There is a vast amount of injustice present in the US, largely because of two factors: Finance and Race. Of the two, finance probably plays a larger role. I say this because, while white individuals are given more implicit credit in general, if a non-white gentleman dresses as though he has money and acts respectably, as we expect the wealthy or well-off to act, then he will be treated with greater respect than he would if he were wearing grubby jeans and an undershirt.
What is Bernie doing in his campaign? He is addressing the financial and justice gap between the haves and have-nots and, honestly, he is the only candidate to do so. Every other candidate is geared towards the middle class, upper class, or businesses. So, that makes sense, then, why many of Bernie's supporters are from the lower echelons of the socioeconomic status ladder. It also explains why many millennials have flocked to his cause.
I don't know if you've noticed, but almost every social justice movement in the past few years has been spearheaded by millennials. We have seen how pure Capitalism chews up and spits out those on the bottom rungs for the sake of those higher up. We see how difficult it is to escape cyclical patterns, like poverty, or even abuse and neglect. We also have seen how the church has done nothing.
Is it any wonder, then, that some of our youngest and brightest minds are campaigning for greater governmental oversight? They see that something needs to be done. They have grown jaded towards the church, seeing entrenched hierarchies and hypocrisy, turning away towards other philosophies in which adherents actually live out the ideals they espouse, and embracing ideals of humanism.
So, then, why would a cohort disillusioned with the church petition the church or God to act in the face of injustice?
That society is turning instead towards the government, the highest establishment of man, to right these wrongs is the greatest indictment against the modern Western church.
Some Christians are realising this, using passages such as Acts 2:42-47 to support socialist policies, justifying society's leaning on the state and encouraging Christians to get behind this goal because that is how the early church acted.
I would argue this point. We say the early church engaged in socialist policies, because we are familiar with those words. I would use a different word, however, to describe the church's actions: Charity.
Charity, as defined by Webster is:
- Benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity
- Generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also, aid given to those in need
- An institution engaged in relief of the poor
- Public provision for the relief of the needy
- A gift for public benevolent purposes
- An institution (as a hospital) founded by such a gift
- Lenient judgment of others
Charity is derived from the Latin, Caritas, which, according to Dictionary.com is a love identified with justice and goodwill.
Now, if charity and socialist policies have similar goals, why do I support one and not the other?
Charity is an outpouring of love. It is a response of obedience to the love of God for all man, a response of worship to God, and a response from the overflow of the love and kindness of God given to us.
Paul writes very clearly in Romans 2 that the kindness of God is for the leading of man to repentance. In John 13:12-17 Jesus gives the example of servanthood in washing his disciples' feet and shows them what obedience looks like. In Matthew 25, Jesus very explicitly indicates that those who follow him will care for the needy. Even James, the brother of Jesus, states that worship that God finds pure and unadulterated cares for the needy.
Socialist policies, on the other hand, substitute love for law. God is removed from the picture and the state becomes the provident entity. Where before, love addressed iniquity and spurred men and women to action in order to help lift those able to self-sufficiency and care for those unable, we now have the state implementing a state of stasis, in which all are seen to, but are not encouraged to do more, either through taking from the wealthy or merely giving to the poor. To give a medical analogy, where before we had curative treatment with some palliative care, we now have total palliative care. Where once we had antibiotics, now we have morphine.
So, that's my beef on social policies, but here's the thing, we brought this on ourselves.
When we, as the church, stopped loving others out of charity, we waived our rights to caring for the needy and standing up for the oppressed. When we started caring more about our wallets and our Sunday dresses, our houses and cars than our neighours, we passed the role of caring and tending for our neighbour to someone else.
Church, let me ask you some questions.
Who built the majority of hospitals around the world?
Who built the majority of homeless shelters?
Who started the majority of orphanages around the world?
Who advocated for the rights of natives to colonising powers?
Now, Church, let me ask you some more questions.
Who runs the majority of hospitals around the world today?
Who runs the majority of homeless shelters today?
Who runs the majority of orphanages around the world today?
Who advocates for the rights of indigines and the previously disadvantaged to the societal powers today?
Answer those questions both in context of the US and worldwide, because the difference in answers may surprise you.
To the church in America, I ask you, what is more important? Do we resist socialism because it infringes on our individual, social freedoms or do we give of ourselves to those in need, rendering socialism unnecessary?
"For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it." - Luke 9:24