An Invitation to Glenn Beck

by Jim Wallis 03-12-2010

Dear Glenn,

Since I challenged your saying that “social justice” was a code word for Communism and Nazism, and your calling on Christians to leave their churches if their pastors preach social justice, you have begun to modify what you are saying — and I appreciate that. You said social justice was a “perversion of the gospel” and I countered that to assert that instead, it is at the heart of the gospel and part of the core meaning of biblical faith. And the church authorities you wanted Christians to turn their pastors in to would all agree that social, economic, and racial justice are all integral to the message of Jesus.

But now you’ve moved from labeling social justice as Communist or Fascist to saying it only means “big government” and that it violates the separation of church and state. Then you said that some Christians mean Marxism by that term, but some do not. Then you said that if social justice means “empowering” people to act individually that might be okay. Well, that’s progress, but there’s still some needed conversation here. Christians can have different views of the role of government but still agree that social justice is crucial. Very few who believe that are “Marxists.” And while we all preach empowerment to live out the gospel, we don’t think the meaning of social justice should be reduced to just private charity. Biblical justice also involves changing structures, institutions, systems, and policies; as well as changing hearts to be more generous. So there is still a lot to talk about here.

I am glad to see you are beginning to recognize the deep richness of the term “social justice.” I, and my organization, Sojourners, have committed 35 years to exploring this and in working with Christians across the spectrum to deepen their commitment to this essential, biblical concept. Now that you’re willing to admit that social justice is more than just a code word, we have a wonderful opportunity for the two of us to sit down together and have an open and public discussion on what social justice really means and how Christians are called to engage in the struggle for justice.

Why don’t we do that, on your show, or in some other venue. And let’s make this a civil dialogue and not engage in personal attacks on each other — which is never helpful in trying to sort out what is true. So let’s talk about the heart of the matter. When would you like to get together for this conversation?

Blessings,
Jim Wallis

Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street — A Moral Compass for the New Economy, CEO of Sojourners and blogs at www.godspolitics.com.

Click here to tell Glenn Beck that you support social justice

Categories: Faith and Politics

Tags: fox, glenn beck, social justice

meadr

For obvious reasons, the church should be wary of allowing the government to dictate the nature, extent or the timing of its social justice programs. However, to the extent that the church uses government money to direct its own social justice programs, there is nothing wrong with that. Indeed the IRS tax exemption for churches exemplifies this very relationship. Where Beck is wrong is in seeking to discredit the government by attacking all forms of social justice programs, irrespective of origin. That of course meant that he was obliged to attack the church because the church is a social justice program provider. The absurdity of the attack based on an alleged perversion of the gospel is evident upon noting that the gospel itself preaches social justice.

A word of advice tro Beck: If you want to villify the government's particular social justice programs, feel free to do so. However, don't attack the church just because it subscribes to social justice programs.

scat

Caring for the poor is much less associated with a particular religious view than are the issues of abortion and homosexuality. One can quite easily be an atheist and see the value of caring for the disadvantaged. Even the far-right tries to divorce that issue from what they consider a true reading of the Bible. And the left is much less interested in demanding a consensus on religious views and more interested in religious diversity.

SamHamilton

Do you really think that those on the left who are religious think its inappropriate to push policy that advances their religious views? What is this website about, if not that? Isn't the whole notion that Christ calls us to care for the poor the impetus behind all the "end poverty" campaigns? How is this religious agenda of the left different than the religious agenda of the right? I'd agree that the "religious right" has more explicit political power than the "religious left;" it's definitely more cohesive and organized. But the religious left has a lot of power as well simply because there are millions of people who aren't part of the religious left yet they share its policy goals, but not necessarily for religious reasons.

glh1

Of course not. But its part of it. No society is just that sees huge inequalities that leave people living without enough food or a place to live while others get to live the good life with several homes and a dozen cars, and then does next to nothing to help the poor. Am I speaking of America? Yes, but certainly not only America. No one is discussing taking money from the rich to give to the poor at the point of a gun. But telling the rich guy his taxes won't be cut because we need to make sure there is enough money in the coffers so the poor guy's daughter doesn't go to bed hungry is hardly income redistribution. Refusing corporate tax cuts because allowing them would strip much needed funds from social programs that clothe and educate kids is not socialism.

Jesus did take one talent away from the person with one and gave it to the person who had five. The point was, you are expected to use what you have or lose it! You don't just sit on your money selfishly fearing the unknown that might come. You invest it, you make more - you use it to help people. To whom much is given, much is required....

scat

Of course people want to place people of thier own political persuasion into a position of power. That's the point of having elections. But what was discussed here was the desire to establish a theocracy. While the right thinks it's just fine to have representatives who will push thier religious agenda, the left and middle see that as inappropriate and contrary to our constitution and history. For one thing the left and middle would never be able to form a consensus on any specific religious agenda. Last I heard there are over 22,000 Christian denominations in this country. It just shows how many areas of disagreement there are. So yes, we all want people in power that reflect our views, but when it comes to religious views, the right has much more potential for actually politically empowering their views because of thier because they can actually agree on what those views are.

BlueDeacon

Yes, that's it. What the Scripture lays down is in such contrast to the world's way of thinking that, done right, it cannot but stand out. That's why it's dangerous to focus on "principles" for their own sake -- because they actually can be (and have been) imitated. After all, the devil can counterfeit even those.

PASTOR JEFF

"Then socialists came along and invented a new definition—equality of wealth." Please provide multiple quotes for this since you use the plural (socialists)

friendlyconservaitive

BlueDeacon said:

"That's still off because it necessarily leads to a "dispensentional" thought process in which people see salvation as "fire insurance" rather than affecting the world in which we live. God's purpose for the church is the same as it was for ancient Israel back in the day -- to be an "alternative community" that lives by alternative values that He set down so that we ultimately can be a blessing to the world. The "good news" of Jesus Christ, therefore, is that "things will be different" -- not that "we're going to heaven"

=====

Really? That's it? How is this distinctiveness achieved?

friendlyconservaitive

First, is that all there is to justice?

"X has more than Y, that is unjust". What's the next step -- "Take some of X's stuff and give it to Y"?

It's interesting that Jesus said the opposite: He took the one talent away from the one who had only one and gave it to the one who had five! Is he unjust?

Also, are we talking abut America here? I just want to understand your point.

Merlin68

I would answer your question by first deferring to what Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Papers to the State of Virginia,
"The Legitimate powers of Government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others. It makes no difference if my neighbor prays to One God or Twenty, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg"
The primary purpose of any Government is provide Protection, to protect the [inalienable] Rights of the Individual and by extension what is his, such as his person, family, and property [both real and personal]. You could boil it down to just one law, do no harm or damage.
And I will add that if one chooses, of their own free will after having weighed all the pros and Cons, having been given full disclosure on the matter, nothing whatsoever having been with held or hidden, that after all considerations they willingly choose to belong to a specific religion then let them openly declare their membership and let that freely chosen organization subject him, by his declared consent as a full member, to their laws and punishments, and they keep their hands off hands off everyone else, all non members.
It is that simple.
You have two basic factions here and they must not infringe on the others territory, they must remain separate of each other. And neither, in my opinion, should be doing any harm or damage to anyone.

glh1

Seems to me that "justice" will always place the individual above the corporation... And will always be sickened when person A lives in abject poverty while person B owns 3 homes, 5 cars, and complains that his 28 percent tax bracket is too high.

SamHamilton

Thanks for clarifying what you wrote. I agree that I most certainly would not welcome such action with open arms. The question then becomes: Which religious texts and laws should be enacted into earthly statute and how does one decide which ones should be made statutory and which should not? I'm not sure there's an easy answer to this.

SamHamilton

Accepting what you assert for the sake of discussion, what you've written could be a description of any political interest group. Does not Wallis want his own (i.e. people who agree with him) in positions of power? Wouldn't people on the "religious left" (I can't stand terms like this) be pleased if one of their own was put in a position of power and expect him or her to promote their agenda? There are times when no one wants to contend with those who disagree with them. These aren't examples of wanting to install a theocracy; they're examples of a lust for power. It resides in all of us.

SamHamilton

My point was in response to what kansasmennonite wrote. He made what I called a ridiculous hyperbole and then justified it by essentially saying that "well, my hyperbole is closer to the truth than the other guy's is." I was making the point that, yes, his hyperbole was less wrong than the other guy's, but it still isn't accurate

BlueDeacon

That's still off because it necessarily leads to a "dispensentional" thought process in which people see salvation as "fire insurance" rather than affecting the world in which we live. God's purpose for the church is the same as it was for ancient Israel back in the day -- to be an "alternative community" that lives by alternative values that He set down so that we ultimately can be a blessing to the world. The "good news" of Jesus Christ, therefore, is that "things will be different" -- not that "we're going to heaven."

Trumpkin

I had to go back and look at my post to try to understand the reason for your posting. I'm still not sure what you think I was saying. I said nothing about the redemption of souls being the only consequence of His death and resurrection. I simply stated that the redemption of souls is the heart or if you like "the central part" of His gospel. Christ died primarily for the forgiveness of sin, which is a human(as opposed to animals, trees and inanimate objects etc.) phenomenon.

fundamentalist

Friendlyconservative: “The point I've tried to make is that it's very difficult to decide who's idea of "justice" should be imposed on everyone else. “

You make some good points. Justice meant the same thing to everyone for centuries in the West. We got the concept from the Bible. Godly men spent centuries trying to understand what God meant by justice and how to apply it. Then socialists came along and invented a new definition—equality of wealth. Their definition makes communication impossible.
FriendlyConservative: “ In no place is the price of anything set based upon the income of the buyer. That is inherently unfair.”
Exactly! And until about 1900, progressive taxation was considered by the majority to be immoral, unfair and unconstitutional. Still, socialists kept demanding it. Then a famous economist in the late 1890’s came up with the idea of marginal utility. Boiled down, he said that rich people get much less utility, or satisfaction, from an extra dollar than do poor people, which is true. But then he said that by taking a dollar from a rich man and giving it to a poor man would increase the total “utility” in the nation because it would bother the rich man less than it would please the poor man. Socialist politicians had long wanted to impose progressive taxation but the public opposed it and they had no good response. This economist gave them the cover they needed.

friendlyconservative: “This is the free market, which doesn't always work and needs a lot of management so that people don't start cheating.”
Actually, “free markets” should be seen as another term for capitalism because free markets are nothing more than the instantiation of property rights; without free markets there are no property rights. And capitalism has always and at all times required the rule of law, which means that principles rather than the arbitrary will of men rule society. Property rights also mean the protection of property from fraud or theft, which requires hones police, courts, etc.

PASTOR JEFF

Well he was a Jew, after all.

PASTOR JEFF

Well, if you've studied it, there's no leading you.

You mean the benevolent one with the rod of iron, or the benevolent one that rules 100% compliant ones after the destruction of all opposition?

PASTOR JEFF

"nor did I claim NT Hebrew"
"the discussion about women keeping silent contains Hebrew wording that quite often is translated as talking but should more accurately be translated as gossiping."

You're too advanced for this simple 21st century backwater.