As it turns out, that filmmaker was Jamie Moffett. Like me, Jamie is an Eastern University alum. He recently completed and is now promoting a film called Return to El Salvador, featuring the story of an anti-mining activist who had been killed for speaking out, as part of a broader picture of what has been happening in the country as a whole. It’s narrated by Martin Sheen and endorsed by heavy hitters like Ron Sider and Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Needless to say, it’s a very important – and at times quite disturbing – film.

I got in contact with Jamie and lined up a time to meet. Slightly modified versions of our interview have now been published at Upside Down World, which focuses on Latin American politics, and in the ePistle, the weekly communiqué from the good folks at Evangelicals for Social Action. Below is an extra that didn’t make the cut for either version, but explains a bit about what Jamie has been up to of late and why he’s crazy enough to go “all in.”

What are the next steps for you and for the film?
We screen a portion of the film June 15 for Canadian Parliament at the request of MP McKay, and specifically the clips related to mining and corporate accountability.  Following that, we present week-long multi-city screenings in Canada starting with out World Premiere at Toronto’s Underground Cinema in Chinatown. Screenings in Ottawa, Montreal and Vancouver follow.

In the United States we are working on lining up a few cities. One of our options that we’re currently developing is a number of one-week runs around the country. We will be doing it in sort of a communal way where we agree to acquire the theater and then faith groups or social justice groups can choose to sponsor a night. They get half the tickets where you get a discount and turn it into a fundraiser if they want. But more importantly, they’re keeping the theater open to folks who may not be in on the story but can walk into the theater and get exposed to it.

We have no backer, no big money in the back pocket. I’ve had to sell my home to complete production, but I believe in the film and know that this critically important story needed to be told and shared with as wide an audience as possible.

There are a lot of folks like me who want to be the change we want to see in the world, but we simply don’t have the information. I’m happy I can say I spent this time of my life gathering the information and making this story. In a way, it was an education, like going to grad school. It took eighteen months and cost as much as a masters degree! Return to El Salvador is about listening; enabling people to deeply consider how the situation got this way, and now with this knowledge how we, together, can take action.

See also Jamie’s article in The Huffington Post, “Still A Nation Of Immigrants“

This section is about how all the previous parts of the puzzle fit together. The crucial point is made that it doesn’t work to seek social justice in abstract generalities, opposing “injustice” and on the side of “the poor.” Rather, social justice is about specific people, specific events, and specific actions. They translate this to mean that casting blame on “structures” doesn’t solve our neighbors’ needs. This is partly true; expecting a focus on abstract oppressive “structures” to produce justice is certainly naïve. But behind structures are real people making real decisions that have real ramifications for real people. To ignore structures and pretend that being a good neighbor to the person next door will solve everything is equally naïve, in my opinion.

Again, I’m in agreement with what they hammer home over and over again in this concluding section, the idea of concentric circles: the closer you are the better you understand the person and the issues they face, and the better equipped you are to respond compassionately and appropriately. I definitely think that grassroots efforts in most cases are smarter and more effective than bloated top-down ones. And as is pointed out, love isn’t something the government can offer – it’s something people extend to other people in a mutually enriching way.

One of the contributors cites Mother Teresa, who said that if you look at many, you won’t act. If you look at one, however, you will. Now, I have a world of respect for Mother Teresa and I think the way she lived her life looked a lot like Jesus.  But the fact is, while much of the time we can indeed be faithful Christians by loving the neighbor and the enemy immediately around us, I think there does come a time to set our sights higher – without disregarding those fundamental parts of the Christian life. When injustices are ingrained in society and protected by law, followers of Christ can’t be content to allow the “structures” to remain untouched. We can thank God that spiritual giants like William Wilberforce and William Carey, among countless others, didn’t settle for the unjust structures in their day. They were undoubtedly committed to loving their immediate neighbors in great and small ways, but it didn’t end there for them. [Interestingly, in the recommended resources at the end of the study, a book about Wilberforce is recommended, but how his life example supports their framework is left to the imagination.]

If we’re truly concerned about social justice in a real, lasting way, libertarian “hands off” values alone won’t get us there, and it’s at this point, I suppose, that I part ways with the makers of this study.  Of course, digging in and figuring out why crimes like sex trafficking and economic exploitation continue unabated is no substitute for small acts of love. If we had to choose between addressing oppressive structures and loving our neighbors, I’d choose loving neighbors in a heartbeat. But that’s a false choice. We don’t have to choose, and indeed, we can’t afford to.

So we come to the end of the study, and as I reflect on it as a whole, I suspect that one of the goals behind it was to redefine “social justice” for an audience not necessarily predisposed very favorably towards the term. The cynic in me worries that it’s merely an attempt to co-opt the word, to cheapen it. The optimist in me – who I diligently try to pay more attention to – is hopeful that it will serve to get more people talking about these substantial things and in turn, more people will be getting their hands dirty in the hard and important work of seeking social justice. God knows we need all the help we can get.

One thing remains clear. Seeking social justice will not be easy. It will take all of us making sacrifices, getting personally involved, crossing boundaries we haven’t dared to cross before. I’ve affirmed much of the study’s message, and I’ve voiced my concerns. But whatever you take away from the series, disagreements aside, however you decide to seek social justice, please…

Make it real.

Make it personal.

Join others.

Allow the process to transform you.

And don’t be afraid of what might happen next.

In this fifth (and penultimate) section of the study we arrive where the first four sections have been leading. In this section we shift, in a sense, from what Heritage argues the government should not be doing to what it is in fact responsible for.

Maintaining the Social Conditions for Justice: The Role of Government takes as its case study the story of an  Egyptian teenager who as a child had been trafficked to Orange County, California to work as a slave in a really posh neighborhood. Trafficking is so egregious and is so prevalent virtually everywhere that every politician and every citizen should be able to agree that immediate action is required. So in that sense this is a great issue for the study to highlight.

I was a bit surprised, though, that in addressing the question of the role of government, the study seemed to focus on law enforcement alone. Is that really all the government should be doing? The Preamble to the Constitution, for what it’s worth, lists several things. But because the study focuses on law enforcement I’ll do the same here.

According to Heritage: “Government’s role is to sustain an overall environment of safety, order, freedom, and peace. That includes upholding justice through laws and responding to threats to social harmony.” Meanwhile, says Sean Litton of International Justice Mission, when legal systems break down or are not enforced, what generally happens is that the strong take advantage of the weak.

Seen in that light, it becomes quite clear that the government has a big job to do in providing these conditions in which civil society can do its thing. And in the case of trafficking, we see pretty clearly how government and civil society can work together, each working from their respective strengths.  Freeing a slave and ensuring that the perpetrator cannot continue to exploit others requires police officers and investigators and prosecutors, but the enormous task of bringing some semblance of healing to a victim falls almost entirely outside the realm of the government. For this we can be thankful for and supportive of groups that have taken on this urgent and incalculably needed undertaking.

The study emphasizes the importance that the state has a monopoly on the use of force in order to protect civil society. In the video we clearly see the police using proper force to bring slave owners to justice. Plus, when you consider the nasty legacy of groups like the KKK and the more recently formed rogue militias that have emerged in our society, it’s easy to see why the state’s monopoly on the use of force is so important.

On the other hand…

…we know all too well that those who have monopolies on power and force don’t always use it justly. So hand-in-hand with this monopoly needs to be transparency, and those who have been entrusted with this monopoly can in no sense be immune from penetrating and potentially damning questions. Think Rios Montt. Think Pol Pot. Think Jim Crow. Monopolies on power, as history reminds us time and again, rarely work very well for the marginalized. This is why free speech and a free press are such needed tools in the pursuit of social justice. Not to speak up against abuses of power is to take the side of the oppressor.

While Scripture teaches us to submit to authorities, it also teaches us not to compromise on our biblical convictions when circumstances make those convictions inconvenient or even life threatening for us. How do we affirm and live by both of these seemingly incompatible teachings?  Tony Campolo in his book Choose Love Not Power argues that at times, faithful followers of Christ will need to engage in ‘civil disobedience’ when asked to go along with evil. But because we are also taught to submit to authorities, we must follow Jesus and be prepared to accept the consequences the state will impose because of it. I think he’s onto something.

So, all of that to say that in my understanding, yes, it is important for the government to be able to both prevent injustice and to punish those who would do violence to the vulnerable. The example of the involvement of law enforcement officials in the case of trafficking is a poignant one, clearly supporting the positive role that the state can play in ensuring justice for the oppressed. But if the role of the government needs to be limited to keep it from interfering in the rest of civil society, an argument this study makes clearly time and again, it certainly needs to be restrained in its use of force whenever that force deviates from what is right and just.

The fourth section of the study is called Restoring Dignity and Purpose: The Importance of Work, and focuses, as the title suggests, on the importance of employment in any healthy and just society. The focus in the video is on the importance of work specifically for men getting out of prison, but the principles apply broadly.

They rightly point out that according to the Bible, all of us are made in the image of God, the Creator, and that doing something creative and productive with our lives is part of what we were created to do. Work is not a curse or a punishment; it’s a good thing. That’s a pretty important reminder, and has profound implications if we really believe it. So the question of vocation arises: what has God designed us to do, for his glory and for the common good? This is a good question for all of us to consider from time to time – not just those who are working to get back on their feet after time in prison.

The core message in this section is that whereas welfare programs (and the prison system, for that matter) dehumanize people, strip people of their God-given dignity, and instill an attitude of passivity, work does just the opposite. It gives people meaning, it benefits families and communities, and it allows people to give back to society rather than just taking, taking, taking.

It struck me while working through the study that it’s all too easy to go to one extreme or another. This study is clearly written from a certain political perspective, but no one’s immune from this tendency, I don’t think.  It’s easy for progressives to judge anti-welfare conservatives as heartless and greedy, or for conservatives to blame progressives for pushing top-down programs that dehumanize, rob dignity, and further cement people in cycles of poverty. It gets pretty ugly, really. The Bible doesn’t do that. The Bible upholds the dignity of work, of everyone doing their part, but it doesn’t allow for the pursuit of wealth to go unchecked.

Consider this perspective from the book of Proverbs: “[G]ive me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, ‘Who is the LORD?’ Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God.” Neither poverty nor riches are held up as the ideal; both can be tremendously dangerous and destructive for individuals, families, and societies. Rather, we ask God for enough: enough to provide for our families, enough to share with our neighbors, enough to care for those in need. I don’t sense that many of us live from this perspective of enough, honestly. It doesn’t come naturally to me, though I believe it to be biblical. And it’s certainly not the principle our economy is built upon.

Okay, deep breath…

I realize I might be stepping on some toes here, but capitalism and free markets as we know them today are not held up in the Bible as examples to follow. They may be the best options we currently have and they may certainly embody important biblical principles, but they are not divinely inspired. Have I lost you yet? As Christians, the responsibility to be good stewards in all areas of life, to love our neighbor, to do justice – these must take precedence over every ideology and philosophy and system, including free markets, whenever they come into conflict. I wish the study would have gone so far as to say so explicitly.

While the authors do concede the importance of political and economic systems guarding against abuses that happen because we are fallen, greedy people (as the roots of our current economic debacle make quite clear, incidentally), it is mentioned almost as an aside and the emphasis is overwhelmingly placed on free markets remaining free. Free markets create jobs, which create wealth, which creates dignity, which allows people to help others. I agree that markets have a lot of potential and in some cases, they do actually produce these desirable results.

Free market capitalism has created wealth with remarkable success and efficiency. No doubt about that. But social justice has by no means been its strong point. It wasn’t designed to be.

The maximization of profit, for instance, is one of capitalism’s foundational principles. But if you follow the principle to its logical conclusion, it undermines precisely the positive things that this study claims work creates. Do you see what I mean? Would it be too much for someone to challenge the dehumanization that government welfare programs cause AND challenge the dehumanizing and unjust ramifications on large segments of society by the principle of the maximization of profit? It’s rare to hear such a consistent argument, though, perhaps because neither side of the dominant political debate finds such consistency convenient. But even better than consistent denouncements, I’d love to see more positive alternatives to current dehumanizing status quos in both business and government. I’ve touched on that in earlier parts of the series, and I am hopeful that through this curriculum many more ‘free-market’ Christians will be part of such positive alternatives. If we’re truly more concerned with justice than with a certain political or economic ideology, it seems like a no-brainer, though admittedly much easier said than done.

Now, I’m not picking on work or on capitalism. I repeat: I AM NOT PICKING ON WORK OR ON CAPITALISM. Work is good and capitalism has great potential to address poverty. Faithful, discerning followers of Christ and compassionate people from all walks of life are experimenting with market-driven solutions to poverty and injustice. These efforts should be applauded and supported. But these innovative, entrepreneurial ones on the front lines will be the first to tell you, I think, that social justice won’t happen with business-as-usual. And while this study rightly emphasizes the need for people to be able to find work that promotes dignity and provides the means for providing for family and sharing with neighbor, I’m not sure the vision presented here goes far enough to tackle the weak spots and potentially quite destructive downfalls of capitalism as we know it.

The American Dream is compelling, but it is not the gospel. Jesus didn’t come preaching a slightly modified, baptized version of any economic system, be it capitalism or socialism or anarchism or mercantilism or any others. He came preaching the Kingdom, and no man-made economic system can handle the profound implications of that. May God grant us the grace to be faithful stewards, right where we are, with what we have, with who we are. May God grant us the grace to be gracious.

Serving the Whole Person: Churches and Ministries is the name of the third section in the study. As the title suggests, the lesson focuses on two things: (1) the central role churches are to play in social justice efforts and (2) the need for churches to serve the “whole person” – not merely as a conversion prospect, but first and foremost as a man or a woman made in the image of God.

Once again, the study makes its case directly in contrast to the prevailing government welfare model. All too often, as Al Mohler of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary says in the video, the church has “franchised out” its responsibility to care for those in need to the government. The argument is made that churches and faith-based ministries can go deeper in addressing human needs than can government programs. I agree all the way.

During my time as a ministry leader at my church in Lancaster County, a suburban evangelical megachurch, I had the privilege of being part of a growing push among leaders and members to become more actively involved in community service projects in the community and in the nearby city of Lancaster.  We recognized we were doing a pretty good job within the walls of the church building and on the other side of the world, but had mostly overlooked the needs in our own backyard. We had our successes and our failures as we experimented with what it looks like to be the church in our community, and life circumstances have pulled me away from leadership in that, but the role of the local church in seeking social justice is one of my biggest passions, so I am so excited to see this study highlighting this very thing.

My concern is this: while it is true that churches can and should be leaders in social justice in every community in the United States and that government welfare programs create all sorts of problems, the fact of the matter remains that churches simply have not done their part. We’ve dropped the ball, plain and simple. I am all for scaling up church involvement in social justice efforts and for scaling down government welfare programs as churches “run them out of business.” But until churches have demonstrated that regardless of the need, we are there to listen and love and do whatever necessary to make it right, we have no legitimacy in supporting reduced government benefits for the poor.

I worked for a faith-based nonprofit organization in Lancaster a couple of years ago, helping to assist newly arrived refugees with the resettlement process. Among other things,  we helped our clients gain access to basic social services available in the community from both government and nonprofit sources, especially until they could find gainful employment in the private sector. Throughout my time working there, I experienced frustration with the various government agencies with whom we interacted. If they weren’t imposing unrealistic requirements they were losing clients’ paperwork; it was one thing after another. I also came to see and appreciate the varied Christian organizations and churches that were (and still are) meeting human needs and providing key social services in the city, doing what government agencies cannot or will not.

But I must also say, unfortunately, that one of the hardest things to do was to find churches and Christians willing to befriend refugees, willing to help them get on their feet, willing to challenge unjust immigration policies that tear families apart. There were some, but never enough. And as an organization depending on church support, this had a crippling effect on our work and for our friends in need, it made their lives extremely difficult and lonely. Meanwhile, despite our frustrations, the welfare officers were there Monday to Friday and our clients received their benefits according to government policy. This was an essential stepping stone in the resettlement process until they could find employment and become more self-sustainable.

So, why was it so hard for us to find churches willing and ready to offer simple things like friendship, some transportation, and perhaps a helping hand to people fleeing some of the craziest corners of the world? All sorts of reasons, certainly, and I’m not particularly interested in judging motives. But the fact remains that the church wasn’t being the church, not in the lives of these refugees, not nearly enough. [A terrific book I'd recommend about some amazing things that are happening in and through churches across the country is Churches That Make a Difference: Reaching Your Community with Good News and Good Works by Ron Sider, Philip Olson, and Heidi Unruh.]

So while I was delighted to work through this wonderful study on the unique role the church can play in social justice, and I’m enough of an optimist to believe that churches really can grow into this sort of a community-transforming role, the realist in me knows all too well that we’re not there yet, and utopian black-and-white arguments seem a bit premature.