EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
|
I don't really think the latest Glen Beck quote needs much editorial from me - but I am concerned about the implications, given Beck's popularity with evangelical Christians. "
Beck seems to be confusing socialism (a political ideology) with social justice (a concern for experiencing poverty or discriminiation). Social justice is the idea that Christians should not merely give to the poor, but also work to correct unjust conditions that keep people poor. Many of us consider it a recurring theme in Scripture. And yet, Glenn Beck remains an extremely popular voice in mainstream Christian circles, despite railing against social justice. Jim Wallis responded to this quote above by saying:
What are your thoughts on Beck's |
I'm begging you, your right to religion
and freedom to exercise religion and read all of the passages of the
Bible as you want to read them and as your church wants to preach them .
. . are going to come under the ropes in the next year. If it lasts
that long it will be the next year. I beg you, look for the words
'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you
find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice,
they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church?
Yes!"
Comments
"given Beck's popularity with evangelical Christians..."
I think we all ought to try to understand the roots of such tendencies among evangelical Christians. After all, what does Glenn Beck, or anything that he represents, have to do with the Gospel? What's the basis of this disturbing connection?
I am seriously perplexed by it. I DON'T GET IT. But I know my mom, and many, many people in my church body, watch him on a regular basis. I sometimes wonder if it is about that human urge to have a common enemy. He is certainly a master at riling people up to be "against something". But still . . . I really don't know.
Do you have any theories?
Well, the short answer is that I don't know. I hesitate to mention any speculations because they aren't flattering to the evangelical community. I'm happy though to see that there's a nice resistance faction, and that these voices have found an occasion to speak out.
I ought to have been clearer in my last comment. I don't mean to ask for a justification of this connection between Evangelicals and Glenn Beck. I don't think there is one. Rather, I'd just like to have an explanation.
two observations:
Observation 1.
The church has been radically swinging for the past few... um... DECADES away from one of the most basic tenents of Scripture (Love the Lord your God, with all heart, mind, strength) and (Love your neighbor (as) your self.)
-people read that as '..okay, love my neighbor, too... --but in reality, the context is: 'you already love yourself, now GO love your neighbor INSTEAD, (since you've got yourself covered...)
The real thrust of passages like that?
To get our eyes and focus OFF of ourselves.
-So we're to love God first, --and follow His direction and lead, --(and who did God care about?)
-Taking THAT directive, focus, and source of strength (God) we are to then go out and love others...
So 'self' is sort of ignored in these things because it's sort of like an assumed 'I' in the beginning of a setence or an assumed '1' in front of x in an algebraic statement.
It's already there, we know it's there, and there are other things to do besides focus on that...
Now...
In these days where you have people faced with one of three things:
-Taking care of self -then taking care of others.
-Taking care of others -knowing/trusting God will take care of them.
-Focussing on self, attacking others, and hoarding --because 'we're gonna need that one day.'
Look at the Biblical example of manna falling from heaven. ---could you really hoard it? (only on one day, and that was enough to cover you for the Sabbath...)
So I see guys like Beck (and others) playing to people's fears, (as well as) building up their own selfishness and self-focus --in the name of 'God.'
--But (regrettably) modern Christians are either too stupid to know, too drugged on bad theology, -or just plain don't care.
Observation 2.
Mormons (latter day saints) aren't Christians.
They're mormons.
Their theology is different, their goals are different, and what qualifies as 'God' and 'What God is saying for us (individuals/families/churches) to do is DIFFERENT than what Protestant/Catholic (other) Christian denoms and theology IS.
WHY is this guy guiding evangelicals?
WHY are they listening (on spiritual matters,) to him on stuff when He's in a very controlling and really messed up cult?
-Who cares that they have money, power, and control over some aspects of society, --are we not told in the Bible not to listen to characters like this, but follow true Doctrine --and only 'follow' ( in a manner of speaking) those who will point us to Christ and the Bible and make those things relevant and applicable in our lives?
I mean, that's red flag number one.
If the church wants to be set up and messed up (and mess up our country) after listening to someone like this, I dunno, is discussing and debating even worth the mental energy?
I mean, people don't really want to do what the Bible says anymore, --and are demonstrating it with this situation...
(There's no reason to stop telling the truth, --but.. after a while you have to address the issue that folks simply don't want to hear it, --before proceeding into the guts of the insights and such, --otherwise? you're just talking philosophy or physics with a housecat.
I'm an evangelical and I wholeheartedly agree with Beck regarding how the government is overspending beyond reach. You can overspend for essential things, national defense, disaster relief, & etc... I reject the bad spiritual doctrine from Beck. I believe the United States is unique, was founded unique by Christians wanting to live in liberty. And I believe it will not remain free when it becomes overwhelmed by excessive debt. Is it too late? Perhaps, but it will depend on how fervently the people follow God. Nothing is impossible with God.
I think it's interesting that the comeback to Beck's statement is to change the subject back to his outrage over government spending. This was a statement telling Christians not to be involved in social justice. So . . . per Glenn Beck, it's not the government's role to care for the poor, but churches shouldn't do it either??
Since a couple of comments have requested an explanation for this view, I will attempt to explain more fully why some Christians take this stance without attempt to justify it or take sides.
The issue is volition. Right-wing conservative Christians (at least those who are faithful to the Scriptures) fully believe in the tenants of loving their neighbors as themselves and being the Good Samaritan to those in need. Many of them tithe faithfully and sacrificially to help the poor. What they do not believe in is having a government that forces citizens through taxation to give to social programs they believe are inefficient, ineffective and sometimes counter productive. They believe that loving one another means doing so by opening your own wallet, not by passing laws to tell your neighbor how much or how often he should open his -- or to what end.
To them, "Social Justice" has become a catch-phrase for taxation to support specific causes with which they may not agree or which they believe to be ineffectual.
Thanks Sandra. I think I do understand the basics of Beck's views on government efficiency and taxes. The question, however, is what explains why a high proportion of Evangelicals are attracted to these distinctive--and distinctively economic/political--views. That is, what accounts for the prevalence of such views among Evangelicals in particular? It's hard to believe that a belief in Jesus makes a person particularly sensitive to government coercion and inefficiency--or, conversely, that a belief in Jesus makes a person particularly insensitive to the problems of corporate power, unregulated markets and structural injustice.
I believe that "social justice" is a term of arrogance used by Christians on the left. First, it implies that those who do not agree with them are not interested in social justice. All Christians believe in social justice, the rub is what does social justice mean. For instance, Wallis rails against Dobson for not being socially just. Dobson has been one of the most important voices against killing babies in the world. Wallis says that addressing abortion without addressing the root causes (his opinion of the root cause) is blind or not meaningful. Therefore, Dobson is not interested in social justice. Campolo came out last week with the same observations. Therefore, they are the ones who "Define" what social justice is and then call people on the right names - just like we have seen implied in this thread.
In terms of Beck, he beleives himself to be a Christian, which he is not. Therefore, he thinks he is part of the church and can make observations about the church. But what about people on the left saying that we should "encourage moderate muslims". Aren't they doing just what Beck is doing. Hypocrisy is live and well in the Church just like it was in the OT and in the NT.
But he was talking about churches. Not taxes.
Here's the heart of the problem... if we grant that:
"Social justice is the idea that Christians should not merely give to the poor, but also work to correct unjust conditions that keep people poor"
Then I think you'll find that there is much disagreement about what the "unjust conditions that keep people poor" are.
The fact that free markets and private property ownership rights (including freedom from excessive or capricious taxes) have historically (and logically) been the best tools to bring people out of poverty permanently doesn't phase most of the social-welfare proponents who typically use the phrase Social Justice to describe their goals. They don't want prosperity as much as they want equality. When China let a little capitalism into it's economy, 130 million people were lifted out of poverty between 1990 and 2001.
Guest,
Suppose that folks could agree on the "conditions that keep people poor." I wonder how much consensus could then be reached on the question of when such conditions were unjust.
To explore this question, consider a contemporary and highly influential liberal proposal about distributive justice. The proposal states that the "basic structure" of a just democracy would be governed by the following two principles, listed according to priority:
(1) "Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all";
(2) "Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to attach to offices and positions open to all under fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society."
While the particular terms are defined elsewhere, what is interesting is that the general proposal is relatively neutral with respect to the empirical question of what it is that keeps people poor (and the proposal certainly does not deny the values of private property and market competition). The key point, then, is this: it would be quite noteworthy if the folks who love Glenn Beck could agree to these principles--for they'd thereby be agreeing to the most famous liberal conception of justice of the 20th century.
I actually think that most Americans would agree with me that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" pretty much covers it as far as ensuring fairness should go.
The "claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties" sounds like it could be pretty expensive depending on who is interpreting it's actual meaning. Also, what government constructs could possibly ensure that all inequalities are "to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society" without infringing on the rights of all others? The reality is that advantages are advantageous. That's why some parents make their kids do their homework and read books instead of playing video games. It results in an advantage. Wage controls or laws that require employment based on anything but the employer's free decision seek to turn reality upside down.
Of course, I'm just guessing at what types of constraints the Social Justice folks would put on our society, since the goals are always stated vaguely, as you offered the above principles. Agreeing to principles sounds great, but they're meaningless unless you know their intended implications.
Finally, despite all attempts to paint American society as cruelly unfair to the disadvantaged, we still find that the elephant in the room when it comes to poverty is the absence of fathers in homes with children. Solve that and presto - 3/4 of poor children would be poor no more. The fact is, the greatest factor of "unjustness" is having parents who don't stay together to raise their family. I'd love to see the government try to tackle that.
Keep in mind that most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. In other words, the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten richer. Only someone who is more concerned with equality than prosperity would think this is a bad thing.
Having said all of that, I'm sure there is a place for the promotion of Social Justice in countries around the world that weren't founded on the premise that all men are created equal. Places where women are personal property or where the state owns the fruit of your labor, providing you with food and housing as they see fit. They may need to have it explained to them.
Guest,
You write: “The ‘claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties’ sounds like it could be pretty expensive depending on who is interpreting it's actual meaning. “
The Rawlsian proposal, remember, is that each person has a "claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties" which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all. Thus, your worry about expense is probably a nonstarter if you are worried about any negative effect this expense might have on the basic liberties themselves (for “basic liberties” think freedom of thought, the right to political participation, freedom of association, physical and psychological integrity of the person, and rights covered by the rule of law). If, on the other hand, you are concerned about expense because you want more overall collective wealth, or because you think that money is a fair substitute for basic liberties, then we’ve probably found a point of genuine disagreement—and one that goes well beyond a disagreement about “the conditions that keep people poor.” But do you really propose exchanging basic liberties for money?
You also write, “what government constructs could possibly ensure that all inequalities are 'to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society' without infringing on the rights of all others? The reality is that advantages are advantageous.”
No one is denying that “advantages are advantageous.” When we live and cooperate as fellow citizens, we end up organizing our society in some way or another. The proposal is that we should first secure equal basic liberties and then consider the remaining inequalities that might be produced by our cooperation. The proposal is not to eliminate all of these inequalities (after all, some inequalities may be to everyone’s benefit), but to pick the option that is compatible with fair equality of opportunity, and is, secondarily, to the greatest advantage of the least well off.
But you are concerned that this might lead to “infringing on the rights of all others”. You mention turning “reality upside down” but it’s not clear what you mean. Remember that the basic liberties are already given priority. So what “rights” do you have in mind?
The expense I'm guessing at involves not what I would consider basic rights, but what many well-intentioned but misguided people imagine them to be these days: house, money, food, health care, etc.
To be sure, people need these things, but they're not natural rights, they are goods. If you're trying to say that people are poor because they lack freedom of speech, association, political participation or the right to equal protection under the law, I'd like to know what you're referring to specifically. Glenn Beck said that Social Justice and Economic Justice are code words [for statism]. If you disagree and think they're just principles of liberty and fairness that everyone already agrees upon (in this country anyway), then I'm not sure we're having a relevant discussion.
Guest,
Let’s recall the dialectic. You suggested that the “heart of the problem” is a disagreement over the conditions that keep people poor. Questioning this suggestion, I proposed (at 04:21) that we consider the most influential contemporary liberal proposal about distributive justice (what Glenn Beck might call “economic justice”, or even “social justice”). Since this proposal is relatively neutral with regard to the “conditions that keep people poor,” I asked whether the followers of Beck might, surprisingly, accept that famous liberal vision (known as John Rawls’ two principles of justice). If your initial suggestion were correct, we might expect that they could.
You objected, however, to Rawls’ proposal because you worried that its first principle (the equal basic liberties principle) might be too expensive. But, upon getting a better understanding of “basic liberties,” you retracted that objection. There still remained, however, your objection to the last part of Rawls’ second principle (i.e., that social and economic inequalities are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society). You objected that this might “infringe on the rights of others” and “turn reality upside down.” It remains unclear, however, what “rights” you had in mind—especially given that the basic liberties are secured by the prior principle. It is also unclear what part of reality was supposed to be getting flipped.
Finally, and most recently, you suggest again that the famous liberal proposal might actually be something that “everyone already agrees on.” This is still quite surprising. Probably Glenn Beck would be most surprised to learn that he agrees with what is, at least in academic circles, the most influential liberal conception of justice.
I wonder, however, if you have felt forced to this last concession, perhaps because you found it difficult to defend your initial concern that Rawls’s second principle might “infringe upon the rights of others.” I wonder if this difficulty arises because you want to resist broadening the set of rights beyond those which are already captured in the first principle (under the name “basic liberties"). This would make sense of why you want to insist that the “heart of the problem” lies a mere disagreement over the empirical question of what it is that perpetuates poverty.
But before we leave with this surprising concession, I'd like you to review that second Rawlsian principle, and to consider again if you really think that, given the liberties secured by the prior principle, it is indeed something that “everyone already agrees on":
(2) "Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to attach to offices and positions open to all under fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society."
The world situation are not looking good right now, ww3 in prophecy seems to be very very close now, sadly, for humans sin so much that it must come. Take care, | | Ghost Videos | | 2012 end of the world | | Videos de fantasmas | | Oração | | Profecias | | Apokalipsa | | Doomsday | | Demonios | | Priere | | Prayer | | Santos Catolicos | | Dieu | | Demon | | Nossa Senhora de Fatima | | | | Deus | | Rosary | | St Patrick | | Saint Mary | | Dios | | Santa Maria | | Rosario | | 2012 Prophecy | | St Francis of Assisi | | San Francisco de Asis | | Virgen de Guadalupe | | God | | Our Lady of Guadalupe | | Chiesa Cattolica | | Heaven | | Jesus Christ | | Jesus | | Catholic Saints | | Oraciones Catolicas | | Hell | | Igreja Catolica | | Jezus | | El Infierno | | Nuestra Señora del Rosario| | | Milagros | | Cielo | |
| | Feliz Natal | | Navidad | | Weihnachten | | exorcism | | Biblia | | Papa | | The Pope | | Pecados Capitales | | Christmas Gifts | | Natale | | Seven Deadly Sins | | Baptism | | Faith | | Angels | | Creation | | Easter | | Nibiru | | Imagenes de Angeles | | Eucaristia | |
well, i knew what he meant. he meant that usually a church that preaches a social justice message doesn't usually also preach personal salvation. i have definitely encountered it with those of the mainline churches that see no value in what i grew up hearing in church, and i'll never escape the ideas of salvation and personal holiness ingrained in me by the church of the Deep South. and it will always be what i fall back on as i minister even in Canada or other places.
i know maybe it's not popular now to make church about the person. so many want to see what Christianity does in the world with no concern for the life after death. i believe it's important to state both-concern for the poor as well as the individual's eternal soul. but i won't be changing who i am. God made me able to talk to a certain person, those of the middle class, about salvation and growth in the faith.
i know what Glen Beck meant. you'd be surprised at how many other know as well.
Hi, Jody:
I imagine we ALL know what Glenn Beck meant: it was a "wink,wink" partisan jab, which is the business (literally) he is in.
What is more pertinent is the point you picked up on. Beck's comment is ultimately directed toward how the Church should be defined. Given where Beck is coming from in that regard...Mormonism...it seems extremely unwise (even spiritually dangerous) that Christians receive his words, or be guided by his advice, don't you think ?
Best, Steve
The folklore is that Eskimos have dozens of words for "snow." I'm no ethnolinguist, but I doubt they have even ONE word for "tropical jungle." The vocabulary of the world's political-social system is simply insufficient for the Church' discussion of economic and social justice; as the world's ideas and actions toward justice are inadequate (indeed, unworthy) for the Church.
Part of our problem thinking about "justice" ("liberty," "rights," etc.) as the AMERICAN Church is also that those biblical concepts have been re-defined by our national culture in counter-biblical ways. The difficulty speaking to our society about justice comes not merely from the fact we mean different things by the same words: we are also children of our society, and have our own internal struggle against its counterfeit definitions.
As Eric Field pointed out, we've been taught for DECADES to talk (and think) about the Church and our society in unbiblical ways. Most pertinent for the current American Church may be that conservatism is nowhere taught or endorsed in scripture: nor is any other human political philosophy. (Taking the word in its actual meaning, "generous," we can however adduce dozens of scriptures that God is "liberal," and that His people should be likewise.)
Not surprisingly, those decades of unbiblical thinking coincide closely with one political faction's seduction of the Church. Glenn Beck is manifestly part of that.
Kristin's question is exactly the right one. The deceivers' purposes are readily understandable: but why do Christians let themselves be victimized ? The only answer I've been able to come to is that they WANT to. Behind that desire, I'd surmise, is some perceived personal advantage: possibly no more than "being right" ? Or in sublimated self-interest...that my faction be proved "right," or my nation be glorified ?)
The con-man's guiding maxim is "you can't cheat an honest man." Erik's observation is right on the mark: God wants to "get our eyes and focus OFF of ourselves." Absent our OWN hidden, unrecognized, or sublimated self-interest, the deceivers will have no handle on us: more importantly, God will.
The North Face is a well-known climbing The North Face Denali harnesses and mountain apparel provider The North Face Outlet since early 90's North Face Sale. North Face Denali comes from the legendary Cheap North Face Jackets dinosaur Archaeopteryx Lithographic, North Face Jacket which is considered the first ptaków. North Face Denali Jacket processes that spawned the feather and the magnificence of North Face Fleece Jackets is the same evolutionary genius that North Face Reversible Jacket is trying to North Face Down Jacket used and applied to their mountain apparel Mens North Face Jackets. They provide the highest quality outdoor Womens North Face Jackets that are bound to give comfort North Face Kids and pleasure. Their breathable waterproof jackets are made from The North Face Sale the most durable GORE-TEX fabric that provides excellent durability.
A good Spyder Jacket will offer you a lot of protection from the elements. When you go skiing, you are going to be exposed to snow, which will turn to water when it lands on you.
The water may not protrude the jacket's fabric or it will cool you down. You will also be exposed to wind. The Spyder Jackets must have plenty of closure all over in order to ensure that no wind will get through and cool you down.
When you are buying women's Spyder ski Jackets you will be able to find spyder ski pants cket are very feminine. You do not have to look like a man on the slopes! If you are into fashion I know this is very important! There are many websites that offer good discounts on good looking Womens Spyder Jackets.