It is always my goal to reveal what is going on beneath the surface.

Over the last few years, there have been a string of court cases and trials that have revealed the divide in the Western World in regard to Justice.  Many Americans see the divide, sure enough, but they do not know what the divide really is about.

I am updating this article today because of the profound way the recent Kyle Rittenhouse trial has unveiled this – and the confusion among many, on both sides, creates additional problems.  There may be disagreement, but at least we should know what we disagree about and why.

Seeing how so many of our media, social media and political debates are really Metaphysical disagreements or psychological ones or theological ones – not merely the surface debates that they seem to be, I am always trying to figure out where the actual disagreement is.

It always seems to be deeper than it first appears.

How could we get to where we are in regard to situations like the outcry against Kavanaugh? What are we missing here, as a culture? How are we speaking past each other?

So often in the US and in social media, we seem to be speaking different languages when we disagree.  I think this is mainly because we are.

I try to post in such a way as to give us common language or at least common understanding.

Whether this is about specific political issues like The Johnson Amendment or the taking down of Confederate Monuments or broader term issues like whether Obama is a Christian specifically Christian controversial topics like the debate about creation…

Or merely the investigations and trials of people like Brett Kavanaugh, Derek Chauvin, or Kyle Rittenhouse…

We are embroiled in a debate about Justice… and right now that debate surrounds a Supreme Court Justice.

The Rittenhouse trial just wrapped up and it is very helpful for understanding the different understandings – is this the trial of a single man or of a culture?  A legal battle or a cultural one?  Consider this conversation to understand:

Person 1: “I am glad Kyle Rittenhouse got off, since he was so clearly acting in defense of his life.”

Person 2: “Yeah, but it never would have happened if he hadn’t been there.  He had no business bringing his gun to the city, even if it was to defend property.”

Person 1:  “Ok, but people should be allowed to defend their property.  The fault isn’t him showing up where he didn’t belong, the problem is that there were rioters destroying property and threatening safety!  That is the real problem.”

Person 2:  “I don’t condone some of the behavior, but the rioters wouldn’t have been there if it wasn’t for the injustice and racism that triggered the riots and protests in the first place!”

Person 1:  “Racism?  All of those claims about police violence…”  etc.

See?  Can you see how the trial of an individual is ALSO a trial of society as a whole?  So, which is on trial, really?  One man or a culture?  Well, now you understand the divide.  Both have a case to make, but one must be prioritized over the other in some situations.

And, we are unaware that we mean two very different things when we talk about justice in America today.

A lot of people are referring to “Social Justice”.

Though I had heard the term many times, it wasn’t until recently that I understood what “social justice” is.
It is a relatively new philosophical view of the ethics of “justice.”
Seeking a definition: (if you are not interested in definitions, or my hardship in finding one, scroll on down or click over to the “now I was beginning to understand…” heading)

Granted, it is a poorly formed and even more poorly defined concept.  I found a dozen definitions on a dozen pages.   They tended to be descriptors or even better, measures of success rather than definitions.

One website defined it:“Social justice is the equal access to wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.”

See how that isn’t a definition, but a measure of success?  You would have it if everyone had this access.  But what is it?

I appreciated the admission inherent in this Social Justice Solutions website which actually exhibits about 8 different definitions in one page.

Their own definition could not be less clear: “SJS believes that social justice is defined as a dynamic exploration of equity and equality within a society.”
Based on this definition, essentially everyone would support social justice.  I certainly would!  Who would say “I am opposed to the exploration of equity and equality within a society?”

Another of their definition pages admits “Social justice is an amorphous idea.”

After a search for a definition, I was left with the same questions. What is Social Justice? 
In my opinion, it is a bad idea to seek to have a movement without clear purpose, clear spokespeople and a definition of your cause.

If there is no clear definition, is there a basis or origin that would help?
The roots are roughly-traced all over the place, but people sometimes connected to the concept could just as easily be understood to oppose it.
It seems that in the late 1800’s, but primarily in the early 1900’s, this ethical concept can be found being expressed, especially in some of the arguments of the labor movements.

The UN understanding, as poor as it is, seems to offer helpful insight as well.
According to Wikipedia, the term “social justice” was seen by the UN “as a substitute for the protection of human rights…” 

The UN report acknowledges that this is a new philosophy of justice.
“[T]he notion of social justice is relatively new. None of history’s great philosophers—not Plato or Aristotle, or Confucius or Averroes, or even Rousseau or Kant—saw the need to consider justice or the redress of injustices from a social perspective. The concept first surfaced in Western thought and political language in the wake of the industrial revolution and the parallel development of the socialist doctrine. It emerged as an expression of protest against what was perceived as the capitalist exploitation of laborand as a focal point for the development of measures to improve the human condition. It was born as a revolutionary slogan embodying the ideals of progress and fraternity.” This is the UN report on social justice.
Modern social justice is utterly dependent on the idea that there is no objective standard for justice.  Therefore, only the subjective stance of humanity would offer any guidance – and that means humanity in groups – societies.  Listen to how key this is the modern concept:

As I understand it broadly, it seems that the Catholic church continued to argue that any concept of social justice must be founded in the dignity of man as created in the image of God.  This would be in opposition to modern expressions of social justice.  I am getting this vibe in general, so I don’t have a direct citation.  However, this would make sense.  This is true of other Christian denominations’ engagement with the ethic of social justice as well.
However, social justice as a philosophy of justice is in opposition to the very concept of personal faith.  As the UN report on social justice cited, “social justice may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth” … “Present-day believers in an absolute truth identified with virtue and justice are neither willing nor desirable companions for the defenders of social justice.”(UN report).

In other words, if you believe there are absolute rights about virtue or justice, you are in opposition to social justice.  If you believe there is an external or objective source of justice, then you are not for social justice BY definition of what social justice apparently is!

So, the roots didn’t grow in faith.  In fact, to me it seems that one of the first things a “social justice” church must do is jettison the basic doctrinal teachings of Christianity.  This is part of why I wanted to understand this movement.

Note for Christians:
The Church needs to understand that the worldly philosophy of Social Justice sees the Christian faith as an opponent.  If a doctrinally sound church wants justice for society, we believe it must be rooted in the dignity that is applied to man by being created in the Image of God.
To claim that this is a truth is in defiance of the Social Justice movement, which sees the desire to introduce people to Jesus as oppression, is not going to work. The actual movement cannot be added to the Christian faith, it would seem.

Remember, the imposition of “Truth” makes us an unacceptable companion.

There might be a nod of the head to our efforts at the Christian version of helping, but understand that if we insist on there being such a thing a truth, even about things like virtue and justice, we don’t get to be part of the club.

Of course, seeking justice and being merciful are ethics of Christianity that predate the social justice movement in any case.

Ok, now to part II… and more conclusions.  I cannot believe what I began to understand in this research.  It is vitally important that you go on to part II.  Otherwise, this whole article will not make sense.