we can agree that we see things differently. I am comfortable with how i have written. You are not. Such disagreement is healthy and needed for positive growth and maturation. That is why this article is titled “toward an Adventist Theology of Social Justice” It is for me a moving and direction conversation. This is a moment on the journey, not the final authoritative destination.
So would this be an equally applicable title for the article: “toward an Adventist Theology of Progressive political activism”?
Progressive would need explaining in the context of the title and topic, but if it fits why not ? I personally would stick with social over political
I do think political progressive is as familiar as social justice. But how about this “toward an Adventist Theology of Democrat activism"?
Why add a political party, thus narrowing ones theological protest to support one party on one nation? Especially when injustice happens across the globe and party lines ? And when the scope of biblical protest is not relegated solely to one nation?
Here we go…transitioning from worship & wisdom to wokeness.
It’s not right for the upright to be uptight.
Is anyone ever going to lighten up??
Maintain thine cool!
Love it !!! Very poetic and sarcastic!!!
And …One cannot worship while sleeping
Even the 10 virgins woke up
Respect to you
Just to be clear. There is one party that primarily calls themselves Progressives. You were OK with that. There is one party of the two big parties that uses the language your have used. Economic justice, social justice, environmental justice etc. You began with a very narrow focus and it seems appropriate to be clear about that. If you were just opposed to injustice and wanted justice there is little reason to use the phrase social justice at all, But really justice is not what this is about.
"But really justice is not what this is about."
What do you believe it is about?
As i said, we disagree. You ascribe the language to a political party only. I do not.
And if your remember, i said progressive would have to be defined in the context of title and topic.
"Equity’ and “Justice” are used intertwined in the Old Testament.
Equity is the Quality of being fair and impartial.
The treating of All social strata of society equally.
That does not mean that all persons in society will BE equal.
The only thing that the Constitution provides for is for the Freedom
to PURSUE happiness. Each person has to decide what one will
DO to obtain what might bring “happiness”. “Happiness” is a very
elusive thing. Getting what we believe is “happiness” may not make
us “happy” at all.
8 years ago when this was starting I wrote an article on the subject. https://cafesda.blogspot.com/2010/04/social-justice-politics-and-useful.html?m=0
Yes, it seems logical that social welfare programs would contribute to those measures of “national happiness.” Whenever you look at a survey of that type you need to ask some questions about who paid for it, what were they trying to prove and if their statistical sampling was accurate. Take a closer look at how they are measuring “happiness” you could find a significant bias. Two surveys that I looked at were configured to demonstrate the “superiority” of European welfare systems. So I think the accuracy of any survey results is, at best, questionable.
I will confess to having not known about the Norwegian Oil Fund so I stand partly corrected, but only partly. Your comment sent me searching the economic analyses available on-line from such sources as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, Deutsche Bank, and others major international financial houses and I found that all of them are predicting that the fund is “very likely” to be exhausted in the next 8-10 years. Why? A combination of rising social welfare costs, declining revenue from declining North Sea oil production and competition from lower-priced oil producers reducing revenue from oil sales.
A fourth factor is impacting all nations in Europe to some degree: stagnant or declining national economies. In all European countries the number of tax-paying workers is declining as compared to those receiving government benefits so most countries have been raising taxes to pay for their rising social welfare costs and/or to reduce debt. Somewhere between 0.5% and 2% of the younger and more skilled workers in each nation are leaving for jobs in other countries outside of Europe where taxes are lower and they are able to keep more of their wages. Italy, France, Greece and Germany are all at the higher end of that loss rate. Perhaps the most generous social welfare policies are in Greece and Italy where the result is repeated fiscal insolvency and their currencies are almost worthless. In France the fiscal severity of the cost of social welfare programs is being continually made worse by demands for increased benefits and declining revenues. Their most recent attempt to pay the bill was a sharp increase in fuel taxes that triggered the protests and riots in the news in recent days. So that casts doubt on any claims about how happy the French might be.
Both terms are used to describe the same thing. It is “venture capital” to the investor and “vulture capital” to the person who has to pay their high prices.
Good question. Do we really need a theology about anything when all God asks us to do is obey and do what He has told us to do?
It happened because they became consumed by the popular concepts of social justice and frustrated when church members weren’t responding to their appeals for participation at the levels they thought should happen.
Simply add this for other understandings of how “social justice” is perceived.
I basically agree with you. The problem with the “social justice” concept of “equity” isn’t the Biblical concept of being fair in how we deal with others, but is rooted in giving unequal protections to societal groups to make-up for real or perceived inequities in the past. Thus “social justice” fails to create equity but instead creates more inequality.
Exercising power over others so the force of law can be used to take what belongs to others and give it to a preferred social group.
That is the most essential, root concept of communism and liberal-socialism: taking from those who have and giving it to whatever group those in power prefer with the objective of everyone living at the same economic level. Unfortunately, everywhere that has been tried it has resulted in great poverty, enormous suffering and national collapse.