The Politically Divided Church

“It is not enough to feel compassion for the poor and the oppressed.  Compassion and love must be coupled with the careful grounding in the relevant philosophical, economic, political, and social issues.” – Social Justice and the Christian Church

With nearly 2.4 billion Christians in the world today, the fracture between the top two denominations, the Catholics and the Protestants, began long ago during the Protestant Reformation, when Martin Luther delivered his famous 95 Theses. Although separated by competing theologies and sacraments, both sects have also been divided by politics, with the right/left dichotomy bleeding into the church. 

For evangelicals in the Protestant camp, the idea of a social gospel applying Christian ethics to social problems began in the late nineteenth century.  “Social gospel,” a term coined by Karl Marx in his infamous Communist Manifesto, once led mega-pastor, Rick Warren, to refer to the socialist movement as “Marxism in Christian Clothing”.  In the Catholic community, a corresponding Latin American movement known as “liberation theology” similarly formed to attack the social structure of oppression needed to overcome injustices and solve poverty for poor people, leading many to refer to the new crusade as “Socialized Marxism”. 

In Ronald Nash’s 1983 book, “Social Justice and the Christian Church”, Nash, an ordained pastor and philosophy professor, addresses social justice's role in the church, noting the growing divide between conservatives and liberal Christians.  Using an economics-based judgement of social justice, Nash reveals how calls for equal outcomes end up as more of a feeling of virtue than any substantive provider of provisions.  In his defense of capitalism over socialism, Nash proves how free markets and a minimal state are compatible with Christian traditions and morals, while the empty promises of social equity not only bear little fruit but often cause more harm than good.  Lacking are the economic literacy and sound principles necessary to ensure that outcomes deliver the intentions of policies. 

Of course, the Bible tells Christians to care for the poor and needy.  Indeed, it is their sacred duty to do so.  The question is, is this obligation an individual responsibility or one that can be transferred to others, say, the government?  Also, should social policy be based on emotional appeals, seemingly with good intentions, or should we expect that one be informed enough to ensure the policies provide the needed solutions?

Too often, the programs of the social gospel and liberation theology are the result of misinterpreted biblical verses, with such misreading used to justify government interventions and collectivist policies.  For instance, when the Bible speaks of justice, the social justice activists demand “equal” treatment when “just” treatment is appropriate.  Likewise, distributive justice is used when procedural justice, fairness within the process, is warranted.  In fact, outcomes may be unequal and still be equitable.  Scripture repeatedly backs individual responsibility to create a flourishing life.   

Socialist policies, including the welfare state, instead reward irresponsible behavior while penalizing those who delay gratification to become self-sufficient.  The resulting massive bureaucratic system then begins to fulfill not only needs, but increasingly every want in an attempt at social leveling.  Subsequently, the government’s interference becomes worse than the original disease when individuals end up in chronic dependency.  Since the government's focus is on how wealth is distributed, and not on the mechanics of how wealth is produced, redistribution schemes destroy the very system that produced prosperity to begin with. 

While markets are amoral: neither good nor bad, they are also neutral and based on voluntary, peaceful exchanges, with everyone following clearly defined rules of the game.  Producers and sellers win or lose based on ability, effort, merit, and most notably, under the principle of risk and reward.  Despite claims of selfishness and greed, capitalism grows the economic pie, while the welfare state merely divides it up.  Just as stewardship calls for the good management of resources, so does capitalism work to allocate scarce resources to their highest use. 

While social liberals hope to have their good intentions and compassion rewarded in this life and beyond, their altruistic feelings are not enough.  In Paul Bloom’s book, “Against Empathy”, Bloom makes the case for rational compassion, a focus on the well-being of another, and not just an attempt to feel another's pain.  In fact, Bloom argues that we need less empathy toward others and more conscious, deliberate reasoning to ensure that individuals are helped and not hurt.  Empathy is not only short-sighted but often ends in more suffering and bad outcomes due to the long-term consequences of bad policy.  The focus of helping the poor and needy must always be on superior outcomes. 

In 2016, political pundit Ben Shapiro coined the phrase, “Facts don’t care about your feelings”.  For those pushing the social gospel and liberation theology, it seems their feelings don’t really care about the facts.