The Law, the Gospel, and Social Justice
By John B. King, Jr., Ph.D.
Within a Biblical framework, the term “social justice” refers to a situation in which the equity of God’s law prevails, leveling society. As understood by liberals, however, “social justice” becomes a mere buzzword with racist and Marxist overtones. “No justice; no peace,” they cry as they fuel the flames of racial hatred and class envy to solidify their grip on power. As seen by this emphasis on class antagonism, the liberal view of social justice has definite economic implications. In particular, “social justice” is thought to include “economic justice” and thus a so-called “equitable distribution of wealth.” In other words, the liberal view is thoroughly socialist and therefore unbiblical to the core. Since God’s Word alone forms the necessary and sufficient basis for a just society, the liberal program produces a result that is neither social nor just.
That socialism is unbiblical follows from the fact that the forced redistribution of wealth violates both the law of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ. With respect to the law, socialism violates the Eighth Commandment by allowing a person to claim another’s property. With respect to the gospel, socialism undercuts the concept of grace by holding that benevolence may be constrained by considerations of need. In other words, socialism entails a mindset in which salvation (in this case economic salvation) is a needs-based right rather than a gracious gift. Thus, in seeking to constrain salvation within a man made legal system, the liberal notion of social justice attacks both the law of God and the gospel of Christ. It is simultaneously antinomian and legalistic.
The liberal view is antinomian because its program of wealth redistribution violates the equity of God’s property laws. For instance, according to the Eighth Commandment, a man may not steal his neighbor’s property (Ex. 20:15; Dt. 5:19). Since one may not steal even to sustain his life (Pr. 6:30, 31), it follows that even extreme need does not constitute a claim upon another person’s property. Biblical law bases property claims on ownership rather than need. Since one cannot use his need to claim another’s goods, it follows that the liberal view of social justice violates the equity of God’s law. Of course, some will argue that socialism is not stealing since the government has the power to tax. However, the legitimate taxing power of government pertains to functions like civil justice and common defense, from which everyone benefits and so must pay their fair share (Rom. 13:1-7). Programs like socialized medicine and public education involve an attempt to appropriate another’s property for one’s own personal use, and any such attempt is covetous and larcenous, even if the government acts as the middleman. Christians must oppose welfare, public education, and related socialist schemes in principle, and not just because of their high cost and ineffectiveness.
In levying property taxes, the government claims ultimate ownership of the land within its domain. In theory and in fact, home ownership is nullified by state ownership, and the supposed homeowners in fact rent from the state. A failure to pay property taxes results in a government lien against one’s property that has priority over all private claims. Continued failure to pay these liens eventually results in government foreclosure and sale of the home, thereby revealing the true locus of ownership. Thus, in assessing a property tax, the government implicitly claims ownership over the property itself thereby robbing the homeowner of his rightful claim. Since such a claim is implicit in every property tax (no matter how small), it is the principle of such a tax and not its amount that is so dangerous. Christians must oppose property taxes in principle, and not just quibble over the amount. The legitimate taxing authority of the government must operate through other means.
If the property tax implies state ownership of land, the income tax implies state ownership of people. After all, in working for a wage, a person is simply trading his knowledge, skill, and/or strength for money. Implicit in such an exchange is the assumption that the person owns himself first of all, and, therefore, the talents he possesses. Owning himself and his talents, he is free to exchange a specified use of them for a specified wage. However, when the government steps into this transaction and demands a share of the wages, it asserts its ownership over the person and his talents. Since the amount of the tax is determined strictly by the whim of the government and could therefore rise to 100%, the claim to state ownership is total in principle. Of course, since God is the ultimate owner of everyone, He is entitled to charge the income tax that He requires in the tithe. The state, however, is not God and therefore has no business imposing an income tax. In doing so, it asserts state ownership of people as units of production, thereby reduces its citizens to the status of slaves. Since such an assertion is implicit in every income tax (no matter how small), it is the principle of such a tax and not its amount that is so dangerous. Christians must oppose government income taxes in principle, and not just quibble over the amount. The legitimate taxing authority of the government must operate through other means.
The Social Gospel
In addition to violating the law of God, the liberal socialist program also violates the gospel. In particular, by seeking to constrain economic salvation by considerations of need, it turns such salvation into a needs-based right, rather than a gracious gift. Since charity and the gospel both rely on the principle of unconstrained benevolence, they are alike manifestations of a common principle of grace. In seeking to constrain benevolence, the liberal program directly attacks the very principle of grace upon which both charity and the gospel rest. Of course, the salvation to which the gospel refers is eternal, regenerative and, therefore, deeper and broader in its effect than a merely economic salvation (although in its regenerating power the gospel has economic implications as well). In advancing the principle that physical salvation is a needs-based right, socialism attacks the very character of grace and, therefore, lends itself to a parallel notion that eternal salvation is also a needs-based right. Thus, on the basis of socialist logic, one should shake his fist in the face of the Almighty, demanding eternal salvation apart from grace and apart from Christ simply because he needs it! As horrid as such a thought is, it is a direct consequence of the socialist idea. Christians must oppose socialism in principle since its core idea is antithetical to the gospel and, thus, to the central reality of the Christian Faith.
In opposing socialism, however, one must remember the legitimate and pressing needs of the poor. After all, God commands His people to remember the poor and give generously to them through tithes and offerings (Dt. 14:2-29; 16:10-14). Because the needs of the poor must be met, the state will naturally step in to fill the gap whenever Christians fail to meet legitimate social needs. In fact, it is precisely because Christians have largely abandoned their social responsibilities that the welfare state has arisen in the first place and then assumed such great authority.
To fight socialism it is necessary not only to oppose various welfare schemes, but even more basically to encourage tithing among all Christians so that the church has sufficient resources to meet various social needs. After all, when the church implements such a program, she, unlike the state, will be in a position to minister to the whole person and to provide loving guidance in addition to financial assistance. Because of this more personal approach, she will be able to give people a hand up and not just a handout. The social need, which is used to justify the welfare state, will wither away so that government programs implode from the lack of clients. At such a point, the electorate will be more receptive to political arguments calling for the elimination of such programs that will have become superfluous. Thus, the welfare state will be supplanted by a godly social program that will truly minister to the poor out of love and compassion.
Of course, such a program will be a far cry from current policies that imply that the poor can demand the property of others on the basis of physical need. After all, since Biblical charity is based on giving rather than taking, it is rooted in the concept of grace rather than coercion. And while it is true that God commands charity, it is at the same time free and voluntary since it is not enforced by the state. In contrast to the liberal view, the Biblical notion of social justice produces a result that is both social and just. It is social because people of varying economic means are drawn together through godly concern rather than wrenched apart by class warfare. It is also just, because a system based on giving rather than taking honors the property rights of the giver. Within the framework of Biblical law, true social justice prevails because mercy and justice come together to form a just society. May God give us clergy with the insight and integrity to declare these simple truths.
Feature from–Truth Based Logic
By William Flax
Synopsis Misuse of term ‘Social Justice’ in academic & political discourse for what is neither social nor just. > (Socrates, Socratic Method & an age of deception. Socratic purpose & Questions to ask.)
In a world in which words, and particularly defining terms, have meaning consistent with a purpose in reasoned discourse, social justice would refer to that deemed just within the scope of the particular mores of a particular people under discussion. This is certainly not the use to which the term has been put by those who have pushed one or another variety of collectivist egalitarianism on Western Nations over the past century. Indeed, a far more descriptive term for what has been promoted under such banner would be “Anti-social Injustice.” Social Justice has become a sort of shibboleth for the most flagrant attempts to re-engineer social attitudes, to redistribute the fruits of men’s labor, to attack their traditional patterns of identification, ethical values & fundamental priorities.
By what standard has an effectual promotion of an amalgamation of disparate & dissonant social elements, a leveling of human success or a reordering of social & individual priorities, including a many faceted “robbing of Peter to pay Paul & corrupt Mary,” been so far advanced? How has such a deliberate attack on past social values been accomplished, with so little opposition in Academia, with so much journalistic & political support? Let us examine the Academic quest, since the days of Socrates (469 – 399 B.C.), the pursuit of truth by Socratic methodology–to consider & understand how totally that once honored quest, pursuit & methodology, has been corrupted by both the culpable & ignorant.
Socrates, Socratic Method & The Age of Deception
Socrates was the mentor of both Plato (427 – 347 B.C.) & Xenophon (435 – 355 B.C.). Before Socrates, Western ideological discourse was in a state of verbal chaos, not unlike that of the 30 second sound bite in modern politics. While Socrates did not espouse a particular philosophy, so much as an honorable pursuit of wisdom, the Socratic Method provided a foundation for others to begin the process of systemizing–explaining in terms of logical relationships, demonstrable premises, cause & effect — philosophical quests & conclusions, verbally. From the time of Plato until 1900, at least, the Socratic Method was that preferred by the skilled teacher. It involved the use of probing questions, challenging the intellect to justify any conclusion by sound & grounded reasoning. Socrates applied Socratic Method both for his own — largely vain, because uncompromising — quest to find true wisdom, and to his students, in a far more successful technique to induce an ability to actually reason — or perhaps better stated, to explain, illustrate & defend the results of one’s reason, verbally.
Using effective & probing questions, Socrates stimulated in the Socratic student, a discipline to base ideas and opinion on an ever-improving understanding of fundamental aspects both of the natural order and those most specific to the human experience, conduct, achievement, virtue or vice — even to the point of rational exploration of the very determination of virtue or vice. Perhaps the most despicable aspect of an increasing pseudo-intellectual domination of the “Humanities” & “Liberal Arts” by educational poseurs (whether those who act deliberately & malevolently, or their hapless, sheep-like, followers) has come in a clear corruption of Socratic Method.
If there was one thing, which proper application of Socratic Method should have prevented, it was a mass acceptance of question-begging premises, underlying most contemporary social policy. Policy based upon an unproven, specious — even absurd — premise of human equality, or the interchangeability of human types; or the desirability of amalgamating diverse human cultures & communities, should never have passed the test of even the most rudimentary academic discourse, unchallenged & unrepudiated. The reason, of course, lies in an abandonment of the Socratic quest; in asking the wrong questions. Rather than challenge wish lists of Socialists & other proponents of a more egalitarian, more centrally directed, human experience, many teachers over three generations, have utterly begged every fundamental question involved, to simply assume the veracity of egalitarian & collectivist premises. Thus instead of probing Socratic questions, which should have led to critical examination, students have been diverted; not to ask “why?” or “what should we?”; rather towards asking “how to?” achieve goals, born not in reason, but in compulsion and/or fancy.
We first encountered this rational deception while yet in High School, in examining something labeled “Debate Handbook” on the shelves of the school library. It was a product of a “Writers’ Project,” growing out of a Depression-era Federal program that had provided employment for Leftist writers with an obvious ‘axe to grind,’ and to others willing to ‘grind’ such ‘axes’ for a Government paycheck. As an answer to Communism, the manual probed the question of whether or not it was yet practical to achieve–not whether it was wise or foolish, natural or perverse, good or evil, moral or not, even rational or not. Every basic question begged, the student was never stimulated to examine the subject critically; rather, delivered from reason, to pursuit of a goal premised on nothing but the writers’ wishful fancy or vented hatred of human nature & individual achievement.
On the subject of World Government, the focus was on how to achieve such denial of national & ethnic aspirations and continuity. Again, every basic, foundational, question being begged; no examination of the validity of any supposed reason why such would be desirable, much less of any practical benefit to anyone but the would-be rulers, was offered.
The revulsion, felt, inspired us, almost half a century later, to write the Conservative Debate Handbook. It was not that the Writers’ Project product attacked our most fundamental beliefs. The flagrant intellectual dishonesty, a total disregard of the very concept of an Academy devoted to education by reasoned examination of both natural phenomena & the human experience–in short, by a method well proven since the age of Socrates & Plato–was as offensive as watching thugs rape & pillage in a sanctuary. The lesson, however, was obvious. The Left cannot win a rational debate. They can only prevail if we continue to allow them to “fudge” the issues. Raise the right questions; challenge the false premises? Their only response will be to try to insult you, smear you, shout you down, or shut you up. Failing in these, they will scurry off like rats leaving a sinking ship. If you have never so challenged them, try it, before you concede your heritage to the intellectual scum we would describe.
Let us consider what questions, a modern Socrates might ask a Leftist Professor, pseudo “statesman,” journalist or preacher, to encourage each reader to try such a revealing experiment for himself.
Socratic Method? Questions to Ask
For almost three generations, the ideological tide in Western Academia has been flowing increasingly in favor of the sort of egalitarian collectivist values, so clearly reflected in contemporary prattling on “Social Justice” as the pursuit of social egalitarianism. This has gone virtually unchallenged; promoted by a sort of circular tunnel vision, fed by its own never supported fantasies, which can only rationally suggest the image of a dog chasing its own tail. (While the issues are somewhat different, some of those unchallenged underlying premises are the same as those which have been adduced to support the pursuit of World Government. So we will briefly examine that, also.) What questions, then, might a modern Socrates or Plato have raised in the Academy, in the media, on the hustings, from the pulpit, or simply over the lunch or dinner table?
Those which reason demands, those so largely–and so sadly–not spoken, are so numerous, that we can only just begin the process of answering our own query. Yet, even here, we must start by endeavoring to classify conceptually–to try to bring a little clarity out of the intellectual chaos of long unchallenged folly. First, then, we need demands for definition. The proponent of “Social Justice” must be required to clarify “what” he considers just in human affairs and “why,” with particular focus on human experience within a particular society, a particular political & social order — ordinarily, the particular political & social order to which the proponent & the Conservative interlocutor belong. The pursuit of something that cannot be reasonably defined, is only a pursuit of chaos! While a “social” goal, not rooted in a societal purpose, is an oxymoron.
Now, when pushed, the advocate of “Social Justice” will almost certainly refer to some egalitarian pursuit. You will likely have to listen to pleas for a more “equal,” more “inclusive,” society — even a more “equal,” more “inclusive,” humanity. Such answers will, at least, lead to clarity on the part of the prepared Conservative as to questions that should follow. These, in turn, should be classified conceptually, not necessarily to determine an order of use, but that we may more clearly understand the function.
Some must go to the nature of Government within a particular social order. The Founders of America had a clarity on this subject, largely lost over the past century. Yet no Government springs from the earth. Governmental powers arise in a social compact. That compact may be written & formal, as the United States Constitution, defining our Federal Government, or — as under Magna Carta in Britain — intended primarily to insure Governmental respect for the rights of property & inheritance; or it may be informal — arising in ongoing rational reflection among those both in and subject to the Government; — involving also, what the latter may or may not be willing to tolerate at any given moment. It may also, as so often the case historically, arise in a surrender of one people to conquest by another. Yet, all of the above lead to questions involving what is legitimate, what is morally acceptable; to questions of duty, allegiance, responsibility & method.
Thus, many questions come to mind: By what authority does any Government seek to interfere with previous or organic development of wealth, social position, or status within an ongoing social order? What is the extent of such authority–how far can it go? What is the duty of a citizen, as opposed to a slave or bondsman, to such authority; to respect such an “unequal” application of power, as must be required to “redress” an imagined injustice in the inequality of wealth, social position or status? Would anyone argue that the duty of men to defend their social order against attack, extends to supporting a Government, which has turned on the more successful within that social order, by taking from the high achievers to give to lesser, low or non-achievers? If so, on what basis? Is not a part of the former, a duty in part to oneself, recognizing common purpose in the survival of a society with which one identifies? Is not the latter, simply an abuse of collective power? Is not a coerced or forced surrender of earned assets, a very different thing than a charitable gift to one whose need & worth are both recognized by the giver?
How is there justice in denying anyone the full benefit or advantage of their natural endowments? The fruits of their extra effort? If so, upon what premise, based upon what concept? Was the reader ever in a classroom, where all were equal in mental aptitude? All were equal on any playground? Later, in an ability to attract the opposite sex? Where in the Federal Constitution of the United States is there even a suggestion of a right or duty to interfere with the natural or earned advantage of any citizen for the particular benefit of any other? Where is there any rational reason to conceive such an extension of Governmental power to be just?
If Government will not respect legal & traditional limits, why should any citizen respect Government? And if Government must rely on its power of the moment–employing a Hitlerian “might makes right” creed — how long before such Government may be expected to fall to new self-promoters — perhaps, its own “Palace Guard”– led by some opportunist, with no more loyalty to his superiors than they had had to those they were sworn to serve, under terms once sacred? A host of other questions, concerning the importance of predictability in human interaction; the importance of trust in both equal & unequal relationships; all have essential relevance to the appropriateness of any Governmental role.
To return to questions that challenge the underlying philosophic goals of those crying for “Social Justice.” Is there any hard evidence of an equality of human potential — regardless, or regardful, of whatever Government may do; — or in such sub-comparisons as an interchangeability of human sentiments, preferences, behavioral patterns or sociability? [Does any variety of human interaction, comparative study of group intelligence, anecdotal evidence of intelligent & ethical observers; anatomical studies of human crania, brain tissue, etc., comparative history of definable groups, their achievements, failures & peculiarities; any data, indicate there are not profound variations of the human type?] What legitimate interest can there be in trying to force a pretense or “show” of equality of those manifestly not equal? What possible benefit can flow from forcing what amounts to a lie — an effort to remold man to suit a verbal construct, i.e., the equality of mankind, even as a goal? What actual benefit can there be, in taking from any people, any class, family or individual — any part of the fruits of their labor & ingenuity — for such a pursuit? Do not those subsidized in such a quest, suffer also in a diminished incentive to better apply themselves — incentive drowned by a sense of unearned entitlement?
We but scratch the surface! Virtually limitless questions require consideration. The Egalitarian, in effect, seeks an amalgamation of all human interests. Why is such proper for the most complex species, where it does not obtain in any other? (Look at any other social species. Is there any parallel to what the Egalitarian seeks to inflict on mankind?) Again, who benefits? What, if any, legitimate interest is served? If the objective is to eliminate strife by removing competition or rivalry, is this not the pursuit of an ultimate tyranny — to deny each folk, rights to what was always more important, even than the quest for peace & tranquility? Does not a study of nature & natural history, as well as of the human past, suggest that it is natural for all intelligent species to develop what might be classified as a “pecking order?” What sort of analysis can demonstrate any injustice in this natural phenomenon? What of patterns of social preference, preferred patterns of association?
The cry for “social justice” was reflected in “Civil Rights” legislation. The demand was that property rights must give way to “human rights!” But by what reason are the accumulated fruits of an individual or his family’s labor, not human rights? How can any other person, whether similar or different from the property owner, have any right at all in such owner’s estate, superior to the lawful owner? Yet what else can it mean, when Government tells an individual property owner that he must not exercise preference for someone, whose religious beliefs make him appear more trustworthy to the property owner, than another? It is the same principle, whether the issue is hiring for a job, or renting an apartment; and does not such contravention of rights once deemed sacred, also include denial of a major attribute of freedom of religion? Would not a modern Socrates question the same species of legislation, where it makes it illegal for a property owner to prefer one whose family shared a similar heritage, because that would violate a prohibition against a racial or ethnic standard? Where is the “social justice” in appropriating the normal attributes of a man’s property — which include the legitimate use of that property — to attack traditional patterns of social association & identification?
How is the concept — this intrusion into private decision making — acceptable in a Federal Union of diverse States, often settled by persons deliberately crossing the ocean in order to live in local communities peopled by those of a particular religious denomination, or having a common social or cultural orientation? Where in the Federal Constitution is there even suggestion of such purpose or intent?
Does this reflect an implied tendency toward — indeed a contrived pursuit of — amalgamation of all the diverse elements found across the land? Is not such pursuit suggested by an ever increasing dependence on more distant Government in the United States? In the declining power of the States relative to the Federal Government over the past three generations? Was not an extreme example of the same pursuit involved in 1965, in scrapping an immigration policy that had favored human stocks in proportion to their demographic contribution to the American past? Indeed, is not a similar thought pattern — as suggested in parenthetical note above — essential to the drive to inflict Mankind with some form of World Government? Do not these parallel tendencies suggest that the issue is not, and has never been, about “justice”; that, rather, there is a compulsion involved to, in fact, amalgamate the peoples of the earth? And, if so, why should we accept the premise that we can better trust alien peoples, who must ultimately be able to apply brutal force to be effective, than our own leadership (as that of other nations) to act wisely in each people’s interest? Is there anything in human history, which would suggest that more remote, less personal, force, is kinder or gentler than true local leadership?
If nations are now truly willing to cooperate to pursue a means for peaceful settlement of all problems, why trust an ever more remote, ever less representative (hence, accountable or tolerant) group of foreigners, than one’s own countrymen, immediately interested in both that pursuit & the welfare of their own peoples? Is not any movement for World Government, simply a cry for surrender of responsibility & accountability; a surrender by subterfuge, but a surrender, none the less?
These are a few of the questions with which a modern Socrates might challenge the exponents of popular fantasy; a Socratic challenge to examine each premise, to determine if it has rational bases. They are not questions with which most contemporary academics will be comfortable.
Article by William Flax from www.truthbasedlogic.com
By Erik Rush
“No mercy for those preaching Marx-tainted Gospel”
Revelations concerning people who call themselves “social justice Christians” have recently become a cause célèbre among conservative commentators. Initially, I was disinclined to tackle the subject, since there have been several worthwhile articles and programs addressing it as of late; however, since the phenomenon so closely resembles another upon which I have expounded with regularity, I reasoned that some elucidation thereupon would be accommodating to civic-minded Americans.
“Social justice Christians” are those who profess Christianity, but who adhere to politically entrenched concepts of equality and redistribution of wealth. These ideas are ostensibly rooted in their faith, but in truth, they have been incrementally and insidiously insinuated into many American churches by Marxists, progressive politicians and pastors whose religion has been tainted by the aforementioned parties.
How can this be? Well, through the misrepresentation of Gospel messages in the areas of charity and egalitarianism, such Christians have been led to believe that:
- government has a right to enforce religious doctrines (such as those of charity and egalitarianism), and
- Jesus Christ, as a threat to the existing paradigm, was the “first radical” and essentially commanded this in His teachings.
A preposterous extrapolation, to be sure, but that’s what they espouse. And of course, government only has the right to enforce the religious doctrines of which these folks and their leaders happen to approve.
Organizations such as the Sojourners (founded by communist “reverend” Jim Wallis) and other SJC entities have been flexing their collective muscle since the election of Barack Obama as president. Most recently, a public service announcement campaign led by the Hollywood Adventist Church (don’t laugh; this is serious stuff) via New Name Pictures and entitled “I’m a Social Justice Christian” hit the Web, provoking the condemnation of those who, well, see social justice Christianity for what it is.
Why do I bring this up now – other than because social justice groups have been flexing that muscle lately? Because the methodology in play is precisely how the left corrupted the black community – through their pastors and their churches. In the 1960s, the church was still the bulwark of the black community. Marxists subverted black pastors, then interwove their (social justice) dogma into the Gospel.
It is the same creed that destroyed black families and the character of black Americans; now, the political left is mobilizing deluded Christians in the general population to do their malevolent bidding. President Obama’s “organizers” capitalized on the raw sensitivities of a largely white middle-class subgroup that has been browbeaten with charges of racism for years.
According to SJ Christians, in addition to oppressing minorities (though it remains a mystery as to precisely how), we are destroying the planet; these issues must be addressed decisively and with all due speed – by the federal government. First, it was necessary to advance the notion that the Earth’s atmosphere was going to flash off into space imminently, hence the climate-change fearmongering.
In addition to the discredited (and therefore dubious) evidence supporting climate-change theory, adherents to “environmental justice” wholly ignore the fact that we have managed to engineer automobiles that are exponentially more fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly than those produced in the 1970s, when the last environmental panic occurred. American industry has done likewise across the board, and environmental consciousness and our sense of stewardship of the Earth is at record levels across the political spectrum in America.
As with health-care reform, and automobile company and financial industry bailouts, many are aware that social and environmental “justice” issues are not about justice at all; they are calculated to deliver unprecedented levels of power to the federal government. I find it hard to believe that Obama’s former “green jobs” czar Van Jones gives a rip about the planet as he delivers adrenaline-saturated diatribes on how we’ve rammed it to Native Americans, screaming, Give them the wealth! Give them the wealth! Nor was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi concerned with immigrants when she told a group of Catholic priests that they should be preaching immigration reform from the pulpit.
In the case of black Americans, many fell prey to Black Liberation Theology, the communistic doctrine championed by President Obama’s former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. This appealed to the frustration and anger perpetuated by those such as Wright and secular black activists. Other pastors were courted with fortune and glory (such as Rev. Jesse Jackson), as well as a seat at the progressives’ “round table.” These clergymen simply crafted their message into a political one and ran blacks’ faith into a theological cesspool. Black Americans have been pawns of the left ever since; to this day, most don’t even know it.
I declare that “social justice Christianity” is apostasy; its adherents have abandoned their faith for a cause, and their religion has become perfunctory and pretextual. While some are misguided Christians, others (like Jim Wallis) are out-and-out Marxist posers.
Proverbially, they now stand with the Sadducees and Rome, against Israel. While I pray that God will have mercy on their souls, we must show them no mercy politically. They are but another well-organized group of traitors to this nation.
Erik Rush is a columnist and author of sociopolitical fare. Erik has appeared on Fox News’ “Hannity and Colmes,” CNN, and is a veteran of numerous radio appearances.