Get E-Mail Updates

God's Politics Blog

In Spite of Glenn Beck's New Threats, My Invitation to Dialogue Stands

by Jim Wallis 03-15-2010 | 7:30pm
Print
560 Comments | Login or Register to post comments

Last week, when radio and television talk show host Glenn Beck said that social justice is a "code word" for Communism and Nazism, and urged people to leave their churches if they teach social justice, I decided that message needed to be challenged.

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. 

Many church leaders from across the spectrum agreed with my concern that social and economic justice are deep biblical concerns and central to the teachings of all of our churches. Even Beck's own Mormon church leaders were calling to assure me that they believe in social justice too. I thought Beck's rather extreme and misguided comments needed a response, but I did not attack him personally; nor will I.

In fact, on Friday, I sent Glenn a letter proposing that the two of us 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. I said, "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."

Well, on today's Glenn Beck radio show, I got a response that disappointed me. Glenn Beck said:

So Jim, I just wanted to pass this on to you. In my time I will respond -- my time, well, kind of like God's time, might be a day, might be a week to you, I'm not sure. But I'm going to get to it in my time, not your time. So you go ahead and you continue to do your protest thing, and that's great. I love it. But just know -- the hammer is coming, because little do you know, for eight weeks, we've been compiling information on you, your cute little organization, and all the other cute little people that are with you. And when the hammer comes, it's going to be hammering hard and all through the night, over and over...

He went on to say that "It's weird how people all over the world have been sending me stuff. It's weird that way, Jimmy." Why is the idea of a civil dialogue such a threat to Glenn Beck? Glenn, let us please not resort to threats and attacks. To repeat, I have not and will not attack you personally, and I repeat my invitation to a civil dialogue on what social justice really means. Since you were the one to raise this issue and start this whole discussion, I just want it to end in a better and more civil way.

More than 30,000 Christian pastors and church members have written to you as Christians who believe in social justice and are asking you to reconsider your statements. This is a time for dialogue, not monologue, and I prayerfully ask you to consider my request for a conversation.

portrait-jim-wallisJim 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

560 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: lynne40

03-15-2010 @ 9:46pm

Jesse3, I do agree with you regarding the statement: "Christians should be Democrats" as possibly loosing supporters. However, the "Social Justice" banner can be a little sticky as well. There are several concerns regarding the Social Justice banner: Whose perspective are we referencing? Is this a one world religion/belief? I'm more for having religious freedom without freedoms falling under the same belief system. There are various religions in this world for various reasons (some are legitimately biblically based). That being said, I prefer a nation based on those freedoms. To me, social justice sounds as if we are fighting for the same things and that is not always true.

by: NMRod

03-16-2010 @ 4:31pm

In my former conservative political life, I heard it over and over, from some well-to-do economic conservatives - this is just the reason they voiced for not really wanting to to anything about abortion. They did not want to be eating up funds they felt could be put to more productive use by subsidizing children for unproductive "breeders."

by: Cervantes3

03-15-2010 @ 9:46pm

Mr. Wallis, it would be better for you to admit your faults, and ambitions, now before the hammer falls. Brother, I've seen the footage, and for you to come out after the fact to bat cleanup will make you look like the biggest fool this side of the Mississippi.
Also, have you been very forthcoming with your audience, you advise the President do you not? It doesn't seem like a wild stretch to see you advising this President with his set of morals and values, and you with your...well, we'll just wait for the footage to air.

by: NMRod

03-16-2010 @ 4:29pm

As if Tom DeLay is as pure as the driven snow.

I wonder what sickening personal information is out there about Glenn Beck?

My prayer is that, those who are planning evil against another, become caught in the same snares they intended to set for others, and that the innocent are preserved.

You can see that Jim Wallis has no evil intent, whether you agree with him or not on all points. Beck on the other hand, harbors malignancy, and some of the animus comes from his handlers who can afford to pay him so very, very well.

by: BlueDeacon

03-15-2010 @ 9:45pm

What Wallis believes is that "Republican" policies shouldn't be taken as gospel. The trouble is that too many conservatives don't like legitimate criticism and consider anyone who disagrees "less than."

As for Media Matters, it doesn't matter how I feel about it personally. What I said about it is true, and it's also a reliable source.

by: marginalman

03-23-2010 @ 8:49am

When I see a homeless guy trying to stay warm in freezing weather, I think of three possibilities. 1) Ignore the guy. He can find a job if he tries. 2) Give the guy a little pocket change. Not too much, though. 3) Give the guy everything I have. 4) Give him and the others like him throughout the land enough to stay out of the cold and fill their bellies by insisting that the rich GIVE A LITTLE POCKET CHANGE. Lose the political ideology and take care of your fellow man for the love of Christ. Then guys like me won't have to insist.

by: jesse3

03-15-2010 @ 9:40pm

Of course, Wallis would never say specifically "Christians should be Democrats," but he has always argued that Christians should support Democratic policies over Republican policies. Not too different.

Yes, I know you like Media Matters.

by: Woodshedder

03-16-2010 @ 5:23am

NMRod, you can't or didn't read. I'm guessing you just chose not to read, even though the data comes straight from the federal income tax statistics.

As for corporations, America has one of the highest corporate tax rates of any country. That is why a lot of our companies move overseas.

Your assertion that gov't somehow redistributes wealth back to corporations is absurd. Either you are joking, or really naive.

And, the US Gov't is the largest corporation in the world, and they pay no taxes, are bankrupt, and they steal, lie, and wage war. Yet you seem to profess love for the world's largest corporation. Odd, no?

But back to the point, yes, a large percentage of American tax filers pay not income tax. Read the research.

by: NMRod

03-16-2010 @ 5:13am

I think you mean over 40% of American CORPORATIONS pay no income tax. Easy mistake to make, since corporations have been ruled equal citizens to real human beings, but with extra rights regular living beings don't enjoy.

But yes, you're right these corporations aren't holding up their end of the social contract, yet get wealth re-distributed to them, by the government. It's true - this is not adhering to even the most basic ideas of justice.

by: Woodshedder

03-16-2010 @ 5:08am

Here is a more recent report:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/...

Nonpaying status used to be a sure sign of poverty or near-poverty, but Congress and the President have changed the tax laws to pull much of the middle class into the growing pool of nonpayers. The income level at which a typical family of four will owe no income taxes has risen rapidly, now topping $51,000.

As a result, recently released IRS data for the 2008 tax year show that a record 51.6 million filers had no income tax obligation.[1] That means more than 36 percent of all Americans who filed a tax return for 2008 were nonpayers, raising serious doubts about the ability of the income tax system to continue funding the federal government's ballooning expenditures.

by: NMRod

03-16-2010 @ 5:05am

First the man holds up large images of a swastika in one hand, and a hammer and sickle in the other, as if that is informative, revelatory and somehow proves something. I guess he's telling his audience that whomever he is speaking about is bad, very bad. The man sure is a deep thinker.

Now he threatens darkly, as if right there in his hand, he has a list of those whom he will shortly have hauled before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Traitors are about to be unmasked!

Glen Beck is really the latest in a long line in the paranoid style of American politics - the heir to the late Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy and his discredited ilk.

It's probable that at some point, just like all the others, he is going to sputter out and self-destruct with all his inherent contradictions. In the meantime he's basically a shit-disturber adding nothing useful to public discourse but is destructive.

However, he certainly is a useful tool of his boss, Rupert Murdoch, for whom he is performing duties of distraction away from the real villains responsible for our economic debacle. The irony is that those whose interests he serves, the financial elite, are deeply involved themselves with communist and authoritarian regimes for purposes of profit, to the detriment of liberty and economic well-being both of Americans and those dictators' own peoples.

by: GWilson

03-16-2010 @ 11:10pm

Clarification granted. What I'm saying is that when a church (or in this case Mr. Wallis whom I'm not sure actually leads any kind of official congregation) essentially joins with the government in order to further redistributionist goals, that is by definition quite the opposite of a separation between church and state.

Plus, although there are plenty of references to helping the poor and looking out for the less fortunate in the Bible, it's not in the context of "give thee to thy government so it may better redistribute thy wealth".

Somehow I don't think this country's constitution was written to be counter to the Bible. Because if the kind of "social justice" Wallis promotes is really legitimately biblically based, then it was -- because the constitution is all about limiting the power of government, and maximizing the power of the individual.

In other words, let's not try to hijack the Bible to mean something it doesn't in order to promote a social/political agenda. That goes for the right as well as the left.

by: hammerud

03-16-2010 @ 11:03pm

I agree. But I said, democrats "in particular." There is some pull
toward limited government in the Republican Party. None, from what I
can tell, in the Democratic Party.

by: RubyLou

03-16-2010 @ 10:56pm

I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and I have seen that neither party is interested in small government. President Bush expanded both government AND the powers of government to a great extent, yet few people in power complained. Those that did were called traitors.

Where are the Goldwater conservatives? I am a far leftist, but I miss them badly.

by: RubyLou

03-16-2010 @ 10:49pm

I do like what Anatole France said, even though it's become a chestnut in some quarters:

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

by: Woodshedder

03-16-2010 @ 10:43pm

You'll find in these definitions of justice below from dictionary.com not a single one of them references taxing and levying fees on citizens for the express purpose of giving the revenue to other citizens. Nor does it discuss how one would determine in a society how those who have chosen not to be responsible for their own destinies are supposed to received "justice" in the form of revenue extracted by taxes and fees from other citizens.

1.
the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2.
rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3.
the moral principle determining just conduct.
4.
conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5.
the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
6.
the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice.
7.
judgment of persons or causes by judicial process: to administer justice in a community.

by: NMRod

03-16-2010 @ 10:42pm

Without government restraint on the power of corporations and the wealthy elites, freedom just becomes that of rogue elephants to trample everyone else underfoot, who are left the freedom to be trampled.

by: GWilson

03-16-2010 @ 2:35am

Doesn't Wallis overstate things here? He tries to paint a picture (30,000 letter writers, etc.) of the entire church-going Christian community standing up in protest of Glenn Beck, or anyone who would disagree with "social justice". How dare they? That's horrible!

But come on. The vast majority of regular church-goers vote Republican. They voted for GW Bush overwhelmingly. I hardly think this block of folks is down with "social justice" in the forced redistributionist form that Wallis embraces and pushes.

Glenn Beck is simply against forced redistribution of wealth, as are an overwhelming majority of Americans at large. That's why Mondale got trounced for saying "I'll raise your taxes". That's why Obama would never dream of coming out and directly admitting that's what he's all about. That's why the concerted effort to attack "Joe the Plumber" when he focused the country's attention on the issue.

http://tinyurl.com/6dedj9

Glenn raises a very important point here. Redistributionists are co-opting the churches, as they've done with our government, Wallis being part of that in his role as "spiritual advisor" to Barack Obama.

Many people have no idea what's really going on. They need to look closely at their church's positions on "social justice", and demand a specific definition of that term from its leaders. Then, they can vote with their feet if need be.

There are of course some churches that openly embrace this kind of joining with government in order to more effectively push their big government, nanny-state ideas of helping the poor. I think these are a minority. But is this not counter to the very idea of separation of church and state, just as it would be for right-wing conservative churches to try and influence government to help them enact their agendas concerning gay marriage and abortion?

If you want to preach in church for redistribution, or against gay marriage and abortion, fine. But when folks like Wallis, or Falwell, -- try and actively hitch their wagons to government -- that's where they go badly and sadly counter-constitutional and counter-Christianity, IMHO.

by: hammerud

03-16-2010 @ 10:41pm

Just speaking generally. Corruption and stupid policies characterize
both Parties. It has something to do with the fallen, sinful, evil
natures we humans have. And, speaking of that, since government is
comprised of humans, it would seem to be a wise thing to limit, to the
extent possible, the power government wields. The problem with that
is that limiting the power of government is not something the
democrats, in particular, seem to like. I have serious concerns for
our country. As Scripture states, "A house divided will not stand,"
and we are a house divided. How sad. Unless there is a movement of
the Holy Spirit in our land, I don't see hope for a bright future.

by: PASTOR JEFF

03-18-2010 @ 2:13pm

...or they could get a permit to speak in a free speech zone when the President is in town.

by: NMRod

03-16-2010 @ 10:40pm

Even the American Conservative magazine believes that the Tea Party movement is just a wing of the Republican Party.

http://www.amconmag.com

by: PASTOR JEFF

03-18-2010 @ 2:11pm

Woody: Here is my problem with human rights being rooted in property. The founders language is that we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights. Human rights to them are rooted in creation. If property is fundamental to human rights, then isn't any transfer of property a deprivation of one's rights to the advantage of another's? If one has more property does that equate to more human rights? Hence, were the native americans deprived through redistribution? I believe your foundational premise to be materialistic.

by: jkc1945

03-15-2010 @ 11:35pm

And that, in a nutshell, is what Mr. Beck is saying. And I think Mr. Wallis knows it. But someone wants to come across here as the "gentle Christian, meek and mild," even though Mr. Beck is making a valid point: that is, "social justice" as defined, and even as practiced, by some Christian churches, is not just, nor does it profitably serve the social groups it says it wishes to. Jesus knew social justice, all right; he practiced it all the time, one Man to one human. Other kinds of social justice are something else than just.

by: NMRod

03-16-2010 @ 10:38pm

Interestingly, the 14th amendment decisions since it passed have been almost universally to create new and ever expanding rights for corporations as "persons."

by: lhughett

03-17-2010 @ 5:04am

"because the constitution is all about limiting the power of government, and maximizing the power of the individual."

Definitely an interesting point. I was just sitting thinking about it...

I'm asking this genuinely (as it is a question I considered while pondering): Do you think there's any room for taxes at all in this country? And if so, what should they be used to pay for?

by: NMRod

03-16-2010 @ 10:36pm

I suppose everyone is entitled to create their own definition of justice.

You can then feel free to skewer someone else's definition as you like.

But if there is no accepted definition, then it will simply be a matter of personal preference, and anything at all can be justified.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-17-2010 @ 4:04am

"Every time you see "social justice" replace it with "class

by: NMRod

03-16-2010 @ 10:34pm

Some folks only want "less government" for the things they don't agree with - and "more government" for all the things they agree with, which they define then as the only proper sphere for government.

I've found it just so much alike to what Christian fundamentalists claim - that they are "literalists" and "fundamental" in their love for truth and following scripture. Yet, it turns out that they, too, pick and choose the scriptures they prefer while ignoring others to suit their own pre-existing proclivities and preferences. So it is with many so-called political "conservatives" - as with many others.

by: NMRod

03-16-2010 @ 10:29pm

Suggest that if Rev. Beck, a Mormon, is your spiritual leader, then you need to convert to Mormonism, which religion's beliefs and doctrines are a very different faith from Christianity.

Mr. Beck, a Mormon, believes that God was once a man with a body, just like us, on another planet - and that Jesus and Satan are brothers.

I wouldn't be taking spiritual advice, as a Christian, from someone with such odd anti-Christian beliefs, especially as to how to conduct my spiritual life.

It's really no surprise Rev. Beck is admonishing his televangelist show's followers to leave their churches for his oddball faith.

by: RubyLou

03-16-2010 @ 10:17pm

Social justice also deals in enfranchisement and freedom from exploitation. It is not solely economic, although since money is power, and those with the most money are the most free to act in their interests, it certainly can be a part of it.

by: RubyLou

03-16-2010 @ 10:11pm

Your friends from NOLA are unaware of the folks in Mississippi (as one example) who are till struggling to re-build. But then, I think a lot of people forgot that other areas than NOLA were hit hard.

by: tomerickson

03-16-2010 @ 1:09pm

Squeaky,
It's Tom again. I, too, think that this situation could end bad. I was an old late 60's/early 70's radical. As an undergaduate political science/pre-law student my adviser set me up in an internship to lobby my state legislature for many social causes. That was when I was introduced to such people a Saul Alinski and Jim Wallis. My adviser was himself on the 1972 ballot as an elector for the communist party with Gus Hall and Angela Davis as candidates. I'm really sure that there is much damaging information out there. I've seen some it. If a person has an ideology, they should be willing to admit it and stand by it. There will be some of the public that will agree with Wallis's ideology as it is exposed to the public. The majority will not view it well. The polarization of this nation is inevitable. This Beck/Wallis battle will only intensify it. There is coming a time when we will all have to choose.

by: kansasmennonite

03-16-2010 @ 1:06pm

Are you even living in the USA? Do you agree with our taxes that give breaks to exemptions? I'm sure many
large families don't pay taxes just because of the number of kids they bred.

by: BroChumLee

03-17-2010 @ 5:42am

The meanings behind terms are all important. "Social justice" means a variety of things. Beck properly characterizes the distinctives of Wallis' deep definition of the term, which differs from that which appeals to more orthodox believers. On the latter end of the continuum, I am for social justice, but, re Wallis' end of the spectrum, I am not for (nor is Beck) the subversion of Christian charity by manipulative serpents playing on the good intentions of the deceived in order to facilitate idolatrous usurpation of voluntary charity (that brings glory to Christ) in exchange for "theocratic," heretical Marxist concepts of "Social Justice," resulting in envy and forcible redistributionist schemes bringing resentment in the confiscatees and blasphemous glory to the god-state.

by: kansasmennonite

03-16-2010 @ 1:06pm

So I assume you don't want any gov't aid getting to Haiti?

by: NMRod

03-18-2010 @ 1:29am

I think you need to actually read Orwell's "1984." Evidently, you have not.

He described a world of lies where war became constant and enemies and allies were interchangeable. It sounds so much like our vast military-industrial complex, which always finds new enemies to justify and wars to foment the vast profits they make from it.

Certainly Winston Smith was not the victim of taxes levied upon the super-wealthy or powerful, or brought low through excessive largesse to black welfare "queens" or through health care made available to all. There is, however, some similarity to aspects of the paractices of a national security state that uses torture to achieve its aims.

It is a scoundrel's wickedness to compare Christians acting as salt and light within a rather cruel and violent culture, to the O'Briens of "1984" or to the "Big Brother" figure who is modelled after the terrorist, robber, mass-murderer and despot Joseph Djugashvili, better known to the world as "Stalin," the "Man of Steel."

by: letjusticerolldown

03-18-2010 @ 3:36pm

"the above three examples of countries that touted "social justice" have been collectively responsible to over 1.25 BILLION deaths...... all in the name of 'social justice'"

Virtually every evil political act is accompnied by propoganda using virtuous language. The fact someone uses 'freedom' or 'justice' as a euphemism for genocidal hatred does not negate the virtue.

The Devil himself appears as an angel of light. That does not suddenly make light evil.

This line of argument equating the commitment of churches to a just society with communists and Nazis is beyond idiocy.

And an aside: The population of the world in 1900 was about 1.75 billion. You argue that those three tyrannical systems took out over 70% of the global population????????

by: kansasmennonite

03-16-2010 @ 1:05pm

How can you be an avid fan of Beck who uses half truths to distort views and then blames the media on their way of handling the story? He's all about telling just enough to get people fired up and then has a way out when he (and his followers) claim this isn't what he meant. He has no intention saying what he meant clearly.

by: NMRod

03-18-2010 @ 1:21am

Well, my hero, Ronald Reagan, didn't exactly limit government. New federal departments were created on his watch and he didn't dismantle any. He expanded deficits mightily.

I do believe he WISHED he could reduce them, but just couldn't find a way to do it. All that can reasonably expected, the lesson is, is to spend what's already there elsewhere other than for death and destruction, a point our Republican President Eisenhower made so eloquently against vastly inflated war spending.

by: WaveTossed

03-18-2010 @ 3:34pm

"Woody: Here is my problem with human rights being rooted in property."

I'm not Woody, but I want to clarify my own views. I don't believe that human rights is entirely rooted in property. Otherwise, the only people who would have been endowed by the Creator with human rights would have been those who own property.

What I do believe is that acquiring, owning, protecting property is just one of the many God-given natural rights. To sum up: life is another God-given right and so is liberty.

by: ckgmailOTscholar

03-16-2010 @ 1:03pm

There is a tendency in the fallen human race for wealth to distribute upwards, so that the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. The Old Testament Jubilee year was a provision for redistribution downwards.

by: ckgmailOTscholar

03-16-2010 @ 12:59pm

Tennessean, I will adopt a Missourian stance for the moment. Show me, please, where it's a violation of what Jesus taught to extend compassion to anybody. Jesus said love your neighbor as yourself. I call the "illegals" undocumented neighbors. I can back it with scripture.

by: Treasure Hunters Roadshow

05-13-2011 @ 7:05am

great...

[..]Saw this awesome post today...[..]...

by: kansasmennonite

03-16-2010 @ 12:50pm

Perhaps Beck does as well? (think highly of themselves).

by: Blue

08-14-2011 @ 8:47am

Deck...

[

by: robscot

03-16-2010 @ 6:26am

I think the fact that the context was not initially clarified is part of the problem, and something that Wallis felt needed to be clarified. No doubt many listeners, such as yourself, understood the context and Beck's line of reasoning, but I think it's reasonable to say that his original comments seemed to imply that if your church is into 'social justice' (whatever that means), than you have cause for concern.

It was only after Wallis and 30,000 others expressed concern over Beck's comments and their potential implications that Beck sought to better clarify his statements within context, at least to an extent. I agree that context does indeed matter. What Wallis has since called for is simply a civil discussion about the meaning of social justice. I fail to see how this could be inappropriate.

by: Tennessean1942

03-16-2010 @ 6:01am

holliebakerlutz said:

"For instance, I work at a Christian refugee resettlement agency and the local church is our greatest source of volunteer mentors. The church is helping persecuted families in my community"

So, are you aiding, abetting, and shielding illegal immigrants?

If you are, and you are calling that 'social justice', wouldn't the illegals have to have had some grievance to demand 'justice' for?

What are their grievances, exactly?

Why do they illegally usurp another immigrant's place in the line to become legal citizens?

Is that 'justice'? No it's not.

It's fraud and in many cases theft, and you know it. It's a violation of everything my saviour preached.

Maybe you could enlighten us on what you do, specifically, if you dare ....

by: RubyLou

03-16-2010 @ 8:03pm

I look forward to the outcome of this hard-hitting investigation. If it involves David Horowitz and that bunch, I will not be surprised.

Religion should only be utilized for the benefit of a specific brand of social and movement conservative, and the churches/synagogues they attend. Any other application is illegitimate. ;-)

by: prgrs_ev

03-16-2010 @ 5:59am

If government is redistributing wealth, where the numbers?? Poverty has increased in this country over the last decade...as soon as you find out who this involuntarily redistributed wealth is going to you let us know.

by: Ngchen

03-16-2010 @ 5:33pm

I'm afraid you're presenting a straw man. One, how do you know the checks were "fat?" Second, if you really saw these people on welfare that were swimming in money, then did you call the welfare fraud office?

I'm sure abuses happen. The question is how often they happen. Anecdotal evidence is worth pursuing, but is of limited value precisely because it says nothing about how often something happens, and can be cherry-picked to support almost any agenda.

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

by: NMRod

03-16-2010 @ 10:38pm

Interestingly, the 14th amendment decisions since it passed have been almost universally to create new and ever expanding rights for corporations as "persons."

by: Justin Fung

03-15-2010 @ 8:51pm

The hammer? But isn't the hammer one half of the well-known communist symbol? Dun dun DUN!!

by: hammerud

03-15-2010 @ 9:23pm

We need social justice, but not at the cost of expanded government power, and not through wealth redistribution, the government taking from one to give to another. Leave it to me to give what is mine to others. An external power (including government) that takes from one person to give to another person is not an act of justice, kindness, or generosity. It seems to be more like stealing. The government needs to stay out of the wealth redistribution business.

by: BlueDeacon

03-15-2010 @ 9:29pm

"Christians should be concerned with social justice" sounds reasonable enough, but "Christians should be Democrats" is where he will lose people.

Wallis has never said this, nor will he ever say it.

Second, it seems a bit misleading to link to Media Matters quotes of Beck. They are a liberal organization that is not likely to provide the best context for his remarks.

Media Matters' CEO is a former conservative journalist who knows from personal experience just how right-wing media operate. It maintains archives and transcripts of actual articles and broadcasts and has thrown them in the face of the likes of Rush and Bill O'Reilly to a point where it has been denounced simply for repeating verbatim what they said.

by: jesse3

03-15-2010 @ 9:40pm

Of course, Wallis would never say specifically "Christians should be Democrats," but he has always argued that Christians should support Democratic policies over Republican policies. Not too different.

Yes, I know you like Media Matters.

by: Cervantes3

03-15-2010 @ 9:46pm

Mr. Wallis, it would be better for you to admit your faults, and ambitions, now before the hammer falls. Brother, I've seen the footage, and for you to come out after the fact to bat cleanup will make you look like the biggest fool this side of the Mississippi.
Also, have you been very forthcoming with your audience, you advise the President do you not? It doesn't seem like a wild stretch to see you advising this President with his set of morals and values, and you with your...well, we'll just wait for the footage to air.

by: lynne40

03-15-2010 @ 9:46pm

Jesse3, I do agree with you regarding the statement: "Christians should be Democrats" as possibly loosing supporters. However, the "Social Justice" banner can be a little sticky as well. There are several concerns regarding the Social Justice banner: Whose perspective are we referencing? Is this a one world religion/belief? I'm more for having religious freedom without freedoms falling under the same belief system. There are various religions in this world for various reasons (some are legitimately biblically based). That being said, I prefer a nation based on those freedoms. To me, social justice sounds as if we are fighting for the same things and that is not always true.

by: lynne40

03-15-2010 @ 9:46pm

Jesse3, I do agree with you regarding the statement: "Christians should be Democrats" as possibly loosing supporters. However, the "Social Justice" banner can be a little sticky as well. There are several concerns regarding the Social Justice banner: Whose perspective are we referencing? Is this a one world religion/belief? I'm more for having religious freedom without freedoms falling under the same belief system. There are various religions in this world for various reasons (some are legitimately biblically based). That being said, I prefer a nation based on those freedoms. To me, social justice sounds as if we are fighting for the same things and that is not always true.

by: Brendan Martin

03-15-2010 @ 9:57pm

I don't know Jim Wallis' heart. But I do think that it's not about being a Democrat or Republican

I think Christ is big enough to support both conservative and liberal opinions; however, in this case we can be certain as to where Christ stands in regards to extending mercy and justice especially to those who need it most.

by: Brendan Martin

03-15-2010 @ 9:57pm

I don't know Jim Wallis' heart. But I do think that it's not about being a Democrat or Republican

I think Christ is big enough to support both conservative and liberal opinions; however, in this case we can be certain as to where Christ stands in regards to extending mercy and justice especially to those who need it most.

by: Cervantes3

03-15-2010 @ 10:08pm

It will backfire, and it the progressive will re-brand the package and try again.

by: uberVU - social comments

03-15-2010 @ 10:19pm

Social comments and analytics for this post...

This post was mentioned on Twitter by sojourners: In spite of Glenn Beck's threats, invitation to dialogue still stands: http://su.pr/29m2mA...

by: Jesusistheway

03-15-2010 @ 10:21pm

And around and around they go....and where they stop, nobody knows.

by: Cervantes3

03-15-2010 @ 10:38pm

He does have a problem with social and economic justice, just as I do, for we know these to be code words for communism and socialism. This is the issue, not the charity given freely to all that are in need, from a willing heart. This is about Mr. Wallis as he's the one that thought it would be a good distraction tactic from the health care debate, but alas, the two are intertwined and inseparable. And speaking of social justice, would you deny a poor mother to be an abortion if she can't afford one? I'll tell you right now I'll not willingly put money into the pot for an abortion, ever. Guess what, I and all who pay taxes are currently being forced to pay for abortions abroad, through the almighty hand of the IRS at the direction of the benevolent Marxist in congress and senate.

by: NMRod

03-16-2010 @ 10:29pm

Suggest that if Rev. Beck, a Mormon, is your spiritual leader, then you need to convert to Mormonism, which religion's beliefs and doctrines are a very different faith from Christianity.

Mr. Beck, a Mormon, believes that God was once a man with a body, just like us, on another planet - and that Jesus and Satan are brothers.

I wouldn't be taking spiritual advice, as a Christian, from someone with such odd anti-Christian beliefs, especially as to how to conduct my spiritual life.

It's really no surprise Rev. Beck is admonishing his televangelist show's followers to leave their churches for his oddball faith.

by: Lord_Voldemort

03-15-2010 @ 8:48pm

Okay...

I'm staying out of this one now.

LV

by: Lord_Voldemort

03-15-2010 @ 8:48pm

Okay...

I'm staying out of this one now.

LV

by: Justin Fung

03-15-2010 @ 8:51pm

The hammer? But isn't the hammer one half of the well-known communist symbol? Dun dun DUN!!

by: jesse3

03-15-2010 @ 8:57pm

Two thoughts: one, I do wonder if getting people to think a bit more about what Wallis and others on the left mean by "social justice" might backfire. They clearly include political policies primarily supported by Democrats under the "social justice" banner. "Christians should be concerned with social justice" sounds reasonable enough, but "Christians should be Democrats" is where he will lose people.

Second, it seems a bit misleading to link to Media Matters quotes of Beck. They are a liberal organization that is not likely to provide the best context for his remarks. I'm no Beck fan, but this does seem unfair.

by: jesse3

03-15-2010 @ 8:57pm

Two thoughts: one, I do wonder if getting people to think a bit more about what Wallis and others on the left mean by "social justice" might backfire. They clearly include political policies primarily supported by Democrats under the "social justice" banner. "Christians should be concerned with social justice" sounds reasonable enough, but "Christians should be Democrats" is where he will lose people.

Second, it seems a bit misleading to link to Media Matters quotes of Beck. They are a liberal organization that is not likely to provide the best context for his remarks. I'm no Beck fan, but this does seem unfair.

by: hammerud

03-15-2010 @ 9:23pm

We need social justice, but not at the cost of expanded government power, and not through wealth redistribution, the government taking from one to give to another. Leave it to me to give what is mine to others. An external power (including government) that takes from one person to give to another person is not an act of justice, kindness, or generosity. It seems to be more like stealing. The government needs to stay out of the wealth redistribution business.

by: BlueDeacon

03-15-2010 @ 9:29pm

"Christians should be concerned with social justice" sounds reasonable enough, but "Christians should be Democrats" is where he will lose people.

Wallis has never said this, nor will he ever say it.

Second, it seems a bit misleading to link to Media Matters quotes of Beck. They are a liberal organization that is not likely to provide the best context for his remarks.

Media Matters' CEO is a former conservative journalist who knows from personal experience just how right-wing media operate. It maintains archives and transcripts of actual articles and broadcasts and has thrown them in the face of the likes of Rush and Bill O'Reilly to a point where it has been denounced simply for repeating verbatim what they said.

by: holliebakerlutz

03-15-2010 @ 9:36pm

I completely disagree with Glenn's original statements, but have no interest in a Beck vs. Wallis showdown. This is turning the focus from God's love of justice to a personality war. We are bringing far more press to Beck than he would have received had we not drawn attention to his statements. Is this fueling his influence? In this case, I think it is more efficient for us to stand up for good than against what is ridiculous. Based on his response above, you're not going to get anything helpful out of a discussion with him anyway.

Why not instead encourage those 30k signers to post specific examples of how social justice can be an act of love? For instance, I work at a Christian refugee resettlement agency and the local church is our greatest source of volunteer mentors. The church is helping persecuted families in my community. Surely Mr. Beck can't argue with that. And if he does, who cares...? I do not give him the right to hijack the conversation from this vital work.

by: holliebakerlutz

03-15-2010 @ 9:36pm

I completely disagree with Glenn's original statements, but have no interest in a Beck vs. Wallis showdown. This is turning the focus from God's love of justice to a personality war. We are bringing far more press to Beck than he would have received had we not drawn attention to his statements. Is this fueling his influence? In this case, I think it is more efficient for us to stand up for good than against what is ridiculous. Based on his response above, you're not going to get anything helpful out of a discussion with him anyway.

Why not instead encourage those 30k signers to post specific examples of how social justice can be an act of love? For instance, I work at a Christian refugee resettlement agency and the local church is our greatest source of volunteer mentors. The church is helping persecuted families in my community. Surely Mr. Beck can't argue with that. And if he does, who cares...? I do not give him the right to hijack the conversation from this vital work.

by: jesse3

03-15-2010 @ 9:40pm

Of course, Wallis would never say specifically "Christians should be Democrats," but he has always argued that Christians should support Democratic policies over Republican policies. Not too different.

Yes, I know you like Media Matters.

by: BlueDeacon

03-15-2010 @ 9:45pm

What Wallis believes is that "Republican" policies shouldn't be taken as gospel. The trouble is that too many conservatives don't like legitimate criticism and consider anyone who disagrees "less than."

As for Media Matters, it doesn't matter how I feel about it personally. What I said about it is true, and it's also a reliable source.

by: Cervantes3

03-15-2010 @ 9:46pm

Mr. Wallis, it would be better for you to admit your faults, and ambitions, now before the hammer falls. Brother, I've seen the footage, and for you to come out after the fact to bat cleanup will make you look like the biggest fool this side of the Mississippi.
Also, have you been very forthcoming with your audience, you advise the President do you not? It doesn't seem like a wild stretch to see you advising this President with his set of morals and values, and you with your...well, we'll just wait for the footage to air.

by: GWilson

03-15-2010 @ 9:57pm

I'm quite sure Glenn wouldn't disagree with that. In fact, he's stressed that this approach is exactly what Christianity is at least partially all about.

What he disagrees with (and Wallis is pretending not to know this because he's intimately familiar with this debate) is Wallis' Government-mandated redistributionist mindset. Wallis has flat out said he approves of redistribution, and that voluntary redistribution is not enough. This is not Christian or Biblically based. It's counter to the very idea of separation of church and state.

I'm sure many church members and church leaders believe in "social justice". But somehow I doubt if most of them agree with Wallis' definition of it. If they do, I believe they are misguided. Empowering government to work in collusion with churches, which in turn empowers certain factions of government, is the kind of thing folks originally came here to escape.

by: GWilson

03-15-2010 @ 9:57pm

I'm quite sure Glenn wouldn't disagree with that. In fact, he's stressed that this approach is exactly what Christianity is at least partially all about.

What he disagrees with (and Wallis is pretending not to know this because he's intimately familiar with this debate) is Wallis' Government-mandated redistributionist mindset. Wallis has flat out said he approves of redistribution, and that voluntary redistribution is not enough. This is not Christian or Biblically based. It's counter to the very idea of separation of church and state.

I'm sure many church members and church leaders believe in "social justice". But somehow I doubt if most of them agree with Wallis' definition of it. If they do, I believe they are misguided. Empowering government to work in collusion with churches, which in turn empowers certain factions of government, is the kind of thing folks originally came here to escape.

by: OlbermannLoon

03-15-2010 @ 9:59pm

When I hear 'social justice' the first thing that comes to mind is ACORN and SEIU thugs. (Not to mention those videos of communists assembled in Madison Square Garden in the 30's.)

Forced charity? Through the Government?

No thanks.

by: OlbermannLoon

03-15-2010 @ 9:59pm

When I hear 'social justice' the first thing that comes to mind is ACORN and SEIU thugs. (Not to mention those videos of communists assembled in Madison Square Garden in the 30's.)

Forced charity? Through the Government?

No thanks.

by: Cervantes3

03-15-2010 @ 10:05pm

If you would open a dictionary (social justice-the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society) or maybe listen from time to time, the social justice we speak of as bad and not Christian is the social justice we're forced to partake in at the end of a gun in the form of increased taxes, as opposed to the love we show which requires no prompting from government but instead originates from within our own hearts. We donate what we can, when we can, and in whatever manner we wish. The example beck gave was this, Jesus didn't tell us to take the shirt off our backs and give it to government, so that government can then give the cold shirtless man a pair of slacks. No government should force charity, as that is actually just theft and redistribution. I donate to my church when I can, they use that money for charity. that's where it should end.

by: Cervantes3

03-15-2010 @ 10:07pm

But wait, Beck spoke..didn't Satan also speak!?! dun dun dun..

by: Cervantes3

03-15-2010 @ 10:08pm

It will backfire, and it the progressive will re-brand the package and try again.

by: GWilson

03-15-2010 @ 10:09pm

Amen. This is all Glenn Beck is saying. He never told people to "leave your church", end of story, but to examine your particular church to see if they are indeed all down and cool with "social justice" in the context of it being forced on people by Government. If that's the case, if you're able, work to change that mindset from within. If not, consider another church.

The tactic of course is to attempt to start a fight between Beck and Church goers. Wallis knows where Beck is coming from, but he's distorting the context and trying to score political points for the left. It's no different really than painting anti-illegal immigration people as anti-immigration. It's a smear tactic.

Context matters, and Wallis is deliberately ignoring it.

by: GWilson

03-15-2010 @ 10:09pm

Amen. This is all Glenn Beck is saying. He never told people to "leave your church", end of story, but to examine your particular church to see if they are indeed all down and cool with "social justice" in the context of it being forced on people by Government. If that's the case, if you're able, work to change that mindset from within. If not, consider another church.

The tactic of course is to attempt to start a fight between Beck and Church goers. Wallis knows where Beck is coming from, but he's distorting the context and trying to score political points for the left. It's no different really than painting anti-illegal immigration people as anti-immigration. It's a smear tactic.

Context matters, and Wallis is deliberately ignoring it.

by: Brendan Martin

03-15-2010 @ 10:16pm

First, social justice can be accomplished both publicly and privately. But since you brought it up, if the government is not an instrument of justice then what is the point of the government?

Moreover, paying taxes is not the government stealing from you. It's your half of the social contract.

by: Brendan Martin

03-15-2010 @ 10:16pm

First, social justice can be accomplished both publicly and privately. But since you brought it up, if the government is not an instrument of justice then what is the point of the government?

Moreover, paying taxes is not the government stealing from you. It's your half of the social contract.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-15-2010 @ 10:19pm

I appreciate the call to dialogue.

Beck's response is silly. But then, in my mind, the show is silly. So I guess it advances the show.

But Jim, pause. If it is about dialogue--then it isn't about winning an argument. It isn't about who ends up looking more virtuous in public. It isn't about leveraging this story to amplify Beck's voice or Wallis' voice.

So have we set those things aside--or are we carrying mixed agendas here?

If it is about dialogue, my one call, would to simply backtrack to Beck's original rough critique of "social justice" and acknowledge that ONE way it is used in the congregational world is a fairly distinct socio-political agenda--that is not synonymous with Christian teaching on justice nor a commitment to justice.

Why not just back that out of the equation and not come back at Beck for criticizing social justice (or justice) when it is not that which he criticizes?

You are not going to have good dialogue by starting it with a twisting of his words.

Back off please. Clarify. Back down the confrontation.

For example, you highlight how Beck implicitly is criticizing the African American church (I presume you reference its long struggle for justice). The thing is--I've belonged to black churches for decades--often with very progressive politics. I've never seen a "social justice committee" -- for instance.

It doesn't mean the churches aren't engaged in social justice--but that is not what Beck referenced.

Beck smells a rat. Sometimes--outsiders notice odors we don't notice. We might gain more by considering whether there is a bad odor eminating-----especially if you back dialogue.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-15-2010 @ 10:19pm

I appreciate the call to dialogue.

Beck's response is silly. But then, in my mind, the show is silly. So I guess it advances the show.

But Jim, pause. If it is about dialogue--then it isn't about winning an argument. It isn't about who ends up looking more virtuous in public. It isn't about leveraging this story to amplify Beck's voice or Wallis' voice.

So have we set those things aside--or are we carrying mixed agendas here?

If it is about dialogue, my one call, would to simply backtrack to Beck's original rough critique of "social justice" and acknowledge that ONE way it is used in the congregational world is a fairly distinct socio-political agenda--that is not synonymous with Christian teaching on justice nor a commitment to justice.

Why not just back that out of the equation and not come back at Beck for criticizing social justice (or justice) when it is not that which he criticizes?

You are not going to have good dialogue by starting it with a twisting of his words.

Back off please. Clarify. Back down the confrontation.

For example, you highlight how Beck implicitly is criticizing the African American church (I presume you reference its long struggle for justice). The thing is--I've belonged to black churches for decades--often with very progressive politics. I've never seen a "social justice committee" -- for instance.

It doesn't mean the churches aren't engaged in social justice--but that is not what Beck referenced.

Beck smells a rat. Sometimes--outsiders notice odors we don't notice. We might gain more by considering whether there is a bad odor eminating-----especially if you back dialogue.

by: Jesusistheway

03-15-2010 @ 10:21pm

And around and around they go....and where they stop, nobody knows.

by: talitha_koum

03-15-2010 @ 10:23pm

I tend to agree. A dialogue is great, but Beck is after all a media personality. He (and his agent if he has one) must be lapping this up. If his latest response to Wallis is anything to go by it's not a dialogue Beck is after. It's free publicity.

And meanwhile - health care reform anyone? Immigration reform anyone? I realise there is a broader debate worth having on "social justice" and what that means to the Church and indeed to Americans, but I am beginning to wonder if this show down that Beck is after is "the most excellent way."

by: talitha_koum

03-15-2010 @ 10:23pm

I tend to agree. A dialogue is great, but Beck is after all a media personality. He (and his agent if he has one) must be lapping this up. If his latest response to Wallis is anything to go by it's not a dialogue Beck is after. It's free publicity.

And meanwhile - health care reform anyone? Immigration reform anyone? I realise there is a broader debate worth having on "social justice" and what that means to the Church and indeed to Americans, but I am beginning to wonder if this show down that Beck is after is "the most excellent way."

by: Cervantes3

03-15-2010 @ 10:24pm

Taxes are required for issues as enumerated in the US Constitution.
If I fall on hard times, I don't look to all Americans for support, I first look to the Lord, my family, my friends, my community. This is the way it was meant to be. I'm certain my church would not let me starve to death if I asked for help, if I were without food. I'm certain they can find some chores for me, maybe line me up with some work. The issue I've seen personally pertain to the dissemination of taxed funds to individuals with no intent to find work or attempt to better their situations in the slightest. These people deserve only my prayers, not my money. I earn money by trading my time away from my family, it's a part of my life gone. To have another hold out their hand in a demanding fashion is an insult to all Americans that work long hours to make ends meet..

by: Brendan Martin

03-15-2010 @ 10:31pm

This is not about Mr. Wallis. This is about Mr. Beck having a problem with Social and Economic justice.

by: Brendan Martin

03-15-2010 @ 10:31pm

This is not about Mr. Wallis. This is about Mr. Beck having a problem with Social and Economic justice.

by: Cervantes3

03-15-2010 @ 10:38pm

He does have a problem with social and economic justice, just as I do, for we know these to be code words for communism and socialism. This is the issue, not the charity given freely to all that are in need, from a willing heart. This is about Mr. Wallis as he's the one that thought it would be a good distraction tactic from the health care debate, but alas, the two are intertwined and inseparable. And speaking of social justice, would you deny a poor mother to be an abortion if she can't afford one? I'll tell you right now I'll not willingly put money into the pot for an abortion, ever. Guess what, I and all who pay taxes are currently being forced to pay for abortions abroad, through the almighty hand of the IRS at the direction of the benevolent Marxist in congress and senate.

by: Brendan Martin

03-15-2010 @ 10:40pm

"The issue I've seen personally pertain to the dissemination of taxed funds to individuals with no intent to find work or attempt to better their situations in the slightest. These people deserve only my prayers, not my money."

Mathew 25:31-46:31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

by: Brendan Martin

03-15-2010 @ 10:40pm

"The issue I've seen personally pertain to the dissemination of taxed funds to individuals with no intent to find work or attempt to better their situations in the slightest. These people deserve only my prayers, not my money."

Mathew 25:31-46:31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

by: RasJones

03-15-2010 @ 10:43pm

Honestly, I think there's a diagnosis here, and the call is more for pity than outrage. And just in case I'm wrong, please do not support Mr. Beck's sponsors.