Justice asks, “Who did it?” Social justice asks, “Why did he do it?”
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?
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.
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 And because leftism has superseded the Bible in many houses of worship—and leftism, as a guiding principle, holds that the weak are good and the powerful are bad.
Justice is getting what you deserve without favor. Social justice is getting what you don’t deserve because you are favored.
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.” 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.
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.” 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.
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.
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.
Here’s a secret that every woman knows: Women want real men—men they can count on and, yes, look up to. No amount of feminist theory will change that. I don’t know any woman, at any age, who is attracted to a passive man who looks to her to be his provider, protector and leader. Every woman I know wants a strong, responsible man. That’s not a consequence of a social construct or cultural pressure—it’s innate.
The devaluation of masculinity won’t end well because feminine, passive men don’t stop evil. Passive men don’t defend, protect or provide. Passive men don’t lead. Passive men don’t do the things we have always needed men to do for society to thrive.
“Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives…family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation.” That was said by then-Senator Barack Obama in 2008. “If we are honest with ourselves,” he went on, “we’ll admit that…too many fathers are…missing from too many lives and too many homes.”
Here’s why: When you try to make men more like women, you don’t get less “toxic masculinity,” you get more. Why? Because bad men don’t become good when they stop being men; they become good when they stop being bad. Aggression, violence, and unbridled ambition can’t be eliminated from the male psyche; they can only be harnessed. And when they are harnessed, they are tools for good, not for harm.
The same masculine traits that bring destruction also defeat tyranny. The traits that foster greed also build economies. The traits that drive men to take foolish risks also drive men to take heroic risks.
The answer to toxic masculinity isn’t less masculinity; it’s better masculinity. And we know what that looks like. It’s a young man opening the door for a girl on their first date. It’s a father working long hours to provide for his family. It’s a soldier risking his life to defend his country.
The growing problem in today’s society isn’t that men are too masculine; it’s that they’re not masculine enough. When men embrace their masculinity in a way that is healthy and productive, they are leaders, warriors and heroes. When they deny their masculinity, they run away from responsibilities, leaving destruction and despair in their wake.
In his book, The Abolition of Man, English social philosopher C.S. Lewis writes about this problem. He describes the tension “between cerebral man and visceral man.” “By his intellect,” Lewis explains, man “is mere spirit and by his appetite mere animal.” We need both. Take away one, and you’re left with a man who’s either weak or wicked. And in a world of wickedness, weak men are nothing more than enablers of wicked men. Rape, murder, war—they all have two things in common: bad men who do the raping, murdering, and warring; and weak men who won’t stop them. We need good men who will. It’s not masculinity that’s toxic. It’s the lack of it.
Justice asks, “Who did it?” Social justice asks, “Why did he do it?”