Social Justice in the Bible

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No, its just time that pompous, condescending leftist bigots like yourself be put in their place without a great deal of flowery language to soften the blow.

In Volgadon's defence this is not accurate. He is not a leftist bigot. Brother, I normally agree with, this crosses the line though.

Anyway, Walker, if you and David ever meet up, I would genuinly be interested in attending your "get together", assuming I am not being to bold. Thanks.

[Jeff K.]

Fifteen minutes of purely speculative, "What I think Christ is saying here..."

Isn't that the run of most of the discussions though?

[David Bokovoy]

do you think that the prohibition on keeping a coat as a pledge overnight has more to do with dignity (having as it does status connotations) or is it a matter of providing for the basic needs of the weak, even when it injures your own interest?

The prohibition in Deuteronomy 24:12 is clearly a reflection of the Bible's emphasis upon caring for the basic needs of the poor and needy. To be honest, I had never considered the issue in terms of status. It's an interesting thought.

[David Bokovoy]

In Volgadon's defence this is not accurate. He is not a leftist bigot. Brother, I normally agree with, this crosses the line though.

Anyway, Walker, if you and David ever meet up, I would genuinly be interested in attending your "get together", assuming I am not being to bold. Thanks.

Of course you're coming. Always an open invite for a communal meal!

[Deborah]

David, I don't know if you saw this with all the intervening lengthy comments but I would like your input on whether you think the Kingdom of God is separate from the kingdom of men and how these principles would apply in the kingdom of men. I've read several of your responses and I'm still not clear if you are advocating Biblical principles outside the ecclesiastical venue. I don't see how they can be implemented righteously except in the ecclesiastical venue and by that I include a theocratic society led by a righteous Priesthood holder.

...isn't the point of the Biblical admonitions that they are directed to the "kingdom of God" and not the kingdom of men? I have no disagreement that the kingdom of God should be living so that the poor are taken care of and debts are forgiven.

The problem is when secular governments get involved with such tasks it's done by taking from someone to give to someone else and not of the people themselves opening their hearts and giving freely. This doesn't encourage charity but fosters envy on the part of those receiving and anger on the part of those who have no say in the matter, and is contrary to fostering a spirit of love and unity.

I think that people, without government intervention, are for the most part very generous. Even in these difficult economic times look how many individuals respond to calls for help from those who suffer from disaster, or personal illness or tragedy. We see this all the time in communities and even on a worldwide scale. These are people acting out of charity and not governments imposing their wills. However, people who freely give in such circumstances, even when they might be economically strapped, will react very differently if a bureaucrat tells them they must donate to an anonymous coffer that distributes their wealth according to a faceless bureaucrat's whims and not according to the impressions of the donor's heart, or the guidance of the Spirit.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Of course you're coming. Always an open invite for a communal meal!

Ha. You are to kind. We just need to get Walker to Utah from Texas.

[David Bokovoy]

David, I don't know if you saw this with all the intervening lengthy comments but I would like your input on whether you think the Kingdom of God is separate from the kingdom of men and how these principles would apply in the kingdom of men. I've read several of your responses and I'm still not clear if you are advocating Biblical principles outside the ecclesiastical venue. I don't see how they can be implemented righteously except in the ecclesiastical venue and by that I include a theocratic society led by a righteous Priesthood holder.

Hello Deborah,

I appreciate the great question, yet I typically hesitate to enter into the arena of political application in this forum. Suffice it to say that I believe a secular government still holds a responsibility to enforce morality upon its citizens. If we can pass legislation forcing people not to commit acts of rape, murder, etc., we can certainly pass legislation to care for the poor and needy.

[Deborah]

If we can pass legislation forcing people not to commit acts of rape, murder, etc., we can certainly pass legislation to care for the poor and needy.

That answers my question and I agree to say more would be getting political. Suffice it to say that enforcing morality in the form of not allowing one to actively harm another is a separate issue and that charity is a virtue that people need to be taught not legislated.

[Jeff K.]

I do not argue that the government cannot take money and redistribute it. There are arguments that are plausible for bureaucracies to do just that.

My position is that these are not necessarily the positions of Christ. That when the individuals are of one mind and being directed by a prophet or Christ, then it is what I would call "Social Justice" in the sense of Christ's social justice. It is then Zion.

Otherwise it is systems of power by which various opinions are carried out.

[David Bokovoy]

That answers my question and I agree to say more would be getting political. Suffice it to say that enforcing morality in the form of not allowing one to actively harm another is a separate issue and that charity is a virtue that people need to be taught not legislated.

Fair enough. I appreciate where you're coming from. My perspective, is that when the wealthy hoard resources, they do actively harm the poor. Additionally, since I accept the validity of the biblical view regarding communal sins, I believe that the government representing a community holds a moral responsibility to see that virtue and charity are legislated. If they do so, from a biblical perspective, God will bless that community; so the leaders representing that body should do everything they can to ensure that no one harms the poor. I believe that communities and their governments should seek to implement the counsel of Jacob in the Book of Mormon, "Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you" (Jacob 2:17).

That's my view.

Best,

--DB

[Deborah]

"Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you" (Jacob 2:17).

Not to be nitpicky, but, well to be nitpicky, you can't be free with your substance if someone else is taking it from you and deciding where it should go. In a church venue you are choosing to give to those you have a familiarity with and trust are trying to do what is right.

[WalkerW]

In a church venue you are choosing to give to those you have a familiarity with and trust are trying to do what is right.

I think you are going in the right direction regarding trust in an economic context. This is what Zion's covenants and "one heart, one mind" entails.

I've said this before, but people should check out Lindon J. Robison's Journal of Book of Mormon Studies articles.

[Jeff K.]

In that I agree with Walker, it is a question of trust, or faith if you will. I have yet to see a bureacracy upon which I could put a great deal of trust. If the trust is there I would willingly work and present all I have and to be cared for by those I trust.

[David Bokovoy]

Not to be nitpicky, but, well to be nitpicky, you can't be free with your substance if someone else is taking it from you and deciding where it should go. In a church venue you are choosing to give to those you have a familiarity with and trust are trying to do what is right.

I think it's good to be nitpicky. Words are important. So I'll do the same. It appears that your perspective relies upon interpreting the word "free" to mean something like "without obligation," or "uncontrolled," i.e. "free." However, this is not how the word is being used in this verse. The Book of Mormon statement "be free with your substance" uses the word "free" to mean "to disengage from; to rid; to strip; to clear; as, to free the body from clothes;" see Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828.

So the statement simply means that we are to "strip away" or "clear" out our wealth in order to make the poor rich.

[Robert F. Smith]

Then why the hell, if I may politely ask, have you continually insisted on initiating them for at least a year or more in this forum?

You may not have noticed, but there was a major recent change in the nature of this board. Even the name of the board was changed. The effort and hope was that we would all conduct ourselves in a more civil and well-mannered way, avoiding some of the ad hominems which seem to sully substantive debate.

[Robert F. Smith]

Perhaps you missed my post on the social background to social justice. The Bible conceived of Israel as being God's kin, with an obligation to care, provide and protect for ALL its members.

Including the stranger in your midst.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think it's good to be nitpicky. Words are important. So I'll do the same. It appears that your perspective relies upon interpreting the word "free" to mean something like "without obligation," or "uncontrolled," i.e. "free."

I do not think that is the way the Deborah was using the word "free".

[David Bokovoy]

I do not think that is the way the Deborah was using the word "free".

I may have misunderstood her. She seemed to be using the word to mean without restraint.

In all sincerity, I appreciate where you guys are coming from. It's right to question a government's motives and ability to properly care for the poor. I believe that governments have a communal responsibility to care for the poor, but one of the reasons why I shy away from these sorts of discussions is that I don't pretend to have all the answers.

[Robert F. Smith]

This is what I meant in the post Nomad cited. It certainly wasn't an effort to boast, and or present my position as an appeal to authority.

Good, because an appeal to authority is a fallacy, and I have been somewhat discomfited and embarrassed for you in some of your personal claims. Hugh Nibley would never have drawn attention to his personal qualifications. Better to remain humble and to engage the issues directly.

[Deborah]

It appears that your perspective relies upon interpreting the word "free" to mean something like "without obligation," or "uncontrolled," i.e. "free."

I was using the word in the context of giving freely out of love. I don't really see the BoM interpretation being "to disengage from; to rid; to strip; to clear; as, to free the body from clothes;" To me when one gives freely to help others it is the opposite of disengaged but rather deeply concerned and involved in that person's life and wanting to see them lifted up. That is impossible when you don't have "familiarity" and trust.

I would like to add I think governments should provide a safety net for those who are without sources to relieve them of dire need. There are those who slip through the cracks and have no other recourse and we can't always be aware of those people. But as we all know the problem with a bureaucratic distribution is that the givers and recipients become essentially nameless and faceless and it is easy to let those receiving to become dependent and non-productive, and rather than helping we end up hurting families, sometimes for generations.

I agree there are no easy answers. Would that we always had righteous leaders who understood that even the poor should keep their dignity. Having been myself a recipient of temporary state welfare, I know how easy it is to fall into the hopelessness of unqualified giving. Visits to the welfare office were extremely depressing as I couldn't understand why even if you are poor you couldn't comb your hair and wash your clothes. I think the giving spoken of in the BOM is with the intent of loving those people and building them up. When we "freely" give we give because we love those people and want them to raise themselves up, not to fall into the abyss of a bureaucratic pothole.

[Jeff K.]

And yet how do we deal with the waste....

Some Americans actually make a living

[volgadon]

The prohibition in Deuteronomy 24:12 is clearly a reflection of the Bible's emphasis upon caring for the basic needs of the poor and needy. To be honest, I had never considered the issue in terms of status. It's an interesting thought.

It seems to me to transcend the purely utalitarian. I think Boaz and Noah provide an interesting window into the connotations of coats and nakedness (or hesed and shame), which show that this proscription might also reflect the consideration due your kinsmen.

Even if I'm wrong the biblical principle is beautiful. In highschool we went over the long and (at the time) dry list of prohibitons and proscriptions in the Pentateuch.. This was one of the items which stood out to me.

[volgadon]

And yet how do we deal with the waste....

So I see the issue being two fold and why the need to be of one heart and one mind or Zion, is required.

Government has power and it takes, and it gives. It takes because it can, and gives in its largess to those it feels worthy. In effect it relieves people of the choice as to whether to give or not. It is a force.

On the other side you have people who may believe they deserve some type of largess. That it is their entitlement. They did not ask to be poor, but since they are, they do not need to work, but you need to pay. Their poverty is their shielf of righteousness. And of course you have the third stool on the leg, those with wealth and power who influence governments overwhelming power to ensure their position and strength and override the merits of their business model (if you will).

As long as these three factors exist, you cannot have Zion, you cannot have "social justice". You really only have demands. Demands by an overwhelming power, and demands by overwheening ideals of entittlement, and demands by a manipulative group with power. None can exist in Zion, or rather Zion cannot exist when those trends form.

Show me a system that overcomes all three and brings us all together towards one goal, and I will show you Zion. I do not think such a system can exist without Christ or a prophet speaking for Him at its head. And what is usually being asked is a submission of power to something that is manipulated by others for their own purposes.

That may be true, but I recall reading a few years ago about an Israeli journalist who heard rumours of how much money was to be made in begging. He put on old and dirty clothes and stood by one of the major intersections in Tel-Aviv, which is the more affluent region of the country. He made about 27 shekels the entire day. Given the exchange rate at the time, this was around $10. I think some people are very capable of making a living begging, for others though it is a precarious existence.

[jwhitlock]

I was using the word in the context of giving freely out of love. I don't really see the BoM interpretation being "to disengage from; to rid; to strip; to clear; as, to free the body from clothes;" To me when one gives freely to help others it is the opposite of disengaged but rather deeply concerned and involved in that person's life and wanting to see them lifted up. That is impossible when you don't have "familiarity" and trust.

I would like to add I think governments should provide a safety net for those who are without sources to relieve them of dire need. There are those who slip through the cracks and have no other recourse and we can't always be aware of those people. But as we all know the problem with a bureaucratic distribution is that the givers and recipients become essentially nameless and faceless and it is easy to let those receiving to become dependent and non-productive, and rather than helping we end up hurting families, sometimes for generations.

I agree there are no easy answers. Would that we always had righteous leaders who understood that even the poor should keep their dignity. Having been myself a recipient of temporary state welfare, I know how easy it is to fall into the hopelessness of unqualified giving. Visits to the welfare office were extremely depressing as I couldn't understand why even if you are poor you couldn't comb your hair and wash your clothes. I think the giving spoken of in the BOM is with the intent of loving those people and building them up. When we "freely" give we give because we love those people and want them to raise themselves up, not to fall into the abyss of a bureaucratic pothole.

We have an interesting situation here where I live, in that there are a significant number of Amish / Old Order Mennonites who tend to stay away from most (as much as is possible) government welfare and entitlements in their lives. They typically band together in their congregations in various forms of co-ops to self-insure and to generally fund and help other members who are having difficulties of various sorts. The system certainly isn't perfect, by any means, but it is instructive to observe how they do it and the successes they do have in doing it.

They tend to have the perspective that where government gets involved in welfare and social issues, things quickly get messed up (due to the unbreakable connection of voters and politicians) and so they just avoid government involvement as much as possible. The fact that government has its tentacles so deeply intertwined in our society indicates to me, at least, that it would be next to impossible to implement the law of consecration in our present society. Too many compromises, poisoning regulations, and political maneuvering would doom such efforts from the start.

Principles of consecration, from a scriptural standpoint, will only work among a people committed to living the law of the Celestial kingdom. Attempting in any way, whether mandated or not, to implement the full principles of consecration in our present society, with its corrupting influences, simply will not work.

[Jeff K.]

That may be true, but I recall reading a few years ago about an Israeli journalist who heard rumours of how much money was to be made in begging. He put on old and dirty clothes and stood by one of the major intersections in Tel-Aviv, which is the more affluent region of the country. He made about 27 shekels the entire day. Given the exchange rate at the time, this was around $10. I think some people are very capable of making a living begging, for others though it is a precarious existence.

I was pointing more at the tendency to manipulate or call upon government to do the work rather than working as a people. Israel may be a culture that is less prone to offer assistance where productivity exists. It may also be the person looked like a Palestinian. There is more to a viceral reaction, especially a nation surrounded by people that may be enemies at a drop of a hat.