31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.So, who is right? Well, I won't claim to have sole authority on such matters, but I will share which I agree with and why. First, let's define social justice, shall we? According to the simple dictionary definition, it is "the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society." This is a rather simple view of things, is it not? The Christian left website defines it thus: "care for the poor and the oppressed." Their site continues on to compare this act with supporting such things as government welfare, universal healthcare, subsidized education and foreign aid. These are generally viewed as government actions. Another definition, from the International Labour Organization (ILO), is: "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 than may currently exist in some societies, and to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system." Again, this entire definition hinges on the actions of governments, not charity. Therefore, at least in the eyes of society as a whole, social justice is about the government using its power to force certain standards and behaviors on society in order to achieve a certain result. An aside, but...what if one doesn't agree with the goal, the standards, or the behaviors, but I digress.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. ”
Now, that brings me back to the passage. What is it saying...exactly. For me, the Lord is clearly giving us a view of charity. He wants us to know that we are to act when we are able to to help those in need around us. When asked, "When did we see you..." he responds to the two groups present with very different answers. To the righteous he says..."whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me" and to the wicked he says..."whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me." The Lord seems to be stating that each person is responsible for their own actions. If we choose to help the needy, we are rewarded but if we choose to reject them, we are not. This is a personal act for me, not a collective one. He is calling us out, to make righteous choices in our lives. To see a need and fill a need to use an old adage. Is he calling us to society's definition of social justice? Where we must support government actions to bring about certain just outcomes? I don't think that is what this passage is about.
First, in Matthew 26, we see the story where Mary anoints Jesus' feet. Judas tries to rebuke her for her waste when they could use it to help the poor. The stuff she used to pour on Christ's feet was quite expensive after all. Jesus' response in verse 11? "The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me." Jesus is telling them that Mary is committing an act of worship here. She is being charitable toward her Lord. Since this oil is quite expensive, she is sacrificing on his behalf, in fact. It also tells us that we will always have the poor with us and so we must always strive to help them. We must act out of faith and obedience and act sacrificially, just as Mary is doing here.
Again in Luke chapter 20, we get insight into what God would have us do. When questioned about taxes and whether it is right to pay them, Jesus responds to his questioners: “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” He knew they wanted to trap Him into saying something that could be considered seditious and this was His response. It provides great insight in my opinion. It clearly states there is a difference between giving money to the government (Caesar) and giving money to God (charity). This helps clarify for me where I should fall on this question.
So, I do not believe the above passage tells us that God intends us to support policies or vote for people that will force good behavior on us all through government taxation and intervention. I believe this passage speaks to each of us as individuals. We are to help the poor, the hungry, the widows, the orphans, etc. With our time, talents, money, etc. If I go out and help one person with my time and money, I believe that has eternal value. If I vote for someone who promises to help hundreds or thousands by forcing others to give up their time and money to others, I don't believe that has eternal value. My reason is quite simple. In the first example, I choose to take the time and I choose to sacrifice my earnings in order to help another person. With the second, the choice is removed, but not only removed, it is forced upon me. The first is an act of faith and obedience to what God has asked of us, the other requires no faith and certainly no act of obedience. I believe it is easy to see this demonstrated. If a person pays their taxes and still gives their time, talents and money to help others above and beyond those taxes, then I'd argue they are making a faithful and obedient choice. However, if a person pays taxes and expects that to bring about positive outcomes and does nothing in addition to help others, then I'd argue they aren't acting in faith or making any choices to follow God's commands. I have no one in particular in mind, I am simply relaying my belief regarding biblical truth and social justice. One is following God's commands while the other is relying on government to solve society's problems. While there may be room for a little bit of both in society, the Christian must act individually.
