Social Justice vs. Acts Of Mercy

The buzz phrase in many quarters in the Church today is “Social Justice.” It’s origins are Marxist and when one reflects just a bit one begins to realize that it is an odd phrase, if only because what those who labor for “Social Justice” advocate for, would have, in another time been called “acts of mercy.”

So, why have we changed the language from “acts of mercy” to Social justice?

Well, an “act of Mercy” implies the giving of something that is not owed. An “act of Mercy” is a generosity extended. However, when we call those same acts “Social Justice” what we have done to our conceptual framework is to have twisted it so that what formerly was a generosity extended now, because of the notion of “Justice,” becomes a action towards someone that is required and demanded.

On the part of the one receiving the act of mercy they have now gone from one whom would naturally show gratitude to one who now believes that they are only getting what is rightfully theirs to be had. An act of Mercy is benevolence received. Social Justice is getting what one is owed and deserved.

Secondly, when we metamorphize “an act of Mercy” into Social Justice we have moved from the chair of the individual philanthropist to the seat of a Judge who will render verdict on what everyone owes to society. When we invoke Social Justice we are the ones who are deciding who must “give” what, instead of one individual acting upon our own conscience as God has commanded us individually. A judge who renders a verdict is outraged when his decisions are not complied with. A philanthropist, is at worst, disappointed when his “acts of mercy” don’t have the impact that he might like.

Third Reich or Westminster-Cal?

“And above all we have dragged priests out of the depths of the political party struggle and have brought them back again into the Church. It is our determination that they shall never return to a sphere which is not made for them, which dishonors them, and which of necessity brings them into opposition to millions of people who in their hearts wish to hold to the faith but who desire to see the priests serving God and not a political party.”

~ Adolf Hitler in a speech, October 24, 1933
R2K Enthusiast
Member — Christ Uniform Reformed Church

“[O]nce the church’s voice is stifled in the public square, the role of culture-makers shifts to the secular realm. The state will see this need and fill that need itself—in the name of national unity. In the case of Nazi Germany, it realized that it was now the state’s educational role to create a unifying worldview for the nation….”

“[T]he unity of the Germans must be secured through a new Weltanschauung [worldview], since Christianity in its present form was no longer equal to the demands which were to-day made on those who would sustain the unity of the people.”

Hitler told this to a group of Nazi leaders, August 27, 1933:

“The Church, as such, has nothing to do with political affairs. On the other hand, the State has nothing to do with the faith or inner organization of the Church.”

– Hitler again, in conversation with Nazi bishop Ludwig Muller

Thomas Watson & Bertolt Brecht On Babylonian Multiculturalism

A friend posted this quote, this morning. He is a Filipino Doctor practicing medicine somewhere in these united States,

“Methinks I hear England’s passing bell go. Let us shed some tears over dying England. Let us bewail our intestine divisions. England’s divisions have been fatal. They brought in the Saxons, Danes, Normans. ‘If a kingdom divided cannot stand’, how do we stand but by a miracle of free grace? Truth is fallen and peace is fled. England’s fine coat of peace is torn and, like Joseph’s coat, dipped in blood.”

Thomas Watson — Reformed Doctor of the Church
“The Beatitudes- An Exposition of Matthew 5:1-12”, chapter 5, ‘Blessed Are They That Mourn.’

If, even if Watson’s time, among the Doctors of the Church, there existed an awareness of the dangers of heterogeneity, in a culture and social order where the heterogeneity bemoaned was far less fractious then what we are experimenting with today in this country how much more should we be aware of the dangers of balkanization today when the balkanization that is being forced upon us is characterized by a far greater degree of separation between faiths and people groups then they were seeking to slam together in Watson’s own time?

Just keep in mind, that what is going on with the current immigration policy of the West is a drive towards a New World Order where, in the words of Bertolt Brecht,

After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writer’s Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

The Solution

I agree with the great Reformed minister Thomas Watson and the 20th century poet Bertolt Brecht regarding the dangers of Babylonian Multiculturalism.

Some Musings On Romans 1

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

In Romans 1 the essential nature of idolatry is explained to be,

1.) Exchanging the glory of the incorruptible God for an image (23)

2.) Exchanging the truth of God for a lie (25a)

3.) Worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator (25b)

As Idolatry results in becoming what you worship (Psalm 115, 135) the fitting punishment (lex talionis) for dysfunction in the relationship between the Creator and creature is dysfunction in the relationship between the creature and the creature and so malfunction in worshiping God results in malfunction in other relationships. This malfunction is then put on display in sodomy, lesbianism, disobedience to parents, and all kind of kinds of other relational grotesqueries (Romans 1:24-32).

In vs. 21 the failure is “not honoring God,” and the punishment that fits the crime is their dishonoring of their bodies via perversion (vs. 24). Those who will not honor God will not honor either themselves or others. Note also the close relationship between a rejection of God and the embrace of sexual perversion. Wrong thinking about God leads to wrong thinking (and acting) about sexuality.

In vs. 21 it is said that they became futile in their thinking because they did not honor God and as a consequence (judgment) in vs. 28 God gives them over to a debased mind. They will not think right about God and as punishment from God they are debased in their thinking about others.

All in all a rupture in the vertical relationship makes for a rupture in horizontal relationships.

It is interesting that the inspired Apostle draws the tightest relationship between men who will not love God and those same men who are dominated by their sexual lusts. It is as if somehow the image of God is wrapped up tightly with our sexuality so that if men will not bow to God they will attack God by striking out at Him by seeking to extricate the Imago Dei in attacking their sexuality. This suggests that perversion is primarily theological before it is anthropological. This tight relationship between men who will not love God and the practice of sexual perversion is seen also in the OT. Take for example Numbers 25 where the Israelites abandon God and end up going all orgiastic with the women of Moab.

Romans 1 also teaches that man’s problem is not an intellectual problem but a moral problem. Man does not bow to God because he does not have enough facts. Man does not bow to God because in having all the facts he needs he insists, despites those facts, to engod himself at God’s expense.

A slightly different nuance is to see how orthodoxy and orthopraxy walk together in Romans 1. Wrong thinking about God is always reflected by unseemly orthopraxy. Reversed proper orthodoxy, always yields God honoring orthopraxy. If someone doesn’t practice orthopraxy then their orthodoxy is askew. A expert in theology who does not love his neighbor is no expert in theology.

Romans 1, consistent with the rest of Scripture, teaches us that Idolatry is the fountainhead of all sin. Sinful acts, when understood, can always be traced to a prioritizing of some Idol over the God of the Bible.

Tolkien & McAtee On Middle Earth Worldview

Anyone with a vague familiarity with Tolkien understands that he did not like Allegory. Tolkien preferred the genre of myth. He believed that allegory was much too explicit and believed that myth, as implicit, was much better at conveying truth. As such he was a bit prickly whenever someone sought to allegorize his work. Still, Tolkien’s work, saturated in a Christian World-view as it is, there are aspects of his mythopoetic work which clearly reveals allegorical imagery.

The theme of the Triology, in its macro sense, is the contest between good and evil. In this contest sin is seen in the ring. It is interesting that the effect of sin upon people is to claim and seize unwarranted authority and control over other peoples. In Tolkien’s thinking the effect of sin is tyranny and enslavement. There is a extraordinarily anti-statist, and anti-centralization theme that saturates Tolkien’s work and Tolkien makes the ring do the work of communicating the worst effect of sin when someone claims to possess the ring is to create Despotic social orders. That this observation is accurate is seen in the effect of the ring upon those who are tempted to claim it,

Upon Boromir’s tempting

“The Ring would give me power of Command. How I would drive the hosts of Mordor, and all men would flock to my banner! How I would drive the hosts of Mordor, and all men would flock to my banner!’

Boromir strode up and down, speaking ever more loudly: Almost he seemed to have forgotten Frodo, while his talk dwelt on walls and weapons, and the mustering of men; and he drew plans for great alliances and glorious victories to be; and he cast down Mordor, and became himself a mighty king, benevolent and wise. Suddenly he stopped and waved his arms.”

Upon Galadriel’s tempting,

And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of a Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark but beautiful and terrible as the morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth. All shall love me and despair!’

She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illuminated her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall, and the light faded, and suddenly she laughed again, and lo! she was shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and sad.

‘I pass the test,’ she said. ‘I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.’ ”

Upon Gandalf’s tempting,

“With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly….Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me.”

Upon Sam’s tempting,

“His thought turned to the Ring, but there was no comfort there, only dread and danger. No sooner had he come in sight of Mount Doom, burning far away, than he was aware of a change in his burden. As it drew near the great furnaces where, in the deeps of time, it had been shaped and forged, the Ring’s power grew, and it became more fell, untameable except by some mighty will. As Sam stood there, even though the Ring was not on him but hanging by its chain about his neck, he felt himself enlarged, as if he were robed in a huge distorted shadow of himself, a vast and ominous threat halted upon the walls of Mordor. He felt that he had from now on only two choices: to forbear the Ring, though it would torment him; or to claim it, and challenge the Power that sat in its dark hold beyond the valley of shadows. Already the Ring tempted him, gnawing at his will and reason. Wild fantasies arose in his mind; and he saw Samwise the Strong, Hero of the Age, striding with a flaming sword across the darkened land, and armies flocking to his call as he marched to the overthrow of Barad-dur. And then all the clouds rolled away, and the white sun shone, and at his command the vale of Gorgoroth became a garden of flowers and trees and brought forth fruit. He had only to put on the Ring and claim it for his own, and all this could be.

In that hour of trial it was his love of his master that helped most to hold him firm; but also deep down in him lived still unconquered his plain hobbit-sense: he knew in the core of his heart that he was not large enough to bear such a burden, even if such visions were not a mere cheat to betray him. The one small garden of a free gardener was all his need and due, not a garden swollen to a realm; his own hands to use, not the hands of others to command.
‘And anyway all these notions are only a trick, he said to himself.”

In each of the temptings the power of the ring (the embodiment of sin in Tolkien’s work) is unto becoming a Tyrant in a Statist reality where all are slaves who serve the possessor of the ring. So, for Tolkien, sin is corporate and while effecting the possessor of the ring, its broader effect is to create centralized statist social orders. For Tolkien, sin is Statism.

Of course as the ring is sin, then Frodo becomes the sin bearer and his quest is a Via Dolorosa. However, Frodo is not the only Christ image in the Trilogy. Tolkien has three characters that answer to the imagery of Christ. Gandalf is Christ in his office as Prophet. It is Gandalf’s wisdom that guide the Fellowship. Gandalf is known as a truth speaker and without the counsel of Gandalf the Fellowship would not have made it through Moria. Gandalf, also gives his life for the Fellowship and is reborn (Resurrected ?) to lead his people against evil. Aragorn is Christ in his office as King. Aragorn, as Strider, goes through his humiliation, but as he keeps faith, he is finally exalted to his rightful place on the throne and takes a name (Elessar) to which all must bow. Frodo, fulfills the Christ imagery serving as Christ as Priest. The free people’s of Middle Earth are saved by Frodo’s representative and substitutionary sacrifice for them. Frodo, as the Priest, bears the sin of Middle Earth and expiates the effect of the Ring by bearing it to the crack of doom.

Tolkien’s work finds Frodo, the sin bearer, being supported by the Church. In Tolkien’s creation of the “Fellowship of the Ring,” we have a picture of the Church. For Tolkien the Church is comprised of men from “every tribe tongue and nation,” and yet all members of the Church still retain their people group identity. The Church comes together in order to do the work that it is called to do, but it does so on the distinct and separate strengths of each people group who still retain their particular ethnic identity (Dwarves, Elves, Men, and Hobbits). So, while the Church is Universal for Tolkien, it is also particular at the same time. Tolkien, thus honors the idea of the “One and the Many” in his vision of the Church. It is also interesting that Tolkien gives us a Church with tares. In the fall of Boromir we see a Church that is not perfect. And yet even for Boromir there was repentance. Another thing we must not miss in Tolkien’s view of the Church is that it is the Church militant. For Tolkien, the Church is at war against wickedness in high places.

Another Tolkien view of the Church might be found in the character of Samwise. Samwise is a picture of the Catholic laity. He serves the needs of the sin bearer and is the servant of Fellowship. Samwise, as the Church, fills up the sufferings of Christ and so identifies with the sin bearer that he himself will bear the ring for a period of time thus imitating his master. Samwise identity in the novel is wrapped up in Frodo’s identity. In the Trilogy we see the Samwise Character grow (he is sanctified) as he serves the needs of his master Frodo.

The Fellowship of the Ring, as the Church, is given grace for the contest of the quest in a sacrament of the Lembas. The Lembas strengthen the Church as they are relied for sustenance. The more the Church has to rely upon the Lembas the more the Lembas tie spirit and will to physical exertion. The sacredness of the Lembas is seen in how the wicked blanch and sputter when they come into contact with the Lembas. The Lembas are for the Church and those outside the Church find as much death in the Lembas as the Church finds life in them.

And though as a Protestant I have no use for Mary-olatry it is clear that Galadriel is Tolkien’s virgin Mary in the Trilogy. Galadriel gives gifts to the Fellowship and the ring-bearer in order for them to complete their quest. She is seen as having a privileged position among those who are considered the great. She is responsible for organizing the White Council and creates beauty in all she touches. She so thoroughly woos Gimli (the Tolkien Protestant?) that in a act of repentance for his previous unbelief he asks for a lock of her hair as a gift upon their parting.

In closing, I would like to return to the idea of the ring representing sin — a sin that always creates a Tyrant in those who claim it. That Tolkien hated Statism and made possession of the Ring equivalent to establishing Statist and Centralized social order is seen again in a different way at the very end of the book. In the chapter “The Scourging of the Shire,” Tolkien gives us a Shire where the effects of the Ring (Tyrannical social order) has turned the community of the Hobbits ugly. Frodo, takes sin to the crack of doom and upon his return home he finds the work of sin he cast away having done its work in his home. In this chapter, we see again, what we see throughout the Trilogy — a tyrannical social order created by the lust of power can only be overcome by stiff resistance at great cost.