Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

And we help our fellow black American's by busting up the nuclear family, paying reparations, race based laws and all the other nonsense pushed by CRT?

---

Like I said much earlier, I'm not here to hold a brief for CRT (or the academic types who felt it necessary to create it as a framework). There doesn't even seem to be a clear agreement on a definition, and to me it sounds kind of squishy. For some people, CRT seems to be another way of talking about systemic racism. For others, it seems to be about a lot of the other stuff you are noting.

---

It sounds squishy? It's going to be the mandatory curriculum for ALL academia over the next 20 years.

Moderate dems like yourself will be outcasts and you won't be able to stop it if you object.

---

Its already happening.

Read this about the NYU leftist professor Mark Crispin Miller

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/railroading-mark-crispin-miller-nyu-covid/

He is being slandered and his reputation destroyed because he teaches a class every year on propaganda....he said some things critical of the media's coverage of Covid-19 and that he sees some evidence that their coverage has some elements of propaganda...and he said some things critical of transgender ideology (though not of transgendered individuals themselves).

A man who has been a hard Leftist for decades is being basically blackballed.

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

And we help our fellow black American's by busting up the nuclear family, paying reparations, race based laws and all the other nonsense pushed by CRT?

---

Like I said much earlier, I'm not here to hold a brief for CRT (or the academic types who felt it necessary to create it as a framework). There doesn't even seem to be a clear agreement on a definition, and to me it sounds kind of squishy. For some people, CRT seems to be another way of talking about systemic racism. For others, it seems to be about a lot of the other stuff you are noting.

---

It sounds squishy? It's going to be the mandatory curriculum for ALL academia over the next 20 years.

Moderate dems like yourself will be outcasts and you won't be able to stop it if you object.

---

Let me correct you on one point. I'm not a Democrat and don't mind saying that to liberals and conservatives alike. I proudly claim the label of Independent because (a) I'm not going to put myself in a position where I have to defend every plank and bit of nonsense a party puts forth; and (b) in the past 20 years I've voted pretty equally for Dems and Republicans, with a couple of Libertarians thrown in.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

And we help our fellow black American's by busting up the nuclear family, paying reparations, race based laws and all the other nonsense pushed by CRT?

---

Like I said much earlier, I'm not here to hold a brief for CRT (or the academic types who felt it necessary to create it as a framework). There doesn't even seem to be a clear agreement on a definition, and to me it sounds kind of squishy. For some people, CRT seems to be another way of talking about systemic racism. For others, it seems to be about a lot of the other stuff you are noting.

---

It sounds squishy? It's going to be the mandatory curriculum for ALL academia over the next 20 years.

Moderate dems like yourself will be outcasts and you won't be able to stop it if you object.

---

Its already happening.

Read this about the NYU leftist professor Mark Crispin Miller

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/railroading-mark-crispin-miller-nyu-covid/

He is being slandered and his reputation destroyed because he teaches a class every year on propaganda....he said some things critical of the media's coverage of Covid-19 and that he sees some evidence that their coverage has some elements of proaganda...and he said some things critical of transgender ideology (though not of transgendered individuals themselves).

A man who has been a hard Leftist for decades is being basically blackballed.

---

Not surprising.

Dems on this site are living in 2004. They have no idea what's been going on.

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That falsely implies Social Justice is as valid a term as, say, Criminal Justice.

---

Your inference, not my implication. At all.

---

Yes, it certainly is your implication.

Otherwise, you would not have brought up that choice of words.

---

Here is my choice of words: "We have civil justice systems and criminal justice systems. Why not distinguish them?" I note you responded to, but did not answer, my question.

I haven't even mentioned social justice in this thread.

---

Why don't you believe CRT or critical social justice won't corrupt the court system over time?

It already has in several areas of the country.

---

Can you elaborate on this, maybe with some examples? In what ways do you believe the court system has been corrupted?

---

https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/marxist-critical-race-theory-seeps-us-courts

---

That article is absolutely devoid of any evidence that our court system has been corrupted by CRT. The closest it comes is in its criticism of required diversity training. I've been through one of those and it was all I could do not to walk out. Glad I stayed, as the final session was a piece of CRT theater gone wrong.

It was one of those "take one step forward if you had two parents through age 18", followed by similar requests. When all was said and done a white guy was the farthest behind, #2 was a Black woman and I was a step right behind her.

The facilitator unwittingly made the point that all of us experience hardships.

But nothing in that training obligated me to give up my legal sensibilities, and it won't do that to judges either. And should it lead to more equitable sentencing of similar crimes I don't see that as corrupting.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That falsely implies Social Justice is as valid a term as, say, Criminal Justice.

---

Your inference, not my implication. At all.

---

Yes, it certainly is your implication.

Otherwise, you would not have brought up that choice of words.

---

Here is my choice of words: "We have civil justice systems and criminal justice systems. Why not distinguish them?" I note you responded to, but did not answer, my question.

I haven't even mentioned social justice in this thread.

---

Why don't you believe CRT or critical social justice won't corrupt the court system over time?

It already has in several areas of the country.

---

Can you elaborate on this, maybe with some examples? In what ways do you believe the court system has been corrupted?

---

https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/marxist-critical-race-theory-seeps-us-courts

---

That article is absolutely devoid of any evidence that our court system has been corrupted by CRT. The closest it comes is in its criticism of required diversity training. I've been through one of those and it was all I could do not to walk out. Glad I stayed, as the final session was a piece of CRT theater gone wrong.

It was one of those "take one step forward if you had two parents through age 18", followed by similar requests. When all was said and done a white guy was the farthest behind, #2 was a Black woman and I was a step right behind her.

The facilitator unwittingly made the point that all of us experience hardships.

But nothing in that training obligated me to give up my legal sensibilities, and it won't do that to judges either. And should it lead to more equitable sentencing of similar crimes I don't see that as corrupting.

---

Lol that's pretty funny

Does CRT end with diversity training or does it keep growing into other areas over the next several decades?

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That falsely implies Social Justice is as valid a term as, say, Criminal Justice.

---

Your inference, not my implication. At all.

---

Yes, it certainly is your implication.

Otherwise, you would not have brought up that choice of words.

---

Here is my choice of words: "We have civil justice systems and criminal justice systems. Why not distinguish them?" I note you responded to, but did not answer, my question.

I haven't even mentioned social justice in this thread.

---

Why don't you believe CRT or critical social justice won't corrupt the court system over time?

It already has in several areas of the country.

---

Can you elaborate on this, maybe with some examples? In what ways do you believe the court system has been corrupted?

---

https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/marxist-critical-race-theory-seeps-us-courts

---

That article is absolutely devoid of any evidence that our court system has been corrupted by CRT. The closest it comes is in its criticism of required diversity training. I've been through one of those and it was all I could do not to walk out. Glad I stayed, as the final session was a piece of CRT theater gone wrong.

It was one of those "take one step forward if you had two parents through age 18", followed by similar requests. When all was said and done a white guy was the farthest behind, #2 was a Black woman and I was a step right behind her.

The facilitator unwittingly made the point that all of us experience hardships.

But nothing in that training obligated me to give up my legal sensibilities, and it won't do that to judges either. And should it lead to more equitable sentencing of similar crimes I don't see that as corrupting.

---

The courts may not be corrupted yet, but the law schools and undergraduate programs are I bet.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That falsely implies Social Justice is as valid a term as, say, Criminal Justice.

---

Your inference, not my implication. At all.

---

Yes, it certainly is your implication.

Otherwise, you would not have brought up that choice of words.

---

Here is my choice of words: "We have civil justice systems and criminal justice systems. Why not distinguish them?" I note you responded to, but did not answer, my question.

I haven't even mentioned social justice in this thread.

---

Why don't you believe CRT or critical social justice won't corrupt the court system over time?

It already has in several areas of the country.

---

Can you elaborate on this, maybe with some examples? In what ways do you believe the court system has been corrupted?

---

https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/marxist-critical-race-theory-seeps-us-courts

---

That article is absolutely devoid of any evidence that our court system has been corrupted by CRT. The closest it comes is in its criticism of required diversity training. I've been through one of those and it was all I could do not to walk out. Glad I stayed, as the final session was a piece of CRT theater gone wrong.

It was one of those "take one step forward if you had two parents through age 18", followed by similar requests. When all was said and done a white guy was the farthest behind, #2 was a Black woman and I was a step right behind her.

The facilitator unwittingly made the point that all of us experience hardships.

But nothing in that training obligated me to give up my legal sensibilities, and it won't do that to judges either. And should it lead to more equitable sentencing of similar crimes I don't see that as corrupting.

---

Lol that's pretty funny

Does CRT end with diversity training or does it keep growing into other areas over the next several decades?

---

Overall it's already in other areas right now. If you mean the courts I'm sure you can find examples of things you would call CRT, but we'd have called it other things in the past. Courts are not a good place to evaluate scientific evidence so I can see where CRT might end up in some outcome-based rulings. I'm also sure they'll be offset by others.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That falsely implies Social Justice is as valid a term as, say, Criminal Justice.

---

Your inference, not my implication. At all.

---

Yes, it certainly is your implication.

Otherwise, you would not have brought up that choice of words.

---

Here is my choice of words: "We have civil justice systems and criminal justice systems. Why not distinguish them?" I note you responded to, but did not answer, my question.

I haven't even mentioned social justice in this thread.

---

Why don't you believe CRT or critical social justice won't corrupt the court system over time?

It already has in several areas of the country.

---

Can you elaborate on this, maybe with some examples? In what ways do you believe the court system has been corrupted?

---

https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/marxist-critical-race-theory-seeps-us-courts

---

That article is absolutely devoid of any evidence that our court system has been corrupted by CRT. The closest it comes is in its criticism of required diversity training. I've been through one of those and it was all I could do not to walk out. Glad I stayed, as the final session was a piece of CRT theater gone wrong.

It was one of those "take one step forward if you had two parents through age 18", followed by similar requests. When all was said and done a white guy was the farthest behind, #2 was a Black woman and I was a step right behind her.

The facilitator unwittingly made the point that all of us experience hardships.

But nothing in that training obligated me to give up my legal sensibilities, and it won't do that to judges either. And should it lead to more equitable sentencing of similar crimes I don't see that as corrupting.

---

The courts may not be corrupted yet, but the law schools and undergraduate programs are I bet.

---

Undergraduate (and graduate) grievance programs obviously already are; wouldn't say that about law schools as much.

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Both restorative justice and retributive justice, by definition, assumes guilt. Is that what social justice also does, assumes guilt?

---

Societal justice (social justice, if you prefer) does not assume guilt in the way that I understand it. As I said, my understanding stems from the Bible, where this concept originated. Others today may have a different understanding.

Rather than assuming guilt, the Biblical concept of societal justice -- as proclaimed by prophets like Isaiah, Amos, Micah and Jeremiah -- is about calling the whole society, collectively and individually, to account for upholding God's vision of a just society; that is, a society in which all people are treated with the human dignity and concern that reflects their status as children made in the image of God. This includes personal behavior but goes beyond that. The prophets say that everyone shares some responsibility for upholding God's vision of justice because the society as a whole suffers when injustice is common. People live in community, not in isolation; therefore, justice is a community responsibility as well as an individual one.

Some of the "justice issues" that the prophets were concerned about --- and called on the community to address:

making sure that widows and orphans (who almost always were poor) were cared for. (The apostles are living into this command when they organize an effort within their community, led by Stephen, to care for poor widows.)
using honest weights and measures so as not to defraud people (still an issue today)
predatory lending (as we would call it today); this is why the Torah specifically says that, if you take someone's coat as collateral for a loan, you have to give it back before nightfall so the borrower can keep warm. Amos denounces the society of the Northern Kingdom of Israel for allowing lenders "to sell the poor for a pair of sandals."
gleaning laws that required farmers to leave part of their fields unharvested so the poor could come and get some grain for themselves
special concern for the poor. Why? Because the poor so often are exploited and were not treated as members of the "beloved community" (a term that originated with a white 19th century preacher, not MLK).


People today believe they are channeling this same view of community responsibility for God's vision of justice when they advocate for a consistent pro-life ethic; when they seek to regulate payday lending practices; when they work for a safety net (both public and private) for the poor; and in many other ways. They see it as their responsibility to call the community into upholding the biblical vision of justice.

That's why I would say societal justice is about accepting responsibility, calling the community to live up to its values and ideals, not about assuming guilt.

---

I think I agree with everything you've written here. My problem comes when societal justice ( I like your term better ) is automatically tied to white privilege.

If justice is the line, privilege is above the line and injustice is below the line. Accusing a person that live a just life of privilege is insulting and an injustice in itself.

---

Thanks -- I'm glad we seem to be in basic agreement.

To apply this to the specific concept of white privilege:

1. In my mind societal justice is not AUTOMATICALLY about white privilege. Some people treat that differently, of course.
2. At the same time, white people in many ways HAVE enjoyed privileges. We don't think of them as privileges because they tend to involve basic fair treatment that we think should be extended to everyone -- and that most of us extend as a matter of course to everyone. Most of us don't think black people should be treated with suspicion in a store or when walking through a neighborhood simply because they're black, and we wouldn't do such a thing ourselves. Nevertheless, most black people experience being treated with suspicion even if they're not behaving suspiciously. In that sense, the "privilege" I enjoy as a white male is NOT to be treated suspiciously because of my skin color. Every time my sons go out in the car, I don't have to worry that they'll encounter a police officer who is frightened and suspicious and might shoot them.
3. I don't feel personal guilt for something that I didn't do and would never do.
4. But by Bible-based understanding of societal justice tells me that I am responsible for being aware of the unjust way that my fellow human beings are treated, for calling out that injustice and for doing what I can to stop it. That might mean using my voice to speak out. In this country -- unlike a repressive state like Russia or China -- it should mean using whatever power I have to influence political outcomes that increase justice. (Just because early Christians like Paul lacked political power to end slavery doesn't mean I'm excused from trying to influence the political system when I see injustice.)

The attitude of the prophets is kind of nicely summed up in the last line of these verses by the poet W.H. Auden:
"There is no such thing as the state
And no one exists alone.
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police.
We must love one another or die."

Note that he says "we." The obligation is on us communally, and the consequences (or die) fall on us as a community.

---

thoughtful conversation going on in those exchanges.

The problem is that the two of you have come to an agreement about what social justice means which is substantially discrete from from the ideological structures of CRT. That is the error Christian theologians make when they try to pick & choose pieces from a political ideology that seem congruent with tenets of faith. THEY may see a convergence of ideas, but the political ideologues driving the agenda usually don't see it that way at all. The politicos may go along with it, as such facilitates the advance of their ideas, just as marxists used "fellow travelers" to put a more palatable gloss on marxist dialectics. The reality is - critical theories see Christianity is a part of systemic oppression just as faith was part of cultural hegemony, an "opiate of the masses," to marxist ideologues.

That dynamic is what prompts Lindsay to describe CRT a box with pretty wrapping that makes people want to pick it up. But the thing inside the box does not match what's on the outside of the box. He's new to public speaking, and it shows, but he pretty well nails it here:

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/03/james-lindsay-truth-critical-methods/

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

No. The Bible does not promote 'social justice' as practiced in the modern United States.

Bad fiction, that.

---

You have made an emphatic statement but not an argument. Would you care to offer an argument?

---

Maybe later. My problem is that you start with what I consider a false definition of 'social justice' which is inherently political but you deny that.

That creates a chasm too wide to be covered for useful discussion.

---

I would not say that societal is inherently political, although it does potentially have political ramifications.

The Law and the Prophets (and Jesus, by extension, since his teaching got to the heart of the Law and the Prophets) were unambiguous that it was the responsibility of society to live into God's justice as a community.

That's the responsibility part.

The political part may involve HOW the society goes about living into its responsibility.

Acknowledging responsibility, from a biblical point of view, does not imply loyalty to one political party. And from this point of view, working for pro-life policies is just as much a societal justice effort -- that is, bringing society into what its proponents believe is right relationship with God -- as a liberal "social justice warrior" advocating for policies to help the poor.

---

The Bible focuses on Justice, no appended details.

And I never said diddly about political parties. Consider, for example, that not one elected official, Democrat or Republican or whatever, gave up even one paycheck or cut their staff by even one person to show they understood the suffering of regular people who lost pay, business, even their career to the shutdowns.

The notion that politicians care about regular people beyond using them to build their own campaign is a child's fairy tale.

It's very dishonest, IMIO, to try to claim kinship between Judaic law and tradition with the pretense of blatantly political movements. 'Social Justice' has always been deeply rooted in political goals, and I reject the efforts to try to play a rhetorical shell game and pretend Jesus was a moral founder of such groups.

'God's Justice' is simple and direct - obey the Commandments, including the ones about putting God first, honoring father and mother, respecting the Sabbath, respecting God and Caesar according to their own domains, and such. True Justice includes fighting in wars when they are right, standing up for every one, including widows and orphans, in the courts and in civil decisions. It means learning the Law and contemplating it according to Scripture, not the fashion of the day or the expediency of a Herod or a Caiaphas.

Remember that Judas was the one who complained when Mary poured oil on Christ, using 'the poor' as his excuse, The modern political whiners have a lot more in common with Judas Iscariot than Jesus who is Christ.

---

Biblical Justice is also societal. Luke 4 is a good example.

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

No. The Bible does not promote 'social justice' as practiced in the modern United States.

Bad fiction, that.

---

You have made an emphatic statement but not an argument. Would you care to offer an argument?

---

Maybe later. My problem is that you start with what I consider a false definition of 'social justice' which is inherently political but you deny that.

That creates a chasm too wide to be covered for useful discussion.

---

I would not say that societal is inherently political, although it does potentially have political ramifications.

The Law and the Prophets (and Jesus, by extension, since his teaching got to the heart of the Law and the Prophets) were unambiguous that it was the responsibility of society to live into God's justice as a community.

That's the responsibility part.

The political part may involve HOW the society goes about living into its responsibility.

Acknowledging responsibility, from a biblical point of view, does not imply loyalty to one political party. And from this point of view, working for pro-life policies is just as much a societal justice effort -- that is, bringing society into what its proponents believe is right relationship with God -- as a liberal "social justice warrior" advocating for policies to help the poor.

---

The Bible focuses on Justice, no appended details.

And I never said diddly about political parties. Consider, for example, that not one elected official, Democrat or Republican or whatever, gave up even one paycheck or cut their staff by even one person to show they understood the suffering of regular people who lost pay, business, even their career to the shutdowns.

The notion that politicians care about regular people beyond using them to build their own campaign is a child's fairy tale.

It's very dishonest, IMIO, to try to claim kinship between Judaic law and tradition with the pretense of blatantly political movements. 'Social Justice' has always been deeply rooted in political goals, and I reject the efforts to try to play a rhetorical shell game and pretend Jesus was a moral founder of such groups.

'God's Justice' is simple and direct - obey the Commandments, including the ones about putting God first, honoring father and mother, respecting the Sabbath, respecting God and Caesar according to their own domains, and such. True Justice includes fighting in wars when they are right, standing up for every one, including widows and orphans, in the courts and in civil decisions. It means learning the Law and contemplating it according to Scripture, not the fashion of the day or the expediency of a Herod or a Caiaphas.

Remember that Judas was the one who complained when Mary poured oil on Christ, using 'the poor' as his excuse, The modern political whiners have a lot more in common with Judas Iscariot than Jesus who is Christ.

---

Biblical Justice is also societal. Luke 4 is a good example.

---

The Bible teaches Justice and love. You, Waco, teach politics and hate.

God help you come to Jesus.

A good article on CRT and connections to Marxism.

Could you win a quiz show by defining 'Critical Race Theory'? Baptist News Global

Some salient points:

Critical Race Theory is an academic concept that seeks to identify the roots of racism that have influenced society and continue to bear fruit today. It's not a religion or a doctrine but rather is a construct for evaluating ourselves and our society. Thus, it has been used as a tool to help uncover forms of systemic racism that often are overlooked by the majority population.

For a more formal lay reader definition, turn to Wikipedia, which describes CRT as "a theoretical framework in the social sciences that examines society and culture as they relate to categorizations of race, law and power in the United States of America."

Critical Race Theory is only the latest in a long line of issues and ideas that have been dismissed by cultural conservatives as "Marxism." Historically, some conservative traditionalists have drawn a line from Marxism to feminism, multiculturalism, civil rights, LGBTQ rights, Black Lives Matter and other progressive social issues. At its worst, these accusations carry an antisemitic tone, blaming a small group of Jewish academics as the source of such liberalism.

Jacob Woolf, a Jewish student and political activist at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, published an article on Medium last year noting the use of "Marxism" as an all-purpose label for things modern conservatives disdain globally.

"There is a spectre haunting conservatism, the spectre of Marxism," he wrote. "It permeates across the forums and blogospheres of conservatives and libertarians, endlessly invoked and casually tossed out in barbed allegations. A newfound interest in Marxism seems has infected not just a gaggle of ordinary conservatives but many of their leading and most influential figureheads."

Writing in the Guardian newspaper in 2015, columnist Jason Wilson concurred. Appealing to "cultural Marxism," he wrote, "allows those smarting from a loss of privilege to be offered the shroud of victimhood, by pointing to a shadowy, omnipresent, quasi-foreign elite who are attempting to destroy all that is good in the world. It offers an explanation for the decline of families, small towns, patriarchal authority, and unchallenged white power: a vast, century-long left-wing conspiracy."

"Cultural Marxism" even has its own entry on Wikipedia, where it is described as a "far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory."

One of the most extensive treatments of this question was published this summer on the Christianity Today website, via "The Exchange," a blog forum curated by Ed Stetzer, who holds the Billy Graham Distinguished Chair of Church, Mission and Evangelism at Wheaton College and serves as executive director of the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton.

Stetzer noted that since his Twitter feed "is filled with people calling one another Marxists, I thought it might be good to hear from a scholar who knows a bit more about it." That scholar is Kelly Hamren, assistant professor of English at Liberty University. Her doctoral dissertation focused on 20th-century Russian poetry, with an emphasis on Marxist-Leninist ideology in the Soviet Union.

At Stetzer's invitation, Hamren wrote a first-person post titled "Social Justice, Critical Race Theory, Marxism, and Biblical Ethics."

"In my field, Marxism is one of the most commonly studied and most influential perspectives, and Critical Race Theory is also a significant force and gaining momentum," she wrote. "As a result, I've studied these theories extensively."

To be clear, she is no fan of Marxism: "My studies have convinced me that the sufferings and deaths of millions are not only correlated with but largely caused by the Marxist-Leninist agenda, and I am therefore deeply opposed to Marxism as a framework."

Hamren sees Critical Race Theory as "deeply informed by Marxism" and therefore admits she "will not agree with all of its tenets." However, she added, "Marx was not wrong about absolutely everything. Very few thinkers are (probably because they are all made in God's image) wrong about everything."

She identifies two statements from Marx's teaching that she finds resonate with Christian ideals: (1) Power does exist, and people do sometimes use it to oppress others; and (2) Oppressed people do suffer, and their suffering is often unjust.

"Reading the Old Testament will make these truths abundantly clear," she suggested. "Because I believe people are made in God's image (Genesis 1); the God whom I worship warned his followers repeatedly not to oppress the poor, widows, foreigners, ; and Jesus reached out to those whom society despised , I can argue with confidence that my faith is wholly consistent with working to mitigate oppression in the society in which I live. By doing so, I am not embracing an alternate gospel but merely living in a way consistent with the gospel I have embraced since I was a child."

Even though some Christians have criticized an emphasis on "social justice" as only a tenant of liberalism, Hamren said that's not necessarily so. "What some are referring to as 'social justice' these days making sure our laws and institutions don't make it easier for the powerful to oppress marginalized groups often refers to good, old-fashioned biblical justice."

She added: "If the term 'social justice' is sometimes co-opted by Marxists, rejecting the concept outright robs Christians of the chance to become part of the conversation regarding its definition and application. It is a fluid concept right now, and using the term in a way that validates biblical principles of justice can help shape the way in which the cultural conversation develops."

Further, Hamren does not see an inherent conflict between conservative biblical theology and the problem of systemic racism.

"If people are born in sin and people build a society, that society will be structured in ways that reinforce whatever sins dominate the hearts of those who build it," she reasoned. "Therefore, even if many people's hearts change a few generations later, those structures might still perpetuate the problems associated with that society's 'original sins.'"

This is why, she added, "it is possible to recognize that many individual police officers might not be racist and still believe that changes in police departments need to take place to discourage injustice."

To affirm such a possibility from a biblical understanding of original sin differs from Marxism, Hamren asserted.
"Marxism posits that socio-economic forces create the problem, not that they perpetuate the problem. A true Marxist does not believe that individuals have essential selves apart from the historical contexts in which they develop."

Christians who believe that sins, such as racism, originate in the human heart should see the need for an even deeper solution than Marxism proposes, she added. "The fact that we will never be able to eradicate sin (this side of the resurrection) does not mean we should sit back and allow it free reign."


I agree with Hamren that Marx wasn't wrong about everything and that the idea of systemic racism is consistent with biblical teachings.

whiterock said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Both restorative justice and retributive justice, by definition, assumes guilt. Is that what social justice also does, assumes guilt?

---

Societal justice (social justice, if you prefer) does not assume guilt in the way that I understand it. As I said, my understanding stems from the Bible, where this concept originated. Others today may have a different understanding.

Rather than assuming guilt, the Biblical concept of societal justice -- as proclaimed by prophets like Isaiah, Amos, Micah and Jeremiah -- is about calling the whole society, collectively and individually, to account for upholding God's vision of a just society; that is, a society in which all people are treated with the human dignity and concern that reflects their status as children made in the image of God. This includes personal behavior but goes beyond that. The prophets say that everyone shares some responsibility for upholding God's vision of justice because the society as a whole suffers when injustice is common. People live in community, not in isolation; therefore, justice is a community responsibility as well as an individual one.

Some of the "justice issues" that the prophets were concerned about --- and called on the community to address:

making sure that widows and orphans (who almost always were poor) were cared for. (The apostles are living into this command when they organize an effort within their community, led by Stephen, to care for poor widows.)
using honest weights and measures so as not to defraud people (still an issue today)
predatory lending (as we would call it today); this is why the Torah specifically says that, if you take someone's coat as collateral for a loan, you have to give it back before nightfall so the borrower can keep warm. Amos denounces the society of the Northern Kingdom of Israel for allowing lenders "to sell the poor for a pair of sandals."
gleaning laws that required farmers to leave part of their fields unharvested so the poor could come and get some grain for themselves
special concern for the poor. Why? Because the poor so often are exploited and were not treated as members of the "beloved community" (a term that originated with a white 19th century preacher, not MLK).


People today believe they are channeling this same view of community responsibility for God's vision of justice when they advocate for a consistent pro-life ethic; when they seek to regulate payday lending practices; when they work for a safety net (both public and private) for the poor; and in many other ways. They see it as their responsibility to call the community into upholding the biblical vision of justice.

That's why I would say societal justice is about accepting responsibility, calling the community to live up to its values and ideals, not about assuming guilt.

---

I think I agree with everything you've written here. My problem comes when societal justice ( I like your term better ) is automatically tied to white privilege.

If justice is the line, privilege is above the line and injustice is below the line. Accusing a person that live a just life of privilege is insulting and an injustice in itself.

---

Thanks -- I'm glad we seem to be in basic agreement.

To apply this to the specific concept of white privilege:

1. In my mind societal justice is not AUTOMATICALLY about white privilege. Some people treat that differently, of course.
2. At the same time, white people in many ways HAVE enjoyed privileges. We don't think of them as privileges because they tend to involve basic fair treatment that we think should be extended to everyone -- and that most of us extend as a matter of course to everyone. Most of us don't think black people should be treated with suspicion in a store or when walking through a neighborhood simply because they're black, and we wouldn't do such a thing ourselves. Nevertheless, most black people experience being treated with suspicion even if they're not behaving suspiciously. In that sense, the "privilege" I enjoy as a white male is NOT to be treated suspiciously because of my skin color. Every time my sons go out in the car, I don't have to worry that they'll encounter a police officer who is frightened and suspicious and might shoot them.
3. I don't feel personal guilt for something that I didn't do and would never do.
4. But by Bible-based understanding of societal justice tells me that I am responsible for being aware of the unjust way that my fellow human beings are treated, for calling out that injustice and for doing what I can to stop it. That might mean using my voice to speak out. In this country -- unlike a repressive state like Russia or China -- it should mean using whatever power I have to influence political outcomes that increase justice. (Just because early Christians like Paul lacked political power to end slavery doesn't mean I'm excused from trying to influence the political system when I see injustice.)

The attitude of the prophets is kind of nicely summed up in the last line of these verses by the poet W.H. Auden:
"There is no such thing as the state
And no one exists alone.
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police.
We must love one another or die."

Note that he says "we." The obligation is on us communally, and the consequences (or die) fall on us as a community.

---

thoughtful conversation going on in those exchanges.

The problem is that the two of you have come to an agreement about what social justice means which is substantially discrete from from the ideological structures of CRT. That is the error Christian theologians make when they try to pick & choose pieces from a political ideology that seem congruent with tenets of faith. THEY may see a convergence of ideas, but the political ideologues driving the agenda usually don't see it that way at all. The politicos may go along with it, as such facilitates the advance of their ideas, just as marxists used "fellow travelers" to put a more palatable gloss on marxist dialectics. The reality is - critical theories see Christianity is a part of systemic oppression just as faith was part of cultural hegemony, an "opiate of the masses," to marxist ideologues.

That dynamic is what prompts Lindsay to describe CRT a box with pretty wrapping that makes people want to pick it up. But the thing inside the box does not match what's on the outside of the box. He's new to public speaking, and it shows, but he pretty well nails it here:

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/03/james-lindsay-truth-critical-methods/

---

The thing is: I don't care what Christian theologians think, and I don't read their writings. I don't care what academics trying to construct a framework that they label CRT think, so I don't know what exactly their ideological structures are (definitions actually seem to be part of the problem here, as it sounds like there's not a definition of CRT that everybody agrees on).

On the issue of societal justice, I start with my reading and understanding of the Bible and go from there. That's the example of John Wesley, founder of the Methodist movement; his understanding of Paul's letter to Philemon influenced his involvement in the anti-slavery movement.

There is always a risk that we will make biblical interpretations fit our political inclinations. I try not to do that, but reality checks are always necessary.

Bottom line: Grand political theories don't much interest me, but I stand by what the Bible says about justice.

bubbadog said:

---

whiterock said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Both restorative justice and retributive justice, by definition, assumes guilt. Is that what social justice also does, assumes guilt?

---

Societal justice (social justice, if you prefer) does not assume guilt in the way that I understand it. As I said, my understanding stems from the Bible, where this concept originated. Others today may have a different understanding.

Rather than assuming guilt, the Biblical concept of societal justice -- as proclaimed by prophets like Isaiah, Amos, Micah and Jeremiah -- is about calling the whole society, collectively and individually, to account for upholding God's vision of a just society; that is, a society in which all people are treated with the human dignity and concern that reflects their status as children made in the image of God. This includes personal behavior but goes beyond that. The prophets say that everyone shares some responsibility for upholding God's vision of justice because the society as a whole suffers when injustice is common. People live in community, not in isolation; therefore, justice is a community responsibility as well as an individual one.

Some of the "justice issues" that the prophets were concerned about --- and called on the community to address:

making sure that widows and orphans (who almost always were poor) were cared for. (The apostles are living into this command when they organize an effort within their community, led by Stephen, to care for poor widows.)
using honest weights and measures so as not to defraud people (still an issue today)
predatory lending (as we would call it today); this is why the Torah specifically says that, if you take someone's coat as collateral for a loan, you have to give it back before nightfall so the borrower can keep warm. Amos denounces the society of the Northern Kingdom of Israel for allowing lenders "to sell the poor for a pair of sandals."
gleaning laws that required farmers to leave part of their fields unharvested so the poor could come and get some grain for themselves
special concern for the poor. Why? Because the poor so often are exploited and were not treated as members of the "beloved community" (a term that originated with a white 19th century preacher, not MLK).


People today believe they are channeling this same view of community responsibility for God's vision of justice when they advocate for a consistent pro-life ethic; when they seek to regulate payday lending practices; when they work for a safety net (both public and private) for the poor; and in many other ways. They see it as their responsibility to call the community into upholding the biblical vision of justice.

That's why I would say societal justice is about accepting responsibility, calling the community to live up to its values and ideals, not about assuming guilt.

---

I think I agree with everything you've written here. My problem comes when societal justice ( I like your term better ) is automatically tied to white privilege.

If justice is the line, privilege is above the line and injustice is below the line. Accusing a person that live a just life of privilege is insulting and an injustice in itself.

---

Thanks -- I'm glad we seem to be in basic agreement.

To apply this to the specific concept of white privilege:

1. In my mind societal justice is not AUTOMATICALLY about white privilege. Some people treat that differently, of course.
2. At the same time, white people in many ways HAVE enjoyed privileges. We don't think of them as privileges because they tend to involve basic fair treatment that we think should be extended to everyone -- and that most of us extend as a matter of course to everyone. Most of us don't think black people should be treated with suspicion in a store or when walking through a neighborhood simply because they're black, and we wouldn't do such a thing ourselves. Nevertheless, most black people experience being treated with suspicion even if they're not behaving suspiciously. In that sense, the "privilege" I enjoy as a white male is NOT to be treated suspiciously because of my skin color. Every time my sons go out in the car, I don't have to worry that they'll encounter a police officer who is frightened and suspicious and might shoot them.
3. I don't feel personal guilt for something that I didn't do and would never do.
4. But by Bible-based understanding of societal justice tells me that I am responsible for being aware of the unjust way that my fellow human beings are treated, for calling out that injustice and for doing what I can to stop it. That might mean using my voice to speak out. In this country -- unlike a repressive state like Russia or China -- it should mean using whatever power I have to influence political outcomes that increase justice. (Just because early Christians like Paul lacked political power to end slavery doesn't mean I'm excused from trying to influence the political system when I see injustice.)

The attitude of the prophets is kind of nicely summed up in the last line of these verses by the poet W.H. Auden:
"There is no such thing as the state
And no one exists alone.
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police.
We must love one another or die."

Note that he says "we." The obligation is on us communally, and the consequences (or die) fall on us as a community.

---

thoughtful conversation going on in those exchanges.

The problem is that the two of you have come to an agreement about what social justice means which is substantially discrete from from the ideological structures of CRT. That is the error Christian theologians make when they try to pick & choose pieces from a political ideology that seem congruent with tenets of faith. THEY may see a convergence of ideas, but the political ideologues driving the agenda usually don't see it that way at all. The politicos may go along with it, as such facilitates the advance of their ideas, just as marxists used "fellow travelers" to put a more palatable gloss on marxist dialectics. The reality is - critical theories see Christianity is a part of systemic oppression just as faith was part of cultural hegemony, an "opiate of the masses," to marxist ideologues.

That dynamic is what prompts Lindsay to describe CRT a box with pretty wrapping that makes people want to pick it up. But the thing inside the box does not match what's on the outside of the box. He's new to public speaking, and it shows, but he pretty well nails it here:

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/03/james-lindsay-truth-critical-methods/

---

The thing is: I don't care what Christian theologians think, and I don't read their writings. I don't care what academics trying to construct a framework that they label CRT think, so I don't know what exactly their ideological structures are (definitions actually seem to be part of the problem here, as it sounds like there's not a definition of CRT that everybody agrees on).

On the issue of societal justice, I start with my reading and understanding of the Bible and go from there. That's the example of John Wesley, founder of the Methodist movement; his understanding of Paul's letter to Philemon influenced his involvement in the anti-slavery movement.

There is always a risk that we will make biblical interpretations fit our political inclinations. I try not to do that, but reality checks are always necessary.

Bottom line: Grand political theories don't much interest me, but I stand by what the Bible says about justice.

---

I agree, Bubba. We have sixty-six books of Scripture to help us hear God's will.

My main concern is that we should take our duty seriously as individuals, and treat every individual person as someone made in the image of God.

Treating people as groups makes it too easy to discount individuals or treat them as objects.

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

The thing is: I don't care what Christian theologians think, and I don't read their writings. I don't care what academics trying to construct a framework that they label CRT think, so I don't know what exactly their ideological structures are (definitions actually seem to be part of the problem here, as it sounds like there's not a definition of CRT that everybody agrees on).

On the issue of societal justice, I start with my reading and understanding of the Bible and go from there. That's the example of John Wesley, founder of the Methodist movement; his understanding of Paul's letter to Philemon influenced his involvement in the anti-slavery movement.

There is always a risk that we will make biblical interpretations fit our political inclinations. I try not to do that, but reality checks are always necessary.

Bottom line: Grand political theories don't much interest me, but I stand by what the Bible says about justice.

---

I agree, Bubba. We have sixty-six books of Scripture to help us hear God's will.

My main concern is that we should take our duty seriously as individuals, and treat every individual person as someone made in the image of God.

Treating people as groups makes it too easy to discount individuals or treat them as objects.

---

Yes. What you've written and what I bolded above is why I contend that everything the Bible goes on to say about how God wants human beings to relate to each other flows from that very first chapter in Genesis. Why does Jesus teach that, as people have treated "the least of these," so they have treated him? Because the least of these are made in the image of God, just like everyone else. Why the commandments against killing, stealing, adultery? Because those actions do harm to someone made in God's image? Why the command to love your neighbor (and to love the resident alien in your land)? Because they are all made in God's image. I could go on, but you get the picture.

And when you view it like this, it's very difficult to escape the conclusion that the whole Biblical idea of justice is rooted in that foundational verse from Genesis. If justice means being treated with the respect and dignity that properly belongs to all of God's children, then justice is necessarily a birthright (an idea that Jefferson was getting at with the "all men are created equal with inalienable rights" language).

Yes, treating people as groups is wrong. A problem is that many people in our country, both currently and historically, have been treated unjustly because they were members of a particular group. Whatever else we may do today about historic injustices (a whole separate discussion), we ought to at least acknowledge the failure to uphold God's justice.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

I haven't yet read the whole article, but I've read enough to know that the author addresses the question you raise - that is, the inadequacy of mere statistics. I would urge you to read the article if you have not done so.

---

Yet ignored is the fact that the narcotics industry disproportionately impacted the black community especially related to violent crime and drug abuse even before law enforcement ramped its efforts up. It was a result of the negative impact on the black community that led to harsher enforcement.

---

Source?

---

For what? That violent drug related crimes impacted/impact the black community more than the white community? If so, do I really need to source that for you?

---

For the claim that a disproportionate effect of the narcotics industry on the black community preceded harsh enforcement and was the reason for it.

---

You could start with the Harlem heroin wars of the 70's and work your way through the Cocaine drug wars in South Florida, LA and Chicago in the late 70's and early 80's. The most serious law changes and focus came in the late 80's and early 90's as the geopolitical interests turned to Colombia and Panama.

---

The focus on minority populations started much earlier than that. Even the escalation beginning in the 1970s had to do with what we now know was a racial agenda on Nixon's part.

bubbadog said:

---

whiterock said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Both restorative justice and retributive justice, by definition, assumes guilt. Is that what social justice also does, assumes guilt?

---

Societal justice (social justice, if you prefer) does not assume guilt in the way that I understand it. As I said, my understanding stems from the Bible, where this concept originated. Others today may have a different understanding.

Rather than assuming guilt, the Biblical concept of societal justice -- as proclaimed by prophets like Isaiah, Amos, Micah and Jeremiah -- is about calling the whole society, collectively and individually, to account for upholding God's vision of a just society; that is, a society in which all people are treated with the human dignity and concern that reflects their status as children made in the image of God. This includes personal behavior but goes beyond that. The prophets say that everyone shares some responsibility for upholding God's vision of justice because the society as a whole suffers when injustice is common. People live in community, not in isolation; therefore, justice is a community responsibility as well as an individual one.

Some of the "justice issues" that the prophets were concerned about --- and called on the community to address:

making sure that widows and orphans (who almost always were poor) were cared for. (The apostles are living into this command when they organize an effort within their community, led by Stephen, to care for poor widows.)
using honest weights and measures so as not to defraud people (still an issue today)
predatory lending (as we would call it today); this is why the Torah specifically says that, if you take someone's coat as collateral for a loan, you have to give it back before nightfall so the borrower can keep warm. Amos denounces the society of the Northern Kingdom of Israel for allowing lenders "to sell the poor for a pair of sandals."
gleaning laws that required farmers to leave part of their fields unharvested so the poor could come and get some grain for themselves
special concern for the poor. Why? Because the poor so often are exploited and were not treated as members of the "beloved community" (a term that originated with a white 19th century preacher, not MLK).


People today believe they are channeling this same view of community responsibility for God's vision of justice when they advocate for a consistent pro-life ethic; when they seek to regulate payday lending practices; when they work for a safety net (both public and private) for the poor; and in many other ways. They see it as their responsibility to call the community into upholding the biblical vision of justice.

That's why I would say societal justice is about accepting responsibility, calling the community to live up to its values and ideals, not about assuming guilt.

---

I think I agree with everything you've written here. My problem comes when societal justice ( I like your term better ) is automatically tied to white privilege.

If justice is the line, privilege is above the line and injustice is below the line. Accusing a person that live a just life of privilege is insulting and an injustice in itself.

---

Thanks -- I'm glad we seem to be in basic agreement.

To apply this to the specific concept of white privilege:

1. In my mind societal justice is not AUTOMATICALLY about white privilege. Some people treat that differently, of course.
2. At the same time, white people in many ways HAVE enjoyed privileges. We don't think of them as privileges because they tend to involve basic fair treatment that we think should be extended to everyone -- and that most of us extend as a matter of course to everyone. Most of us don't think black people should be treated with suspicion in a store or when walking through a neighborhood simply because they're black, and we wouldn't do such a thing ourselves. Nevertheless, most black people experience being treated with suspicion even if they're not behaving suspiciously. In that sense, the "privilege" I enjoy as a white male is NOT to be treated suspiciously because of my skin color. Every time my sons go out in the car, I don't have to worry that they'll encounter a police officer who is frightened and suspicious and might shoot them.
3. I don't feel personal guilt for something that I didn't do and would never do.
4. But by Bible-based understanding of societal justice tells me that I am responsible for being aware of the unjust way that my fellow human beings are treated, for calling out that injustice and for doing what I can to stop it. That might mean using my voice to speak out. In this country -- unlike a repressive state like Russia or China -- it should mean using whatever power I have to influence political outcomes that increase justice. (Just because early Christians like Paul lacked political power to end slavery doesn't mean I'm excused from trying to influence the political system when I see injustice.)

The attitude of the prophets is kind of nicely summed up in the last line of these verses by the poet W.H. Auden:
"There is no such thing as the state
And no one exists alone.
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police.
We must love one another or die."

Note that he says "we." The obligation is on us communally, and the consequences (or die) fall on us as a community.

---

thoughtful conversation going on in those exchanges.

The problem is that the two of you have come to an agreement about what social justice means which is substantially discrete from from the ideological structures of CRT. That is the error Christian theologians make when they try to pick & choose pieces from a political ideology that seem congruent with tenets of faith. THEY may see a convergence of ideas, but the political ideologues driving the agenda usually don't see it that way at all. The politicos may go along with it, as such facilitates the advance of their ideas, just as marxists used "fellow travelers" to put a more palatable gloss on marxist dialectics. The reality is - critical theories see Christianity is a part of systemic oppression just as faith was part of cultural hegemony, an "opiate of the masses," to marxist ideologues.

That dynamic is what prompts Lindsay to describe CRT a box with pretty wrapping that makes people want to pick it up. But the thing inside the box does not match what's on the outside of the box. He's new to public speaking, and it shows, but he pretty well nails it here:

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/03/james-lindsay-truth-critical-methods/

---

The thing is: I don't care what Christian theologians think, and I don't read their writings. I don't care what academics trying to construct a framework that they label CRT think, so I don't know what exactly their ideological structures are (definitions actually seem to be part of the problem here, as it sounds like there's not a definition of CRT that everybody agrees on).

On the issue of societal justice, I start with my reading and understanding of the Bible and go from there. That's the example of John Wesley, founder of the Methodist movement; his understanding of Paul's letter to Philemon influenced his involvement in the anti-slavery movement.

There is always a risk that we will make biblical interpretations fit our political inclinations. I try not to do that, but reality checks are always necessary.

Bottom line: Grand political theories don't much interest me, but I stand by what the Bible says about justice.

---

Good points.

My main point is that the idea of systemic racism is consistent with what the Bible says.

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

whiterock said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Both restorative justice and retributive justice, by definition, assumes guilt. Is that what social justice also does, assumes guilt?

---

Societal justice (social justice, if you prefer) does not assume guilt in the way that I understand it. As I said, my understanding stems from the Bible, where this concept originated. Others today may have a different understanding.

Rather than assuming guilt, the Biblical concept of societal justice -- as proclaimed by prophets like Isaiah, Amos, Micah and Jeremiah -- is about calling the whole society, collectively and individually, to account for upholding God's vision of a just society; that is, a society in which all people are treated with the human dignity and concern that reflects their status as children made in the image of God. This includes personal behavior but goes beyond that. The prophets say that everyone shares some responsibility for upholding God's vision of justice because the society as a whole suffers when injustice is common. People live in community, not in isolation; therefore, justice is a community responsibility as well as an individual one.

Some of the "justice issues" that the prophets were concerned about --- and called on the community to address:

making sure that widows and orphans (who almost always were poor) were cared for. (The apostles are living into this command when they organize an effort within their community, led by Stephen, to care for poor widows.)
using honest weights and measures so as not to defraud people (still an issue today)
predatory lending (as we would call it today); this is why the Torah specifically says that, if you take someone's coat as collateral for a loan, you have to give it back before nightfall so the borrower can keep warm. Amos denounces the society of the Northern Kingdom of Israel for allowing lenders "to sell the poor for a pair of sandals."
gleaning laws that required farmers to leave part of their fields unharvested so the poor could come and get some grain for themselves
special concern for the poor. Why? Because the poor so often are exploited and were not treated as members of the "beloved community" (a term that originated with a white 19th century preacher, not MLK).


People today believe they are channeling this same view of community responsibility for God's vision of justice when they advocate for a consistent pro-life ethic; when they seek to regulate payday lending practices; when they work for a safety net (both public and private) for the poor; and in many other ways. They see it as their responsibility to call the community into upholding the biblical vision of justice.

That's why I would say societal justice is about accepting responsibility, calling the community to live up to its values and ideals, not about assuming guilt.

---

I think I agree with everything you've written here. My problem comes when societal justice ( I like your term better ) is automatically tied to white privilege.

If justice is the line, privilege is above the line and injustice is below the line. Accusing a person that live a just life of privilege is insulting and an injustice in itself.

---

Thanks -- I'm glad we seem to be in basic agreement.

To apply this to the specific concept of white privilege:

1. In my mind societal justice is not AUTOMATICALLY about white privilege. Some people treat that differently, of course.
2. At the same time, white people in many ways HAVE enjoyed privileges. We don't think of them as privileges because they tend to involve basic fair treatment that we think should be extended to everyone -- and that most of us extend as a matter of course to everyone. Most of us don't think black people should be treated with suspicion in a store or when walking through a neighborhood simply because they're black, and we wouldn't do such a thing ourselves. Nevertheless, most black people experience being treated with suspicion even if they're not behaving suspiciously. In that sense, the "privilege" I enjoy as a white male is NOT to be treated suspiciously because of my skin color. Every time my sons go out in the car, I don't have to worry that they'll encounter a police officer who is frightened and suspicious and might shoot them.
3. I don't feel personal guilt for something that I didn't do and would never do.
4. But by Bible-based understanding of societal justice tells me that I am responsible for being aware of the unjust way that my fellow human beings are treated, for calling out that injustice and for doing what I can to stop it. That might mean using my voice to speak out. In this country -- unlike a repressive state like Russia or China -- it should mean using whatever power I have to influence political outcomes that increase justice. (Just because early Christians like Paul lacked political power to end slavery doesn't mean I'm excused from trying to influence the political system when I see injustice.)

The attitude of the prophets is kind of nicely summed up in the last line of these verses by the poet W.H. Auden:
"There is no such thing as the state
And no one exists alone.
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police.
We must love one another or die."

Note that he says "we." The obligation is on us communally, and the consequences (or die) fall on us as a community.

---

thoughtful conversation going on in those exchanges.

The problem is that the two of you have come to an agreement about what social justice means which is substantially discrete from from the ideological structures of CRT. That is the error Christian theologians make when they try to pick & choose pieces from a political ideology that seem congruent with tenets of faith. THEY may see a convergence of ideas, but the political ideologues driving the agenda usually don't see it that way at all. The politicos may go along with it, as such facilitates the advance of their ideas, just as marxists used "fellow travelers" to put a more palatable gloss on marxist dialectics. The reality is - critical theories see Christianity is a part of systemic oppression just as faith was part of cultural hegemony, an "opiate of the masses," to marxist ideologues.

That dynamic is what prompts Lindsay to describe CRT a box with pretty wrapping that makes people want to pick it up. But the thing inside the box does not match what's on the outside of the box. He's new to public speaking, and it shows, but he pretty well nails it here:

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/03/james-lindsay-truth-critical-methods/

---

The thing is: I don't care what Christian theologians think, and I don't read their writings. I don't care what academics trying to construct a framework that they label CRT think, so I don't know what exactly their ideological structures are (definitions actually seem to be part of the problem here, as it sounds like there's not a definition of CRT that everybody agrees on).

On the issue of societal justice, I start with my reading and understanding of the Bible and go from there. That's the example of John Wesley, founder of the Methodist movement; his understanding of Paul's letter to Philemon influenced his involvement in the anti-slavery movement.

There is always a risk that we will make biblical interpretations fit our political inclinations. I try not to do that, but reality checks are always necessary.

Bottom line: Grand political theories don't much interest me, but I stand by what the Bible says about justice.

---

I agree, Bubba. We have sixty-six books of Scripture to help us hear God's will.

My main concern is that we should take our duty seriously as individuals, and treat every individual person as someone made in the image of God.

Treating people as groups makes it too easy to discount individuals or treat them as objects.

---

Talking about individual responsibility is good but incomplete. The scriptures speak of corporate sin. Sometimes we commit sins as members of a social group that we wouldn't commit as an individual.

Furthermore, changing individual behavior doesn't change the law and it may not change culture.

bubbadog said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

The thing is: I don't care what Christian theologians think, and I don't read their writings. I don't care what academics trying to construct a framework that they label CRT think, so I don't know what exactly their ideological structures are (definitions actually seem to be part of the problem here, as it sounds like there's not a definition of CRT that everybody agrees on).

On the issue of societal justice, I start with my reading and understanding of the Bible and go from there. That's the example of John Wesley, founder of the Methodist movement; his understanding of Paul's letter to Philemon influenced his involvement in the anti-slavery movement.

There is always a risk that we will make biblical interpretations fit our political inclinations. I try not to do that, but reality checks are always necessary.

Bottom line: Grand political theories don't much interest me, but I stand by what the Bible says about justice.

---

I agree, Bubba. We have sixty-six books of Scripture to help us hear God's will.

My main concern is that we should take our duty seriously as individuals, and treat every individual person as someone made in the image of God.

Treating people as groups makes it too easy to discount individuals or treat them as objects.

---

Yes. What you've written and what I bolded above is why I contend that everything the Bible goes on to say about how God wants human beings to relate to each other flows from that very first chapter in Genesis. Why does Jesus teach that, as people have treated "the least of these," so they have treated him? Because the least of these are made in the image of God, just like everyone else. Why the commandments against killing, stealing, adultery? Because those actions do harm to someone made in God's image? Why the command to love your neighbor (and to love the resident alien in your land)? Because they are all made in God's image. I could go on, but you get the picture.

And when you view it like this, it's very difficult to escape the conclusion that the whole Biblical idea of justice is rooted in that foundational verse from Genesis. If justice means being treated with the respect and dignity that properly belongs to all of God's children, then justice is necessarily a birthright (an idea that Jefferson was getting at with the "all men are created equal with inalienable rights" language).

Yes, treating people as groups is wrong. A problem is that many people in our country, both currently and historically, have been treated unjustly because they were members of a particular group. Whatever else we may do today about historic injustices (a whole separate discussion), we ought to at least acknowledge the failure to uphold God's justice.

---

Again, corporate sin and addressing the sin of groups IS biblical. And changing individual behavior doesn't necessarily change corporate sin.

For example, in the early 1960s, segregation in education was the law. An individual teacher might allow a black child in her class, but the state would intervene and remove the black child from the class. And then post guards to make sure no other black children entered. How would individual action change that?

George Truett said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

whiterock said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Both restorative justice and retributive justice, by definition, assumes guilt. Is that what social justice also does, assumes guilt?

---

Societal justice (social justice, if you prefer) does not assume guilt in the way that I understand it. As I said, my understanding stems from the Bible, where this concept originated. Others today may have a different understanding.

Rather than assuming guilt, the Biblical concept of societal justice -- as proclaimed by prophets like Isaiah, Amos, Micah and Jeremiah -- is about calling the whole society, collectively and individually, to account for upholding God's vision of a just society; that is, a society in which all people are treated with the human dignity and concern that reflects their status as children made in the image of God. This includes personal behavior but goes beyond that. The prophets say that everyone shares some responsibility for upholding God's vision of justice because the society as a whole suffers when injustice is common. People live in community, not in isolation; therefore, justice is a community responsibility as well as an individual one.

Some of the "justice issues" that the prophets were concerned about --- and called on the community to address:

making sure that widows and orphans (who almost always were poor) were cared for. (The apostles are living into this command when they organize an effort within their community, led by Stephen, to care for poor widows.)
using honest weights and measures so as not to defraud people (still an issue today)
predatory lending (as we would call it today); this is why the Torah specifically says that, if you take someone's coat as collateral for a loan, you have to give it back before nightfall so the borrower can keep warm. Amos denounces the society of the Northern Kingdom of Israel for allowing lenders "to sell the poor for a pair of sandals."
gleaning laws that required farmers to leave part of their fields unharvested so the poor could come and get some grain for themselves
special concern for the poor. Why? Because the poor so often are exploited and were not treated as members of the "beloved community" (a term that originated with a white 19th century preacher, not MLK).


People today believe they are channeling this same view of community responsibility for God's vision of justice when they advocate for a consistent pro-life ethic; when they seek to regulate payday lending practices; when they work for a safety net (both public and private) for the poor; and in many other ways. They see it as their responsibility to call the community into upholding the biblical vision of justice.

That's why I would say societal justice is about accepting responsibility, calling the community to live up to its values and ideals, not about assuming guilt.

---

I think I agree with everything you've written here. My problem comes when societal justice ( I like your term better ) is automatically tied to white privilege.

If justice is the line, privilege is above the line and injustice is below the line. Accusing a person that live a just life of privilege is insulting and an injustice in itself.

---

Thanks -- I'm glad we seem to be in basic agreement.

To apply this to the specific concept of white privilege:

1. In my mind societal justice is not AUTOMATICALLY about white privilege. Some people treat that differently, of course.
2. At the same time, white people in many ways HAVE enjoyed privileges. We don't think of them as privileges because they tend to involve basic fair treatment that we think should be extended to everyone -- and that most of us extend as a matter of course to everyone. Most of us don't think black people should be treated with suspicion in a store or when walking through a neighborhood simply because they're black, and we wouldn't do such a thing ourselves. Nevertheless, most black people experience being treated with suspicion even if they're not behaving suspiciously. In that sense, the "privilege" I enjoy as a white male is NOT to be treated suspiciously because of my skin color. Every time my sons go out in the car, I don't have to worry that they'll encounter a police officer who is frightened and suspicious and might shoot them.
3. I don't feel personal guilt for something that I didn't do and would never do.
4. But by Bible-based understanding of societal justice tells me that I am responsible for being aware of the unjust way that my fellow human beings are treated, for calling out that injustice and for doing what I can to stop it. That might mean using my voice to speak out. In this country -- unlike a repressive state like Russia or China -- it should mean using whatever power I have to influence political outcomes that increase justice. (Just because early Christians like Paul lacked political power to end slavery doesn't mean I'm excused from trying to influence the political system when I see injustice.)

The attitude of the prophets is kind of nicely summed up in the last line of these verses by the poet W.H. Auden:
"There is no such thing as the state
And no one exists alone.
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police.
We must love one another or die."

Note that he says "we." The obligation is on us communally, and the consequences (or die) fall on us as a community.

---

thoughtful conversation going on in those exchanges.

The problem is that the two of you have come to an agreement about what social justice means which is substantially discrete from from the ideological structures of CRT. That is the error Christian theologians make when they try to pick & choose pieces from a political ideology that seem congruent with tenets of faith. THEY may see a convergence of ideas, but the political ideologues driving the agenda usually don't see it that way at all. The politicos may go along with it, as such facilitates the advance of their ideas, just as marxists used "fellow travelers" to put a more palatable gloss on marxist dialectics. The reality is - critical theories see Christianity is a part of systemic oppression just as faith was part of cultural hegemony, an "opiate of the masses," to marxist ideologues.

That dynamic is what prompts Lindsay to describe CRT a box with pretty wrapping that makes people want to pick it up. But the thing inside the box does not match what's on the outside of the box. He's new to public speaking, and it shows, but he pretty well nails it here:

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/03/james-lindsay-truth-critical-methods/

---

The thing is: I don't care what Christian theologians think, and I don't read their writings. I don't care what academics trying to construct a framework that they label CRT think, so I don't know what exactly their ideological structures are (definitions actually seem to be part of the problem here, as it sounds like there's not a definition of CRT that everybody agrees on).

On the issue of societal justice, I start with my reading and understanding of the Bible and go from there. That's the example of John Wesley, founder of the Methodist movement; his understanding of Paul's letter to Philemon influenced his involvement in the anti-slavery movement.

There is always a risk that we will make biblical interpretations fit our political inclinations. I try not to do that, but reality checks are always necessary.

Bottom line: Grand political theories don't much interest me, but I stand by what the Bible says about justice.

---

I agree, Bubba. We have sixty-six books of Scripture to help us hear God's will.

My main concern is that we should take our duty seriously as individuals, and treat every individual person as someone made in the image of God.

Treating people as groups makes it too easy to discount individuals or treat them as objects.

---

Talking about individual responsibility is good but incomplete. The scriptures speak of corporate sin. Sometimes we commit sins as members of a social group that we wouldn't commit as an individual.

Furthermore, changing individual behavior doesn't change the law and it may not change culture.

---

Absolutely wrong, the Bible is not about collectivism much less social guilt.

You need a better Bible Study group.

So which is it? Marxist framework, or right-wing hoax?

Oldbear83 said:

---

George Truett said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

whiterock said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Both restorative justice and retributive justice, by definition, assumes guilt. Is that what social justice also does, assumes guilt?

---

Societal justice (social justice, if you prefer) does not assume guilt in the way that I understand it. As I said, my understanding stems from the Bible, where this concept originated. Others today may have a different understanding.

Rather than assuming guilt, the Biblical concept of societal justice -- as proclaimed by prophets like Isaiah, Amos, Micah and Jeremiah -- is about calling the whole society, collectively and individually, to account for upholding God's vision of a just society; that is, a society in which all people are treated with the human dignity and concern that reflects their status as children made in the image of God. This includes personal behavior but goes beyond that. The prophets say that everyone shares some responsibility for upholding God's vision of justice because the society as a whole suffers when injustice is common. People live in community, not in isolation; therefore, justice is a community responsibility as well as an individual one.

Some of the "justice issues" that the prophets were concerned about --- and called on the community to address:

making sure that widows and orphans (who almost always were poor) were cared for. (The apostles are living into this command when they organize an effort within their community, led by Stephen, to care for poor widows.)
using honest weights and measures so as not to defraud people (still an issue today)
predatory lending (as we would call it today); this is why the Torah specifically says that, if you take someone's coat as collateral for a loan, you have to give it back before nightfall so the borrower can keep warm. Amos denounces the society of the Northern Kingdom of Israel for allowing lenders "to sell the poor for a pair of sandals."
gleaning laws that required farmers to leave part of their fields unharvested so the poor could come and get some grain for themselves
special concern for the poor. Why? Because the poor so often are exploited and were not treated as members of the "beloved community" (a term that originated with a white 19th century preacher, not MLK).


People today believe they are channeling this same view of community responsibility for God's vision of justice when they advocate for a consistent pro-life ethic; when they seek to regulate payday lending practices; when they work for a safety net (both public and private) for the poor; and in many other ways. They see it as their responsibility to call the community into upholding the biblical vision of justice.

That's why I would say societal justice is about accepting responsibility, calling the community to live up to its values and ideals, not about assuming guilt.

---

I think I agree with everything you've written here. My problem comes when societal justice ( I like your term better ) is automatically tied to white privilege.

If justice is the line, privilege is above the line and injustice is below the line. Accusing a person that live a just life of privilege is insulting and an injustice in itself.

---

Thanks -- I'm glad we seem to be in basic agreement.

To apply this to the specific concept of white privilege:

1. In my mind societal justice is not AUTOMATICALLY about white privilege. Some people treat that differently, of course.
2. At the same time, white people in many ways HAVE enjoyed privileges. We don't think of them as privileges because they tend to involve basic fair treatment that we think should be extended to everyone -- and that most of us extend as a matter of course to everyone. Most of us don't think black people should be treated with suspicion in a store or when walking through a neighborhood simply because they're black, and we wouldn't do such a thing ourselves. Nevertheless, most black people experience being treated with suspicion even if they're not behaving suspiciously. In that sense, the "privilege" I enjoy as a white male is NOT to be treated suspiciously because of my skin color. Every time my sons go out in the car, I don't have to worry that they'll encounter a police officer who is frightened and suspicious and might shoot them.
3. I don't feel personal guilt for something that I didn't do and would never do.
4. But by Bible-based understanding of societal justice tells me that I am responsible for being aware of the unjust way that my fellow human beings are treated, for calling out that injustice and for doing what I can to stop it. That might mean using my voice to speak out. In this country -- unlike a repressive state like Russia or China -- it should mean using whatever power I have to influence political outcomes that increase justice. (Just because early Christians like Paul lacked political power to end slavery doesn't mean I'm excused from trying to influence the political system when I see injustice.)

The attitude of the prophets is kind of nicely summed up in the last line of these verses by the poet W.H. Auden:
"There is no such thing as the state
And no one exists alone.
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police.
We must love one another or die."

Note that he says "we." The obligation is on us communally, and the consequences (or die) fall on us as a community.

---

thoughtful conversation going on in those exchanges.

The problem is that the two of you have come to an agreement about what social justice means which is substantially discrete from from the ideological structures of CRT. That is the error Christian theologians make when they try to pick & choose pieces from a political ideology that seem congruent with tenets of faith. THEY may see a convergence of ideas, but the political ideologues driving the agenda usually don't see it that way at all. The politicos may go along with it, as such facilitates the advance of their ideas, just as marxists used "fellow travelers" to put a more palatable gloss on marxist dialectics. The reality is - critical theories see Christianity is a part of systemic oppression just as faith was part of cultural hegemony, an "opiate of the masses," to marxist ideologues.

That dynamic is what prompts Lindsay to describe CRT a box with pretty wrapping that makes people want to pick it up. But the thing inside the box does not match what's on the outside of the box. He's new to public speaking, and it shows, but he pretty well nails it here:

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/03/james-lindsay-truth-critical-methods/

---

The thing is: I don't care what Christian theologians think, and I don't read their writings. I don't care what academics trying to construct a framework that they label CRT think, so I don't know what exactly their ideological structures are (definitions actually seem to be part of the problem here, as it sounds like there's not a definition of CRT that everybody agrees on).

On the issue of societal justice, I start with my reading and understanding of the Bible and go from there. That's the example of John Wesley, founder of the Methodist movement; his understanding of Paul's letter to Philemon influenced his involvement in the anti-slavery movement.

There is always a risk that we will make biblical interpretations fit our political inclinations. I try not to do that, but reality checks are always necessary.

Bottom line: Grand political theories don't much interest me, but I stand by what the Bible says about justice.

---

I agree, Bubba. We have sixty-six books of Scripture to help us hear God's will.

My main concern is that we should take our duty seriously as individuals, and treat every individual person as someone made in the image of God.

Treating people as groups makes it too easy to discount individuals or treat them as objects.

---

Talking about individual responsibility is good but incomplete. The scriptures speak of corporate sin. Sometimes we commit sins as members of a social group that we wouldn't commit as an individual.

Furthermore, changing individual behavior doesn't change the law and it may not change culture.

---

Absolutely wrong, the Bible is not about collectivism much less social guilt.

You need a better Bible Study group.

---

The Bible talks a lot of social guilt. Read the prophets! Read Amos 2:6-7. God calls out the sins of Israel. Not just individual Israelites. Of the nation. In Isaiah 34:1ff, the prophet speaks of God's judgment against the nations. Not just individuals in those nations. Entire countries. Jeremiah 10:25; Micah 5:15, and lots of other passages use the same language.

In fact, the focus on individual sin and responsibility is a later development in the Old Testament.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Why does the word "justice" need a modifier like "social"? Isn't justice, justice? And, doesn't a modifier automatically create classes of those described by the modifier and those not described by the modifier? And, if it doesn't, then what is the purpose of the modifier to begin with? (full circle)

---

We modify it often: restorative justice, retributive justice, etc.

---

Perhaps you missed the very first word in my post, "why".

Yes we do attach a modifier to justice often as you demonstrated but, you didn't answer the question, why. In this topic, what does the word "social" do other than separate? And again the question, why?

---

I'll take a stab at this. For me, the answer to your question comes from the Bible.

In our society that emphasizes individualism, we tend to think of justice as a term that applies to individuals -- bringing lawbreakers to justice, getting "justice" for crime victims, etc. And so to our ears the term "social justice" may sound more political than societal.

But the OT prophets thought of this in precisely the opposite way. Every thing they talked about involved the effects of behavior on the entire society, not just individuals. When Amos rails against those who would sell the poor for a pair of sandals (a complaint that sounds an awful lot like payday lending, which clearly goes against Torah). When Isaiah talks about the treatment of widows and orphans, or inveighs against "those who join house to house, until there is no more room left in the land," he is talking about much more than individual conduct. The prophets connect widespread bad behavior by individuals to a sickness that infects the entire society, causing the society to fall away from a state of shalom; that is, a state of peace that comes over an entire society when the norm is that people uphold the dignity of their neighbors as children of God, as God wishes (justice) so that they then can be in right relationship with God (righteousness). When the prophets speak of justice, which to them is inseparable from righteousness (the words tend to occur together in their writings), they are talking about the entire society. We might call that social justice. Perhaps a better term would be societal justice. Either way, it's about much more than individuals.

The argument often gets made that ancient Israel, unlike America, was a theocracy; therefore, the words of the prophets don't equally apply. But that's flawed. Israel stopped being a theocracy after the time of the Judges (and even then, theocracy was more a theoretical concept than a real one). The prophets wrote during the time of the monarchy, and the Bible tells us that the kings mostly did what was evil in God's sight. The prophets had no more power to dictate behavior by kings than a respected religious figure in our own day might be able to dictate what the president does. Their authority was moral, not political, and they used their moral authority to remind rulers and people in the society of what God wanted and expected. That is not much different than the work of modern-day prophets who call our society to account for behavior that goes against what God wants and expects.

It is sometimes puzzling to me that so many Christians treat the term "social justice" as anathema to our religion, when that is pretty much what the prophets in our Bible (whom Jesus liberally quoted) were really talking about.

---

So...God's prophets railed against people for the collective societal effect of their individual bad behavior.

What then, would the prophets say about the murder, violent crime, abortion, and fatherless home problem in black communities?

According to your biblical concept of "social justice", this would and should apply. But the concept of social justice today in our society is only really applied to what happens between groups (oppressors vs victims), not within them. If you are a victim group, you are virtually absolved of all blame for your bad behavior. In fact, the blame for your own behavior is placed on the "oppressors".

Another question: today, an example of "social justice" would be the issue of same-sex marriage. Do you really think that God would view not allowing it as an "injustice"?? There is a huge disconnect between the godly, biblical idea of "justice" and the world's idea. That's another problem with trying to tie the idea of "social justice" to the bible.

---

What we call family values and social justice are both aspects of biblical justice.

---

It depends on what you mean by social justice and what that encompasses. If social justice relates to the bible in the way bubbadog says, then we would point to it within the black community, but we don't. And the concept of LGBT rights is definitely not biblical.

---

I think we point to it in the black community quite a bit. I still hear more about fatherless black families than white ones, even though it's a growing problem among whites.

I agree about LGBT issues. Marriage, divorce, abortion, etc. are all matters of justice relating particularly to women and children.

Sam Lowry said:

---

So which is it? Marxist framework, or right-wing hoax?

---

Read a little more carefully.

Something that is "informed" by something isn't "framed" by something.

The article clearly disagrees with Marxism as a whole. But that doesn't mean Marx was wrong about everything.

In the end, informed or framed doesn't matter in terms of consistency with the scriptures. The scriptures are not only consistent with legal and social brokenness. They teach it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

George Truett said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

whiterock said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Both restorative justice and retributive justice, by definition, assumes guilt. Is that what social justice also does, assumes guilt?

---

Societal justice (social justice, if you prefer) does not assume guilt in the way that I understand it. As I said, my understanding stems from the Bible, where this concept originated. Others today may have a different understanding.

Rather than assuming guilt, the Biblical concept of societal justice -- as proclaimed by prophets like Isaiah, Amos, Micah and Jeremiah -- is about calling the whole society, collectively and individually, to account for upholding God's vision of a just society; that is, a society in which all people are treated with the human dignity and concern that reflects their status as children made in the image of God. This includes personal behavior but goes beyond that. The prophets say that everyone shares some responsibility for upholding God's vision of justice because the society as a whole suffers when injustice is common. People live in community, not in isolation; therefore, justice is a community responsibility as well as an individual one.

Some of the "justice issues" that the prophets were concerned about --- and called on the community to address:

making sure that widows and orphans (who almost always were poor) were cared for. (The apostles are living into this command when they organize an effort within their community, led by Stephen, to care for poor widows.)
using honest weights and measures so as not to defraud people (still an issue today)
predatory lending (as we would call it today); this is why the Torah specifically says that, if you take someone's coat as collateral for a loan, you have to give it back before nightfall so the borrower can keep warm. Amos denounces the society of the Northern Kingdom of Israel for allowing lenders "to sell the poor for a pair of sandals."
gleaning laws that required farmers to leave part of their fields unharvested so the poor could come and get some grain for themselves
special concern for the poor. Why? Because the poor so often are exploited and were not treated as members of the "beloved community" (a term that originated with a white 19th century preacher, not MLK).


People today believe they are channeling this same view of community responsibility for God's vision of justice when they advocate for a consistent pro-life ethic; when they seek to regulate payday lending practices; when they work for a safety net (both public and private) for the poor; and in many other ways. They see it as their responsibility to call the community into upholding the biblical vision of justice.

That's why I would say societal justice is about accepting responsibility, calling the community to live up to its values and ideals, not about assuming guilt.

---

I think I agree with everything you've written here. My problem comes when societal justice ( I like your term better ) is automatically tied to white privilege.

If justice is the line, privilege is above the line and injustice is below the line. Accusing a person that live a just life of privilege is insulting and an injustice in itself.

---

Thanks -- I'm glad we seem to be in basic agreement.

To apply this to the specific concept of white privilege:

1. In my mind societal justice is not AUTOMATICALLY about white privilege. Some people treat that differently, of course.
2. At the same time, white people in many ways HAVE enjoyed privileges. We don't think of them as privileges because they tend to involve basic fair treatment that we think should be extended to everyone -- and that most of us extend as a matter of course to everyone. Most of us don't think black people should be treated with suspicion in a store or when walking through a neighborhood simply because they're black, and we wouldn't do such a thing ourselves. Nevertheless, most black people experience being treated with suspicion even if they're not behaving suspiciously. In that sense, the "privilege" I enjoy as a white male is NOT to be treated suspiciously because of my skin color. Every time my sons go out in the car, I don't have to worry that they'll encounter a police officer who is frightened and suspicious and might shoot them.
3. I don't feel personal guilt for something that I didn't do and would never do.
4. But by Bible-based understanding of societal justice tells me that I am responsible for being aware of the unjust way that my fellow human beings are treated, for calling out that injustice and for doing what I can to stop it. That might mean using my voice to speak out. In this country -- unlike a repressive state like Russia or China -- it should mean using whatever power I have to influence political outcomes that increase justice. (Just because early Christians like Paul lacked political power to end slavery doesn't mean I'm excused from trying to influence the political system when I see injustice.)

The attitude of the prophets is kind of nicely summed up in the last line of these verses by the poet W.H. Auden:
"There is no such thing as the state
And no one exists alone.
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police.
We must love one another or die."

Note that he says "we." The obligation is on us communally, and the consequences (or die) fall on us as a community.

---

thoughtful conversation going on in those exchanges.

The problem is that the two of you have come to an agreement about what social justice means which is substantially discrete from from the ideological structures of CRT. That is the error Christian theologians make when they try to pick & choose pieces from a political ideology that seem congruent with tenets of faith. THEY may see a convergence of ideas, but the political ideologues driving the agenda usually don't see it that way at all. The politicos may go along with it, as such facilitates the advance of their ideas, just as marxists used "fellow travelers" to put a more palatable gloss on marxist dialectics. The reality is - critical theories see Christianity is a part of systemic oppression just as faith was part of cultural hegemony, an "opiate of the masses," to marxist ideologues.

That dynamic is what prompts Lindsay to describe CRT a box with pretty wrapping that makes people want to pick it up. But the thing inside the box does not match what's on the outside of the box. He's new to public speaking, and it shows, but he pretty well nails it here:

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/03/james-lindsay-truth-critical-methods/

---

The thing is: I don't care what Christian theologians think, and I don't read their writings. I don't care what academics trying to construct a framework that they label CRT think, so I don't know what exactly their ideological structures are (definitions actually seem to be part of the problem here, as it sounds like there's not a definition of CRT that everybody agrees on).

On the issue of societal justice, I start with my reading and understanding of the Bible and go from there. That's the example of John Wesley, founder of the Methodist movement; his understanding of Paul's letter to Philemon influenced his involvement in the anti-slavery movement.

There is always a risk that we will make biblical interpretations fit our political inclinations. I try not to do that, but reality checks are always necessary.

Bottom line: Grand political theories don't much interest me, but I stand by what the Bible says about justice.

---

I agree, Bubba. We have sixty-six books of Scripture to help us hear God's will.

My main concern is that we should take our duty seriously as individuals, and treat every individual person as someone made in the image of God.

Treating people as groups makes it too easy to discount individuals or treat them as objects.

---

Talking about individual responsibility is good but incomplete. The scriptures speak of corporate sin. Sometimes we commit sins as members of a social group that we wouldn't commit as an individual.

Furthermore, changing individual behavior doesn't change the law and it may not change culture.

---

Absolutely wrong, the Bible is not about collectivism much less social guilt.

You need a better Bible Study group.

---

Collectivism is something very different from community responsibility for the common good.
Biblical Israel did not practice collectivism. But many of its laws (2 examples are the year of debt forgiveness and the gleaning laws) were predicated on the theological understanding that God charged the whole community with shared responsibility for seeing that the poor had enough to get by and that no one in the community was reduced to a state of permanent destitution or permanent enslavement due to debts.

This idea actually was present in early America through the Puritans, who also understood their community to be an organic whole despite its individual members and individual property owners and despite the varied economic status of some of those members.

George Truett said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

George Truett said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

whiterock said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Both restorative justice and retributive justice, by definition, assumes guilt. Is that what social justice also does, assumes guilt?

---

Societal justice (social justice, if you prefer) does not assume guilt in the way that I understand it. As I said, my understanding stems from the Bible, where this concept originated. Others today may have a different understanding.

Rather than assuming guilt, the Biblical concept of societal justice -- as proclaimed by prophets like Isaiah, Amos, Micah and Jeremiah -- is about calling the whole society, collectively and individually, to account for upholding God's vision of a just society; that is, a society in which all people are treated with the human dignity and concern that reflects their status as children made in the image of God. This includes personal behavior but goes beyond that. The prophets say that everyone shares some responsibility for upholding God's vision of justice because the society as a whole suffers when injustice is common. People live in community, not in isolation; therefore, justice is a community responsibility as well as an individual one.

Some of the "justice issues" that the prophets were concerned about --- and called on the community to address:

making sure that widows and orphans (who almost always were poor) were cared for. (The apostles are living into this command when they organize an effort within their community, led by Stephen, to care for poor widows.)
using honest weights and measures so as not to defraud people (still an issue today)
predatory lending (as we would call it today); this is why the Torah specifically says that, if you take someone's coat as collateral for a loan, you have to give it back before nightfall so the borrower can keep warm. Amos denounces the society of the Northern Kingdom of Israel for allowing lenders "to sell the poor for a pair of sandals."
gleaning laws that required farmers to leave part of their fields unharvested so the poor could come and get some grain for themselves
special concern for the poor. Why? Because the poor so often are exploited and were not treated as members of the "beloved community" (a term that originated with a white 19th century preacher, not MLK).


People today believe they are channeling this same view of community responsibility for God's vision of justice when they advocate for a consistent pro-life ethic; when they seek to regulate payday lending practices; when they work for a safety net (both public and private) for the poor; and in many other ways. They see it as their responsibility to call the community into upholding the biblical vision of justice.

That's why I would say societal justice is about accepting responsibility, calling the community to live up to its values and ideals, not about assuming guilt.

---

I think I agree with everything you've written here. My problem comes when societal justice ( I like your term better ) is automatically tied to white privilege.

If justice is the line, privilege is above the line and injustice is below the line. Accusing a person that live a just life of privilege is insulting and an injustice in itself.

---

Thanks -- I'm glad we seem to be in basic agreement.

To apply this to the specific concept of white privilege:

1. In my mind societal justice is not AUTOMATICALLY about white privilege. Some people treat that differently, of course.
2. At the same time, white people in many ways HAVE enjoyed privileges. We don't think of them as privileges because they tend to involve basic fair treatment that we think should be extended to everyone -- and that most of us extend as a matter of course to everyone. Most of us don't think black people should be treated with suspicion in a store or when walking through a neighborhood simply because they're black, and we wouldn't do such a thing ourselves. Nevertheless, most black people experience being treated with suspicion even if they're not behaving suspiciously. In that sense, the "privilege" I enjoy as a white male is NOT to be treated suspiciously because of my skin color. Every time my sons go out in the car, I don't have to worry that they'll encounter a police officer who is frightened and suspicious and might shoot them.
3. I don't feel personal guilt for something that I didn't do and would never do.
4. But by Bible-based understanding of societal justice tells me that I am responsible for being aware of the unjust way that my fellow human beings are treated, for calling out that injustice and for doing what I can to stop it. That might mean using my voice to speak out. In this country -- unlike a repressive state like Russia or China -- it should mean using whatever power I have to influence political outcomes that increase justice. (Just because early Christians like Paul lacked political power to end slavery doesn't mean I'm excused from trying to influence the political system when I see injustice.)

The attitude of the prophets is kind of nicely summed up in the last line of these verses by the poet W.H. Auden:
"There is no such thing as the state
And no one exists alone.
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police.
We must love one another or die."

Note that he says "we." The obligation is on us communally, and the consequences (or die) fall on us as a community.

---

thoughtful conversation going on in those exchanges.

The problem is that the two of you have come to an agreement about what social justice means which is substantially discrete from from the ideological structures of CRT. That is the error Christian theologians make when they try to pick & choose pieces from a political ideology that seem congruent with tenets of faith. THEY may see a convergence of ideas, but the political ideologues driving the agenda usually don't see it that way at all. The politicos may go along with it, as such facilitates the advance of their ideas, just as marxists used "fellow travelers" to put a more palatable gloss on marxist dialectics. The reality is - critical theories see Christianity is a part of systemic oppression just as faith was part of cultural hegemony, an "opiate of the masses," to marxist ideologues.

That dynamic is what prompts Lindsay to describe CRT a box with pretty wrapping that makes people want to pick it up. But the thing inside the box does not match what's on the outside of the box. He's new to public speaking, and it shows, but he pretty well nails it here:

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/03/james-lindsay-truth-critical-methods/

---

The thing is: I don't care what Christian theologians think, and I don't read their writings. I don't care what academics trying to construct a framework that they label CRT think, so I don't know what exactly their ideological structures are (definitions actually seem to be part of the problem here, as it sounds like there's not a definition of CRT that everybody agrees on).

On the issue of societal justice, I start with my reading and understanding of the Bible and go from there. That's the example of John Wesley, founder of the Methodist movement; his understanding of Paul's letter to Philemon influenced his involvement in the anti-slavery movement.

There is always a risk that we will make biblical interpretations fit our political inclinations. I try not to do that, but reality checks are always necessary.

Bottom line: Grand political theories don't much interest me, but I stand by what the Bible says about justice.

---

I agree, Bubba. We have sixty-six books of Scripture to help us hear God's will.

My main concern is that we should take our duty seriously as individuals, and treat every individual person as someone made in the image of God.

Treating people as groups makes it too easy to discount individuals or treat them as objects.

---

Talking about individual responsibility is good but incomplete. The scriptures speak of corporate sin. Sometimes we commit sins as members of a social group that we wouldn't commit as an individual.

Furthermore, changing individual behavior doesn't change the law and it may not change culture.

---

Absolutely wrong, the Bible is not about collectivism much less social guilt.

You need a better Bible Study group.

---

The Bible talks a lot of social guilt. Read the prophets! Read Amos 2:6-7. God calls out the sins of Israel. Not just individual Israelites. Of the nation. In Isaiah 34:1ff, the prophet speaks of God's judgment against the nations. Not just individuals in those nations. Entire countries. Jeremiah 10:25; Micah 5:15, and lots of other passages use the same language.

In fact, the focus on individual sin and responsibility is a later development in the Old Testament.

---

Context, George. Israel pre-Christ was a monarchy with a corrupt class system.

You might want to go back and read those verses in the context of to whom they were written, and why.

George Truett said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So which is it? Marxist framework, or right-wing hoax?

---

In the end, informed or framed doesn't matter in terms of consistency with the scriptures.

---

I agree, so back to my question?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Context, George. Israel pre-Christ was a monarchy with a corrupt class system.

You might want to go back and read those verses in the context of to whom they were written, and why.

---

To put this context in a little more context:

Yes, these prophets (mostly) were writing during the period of Israel's monarchy. (I was taught at BU that Isaiah Ch. 40-66 were written during and after the exile).

But this somewhat misses the point, as the prophets were calling the nation back to the principles that God established in Torah, which predates the monarchy and were meant to define who they were as a people.

If you're arguing that these precepts about share responsibility no longer applied under a monarchy (not sure you ARE arguing that), then I don't see how you get there.

[The political left has never understood that, if you give the government enough power to create 'social justice,' you have given it enough power to create despotism. Millions of people around the world have paid with their lives for overlooking that simple fact."] -Thomas Sowell

George Truett said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

George Truett said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

whiterock said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Both restorative justice and retributive justice, by definition, assumes guilt. Is that what social justice also does, assumes guilt?

---

Societal justice (social justice, if you prefer) does not assume guilt in the way that I understand it. As I said, my understanding stems from the Bible, where this concept originated. Others today may have a different understanding.

Rather than assuming guilt, the Biblical concept of societal justice -- as proclaimed by prophets like Isaiah, Amos, Micah and Jeremiah -- is about calling the whole society, collectively and individually, to account for upholding God's vision of a just society; that is, a society in which all people are treated with the human dignity and concern that reflects their status as children made in the image of God. This includes personal behavior but goes beyond that. The prophets say that everyone shares some responsibility for upholding God's vision of justice because the society as a whole suffers when injustice is common. People live in community, not in isolation; therefore, justice is a community responsibility as well as an individual one.

Some of the "justice issues" that the prophets were concerned about --- and called on the community to address:

making sure that widows and orphans (who almost always were poor) were cared for. (The apostles are living into this command when they organize an effort within their community, led by Stephen, to care for poor widows.)
using honest weights and measures so as not to defraud people (still an issue today)
predatory lending (as we would call it today); this is why the Torah specifically says that, if you take someone's coat as collateral for a loan, you have to give it back before nightfall so the borrower can keep warm. Amos denounces the society of the Northern Kingdom of Israel for allowing lenders "to sell the poor for a pair of sandals."
gleaning laws that required farmers to leave part of their fields unharvested so the poor could come and get some grain for themselves
special concern for the poor. Why? Because the poor so often are exploited and were not treated as members of the "beloved community" (a term that originated with a white 19th century preacher, not MLK).


People today believe they are channeling this same view of community responsibility for God's vision of justice when they advocate for a consistent pro-life ethic; when they seek to regulate payday lending practices; when they work for a safety net (both public and private) for the poor; and in many other ways. They see it as their responsibility to call the community into upholding the biblical vision of justice.

That's why I would say societal justice is about accepting responsibility, calling the community to live up to its values and ideals, not about assuming guilt.

---

I think I agree with everything you've written here. My problem comes when societal justice ( I like your term better ) is automatically tied to white privilege.

If justice is the line, privilege is above the line and injustice is below the line. Accusing a person that live a just life of privilege is insulting and an injustice in itself.

---

Thanks -- I'm glad we seem to be in basic agreement.

To apply this to the specific concept of white privilege:

1. In my mind societal justice is not AUTOMATICALLY about white privilege. Some people treat that differently, of course.
2. At the same time, white people in many ways HAVE enjoyed privileges. We don't think of them as privileges because they tend to involve basic fair treatment that we think should be extended to everyone -- and that most of us extend as a matter of course to everyone. Most of us don't think black people should be treated with suspicion in a store or when walking through a neighborhood simply because they're black, and we wouldn't do such a thing ourselves. Nevertheless, most black people experience being treated with suspicion even if they're not behaving suspiciously. In that sense, the "privilege" I enjoy as a white male is NOT to be treated suspiciously because of my skin color. Every time my sons go out in the car, I don't have to worry that they'll encounter a police officer who is frightened and suspicious and might shoot them.
3. I don't feel personal guilt for something that I didn't do and would never do.
4. But by Bible-based understanding of societal justice tells me that I am responsible for being aware of the unjust way that my fellow human beings are treated, for calling out that injustice and for doing what I can to stop it. That might mean using my voice to speak out. In this country -- unlike a repressive state like Russia or China -- it should mean using whatever power I have to influence political outcomes that increase justice. (Just because early Christians like Paul lacked political power to end slavery doesn't mean I'm excused from trying to influence the political system when I see injustice.)

The attitude of the prophets is kind of nicely summed up in the last line of these verses by the poet W.H. Auden:
"There is no such thing as the state
And no one exists alone.
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police.
We must love one another or die."

Note that he says "we." The obligation is on us communally, and the consequences (or die) fall on us as a community.

---

thoughtful conversation going on in those exchanges.

The problem is that the two of you have come to an agreement about what social justice means which is substantially discrete from from the ideological structures of CRT. That is the error Christian theologians make when they try to pick & choose pieces from a political ideology that seem congruent with tenets of faith. THEY may see a convergence of ideas, but the political ideologues driving the agenda usually don't see it that way at all. The politicos may go along with it, as such facilitates the advance of their ideas, just as marxists used "fellow travelers" to put a more palatable gloss on marxist dialectics. The reality is - critical theories see Christianity is a part of systemic oppression just as faith was part of cultural hegemony, an "opiate of the masses," to marxist ideologues.

That dynamic is what prompts Lindsay to describe CRT a box with pretty wrapping that makes people want to pick it up. But the thing inside the box does not match what's on the outside of the box. He's new to public speaking, and it shows, but he pretty well nails it here:

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/03/james-lindsay-truth-critical-methods/

---

The thing is: I don't care what Christian theologians think, and I don't read their writings. I don't care what academics trying to construct a framework that they label CRT think, so I don't know what exactly their ideological structures are (definitions actually seem to be part of the problem here, as it sounds like there's not a definition of CRT that everybody agrees on).

On the issue of societal justice, I start with my reading and understanding of the Bible and go from there. That's the example of John Wesley, founder of the Methodist movement; his understanding of Paul's letter to Philemon influenced his involvement in the anti-slavery movement.

There is always a risk that we will make biblical interpretations fit our political inclinations. I try not to do that, but reality checks are always necessary.

Bottom line: Grand political theories don't much interest me, but I stand by what the Bible says about justice.

---

I agree, Bubba. We have sixty-six books of Scripture to help us hear God's will.

My main concern is that we should take our duty seriously as individuals, and treat every individual person as someone made in the image of God.

Treating people as groups makes it too easy to discount individuals or treat them as objects.

---

Talking about individual responsibility is good but incomplete. The scriptures speak of corporate sin. Sometimes we commit sins as members of a social group that we wouldn't commit as an individual.

Furthermore, changing individual behavior doesn't change the law and it may not change culture.

---

Absolutely wrong, the Bible is not about collectivism much less social guilt.

You need a better Bible Study group.

---

The Bible talks a lot of social guilt. Read the prophets! Read Amos 2:6-7. God calls out the sins of Israel. Not just individual Israelites. Of the nation. In Isaiah 34:1ff, the prophet speaks of God's judgment against the nations. Not just individuals in those nations. Entire countries. Jeremiah 10:25; Micah 5:15, and lots of other passages use the same language.

In fact, the focus on individual sin and responsibility is a later development in the Old Testament.

---

The bible certainly talks about collective guilt.

But individual sin and responsibility is right there in the garden.

quash said:

---

George Truett said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

George Truett said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

whiterock said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Both restorative justice and retributive justice, by definition, assumes guilt. Is that what social justice also does, assumes guilt?

---

Societal justice (social justice, if you prefer) does not assume guilt in the way that I understand it. As I said, my understanding stems from the Bible, where this concept originated. Others today may have a different understanding.

Rather than assuming guilt, the Biblical concept of societal justice -- as proclaimed by prophets like Isaiah, Amos, Micah and Jeremiah -- is about calling the whole society, collectively and individually, to account for upholding God's vision of a just society; that is, a society in which all people are treated with the human dignity and concern that reflects their status as children made in the image of God. This includes personal behavior but goes beyond that. The prophets say that everyone shares some responsibility for upholding God's vision of justice because the society as a whole suffers when injustice is common. People live in community, not in isolation; therefore, justice is a community responsibility as well as an individual one.

Some of the "justice issues" that the prophets were concerned about --- and called on the community to address:

making sure that widows and orphans (who almost always were poor) were cared for. (The apostles are living into this command when they organize an effort within their community, led by Stephen, to care for poor widows.)
using honest weights and measures so as not to defraud people (still an issue today)
predatory lending (as we would call it today); this is why the Torah specifically says that, if you take someone's coat as collateral for a loan, you have to give it back before nightfall so the borrower can keep warm. Amos denounces the society of the Northern Kingdom of Israel for allowing lenders "to sell the poor for a pair of sandals."
gleaning laws that required farmers to leave part of their fields unharvested so the poor could come and get some grain for themselves
special concern for the poor. Why? Because the poor so often are exploited and were not treated as members of the "beloved community" (a term that originated with a white 19th century preacher, not MLK).


People today believe they are channeling this same view of community responsibility for God's vision of justice when they advocate for a consistent pro-life ethic; when they seek to regulate payday lending practices; when they work for a safety net (both public and private) for the poor; and in many other ways. They see it as their responsibility to call the community into upholding the biblical vision of justice.

That's why I would say societal justice is about accepting responsibility, calling the community to live up to its values and ideals, not about assuming guilt.

---

I think I agree with everything you've written here. My problem comes when societal justice ( I like your term better ) is automatically tied to white privilege.

If justice is the line, privilege is above the line and injustice is below the line. Accusing a person that live a just life of privilege is insulting and an injustice in itself.

---

Thanks -- I'm glad we seem to be in basic agreement.

To apply this to the specific concept of white privilege:

1. In my mind societal justice is not AUTOMATICALLY about white privilege. Some people treat that differently, of course.
2. At the same time, white people in many ways HAVE enjoyed privileges. We don't think of them as privileges because they tend to involve basic fair treatment that we think should be extended to everyone -- and that most of us extend as a matter of course to everyone. Most of us don't think black people should be treated with suspicion in a store or when walking through a neighborhood simply because they're black, and we wouldn't do such a thing ourselves. Nevertheless, most black people experience being treated with suspicion even if they're not behaving suspiciously. In that sense, the "privilege" I enjoy as a white male is NOT to be treated suspiciously because of my skin color. Every time my sons go out in the car, I don't have to worry that they'll encounter a police officer who is frightened and suspicious and might shoot them.
3. I don't feel personal guilt for something that I didn't do and would never do.
4. But by Bible-based understanding of societal justice tells me that I am responsible for being aware of the unjust way that my fellow human beings are treated, for calling out that injustice and for doing what I can to stop it. That might mean using my voice to speak out. In this country -- unlike a repressive state like Russia or China -- it should mean using whatever power I have to influence political outcomes that increase justice. (Just because early Christians like Paul lacked political power to end slavery doesn't mean I'm excused from trying to influence the political system when I see injustice.)

The attitude of the prophets is kind of nicely summed up in the last line of these verses by the poet W.H. Auden:
"There is no such thing as the state
And no one exists alone.
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police.
We must love one another or die."

Note that he says "we." The obligation is on us communally, and the consequences (or die) fall on us as a community.

---

thoughtful conversation going on in those exchanges.

The problem is that the two of you have come to an agreement about what social justice means which is substantially discrete from from the ideological structures of CRT. That is the error Christian theologians make when they try to pick & choose pieces from a political ideology that seem congruent with tenets of faith. THEY may see a convergence of ideas, but the political ideologues driving the agenda usually don't see it that way at all. The politicos may go along with it, as such facilitates the advance of their ideas, just as marxists used "fellow travelers" to put a more palatable gloss on marxist dialectics. The reality is - critical theories see Christianity is a part of systemic oppression just as faith was part of cultural hegemony, an "opiate of the masses," to marxist ideologues.

That dynamic is what prompts Lindsay to describe CRT a box with pretty wrapping that makes people want to pick it up. But the thing inside the box does not match what's on the outside of the box. He's new to public speaking, and it shows, but he pretty well nails it here:

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/03/james-lindsay-truth-critical-methods/

---

The thing is: I don't care what Christian theologians think, and I don't read their writings. I don't care what academics trying to construct a framework that they label CRT think, so I don't know what exactly their ideological structures are (definitions actually seem to be part of the problem here, as it sounds like there's not a definition of CRT that everybody agrees on).

On the issue of societal justice, I start with my reading and understanding of the Bible and go from there. That's the example of John Wesley, founder of the Methodist movement; his understanding of Paul's letter to Philemon influenced his involvement in the anti-slavery movement.

There is always a risk that we will make biblical interpretations fit our political inclinations. I try not to do that, but reality checks are always necessary.

Bottom line: Grand political theories don't much interest me, but I stand by what the Bible says about justice.

---

I agree, Bubba. We have sixty-six books of Scripture to help us hear God's will.

My main concern is that we should take our duty seriously as individuals, and treat every individual person as someone made in the image of God.

Treating people as groups makes it too easy to discount individuals or treat them as objects.

---

Talking about individual responsibility is good but incomplete. The scriptures speak of corporate sin. Sometimes we commit sins as members of a social group that we wouldn't commit as an individual.

Furthermore, changing individual behavior doesn't change the law and it may not change culture.

---

Absolutely wrong, the Bible is not about collectivism much less social guilt.

You need a better Bible Study group.

---

The Bible talks a lot of social guilt. Read the prophets! Read Amos 2:6-7. God calls out the sins of Israel. Not just individual Israelites. Of the nation. In Isaiah 34:1ff, the prophet speaks of God's judgment against the nations. Not just individuals in those nations. Entire countries. Jeremiah 10:25; Micah 5:15, and lots of other passages use the same language.

In fact, the focus on individual sin and responsibility is a later development in the Old Testament.

---

The bible certainly talks about collective guilt.

But individual sin and responsibility is right there in the garden.

---

^^ This ^^

In the Bible, community responsibility is not about sin. It is about justice.

bubbadog said:

---

In the Bible, community responsibility is not about sin. It is about justice.

---

The late residents of the communities of Sodom and Gomorrah might disagree.

George Truett said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

George Truett said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

whiterock said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Both restorative justice and retributive justice, by definition, assumes guilt. Is that what social justice also does, assumes guilt?

---

Societal justice (social justice, if you prefer) does not assume guilt in the way that I understand it. As I said, my understanding stems from the Bible, where this concept originated. Others today may have a different understanding.

Rather than assuming guilt, the Biblical concept of societal justice -- as proclaimed by prophets like Isaiah, Amos, Micah and Jeremiah -- is about calling the whole society, collectively and individually, to account for upholding God's vision of a just society; that is, a society in which all people are treated with the human dignity and concern that reflects their status as children made in the image of God. This includes personal behavior but goes beyond that. The prophets say that everyone shares some responsibility for upholding God's vision of justice because the society as a whole suffers when injustice is common. People live in community, not in isolation; therefore, justice is a community responsibility as well as an individual one.

Some of the "justice issues" that the prophets were concerned about --- and called on the community to address:

making sure that widows and orphans (who almost always were poor) were cared for. (The apostles are living into this command when they organize an effort within their community, led by Stephen, to care for poor widows.)
using honest weights and measures so as not to defraud people (still an issue today)
predatory lending (as we would call it today); this is why the Torah specifically says that, if you take someone's coat as collateral for a loan, you have to give it back before nightfall so the borrower can keep warm. Amos denounces the society of the Northern Kingdom of Israel for allowing lenders "to sell the poor for a pair of sandals."
gleaning laws that required farmers to leave part of their fields unharvested so the poor could come and get some grain for themselves
special concern for the poor. Why? Because the poor so often are exploited and were not treated as members of the "beloved community" (a term that originated with a white 19th century preacher, not MLK).


People today believe they are channeling this same view of community responsibility for God's vision of justice when they advocate for a consistent pro-life ethic; when they seek to regulate payday lending practices; when they work for a safety net (both public and private) for the poor; and in many other ways. They see it as their responsibility to call the community into upholding the biblical vision of justice.

That's why I would say societal justice is about accepting responsibility, calling the community to live up to its values and ideals, not about assuming guilt.

---

I think I agree with everything you've written here. My problem comes when societal justice ( I like your term better ) is automatically tied to white privilege.

If justice is the line, privilege is above the line and injustice is below the line. Accusing a person that live a just life of privilege is insulting and an injustice in itself.

---

Thanks -- I'm glad we seem to be in basic agreement.

To apply this to the specific concept of white privilege:

1. In my mind societal justice is not AUTOMATICALLY about white privilege. Some people treat that differently, of course.
2. At the same time, white people in many ways HAVE enjoyed privileges. We don't think of them as privileges because they tend to involve basic fair treatment that we think should be extended to everyone -- and that most of us extend as a matter of course to everyone. Most of us don't think black people should be treated with suspicion in a store or when walking through a neighborhood simply because they're black, and we wouldn't do such a thing ourselves. Nevertheless, most black people experience being treated with suspicion even if they're not behaving suspiciously. In that sense, the "privilege" I enjoy as a white male is NOT to be treated suspiciously because of my skin color. Every time my sons go out in the car, I don't have to worry that they'll encounter a police officer who is frightened and suspicious and might shoot them.
3. I don't feel personal guilt for something that I didn't do and would never do.
4. But by Bible-based understanding of societal justice tells me that I am responsible for being aware of the unjust way that my fellow human beings are treated, for calling out that injustice and for doing what I can to stop it. That might mean using my voice to speak out. In this country -- unlike a repressive state like Russia or China -- it should mean using whatever power I have to influence political outcomes that increase justice. (Just because early Christians like Paul lacked political power to end slavery doesn't mean I'm excused from trying to influence the political system when I see injustice.)

The attitude of the prophets is kind of nicely summed up in the last line of these verses by the poet W.H. Auden:
"There is no such thing as the state
And no one exists alone.
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police.
We must love one another or die."

Note that he says "we." The obligation is on us communally, and the consequences (or die) fall on us as a community.

---

thoughtful conversation going on in those exchanges.

The problem is that the two of you have come to an agreement about what social justice means which is substantially discrete from from the ideological structures of CRT. That is the error Christian theologians make when they try to pick & choose pieces from a political ideology that seem congruent with tenets of faith. THEY may see a convergence of ideas, but the political ideologues driving the agenda usually don't see it that way at all. The politicos may go along with it, as such facilitates the advance of their ideas, just as marxists used "fellow travelers" to put a more palatable gloss on marxist dialectics. The reality is - critical theories see Christianity is a part of systemic oppression just as faith was part of cultural hegemony, an "opiate of the masses," to marxist ideologues.

That dynamic is what prompts Lindsay to describe CRT a box with pretty wrapping that makes people want to pick it up. But the thing inside the box does not match what's on the outside of the box. He's new to public speaking, and it shows, but he pretty well nails it here:

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/03/james-lindsay-truth-critical-methods/

---

The thing is: I don't care what Christian theologians think, and I don't read their writings. I don't care what academics trying to construct a framework that they label CRT think, so I don't know what exactly their ideological structures are (definitions actually seem to be part of the problem here, as it sounds like there's not a definition of CRT that everybody agrees on).

On the issue of societal justice, I start with my reading and understanding of the Bible and go from there. That's the example of John Wesley, founder of the Methodist movement; his understanding of Paul's letter to Philemon influenced his involvement in the anti-slavery movement.

There is always a risk that we will make biblical interpretations fit our political inclinations. I try not to do that, but reality checks are always necessary.

Bottom line: Grand political theories don't much interest me, but I stand by what the Bible says about justice.

---

I agree, Bubba. We have sixty-six books of Scripture to help us hear God's will.

My main concern is that we should take our duty seriously as individuals, and treat every individual person as someone made in the image of God.

Treating people as groups makes it too easy to discount individuals or treat them as objects.

---

Talking about individual responsibility is good but incomplete. The scriptures speak of corporate sin. Sometimes we commit sins as members of a social group that we wouldn't commit as an individual.

Furthermore, changing individual behavior doesn't change the law and it may not change culture.

---

Absolutely wrong, the Bible is not about collectivism much less social guilt.

You need a better Bible Study group.

---

The Bible talks a lot of social guilt. Read the prophets! Read Amos 2:6-7. God calls out the sins of Israel. Not just individual Israelites. Of the nation. In Isaiah 34:1ff, the prophet speaks of God's judgment against the nations. Not just individuals in those nations. Entire countries. Jeremiah 10:25; Micah 5:15, and lots of other passages use the same language.

In fact, the focus on individual sin and responsibility is a later development in the Old Testament.

---

exactly. And that is an important distinction which argues against the collectivist examples that you and Bubba have offered in support of CRT as a valid dialectic for theology. Christianity is far more accurately described as a personal relationship with Jesus Chris to facilitate a personal "closer walk with Thee," not a collective association with other Christians to work collective problems. That latter endeavor is politics.

George Truett said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

whiterock said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Both restorative justice and retributive justice, by definition, assumes guilt. Is that what social justice also does, assumes guilt?

---

Societal justice (social justice, if you prefer) does not assume guilt in the way that I understand it. As I said, my understanding stems from the Bible, where this concept originated. Others today may have a different understanding.

Rather than assuming guilt, the Biblical concept of societal justice -- as proclaimed by prophets like Isaiah, Amos, Micah and Jeremiah -- is about calling the whole society, collectively and individually, to account for upholding God's vision of a just society; that is, a society in which all people are treated with the human dignity and concern that reflects their status as children made in the image of God. This includes personal behavior but goes beyond that. The prophets say that everyone shares some responsibility for upholding God's vision of justice because the society as a whole suffers when injustice is common. People live in community, not in isolation; therefore, justice is a community responsibility as well as an individual one.

Some of the "justice issues" that the prophets were concerned about --- and called on the community to address:

making sure that widows and orphans (who almost always were poor) were cared for. (The apostles are living into this command when they organize an effort within their community, led by Stephen, to care for poor widows.)
using honest weights and measures so as not to defraud people (still an issue today)
predatory lending (as we would call it today); this is why the Torah specifically says that, if you take someone's coat as collateral for a loan, you have to give it back before nightfall so the borrower can keep warm. Amos denounces the society of the Northern Kingdom of Israel for allowing lenders "to sell the poor for a pair of sandals."
gleaning laws that required farmers to leave part of their fields unharvested so the poor could come and get some grain for themselves
special concern for the poor. Why? Because the poor so often are exploited and were not treated as members of the "beloved community" (a term that originated with a white 19th century preacher, not MLK).


People today believe they are channeling this same view of community responsibility for God's vision of justice when they advocate for a consistent pro-life ethic; when they seek to regulate payday lending practices; when they work for a safety net (both public and private) for the poor; and in many other ways. They see it as their responsibility to call the community into upholding the biblical vision of justice.

That's why I would say societal justice is about accepting responsibility, calling the community to live up to its values and ideals, not about assuming guilt.

---

I think I agree with everything you've written here. My problem comes when societal justice ( I like your term better ) is automatically tied to white privilege.

If justice is the line, privilege is above the line and injustice is below the line. Accusing a person that live a just life of privilege is insulting and an injustice in itself.

---

Thanks -- I'm glad we seem to be in basic agreement.

To apply this to the specific concept of white privilege:

1. In my mind societal justice is not AUTOMATICALLY about white privilege. Some people treat that differently, of course.
2. At the same time, white people in many ways HAVE enjoyed privileges. We don't think of them as privileges because they tend to involve basic fair treatment that we think should be extended to everyone -- and that most of us extend as a matter of course to everyone. Most of us don't think black people should be treated with suspicion in a store or when walking through a neighborhood simply because they're black, and we wouldn't do such a thing ourselves. Nevertheless, most black people experience being treated with suspicion even if they're not behaving suspiciously. In that sense, the "privilege" I enjoy as a white male is NOT to be treated suspiciously because of my skin color. Every time my sons go out in the car, I don't have to worry that they'll encounter a police officer who is frightened and suspicious and might shoot them.
3. I don't feel personal guilt for something that I didn't do and would never do.
4. But by Bible-based understanding of societal justice tells me that I am responsible for being aware of the unjust way that my fellow human beings are treated, for calling out that injustice and for doing what I can to stop it. That might mean using my voice to speak out. In this country -- unlike a repressive state like Russia or China -- it should mean using whatever power I have to influence political outcomes that increase justice. (Just because early Christians like Paul lacked political power to end slavery doesn't mean I'm excused from trying to influence the political system when I see injustice.)

The attitude of the prophets is kind of nicely summed up in the last line of these verses by the poet W.H. Auden:
"There is no such thing as the state
And no one exists alone.
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police.
We must love one another or die."

Note that he says "we." The obligation is on us communally, and the consequences (or die) fall on us as a community.

---

thoughtful conversation going on in those exchanges.

The problem is that the two of you have come to an agreement about what social justice means which is substantially discrete from from the ideological structures of CRT. That is the error Christian theologians make when they try to pick & choose pieces from a political ideology that seem congruent with tenets of faith. THEY may see a convergence of ideas, but the political ideologues driving the agenda usually don't see it that way at all. The politicos may go along with it, as such facilitates the advance of their ideas, just as marxists used "fellow travelers" to put a more palatable gloss on marxist dialectics. The reality is - critical theories see Christianity is a part of systemic oppression just as faith was part of cultural hegemony, an "opiate of the masses," to marxist ideologues.

That dynamic is what prompts Lindsay to describe CRT a box with pretty wrapping that makes people want to pick it up. But the thing inside the box does not match what's on the outside of the box. He's new to public speaking, and it shows, but he pretty well nails it here:

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/03/james-lindsay-truth-critical-methods/

---

The thing is: I don't care what Christian theologians think, and I don't read their writings. I don't care what academics trying to construct a framework that they label CRT think, so I don't know what exactly their ideological structures are (definitions actually seem to be part of the problem here, as it sounds like there's not a definition of CRT that everybody agrees on).

On the issue of societal justice, I start with my reading and understanding of the Bible and go from there. That's the example of John Wesley, founder of the Methodist movement; his understanding of Paul's letter to Philemon influenced his involvement in the anti-slavery movement.

There is always a risk that we will make biblical interpretations fit our political inclinations. I try not to do that, but reality checks are always necessary.

Bottom line: Grand political theories don't much interest me, but I stand by what the Bible says about justice.

---

Good points.

My main point is that the idea of systemic racism is consistent with what the Bible says.

---

So the Roman Empire oppressed Christ, ergo it is appropriate to draw Biblical support for the proposition that American culture (or capitalism or individualism) is a tool of systemic oppression against peoples of color?

your argument is ignoring and ocean of reality and context.

wouldn't it be more accurate to say that America's Founding Ideas are squarely rooted in Biblical lessons on "individual sin and responsibility" in the New Testament?