainted" by a Christian worldview.

However, I still argue that the anti-slavery doctrine discoverable in scripture is a For Christians by Christians doctrine, a law of the Kingdom of Heaven, and it is clear that it was not part of the gospel Paul directed at non-believers. At no point, for instance, did Paul mention to Felix or Festus, "and, btw, slavery is bad." That is something one learned after becoming a servant of Christ.

It's funny, because in the U.S. and the Americas, African-American Christians don't seem to have had any trouble fully realizing that slavery is wrong, even before the Emancipation Proclamation.

They had access to both scripture and John Locke, which the still-slave-trading Africans did not have. The man who was perhaps the first bona fide African-American national leader, Richard Allen, was explicitly said to have learned through scripture that slavery was bad. Allen then proceeded to preach the gospel to his master, and his master--converted--permitted Allen freedom.

Gospel first--the core mission of the Church--and then make the Church the model of a Heavenly society.

 

[FameBright]

There is always more than one thing going on, and for sure Paul did not want Christianity declared a menace to Rome (at least not for any reason except the gospel itself).

In fact, Paul's teaching (and the OT as well) clearly made slavery a practice that was not compatible with the pure Christian lifestyle. The early Church had realized that, and the Church realized it again in the latter 1600s. Except for the small region of the American southeast in the 1800s, the Church had never validated slavery in doctrine. It was considered within the authority of earthly kings (Romans 13), but was always considered a vice in Christianity. To this day, Christianity remains the only religion that has created an anti-slavery doctrine.

However--and this is my point--it is a doctrine by Christians for Christians. Even as Paul invalidated it, he invalidated it for Christians and within the Church by a Christian argument (Ephesians 6:9, in particular). In the same way, making sure everyone is cared for by the giving and sharing of the resources of our common Master is also a doctrine by Christians for Christians, as we see practiced in Acts 2 and Acts 4.

If we actually think about how the sharing of resources in Acts 2 and Acts 4 had to be executed. How did it actually operate that people's needs could be met...that required a great deal of knowing each other's personal affairs. That is not a relationship with the world, but a relationship within a Body. Paul gets into even more details: Everyone has a resource, everyone has a need, and resources are shepherded to efficiently meet the needs.

We even see this in the distribution of manna in the OT. God specified the need: One ephah per person. Then as the people collected the manna, some collected "much" (more than an ephah) and some collected "little" (less than an ephah). But when the total was measured out ("meted" in the KJV means "measured") it came out to one ephah per person.

This stewardship requires the shepherd knowing which are his sheep, which is a reason congregations should have membership rolls. As a pastor once said to me, "I will be held accountable to the Lord for how I kept His sheep. How can I be held accountable if I don't know who they are?"

Sorry, I’m not quite understanding how Paul invalidated it. I only see him talking about fair treatment of slaves and fair treatment from their masters as in Ephesians 6:9.

Semantics again probably. If you’re referring to Paul invalidating the dark and oppressive side of slavery (attributes of slavery in the way we think of slavery by modern standards) then yes, I guess he is in a way invalidating it.