I have had a lot of time to think this Advent, and I have come to the conclusion that I have had a long standing quarrel with Social Justice advocates, ever since I was first exposed to the idea in College. As such, you might be warned that this essay is somewhat inflammatory. Read with caution; and feel free to take me to task about anything.

From what I can understand, the modern phenomenon is a kind of sentiment that is developed from watching videos and reading papers about the suffering that man inflicts - intentionally and otherwise - on his fellow man. Occasionally it is rooted in actual experience. It is expressed as a kind of guilt about possessions and inequalities. I can't say that there aren't positive things about this overall, but I think only in the sense that God is able to make all things work for our good.

1. What do we mean by 'Justice'?

It is an extremely popular word these days. Even as I speak there is a girl's fashion store called 'Justice'. If I understand the movement properly, the goal is ultimately to show mercy on other human beings in a self-sacrificial way. (Am I wrong?)

If we look at, for instance, Roman Catholic monastics - who are champions of this sort of thing in the West since God-only-knows-when - we can find that there are many 'Sisters of Mercy' - but how many 'Sisters of Justice' are there?

So my question is about this turn-of-phrase - It should be Social Mercy. If not, why not look at, for instance, St. Basil's (writing in the ~4th century) take on the idea? It appears that 'Justice' is used because we are in some sense receiving a punishment for a crime - that is abusing our neighbor and our world- but we do not inflict the punishment.

Basil calls us to love and mercy, The name of our movement itself contains a seed of anger, of resentment, and thus, not of love. Does this make sense? I hope so. We are not called to inflict or level 'justice' against ourselves or others - we are called to do mercy.

2. What is the source of this sentimentality?

It appears to be something invoked by the quasi-totemic use of mass media. I say quasi-totemic because we see images of starving children and we accept whatever we are told about them.

The reality of the situation is that we are being manipulated - whether for good or for ill - and that as much as many advocates of Social Justice tend to be against the semi-coercion and shameless pandering of the corporate world - non-profits do the same thing.

We should be suspicious any time we are being coerced into something! If God himself does not coerce us (Does he not knock?) how can we justify manipulating our fellow man?

3. What are the results of this sentimentality?

There are plenty. I recall a notion of 'white privilege' for instance that was given to me as a way to explain why - as best as I could understand - we were to obsequiate ourselves before persons based on skin color. As I understand it the process works this way - we observe our ancestor's sins against those of other colors - it generates in us a kind of guilt - finally we create a rationalization for this guilt - White Privilege!

This is also a kind of totem, I think. What about the poor white people? What about middle class white people who had a seriously rough time growing up?

Slavery Reparitions were another example of this oddity. I can't help but be reminded of sacrifices made to appease pagan gods. True Justice would be to restore relationships - but not necessarily to 'level' things out. Do we calculate equality on dollars? Years of life? Number of friends? Votes in government?

It is another totem that we prepare sacrifices to, to receive a kind of temporary catharsis from our sins. It is calculated entirely on sentiment - a wholly narcissistic endeavor I think.

Consider this: It is wrong - always - to steal. It is better then to beg than to steal or lie for money. It is better to work for money than to beg for it. If we were really interested in helping 'black people' (what a grand faloon! Almost as absurd as 'white people'!) we would figure out what we could do to help particular individuals who were suffering, like a hospital does.

Beside all of this, what is a single payment of some hundred dollars going to do to really help black folks? We - and we all should - recognize that not everyone is as productive as anyone else. We cannot define humanness on being 'productive, independent self made citizens'.

We cannot, though, on the other hand, take a whole swath of humanity based on skin color and regard them as de-facto indigents. It is in my mind a final injustice and indignity done to black skinned people in America - in the name of justice.

But I'm not holding out hope - I'm sure we can find worse things to do.

4. Why is there this guilt?

It strikes me as the act of an addict. A man does not feel guilty if he makes a mistake or 'does what he does not wish to do' - he feels contrition certainly, and knows his weakness. Guilt is when he harbors within himself the desire to do wrong but also at the same time the knowledge that he ought not to have such a desire. If he has relieved himself of this desire, he does not feel guilty, though he may feel vulnerable, weak, beggarly, poor, and so forth.

My theory is this. In this notion of social justice we believe that it is wrong to be rich, and yet, it is wrong to be poor. How is this? Firstly we feel like it is wrong that we are born with more resources - or with the potential for more resources - than someone else. Then we also believe that it is wrong for them to not have the resources that we have. If we were successful in making them no longer poor, we would have done what? Made them have more resources than someone else? Would that be justice?

And examine the problem of our wealth. If we were born this way, then effectively God has made us this way. Did God create evil? It is instead a great good that we were born rich; we do not consider it a tragedy that the only-begotten is rich in his Divinity!

We do not, however, examine the reason for God making us rich. Instead, we desire to not have the guilt of having more than another, but at the same time feel the need for such things (as we are indeed, embodied, beggarly creatures!) So we desire the thing - wealth - which we think is evil.

The reason is clear, as John Chrysostom has said, that God has made some of us managers of his good things, to help others. We are wealthy for our salvation! (Read that in full, it is very important!)

Another important thing to understand about money in particular, is that it is worthless until it is given away. The only reason we think a dollar is worth anything is because we know that we can go to McDonalds and trade it for a small fries, for example.

To horde it - and even other kinds of wealth - can then be seen to be an instance of the parable of the man and his many barns. Might not any of us die tonight and be then having to answer for our theft (i.e. not being priest and steward, but simple collector?) - and also everything we had no longer is ours but now returns to whomever can claim it?

I think what most makes young folks guilty - and I do cast a severe eye on those leading the social justice movement - is that they realistically are not wealthy nor are they given any means to know how to wisely use what limited resources they have beyond their needs. Basically they are given an intractible situation.

If you are rich, it is easy (like in the parable the rich man and the widow) to make some kind of 'impact' - you have a lot of excess resources. But if you are middle class, if you try to give excessively, you may go from liberality to simple foolishness. Have you ever tried to help someone in need? Think of it this way: If I need 2000 bucks a month to live on, two people might need 4000 bucks a month to live on. If I don't make 4000 bucks a month, how am I going to support the other person? This is inaccurate, but highlights the problem that these young people are presented with.

Traditional asceticism - fasting, prayers, almsgiving - is not taught. It is not considered in any fashion part of what a Christian is expected to do - though Jesus seems to think it is. We would be misled if we thought that fasting was merely a way to control our appetite.

Does it not create a kind of liberty where we are in some degree lessening our needs? And can we not give from this extra? And when we pray do we not learn to submit ourselves to inconvenience? And does this not create a kind of liberty? And so on. Almsgiving is a skill that we must learn. And demanding of those who have no way to learn it the results of it is, I believe, wrong.

5. What is with the Political connections?

The other problem is that you can find this movement only on the Left, more or less. Christianity is apolitical; it is a short walk here to realize that something is amiss! Some might have interpreted this to mean that 'those on the Right are simply wrong / not Christian' but the ties between Social Justice and politics are not just clear but essential.

It is one thing to have to rely on leaders who are sympathetic to Christians to not block or prevent initiatives but it is another to assume that political leaders are the only real means of achieving these goals. If it were merely the former, we should not care who is in office. Dick Cheney might be a dangerous man, he might be selfish, he might be arrogant, but we can't argue that he would stop us from building an orphanage. He might however not support a political social initiative of ours.

Can we take a little history here and realize that Christians were known for acts of mercy and aid to the poor long before they were not being killed for their faith, much less having leaders who supported them?

---

I'd conclude by recalling an aphorism that there is among conservatives: To be mugged by life is to become a conservative. It is not easy to help people, even if you want to. Some give up on this - we can show at least some sympathy.

The pull for social justice as commonly stated actually is a pull for social revenge. It is wholly thought of and stated in material terms - whereas from Christ's example we know that his gift - which had no monetary value - exceeded in true value beyond any money or material gifts. How is it that the widow's mite is more valuable than the rich man's riches?

We cannot dematerialize, i.e. say to our brother, 'God bless you' and give him no aid. But we also cannot as Christians think that we are doing what is right by giving aid but never saying, 'God bless you.' We are all, realistically, poor outside of the mercy of God. Filthy beggars, all of us! How then are we enriching the poor by making them rich but not offering them God's blessing?

We are not merely stewards of creation, but if you, reader, believe in the 'Priesthood of all believers', tell me what that means? Does that not mean that we are not just stewards but the priests of the cosmos? We cannot be blamed for this state of ignorance (it is in and of itself blameless!), since we may have no experience of a priest. (It is biblical language, though.) The priest blesses and sanctifies, and restores relationships (consider the Aaronic priesthood.)

In this and only this way can we really create Social Justice - for Christ's work is not separate from his priestly order, our great High Priest after the order of Melchizedek.

How adventitious - for on this season we look forward to chanting this Psalm:

"From the womb before the morning star have I begotten thee; The Lord has sworn and will not repent! Thou art priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."

May you and all of us look to Christ and his Church (the pillar and foundation of truth!) this time of the Advent of our Lord to teach us how to be priests, especially in this season where we recall the richest coming among us as poor, the most esteemed appearing as a stranger, the Most High coming as a lowly babe, born in a cave put to use as a stable, placed where the food for irrational beasts would be. Ironic!