I'm quite tired of well-meaning Christians trying to sound non-partisan by talking about "economic justice", a term which usually crops up in sentences like this: Sure, we should care about abortion, but Jesus also is concerned about economic justice.

And, of course, by "economic justice" we mean caring for the poor through a government program funded by taxes, a specified minimum wage, or various restrictions on trade.

This is not merely a political or economic mistake, it is instead the outward expression of a theological mistake.

The first problem with this usage is that it indicts God as unjust.

Two people are born in different parts of the world. One is born in a country which doesn't have much in the way of natural resources, another is born in a country flowing with the proverbial milk and honey. Or, one is born to poor parents, and one is born to rich parents.

When we refer to such situations using the language of "economic justice" or "social justice" what we are saying, in fact, is that it is quite "unjust" for things to be ordered in this way.

Yet who caused the rich man's son to be born rich, and the poor man's daughter to be born poor? Who caused one country to have more natural resoures than another? Who caused one man to be born with a handicap, and another, good looks, physical strength, and high intelligence?

Why, the creator of all these things, of course.

So we cannot attack this situation as being "unjust" without attacking the one who ordered things in that way. If this is an awful state of affairs, then we must blame God.

And certainly some people feel this way, on a long-term basis. But we can't correctly call them "Christians."

So why did God arrange things with all this "inequality"?

Christianity 101: God's purpose, in creating the universe, sentient life, and you in particular, was to have communion. God created sentient beings for God to delight in and share His love with. God is good, and goodness, by it's very nature wants to give. It is meaningless to give unless there is an other to receive. God is love, and love requires an object.

So "communion" is in fact God's plan for us: communion with God, communion with our fellow man. God is "social", and, in that respect, we are created "in His image". (Genesis 1:6) He made us "social animals", having relations with each other precisely because we must have that capacity in order to also understand the idea of a relationship with God.

And you can only be social if you have someone to socialize with. So God creates us with differences, so that we will need each other and come together:

When God created Adam, though he was sinless and 'perfect', in one sense he was also somehow incomplete: it was not until he met Eve, who was different than he that he found wholeness. (Genesis 2:24) God could certainly have made Adam a complete, independent being, yet he created him with a built-in need and incompleteness, only satisifed through woman.

Likewise, in the New Testament, Christians are taught their differences bring them together to function as a single body; each one is different so that we are forced into communion with each other:

If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. (1 Corinthians 12:17-23)

On the global scale, God placed copper in one area, spices in another, fish in another, fruits in another so that men would come together and trade with each other. I believe it is no accident that the gospel has always spread along trade routes: the trade came to exist simply so that the message of the gospel could follow in the path it cleared.

So our differences -- that is, inequalities -- exist to make us interdependent: they are good, not evil; they are part of God's plan.

And this is the second problem with the 'liberal' use of "justice": It is based on a wrong idea of God's purposes. It assumes the ultimate good is equality, and that anything else is unjust. Instead, the bible teaches the ultimate good is communion with God, and that having and dealing with differences are a necessary, intended part of the process God uses to bring us to Him.

Of course, on a physical level, some inequalities seem less desirable than others. Certainly most of us would rather be born into a family that is reasonably well off, not poor. Most of would rather be born with sight than blindness. Suffering builds character, but most of us, frankly, would rather not.

It's here we need to bring in another biblical concept: Mercy.

If justice is getting what you deserve, then mercy is getting what you do not deserve. Mercy means being treated better than you deserve, or being given something good you have not merited.

In the bible, when one of these 'undesirable' differences is mitigated by a kind person, it is never called "justice". Instead, it is always called mercy:

When two blind men sat by the road, calling to Jesus to be healed, they said "Son of David, have mercy on us." (Matthew 20:29-32) And to a healed demoniac, Jesus said: "Go home to your family and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you." (Mark 5:19) And when the "Good Samaritan" helped his enemy who was beaten, wounded and helpless, he was referred to as "The one who had mercy on him." (Luke 10:37)

Jesus's healings, or the Samaritan's medical care, were an unmerited act of kindness: The sick people hadn't paid Jesus to be healed, nor were they just so incredibly righteous that Jesus was compelled to "do justice" by healing them. Nor had the wounded, unconscious man paid for his medical services in advance before the Samaritan picked him up, carried him to the nearest inn, and paid the innkeeper to tend his wounds until he recovered.

These were acts of "mercy", pure and simple; that is the biblical term for the practice, and it also implies we don't, in terms of justice, owe the sick a healing, nor owe poor man a hand up. We should seek to do so, of course, but, if we are to learn anything from the bible about it, we should use the language and pattern of "mercy", not "justice".

The third problem with this business of replacing mercy with "social justice" is that it actually opposes and undermines God' entire purpose for mercy.

How? Well, let's ask: Why does God want us to show mercy?

For the receiver, mercy is supposed to make the heart grateful for the unmerited gift, and to lead to a changed life and character. (Rom 12:1) When the woman caught in adultery was shown mercy, Jesus encouraged here to "go and sin no more." Conversely, when a king (representing God) forgave a man a huge debt, and the man did not forgive another who owed him a small amount the king was enraged! God clearly expects us to show others mercy as a result of His mercy towards us.

In other words, when we are shown mercy, it helps us learn to be more like God, our Father in heaven. (Matt 5:48)

But when the recipient is instead told they are receiving "economic justice", the whole effect is undermined or even inverted: I'm just getting what I deserve! Why should I be grateful? Oh, and did I mention my backache? Where's the rest of what's rightfully mine for that?

Whereas mercy improves character, "entitlement" degrades it. It makes people ungrateful and encourages them to always grasp for more.

Is this the work of God or the devil?

And of course, God has a purpose in mercy for the giver, too...

Mercy is only possible when we have a choice. You cannot, for example, have mercy on your enemy until you have him in your clutches. It is only at the point of decision that you are capable of making the "right" decision.

This is, of course, a basic tenant of Christianity: Virtue is impossible without free will. Only by being able to make choices are we are able to demonstrate virtue, or demonstrate that we are evil.

Looking back at the history of Christianity, demonstration of virtue -- voluntary acts of mercy -- by his people have accompanied the spread of the gospel. It is the nuns feeding the filthy beggars, or freely healing the sick, or the evil man who has a change of heart and forgives all his enemies -- God uses these acts to both reward the actor (in heaven) and bring people into a changed state of heart in which they can receive God's forgiveness and experience fellowship with Him.

In contrast, justice is always compulsory and is meant to be enacted by the state. A convicted criminal is not asked whether he would like restore what he has stolen, or whether he'd like to do some time in the slammer. These things are done by force.

So when we treat "mercy" like "justice" we again undermine God's purposes: We remove the chance for virtue to occur, and we inhibit the spread of the gospel. A man who will be thrown in jail if he does not feed the poor (indeed, that is how taxes are collected) cannot show mercy by complying.

And when a secular state is given the task assigned to God's holy people, there is no way for God to be glorified. Instead, the secular state is glorified, and becomes a sort of god.

And indeed, that is exactly what happens in practice.

Next "economic justice" undermines and opposes actual justice. If we have already taught people the word "justice" means state-dispensed 'mercy', then what will they think when they finally meet the real thing?

The crook who thinks the state owes him a pass on his crime because of his tough childhood, or the fact someone looked at him cross today, thinks of actual justice as evil. He no longer understands he's a sinner and is getting what's coming. Instead, he believes in his heart -- and now everyone else must too -- that what's happening to him is a horrible "unjust" travesty.

The language of "social justice" compels us to adopt his argument and agree with him.

On the flip side, as economist Thomas Sowell points out, the pursuit of this kind of "justice" -- that is, an equality of results -- often leads to actions which are, in fact, very unjust:

The ant gathers food all summer, and stores just enough to make it through the winter. The grasshopper fiddles. Under "social justice", we take half the ant's food by force, give it to the grasshopper, and they both starve to death. (And even if they make it through, the ant's not going to repeat that performance; next year he's going to sue for part of what the bees collected!)

And by undermining actual justice, we also undermine mercy, too: A thief cannot be shown leniency until he is brought to trial and sentence. A man cannot help the poor as well when half of his money has already been taken by force for that very purpose.

Finally, and most insidiously, the liberal conception of "justice" directly undermines the gospel message.

When we demonstrate "mercy" and call it, repeatedly, "justice", then a listener no longer has tools with which to understand what Christ did for them on the cross: When "justice" means "entitlement", we leave the listener with no ability to understand that God's justice doesn't mean more divine largess, but rather that the sinner stands condemned in his sins. And when we Christians constantly tell them they are "entitled" to food, clothing, shelter, sex... why don't they deserve to get into heaven too?

Unsuprisingly, this is precisely what we see happening in our culture.

In conclusion, some Christians will tell you we should be interested in "economic justice". Yet the biblical conception of economic justice is more along the lines of repaying debts and putting thieves in jail. At no point in the bible is handing out freebees to the poor referred to as "justice."

Let's talk, instead, about mercy. Mercy is enacted by the individual, not the state. Mercy can only follow justice, and thus can only exist in an environment where there are notions of right and wrong. Mercy is voluntary, and cannot exist where compulsion is present. Mercy glorifies God, and improves our heart. Mercy is the very act through which the gospel is spread.

Liberals, learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice.