Social Justice in the Bible

[semlogo]

For what it is worth, I look forward to your posts and threads. Not only are they erudite and enlightening, but your tone is always very loving. As of late, you have had the greatest impact on my thinking and approach to the scriptures. I read the articles you cite and put the books on my "to-read" list. And it has helped me immensely with certain struggles regarding claims of the Restoration. It has allowed me to see many modern doctrines and revelations in a new light.

And this is so despite being fairly certain that we don't agree on politics (at least on capitalism). That means so little to me that it is barely a blip on the radar. I have never interpreted your threads as devious conspiracies hellbent on corrupting the church into a quasi-Marxist Social Gospel. I simply see it as the reflections of a scholar.

So, thanks for sticking around. I hope you will continue to.

Indeed.

David B, don't let the peanut gallery discourage you. Everyone likes to pretend they're an expert on the internet. You however, are an expert in real life.

[Jeff K.]

So says the expert?

[Vance]

This is why so few scholars participate in public message boards, and why it's not doubt a mistake for me to post here.

I have no problem with a person not agreeing with my view. Honestly that

[Vance]

Indeed.

David B, don't let the peanut gallery discourage you. Everyone likes to pretend they're an expert on the internet.

Speaking for the peanut gallery, I resemble that remark.

[David Bokovoy]

For what it is worth, I look forward to your posts and threads. Not only are they erudite and enlightening, but your tone is always very loving. As of late, you have had the greatest impact on my thinking and approach to the scriptures. I read the articles you cite and put the books on my "to-read" list. And it has helped me immensely with certain struggles regarding claims of the Restoration. It has allowed me to see many modern doctrines and revelations in a new light.

And this is so despite being fairly certain that we don't agree on politics (at least on capitalism). That means so little to me that it is barely a blip on the radar. I have never interpreted your threads as devious conspiracies hellbent on corrupting the church into a quasi-Marxist Social Gospel. I simply see it as the reflections of a scholar.

So, thanks for sticking around. I hope you will continue to.

Thanks, Walker, for the kind words. I need to break a rule and clarify the misrepresentation of my personal views, something that has been going on for quite sometime.

You might be surprised that when push came to shove how much I could agree with your views on politics. Other than a desire to see the poor taken care of, I don't have strong political leanings. I love the scriptural concept of Zion.

What almost no one has picked up on in these threads, however, is that I'm much more interested in exploring biblical conceptions than I am in trying to determine how best to implement these views in the real world (this was one of the things that ticked Will off a couple years ago and that he could never quite understand). Obviously I tend to lean a bit towards the liberal side of politics, and I'm actually quite sensitive to the objectives of socialism, but for years, I have been registered as an Independent, have voted for both Republican and Democrat politicians, and will even once again publicly support Mitt Romney, assuming he runs for presidency.

I'll admit that in addition to enjoying sharing my thoughts with others on these scriptural topics, and reading in turn what they have to say, I'm kind of like that kid who enjoys shaking up the hornet nest to get a reaction. So even though I don't myself have strong political feelings, I do like to encourage my fellow Saints to think outside of the box and separate cultural traditions (including politics) from the scriptures and by extension, the Gospel.

Now I'm done explaining myself, let the scriptural discussion continue.

Best,

--DB

[David Bokovoy]

Speaking for the peanut gallery, I resemble that remark.

Thank, love you too, Vance.

[semlogo]

So says the expert?

I'm an expert on internets and internettery.

[Jeff K.]

Well played semilogo, well played.

[WalkerW]

You might be surprised that when push came to shove how much I could agree with your views on politics. Other than a desire to see the poor taken care of, I don't have strong political leanings. I love the scriptural concept of Zion.

That's why I had to clarify by stating "capitalism." I was just going off of bits and pieces where you had some strong words for conservative ideology. (then again, I often do too!)

What almost no one has picked up on in these threads, however, is that I'm much more interested in exploring biblical conceptions than I am in trying to determine how best to implement these views in the real world

It was many of your posts that really started me on the road to applying Zion principles in a secular society. It is refreshing to see someone attempt to construct a modern view based on consecration rather than trying to reinvent history due to modern views.

(this was one of the things that ticked Will off a couple years ago and that he could never quite understand).

Ah. I wondered about that.

Obviously I tend to lean a bit towards the liberal side of politics

This is all I meant, really. You have more liberal leanings. I'm more of a conservative libertarian. Nonetheless, we're all children of God, even dirty socialists. (I love saying that ever since I heard John Locke described as a "

.")

and I'm actually quite sensitive to the objectives of socialism

As am I, though I disagree with its methods.

This is actually why I have a slight problem with the very individualistic approach to market systems. I think it misses the big picture. The systems implemented should maintain the dignity of the individual as well as the society as a whole. This is why I've argued recently that the rhetoric surrounding markets needs to change.

and will even once again publicly support Mitt Romney, assuming he runs for presidency.

[this represents the reactions of everyone who knows that you are nothing but a socialist conspirator]

kind of like that kid who enjoys shaking up the hornet nest to get a reaction.

I have another friend like you. I call him a "baiter." :-)

So even though I don't myself have strong political feelings, I do like to encourage my fellow Saints to think outside of the box and separate cultural traditions (including politics) from the scriptures and by extension, the Gospel.

That is a great thing to encourage.

Now I'm done explaining myself, let the scriptural discussion continue.

Onward.

[Jeff K.]

Capitalism and conservative ideology often do not coincide on some levels.

Those who have read Smith's "Wealth of Nations" would know that Smith endorsed capitalism with the proviso that they are morally correct (in terms of taking care of the poor). Many modern capitalists have ignored or stipped out the moral aspect in order to seek virtue in self interest. While there are efficiencies in self interest that cannot be denied, morality (ie being moral and good) is not necessarily one of them.

So capitalism itself is often a misunderstood concept by those that are proponents of it.

If one reads Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" book five you will note that Smith believed it was incumbant on governments to apporach markets with the ideal of the civic republican tradition. Nor did he believe every market result was automatically good, and every government action automatically bad.

While never published, his notes on "Lectures on Jurisprudence" devoted a great deal ot ime to analyzing proper government functions and how to pay for them.

I love the Feb 16th lecture when he starts out "We observe slavery is much more tolerable in a poor barbaric society than in a rich and polished society", not quite an exact quote, but liked it so much I use it when lecturing on slavery in America.

[Loran Howard Blood]

The biblical conception of social justice has been clearly defined in this thread.

No, it hasn't. The only "definitions" offered up to the point of the thread I'm responding to here were not definitions, in any substantive sense, but simply the referencing of the term "social justice" to other abstract concepts that themselves are in need of definition before a coherent picture of meaning can emerge.

The community is very much a living entity capable of accumulating collective guilt from a biblical perspective.

I'm sure that is your interpretation of the scriptural record, and I'm equally sure such an interpretation is accepted by the tiny coterie of like minded intellectuals who see in this interpretation justification for their own particular worldviews and values. I would be interested in your providing support for this interpretation from the writings and words of the Lord's servants in our day in official Church published sources, as I don't recall, in half a century, such interpretations having ever been taught, anywhere, at any time, by any of the Brethren in any official capacity as prophets, seers, and revelators.

To begin to understand this biblical view, you should start with the effects of punishment versus blessing in Deuteronomy:

"I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments" (Deuteronomy 5:9-10; NRSV).

Yes, David, and as every Latter Day Saint who ever went through primary understands, this has to do with the manner in which the "traditions of the fathers" are passed down from generation to generation in family lines and can spread to the wider culture. It is not a metaphysical statement regarding conditions within a kind of gospel Borg.

God punishes people for sins that their parent committed up until the third and fourth generation after the act, i.e. group responsibility

Where is this taught in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ please?

And lest one assume that these concepts are simply biblical and do not reflect precepts found in the Restoration, note the following quotes featured on the official lds website pertaining to communal salvation in the context of the family:

[Loran Howard Blood]

The blinding lie of extreme individualism is that private morality has no social impact.

Who, in this forum, is promoting such a philosophy?

How would society be different if every individual honored his marriage vows, was completely honest in business dealings, and kept the 10 commandments? How about if every individual who was able, worked diligently to be self-sufficient? What if every individual who had surplus used it to feed those whose efforts did not satisfy their needs?

Much better, but how is this relevant to David's core concepts regarding the UO or "communal" morality and guilt?

Individual behavior, righteous or wicked, has communal consequences.

No one yet has denied or questioned this.

In terms of practical application, the only question worth asking in a less than ideal society like ours is "Will I let other mens' wickedness excuse my failure to live my covenants or will I be one of the few whose righteousness possibly spares the goup?"

Where please, is it taught anywhere in the restored gospel that one's own righteousness can be imputed to others? Where is it taught that, without these other's personal, individual choosing of repentance and righteousness, your influence can ever be anything more than another alternative from which they may choose, or "list" as the NT would have it?

[Loran Howard Blood]

Democracy = theft. Got it.

Democracy = a majority of wolves deciding how many lambs to have for dinner and how to prepare them. Theft is only the beginning of the problems of democracy.

[Loran Howard Blood]

Nice to hear.

Not at all. Perhaps I was unclear.

Just trying to emphasize the point that "social justice" in modern US has NOTHING to do with Biblical justice.

"Social justice" has come to mean theft is ok as long as you are stealing from someone (or group) that is perceived to be more wealthy than you or your group, regardless for the reason for this difference.

If theft is wrong under any circumstance, then "social justice" does not and can not be equated with Biblical justice.

Those that are using "social justice" when "justice" is more accurate are doing their argument a disservice, if their intent is to discuss Biblical justice. A good many people hear "social justice" and we automatically are turned off. "Social justice" has become code for something quite the opposite to Biblical justice. The resistance to dumping the "social" is an indication that the real intent is to include the "code" in such a way as to equate the two.

If that is not the real intent, then do everybody a favor and DUMP the "social"!

This is very important I think because the crux of the matter is that the term "social justice" has no place in gospel discourse at all. It a term of fairly recent coinage (20th century) and comes to us from the progressive, Marxist/cultural Marxist Left. It does not come from the Bible per se, nor does it have any basis in the scriptures of the restoration.

Its meaning, as used probably since the thirties, if of purely secular, ideological provenance and has no connection to gospel principles relative to "justice" as normatively understood, and, in particular, as understood and given legal reality in the divinely inspired document we know as the Constitution.

Indeed, the concept "social justice" is unintelligible within the context of either a free, personal responsibility oriented society of self governing individuals or a Zion society in which the individual is judged, as an individual, according to the choices made and works done in this life, as well as the thoughts and intents of the individual heart (unless someone here wishes to make the argument that, even here, there is some kind of collective consciousness that dilutes and diffuses internal mental states throughout a communal hive that absorbs or negates the moral and spiritual weightedness of our internal mental states.).

[Loran Howard Blood]

I understand and agree that using language that has been abused and misused in the political realm can cause problems.

That's not the problem. The term itself has no gospel or biblical provenance. It arose in the secular world among a specific movement, or set of movements that, as a group, are overwhelmingly hostile to both fundamental gospel principles and the kind of society generated by documents/principles such as found in the Constitution and other founding documents.

We should' t be using it at all, any more than we should be importing postmodern concepts, racialism, feminist ideology, class ressentiment, or any other form of Korihorism into the Church.

[Loran Howard Blood]

It has been defined.

Nonsense! Social justice refers to the concept of creating a society or institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that recognizes the value of human rights. It is directly linked with communalism in the Bible and the need to provide "justice" for the poor and needy in society, i.e. "social justice."

"Social justice refers to the concept of creating a society or institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that recognizes the value of human rights. It is directly linked with communalism in the Bible and the need to provide "justice" for the poor and needy in society, i.e. "social justice"

1.Who creates, and in what manner is, a society "created" (Joseph said, "I teach the people correct principles and they govern themselves.")?

2. These are not definitions, none of them. They are an attempt to avoid defining the term by simply referring the questiner to other, equally vague abstract concepts that are themselves in need of just as much definition as the original term. What David and others here are doing is much like defining the term "freedom" as "Liberty," and then defining the term "liberty" as "rights." So please, let's clear the chessboard and clearly and specifically define

1. Equality

2. Solidarity

2 Human rights

Interestingly, the last sentence in David's post here substantiates what I and others have been saying all along. Any need to provide "justice" to "the poor" as a unitary class within society implies, indeed, that the poor are poor as a group and that something has been done to them, as a group, that warrants the extension of collective justice to them (the poor are never poor as a matter of their own choices or chosen paths in life, but only as a result of an equally collective injustice; some one, some other group, or institution(s) has imposed their poverty upon them through its control and manipulation of society and its institutions. "The poor," therefore, as a group, have an inherent moral claim of "social justice" upon their oppressors who, in being "cut down to size," are only being made to atone for the collective injustice they have wrought on "the poor" by the very act of being affluent.

If poverty is an individual condition (and I've known it well) brought about by as many and varied choices, conditions, and situations in life as is wealth, then the entire social justice paradigm collapses philosophically and morally as nothing more than the classic tyrannical, totalitarian hubris that seeks to level (Lucifer's original alternative plan of salvation) what it cannot otherwise manipulate and control.

The concept of social justice is derived directly from longstanding Marxian and Leftist concepts of institutional oppresstion, a concept that must first be understood and then swallowed whole before claims to gospel applicability can be made about it. Failing such a digestive process, "social justice" is just a code term, like "progressive" and "participatory democracy" for "socialism."

Socialism is dead. Long live social justice!

[Loran Howard Blood]

As mentioned, the Bible calls for a cyclical overhaul of the economy via the Year of Jubilee (Lev. 25-26).

No, "the Bible" patently doesn't. One part of the OT, representing governance under the law of Moses several thousand years ago, does.

In the year of Jubilee, there was a complete release of all debts, a Sabbath rest for land and people, and redistribution of lands lost by the poor due to debt. This system was designed to eradicate long term poverty and establish social justice. Was eradicating the debt owed to a lender "theft"?

Doing this now would not only mean the utter destruction of the economy, and the creation of mass poverty and the substantial decline of living standards where none existed before, but would overturn the entire New and Everlasting Covenant by reinstituting major social aspects of the law of carnal commandments that were fulfilled and done away in Christ.

I await the word of Thomas Monson on when this process is to begin.

What about the eradication of poverty via income and property redistribution under the United Order? Was that "theft"?

The stewardship recieved back from the Bishop by each individual was the same property deeded to the Church by covenant, and became a personal, privately controlled stewardship, or body of "talents." The core of eradication of poverty in Zion is not wealth redistribution, but productive economic activity, or, in other words, work. Wealth creation is the key to the eradication of poverty, not the continual redistribution of an ever dwindling economic pie in which the slices must become smaller and smaller with each round of redistribution. "Welfare" in Zion will be an intermittent stopgap measure for the intermittently poor as it is now, and a permanent fixture only in the lives of those who, for various reasons, cannot work or contribute to the productive activities of the Zion community.

"Redistribution of wealth" is nothing but a leftist shibboleth you are importing into scriptural exegesis because it makes you feel morally superior to others who, although desiring equally to eradicate poverty, see in the UO a very different emphasis from yours.

[Loran Howard Blood]

...but obedience to the system, even in the most socialistic of states, is voluntary based upon the terms and conditions outlined within the system.

In other words, you resist, or criticize, you disappear. How interesting it is the degree to which "the intellectuals" can pour sugar on excrement. Not all of my adult life, in all of my reading and study regarding "the most socialistic of states," have I failed to come across, again and again, defenses of even the most oppressive totalitarian systems as essentially voluntary. The logic is really very simple. None of these systems (save two I can think of: Hitler and Allende) came to power with the consent of the governed, nor ever allowed them any contribution to the nature of their governance. And yet, David can speak of "terms and conditions" as if they applied to the Soviet Union, North Vietnam, Cuba, or Maoist China in the same manner as they apply in the United States or Australia.

Whether the government is man-made or a theocracy, you're always free to disobey and accept the consequences.

This is true. You are always free to hold a Bible study in your own home and go to Lao Gai. You're always free to have more than one child and lose your job and have your wife forcibly sterilized or the fetus aborted. Your always free to write and put up a flier critical of your government and be taken to a fetid dungeon and subjected to atrocities for years. You're always free to hide Jews in the attic, or not to. Its up to you.

We are "free," yes, but David hasn't actually define this term yet. What does it mean to be "free"?

Redistribution of wealth is not equivalent to a beating heart, i.e. involuntary action.

No, it isn't, but its a sub-optimum manner in which to eradicate poverty, and if done on a society-wide scale as the core of such an attempt, will produce precisely the opposite of the intended effects.

[David Bokovoy]

As usual, Loran, I'm afraid that I'm not interested in addressing most of your writings, for the extent to wish you wish to debate the application of these concepts in the modern political world is irrelevant to my objectives and/or interests. I will, however, address your comments connected with scriptural analysis.

Yes, David, and as every Latter Day Saint who ever went through primary understands, this has to do with the manner in which the "traditions of the fathers" are passed down from generation to generation in family lines and can spread to the wider culture. It is not a metaphysical statement regarding conditions within a kind of gospel Borg.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with the primary/sunday school interpretation you support. In reality, Old Testament authors believed in divine vicarious punishment and deferred trans-generational guilt. There's simply no way around it. This may not accord with your political views and/or religious ideology, but it is an important biblical conception. Note that David did not receive the death penalty for his sins; instead, the penalty was transferred to his unborn son:

[David Bokovoy]

Oh, and um, if you're still not convinced the Bible teaches communal punishment, you should probably go read the story of Achan.

[Loran Howard Blood]

However, some on this board apparently equate democracy in America with totalitarian dictatorship of the proletariat,

Marx himself was quite clear that communism was a movement seeking a democratic social order. Indeed, Marx said that "Democracy is the road to socialism."

Lenin himself stated that "Democracy and socialism are inseparable."

Karl Kautsky said that "For us...socialism without democracy is unthinkable." Socialism is about "the democratic organization of society."

The idea can be found throughout historical and contemporary socialist writings and commentary.

[USU78]

This is why so few scholars participate in public message boards, and why it's not doubt a mistake for me to post here.

I have no problem with a person not agreeing with my view. Honestly that

[Loran Howard Blood]

Would the economic system of the Old Testament have provided for the increased well being of the world today (ie longer life cycles, more productive life cycles and so on).

Exactly. The economic system and dynamics as they existed in OT times provided a standard of agrarian poverty at subsistence levels for a tribal people in groups of not more than a few thousand or so per community. Living standards, in other words, much like those of most other ancient peoples.

Is the communal responsibility a reflection of the economic system in place at the time, or was it universal to all economic systems? We apply the Old Testament to singular points but do not embrace its entire rule base. How would we, for example interpret Christ's dictum regarding the emphasis of individual responsibility over social responsibility?

Nibley's Approaching Zion (and some of his other writings and statements) is an unalloyed rejection of the entire "personal responsibility" paradigm common to the western classical liberal tradition - including its strong Judeo-Christian elements, and at times palpably loathes the concept of private property rights, individual achievement, and economic creativiey, while wallowing in a wide eyed romanticization of ancient subsistence lifestyles. Much of the argument Bokovoy has been making here is, or rather has been influenced by, Nibley's ideas.

I still really do love and respect Nibley for the great work he did in other important areas, nonetheless.

[Loran Howard Blood]

So you

[David Bokovoy]

And I've got 27 years' experience dealing with property rights, trusts, debt instruments, debtor/creditor law, and comparative law, with a lifetime as well of studying and thinking about things Biblical . . . as well as specific experience with the Short Creek version of a UEP Trust. These things matter as well, and, as far as me telling you you don't understand the Jubilee, if you'll recall, I was claiming they WEREN'T observing the Jubilees and Sabbatical Years, which is what our friend Smith reminded us all of, above. Saying they didn't observe them is not criticizing your understanding, especially of Hebrew, in which I am an egg, as anybody with a lick of sense knows.

Then disagree, share an alternative perspective, etc. but if you can't read the text in its original language and are dependent entirely upon interpretations of the Bible in order to even read it, it's a bit silly to state publicly that you understand the way the Bible presents the Jubilee, but I do not because you've dealt with modern property rights, trusts, debt instruments, debtor/creditor law, and comparative law.

So far as your point:

1. Whether or not Israel ever lived the Jubilee is entirely irrelevant to the fact that God commanded them to do so in the Bible.

2. The Bible praises those who did live the Lord's law of release. An important example of the remission of debts in the Second-Temple period included Nehemiah