The threat of 'social justice' -- it's NOT about the money

Lost in the hullabaloo of the health-care insurance bill that passed Congress this week is a situation that hasn't raised a whole lot of controversy -- yet. But it will.

Last week, Fox News talk-show host Glenn Beck decided to turn his guns on the concept of "social justice," which he (as well as the conservatives who follow him) interprets as "economic redistribution." When Jim Wallis of the Washington, D.C.-based Sojourners ministry decided to challenge Beck on that, Beck decided to go after Wallis. (You can read about it on www.sojo.net.)

The trouble is that Beck is wrong.

So what is "social justice"? Well, as I understand it, it's the willingness to change structures -- laws, customs etc. -- so that people have the opportunity to experience "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Justice allows people to work for a decent wage free of discrimination, legal or otherwise, so that they can support their families and contribute to their communities.

Here's the problem: Justice often means changing the status quo, which is threatening to a lot of people because political means often must be used to achieve it. (Yes, that can, and often does, mean government involvement.) It's the real reason why folks favor "small government" -- its only purpose from that perspective is to protect "my status and my stuff." For that reason, when people do stand up for justice they raise hackles and even may risk their lives.

The American civil-rights movement is the most obvious example. In the 1950s African-Americans in the South were not permitted to vote, shop where they pleased, use public facilities except those designated for them, attend decent schools etc. So black churches began to mobilize to fight for change -- and then the people who wanted things to stay the same decided to push back. Eventually people would pay with their lives for the cause, but the South was eventually transformed. (Poverty wasn't really the issue because many of the foot soldiers were actually fairly wealthy and prominent citizens.)

That theme -- the powerless rising up and demanding their rights and the powerful resisting them -- has repeated itself time and time again through history.

Anyway, as part of a move toward a more just society, in the 1960s President Lyndon Baines Johnson organized what we call the "Great Society" -- from which come such Federal programs as Head Start, educational grants and cut-rate loans and affirmative action -- to give the formerly locked-out a chance to succeed and to "catch up." Trouble was, all this was seemingly done at the expense of those who already had such advantages, who became resentful as a result (and that resentment is still in play as I write). This is where the complaints about "big government," the "welfare problem" and "economic redistribution" come in, with the insistence that such programs actually hurt people in the long run. (As if they know what's good for them.)

So what's wrong with private charities doing such work? Three things: One, there's simply not enough manpower or money available in the private sector to do all that's necessary. Two, the people who are donating their money or services are still very much "in control" -- which is part of the problem. Three, charity doesn't cause any substantive change in their basic state. (Remember the cliche that "you can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you don't have any boots.")

That said, with all the bellyaching about government help for the poor, I never hear critics actually talk about empowering them by encouraging them to vote, run for office, become community activists or even buy homes -- the things that cause people to "own" their lives. It's no accident, for example, that government agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were singled out for particular scrutiny after the housing market tanked in 2008. And do you think for a second that Beck went after ACORN last year for no reason? (Hint: Most of the people it was registering to vote in 2008 would have been Democrats.)

Bottom line, we need to rethink our concept of justice, which can be best summed up by our LORD: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." And part of that is understanding what they really need instead of simply deciding what we want them to have.

Spiritual warfare

While talking with a couple who visited my church today -- they're both musicians I've worked with in the past -- we got to talking about the anti-Obama campaign waged right now across this country. She actually brought up something I had considered but not said publicly, and I think she's right.

This is not simply a political or ideological fight and, at bottom, not really about President Barack Obama. When you get right down to it, this is spiritual warfare due to a situation where people fear what they consider upcoming cataclysmic change that is completely out of their control because, basically, they have lost their trust in God. And when that happens, well ... people get irrational. When I see all these "tea parties" complaining about overreaching government, hear about Obama being denounced as a Communist or read about pastors praying for his death, I detect more than political posturing; I will even go out on a limb and say that this campaign is the work of the Enemy. If that sounds harsh or presumptuous, did you notice that they never give any alternatives to what they say is "bad government" or considered that the policies they actually subscribe to just didn't work? At this point they're just making accusations -- and keep in mind that the term "Satan" means "accuser."

I'm a student of the civil-rights movement, and similar phony charges were made against Martin Luther King Jr. In fact, much of the opposition to him was based on his use of the Federal government to overturn state and local laws that codified the racial discrimination he was trying to destroy. And in the same way, people became nutty, saying that he was making a mint through his civil-rights work, in league with Moscow or visiting white prostitutes, none of which were true, in order to de-legitimize him. (I wonder what Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck would say if they were on the air back then.)

And therein is the reason I believe this to be spiritual warfare: Before we can deal with sin it has to be exposed and recognized as such, and that's precisely what King did with his nonviolent demonstrations -- he correctly surmised that the racist power structure would act up and thus make a fool of itself. And since God is not the author of lies, hatred or conspiracy, only one other entity can come up with that.

In one section of the book Wild at Heart, John Eldredge mentions that his wife Stasi had been under spiritual oppression, specifically with daily dizzy spells. So, after a time of prayer, they commanded that oppressive spirit to leave her -- but it initially got worse before it finally did, permanently. Eldredge says that such a spirit will not usually leave willingly but, when discovered, put up a fight.

Of course you remember that Bill Clinton in the 1990s was accused of all kinds of things, to a point where there was a new "scandal" every few months. However, the machine that was making all those accusations was exposed right around the time of the impeachment -- it turned out that when Hillary made that complaint about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" she actually had the goods -- and the gossip stopped. Today Obama's enemies have no such cover; they just went right after him without pretense. And that to me is a sign that they're going down. Hard. And very soon, never to rise again.

And that is why, even though things may look crazy today, I'm actually rejoicing in seeing the LORD about to work; after this is over -- or even perhaps beforehand -- we may very well see a spiritual awakening in this country. The Sunday after last year's general election my senior pastor had all us African-Americans stand and the rest of the congregation lay hands on us, saying that "a spiritual stronghold has been broken."

You think for a second that the devil would take that lying down?

None of this is to say, of course, that Obama's actual policies are beyond scrutiny; I certainly don't agree with his stance on, say, legal abortion. And I will not say that the opposition to Obama is based primarily on his race, though it is a factor. But that's the point -- after the rancor ends we can certainly address those differences with clarity and honesty and not with this wild, mostly non-factual charges. I'm looking forward to that day.