The Prophet Amos: What provokes God's wrath? - Injustice and False Worship

Amos was an ordinary man, a farmer from Judah, chosen by God in the 8th century BC to go to Israel to warn the people of the impending wrath of God.  Israel was the name given to the 10 northern tribes that broke away from the Davidic dynasty following the death of Solomon (due to the arrogance of Solomon's son Rehoboam).  The Kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrian Empire in 722 BC, less than two generations after the warning given to it by Amos.

With the idea of Justice prominent in our conversations as Americans and as Christian Americans, it benefits us to consider what the Justice of God looks like.  What provoked the wrath of God against his Covenant people of Israel and Judah?  What offenses were the prophets commanded to condemn?

The text below is excerpted from the book of Amos, its nine chapters can be read in twenty or thirty minutes; please do so.  These texts appear in the order they are given, not arranged thematically.  My commentary will appear in bold after each text.

 Amos 2:4-5 (NIV)

4 This is what the Lord says:

“For three sins of Judah,

    even for four, I will not relent.

Because they have rejected the law of the Lord

    and have not kept his decrees,

because they have been led astray by false gods,

    the gods their ancestors followed,

5 I will send fire on Judah

    that will consume the fortresses of Jerusalem.”

Judah is not the focus of Amos' ministry, but his prophecy begins by announcing God's wrath against the surrounding peoples, primarily for their violence toward neighboring peoples, including the people of Judah to the south.  Judah's sin is more specific, involving idolatry and the worship of false gods.  Although Judah was a troubled society, their kingdom endured until 586 BC when Jerusalem was sacked by the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar, they too committed the same type of sins that Israel will be charged with by Amos, and God sent them prophets as a warning in turn. 

Amos 2:6-8 (NIV)

6 This is what the Lord says:

“For three sins of Israel,

    even for four, I will not relent.

They sell the innocent for silver,

    and the needy for a pair of sandals.

7 They trample on the heads of the poor

    as on the dust of the ground

    and deny justice to the oppressed.

Father and son use the same girl

    and so profane my holy name.

8 They lie down beside every altar

    on garments taken in pledge.

In the house of their god

    they drink wine taken as fines.

Here begins the indictment: (1) selling the innocent for silver, (2) trampling the poor, and (3) denying justice to the oppressed.  The society of Israel systematically oppressed the poor, taking advantage of them both in business and in the courts of law.  These themes will be repeated throughout Amos' prophecy.  In addition, the people of Israel indulged in sexual immorality ('Father and son use the same girl') and mocked God by coming to his altar while retaining a garment taken in pledge (an act forbidden by the Law, Exodus 22:26-27).  Lastly, they were drinking wine in God's house that had been taken as fines (presumably unjust fines).  These last two point toward a pattern of false/insincere worship.  God will not be mocked.  Galatians 6:7 (NIV) Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.  To worship God while in the middle of conducting sinful behavior, will not be tolerated.

Amos 2:11-12 (NIV)

11 “I also raised up prophets from among your children

    and Nazirites from among your youths.

Is this not true, people of Israel?”

declares the Lord.

12 “But you made the Nazirites drink wine

    and commanded the prophets not to prophesy.

God was not silent when these injustices and blasphemies occurred.  His response was to send prophets, but the people made a mockery of the Nazirites (who had taken vows not to drink alcohol) and told the prophets to be quiet.  This idea will be repeated in Amos, the powerful do not like to be reminded of their sins (anymore than the rest of us, but they have the power to silence their critics).

Amos 3:1-3 (NIV)

1 Hear this word, people of Israel, the word the Lord has spoken against you—against the whole family I brought up out of Egypt:

2 “You only have I chosen

    of all the families of the earth;

therefore I will punish you

    for all your sins.”

3 Do two walk together

    unless they have agreed to do so?

This is a key point that is often overlooked: God holds his own people MORE accountable than the rest of humanity.  When we talk about Justice, in society, we hope for equality and fairness, but when we consider God's Justice, we need to be very aware that God is both more stern and more gracious to his people.  He is willing to forgive our sins, if we repent, but highly intolerant of our immorality if we harden our hearts.  I know that many of my fellow Christians consider America to be the New Israel (Replacement theology), thinking of us in the same Covenant terms that were given by Moses to the people.  The theology of this position is flawed, and that can be demonstrated by examining Paul's letter to the Romans, but there's an important reason to be glad we aren't the New Israel: We wouldn't survive God's wrath.  Israel was held to a higher standard than their neighbors, no nation in our world today would survive such scrutiny. 

Amos 4:1 (NIV)

4 Hear this word, you cows of Bashan on Mount Samaria,

    you women who oppress the poor and crush the needy

    and say to your husbands, “Bring us some drinks!”

The upper class women of Israel were as involved in crushing the poor as their husbands, laughing at the situation in a way worthy of Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake!"

Amos 4:4-5 (NIV)

4 “Go to Bethel and sin;

    go to Gilgal and sin yet more.

Bring your sacrifices every morning,

    your tithes every three years.

5 Burn leavened bread as a thank offering

    and brag about your freewill offerings—

boast about them, you Israelites,

    for this is what you love to do,”

declares the Sovereign Lord.

This section shows God's sense of humor.  In this case, biting irony.  The people were still obeying the FORM of correct worship while their hearts were far from God.  They oppressed the poor and needy during the week and worshiped the LORD on the Sabbath.  Such worship is not only fruitless, it actually offends and angers God.  The prophet Isaiah makes this clear, "Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals I hate with all my being.  They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them." (Isaiah 1:14)  Once again, if America were the New Israel, it wouldn't matter how many people were in church on Sunday morning when God considered our nation's ample inequality, injustice, and immorality (sins that God's people sadly participate in all too readily).  As it is, we cannot hope to receive God's blessing as a nation if we don't address the issues of injustice in our society.

Amos 5:10-12 (NIV)

10 There are those who hate the one who upholds justice in court

    and detest the one who tells the truth.

11 You levy a straw tax on the poor

    and impose a tax on their grain.

Therefore, though you have built stone mansions,

    you will not live in them;

though you have planted lush vineyards,

    you will not drink their wine.

12 For I know how many are your offenses

    and how great your sins.

There are those who oppress the innocent and take bribes

    and deprive the poor of justice in the courts.

The pronouncement against injustice continues: (1) injustice in the courts through false testimony, (2) heavy taxes upon the poor, (3) the taking of bribes to deprive the poor of justice.  Looking at a list like this, I'm struck by the animosity toward the idea of social justice in America.  Many Christians, and a not a few prominent Christian leaders, demonize the idea of seeking equality before the Law, calling it a political ploy or a Leftist plot {See: Taking the name of the LORD in vain: PragerU's "Social Justice Isn't Justice"}.  And yet, God cares about these issues enough to make them the FOCUS of the warning of his chosen prophet that judgment is at hand.  I'm not saying that those advocating for social justice are without error (in their tactics or judgments), but how can the very IDEA of seeking equality in the face of injustice be against the will of God?  The Scriptures say otherwise.

Amos 5:14-15 (NIV)

14 Seek good, not evil,

    that you may live.

Then the Lord God Almighty will be with you,

    just as you say he is.

15 Hate evil, love good;

    maintain justice in the courts.

Perhaps the Lord God Almighty will have mercy

    on the remnant of Joseph.

How can God's people avert the disaster heading their way?  Repent and administer true justice.  This is one piece that is often missing in the discussion of America's history of racism.  IF we truly have repented of the way in which our ancestors treated Blacks, Indians, and various other minorities, we would now be actively seeking to "maintain justice in the courts."  In other words, the sincerity of our repentance, as a people, is not judged by our claims of sincerity but by the results of our actions.  Actions speak louder than words.  The verdict on whether or not America retains systemic racism will show itself in the way in which our justice system treats ALL the people.  IF we have repented, we will live in a way that proves it.  {This is what true repentance always looks like in the Bible, without follow-up actions that prove it is genuine, the repentance is not considered legitimate.}

Amos 5:21-24 (NIV)

21 “I hate, I despise your religious festivals;

    your assemblies are a stench to me.

22 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,

    I will not accept them.

Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,

    I will have no regard for them.

23 Away with the noise of your songs!

    I will not listen to the music of your harps.

24 But let justice roll on like a river,

    righteousness like a never-failing stream!

Harsh words from God (via Amos) about the value of the worship of the people.  God does NOT accept worship from a people mired in immorality.  Why?  Because God is holy, his people must seek righteousness, must "hate what is evil; cling to what is good." (Romans 12:9)  If they do not, no amount of worship, offerings, or singing will be accepted by God.  What is the antidote to false worship?  "let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!"  And yet, churches that involve themselves in helping the poor, in seeking racial harmony and reconciliation, often by working for a more just and fair legal system, are accused of abandoning the Gospel.  The Word of God warns us of the frailty of a path that focuses upon worship and ignores injustice, of one that claims to follow God on Sunday, but ignores the needs of the people in our community the other six days of the week.  The Gospel call for salvation by grace through faith must always remain central to our ministry, but that message is made COMPLETE (by actions that demonstrate the sincerity of our faith) when we work for righteousness in our community.

Amos 7:10-13 (NIV)

10 Then Amaziah the priest of Bethel sent a message to Jeroboam king of Israel: “Amos is raising a conspiracy against you in the very heart of Israel. The land cannot bear all his words. 11 For this is what Amos is saying:

“‘Jeroboam will die by the sword,

    and Israel will surely go into exile,

    away from their native land.’”

12 Then Amaziah said to Amos, “Get out, you seer! Go back to the land of Judah. Earn your bread there and do your prophesying there. 13 Don’t prophesy anymore at Bethel, because this is the king’s sanctuary and the temple of the kingdom.”

Was Amos welcomed with open arms?  Nope.  The leadership in Israel were not pleased with Amos' warning and told him to go home.  Why?  Because the sacred space at Bethel, and the authority of the king couldn't be bothered with hearing from God.  There is irony here, of course, that those in leadership should be most keen to hear from God, but are in fact the least.  Why?  Because their hearts are hard, and because they benefit from the oppression of the poor.  That dynamic is true in every society in human history, ours included.

Amos 8:4-6 (NIV)

4 Hear this, you who trample the needy

    and do away with the poor of the land,

5 saying,

“When will the New Moon be over

    that we may sell grain,

and the Sabbath be ended

    that we may market wheat?”—

skimping on the measure,

    boosting the price

    and cheating with dishonest scales,

6 buying the poor with silver

    and the needy for a pair of sandals,

    selling even the sweepings with the wheat.

Lastly, Amos broadens the indictment of oppression of the poor with examples: (1) the eagerness of the merchants to get back to business as soon as the Sabbath is over, (2) the dishonest business practices that cheat the customers.  I've also read that the term Economic Justice is an affront to Justice, an insult to God.  That doesn't seem to be the case here.  The prophet of God is concerned with something as commonplace as dishonest scales.  Should not the Church of Jesus Christ concern itself with the ways in which the poor in our nation are treated?  Should not issues of homelessness, housing, education, addiction, and the need for a living wage be our concern?  God-honoring Christians can disagree about HOW to address such issues, about which political or legal solutions are best, but we have been given no wiggle room as to the question of whether or not we should CARE about these things.

What does the book of Amos illustrate to us about God and Justice? (1) God cares about legal injustices, (2) God cares about economic injustices, (3) God holds the rich and powerful accountable for these injustices, (4) God will not accept worship from his people if they are involved in  perpetuating these injustices, and (5) the rich and powerful are unlikely to appreciate being called to task by a prophetic voice speaking the Words of God.  

Social Justice?  Racial Justice?  Legal Justice?  Economic Justice?  God cared about them then, and their lack provoked his wrath.  God does not change.  God cares about them now, their lack still provokes his wrath.  The prophet Amos was called to bring to the people's attention these failings, we honor God when we do likewise in our time and place.

Taking the name of the LORD in vain: PragerU's "Social Justice Isn't Justice"

 Exodus 20:7 (NIV) “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

To abuse Scripture to portray God in a light contrary to the Word of God is a violation of this commandment.  This is a danger that faces those who purport to speak on God's behalf, a warning of the need to treat the Word of God with respect and honesty.

PragerU is not a university, or an educational institution of any kind, rather it is a popular social media content company founded by talk show host and writer Dennis Prager (co-founded by Allen Estrin), and funded by billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks (from the petroleum industry.  The Wilks family founded the Assembly of Yahweh church, a group with numerous non-orthodox/heretical beliefs {they're essentially unitarian, denying the Trinity and making Jesus a created being; not to be confused with the Unitarian Universalist Church, that's a very different group}).  PragerU espouses a Conservative, often Libertarian, consistently Republican viewpoint.  This being America, PragerU has every right to support these views, to share them in any legal manner, and those whose beliefs coincide with those views have every right to appreciate the content that PragerU creates.  However, PragerU decided to bring God into the conversation, to declare that the Bible (and God) 100% supports their position on an issue, that the Bible (and God) 100% condemns the other side on this same issue, and that those in the Church who disagree are, in essence, fake Christians.  If you're going to take such a God-centered position, you'd better be able to back it up with theology drawn from the whole Bible (not just cherry-picked verses), from Christian theologians and thinkers throughout Church History, AND you'd better present your argument with honesty and integrity, "for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."

Below is the transcript (in this font) of the PragerU video (link above, please watch it to see for yourself).  My comments upon the video will appear in bold.

The Lord is a God of social justice. 

That’s the message in many—maybe most—churches and synagogues in America and the West today.

But here’s the problem: The Bible doesn’t actually say that. It says (in Isaiah), “The Lord is a God of justice.” You’ll find a lot of references to justice in the Bible. But you’ll never find it preceded by the word “social.”

1. The "____ is not in the Bible" argument is both foolish and disingenuous.  Why?  Because it can easily be used against any modern concept.  Let me show you.  "The Lord is a God of democracy...But here's the problem: The Bible doesn't actually say that."  Other words not in the Bible: capitalism, socialism, America, vote, Republican, Democrat, free trade, minimum wage, etc.  I've seen this argument used before, and it is always an exceedingly weak one.  Not only are modern concepts not in the Bible, which is of course a document written in the Ancient World, but the Bible you and I read isn't in its original languages.  The Bible was written in ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic (just a few verses), and thus whether or not a particular English word or phrase is in our Bible is also a translators decision.

But you’re probably thinking, “What’s the difference? Isn’t God the God of justice and social justice?” Well, not if He’s consistent. You see, God cannot be the God of justice and social justice because social justice is not just.

2. Here is the premise of PragerU's argument: Social justice isn't just.  That's a serious theological position to take, one that would require numerous examples of social justice movements and advocates actually seeking injustice, as well as significant exegesis of Scripture to establish, but instead of that, PragerU's video will next create a false Straw Man version of Social Justice to attack, declare that version to be unjust, and move on hoping nobody noticed the bait and switch.  They are correct that God cannot be the God of injustice, nor of immorality of any kind, including dishonesty.  

Justice is getting what you deserve without favor. Social justice is getting what you don’t deserve because you are favored. 

3. Here's the Straw Man: "Social Justice is getting what you don't deserve because you are favored."  No it isn't.  From the Oxford dictionary: "The objective of creating a fair and equal society in which each individual matters, their rights are recognized and protected, and decisions are made in ways that are fair and honest."  Or from Dictionary.com if you prefer: "Fair treatment of all people in a society, including respect for the rights of minorities and equitable distribution of resources among members of a community."  Here's an important lesson in language: Word usage determines word meaning.  How words are used is what they mean.  Dictionaries tell us what words mean based on how people are currently using them.  PragerU has decided to make up their own definition of the term social justice, which is not a definition at all, but a critique from their own political philosophy.  That's not how dialogue works, but it is how punditry works, and this sort of 'argumentation' is one of the reasons why Americans are often at each other's throats.  In addition to be unhelpful in actually discussing an issue, this is dishonest.  The vast majority of people who advocate for social justice do NOT believe that people should get what they don't deserve.  And since PragerU brought Christian Churches into this conversation (in order to condemn them), there are few Christian Churches who believe that their efforts for social justice have anything to do with PragerU's 'definition'.

Justice is blind. Social justice is not.

4. Here lies the heart of the matter and the fundamental flaw in PragerU's viewpoint:  Justice isn't blind, not in the real world.  It may be blind, ideally, but throughout human history it has rarely been so.  Social Justice is the response to this perverted justice, it is an effort to re-balance the scales of justice, to take away the advantages that certain people/groups have (in America that would be, in order of importance for having 'justice' tilt in your direction: rich, males, who are white) with respect to justice, and also taking away the disadvantages that certain people/groups have (in America, again in descending order that would be: poor, minority, female) with respect to justice.  The Rich have one version of justice (in America, throughout the world, and throughout history), the poor have another.  The powerful (often associated with class, caste, or ace) have one version, the weak have another.  And yes, men have one version, women have another. 

Let's say a man robs a store. Justice demands but one thing: that he be tried in a court of justice, and, if he is found guilty, punished. 

That is not how social justice works. Social justice doesn’t only ask if the person is guilty. It asks about his economic condition: Is he poor or wealthy? About his upbringing: What kind of childhood did he have? About his race or ethnicity: Is he a member of a group that has been historically oppressed?

5. The Straw Man version of social justice once more in action.  I've never heard anyone advocating for social justice proclaim that a criminal who is a minority should be given a 'get out of jail free' card.  Again, justice isn't blind.  The system of criminal justice (as the example is about crime) both in America today and throughout the world and its history, is one that is unfairly tilted toward those with power (typically wealthy, but also things like aristocratic birth).  The system affords them ample opportunities to avoid true impartial justice, while at the same time, stacking the deck against the weak and powerless.  This is a fact of both history and the world today.  It is beyond dispute, yet PragerU mentions this disparity in their video, not at all.  This is the heart of social justice movements, but PragerU is declaring that God hates social justice without touching upon this element.  

Justice demands that everyone be equal under the law. Social justice demands that everyone be equal. Period. Economically, socially, and in every other possible way.

Justice asks, “Who did it?” Social justice asks, “Why did he do it?”

Lost in all these social justice considerations is the individual’s own responsibility for what he did. That’s why social justice advocates have abandoned the term “justice.” They deem justice alone as unfair. And sometimes it is. A man who was beaten by his father and abandoned by his mother is more likely to commit a violent crime than a man raised in a loving home. But those facts cannot and should not determine his innocence or guilt. 

Why? Because justice is, first and foremost, about truth: Is the person guilty or innocent of the crime? None of us is omniscient. We don’t know why people do what they do. After all, the vast majority of people raised in abusive homes do not commit violent crimes. Nor do the vast majority of people who are members of an historically oppressed group. 

6. PragerU is arguing from the false standpoint that justice is currently fair and that those seeking social justice want to make it unfair.  If that were true, they might have a point, but it isn't, neither part of it.  The secular justice system in America should take into consideration if a defendant was an abuse victim, if he/she has a mental illness, and other mitigating factors.  A TRUE search for Justice (with a capital J) has room for compassion, has hope for rehabilitation of offenders, and takes into consideration the circumstances behind why a crime is committed.  Why?  Because that's the way God judges us (more on that later).  Again, this is a broken record, but PragerU is arguing against a false version of social justice, as if the idea of social justice is to excuse the guilty from any/all punishment, rather than seeking to actually allow justice to operate without its prejudices. 

So, how does God judge human beings?  Are we treated equally for fairly?

James 3:1 (NIV)  Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

Luke 12:42-48 42 (NIV) The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43 It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

Hebrews 6:4-8 (NIV)  4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen[a] away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.

More examples could be given, but when studying God's interaction with human beings in his Word it becomes apparent that God's justice is not 'blind'.  It does indeed take into account the attitudes and knowledge of the people being judged, and it holds those who have received more blessings, MORE accountable.  God is not a computer, he's a person.  God views humanity with both righteousness (his holiness requires it) AND compassion.  With both anger toward the wicked and mercy toward the repentant {See Jonah: Jonah didn't want to go to Ninevah to share God's warning with that wicked people precisely because he wanted to see them destroyed not saved, “Isn’t this what I said, Lord, when I was still at home? That is what I tried to forestall by fleeing to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity."}

As Christians, what kind of Justice ought we to imitate?  Blind justice, or God's justice?  One could argue that a secular society should seek to administer blind justice and not be influenced by Judeo-Christian ideals, but that's the opposite of what PragerU is saying here as they're actually advocating for blind justice (which we don't currently have, and won't have without social justice, an irony to be sure) in the name of God, and condemning those who want a justice system that more closely resembles the way in which God judges people.  

Being a victim, however that is defined, is no excuse for hurting other people. And what about those who are hurt—the victims of those crimes? Shouldn’t they, and other law-abiding citizens, be society’s first consideration?

7. Social Justice doesn't care about victims.  That's a big statement, if only it were backed up with any evidence...Oh, and if you're going to bring God into the picture (which PragerU purposefully did), don't spend the whole time talking about Law with no mention of Grace.  If the character of God is the barometer of whether or not our system of justice is a righteous one, it had better take into account BOTH God's willingness to punish the wicked, AND God's willingness to have mercy upon the wicked.  So far this presentation is 100% Law.

Social justice advocates say no. They say we need social justice to even things out. And that means favoring the have-nots over the haves—the poor over the rich, the female over the male, and the brown or black over the white.

The Bible does not see the world this way. In fact, it speaks against it in very explicit terms. 

Here’s a law in the Book of Exodus: “Do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favoritism to a poor person in a lawsuit.”

Here’s one in Leviticus: “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great but judge your neighbor justly.”

Moses, the greatest lawgiver in history, declares in Deuteronomy: “Follow justice and justice alone.”

And the New Testament declares in the Book of Romans: “God shows no partiality.”

8.  Here is the entirety of the thesis that the Bible is against social justice: 4 verses of scripture.  Of the 4 verses chosen by PragerU, two warn against favoring the poor, and two speak of impartiality in general.  If only the Bible spoke, anywhere, about NOT favoring the rich and powerful, if only the prophets had bothered to speak on this topic too...Here is a list of 100 verses commanding God's people to protect/advocate for the helpless (poor, widow, orphan, foreigner, oppressed): What does the Bible say about protecting the Helpless?  Let me highlight a few of them below:

Deuteronomy 27:19 ‘Cursed be anyone who perverts the justice due to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’

Psalm 12:5 “Because the poor are plundered, because the needy groan, I will now arise,” says the Lord; “I will place him in the safety for which he longs.”

Proverbs 14:31 Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker, but he who is generous to the needy honors him.

Isaiah 1:17 Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause.

Isaiah 58:6-7 “Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?

Jeremiah 21:12 O house of David! Thus says the Lord: ‘Execute justice in the morning, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed, lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of your evil deeds.’

Jeremiah 22:16 He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well. Is not this to know me? declares the Lord.

Matthew 23:23-24 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

Romans 5:6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Or if you prefer, here is what Compassion International (one of the most respected Christian charities) has to say about God's relationship to the poor: What the Bible Says about Poverty

Or look at how World Vision (another highly respected Christian charity) addresses the issue: What does the Bible say about advocacy?

The point is, PragerU has badly cherry-picked scripture to create a false impression, one that it simply tries to dismiss with its next paragraph.  Why does the possibility (not the reality, this isn't happening now) of the poor being favored offend PragerU so deeply (its the only type of injustice they mention) but the reality of the rich being favored day after day isn't an issue?

None of this means that there is no place for compassion in a system of justice. Of course, there is. The Bible is preoccupied with the protection of the widow, the orphan, and unfortunate. But compassion follows justice. It doesn’t precede it. 

9.  Yes!  The Bible is preoccupied with the protection of the weak and powerless!  How can your very next sentence start with 'But'?  "Compassion follows Justice.  It doesn't precede it."  Thank God this isn't true.  Compassion is integral to Justice, Mercy is foundational to Justice, Love is intertwined with Justice.  Does God execute complete Justice with regard to human sin?  Absolutely, that's why Jesus died upon the Cross, to take the full weight of our sins upon his perfect shoulders.  {See the book of Hebrews for a detailed discussion}  Do we experience complete Justice?  Thanks be to God, we do not.  Christ died for the ungodly, Christ died for the undeserving, Christ died for sinners.  THIS is the character of God, this is the Justice that we should aspire to.

Well meaning and God honoring Christians can, and will, disagree about HOW MUCH injustice exists, about which particular examples are unjust, and about HOW TO CORRECT that injustice.  These can be normal healthy disagreements and discussions about the command we have received from the LORD to administer true justice, protecting the powerless.  What does not fit within a Biblical framework is a viewpoint that treats the effort being made to correct injustices as an abomination to God.  That viewpoint, expressed as it is here in PragerU's video, is taking the name of the LORD in vain and misrepresenting his Word.

Also, justice, in and of itself, is compassionate. First, to the victims of crime and to their loved ones. And second, to the criminal: How can you become a better human being if you don’t first recognize that you’ve done something wrong? 

That’s why any time we put an adjective before the word “justice,” we no longer have justice. Economic justice, racial justice, environmental justice—any form of “social” justice which seeks to “correct” actual justice—undermines justice. 

10. The word social preceding justice automatically negates it?  As a former English teacher this claim leaves me scratching my head.  This is another argument that doesn't make any sense because it could equally be used against other uses of adverbs and adjectives in front of nouns with silly results.  For example: Agape Love, Brotherly Love, Loving Kindness, Saving Faith, Holy Spirit, etc.  Why is this one example with the word justice, somehow evil when we use words like this all the time, and so does the Bible?  The answer is PragerU's political philosophy, not Biblical theology.  

"Any form of 'social' justice which seeks to 'correct' actual justice- undermines justice."  This would only be true IF actual justice were actually happening.  To correct injustice IS justice.  To stop further injustice IS justice.  This is the Straw Man still going, social justice doesn't seek to undue true impartial justice, but rather the perverted form of justice that many people in society have to reckon with.  What actually undermines Justice in a society?  When the rich and powerful guilty are allowed to go free (or get greatly reduced punishments) and the poor and powerless have the full weight of the system upon their backs, whether or not they are guilty.  Is the LORD supposed to be pleased with this?  Is God supposed to be smiling upon America (or any other nation) as a paragon of true Justice?  If the prophets of old excoriated Israel for failing to follow God's Law with justice, what makes you think any other nation is beyond God's ire?

So, then, if social justice is not a biblical concept, why do so many churches and synagogues promote it? 

Because many Christians and Jews no longer regard biblical principles as binding. Because it’s a lot easier to dispense compassion than hold people to a biblical standard. And because leftism has superseded the Bible in many houses of worship—and leftism, as a guiding principle, holds that the weak are good and the powerful are bad. 

That’s why the great battle of our time is between Judeo-Christian values and leftist values. The former is rooted in justice; the latter is not.

11.  And the icing on the cake?  PragerU has declared that Christians and Christian Churches who follow the Bible's commands to advocate for the poor and the powerless are in fact fake Christians who care more about Leftist politics than they do about God.  This is a sweeping and broad condemnation, one that would include MLK Jr., Mother Theresa, St. Francis of Assisi, the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, John the Baptist, and of course Jesus himself who had a pesky habit of siding with the poor and the oppressed against the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin.  

What does the Bible say about Right vs. Left?  Nothing.  What does it say about Capitalism vs. Socialism?  Nothing.  Take these fights outside and stop dragging God into them.

Here's an uncomfortable truth for PragerU: The only economic system that God ever created was that of ancient Israel through the Law of Moses.  This system was NOT a free-market land of rugged individualism, but rather a system designed with a safety net for the poor {See Ruth and the law of gleanings} as well as a powerful mechanism to rebalance economic inequality in the Year of Jubilee.  Every 50 years the entire nation of Israel was required to return all property to its original owners (leaving no families destitute with generational poverty) and free all slaves.  God required his people to RESET the wealth/poverty ratio on a regular basis.  This was not 'blind justice' in action, but God's justice, for it contained both mercy and grace.

I’m Allie Beth Stuckey, host of Relatable on BlazeTV, for Prager University.

12. I have nothing against Allie Beth Stuckey, but if you're going to claim that God is on your side, maybe chose a theologian and not a pundit to make the case.

Acts 20:27 (NIV)  For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God.

There is plenty of room within orthodox Christianity to discuss the issue of social justice with fairness and honesty.  There is plenty of room to disagree about the extent of injustice and the potential solutions to it.  I have family and friends, and members of my church whom love, who disagree with me on issues of social justice (racial, economic, etc.)  We disagree about how to obey God, and that's ok, we're living and learning together.  Historic, orthodox, Christianity, grounded in the Word of God has maintained an advocacy for the poor and the powerless, and it has maintained a prophetic voice against the abuses perpetuated by the rich and powerful.  This stance honors our God, for it imitates him.  PragerU is free to make its arguments in the political sphere, but if its going to try to dictate the will of God to the Church, it had better go back and read the WHOLE Bible.

For further discussion of Justice in the Bible: Justice, the Bible Project

"While justice can be used to talk about retributive justice in which a person is punished for their wrongdoings, most of the time the Bible uses the word justice to refer to restorative justice, in which those who are unrightfully hurt or wronged are restored and given back what was taken from them. Taken this way, the combination of righteousness and justice that God dictates means a selfless way of life in which people do everything they can to ensure that others are treated well and injustices are fixed."

Or: What is Biblical Justice? by Paul Metzger, CT

"Justice flows from God's heart and character. As true and good, God seeks to make the object of his holy love whole. This is what motivates God throughout the Old and New Testaments in his judgments on sin and injustice. These judgments are both individual and corporate in scope."

Sermon Video: Grace is Greater than Law - Mark 2:23-3:6

 Having been accused by Pharisees of violating the letter of the law regarding the Sabbath, Jesus reminds them of the way in which David violated the letter of the law in order to meet an extraordinary need.  This sets up a confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees about whether or not it is proper to heal on the Sabbath.  Jesus does so, elevating Grace above Law, the doing of Good above questions of how, when, or where.  As Christians, we can be in danger of becoming like the Pharisees, of elevating the form of religion over the heart, or of defending morality (God, Law, ethics, Truth) in ways that are inconsistent with the character of God (the Fruit of the Spirit).  This is not acceptable, to further the Kingdom of God, we need to act in Christ-like ways, no matter what cause we're championing.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

A Moral Hierarchy: A refutation of William Barr's, "Other than slavery, which was a different kind of restraint, this is the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history."

Speaking at Hillsdale College on September 16th, Attorney General Willaim Barr responded to a question about religious freedom and COVID-19 restrictions with the following, "Other than slavery, which was a different kind of restraint, this is the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history." {Barr under fire over comparison of virus lock-in to slavery - by Eric Tucker, AP}  I will not evaluate the legal aspects of that statement, which would require examining the COVID-19 restrictions put in place by 50 governors, hundreds of mayors, and thousands of municipalities, each operating under 50 separate state constitutions.  The vast majority of challenges to the restrictions have been denied in court, so let the lawyers argue that point. {In 5-4 Split, US Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to California's COVID-19 Restrictions on Religious Services - by Cheryl Miller of Law.com}  I will also not examine the restrictions from a medical standpoint, preferring to take my medical advice from the likes of Dr. Fauci, Dr. Redfield, Dr. Birx and the collective wisdom of the medical profession, rather than that of a lawyer like William Barr.  Instead, I will examine William Barr's statement from a moral perspective.

The Christian moral hierarchy is reflected in Jesus' response to the question of which of the commandments in the Law of Moses (the rabbis counted 613 of them) was the greatest? 

Matthew 22:36-40 (NIV)  36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”  37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Christianity is not alone in considering the question of moral hierarchy, virtually every philosophy and religion contains inherent within it (stated in a variety of ways) a moral hierarchy.  How we define Good and Evil, and how we view relative grades of both, is a question of utmost importance.  For the United States, our national moral hierarchy is reflected in the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The order of the unalienable Rights in the Declaration is no accident, Life comes before Liberty, which comes before the pursuit of Happiness.  The reason is simple: Life is more valuable than Liberty which is more valuable than Happiness (a catch all for things such as property rights, workers' rights, etc).  As such, if a government were to deprive its citizens (or anyone within its power) of Life, that would by necessity be a more egregious violation than if that same government were to deprive those same people of Liberty (for example through imprisonment), which would in turn be more egregious than if that same government were to deprive those same people of the pursuit of Happiness.  It would thus follow that in order for a government to be acting in a morally acceptable way, it would need a more compelling reason to take a life than it would to take liberty than it would to take property.  This basic understanding of morality is enshrined in American jurisprudence and is reflected in our laws at every level.

Thus we see a government could be morally at fault on three ascending levels.  It is on this basis that the actions of a government should be evaluated when comparing one (potential) violation against another (and also when weighing the cost vs. benefits of laws and policies).

The COVID-19 restrictions were designed to protect Life (a highest order) at the expense of Liberty (home 'confinement') and Happiness (loss of business, loss of work, loss of entertainment).  On the surface, this is what we want from our government, protecting Life above other concerns.  But let us for a moment concede {although I certainly do not} that William Barr is correct and that the COVID-19 restrictions (he didn't specify which ones from which governors, cities, etc) were unconstitutional and an 'intrusion on civil liberties'.  Even if we concede William Barr's assertion, from a historical perspective, there have been many examples, other than slavery, of the American government (federal, state, or local) violating rights that would be more morally significant than the pandemic response.

The following are offered as examples, it is sadly far from an exhaustive list:

The Trail of Tears

The Sand Creek Massacre

The Wounded Knee Massacre

The 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre

Japanese-American internment during WWII

The Tuskegee Syphilis Study

4,743 Lynchings between 1882 and 1968

100 Years of Jim Crow Laws

The denial of GI Bill benefits to a million Black WWII veterans

Decades of deliberate federal housing racial discrimination

Police Brutality during the Civil Rights Movement

The exoneration of 172 former death-row inmates since 1973

For a more comprehensive list of massacres in American History: Massacres in US History

It would not do each of the examples I've listed justice if I tried to summarize them in a few sentences.  The links provide the horrific details of each of them, all of which were morally far more significant than any restrictions that have been put in place in response to COVID-19.  In case you're wondering, similar restrictions were put in place during the Spanish Flu pandemic, these also were not mentioned by William Barr.

I don't know why William Barr ignored these far more significant examples of 'intrusion on civil liberties', only allowing that Slavery was more significant than the COVID-19 restrictions, but in doing so he made an assertion that is demonstrably morally false.

When we elevate deprivations of property above purposeful and deliberate massacres we not only weaken our moral compass, but denigrate those who lost their lives. (Scale matters to an extent, taking property from a million people weighed against taking liberty from a thousand, versus taking life from one, for example.)  This same principle holds true with Holocaust Denial, the refusal to call the killings of Armenians during WWI a genocide, or the downplaying of the horror of South African Apartheid, to highlight a few examples.  The way in which we morally evaluate history impacts the way in which we act in the present.  No matter how unnecessary or unconstitutional a person may view the restrictions put in place because of the COVID-19 pandemic {again, conceding a point that has not been proven}, there is no morally justifiable way to view these as more significant than a long list of times when the government of the United States deprived large numbers of people of life, nor of the times that it deprived a large number of people of liberty, nor indeed even above many other instances of the government depriving people of property.  William Bar is wrong.

Christian Worldview self-destruction: A culture without Facts is a culture without Truth

 The trend away from general acceptance of the idea of universal Truth, with a capital "T", has been centuries in the making.  It was helped along by the individualism of the Enlightenment, even inadvertently by the stand against collective authority taken by Martin Luther.  While Truth was losing ground in the realms of ethics, philosophy, and religion, Fact (again with the capital letter) was gaining ground in a host of scientific endeavors through the Industrial, Agricultural, and Modern Medicine revolutions.  We, as humanity, knew with certainty more facts about the universe we inhabited than our ancestors could have imagined possible.  Their senses were limited to their own eyes, we could examine the world through both microscopes and telescopes.  Even if we were losing firm ground in the spiritual realm with the breakup of Christendom into competing Catholic and Protestant camps, and the splintering of Protestantism into still further groups, we were gaining a common understanding of objective reality that led, not without bumps along the way, away from Thomas Hobbes' description of life outside of society's embrace as 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.'  Life expectancy was on the rise, starvation and childhood death rates were plummeting, work was less back breaking, leisure was invented.  In short, aside from the rude wake-up calls of war and genocide, optimism was a warranted conclusion.

In this world of increasing scientific fact, there was an opportunity for religion, Christianity in particular, to trumpet God's proclamation that lying is beyond his nature.  In other words, Christianity should have embraced scientific discovery as a further revelation of God's nature.  The relation between science and religion, which could have been harmonious, was instead rocky.

Hebrews 6:17-18 (NIV) 17 Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. 18 God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged.

The Church made the mistake of viewing Scripture as a scientific journal rather than simply observational reporting.  The prime example is the way in which the heavens are described, the 'firmament' of Genesis 1, as it was observed by the ancients.  This was not a scientific description of what lay beyond earth's atmosphere, but only how it looked from where they stood.  Without telescopes, what more could they have known, and why would God have explained it to them in ways they could not have understood?  Thus when Copernicus and Galileo revealed through observation that the earth revolves around the sun, the Church should have welcomed this new insight, but instead insisted that Scripture declared that the geocentric model was correct.  Thus began a long and fruitless fight against scientific discovery that later encompassed numerous fields beyond astronomy, all fought misguidedly in the effort to defend things that holy scripture had not asserted.

Fast forward to 21st century American Evangelicalism (and to a lesser extent American Christianity in general).  The cause of objective spiritual Truth is seemingly at a nadir, long held moral beliefs are challenged forcefully by the culture at large, and what is the response of the Church?  A seemingly all-out assault on Fact.  Rather than defend Truth, American Evangelicalism has largely embraced a no-holds barred war against science.  It began, in earnest in 1925 with the Scopes Trial pitting an interpretation of the Creation account in Genesis against the theories of biology, but quickly expanding to hold that interpretation also against discoveries in archaeology, astronomy, geology, physics, and more as the defense of an earth that could be no more than 6,000 years old was seen as the Rubicon of scriptural inerrancy.  If Science is allowed to explain the origin of the universe and of life on earth, the war would be lost and religion would be discarded, so we have been warned with increasing fervor.

With what end result?  A significant portion of evangelicals now believe that the scientific community is engaged in a massive demonic conspiracy to discredit the Bible.  It is now common belief among many that your average paleontologist or astronomer is an atheist that hates God.   On the flip side, many of the West's most educated people have grown cynical about spiritual things in general, and Christianity in particular, in part because of this anti-science stance.  What we are left with is never ending trench warfare with evangelicals touting attempts to refute science through organizations like Answers in Genesis, a process that has inevitably become more and more political, less and less theological.

In recent decades this war over the Facts of Creation has expanded to touch upon other scientific discoveries.  Because millions of evangelicals look at science with disdain once reserved for Voodoo witch doctors, there is little wonder that an anti-vaccine movement has developed, that Climate Change is one of the most divisive political issues in America today, or that we now live in an era when a phrase like 'alternative facts' can be uttered with a straight face.

Is Science, if something so nebulous can be taken as a whole, blameless in all this?  Certainly not, one need not be a fan of Michael Crichton (I am) to recognize that human genetic engineering requires significant safeguard and raises massive ethical questions, nor to agree that recreating carnivorous dinosaurs would be a bad idea, if it were possible.  In virtually every field Science has ethical questions to answer.  As Crichton's character Ian Malcolm says in Jurassic Park, “Scientists are actually preoccupied with accomplishment. So they are focused on whether they can do something. They never stop to ask if they should do something.”  Here's the irony in all this, Science can't answer questions about what whether or not they should do something.  Those questions are ethical questions, and ethics lies in the realm of philosophy and religion.  Science NEEDS the spiritual realm to answers questions that go beyond the test tube, that are not answered by a peer reviewed study, but rather than act as a counselor and guide, much of American Christianity has treated Science as the enemy.

No matter what you believe about HOW God Created the World, the war on Science has already begun to boomerang. 

I know that many Christians are firmly convinced that only a literal 6 Day Creation occurring approximately 6,000 years ago can possibly do justice to Genesis.  {I've written about this issue previously: Faith, Science, and Creation, is there a way forward?}  If this is the only option, we are at an impasse, for scientific discoveries have not invalidated previously put forth theories about the age of the universe.  To continue in this stalemate is a lose-lose situation.  The more Facts are eroded by religion, and especially by the politics of the religious, the less and less trust will be placed upon Truth by the culture at large.  Facts and Truth are inextricably linked, you can't have one without the other.  Faith and Science NEED each other, whether either side is willing to admit it or not.

If there are no objective Facts that can be agreed upon, there is no Truth either.  On what basis will you build the case that the Bible is True while at the same time you preach that human beings cannot trust their own senses?  Radical empirical-ism, that each of us can only trust what we sense and no objective reality lies beyond our senses, is a death knell not only for any hope of a democratic republic, but of organized religion as well.  But that radical individualism is the foreseeable end result of a constant dismissal of Facts.  If Facts and Truth do not exist independent of us, but are rather subject to our will to believe or disbelieve them, they cease to have any useful meaning.

2020 has shown us the acceleration of this process.  Recently highly influential evangelical pastor John MacArthur has declared against a mountain of scientific evidence, "there is no pandemic", a statement that was met with thunderous applause by the 3,000 non mask wearing people in the sanctuary of his church.  Here's the problem, the virus doesn't care if you believe in it or not.  Science denial is now a political badge of courage, but this is not surprising, it was the next step in the ongoing assault on Fact by many Christians.

{John MacArthur fails to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary risk, plus End Times anti-government speculation}

{John MacArthur jumps the shark with COVID-19 response}

It doesn't have to be this way, we don't need to sow the seeds of our own destruction.  We can't have Truth without Facts.  When you assault one, you attack them both.  If Christians want to be people of Truth, they need to be people of Facts too.

For more on the topic of Truth and its relationship with Fact: 

The apparent blasphemy of My Pillow founder Michael Lindell regarding a COVID-19 'cure'.

2020 has taken the measure of the Church, and found us wanting

Why is the Truth treated like a second rate commodity? Life lessons from an ESPN article: Happy 59th! Or is it 58th? Cracking the mystery of Don Mattingly's birthday - by Sam Miller

Faith is not anti-fact, at least it's not supposed to be.

The ungodly growth of Holocaust Denial

Those are just the last two years, when you minor in philosophy the idea of Truth is never far from your mind. List of 37 posts on my blog about Truth