The Heritage of Social Injustice

Year ago I was sitting in a break room, overhearing a conversation about a child abuser who had been in the news. The men remarked that typical jail time was too good for such a man. I responded by saying that the man was going to hell. Men generally cannot imagine that there is a hell, and that a just and holy and wise God will inflict an eternal punishment in that place – a punishment which will be peculiarly suited to each reprobate’s sins. Think of it – how cynical and hopeless our lives would be if we thought for one moment that men like Hitler just died and that was all there was to it.
Heaven is the Christian’s hope, but hell is his hope also. We can take comfort that wicked men will finally suffer a punishment which a just and holy and wise God will inflict upon them for all eternity. Men generally don’t like to consider such pictures of God’s justice. But I need to consider it, because it reminds me of God’s mercy. For apart from God’s mercy, there would be a hell for me. I have hope of heaven, because Christ Jesus suffered for my sins. He suffered in a span of hours what I would have suffered for all eternity. Without this frame of reference, any man’s discussion of “social justice” is nothing but immorally and stupid self-justification which is absolutely blind to the light of God’s holiness and righteousness.

I am also for plain speaking because the Bible is plain speaking...it doesn't get more plain than Romans 9. But to do so opens us to the accusers of being without compassion, as if the state is better able to show it than the churches.

I have heard it said that there is no mercy without justice.

It is interesting that in Micah 7:18 the prophet described mercy in terms of God passing over "the rebellious act of the remnant of His possession" -- the remnant, not the whole. That one verse would be enought to drive modern religionists to reject the entire Bible.

The Law of Christ is the Law of Love, and in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that the weightier things of the Law are justice, mercy and faithfulness. Love, therefore, is the faithful excercise of justice and mercy. We cannot experience God's mercy and love without an appreciation of His justice.

The cross was the display of God's faithfulness to fullfil His promise of granting mercy to His people by means of delivering justice to His Son. "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (2 Cor. 5:21)

George, the religionists do reject parts of the Bible that contradict their presuppositions, choosing instead to justify their beliefs and practice on passages that can be twisted to suit them. We have plenty examples of that here with some commenters.

I thought that Mr. Olasky did a good job associating justice and righteousness. There is nothing righteous in state mandated socialism, appealing to class envy and thief of personal property without consent of the people. This is the tyranny our Founders warned us about. I hope he will make this clear in his Part 2.

Mr. Schaeffer's words are full of wisdom, if the churches would listen to him. His Christian Manifesto appears to have had limited influence. Levin's Conservative Manifesto on the other hand is approaching a million copies. I have the same concern that you expressed…conservatism can not effectively stand as a world view unsupported by its Reformation base.

Thanks for your inputs…

I just read a Ben Smith article on Politico.com in which President Obama is quoted as saying, "We are God's partners in matters of life and death." I was immediately reminded of Herod’s death, which is recorded in Acts 12:21-23. I would also draw your attention to Psalm 2. The kings of the earth are raging, but God has installed His King upon His holy mountain. His counsels most certainly are coming to pass, and the vanities of men will be exposed. I have read the last chapter; God wins.

everything to the individual. What is prohibited to individual, that is the unjust treatment of others, is allowed to the group.

There is no doubt that there are justice issues between individuals. But when groups sin against other groups, you have justice issues as well.

Sorry I haven't commented, but I've been busy.

I say again, that man is a sinner, and unless the heart is reformed, he will continue to sin (Romans 7). If we think relying on the government to enforce righteousness is Godly, then why did Jesus set up His kingdom in our hearts, and not on this earth (John 18:36)? He could very well have done so (John 6:15), except this wasn't the will of the Father, whose will He said He came to perform (John 5:30).

Whose will are those who preach liberation from "social injustice" performing?

One can't lie (decieve) to someone who knows the Truth (John 10:5).

You said this:

"If we think relying on the government to enforce righteousness is Godly, then why did Jesus set up His kingdom in our hearts, and not on this earth (John 18:36)?"

A couple of problems here. First, Romans 13 explicitly says that the purpose of gov't is to enforce a certain measure of righteousness. It certainly isn't the level of righteousness needed for sanctification, but it is a level that allows a society to function and the Gospel to be more easily shared.

The next problem, all good changes in man come from God. When it comes through faith in Christ, it is through the preaching of the Gospel, but there are other good changes that lie outside of the preaching of the Gospel. Anyone who works with people sees that. I have seen it both while teaching in college and while a social worker. Just because the change doesn't lead to faith in Christ, doesn't mean that the change does not come from God. And I would suggest that you look up both special and common grace.

See, all blessings come from God whether the middle man for the blessing is a Christian or a non-Christian. The act of giving credit for God's blessing to man can occur regardless of who the middle man is.

Finally, it seems that, if a person doesn't believe, you want them to be punished into believing.

in not for the poor to be made rich in this world's goods, but:

Romans 8:4
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.


The will of God is what is important on this earth(Luke 11:2), not the provision of the flesh:

Romans 13
13Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.

14But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.


Since the affections of my heart are not on the flesh, and the things that pertain to it, I cannot agree with you. To be in such agreement, would mean that I was at enmity with God (Romans 8).
No thanks, I'd rather be made rich over yonder.

‘Finally, it seems that, if a person doesn't believe, you want them to be punished into believing.’ –c5 accusing Chiefest


Chiefest has again given you the gospel and doing so while turning the other cheek, being as one of no reputation. Enough of your nonsense; he speaks and practices the things of grace more than some who take the label ‘reformed’ and haven’t a clue.

You are projecting again because you are ignorant of the ways of grace nor do you understand the first things of the kingdom. You accuse the humble Christian of arrogance when it is you who are full of pride. The first thing of grace is to lay our pride in the dust, where it belongs. There are examples of this in the Scriptures, for example Isaiah 6 and Revelation 1.

We are not about forcing anything here, except the truth as revealed in Jesus Christ. Repent and believe the gospel. Be a hearer and doer of the word, according to the wisdom from above. [James 3:13-18]

You should want riches in the next life rather than the current life.

But what those who challenge social injustice deal with is survival, not riches. And this survival is for the have nots, not people like you.

Finally, it would seem that if we are really encouraging people to seek riches in the next life vs this life, then we should encourage them to share, both personally and through increased taxes, so that the have nots can survive.

I am not going to debate the fact that Chief is one of the least graceful people here, Jack could attest to that. For it is not how you treat your friends that testifies of your grace, it is how you treat your opponents.

What is debatable is the results on the needy that having no gov't programs has. And if be graceful means supporting Social Darwinism, which those who oppose gov't help for the poor either intentionally or unintentionally support, then both you and chief are two of the most graceful people I know.

But we should add a disclaimer that says grace is no longer grace.

You can accuse me of anything you want, in the end, it merely provides for you a distraction from the issues.