Is being WOKE an unbiblical or unchristian thing.

[WolfGate]

I have a hard time working out what a person means when they start to tell me that Woke people have various serious personality and moral failings. So, I started to wonder if being woke was morally bad or not or if it was Christian or not.

Microsoft Co-Pilot says: "According to web search results, a “woke” person is someone who is alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice. The term originated in African American English and gained more widespread use beginning in 2014 as part of the Black Lives Matter movement. A woke person is conscious of inequity and injustice on personal, professional, and social levels, and goes beyond merely being aware of these issues to become vocal against all discrimination"

"Woke" is a meaningless word at this point. Seldom is it used as the definition you presented. Too often it is used as a label to denigrate another person and avoid discussion on substantive issues. It is the conservative equivalent of when progressives label something as "racist" which has no clear ties to any real definition of racism in order to avoid discussion from their end.

 

[Clare73]

Let's hope not.

However, that is the meaning of justice.

I do not want to come under God's justice, I do not want to receive what I am owed.
I want to come under God's mercy, I want to receive what I am not owed, but what God has already paid for on my behalf.

 

[FenderTL5]

I do not want to receive what I am owed.

On that statement we agree. Nor do I.

 

[Halbhh]

And if it's about justice, it will be what one has earned, what one is owed.

No one is claiming justice is all there is, they are stating what "justice" is. . .not to be confused with "entitlement."

You mean the secular welfare state... Yes , that's totally unrelated.

Justice we are to do includes what Isaiah 1 showed: take up the cause of the oppressed, the poor that need help. (See Isaiah 58 for example for a wider statement of what God wants from us in this way in more expanded detail)

 

[Clare73]

You mean the secular welfare state... Yes , that's totally unrelated.

Justice we are to do includes what Isaiah 1 showed: take up the cause of the oppressed, the poor that need help. (See Isaiah 58 for example for a wider statement of what God wants from us in this way in more expanded detail)

That doesn't make it justice, which is the topic.

 

[Halbhh]

That doesn't make it justice, which is the topic.

That's what I was trying to better summarize....

While it's far better (to learn about the Justice God wants us to do) to just read fully through 100% of Isaiah and really all the OT, it's possible then to try to summarize, but I won't expect you to know I'm doing well at that, because you don't know whether I could summarize well.

And, even if like some you'd just trust me to do a good summary (even then) still you should read for yourself like the Bereans, of course!

But, it might help to know there is much more than only (the correct justice of) payment of fair wages involved to do all the justice God wants us to do -- so that you'll expect to learn more from scripture on your own.

The (conservative) excellent site Got Questions might be helpful to show there is more.

--------------

The Mandate for Justice Because God is just, He demands that mankind, created in His image, also display justice (Micah 6:8). Before Israel had a king, God ensured that His people had justice, as the whole book of Judges attests. Deborah the prophetess set up court beneath a palm tree (Judges 4:5), and Samuel presided over a circuit court, traveling from place to place to hear cases and administer justice (1 Samuel 7:16). Later, the king became the nation’s chief justice.

Scripture is full of commands that humans act justly. This includes acting on behalf of those whose rights are being denied and those who are powerless to defend themselves:

• “Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause” (Isaiah 1:17, 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).
• “Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked” (Psalm 82:3–4).

(continues...)

What does the Bible say about justice? | GotQuestions.org

What does the Bible say about justice? What is biblical justice? What is true justice according to the Bible?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[Halbhh]

Let's hope not.

Amen. Lord have mercy on us, sinners!

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

"What is fair and just" is to treat others impartially, to give everyone what they have earned, what they are owed.

One is glad that God gives grace rather than what one has earned.

 

[Clare73]

That doesn't make it justice, which is the topic.

That's what I was trying to better summarize....

While it's far better (to learn about the Justice God wants us to do) to just read fully through 100% of Isaiah and really all the OT, it's possible then to try to summarize, but I won't expect you to know I'm doing well at that, because you don't know whether I could summarize well.

And, even if like some you'd just trust me to do a good summary (even then) still you should read for yourself like the Bereans, of course!

But, it might help to know there is much more than only (the correct justice of) payment of fair wages involved to do all the justice God wants us to do -- so that you'll expect to learn more from scripture on your own.

The (conservative) excellent site Got Questions might be helpful to show there is more.

--------------

The Mandate for Justice Because God is just, He demands that mankind, created in His image, also display justice (Micah 6:8). Before Israel had a king, God ensured that His people had justice, as the whole book of Judges attests. Deborah the prophetess set up court beneath a palm tree (Judges 4:5), and Samuel presided over a circuit court, traveling from place to place to hear cases and administer justice (1 Samuel 7:16). Later, the king became the nation’s chief justice.

Scripture is full of commands that humans act justly. This includes acting on behalf of those whose rights are being denied and those who are powerless to defend themselves:

• “Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause” (Isaiah 1:17, 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).
• “Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked” (Psalm 82:3–4).

(continues...)

What does the Bible say about justice? | GotQuestions.org

What does the Bible say about justice? What is biblical justice? What is true justice according to the Bible?

www.gotquestions.org

Thanks. . .good job.

The Bible uses justice in terms of what is right, righteous.

I am using justice in terms of law--what is owed to one because one has earned it. . .in regard to both compensation and punishment.
This is the justice to which we are subject both by God's law and national law. . .earned reward and punishment.
This justice is one and the same in everything--social, economic, etc.

 

[FenderTL5]

The Bible uses justice in terms of what is right, righteous.

I am using justice in terms of law--what is owed to one because one has earned it. . .in regard to both compensation and punishment.
This is the justice to which we are subject both by God's law and national law. . .earned reward and punishment.
This justice is one and the same in everything--social, economic, etc.

You've now changed what you said earlier.

There is only one Biblical meaning of justice; i.e., to give everyone his due, what he has earned, what he is owed; i.e., merit.

So far I'm not convinced of your definition of justice. As illustration, a pocket-watch is a type of clock. However not all clocks are pocket-watches. Getting what one is owed or earned is a type of justice but not all justice is getting what one has earned or owed. Otherwise God is not a just God. The wages of sin is death and we are all sinners.
Justice is more along the lines of setting things right or bringing a sense of fairness.

Okay, now back to the topic.
Personally, i find that mixing socio-political ideals with Christian principle can often be problematic. What is fair? What would set things right?
Is being aware and/or sympathetic to the way some have been treated historically a Christian principle or not? How about the way we respond and react to those whose lifestyle we may not agree with? Who is my neighbor?

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Okay, now back to the topic.
Personally, i find that mixing socio-political ideals with Christian principle can often be problematic. What is fair? What would set things right?
Is being aware and/or sympathetic to the way some have been treated historically a Christian principle or not? How about the way we respond and react to those whose lifestyle we may not agree with? Who is my neighbor?

I became aware of some of the more recent problems of historical practices through an article on redlining. This was a real estate practice where entire neighborhoods were listed as desirable to unsafe. So African-Americans who might only be able to afford to buy a place in undesirable locations were still given higher interest loans. Other problems developed for these areas. Green spaces were often few, which causes summer temperatures to make these city areas hotter, which created health issues. They were also susceptible to eminent domain. For example, in my hometown of Cincinnati, has two major highways, I-71 and I-75 running north-south, and the 275 bypass around the city. However, there was no good way to go E-W. So the Cross County Highway (now named the Ronald Reagan Highway) was proposed. Poorer neighborhoods were torn down. However, the highway stops about 5 miles to the east of where it should have gone because it would go through the wealthiest suburb in Cincinnati, Indian Hill.

So your question is a good one. And it is difficult to truly resolve issues that were occurred long ago, but the ramifications still affect things today.

 

[FenderTL5]

I became aware of some of the more recent problems of historical practices through an article on redlining. This was a real estate practice where entire neighborhoods were listed as desirable to unsafe. So African-Americans who might only be able to afford to buy a place in undesirable locations were still given higher interest loans. Other problems developed for these areas. Green spaces were often few, which causes summer temperatures to make these city areas hotter, which created health issues. They were also susceptible to eminent domain. For example, in my hometown of Cincinnati, has two major highways, I-71 and I-75 running north-south, and the 275 bypass around the city. However, there was no good way to go E-W. So the Cross County Highway (now named the Ronald Reagan Highway) was proposed. Poorer neighborhoods were torn down. However, the highway stops about 5 miles to the east of where it should have gone because it would go through the wealthiest suburb in Cincinnati, Indian Hill.

So your question is a good one. And it is difficult to truly resolve issues that were occurred long ago, but the ramifications still affect things today.

Great example. It's fascinating how eminent domain seems to always prevail in poorer communities or neighborhoods primarily consisting of people of color yet the mere threat of a NiMBY campaign in affluent neighborhoods will put the kibosh on public works projects.

We have a similar situation in my home town (Nashville) where a once thriving community existed on Jefferson Street until I40 split the community in 1968. What would make that right? The current mayor started some community talks on ways to bring resources into that area to revive and restore. Of course there was outrage from the ususal suspects but even within that neighborhood there was resistance, so the talk subsided.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Great example. It's fascinating how eminent domain seems to always prevail in poorer communities or neighborhoods primarily consisting of people of color yet the mere threat of a NiMBY campaign in affluent neighborhoods will put the kibosh on public works projects.

We have a similar situation in my home town (Nashville) where a once thriving community existed on Jefferson Street until I40 split the community in 1968. What would make that right? The current mayor started some community talks on ways to bring resources into that area to revive and restore. Of course there was outrage from the ususal suspects but even within that neighborhood there was resistance, so the talk subsided.

Worse is when eminent domain is used to benefit a company as in the case of The Little Pink house, Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia. A homeowner fights against the New London, CT Development board where Pfizer wanted to build a new plant. Not only did the woman lose her house and it was demolished but Pfizer then pulled out of the agreement.

​

For nearly 20 years since the ruling, the entire Fort Trumbull neighborhood remained a vacant lot after being bulldozed by the city; a neighborhood once teeming with families who resided there for generations was home only to weeds and feral cats. The economic development the city promised the U.S. Supreme Court would materialize—if only the government could get its hands on the land—never materialized, even after spending more than $80 million in taxpayer money.​

​

As of May 2022, a private developer is now constructing 100 high-end apartments and a 100-unit extended stay hotel along with a community center that won’t pay any taxes. Homeowners and residents were kicked out so that a private developer could build…more homes.​

Kelo Eminent Domain - Institute for Justice

One of the Supreme Court’s most controversial cases made it much easier for the government to seize homes and small businesses.

ij.org

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It is quite heart warming to see some of the responses in here. It gives me hope that Christians do read the old testament and are aware of the way God wanted his people to treat strangers and refugees.

 

[eleos1954]

I have a hard time working out what a person means when they start to tell me that Woke people have various serious personality and moral failings. So, I started to wonder if being woke was morally bad or not or if it was Christian or not.

Microsoft Co-Pilot says: "According to web search results, a “woke” person is someone who is alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice. The term originated in African American English and gained more widespread use beginning in 2014 as part of the Black Lives Matter movement. A woke person is conscious of inequity and injustice on personal, professional, and social levels, and goes beyond merely being aware of these issues to become vocal against all discrimination"

It depends in the context it is being used. It can be used in a positive context or a negative context.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It depends in the context it is being used. It can be used in a positive context or a negative context.

That is the problem. It is so poorly defined that one has difficulty in knowing exactly what "woke" is.

 

[childeye 2]

I have a hard time working out what a person means when they start to tell me that Woke people have various serious personality and moral failings. So, I started to wonder if being woke was morally bad or not or if it was Christian or not.

Microsoft Co-Pilot says: "According to web search results, a “woke” person is someone who is alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice. The term originated in African American English and gained more widespread use beginning in 2014 as part of the Black Lives Matter movement. A woke person is conscious of inequity and injustice on personal, professional, and social levels, and goes beyond merely being aware of these issues to become vocal against all discrimination"

As I see it, I believe that as Christians were supposed to be "woke" to inequity and injustice on any level when done to others. We're not supposed to be "woke" about inequity and injustice done to us, which should be counted as bearing our cross. The positive and negative connotations of the term "woke" turn on this distinction and I believe the devil in our politics uses the circumstance of these semantics to work both ends against the middle and cause division.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I have a hard time working out what a person means when they start to tell me that Woke people have various serious personality and moral failings. So, I started to wonder if being woke was morally bad or not or if it was Christian or not.

Microsoft Co-Pilot says: "According to web search results, a “woke” person is someone who is alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice. The term originated in African American English and gained more widespread use beginning in 2014 as part of the Black Lives Matter movement. A woke person is conscious of inequity and injustice on personal, professional, and social levels, and goes beyond merely being aware of these issues to become vocal against all discrimination"

That definition seems fairly accurate. Woke originated as a term to describe simply being aware of racial/social discrimination and injustice, and it originated within black communities in the United States. But like most terms that originate among black communities, it then gained more widespread usage, and then finally co-opted.

The term is, I'd argue, effectively now meaningless in the larger context of political and social discourse. The only time I hear the term "woke" anymore is by those who say things like "woke mind virus" as a fear and hate-baiting tactic to score culture war points.

As such, it is now a word that is used to effectively shut down conversation and discourse. Any conversation about systemic injustice can be effectively shut down by simply using "woke" in a pejorative manner.

It's not unlike words like "communist", "Marxist", and "socialist". Want to talk about attaining social equity by addressing systemic inequity and discrimination? Well that makes you a "woke cultural marxist".

What it really is is just word salad for the express purpose of eliminating conversation and seeking to characterize certain people as "crazy" or "evil" and therefore unworthy of being engaged with in genuine discussion or debate.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bbbbbbb]

That definition seems fairly accurate. Woke originated as a term to describe simply being aware of racial/social discrimination and injustice, and it originated within black communities in the United States. But like most terms that originate among black communities, it then gained more widespread usage, and then finally co-opted.

The term is, I'd argue, effectively now meaningless in the larger context of political and social discourse. The only time I hear the term "woke" anymore is by those who say things like "woke mind virus" as a fear and hate-baiting tactic to score culture war points.

As such, it is now a word that is used to effectively shut down conversation and discourse. Any conversation about systemic injustice can be effectively shut down by simply using "woke" in a pejorative manner.

It's not unlike words like "communist", "Marxist", and "socialist". Want to talk about attaining social equity by addressing systemic inequity and discrimination? Well that makes you a "woke cultural marxist".

What it really is is just word salad for the express purpose of eliminating conversation and seeking to characterize certain people as "crazy" or "evil" and therefore unworthy of being engaged with in genuine discussion or debate.

-CryptoLutheran

Yes, it is sad commentary on society when people co-opt otherwise useful words and banish them from discussion. "Liberal" had a long and effective history prior to its co-option by the political right. Now we use "progressive" in its place, even though they are not synonymous. Then there is "modern" which was used effectively for centuries as indicative of contemporary thoughts and actions. It died a sad death in the last half of the twentieth century and was replaced by "post-modern". Now that term has been effectively terminated and I am unaware of any useful term for contemporary social trends.