Get E-Mail Updates

God's Politics Blog

Two Words for Glenn Beck, Five Thoughts for the Church

by Eugene Cho 03-11-2010 | 4:00pm
Print
100 Comments | Login or Register to post comments

100311-glenn-beckBy now, most of you have heard the brouhaha regarding what Glenn Beck said on his radio and TV show recently:

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

"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!"

Well, in light of my non-verbose response to Pat Robertson's devilish comments about Haiti, I've got two words for Glen Beck:

Social Justice

Seriously, what do you think about what he said?

Okay, I have more than those two words. Here are some brief thoughts:

1] Stuff gets lost in translation and the words "social justice" are classic examples. Unfortunately, these terms are thrown around as often as I rupture my Achilles tendons. Do people know what they mean? Because these words likely mean different things for different folks. I have had people get upset because of their assumptions and presumptions about those words or my views. And while I rarely use the words "social" and "justice" together, the latter is an integral part of my understanding of the whole of scripture. For example, I had several folks at my church get upset when I agreed to be on the cover of Sojourners during the last election season since Sojourners is seen by some as "those liberal folks that have left their Christian roots

100 Comments | Login or Register to post comments
Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Related Stories

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: JaneinWNY

03-13-2010 @ 9:07pm

"For someone to state that "Back in the 1950s, we had no problems", that person is either:
a) looking at the past through rose-colored glasses
b) as blind as a bat (metaphorically speaking)
c) trying to be funny and failing miserably
d) aware that problems existed but of the opinion that those affected by them aren't worthy to be regarded as actual members of our society."

or, e) is exaggerating a conservative point of view into some kind of caricature that s/he never intended us to take seriously.

Jane

by: gaileileen

03-13-2010 @ 9:04pm

There seems to be a lot of different views over the role "govenrment" should or should not play in the lives of it's people. We should all take moment to step back and be reminded that just as "WE" are the church, "WE" are also "the government" at least here in the U.S. Our constitution says "WE THE PEOPLE" and the folks we elect to represent us are supposed to do just that. Even tho there are many different views I would think that all Christians, and by that I mean all people who have accepted Jesus as their personal Savior and follow Him, should all be able to agree on what is the correct thing to do, by simply asking themselves what He would do if confronted with the same situation. If you are really not sure you can always ask Him but you need to be able & willing to listen to the answer, even if it is something you really do not want to hear.
As far as Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or the rest of those like minded folks, I do not waste my time listening to them as they really have nothing constructive to say. Their goal is to create controversy and ratings which equal money in their pockets. They are very good at inciting irrational emotional thinking which only distracts people from focusing on SOLVING the serious issues facing our country.

by: NMRod

03-12-2010 @ 2:59am

That picture of Beck, his holding of the symbols and the various "GB" accoutrements make him look like a veritable madman.

by: NMRod

03-12-2010 @ 4:20pm

Calling Jim Wallis a "Judas" by Beck and Beck's disciples? Beck's faith is Mormonism and his "church" is Mormonism, not Christianity.

Beck's faith was founded by overt racists who only in recent years softened the prohibition against non-whites for full Mormon participation, since their theology also holds that "the Mark of Cain" is dark skin and thus non-whites are inherently more sinful.

The Mormon faith was founded by Joseph Smith, whose having a harem led directly to his demise at the hands of incensed Missourians and then Brigham Young led remaining followers into the remote west, so that they could practice polygamy undisturbed - something only renounced, often in name only, in order that Utah could enter the Union as a state.

A faith that holds that God the Father has a body and was once a mere man as we are now, and that Jesus and Satan are brothers is completely heretical.

It really doesn't matter how sweetly they sing, if the choir believes they are serving "The Brother from Another Planet."

by: Lord_Voldemort

03-12-2010 @ 2:13am

Mr. Cho,

Thanks. Though I disagree with you on a lot of issues, this is a very reasonable response to Beck's comments. Kudos.

LV

by: annegwoodhead

03-12-2010 @ 3:50pm

In repsponse to Chos's post:

I fairly recently left my parish partly because it did not put forth Jesus' gospel vision of social justice and, since there was no other parish of my denomination in my town, I joined the local Unitarian Universalist community. I just sent an e-mail through Sojourners to Glenn Beck telling him about it.

by: NOWOLVES

03-12-2010 @ 12:23pm

Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing!

But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages." He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

Beware the one who walks among Jesus' disciples, pretending to care for the poor, but instead is using the poor as a means for other ends. Sometimes it's money, other times it's power...as in political power. Mr. Wallis, do you know anyone who pretends to have the mercy of Christ, but really is driven by a political agenda...driven by power to reach his political ends? Take a look in the mirror, Judas!

by: WaveTossed

03-12-2010 @ 5:04pm

Nathan Bedford wrote: "Let me explain. We said the Lord's Prayer every day and pledged allegiance to the flag. We referred to our teachers and elders as Sir and Maam. There were no movies that exposed portions of ladies bodies. our sports teams shook hands at the end of the game. and there were no riots."

Yep. And also in the 1950s, there was legalized segregation of human beings based solely upon one's skin color. There was legalized job discrimination based upon factors such as skin color and gender. These are just two of many problems that existed in the so-called "idyllic" 1950s.

by: Amy_Sojo

03-12-2010 @ 5:04pm

Nathan Bedford wrote:
Let me explain. We said the Lord's Prayer every day and pledged allegiance to the flag. We referred to our teachers and elders as Sir and Maam. There were no movies that exposed portions of ladies bodies. our sports teams shook hands at the end of the game. and there were no riots.

All Mr. Beck is doing is standing up for his religion which is what all of us should be doing. When I was young, we had Senator mcCarthy looking out for our interests and Allen Drury wrote a series of books describing what it would be like when the communists took over. sound familiar?
.................

Now, let me explain. In 1950, many of our nation's children pledged allegiance to a flag that stood for "liberty and justice for all" in segregated schools where they were denied an equal education. Many of their parents, American citizens, were denied the right to vote. Had my husband and I been alive then, our marriage would have been illegal in all but a dozen states. There may not have been any movies that exposed portions of ladies bodies, but Playboy Magazine contained nude photographs from the very first issue (1953). Your sports teams shook hands at the end of the game, but they sure made it hard for some guys to try out for the team. I could go on but hopefully you see my point.

For someone to state that "Back in the 1950s, we had no problems", that person is either:
a) looking at the past through rose-colored glasses
b) as blind as a bat (metaphorically speaking)
c) trying to be funny and failing miserably
d) aware that problems existed but of the opinion that those affected by them aren't worthy to be regarded as actual members of our society.

Mr. Beck has every right to stand up for his religion. (Whatever it is, I'm really not sure.) What he can't do is redefine Christianity and expect people to follow his version of it without setting him straight.
For many of us who are Christians, the definition of 'Social Justice' is summed up by Isaiah 1:17: "Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow." Jesus repeated that a lot, so did Paul. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. He told stories like the Good Samaritan to give us examples of how we should care for the wellbeing of others, even if they are different from us in some way. If "social justice" and "economic justice" are code words, they could be unscrambled to read, "Love your neighbor as yourself."

In your first comment you compared Glenn Beck to Jesus. I find that not only offensive, but simply ridiculous, since Mr. Beck is telling us to do the opposite of what Jesus commanded. You can find no fault with that? Really? He's essentially advising Christians to flee from any church that teaches compassion! ...did he say toward which religion should we run?

by: prgrs_ev

03-16-2010 @ 10:16pm

If the Nathan Bedford post is not satire as it surely seems, then the good Mr Beford has been living in a parallel universe for a long, long time...

by: prgrs_ev

03-16-2010 @ 10:10pm

Your fixation with the omnipresent manifestations of Socialism reminds is fascinating and me of a concept in psychology called the Law of Instrument. It is best illustrated by giving a very young child a hammer, at which time all things must be pounded.

by: BlueDeacon

03-11-2010 @ 5:44pm

The Republican Party was pursuing the "Southern Strategy" long before Reagan; if anything, it started with Nixon.

by: Patricia

03-11-2010 @ 5:04pm

I have read (studied) them, and no, they do not.

You are also wrong about what constitutes the "common" definition of socialism - I give you Merriam-Webster (which is both "common" and "old, and so the definition would be considered, also):

"Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: ?s?-sh?-?li-z?m
Function: noun
Date: 1837

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

You will note that the third definition, specifically developed in Marxist doctrine, is not the primary definition of the word.

You will also note that the concept and term were not even in existence until about 1837, and the social and economic justice teachings of the Catholic Church preceded that by nearly 2 millenium.

You will also note that it very specifically states: "...or governmental ownership AND administration" (capitalization mine), not OR. Using the "common" definition of the word "or" your assertion relating to control VS ownership is incorrect. BOTH are necessary to define a socialist system.

I do not believe in "governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods".

So I am not a socialist.

I don't believe in "a system of society or group living in which there is no private property".

So I am not a socialist.

I do not subscribe to Marxist theory.

So I am not a socialist.

I don't believe there is "a stage of society...transitional between capitalism and communism ".

So I am not a socialist.

I believe in a well-regulated and effectively overseen market-based capitalist economy.

So I am not a socialist.

I also believe that not everything (health care, for instance) is a market commodity.

So, according to your personal definition, I, and everyone else who sees a role for government beyond what you personally believe necessary, am a socialist.

This is the problem with co-opting, perverting, and distorting definitions of common terms - you can apply them to just about anyone in just about any circumstance - as you have repeatedly done here.

By the "common" objective definitions of socialism, however, very few, if any, of us can be honestly labeled to be socialists.

I don't suppose consideration of truth and objectivity will give you any pause, though :).

by: Nathan Bedford

03-11-2010 @ 4:46pm

Pontious Pilate said, "I find no fault in this man." The same quote could be applied to Reverend Glenn Beck. Back in the 1950s, we had no problems. Since then, even the church that Brother Beck represents, has gone liberal and now allows people who were once barred from leadership positions to be leaders. If God had wanted everyone to have free health care, we'd still be living in the Garden of Eden eating apples and living to be over 900 years old.

by: fundamentalist

03-11-2010 @ 6:21pm

By the Merriam-Webster definition of socialism, there are no socialists in the world. No one in Europe is a socialist and Karl Marx wasn't a socialist. Nazi's weren't socialists even though the name is an acronym for National Socialist Party. The dictionary definition is too simplistic to be useful. In fact, it applies only to to Soviet style socialism.

There are people in the US who are proud to claim socialism, the Socialist Party, for example, and many socialists exist in Europe, none of whom advocate state ownership of anything. The Nazi party believed in private ownership. But you have to look deeper into the meaning of ownership. Most socialists in the world are completely happy to let individuals retain a piece of paper giving them "ownership" of property, as long as the state controls all aspects of that property's use and disposal. The concept of ownership carries the idea of control. There are degrees of ownership. As an "owner" loses control over the use of his property, he loses ownership as well. But socialists have known for centuries that they could fool the majority of people by leaving them the paper title while the state controlled every aspect of their property.

There are varieties of socialism, but the all hold to a few things in common. If you will take the time to read what socialists themselves say and not just look up the word in a dictionary, you'll find that I'm right.

1. Private ownership of businesses leads to increasing poverty for workers. If the state didn't force businesses to share more of the profits (directly or through unions) all workers would eventually starve.

2. Private ownership of businesses leads to an unfair concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. If the state didn't force redistribution of wealth, others would starve.

3. Value is created through labor, so the profits of a business belong to the workers, not the owners. That's why wealth accumulation by capitalists is unjust. They take what is rightly the workers'. The corollary to this is that interest on investments is immoral.

4. Human nature is pure. Children are born without any tendency to evil. They commit evil only because of oppression and poverty is the greatest oppressor. If we could distribute all wealth equally, oppression would end and human nature would return to its pure state. There would be no crime.

German socialists before WWI realized that they couldn't eliminate private property and profits. They tried and the economy tanked and poverty increased. So they opted for as much control of business as is practically possible while leaving "ownership" in the names of private individuals. The big fight between the German socialists and communists was over this issue; communists were purists and wanted to totally get rid of private property.

But even Marx realized that he could never implement his whole plan for socialism at one time, so he came up with incremental steps that would lead to socialism. Those steps involved things like progressive taxation, redistribution and control of banking and money.

Maybe you don't agree with everything that socialists believe, but by promoting state intervention in the economy you help erode property rights and assist socialists in implementing their system.

BTW, wikipedia has much better article on socialism than does the dictionary.

by: dlondonx

03-11-2010 @ 5:47pm

This is just so frustrating! The US is so far from this definition of socialism, the general control of the means of production. We are a democratic republic where we vote for representatives to represent us. Why should we vote for people to go to Washington and do nothing! Yet, almost any time a large group of people in the US decides that something is not working out very well as an unregulated market (pollution control, healthcare, wellfare, etc), we are beat over the head with the fear of socialism. Mind you, I say almost any time, since if you think that the unregulated market is not working out in managing the distribution of pornography, preventing abortions, or stopping large numbers of people from other countries from coming to our country to find a job, and think the government should step in and regulate it, thats deemed OK. Its not socialism. This is not about socialism. It is about getting our representative government to reform systems that currently are, at best, not working to benefit the vast majority of US citizens, and at worst actively punishing a large number of honest, hard working people.

by: NMRod

03-12-2010 @ 3:18am

Yeah, the alcoholic McCarthy, with his homosexually promiscuous satanic side-kick aide-de-camp Roy Cohn, who sent so many innocents to prison for their sincere beliefs, destroyed careers and lives and created a national fear psychosis of paranoid conspiracy in order to pump up war profiteering. The same who even impugned President Dwight Eisenhower, who eventually gave his famous speech about an industrial-congressional-military complex that threatened to hijack American democracy and liberty.

What religion of his is Beck standing up for? Seems we have a Mormon, outside of Christianity, advising Christians to essentially abandon their Christian faith for his own peculiar Mormon one. Mormon theology posits that God was once a human being like us on another planet, with Jesus and Satan brothers. Beck, like Joseph Smith, may be a uniquely American prophet, but like Smith and Brigham Young before him, he is a false prophet - and why supposedly conservative and fundamental Christians would choose to follow Beck is a conundrum, unless many conservatives and fundamentalists have become apostate.

by: VasuMurti

03-12-2010 @ 3:12am

Jesus' ministry was one of social justice!

In an e-mail dated December 12, 2005, my dear friend Matias Carnevale Cano in Argentina, wrote:

"I am re-reading Keith Akers' manuscript, Broken Thread: The Fate of the Jewish Followers of Jesus in Early Christianity, because I keep on finding Christians who deny the relevance of a correspondence between life and faith. Many think that faith is just believing in Christ, thus they can do whatever they please...Thank God I do not follow that idea. These persons would not accept the importance of vegetarianism or even leading a simple life, such a pity. If what they have to give is 'love', it takes just a look to see what the world is becoming because of this Christian 'love.' "

Repeating Psalm 37:11, Jesus said, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." (Matthew 5:5) Here Jesus refers to Isaiah's vision (11:6-9) of the future Kingdom of Peace, where the earth is restored to a vegetarian paradise. (Genesis 1:29-31) Jesus taught his followers to pray for the coming of God's kingdom and to do God's will "on earth as it is in heaven." (Matthew 6:9-10)

The kingdom of God belongs to the gentle and kind. "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (Matthew 5:7-9) "Be merciful, just as your Father is also merciful." (Luke 6:36)

Jesus called the peacemakers or pacifists sons of God, because they emulate God's universal and unconditional love. "He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Therefore, be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:45-48; Luke 6:32-35)

Although the Ten Commandments teach "thou shalt not kill," Jesus extended this morality to the point where one must never even get angry without cause. (Matthew 5:21-22) And although the Ten Commandments teach "thou shalt not commit adultery," Jesus taught that "whoever looks upon a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28)

The Bible limits compensation to "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," but Jesus taught his followers not to defend themselves against attack or aggression. "All who take up the sword must perish by the sword," Jesus warned. (Matthew 26:52) The Bible teaches men to love their neighbors and hate their enemies, but Jesus taught them to love their enemies and bless and pray for their persecutors. (Matthew 5:38-44; Luke 6:27-29)

Jesus forbade divorce, except for unfaithfulness. When asked why Moses permitted divorce, Jesus replied that it was a concession to the hardness of the heart. He insisted upon the moral standards given by God at the beginning. (Matthew 5:31-32, 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18)

Jesus told his followers there is no need to pray to God for material blessings or even necessities. (Matthew 6:8,31-33; Luke 12:29-30) God's compassion extends to all creation and He will easily provide for all of man's needs:

"Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them...Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow, they neither toil nor spin. And yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Now if God so clothes the grass of the field...will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?" (Matthew 6:26-30; Luke 12:24-28)

Jesus and his disciples lived lives of voluntary poverty and preached God's word among "the poor." When asked why he ate with sinners, he replied, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice.' For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." (Matthew 9:10-13; Mark 2:15-17; Luke 5:29-32)

In the 1986 (updated) edition of A Vegetarian Sourcebook, Keith Akers notes that there was a link in Judaism between meat-eating and animal sacrifices, that the prophetic tradition to which Jesus belonged attacked animal sacrifices, and that Jesus attacked the practice of animal sacrifice by driving the money-changers and their animals out of the Temple. He concludes, "The evidence indicates that for those who first heard the message of Jesus... the rejection of animal sacrifices had directly vegetarian implications."

Jesus taught humility and servitude. "You know the rulers of the gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you, but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave." (Matthew 20:25-27; Mark 10:42-44; Luke 22:25-27) When his disciples argued amongst themselves who would be the greatest, Jesus told them, "If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all." (Matthew 23:11; Mark 9:33-35) On another occasion he explained, "For he who is least among you all will be great." (Luke 9:48) According to Jesus, "Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Matthew 23:12; Luke 14:11)

Jesus told his disciples they were to think of themselves as unprofitable servants who simply do their duty. (Luke 17:7-10) Jesus even washed the feet of his disciples after the Last Supper, to set an example to his disciples about humility and equality before God. (John 13:1-16)

Jesus taught that before God, no one can be called good. (Matthew 19:17; Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19) He saw the righteous and the wicked with equal vision. When Jesus was informed about Galileans who suffered at the hands of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, he responded: "Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.

"Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them," Jesus continued. "Do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13:1-5)

The Pharisees apparently claimed religious leadership without such humility before God. "If you were (spiritually) blind," Jesus told them on one occasion, "you would have no sin; but now you say, 'We see.' Therefore, your sin remains." (John 9:41)

According to Luke, the Pharisees trusted in their own righteousness and therefore looked down upon others. Jesus told a parable of two men-a Pharisee and a tax collector-praying at Temple. The Pharisee prayed, "God, I thank You that I am not like the other men-extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all I possess."

Meanwhile, the tax collector stood off in the distance. He would not even raise his eyes towards heaven, but merely prayed, "God, be merciful to me a sinner!" Jesus said it was the tax collector who went home justified, not the Pharisee, for "everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 18:9-14)

Jesus instructed his followers to perform their charity, prayer and fasting in private. Religious devotion must never become a means to adulation, fame and social recognition. (Matthew 6:1-6,16-18) Jesus' disciples did not fast in the same manner as the disciples of John the Baptist or the Pharisees (Matthew 9:14-17; Mark 2:18-22; Luke 5:33-39), but they did fast. (Matthew 6:16-18) Jesus even taught that certain kinds of demons could only be exorcised through prayer and fasting. (Matthew 17:14-21; Mark 9:17-29) Jesus taught constant prayer. (Luke 21:36) He often withdrew into the wilderness to pray. (Luke 5:16) At least once, Jesus went to the mountains and spent the night in prayer. (Matthew 14:23; Mark 6:46; Luke 6:12)

Jesus explained that celibacy is not something everyone can practice; it is meant only for those whom God has ordained it. He used the euphemism "eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven," recalling his euphemism about denying or dismembering bodily urges rather than having the entire body destroyed by sin. (Matthew 5:29-30, 18:8-9, 19:10-12)

The apparent celibacy of Jesus is unusual by ancient Hebrew standards. The Bible does call for temporary abstinences, under certain circumstances. According to the Talmud, Moses voluntarily chose to give up sexual relations with his wife after he received his call from God. He reasoned that if the Israelites, to whom the Lord spoke only once and briefly, were ordered to abstain from sexual relations temporarily (Exodus 19:10,15), then he-being in continual dialogue with God-should remain celibate.

Philo of Alexandria tells us that to sanctify himself, Moses cleansed himself of "all the mortal calls of nature, food and drink and intercourse with women. This last he had disdained for many a day, almost from the time when, possessed by the Spirit, he entered on his work as a prophet, since he held it fitting to hold himself always in readiness to receive the oracular messages." Given this information, Jesus' apparent voluntary embrace of celibacy, from the time of his baptism and reception of the Spirit of God, becomes meaningful to Jews and Christians alike.

John the Baptist told the people to share half of their food and clothing with the needy. (Luke 3:11) Jesus was pleased when Zacchaeus, a wealthy tax collector, promised to give half his goods to the poor. "Today salvation has come to this house, because he is also a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man has come to seek and save that which was lost." (Luke 19:2-10)

However, Jesus went even further, and called for renunciation of worldly goods. He did not regard the accumulation of material possessions as a meaningful goal in life. "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy...But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven...for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Matthew 6:19-20; Luke 12:33-34)

Jesus told the multitudes that followed him, "...whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:25,33) "No one can serve two masters," Jesus explained. "...he will be loyal to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Mammon." (Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13)

Jesus had no interest in worldly disputes over money and property. (Luke 12:13-14) "Take heed and beware of covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses." Jesus condemned those who lay up treasures for themselves, but are not rich towards God. (Luke 12:15-21)

In his parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), Jesus expressed concern for materialistic persons. When a rich, young ruler came to Jesus and said he had kept God's commandments since youth, Jesus prized him dearly and replied, "You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come follow me." The man went away, saddened. Jesus observed that it is hard for those attached to earthly riches to enter the kingdom of God. (Matthew 19:16-24; Mark 10:17-23; Luke 18:18-25)

Jesus even demanded the renunciation of family ties. (Luke 14:26) It appears Jesus had little contact even with his own family; he regarded only those who do God's will as his brethren. (Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21) When a woman said to Jesus, "Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts which nursed you," Jesus replied, "More blessed still are those who hear and keep the word of God." (Luke 11:27-28)

Perhaps the most famous narrative depicting Jesus as a Jewish religious reformer is John 8:1-11. Jesus was teaching people at Temple early in the morning. The scribes and Pharisees brought to him a woman caught in the act of adultery. "Now Moses, in the Law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do you say?"

"Let he among you who is without sin," Jesus responded, "cast the first stone." The woman's accusers all found themselves convicted by their own conscience. They released her and went away. No one was left to condemn her. "Neither do I condemn you;" Jesus told her, "go and sin no more."

Aside from the Pharisees, the gospels and Book of Acts mention the Sadducees as the only other major school of Judaic thought. The Sadducees tended to be rich, nationalist and secularist.

The Jewish historian Josephus, who lived during the time of Jesus, wrote that the "Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances...which are not written into the laws of Moses and" which "the Sadducees reject," but they "are able to persuade none but the rich," whereas "the Pharisees have the multitude on their side."

Thus Jesus never rejected Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17); only the excesses of the Pharisees with regards to its observance.

(It was Paul, not Jesus, who taught that the Law was abolished.)

by: patoday

03-12-2010 @ 11:33pm

Dear Reverend Wallis.
Glenn Beck, who almost daily touts the Christian way of life as essential to happiness, is underserving of your criticism. He is simply pointing out "code words" employed over the years, to describe socialism, and it's exteme cousins. "Social Justice" brought an end to Christian worship in The Soviet Union. It brought death to the Jews. It calls for a national attitude that differs greatly from the vision of our founders. Only Glenn Beck doesn't pander to this slick phrase, designed to make us, not independent and noble, but rather dependent of government. But then, maybe thats your goal!

by: DHFabian

03-13-2010 @ 12:38pm

BlueDeacon: I need to add, though, that Richard Nixon was a "wild-eyed liberal" compared to the post-Reagan Republican leadership.

Nixon's speeches and writings would clearly be condemned by today's Republican Party leadership as "Socialist." His words concerning America's treatment of, and moral/social responsibilities toward, the poor would result in him being pushed out of the public discussion as a "leftist radical."

by: DHFabian

03-13-2010 @ 12:30pm

To keep things in perspective here, Glenn Beck is an entertainer, and outlandish statements are the tools of his trade, Beck's bread and butter. It can be a good thing to remind people of this.

When I was young and had questions, my mother would encourage me to "look it up" in encyclopedias, etc. We clearly need to do this when politically-oriented entertainers use religion to make political points -- "Look it up" in the Bible for yourself.

I appreciate Sojourner's/Jim Wallis' efforts to counter all the craziness in a calm, rational manner.

by: mamarea

03-13-2010 @ 12:29pm

Mainline Christians live in glass houses where racism, diversity and inclusion are concerned. Our history is littered with the ugliness of institutionalized racism, and in too many places Sunday morning is amazingly segregated. The LDS is still a young denomination, and, while they may have some maturing to do in their faith, so do we. "For all have sinned... "

It's sin to crow as if ML Christianity is somehow above the LDS, or more righteous, or better - its just plain Pharisaical.

by: duanebeachey

03-13-2010 @ 1:22am

Forget all the labels of socialists, etc. Just read what Jesus actually says. What does Glen Beck think Jesus means when he tells a story of a rich man who goes to hell for ignoring poor Lazurus right on his doorstep? Or when he describes the last judgment based on whether we fed the poor, gave a drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, etc. Jesus had at least a dozen things to say about the dangers of wealth and warnings to not ignore the poor. Call it what you want Glen Beck, but Jesus clearly was concerned about economic justice for the poor around him.

by: Jesusistheway

03-12-2010 @ 7:39pm

Of all the Sojo blogs about Beck, Eugene has the most reasoned and Biblical response. As usual. Thank you, Eugene, for your faithfulness to the fullness of the gospel.

by: MommaN

03-13-2010 @ 2:04pm

"If God had wanted everyone to have free health care, we'd still be living in the Garden of Eden eating apples and living to be over 900 years old."

I realize this was most likely a sarcastic comment, said for satirical reasons. But I still feel compelled to state the obvious since you probably think you made a point (albeit not a logical one) by saying it. I would contend that God DID want us to remain in the garden. I would contend that it was not God's desire that sin, death and suffering came to Adam and through Adam to all of creation.

by: Amy_Sojo

03-11-2010 @ 6:49pm

"Back in the 1950s, we had no problems."
What?

"Pontious Pilate said, "I find no fault in this man." The same quote could be applied to Reverend Glenn Beck."
WHAT??????????????????

wow.

by: Nathan Bedford

03-12-2010 @ 10:33am

Nobody is denying that Senator McCarthy may have imbibed a drink or two, but even Jesus turned the water into wine after everyone at cana had already gotten drunk. And as far as destroying careers is concerned, maybe Senator m should have hung around a little longer and harrassed some more of those Hollywood elites. Because back in the 50s we didn't have any nudity in our movies and John Wayne always kept his hands to himself. And finally, why are you attacking the Mormons. I'll admit that some of their beliefs might be a little weird, but our next president might be Mormon (go Mitt!) and it would be nice to hear the Mormon Tabernacle Choir at the inauguration. That choir has some very attractive singers.

by: dianabanana99

03-18-2010 @ 5:50am

What Glenn Beck was talking about was denominations that support abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, racism, laws like healthcare that pay for abortions and sex change operations and other unAmerican values like redistribution of wealth all in the name of "social justice". One example would be denominations like United Church of Christ that Obama belonged to: http://www.ucc.org/justice/issues.html
or pastors like Jeremiah Wright (he married the Obamas) at Obama's old church Trinity United Chrurch of Christ, the same UCC.org denomination above, who spew racism and curse America: http://www.trinitychicago.org/index.php?option=...
Go to Youtube and search Jeremiah Wright and you'll find racist comments like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3wh2XT4e8M&feat...
THESE are the churces Glenn Beck is telling Christians to leave

by: dianabanana99

03-18-2010 @ 5:49am

What Glenn Beck was talking about was denominations that support abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, racism, laws like healthcare that pay for abortions and sex change operations and other unAmerican values like redistribution of wealth all in the name of "social justice". One example would be denominations like United Church of Christ that Obama belonged to: http://www.ucc.org/justice/issues.html
or pastors like Jeremiah Wright (he married the Obamas) at Obama's old church Trinity United Chrurch of Christ, the same UCC.org denomination above, who spew racism and curse America: http://www.trinitychicago.org/index.php?option=...
Go to Youtube and search Jeremiah Wright and you'll find racist comments like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3wh2XT4e8M&feat...
THESE are the churces Glenn Beck is telling Christians to leave

by: pcnot4me

03-11-2010 @ 2:52pm

Here is Ronald Reagan all the way back in 1961 explaining how those code words work. This speech could have been given in 2010, it is so timely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs&feat...

by: BlueDeacon

03-11-2010 @ 3:12pm

Keep in mind, however, that Reagan dismissed MLK Jr. and even dissed him at his death.

by: fundamentalist

03-11-2010 @ 3:21pm

"But did GB really say that those words are "code words" for communism and Nazism? Even if you're a supporter of Glenn Beck, you have to call that out as ridiculous. No?"

You're right in the sense of what NAZI and Communism connote--racism, genocide, totalitarianism, atheism, etc. In that sense Beck was way over the top, which is why I don't listen to him very often.

However, if you ignore connotations and look strictly at the underlying ideologies, Nazism, communism and social justice have similar origins in general socialism. Nazism and communism are variations on the socialist theme. The Social Gospel didn't like the atheistic foundations of socialism, so stripped it of that and incorporated it into its theology. The Social Gospel and social justice are Christianized socialism, which btw was the origin of liberation theology in Latin America, only with a Catholic twist rather than liberan mainline protestant twist.

Beck was deliberately being inflamatory with the analogy to Nazism and communism. But that doesn't mean that he hates the poor and sees no purpose in helping them as the posts on this site insinuate.

by: JaneinWNY

03-13-2010 @ 7:07pm

"For someone to state that "Back in the 1950s, we had no problems", that person is either:
a) looking at the past through rose-colored glasses
b) as blind as a bat (metaphorically speaking)
c) trying to be funny and failing miserably
d) aware that problems existed but of the opinion that those affected by them aren't worthy to be regarded as actual members of our society."

or, e) is exaggerating a conservative point of view into some kind of caricature that s/he never intended us to take seriously.

Jane

by: gaileileen

03-13-2010 @ 7:04pm

There seems to be a lot of different views over the role "govenrment" should or should not play in the lives of it's people. We should all take moment to step back and be reminded that just as "WE" are the church, "WE" are also "the government" at least here in the U.S. Our constitution says "WE THE PEOPLE" and the folks we elect to represent us are supposed to do just that. Even tho there are many different views I would think that all Christians, and by that I mean all people who have accepted Jesus as their personal Savior and follow Him, should all be able to agree on what is the correct thing to do, by simply asking themselves what He would do if confronted with the same situation. If you are really not sure you can always ask Him but you need to be able & willing to listen to the answer, even if it is something you really do not want to hear.

by: prgrs_ev

03-11-2010 @ 3:49pm

Ronald Reagan did his best work in "Bed Time for Bonzo"...enough said.

by: ckgmail

03-11-2010 @ 3:44pm

Yes and Ronald Reagan kicked off his Presidential campaign in 1980 at Philadelphia, Mississippi, the site of some of the worst atrocities of the civil rights movement. Was that accidental? I think not. And the GOP has pursued a "Southern Strategy" ever since.

by: ckgmail

03-11-2010 @ 3:41pm

It's worth noting that Jesus had no rebuke for John for his ultimate question: "Are you the one to come, or should be look for another?" He simply sent the messengers back with the message in couplets:
the blind see, the lame walk;
lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear;
the dead are raised, the poor hear the good news.
The poor hearing the good news is coupled with the dead being raised. And the poor hearing good news is specifically good news for the poor, release from the oppression of the empire and the Herodian stooges of the empire. It was not good news of pie in the sky when you die bye and bye. It was good news of the imminent kingdom. And the good news of the imminent kingdom is what the social gospel (good news--euaggelion) is all about. And I will invite the wrath of the fundamentalists by saying once again, that any gospel which is not social as well as individual and personal is not fully the gospel. And of course any gospel which is not individual and personal as well as social is not fully the gospel either.

by: BlueDeacon

03-11-2010 @ 3:40pm

Beck was deliberately being inflamatory with the analogy to Nazism and communism. But that doesn't mean that he hates the poor and sees no purpose in helping them as the posts on this site insinuate.

Well, the conservative movement that really got rolling in the 1960s (and was almost completely secular then) had as part of its basis a resentment toward the poor. Christians didn't even come on board until the late 1970s, when Moral Majority and similar organizations formed.

by: Mihs

03-11-2010 @ 4:33pm

Actually, socialism is a political and economic system based on collective or state ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Like capitalism, it takes many diverse forms. And the Catholic Church does not teach equality of material wealth for all (which would be closer to communism, rather than socialism). The Church does speak up against social inequality which can be associated the marginalization of the poor that occurs when there are dramatic gaps between the poor and the rich.

by: fundamentalist

03-11-2010 @ 4:18pm

Read the Catholic Bishops' writings on social justice and then try to tell me that their concept of the term does not require state enforced redistribution of wealth with the goal of equality of wealth for all, which is socialism.

I realize you hate the term socialist, but if you would provide me with one axiom of socialism that you disagree with, I would appreciate it. BTW, socialism is not state ownership of property, it is state control of property.

by: tbmmoe

03-11-2010 @ 4:02pm

I work in a church that proclaims God's justice and mercy for ALL people as part of the good news of the gospel. That might mean (gasp) social and economic justice as well. Happily, I've taken appropriate action and reported myself to Glenn Beck.

by: Patricia

03-11-2010 @ 3:59pm

You are again being dishonest by claiming that social justice has similar origins in general socialism and with Nazism and communism.

And by continuing to insist that your (Republican party-preverted)definition of the term social justice is the correct and common definition. It is not. This definition was developed specifically to falsely discredit any organized efforts in the realm of social justice (and economic justice) and prevent anyone so-inclined from taking up the ministry for fear of being branded a socialist.

As a Catholic Christian who lives my Church's 2000+ year teachings regarding social and economic justice, I refuse to quietly allow you to continue to co-opt, poison and pervert the term social justice to serve your political ends.

by: prgrs_ev

03-11-2010 @ 3:56pm

Beck continues to demonstrate with uncompromised clarity that he is a veritable museum of psychiatric curiosity who at minimum is worthy of prayer.

by: Mihs

03-11-2010 @ 3:52pm

You may be misinformed if you believe "Nazism, communism and social justice have similar origins in general socialism." Social justice as the concept and implementation of equity predates socialism -- an ideology developed in early nineteenth century Europe. Equity which is the chief aim of social justice refers to "an ideal condition in which all members of a society have the same rights, protections, opportunities, obligations, and social benefits" (from the The Social Work Dictionary).

by: jason

03-12-2010 @ 1:45am

great article!

by: TedVothJr

03-13-2010 @ 3:33am

Beck's friends pretend to practice the First Great Commandment while neglecting the second. Too many Liberal denominations, not to say 'churches', for they aren't churches, neglect the first in their striving to practice the Second Great Commandment.

Neither is possible; this is the point Wallis and Claiborne and the Campolos and I are trying to make. God has blessed me by putting me in a congregation, Bethel Lutheran here in Madison, that pretty well manages to do both.

Thanks be to God!

by: PASTOR JEFF

03-11-2010 @ 7:24pm

Well then, there are no capitalists either. Theories are just that, theories.

by: PASTOR JEFF

03-11-2010 @ 7:12pm

Fundy: You may be interested to research the roots of Liberation Theology. There is minimal, if any, connection to the Social Gospel. My understanding is that it is rooted in a Catholic Bible study group in Latin America.

by: Nathan Bedford

03-11-2010 @ 6:58pm

Let me explain. We said the Lord's Prayer every day and pledged allegiance to the flag. We referred to our teachers and elders as Sir and Maam. There were no movies that exposed portions of ladies bodies. our sports teams shook hands at the end of the game. and there were no riots.

All Mr. Beck is doing is standing up for his religion which is what all of us should be doing. When I was young, we had Senator mcCarthy looking out for our interests and Allen Drury wrote a series of books describing what it would be like when the communists took over. sound familiar?

by: NMRod

03-12-2010 @ 4:20pm

Calling Jim Wallis a "Judas" by Beck and Beck's disciples? Beck's faith is Mormonism and his "church" is Mormonism, not Christianity.

Beck's faith was founded by overt racists who only in recent years softened the prohibition against non-whites for full Mormon participation, since their theology also holds that "the Mark of Cain" is dark skin and thus non-whites are inherently more sinful.

The Mormon faith was founded by Joseph Smith, whose having a harem led directly to his demise at the hands of incensed Missourians and then Brigham Young led remaining followers into the remote west, so that they could practice polygamy undisturbed - something only renounced, often in name only, in order that Utah could enter the Union as a state.

A faith that holds that God the Father has a body and was once a mere man as we are now, and that Jesus and Satan are brothers is completely heretical.

It really doesn't matter how sweetly they sing, if the choir believes they are serving "The Brother from Another Planet."

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: pcnot4me

03-11-2010 @ 2:52pm

Here is Ronald Reagan all the way back in 1961 explaining how those code words work. This speech could have been given in 2010, it is so timely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs&feat...

by: pcnot4me

03-11-2010 @ 2:52pm

Here is Ronald Reagan all the way back in 1961 explaining how those code words work. This speech could have been given in 2010, it is so timely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs&feat...

by: BlueDeacon

03-11-2010 @ 3:12pm

Keep in mind, however, that Reagan dismissed MLK Jr. and even dissed him at his death.

by: BlueDeacon

03-11-2010 @ 3:12pm

Keep in mind, however, that Reagan dismissed MLK Jr. and even dissed him at his death.

by: fundamentalist

03-11-2010 @ 3:21pm

"But did GB really say that those words are "code words" for communism and Nazism? Even if you're a supporter of Glenn Beck, you have to call that out as ridiculous. No?"

You're right in the sense of what NAZI and Communism connote--racism, genocide, totalitarianism, atheism, etc. In that sense Beck was way over the top, which is why I don't listen to him very often.

However, if you ignore connotations and look strictly at the underlying ideologies, Nazism, communism and social justice have similar origins in general socialism. Nazism and communism are variations on the socialist theme. The Social Gospel didn't like the atheistic foundations of socialism, so stripped it of that and incorporated it into its theology. The Social Gospel and social justice are Christianized socialism, which btw was the origin of liberation theology in Latin America, only with a Catholic twist rather than liberan mainline protestant twist.

Beck was deliberately being inflamatory with the analogy to Nazism and communism. But that doesn't mean that he hates the poor and sees no purpose in helping them as the posts on this site insinuate.

by: fundamentalist

03-11-2010 @ 3:21pm

"But did GB really say that those words are "code words" for communism and Nazism? Even if you're a supporter of Glenn Beck, you have to call that out as ridiculous. No?"

You're right in the sense of what NAZI and Communism connote--racism, genocide, totalitarianism, atheism, etc. In that sense Beck was way over the top, which is why I don't listen to him very often.

However, if you ignore connotations and look strictly at the underlying ideologies, Nazism, communism and social justice have similar origins in general socialism. Nazism and communism are variations on the socialist theme. The Social Gospel didn't like the atheistic foundations of socialism, so stripped it of that and incorporated it into its theology. The Social Gospel and social justice are Christianized socialism, which btw was the origin of liberation theology in Latin America, only with a Catholic twist rather than liberan mainline protestant twist.

Beck was deliberately being inflamatory with the analogy to Nazism and communism. But that doesn't mean that he hates the poor and sees no purpose in helping them as the posts on this site insinuate.

by: BlueDeacon

03-11-2010 @ 3:40pm

Beck was deliberately being inflamatory with the analogy to Nazism and communism. But that doesn't mean that he hates the poor and sees no purpose in helping them as the posts on this site insinuate.

Well, the conservative movement that really got rolling in the 1960s (and was almost completely secular then) had as part of its basis a resentment toward the poor. Christians didn't even come on board until the late 1970s, when Moral Majority and similar organizations formed.

by: BlueDeacon

03-11-2010 @ 3:40pm

Beck was deliberately being inflamatory with the analogy to Nazism and communism. But that doesn't mean that he hates the poor and sees no purpose in helping them as the posts on this site insinuate.

Well, the conservative movement that really got rolling in the 1960s (and was almost completely secular then) had as part of its basis a resentment toward the poor. Christians didn't even come on board until the late 1970s, when Moral Majority and similar organizations formed.

by: ckgmail

03-11-2010 @ 3:41pm

It's worth noting that Jesus had no rebuke for John for his ultimate question: "Are you the one to come, or should be look for another?" He simply sent the messengers back with the message in couplets:
the blind see, the lame walk;
lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear;
the dead are raised, the poor hear the good news.
The poor hearing the good news is coupled with the dead being raised. And the poor hearing good news is specifically good news for the poor, release from the oppression of the empire and the Herodian stooges of the empire. It was not good news of pie in the sky when you die bye and bye. It was good news of the imminent kingdom. And the good news of the imminent kingdom is what the social gospel (good news--euaggelion) is all about. And I will invite the wrath of the fundamentalists by saying once again, that any gospel which is not social as well as individual and personal is not fully the gospel. And of course any gospel which is not individual and personal as well as social is not fully the gospel either.

by: ckgmail

03-11-2010 @ 3:41pm

It's worth noting that Jesus had no rebuke for John for his ultimate question: "Are you the one to come, or should be look for another?" He simply sent the messengers back with the message in couplets:
the blind see, the lame walk;
lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear;
the dead are raised, the poor hear the good news.
The poor hearing the good news is coupled with the dead being raised. And the poor hearing good news is specifically good news for the poor, release from the oppression of the empire and the Herodian stooges of the empire. It was not good news of pie in the sky when you die bye and bye. It was good news of the imminent kingdom. And the good news of the imminent kingdom is what the social gospel (good news--euaggelion) is all about. And I will invite the wrath of the fundamentalists by saying once again, that any gospel which is not social as well as individual and personal is not fully the gospel. And of course any gospel which is not individual and personal as well as social is not fully the gospel either.

by: ckgmail

03-11-2010 @ 3:44pm

Yes and Ronald Reagan kicked off his Presidential campaign in 1980 at Philadelphia, Mississippi, the site of some of the worst atrocities of the civil rights movement. Was that accidental? I think not. And the GOP has pursued a "Southern Strategy" ever since.

by: ckgmail

03-11-2010 @ 3:44pm

Yes and Ronald Reagan kicked off his Presidential campaign in 1980 at Philadelphia, Mississippi, the site of some of the worst atrocities of the civil rights movement. Was that accidental? I think not. And the GOP has pursued a "Southern Strategy" ever since.

by: prgrs_ev

03-11-2010 @ 3:49pm

Ronald Reagan did his best work in "Bed Time for Bonzo"...enough said.

by: prgrs_ev

03-11-2010 @ 3:49pm

Ronald Reagan did his best work in "Bed Time for Bonzo"...enough said.

by: Mihs

03-11-2010 @ 3:52pm

You may be misinformed if you believe "Nazism, communism and social justice have similar origins in general socialism." Social justice as the concept and implementation of equity predates socialism -- an ideology developed in early nineteenth century Europe. Equity which is the chief aim of social justice refers to "an ideal condition in which all members of a society have the same rights, protections, opportunities, obligations, and social benefits" (from the The Social Work Dictionary).

by: Mihs

03-11-2010 @ 3:52pm

You may be misinformed if you believe "Nazism, communism and social justice have similar origins in general socialism." Social justice as the concept and implementation of equity predates socialism -- an ideology developed in early nineteenth century Europe. Equity which is the chief aim of social justice refers to "an ideal condition in which all members of a society have the same rights, protections, opportunities, obligations, and social benefits" (from the The Social Work Dictionary).

by: prgrs_ev

03-11-2010 @ 3:56pm

Beck continues to demonstrate with uncompromised clarity that he is a veritable museum of psychiatric curiosity who at minimum is worthy of prayer.

by: prgrs_ev

03-11-2010 @ 3:56pm

Beck continues to demonstrate with uncompromised clarity that he is a veritable museum of psychiatric curiosity who at minimum is worthy of prayer.

by: Patricia

03-11-2010 @ 3:59pm

You are again being dishonest by claiming that social justice has similar origins in general socialism and with Nazism and communism.

And by continuing to insist that your (Republican party-preverted)definition of the term social justice is the correct and common definition. It is not. This definition was developed specifically to falsely discredit any organized efforts in the realm of social justice (and economic justice) and prevent anyone so-inclined from taking up the ministry for fear of being branded a socialist.

As a Catholic Christian who lives my Church's 2000+ year teachings regarding social and economic justice, I refuse to quietly allow you to continue to co-opt, poison and pervert the term social justice to serve your political ends.

by: Patricia

03-11-2010 @ 3:59pm

You are again being dishonest by claiming that social justice has similar origins in general socialism and with Nazism and communism.

And by continuing to insist that your (Republican party-preverted)definition of the term social justice is the correct and common definition. It is not. This definition was developed specifically to falsely discredit any organized efforts in the realm of social justice (and economic justice) and prevent anyone so-inclined from taking up the ministry for fear of being branded a socialist.

As a Catholic Christian who lives my Church's 2000+ year teachings regarding social and economic justice, I refuse to quietly allow you to continue to co-opt, poison and pervert the term social justice to serve your political ends.

by: tbmmoe

03-11-2010 @ 4:02pm

I work in a church that proclaims God's justice and mercy for ALL people as part of the good news of the gospel. That might mean (gasp) social and economic justice as well. Happily, I've taken appropriate action and reported myself to Glenn Beck.

by: tbmmoe

03-11-2010 @ 4:02pm

I work in a church that proclaims God's justice and mercy for ALL people as part of the good news of the gospel. That might mean (gasp) social and economic justice as well. Happily, I've taken appropriate action and reported myself to Glenn Beck.

by: fundamentalist

03-11-2010 @ 4:18pm

Read the Catholic Bishops' writings on social justice and then try to tell me that their concept of the term does not require state enforced redistribution of wealth with the goal of equality of wealth for all, which is socialism.

I realize you hate the term socialist, but if you would provide me with one axiom of socialism that you disagree with, I would appreciate it. BTW, socialism is not state ownership of property, it is state control of property.

by: fundamentalist

03-11-2010 @ 4:18pm

Read the Catholic Bishops' writings on social justice and then try to tell me that their concept of the term does not require state enforced redistribution of wealth with the goal of equality of wealth for all, which is socialism.

I realize you hate the term socialist, but if you would provide me with one axiom of socialism that you disagree with, I would appreciate it. BTW, socialism is not state ownership of property, it is state control of property.

by: Mihs

03-11-2010 @ 4:33pm

Actually, socialism is a political and economic system based on collective or state ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Like capitalism, it takes many diverse forms. And the Catholic Church does not teach equality of material wealth for all (which would be closer to communism, rather than socialism). The Church does speak up against social inequality which can be associated the marginalization of the poor that occurs when there are dramatic gaps between the poor and the rich.

by: Mihs

03-11-2010 @ 4:33pm

Actually, socialism is a political and economic system based on collective or state ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Like capitalism, it takes many diverse forms. And the Catholic Church does not teach equality of material wealth for all (which would be closer to communism, rather than socialism). The Church does speak up against social inequality which can be associated the marginalization of the poor that occurs when there are dramatic gaps between the poor and the rich.

by: Nathan Bedford

03-11-2010 @ 4:46pm

Pontious Pilate said, "I find no fault in this man." The same quote could be applied to Reverend Glenn Beck. Back in the 1950s, we had no problems. Since then, even the church that Brother Beck represents, has gone liberal and now allows people who were once barred from leadership positions to be leaders. If God had wanted everyone to have free health care, we'd still be living in the Garden of Eden eating apples and living to be over 900 years old.

by: Nathan Bedford

03-11-2010 @ 4:46pm

Pontious Pilate said, "I find no fault in this man." The same quote could be applied to Reverend Glenn Beck. Back in the 1950s, we had no problems. Since then, even the church that Brother Beck represents, has gone liberal and now allows people who were once barred from leadership positions to be leaders. If God had wanted everyone to have free health care, we'd still be living in the Garden of Eden eating apples and living to be over 900 years old.

by: Patricia

03-11-2010 @ 5:04pm

I have read (studied) them, and no, they do not.

You are also wrong about what constitutes the "common" definition of socialism - I give you Merriam-Webster (which is both "common" and "old, and so the definition would be considered, also):

"Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: ?s?-sh?-?li-z?m
Function: noun
Date: 1837

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

You will note that the third definition, specifically developed in Marxist doctrine, is not the primary definition of the word.

You will also note that the concept and term were not even in existence until about 1837, and the social and economic justice teachings of the Catholic Church preceded that by nearly 2 millenium.

You will also note that it very specifically states: "...or governmental ownership AND administration" (capitalization mine), not OR. Using the "common" definition of the word "or" your assertion relating to control VS ownership is incorrect. BOTH are necessary to define a socialist system.

I do not believe in "governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods".

So I am not a socialist.

I don't believe in "a system of society or group living in which there is no private property".

So I am not a socialist.

I do not subscribe to Marxist theory.

So I am not a socialist.

I don't believe there is "a stage of society...transitional between capitalism and communism ".

So I am not a socialist.

I believe in a well-regulated and effectively overseen market-based capitalist economy.

So I am not a socialist.

I also believe that not everything (health care, for instance) is a market commodity.

So, according to your personal definition, I, and everyone else who sees a role for government beyond what you personally believe necessary, am a socialist.

This is the problem with co-opting, perverting, and distorting definitions of common terms - you can apply them to just about anyone in just about any circumstance - as you have repeatedly done here.

By the "common" objective definitions of socialism, however, very few, if any, of us can be honestly labeled to be socialists.

I don't suppose consideration of truth and objectivity will give you any pause, though :).

by: Patricia

03-11-2010 @ 5:04pm

I have read (studied) them, and no, they do not.

You are also wrong about what constitutes the "common" definition of socialism - I give you Merriam-Webster (which is both "common" and "old, and so the definition would be considered, also):

"Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: ?s?-sh?-?li-z?m
Function: noun
Date: 1837

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

You will note that the third definition, specifically developed in Marxist doctrine, is not the primary definition of the word.

You will also note that the concept and term were not even in existence until about 1837, and the social and economic justice teachings of the Catholic Church preceded that by nearly 2 millenium.

You will also note that it very specifically states: "...or governmental ownership AND administration" (capitalization mine), not OR. Using the "common" definition of the word "or" your assertion relating to control VS ownership is incorrect. BOTH are necessary to define a socialist system.

I do not believe in "governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods".

So I am not a socialist.

I don't believe in "a system of society or group living in which there is no private property".

So I am not a socialist.

I do not subscribe to Marxist theory.

So I am not a socialist.

I don't believe there is "a stage of society...transitional between capitalism and communism ".

So I am not a socialist.

I believe in a well-regulated and effectively overseen market-based capitalist economy.

So I am not a socialist.

I also believe that not everything (health care, for instance) is a market commodity.

So, according to your personal definition, I, and everyone else who sees a role for government beyond what you personally believe necessary, am a socialist.

This is the problem with co-opting, perverting, and distorting definitions of common terms - you can apply them to just about anyone in just about any circumstance - as you have repeatedly done here.

By the "common" objective definitions of socialism, however, very few, if any, of us can be honestly labeled to be socialists.

I don't suppose consideration of truth and objectivity will give you any pause, though :).

by: BlueDeacon

03-11-2010 @ 5:44pm

The Republican Party was pursuing the "Southern Strategy" long before Reagan; if anything, it started with Nixon.

by: BlueDeacon

03-11-2010 @ 5:44pm

The Republican Party was pursuing the "Southern Strategy" long before Reagan; if anything, it started with Nixon.

by: dlondonx

03-11-2010 @ 5:47pm

This is just so frustrating! The US is so far from this definition of socialism, the general control of the means of production. We are a democratic republic where we vote for representatives to represent us. Why should we vote for people to go to Washington and do nothing! Yet, almost any time a large group of people in the US decides that something is not working out very well as an unregulated market (pollution control, healthcare, wellfare, etc), we are beat over the head with the fear of socialism. Mind you, I say almost any time, since if you think that the unregulated market is not working out in managing the distribution of pornography, preventing abortions, or stopping large numbers of people from other countries from coming to our country to find a job, and think the government should step in and regulate it, thats deemed OK. Its not socialism. This is not about socialism. It is about getting our representative government to reform systems that currently are, at best, not working to benefit the vast majority of US citizens, and at worst actively punishing a large number of honest, hard working people.

by: dlondonx

03-11-2010 @ 5:47pm

This is just so frustrating! The US is so far from this definition of socialism, the general control of the means of production. We are a democratic republic where we vote for representatives to represent us. Why should we vote for people to go to Washington and do nothing! Yet, almost any time a large group of people in the US decides that something is not working out very well as an unregulated market (pollution control, healthcare, wellfare, etc), we are beat over the head with the fear of socialism. Mind you, I say almost any time, since if you think that the unregulated market is not working out in managing the distribution of pornography, preventing abortions, or stopping large numbers of people from other countries from coming to our country to find a job, and think the government should step in and regulate it, thats deemed OK. Its not socialism. This is not about socialism. It is about getting our representative government to reform systems that currently are, at best, not working to benefit the vast majority of US citizens, and at worst actively punishing a large number of honest, hard working people.

by: fundamentalist

03-11-2010 @ 6:21pm

By the Merriam-Webster definition of socialism, there are no socialists in the world. No one in Europe is a socialist and Karl Marx wasn't a socialist. Nazi's weren't socialists even though the name is an acronym for National Socialist Party. The dictionary definition is too simplistic to be useful. In fact, it applies only to to Soviet style socialism.

There are people in the US who are proud to claim socialism, the Socialist Party, for example, and many socialists exist in Europe, none of whom advocate state ownership of anything. The Nazi party believed in private ownership. But you have to look deeper into the meaning of ownership. Most socialists in the world are completely happy to let individuals retain a piece of paper giving them "ownership" of property, as long as the state controls all aspects of that property's use and disposal. The concept of ownership carries the idea of control. There are degrees of ownership. As an "owner" loses control over the use of his property, he loses ownership as well. But socialists have known for centuries that they could fool the majority of people by leaving them the paper title while the state controlled every aspect of their property.

There are varieties of socialism, but the all hold to a few things in common. If you will take the time to read what socialists themselves say and not just look up the word in a dictionary, you'll find that I'm right.

1. Private ownership of businesses leads to increasing poverty for workers. If the state didn't force businesses to share more of the profits (directly or through unions) all workers would eventually starve.

2. Private ownership of businesses leads to an unfair concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. If the state didn't force redistribution of wealth, others would starve.

3. Value is created through labor, so the profits of a business belong to the workers, not the owners. That's why wealth accumulation by capitalists is unjust. They take what is rightly the workers'. The corollary to this is that interest on investments is immoral.

4. Human nature is pure. Children are born without any tendency to evil. They commit evil only because of oppression and poverty is the greatest oppressor. If we could distribute all wealth equally, oppression would end and human nature would return to its pure state. There would be no crime.

German socialists before WWI realized that they couldn't eliminate private property and profits. They tried and the economy tanked and poverty increased. So they opted for as much control of business as is practically possible while leaving "ownership" in the names of private individuals. The big fight between the German socialists and communists was over this issue; communists were purists and wanted to totally get rid of private property.

But even Marx realized that he could never implement his whole plan for socialism at one time, so he came up with incremental steps that would lead to socialism. Those steps involved things like progressive taxation, redistribution and control of banking and money.

Maybe you don't agree with everything that socialists believe, but by promoting state intervention in the economy you help erode property rights and assist socialists in implementing their system.

BTW, wikipedia has much better article on socialism than does the dictionary.

by: fundamentalist

03-11-2010 @ 6:21pm

By the Merriam-Webster definition of socialism, there are no socialists in the world. No one in Europe is a socialist and Karl Marx wasn't a socialist. Nazi's weren't socialists even though the name is an acronym for National Socialist Party. The dictionary definition is too simplistic to be useful. In fact, it applies only to to Soviet style socialism.

There are people in the US who are proud to claim socialism, the Socialist Party, for example, and many socialists exist in Europe, none of whom advocate state ownership of anything. The Nazi party believed in private ownership. But you have to look deeper into the meaning of ownership. Most socialists in the world are completely happy to let individuals retain a piece of paper giving them "ownership" of property, as long as the state controls all aspects of that property's use and disposal. The concept of ownership carries the idea of control. There are degrees of ownership. As an "owner" loses control over the use of his property, he loses ownership as well. But socialists have known for centuries that they could fool the majority of people by leaving them the paper title while the state controlled every aspect of their property.

There are varieties of socialism, but the all hold to a few things in common. If you will take the time to read what socialists themselves say and not just look up the word in a dictionary, you'll find that I'm right.

1. Private ownership of businesses leads to increasing poverty for workers. If the state didn't force businesses to share more of the profits (directly or through unions) all workers would eventually starve.

2. Private ownership of businesses leads to an unfair concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. If the state didn't force redistribution of wealth, others would starve.

3. Value is created through labor, so the profits of a business belong to the workers, not the owners. That's why wealth accumulation by capitalists is unjust. They take what is rightly the workers'. The corollary to this is that interest on investments is immoral.

4. Human nature is pure. Children are born without any tendency to evil. They commit evil only because of oppression and poverty is the greatest oppressor. If we could distribute all wealth equally, oppression would end and human nature would return to its pure state. There would be no crime.

German socialists before WWI realized that they couldn't eliminate private property and profits. They tried and the economy tanked and poverty increased. So they opted for as much control of business as is practically possible while leaving "ownership" in the names of private individuals. The big fight between the German socialists and communists was over this issue; communists were purists and wanted to totally get rid of private property.

But even Marx realized that he could never implement his whole plan for socialism at one time, so he came up with incremental steps that would lead to socialism. Those steps involved things like progressive taxation, redistribution and control of banking and money.

Maybe you don't agree with everything that socialists believe, but by promoting state intervention in the economy you help erode property rights and assist socialists in implementing their system.

BTW, wikipedia has much better article on socialism than does the dictionary.

by: Amy_Sojo

03-11-2010 @ 6:49pm

"Back in the 1950s, we had no problems."
What?

"Pontious Pilate said, "I find no fault in this man." The same quote could be applied to Reverend Glenn Beck."
WHAT??????????????????

wow.

by: Amy_Sojo

03-11-2010 @ 6:49pm

"Back in the 1950s, we had no problems."
What?

"Pontious Pilate said, "I find no fault in this man." The same quote could be applied to Reverend Glenn Beck."
WHAT??????????????????

wow.

by: Nathan Bedford

03-11-2010 @ 6:58pm

Let me explain. We said the Lord's Prayer every day and pledged allegiance to the flag. We referred to our teachers and elders as Sir and Maam. There were no movies that exposed portions of ladies bodies. our sports teams shook hands at the end of the game. and there were no riots.

All Mr. Beck is doing is standing up for his religion which is what all of us should be doing. When I was young, we had Senator mcCarthy looking out for our interests and Allen Drury wrote a series of books describing what it would be like when the communists took over. sound familiar?

by: Nathan Bedford

03-11-2010 @ 6:58pm

Let me explain. We said the Lord's Prayer every day and pledged allegiance to the flag. We referred to our teachers and elders as Sir and Maam. There were no movies that exposed portions of ladies bodies. our sports teams shook hands at the end of the game. and there were no riots.

All Mr. Beck is doing is standing up for his religion which is what all of us should be doing. When I was young, we had Senator mcCarthy looking out for our interests and Allen Drury wrote a series of books describing what it would be like when the communists took over. sound familiar?

by: PASTOR JEFF

03-11-2010 @ 7:12pm

Fundy: You may be interested to research the roots of Liberation Theology. There is minimal, if any, connection to the Social Gospel. My understanding is that it is rooted in a Catholic Bible study group in Latin America.

by: PASTOR JEFF

03-11-2010 @ 7:12pm

Fundy: You may be interested to research the roots of Liberation Theology. There is minimal, if any, connection to the Social Gospel. My understanding is that it is rooted in a Catholic Bible study group in Latin America.

by: PASTOR JEFF

03-11-2010 @ 7:24pm

Well then, there are no capitalists either. Theories are just that, theories.

by: PASTOR JEFF

03-11-2010 @ 7:24pm

Well then, there are no capitalists either. Theories are just that, theories.

by: get back together after break up

03-11-2010 @ 8:25pm

get back together after break up...

Awesome post love the style...

by: uberVU - social comments

03-11-2010 @ 8:54pm

Social comments and analytics for this post...

This post was mentioned on Twitter by sojourners: Two Words for Glenn Beck, Five Thoughts for the Church by @eugenecho http://su.pr/5ZCtaG...

by: jason

03-12-2010 @ 1:45am

great article!

by: jason

03-12-2010 @ 1:45am

great article!

by: Lord_Voldemort

03-12-2010 @ 2:13am

Mr. Cho,

Thanks. Though I disagree with you on a lot of issues, this is a very reasonable response to Beck's comments. Kudos.

LV

by: Lord_Voldemort

03-12-2010 @ 2:13am

Mr. Cho,

Thanks. Though I disagree with you on a lot of issues, this is a very reasonable response to Beck's comments. Kudos.

LV