Skip to main content
Culture

Social Justice: A Definition

Kevin DeYoung has written a helpful article on a definition of social justice. The term “social justice” is used a lot today, with various meanings attached. DeYoung’s main point is that we should be careful how we use it. Notice the key differences:

In A Conflict of Visions, Thomas Sowell explains the difference between the constrained and unconstrained view of justice. In the unconstrained view justice is a result so that wherever people don’t get “their fair share” or don’t have as much as others there is injustice. If Goldingay is correct, most people assume this unconstrained view when they speak of social justice. For example, the RCA ([DeYoung’s] denomination) in one of its official study materials includes a glossary which defines justice as “The fair, moral, and impartial treatment of all persons, especially in law. Includes concepts of right relationships and equitable distribution of resources.” By this definition the inequality of opportunities, income, or outcomes is considered an injustice, a situation that in and of itself is sinful, implicates all (or most) of us in society, and demands immediate redress. In the unconstrained vision, the society has a lump of resources and if they are not shared roughly equally, then we do not have social justice.

In the constrained vision, by contrast, justice is a process where people are treated fairly (the first half of the RCA definition). The goal here is not forced redistribution; no one distributed the resources in the first place and no one is wise enough to allocate them for the good of everyone. Justice, in this vision, is upheld through the rule of law, a fair court system, and equitable treatment of all persons regardless of natural diversity. This doesn’t mean that in the constrained vision we shouldn’t care for the poor or that we simply shrug our shoulders and say “oh well” when we see people struggling through life with far fewer opportunities and resources than the rest of us. The Christian must be generous and should care about suffering and the disadvantaged. But in the constrained vision, this care is a matter of compassion, charity, and love, not automatically an issue of justice.

DeYoung thinks the second type is more Biblical. Your thoughts?

6 Comments

  • Before we ask the question which type of definition is more Biblical, it may be good to see how the Scriptures define doing justice. Its not just making things fair, justice is also looked upon as sharing food, shelter and other resources with those without (Is. 58:6-10). It seems as if justice and mercy are interchangable terms throughout the Scriptures.

    In the Bible, we also see some examples of injustice, such as warning against against those who would favor the rich and powerful in the courts (Lev. 19:15), who are guilty of Usury (Exod. 22:25-27, Prov. 28:8), and who are guilty of paying outrageously low wages (James 5:4).

    I know some of my urban ministry (evangelical left) colleagues attempt to apply the laws of Jubilee, extrapolating it from its Theocratic Hebrew context as a Biblical norm for our society…..providing them a rationale for 1st type that DeYoung describes. Of course I believe that to be a major stretch when it comes to Biblical justice applied in the 21st cenutry church So I am more with DeYoung on this one.

    The problem however, is that many conservative people here in America turn a blind eye to injustices that still exist. For example, the urban high schools in my city have been classified as “drop-out factories” by a study done by John Hopkins university. It doesn’t help that they receive half of much money per student than schools located in wealthy suburbs. Plus, 80% of the students in the urban schools come from single-parent backgrounds….in otherwards, they are fatherless……which the Bible is quite clear about speaking up for………at the same time, its district squanders some of its resources (still very top heavy with administration) which is quite frustrating.

    So our ministry, Urban Transformation Ministries provides sports outreaches, mentoring (including tutoring), employment assistance to go along with all of the evangelism and discipleship in reaching these at-risk urban teens for Christ. Yet fundamental churches are hesitant to give resources to our ministry because it doesn’t fit their description of missions, although they get upset if the government wastes their tax payer money in trying to help through their social intervention programs (that are usually less effective than faith-based programs) for these students.

  • Dick Dayton says:

    Will & Joel, thanks for sharing. The second definition is certainly more consistent with Biblical justice. The Old Testament law clearly says that we shoud not be biased either for or against someone due to their social position or ethnic origin. Having said that, we must also be honest enough to recognize that God is the champion of the fatherless and the widow, and that compassion and active kindness are expected of the Lord’s people. We are to be concerned for both the eternal and temporal needs of others. We have tended to react against those who water down the gospel to be simply good social work. In our reaction, we have tended to shut up our heart of compassion. As we take the whole counsel of God, we will want to evangelize the lost, and will also recognize the Jeremiah 29:7 principle of seeking the good of the place where the Lord puts us.

  • Gary L. Kurfman says:

    Sowell will also argue (in other places) that the first definition (the unconstrained view of justice) is actually a fight for or about what he calls “cosmic justice.” This begins to make the whole discussion a huge theological issue. Sowell will argue that this quest is impossible, a waste of precious resources, and has devastating costs and social dangers. See here: http://tsowell.com/spquestc.html for a summary by Sowell that furthers the discussion and brings out the theological implications.

  • Will Hatfield says:

    Thanks for the good discussion. Very helpful!

  • Matthew LaPine says:

    Injustice by definition 1 is a problem (as is def 2), the question is: should Christians be seeking to reverse it? Sowell may be right that they can’t. But on a theological level, that shouldn’t make a difference, because the point of life on a theological level seems to be living our identity, individually as children of God and collectively as his church. (read “not fixing all the worlds problems”)

    I don’t think the point is about which definition to choose but rather what attitude should ordinary Christians have toward anyone who is under the effects of sin, ie. compassion. Personally, I think the border between these two definitions is blurred because “fair treatment” would be incredibly difficult to define. For instance, where would you put the fact that children are forced to live in the homes of their parents (who experienced the result of non-fair treatment). I may not have treated them unfairly, but someone has (however indirectly).

  • Ken Sack says:

    The second type is more biblical? How about “a workman is worthy of his wages”. Notice his wages are not a “lump of resources that belong to society”, they belong to the producer of that wealth. And how about “you reap what you sow”. And how about the first Psalm – the righteous are prosperous but the wicked are not. And not forgetting that the children of the righteous are blessed and the children of the wicked are cursed. In fact it states in Psalms that the seed of the wicked will be cut off. As Christians we should be telling people to repent (sin no more) rather than surrendering to the worlds narcissistic trait of ego-syntonic (resigning to not personally changing) and the accompanying alloplastic mental defenses (solving all personal problems changing the environment eg changing/rigging the rules of society). As Christians we must teach the world to submit to Gods perfect laws rather than surrendering to the worlds way.

Leave a Reply