Grassroots Commentary

Social Justice

By David Spence · Feb. 12, 2013

For liberals, Democrats and alas, some Republicans and Independents, social justice is based on the notion of economic equality through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. But is that truly social justice?

When God desired to enter a covenant relationship with Abraham, God spoke these words:

“For I have chosen him (Abraham), so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him” (Genesis 18:19). Righteousness and justice…social justice! This word pair becomes a way of summarizing the requirements and stipulations of the covenant, which are an expression of the character of God.

However, Abraham, Moses and King David were not the faithful covenant partners. God was faithful, but they were not. So, God spoke through Isaiah the prophet in this way:

“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this” (Isaiah 9:6-7).

These words were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the faithful covenant partner. To conclude, righteousness and justice – social justice – are not government-given and they cannot be government-driven. Social justice only comes as a gift of God through a covenant relationship with His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Why look to government to provide what it cannot provide and to deliver what it cannot deliver? To rely on government is both foolish and fraudulent.

Appeal_patriots_day_6
5 Comments

CGreen in Texas said:

What they refer to as "social justice" is not that at all. Since when is it "justice" to take from the one who earned and produced and give to the one who permanently does nothing? Since when is it "justice" for one who works, provides for himself and family, takes care of his property, gives from his belongings to the church and for the poor, and pays taxes to have the same living standard as the one who doesn't work, doesn't support his family, doesn't take advantage of free education, has no work ethic, no ambition, doesn't go to church, doesn't tithe, learned his ways from his parents, and promises to pass on his ways to his children and theirs? Since when is it "justice" to perpetuate a vast, helpless (but voting) underclass that lives off the labor of others.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 4:24 PM

Hank in Texas replied:

My fellow Texan paints with a broad brush. I assume he does to to make a point, and with that understanding I agree completely.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 4:46 PM

David Spence in Texas replied:

CGreen. I couldn't agree more. I purposefully wrote the article to demonstrate that what the Left calls "social justice" is not that at all because it is not something that a person, or government, can create, mandate or perpetuate. Thanks for your thoughts on this.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Bob in Hattiesburg, MS said:

Whenever you add some qualifier to the word "justice," it ceases to be true justice. There is only justice.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Doktor Riktor Von Zhades in Western KY said:

William Graham Sumner once said that you can have either Social Justice or Civil Liberty, but you cannot have both.

In the case of the former, we see the equality of results, in the latter the equality of opportunity. If as a nation we opt for the former, we go down the road wherein the recipient of the redistributed equality, slowly demands more of the provider of said redistribution. The latter then begins to loathe the former. The former, seeing the anger and angst of the latter, likewise loathes the provider because it is a human emotional reaction. In the end both become poorer as provider is basically taxed into poverty.

Friday, February 15, 2013 at 9:45 AM