Attacking Justice in the Name of Justice
I was listening to one of John Piper’s biographical talks from the pastors’ conference that his ministry has put on for years and was struck by the way Piper described one of the most harmful means of attacking someone who is pursuing a cause that another dislikes. He describes it more fully in an aside in the actual audio [around the 44 minute point in the audio], but you can get the gist of it from the published text of the lecture.
Probably the severest criticism he ever received was from a slavery-defending adversary named William Cobett, in August of 1823, who turned Wilberforce's commitment to abolition into a moral liability by claiming that Wilberforce pretended to care for slaves from Africa but cared nothing about the "wage slaves" – the wretched poor of England.
He then goes on to quote at length from the speech of William Cobett:
You seem to have a great affection for the fat and lazy and laughing and singing and dancing Negroes. . . . [But] Never have you done one single act in favor of the laborers of this country [a statement Cobett knew to be false]. . . . You make your appeal in Picadilly, London, amongst those who are wallowing in luxuries, proceeding from the labor of the people. You should have gone to the gravel-pits, and made your appeal to the wretched creatures with bits of sacks around their shoulders, and with hay-bands round their legs; you should have gone to the roadside, and made your appeal to the emaciated, half-dead things who are there cracking stones to make the roads as level as a die for the tax eaters to ride on. What an insult it is, and what an unfeeling, what a cold-blooded hypocrite must he be that can send it forth; what an insult to call upon people under the name of free British laborers; to appeal to them in behalf of Black slaves, when these free British laborers; these poor, mocked, degraded wretches, would be happy to lick the dishes and bowls, out of which the Black slaves have breakfasted, dined, or supped.
Of course, anyone who knows anything about Wilberforce knows that Cobett’s accusations are false. Wilberforce was a member of the Clapham Saints, who were known for their pro-social efforts throughout Britain. They supported protections for laborers, animal welfare, literacy programs for the poor, and many other forms of justice. Their most contentious work, however, was for the abolition of slavery and the slave trade, so it is this against which much of the criticism was leveraged.
There is no question that Wilberforce was more invested in the abolition of the slave trade than in other causes. One person absolutely cannot be equally concerned with all forms of injustice. Those that try to be equally vocal about all injustice end up doing little to actually improve conditions. However, to be focused primarily on correcting one form of injustice leaves one open to all sorts of attacks, like the one that Cobett wages.
Do you care about the environment? Why do you not care equally for those dying without the gospel?
Do you care about racial reconciliation? Why have you not ended poverty in your own town?
Do you care about unjust economic systems? Why do you not care about those caught in unjust criminal justice system?
These are all a form of the tu quoque fallacy. When we read these sorts of pairings in typed letters, they look ridiculous. Where does the presumption come from that simply because good environmental stewardship is a concern that there is not also a deep love for the lost a desire to see people saved? It is possible that there is a lack on the one hand because of an overwhelming concern on the other. However, it is just as possible that someone sees certain ways in which they can uniquely contribute to the good of the world, while still supporting, caring about, and engaging in other goods.
If you focus on everything, you can accomplish very little in this life. But if you focus on any sort of contentious action, then you will be open to being maligned in this way.
Sometimes these criticisms land very strongly in the public mind, because it is readily apparent that the victim has not done everything he could have done for the cause in question. Therefore, the accusation is partially true—true in the sense that another concern may have been chief in the benefactor’s mind and efforts.
These sorts of criticisms can also devastate those on the receiving end, because it undermines all of the good they intend to do. The reason why this sort of criticism is used is that it can dishearten those engaged in an effort for justice in a contentious sphere. If we are willing to listen, it can be devastating to see our hard work undermined by such half-truths. We ought not to let it be so.
This talk was presented in February of 2002. It was a conference that had for a good portion of its meat a focus on racial reconciliation. Part of Piper’s emphasis was for pastors to continue in that work despite attacks of this sort.
Several decades later, I can see this form of criticism being levied against men like Piper, Keller, and others. They have worked to create a sense of desire for justice in the world. And yet, they are often criticized for not caring enough about some other concern. The “Just Preach the Gospel” crowd does this an awful lot to men who have invested their lives into preaching the gospel and helping to show the gospel’s implications to the Christian life.
The secular “Social Justice” crowd does this when we favor some causes—often those that align with a Christian view of the social order—but ignore or work contrary to them in others. It is impossible to post a pro-life argument in favor of ending elective abortion without hearing someone argue that real pro-life energy should include greater government control of the economy, the end of capital punishment, or whatever the other cause is. Most of the time it isn’t really that the person cares so much about the other thing, they just want to silence arguments against killing children in the womb.
The secret to resisting the power of this form of criticism is to recognize that it is often levied as a means to guard some form of deep, self-interested sin. Cobett owned something like 1,300 slaves, so he was deeply interested in ending Wilberforce’s efficacy. When we hear criticisms like this levied against people, we should ask ourselves what self-interested sins are the critics seeking cover for as they publicly attack those pursuing justice in the world.
The way we talk about humans also has moral implications, which are more significant than how we treat our pets. In his 2011 book, Less than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others, David Livingstone Smith explores how language changes culture and leads to the justification of extreme violence against others, especially when they become perceived as less than human.