Social Justice

The word ‘poverty’ has come to sound so negative and extreme in our ears that I prefer the word ‘simplicity’, because it puts the emphasis on the right points… Our enemy is not possessions but excess. Our battle cry is not ‘nothing!’ but ‘enough!’.” [sic]
- (Bishop) John V. Taylor, Enough is Enough (SCM, 1975), pp. 81-82

This was an interesting quote to come across; not only because of what it says, but also because of who said it. What exactly is Taylor’s point by replacing the word ‘poverty’ with ‘simplicity’? If this was meant for third-world nations, I’ll call this bishop an ignorant heathen and be done with him. If this change of words is for our own North American/European culture, I’ll only call him ignorant. To replace these words in our own culture is to say that there is no such thing as poverty and no people starving in the streets, but to say that they are merely living more ‘simple’ than the norm. I believe God has no desire to see any of His loved ones starve even for one meal. I would have to say that exchanging the word ‘poverty’ with ‘simplicity’ DOES NOT put the emphasis on the right points.

On his other points, however, Taylor seems to have found the mark. “Godliness with contentment is great gain” (I Tim 6:6). We should be able to say that we have enough… but Taylor does not seem to draw a line between what is enough and what is excess. Our enemy may not be our own possessions… but our possessions could be someone else’s enemy. Our new car may be coveted by the next door neighbor. Our Nike shoes endorse sweat shops in China to continue enslaving more men and women. Where does the line get drawn? Perhaps a couple better questions are, when will we realize that we can do without a lot of the possessions we already own, and when will wake up to the consequences of buying and keeping the possessions we are so used to having?

One of the great mysteries of life to me is how a family in the $40,000 bracket, before taxes, or even $50,000 can meet all its obligations and still educate its children.
-W. Stanley Mooneyham, What Do You Say To A Hungry World? (Waco, TX: Word, 1975), pp. 38-39

This quote has ignorance written all over it. W. Stanley Mooneyham did not actually write this quote, but noticed it in a local newspaper column, and wrote it in his book. For me, one of the great mysteries of life is how some North Americans believe they have a ‘lower income’ than the norm. In a world where $100 a month is a blessing from God to most people, we have become ignorant and wealthy, and we have a notion that we should become wealthier, and continually ‘climb the economic ladder’.

Something else I can not figure out about this quote; is it not free to educate children in Canada or the U.S.? Perhaps this columnist is referring to college education. But then again, we must remember that if the entire world was minimized to 100 people, only 1 would be going to college. The fact that we feel it is ‘normal’ to go to college, and the worse fact that our North American society almost always demands a college education, almost drives the rest of the world to the brink of destruction. North America continually becomes smarter and richer, and the rest of the world can eat our leftovers… no wait, let us use those leftovers for land-fills and garbage heaps.

It’s media like this that will continue bringing injustice to the Middle East, Africa, South America, etc. For families actually in the $40,000 bracket, a column like this will bring a sense of less value and worth, not to mention that the family will continue to look only after its own needs. In fact, any family a little above or a little below a $40,000 bracket will continue to selfishly look after its own family, and will undoubtedly look down upon generosity and ‘justice’ to others, since they consider themselves to be part of the ‘injustice.

Does Jesus then expect all his followers to give up everything in order to follow him? The apostles did it. And the rich young man was challenged to do it. But is it a universal rule? In reply, we must be careful not to whittle down the radical summons of Jesus by a little prudent exegesis... but he did not tell all his followers to get rid of all their possessions.
-John Stott, Decisive Issues Facing Christians Today (Old Tappan, NJ: 1990), p242

I decided to include this quote because I’m largely interested in what Christian scholars and theologians believe how we should spend/earn/invest/give our money. Just this year I’ve formed my theology on money by what I believe Scripture says about money. I found it interesting how John Stott tries to line up his theology to the Bible. His theory: Jesus did not tell all his followers to get rid of all their possessions; therefore, we do not need to get rid of all our possessions. This is the same reasoning that said the Bible taught nothing about having more than one wife (see Christian Pop-culture). Jesus also never said ‘Thou shall not look at porn’. But I believe Jesus would take a stand against pornography.

So Stott’s argument is useless. His examples of Joseph of Arimathea and Zacchaeus are also weak at best. I would say Stott is trying to justify wealthy Christians. If I were writing about wealth, I would argue that a $50,000 salary does not have to mean a $50,000 lifestyle. I would argue that most of us can survive on a fraction of what we earn, and the rest should be used for God. Stott is arguing that we should give a fraction to God, and live off of the rest. In reality, God owns all our money, but for some reason, we believe we have some say in how we are able to spend God-given money. I have to say that Stott should stop writing in favor for the rich, but rather, in favor of those afflicted by injustice, whom he does not mention at all in his book.

They walk in all humility and kindness, and falsehood is not found among them, and they love one another. They despise not the widow, and grieve not the orphan. He that hath, distributeth liberally to him that hath not. If they see a stranger, they bring him under their roof, and rejoice over him, as it were their own brother; for they call themselves brethren, not after the flesh, but after the spirit and in God; but when one of their poor passes away from the world and any of them see him, then he provides for his burial according to his ability; and if they hear that any of their number is imprisoned or oppressed for the name of their Messiah, all of them provide for his needs, and if it is possible that he may be delivered, they deliver him. And if there is among them a man that is poor and needy, and they have not an abundance of necessaries, they fast two or three days that they may supply the needy with their necessary food.
-Hengel, Property and Riches in the Early Church, pp.42-43

Finally, we have a practical and applicable example of how North American Christians are to live today. Oftentimes Christians will ‘shy away’ from the widow and the orphan, and let them deal with their own problems. “He that hath, distributeth liberally”; and not just a fraction of his wealth either. Perhaps we should not become satisfied with providing someone with merely necessities to survive; eventually we should come to the point where we can bless the poor with more than they can imagine, bringing them to a place of stature similar to ourselves. How often do we invite Christian strangers into our house? Not often enough in North America, I would say, but Mexico excels at hospitality to their Christian brothers… even to those who do not speak the same language.

How often does a poor man/woman/child pass away, and not a tear is shed? We should be weeping uncontrollably, knowing that we had the power to prevent his/her death. How ignorant have we become?! The last line in this quote is my favorite; it represents self-sacrifice for the good of others. I suspect Jesus and the apostles had this idea in their minds whenever they preached. Just as an example: “In humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others” (Eph 2:4-5). This is my favorite part of this quote because, as aware as I am of the injustice of the world, even I did not think of this. We should always be willing to sacrifice ourselves for others, even if it means not eating for a couple days.

The church has failed to follow her appointed pathway of separation, holiness, heavenliness and testimony to an absent but coming Christ; she has turned aside from that purpose to the work of civilizing the world, building magnificent temples, and acquiring earthly power and wealth, and, in this way, has ceased to follow in the footsteps of Him who had not where to lay His head.
-C. I. Scofield, “Christianity Quotes”, Wisdom Quotes, http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_christianity.html 2005

This is merely an extra quote to sum up all the previous four quotes.