Social Justice is Not Love

There is a lot of talk about "social justice" on the political scene and I'm afraid, out of perhaps good intentions, it has made itself into the church. Wikipedia defines the term "social justice", in the sense that it is used in a modern context, as follows:

Social justice is also a concept that some use to describe the movement towards a socially just world. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity and equality of outcome than may currently exist in some societies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

Social justice as described here requires that an outside force create this concept of justice, and that by force. That kind of force can only be applied by a government.

Many in the church have been advocates of social justice out of a desire to help the poor. While the Bible advocates that we, as a church and individually, help the poor (see Matthew 25:37-40 and James 1:27 for example), this is different than social justice in that it compelled by the love of Christ, not by any means of force. Social justice, as administered by a government, is going to be inferior to a love-based heart toward giving and helping the poor in many ways:

1. It takes no love, no compassion, to want money to be compelled from one person for the benefit of another. Giving of one's own means is the more likely expression of compassion (though I acknowledge that even this can be done for wrong motives).
2. When a church or an individual Christian sees someone in need, there is freedom to meet both real and felt needs. When a person needs food, you can give food. If a person needs financial counseling, you can help that person find the right counseling. A government can only treat everyone the same, regardless of real needs.
3. A government requires a major bureaucracy to administrate helping those in need. This siphons off a good portion of the money that is brought in. A church or individual can help people more directly, without the huge administrative cost. Churches, and even other non-profit charities, while they always have some administrative cost, will have no where near the bureaucratic expenses a government will.
4. Bureaucracies designed to help people tend to breed corruption. Those in charge have millions or even billions of dollars they work with on a regular basis and it comes in regularly regardless of outcome because it is compelled from taxpayers.
5. There are always unintended consequences when the government gets involved in charity. Programs designed to help those out of work encourage many who are out of work to give up looking. "Free" health care leads to over-utilization. Requiring banks give loans to those who can't pay them back leads to bankruptcy and foreclosures. Subsidized poverty leads to more poverty.
6. Even more than food to eat or water to drink in this life, people need the gospel, a truly free gift. (Romans 6:23)

What is the bottom line? Give water to the thirsty and food to the hungry, help the orphan and the widow, speak the truth of the gospel, but don't be an advocate of social justice.