Get E-Mail Updates

What Glenn Beck Doesn't Understand About Biblical Social Justice

100324-glenn-beck-social-justiceWhen Glenn Beck promised to devote a whole week of his television show to come after me, I wasn't sure he really meant it. I guess he did. Last night he began to make good on the threat he made on his radio show that "the hammer will fall."

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 confess to having never really watched Glenn Beck's show before being told that he equated the term "social justice, highly respected in the Christian world and embedded in all of our traditions," with Communism, Marxism, Nazism, and a completely totalitarian view of government. He said "social justice" is a "perversion of the gospel" and told Christians to leave their churches if they heard that term used by their pastors or even found it on the Web site! Whew.

I responded on my blog that instead of leaving all our churches, maybe we should just stop watching his show and the insults against a teaching at the core of the gospel and integral to biblical faith, and I suggested that instead of turning pastors and priests in to "church authorities," we turn ourselves in to Glenn Beck (since our church authorities also regard social justice as core to their faith). Well, he apparently got angry and promised that the hammer would "pound over and over through the night" on "your cute little organization and the cute little people who work for you." Some of them are indeed very cute, but they felt a little uneasy about the context of the compliment.

But tonight's first installment of the hammer proved that Beck isn't just angry or merely misguided; he really does completely misunderstand the Christian teaching of social justice and is indeed insulting us.

I was glad he gave us his definition of "social justice" and put it up right on his famous blackboard. "My definition of social justice," he wrote in chalk, is "the forced redistribution of wealth, with a hostility to individual property, under the guise of charity and/or justice." Well, somebody needs to tell Mr. Beck that virtually no church in America, or the world, would support anything close to that as a definition of social justice. Beck needs to hear some good church teaching -- including from his own Mormon church members who fundamentally disagree with him and have said so.

He did say that caring for the poor was good, and he does it himself, but only in individual ways, and that anything more than that is a slippery slope first to "socialism," then "forced re-distribution of wealth," then full-out "Marxism." It was all in cool diagrams and triangles on his blackboard, which he said just came to him before the show. I can believe that. Again, somebody should take Mr. Beck to a good Catholic Education Congress, like the one I spoke at last weekend in Los Angeles, where 25,000 Christians talked excitedly about the vital relationship between personal and social responsibility.

Then he nailed me. He accused me of saying that faith-based initiatives and their resources were inadequate to reduce poverty by themselves. Guilty as charged. The quote was likely in the context of calling Christians to take such actions and lead by example (something I have preached and tried to practice for almost four decades) but that we will be most effective when we also work in partnership with other sectors: the private market, the rest of civil society, and even the GOVERNMENT! Would somebody please tell Catholic Charities and the Salvation Army that they are really supporting Marxism if they partner with the public sector?

Then Beck played a tape which exposed me saying that "redistribution" (the word in the English language that most seems to scare him) was part of the gospel message. He could have mentioned the gospel stories of the Rich Young Ruler, of Lazarus and the Rich Man, or the stern warnings of Jesus in Matthew 25 that we will be judged by "our treatment of the least of these." But he didn't. He did make a brief reference to Christ's teaching that it would be harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle; but he didn't seem to get it.

Instead Beck said that what I meant was

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: NMRod

03-25-2010 @ 4:22am

More "Joe the Plumber" selective editing to remove the context.

by: NMRod

03-25-2010 @ 4:20am

It's called POWER politics, and the philosophy that masks it calls it "doing good" by domination.

by: ram44130

03-29-2010 @ 12:12am

I'm afraid that both Mr. Beck and "jeffschuh" are badly mistaken when they talk about "forced redistribution of wealth" and "forced charity." Without turning this into a civics lesson, we elect representatives at the local, state, and federal level who can vote to levy taxes and enact spending programs using the authority we granted them. If we disagree with their decisions, we have many options open to us to change both the decisions and the people who make them, up to and including running for office ourselves. Neither taxation nor spending on government social programs in America are forced on anyone, unless by "forced" you believe we should all have the right to simply disregard any law we personally find offensive or inconvenient. Paul warns us that, as Christians, "everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities..." This should be easy because we ourselves get to choose who governs us; a blessing that neither Paul nor the early church enjoyed.

The way I look at taxes used for social programs, if I put a dollar in the collection plate and my pastor uses it to help provide child care to a single mom who wants to work, it helps her and her family escape poverty. If my elected representatives take one of my hard-earned tax dollars and use it to help provide child care to a single mom who wants to work, it still helps her and her family escape poverty. Either way, a poor family takes one step away from poverty, the income God blessed me with is helping make a difference in people's lives, and, above all, God is glorified.

by: NMRod

03-25-2010 @ 4:18am

I don't think we'll see a mad rush from the right to divest themselves as the widow did by giving her mite.

by: NMRod

03-25-2010 @ 4:15am

I don't know if you've noticed, but private charity is rife with fraud.

by: NMRod

03-25-2010 @ 4:14am

The banksters and their ilk definitely covet that which belongs to others - unless you consider, along with them, that it is already all theirs - or should be.

by: NMRod

03-25-2010 @ 4:12am

"Billions and billions served" doesn't mean it's good for you.

by: NMRod

03-25-2010 @ 4:11am

Well, wielding the Swastika mean Beck is calling Wallis a fascist, as well.

by: NMRod

03-25-2010 @ 5:05am

This is the old saw that private greed is actually a virtue because it is magically transformed by the Enlightenment replacement for God, the "unseen hand" of the market into public good, as long as no one interferes with the natural forces of greed (read regulators).

Personally, being a Christian, this is a superstition that requires a leap of faith into the dark of antiChrist, since it is so profoundly in favor of vice as virtue.

by: S.L. Toddard

04-14-2010 @ 7:03pm

Should anyone care to explore the difference between "social justice" as preached by Jim Wallis, (which has its roots not in Christianity but in the Enlightenment and in left-wing ideology), and Christian social teaching (which has roots going back millenia, and which Wallis's "social justice" seeks to supplant and destroy) I recommend Dr. Thomas Fleming's Religio Philologi: Social Justice I & II:

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/index.php/201...

Mr. Wallis, you'd also be doing yourself a service by reading that piece.

by: Batman

03-24-2010 @ 3:42pm

I did not realize that he's a Mormon. He's already so far off the true path before any of this, by virtue of his beliefs, that his opinions may be irrelevant.

I still don't get why more weren't against him when he was on CNN, as he's still the same guy. Maybe nobody was watching him when he was there.....

by: NMRod

03-25-2010 @ 4:53am

Capitalism isn't exactly the same as "hard work," you may have noticed.

by: NMRod

03-25-2010 @ 4:51am

That is a colossal fib about paying Native Americans a fair price. It would be more truthful to say that they were given an offer they could not refuse, whether or not it involved "money," (a rather insubstantial chimera useful only among white men in exchange for one's very country) or just the threat of the loss of their lives. The reality is that private enterprise behaved even worse than government, which sometimes actually tried to enforce treaties that private enterprise regarded as disposable.

by: Joshua Rogers

03-24-2010 @ 3:47pm

Well said.

I'm praying that this massive amount of attention will be used for God's glory and won't hinder the message of his gospel.

by: NMRod

03-25-2010 @ 4:47am

It's all about making the world a secure place for the wealth of Murdoch and his ilk.

by: JohnOneOne

03-24-2010 @ 10:27pm

It isn't like what Jesus taught and it definitely isn't like what Wallis does or anyone else I've seen. Just looking for some consistency and not finding any. It would be a great example if all the Sojourners gave up everything except $850. That would show Beck!

by: willhouk

03-24-2010 @ 3:56pm

This is really well written. Thank you for keeping things civil Jim. Great job.

by: PASTOR JEFF

03-24-2010 @ 10:21pm

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)
Flag on the play. Thanks for visiting

by: kdaves

03-24-2010 @ 4:09pm

Great article, praying for you and Mr. Beck!

by: PASTOR JEFF

03-24-2010 @ 10:16pm

Now your talking like Jesus.

by: NC77

03-24-2010 @ 4:07pm

But surely the Sojourners organization in Washington DC gives directly and privately to the poor, don't they? How are the neigbors doing in that neighborhood?

by: WaveTossed

03-24-2010 @ 10:12pm

I'm getting too old and gray for any sort of "purism." On one hand, I've seen and experienced the abuse of government when they are giving out their "aid" to poor people. They put these people through adversarial and humiliating processes where one has to "prove" that they are "truly needy" and "deserve" the huge (??) largess of a food stamp grant. I've read about combat veterans being denied health care by the Veterans Administration because they can't "prove" to bureaucrats that their physical and/or mental wounds were caused by the wars where they were sent. As a church member, I've helped to service people who have been made homeless by the denial of disability benefits that they have to hire a lawyer -- from the huge legal industry that exists just to deal with denied disability cases -- to appeal their denials. Here in the U.S., unlike in some other countries, we have an adversarial system to deal with government aid that requires "proof" of need i.e. means-testing. People fall through the cracks of government aid systems because supposedly they "make too much money" to qualify.

On the other hand, we have such entities as the health insurance monopoly single-payer cartel that behaves just like the government people do -- denying aid and benefits on spurious grounds, mainly because they want to keep their money rather than give any of it out; it's more important for their CEOs to get huge bonuses than for their current or would-be policy-holders to get their benefits.

I have nothing at all against the profit system per se, as long as we have a true free market. But in health care, we don't have a free market, we have a default single-payer system of insurance companies whose cartel is worse than any government bureaucracy could be -- and that takes effort.

Then when it comes to other issues: We have a so-called "drug war" perpetrated by a Nanny State that seeks to protect consenting adults from themselves -- and I've certainly have not heard very many of the so-called "tea partiers" protesting against the myrad violations of civil rights that occurs in the name of the "war on drugs."

We have an immigration system that seeks to interfere with the free market activities of employers who want to legally hire and workers who want to be hired -- all because the Nanny State has to build walls and fences and impose a huge backlog system in order to "protect" us from "illegals". Once more, where is Glenn Beck when it comes to this violation of free markets and imposition of big-government solutions?

Then we have the big-government people who want to "protect marriage" from consenting adult human beings who might want to legally join together. Once more, where are the tea partiers? The tea partiers will protest, favoring the teaching of more than one theory of the world's creation, but they won't lift a finger to help grant the equal protections spelled out in our Constitution for consenting adult human beings whose relationships they don't approve of.

And of course those "small government" advocates who advocate big government to impose their version of "democracy" on sovereign foreign countries through the forcible imposition of military force.

There are the "progressives" who want to regulate and impose energy use based upon a very speculative "global warming" theory, or else want to fight obesity/smoking/whatever to protect us from ourselves and our choices. Plus seem to believe that guns get together to plot their next carnage against human beings, so therefore, the 2nd Amendment must be ignored regardless of the lawful actions of a gun owner; ALL gun owners are suspect according to this philosophy.

So let me try and sum up my thoughts. It seems that, in too many cases, people want a large Nanny State to protect their own pet agendas. I believe that government is there to preserve and protect the natural, God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that is all.

by: BlueDeacon

03-24-2010 @ 4:07pm

Let me ask this question: How would you deal with, say, abortion and other issues surrounding unplanned pregnancy? That's what Jim is getting at.

And no, he never personally attacked Beck, just his ideas and methodology -- which are fair game.

by: jeffschuh

03-24-2010 @ 3:59pm

Rev Wallis,

He used your own words. He didn't twist them. You refuse to attack him? Looks like you just spent a few hours and many words condemming him. My favorite line above in the article is this:

"Apparently Beck thinks social justice ends with private charity, but very few churches in the nation would agree with him."

If its not private and someone does it for us, by taking our income and giving it to someone else, such as welfare, food stamps, new health care bill, ect.... doesn't this go against being a cheerful giver which is what Christ really asks for?
Few churches in this nation agree with this? Perhaps Rev. Wallis you are walking into the wrong churches and affiliating your self with the wrong folks.

by: jeffschuh

03-24-2010 @ 4:15pm

Deal with abortion? I certaintly wouldn't have the govt. pay for it. Abortion is wrong on many levels, and this is not the issue i am speaking about. The issues being talked about are churches supporting the govt. and public organizations taxing Americans for the purpose of forced charity. We should give freely and without force. The tithe is given with your heart, not enforced by the Govt. I won't have many friends on this website, this I know as most of you are liberals and or Obama voters, but I also have a voice.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-25-2010 @ 5:52am

"you'll have to forgive me if i prefer loosely associated tribal/communal government such as the Native Americans and Germanic tribes had over the gargantuan war machine that we have in this country." wheatgerm

anarchy is not simply this decision.

Human government occurs when two humans come together and make decisions as to how they will govern their affairs. When a block-club decides they will not tolerate trees over 50 feet in height--they establish government.

You argue for no road system, no internet, no ports to handle oil tankers, no regulation of nuclear power facilities, and on and on and on.

Anarchy is a denial of a humanity created by God to multiply and exercise stewardship responsibilty of the Earth. It is a denial of the basic call to 'do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with God.

by: dbdweeb

03-30-2010 @ 5:44am

"Host: Are you then calling for the redistribution of wealth in
society?
Wallis: Absolutely, without any hesitation. That's what the
Gospel is all about."

Thanks for pointing this out JohnOneOne.

Brother Wallis needs to get humble and get honest with a
complete response here. If he is unwilling or unable to give
a response then in my mind he is forever marginalized by his own
recorded words and Beck has made a good point. I don't see anything on this in Brother Wallis' "thorough rebuttal."

Does he stand by the statement that the Gospel is *ALL* about
the redistribution of wealth and that's it? Period?

Or can he provide some immediate context in the interview to explain that he didn't mean what it sounds like he surely said? Can he show that he was quoted out of context?If not then Brother Wallis needs to apologize for having misrepresented the Gospel of Jesus.

Seems to me the Gospel has a lot to do with the restoration of our personal standing before God and this includes repentence. Jesus said that none can come to the Father except through Him, He's the only way. Every knee needs to bow and confess then follow in Jesus footsteps with charitable acts to the poor and downtrodden. Right?

Brother Wallis, it's okay if you mispoke, that's just human and all you need to do is apologize. But please don't dance around the issue or try to defend the scripturally indefensible. You
need to be above that sir.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-25-2010 @ 5:45am

"American Christianity could spend a bit more time in personal charitable efforts" notapastor

The benefits and harms of charity are not exclusive to individual, private, or government action. You need to distinguish issues of bad outcomes, fraud, corruption and waste from who the actors are that commit such action.

by: nuclearferret

03-24-2010 @ 4:36pm

Mockery is a whole lot different than "personally attack," I guess.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-25-2010 @ 5:42am

"I think that Wallis would go a long way if he disassociated himself somewhat from liberal mainline churches..." jesusistheway

And here is an excerpt from R Sider's response to the letter writer in teh ESA e-pistle:

"I cannot speak to how Jim Wallis and Sojourners are handling this situation overall. I would agree that they do tend to have a little more of a mainline Protestant identity, but they still take salvations spiritual dimension seriously. Specifically, I found Eugene Chos thoughts valuable because he called readers to focus on Jesus example, which needs to be how we inform our faith. Moreover, this is the same reason that I recommended Don Kraybills Upside Down Kingdom, which contextually looked at the social implications of Jesus ministry, which shapes a biblical understanding of social justice."

ACORN is another 'bogeyman' story created for corrupt and plainly political purposes. It is very interesting to watch Christians attempt to dismiss and demonize Wallis because he affirms an organization that fundamentally is about helping poor persons organize themselves.

One minute we are supposed to hate government for treating poor people as dependent and helpless. The next we are to hate a private organization for helping poor people stand up.

by: ckgmailOTscholar

03-24-2010 @ 11:00pm

Pampen definitely deserves a flag here. Unsportsmanlike conduct. Go to the locker room.

by: dbdweeb

03-30-2010 @ 6:28am

Um, in that God gives us free will and upholds and recognizes our free will, doesn't that make Him a Libertarian?

:-)

by: rickkristi

03-24-2010 @ 4:32pm

You do have a voice. And you have the opportunity to have that voice heard and responded to by those you disagree with. Just as I would have a voice, should I choose to head over to the comment section of the National Review, I would expect people to strongly and vehemently disagree with me. If they did not, I would be surprised.

I am sure you understand this, expect this and will not use this against Christians that disagree with you. If you wanted to express your views in a forum that does not elicit disagreement, then you should head to an echo chamber in which others trumpet the same views you do.

If you want actual dialog, then listen as well as speak.

by: NMRod

03-25-2010 @ 5:41am

I don't know how cheerful it can be increasing that war budget that dwarfs all the rest of the world's combined!

by: PASTOR JEFF

03-26-2010 @ 12:31am

It will be great to hear from them. Some of the posts I enjoy most are from those who are "non-believers".

by: dbdweeb

03-30-2010 @ 6:21am

Um, in that God gives us free will and upholds and recognizes our free will, doesn't that make Him a Libertarian?

And if I accept the free will of my fellow man within the confines of law, is this not consistent with God's will?

In that Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's," doesn't that illustrate the separation of church and state?

And if Jesus recognizes the need for the separation of church and state, doesn't that focus us away from excessive political activism?

If the heavenly realm sings for joy at the repentance of a single sinner then isn't the focus on the hearts and minds of the individual?

The primary focus of the Christian should be on the hearts of people, not the whims of politics.

Wasn't the great failing on Palm Sunday that the people of Israel were mistakenly looking for political action? A deliverer from the Roman oppression? By focusing on the political, they lost sight of the spiritual, missed the core message of the Gospel and the very Messiah who walked in their midst.

by: BlueDeacon

03-24-2010 @ 4:32pm

I'm sure it does. The point is that "charity" doesn't always help. Oh, wait -- Jim already said that.

by: NMRod

03-25-2010 @ 5:39am

Over at National Review, you won't be allowed to post for long!
They don't believe in enabling the enemy.

by: rickkristi

03-24-2010 @ 4:29pm

Jeff,

nothing you point out shows Wallis condemning Beck. He merely points out how, and most churches (in his opinion) would disagree with Beck. Not sure how this is an attack, unless your view of condemnation is pretty liberal.

I would say that Mr. Wallis does not feel that he is walking in the wrong churches, of those churches he is walking in actually practice the type social justice (by advocating) that brought the end of slavery, the relative equality of minorities, child labor laws and many other just advances (along with the possible change to abortion laws). All of that is also Social Justice, and most churches advocate some form of social justice.

BTW, I am a cheerful giver at my church and when I render unto Caesar.

by: NMRod

03-25-2010 @ 5:38am

You can't really leave and go elsewhere if you disagree with taxation. Even if citizenship is renounced, income is treated and taxed as if it hasn't been, for a ten year period.

by: dbdweeb

04-03-2010 @ 7:05pm

Regarding "Libertarianism is not "a matter of recognizing God given choices

by: Patricia

03-24-2010 @ 4:23pm

As I maintained before:

Supporting government imposition of religious beliefs through repeal of Roe V Wade and opposition to gay civil marriage = good. Supporting government programs that may touch my mammon = evil.

by: NMRod

03-25-2010 @ 5:36am

It would be a hard row to hoe and would subject you to be singled out for retaliation, eventually of the violent sort. Like what happened in the town where Habitat for Humanity now headquarters.

by: Patricia

03-24-2010 @ 4:18pm

I think Beck has made it pretty clear that he DOES think social justice ends with private charity, and KNOW that my (Catholic) church definitely disagrees with him.

I believe your problem is that you have accepted Beck's definition, rather than the definitions espoused by the various churches, and articulated here by Wallis himself.

Are you asserting that those churches do NOT believe what they say they do?

Are you asserting that Wallis does NOT believe what he says he does?

What would be your evidence of that?

by: NMRod

03-25-2010 @ 5:33am

I have worked in executive positions for well-known and respected private charities and I have to tell you that there are many things that occur that are not honest nor good stewardship of others' money - even outright fraud occurs but is most often covered up.

by: NMRod

03-25-2010 @ 5:27am

Jesus told us not to worry too much about paying taxes; that he would provide us the means to do so. Certainly we shouldn't be killing other human beings (as in our founding baptized in blood) to avoid doing so.

That doesn't mean you necessarily like them or feel they ought to be directed better, reduced or even increased (!) at times. It just means it's not worth giving a bad image to Christians by making it look like they are tax scofflaws when it's not even the crux of the problem to God.

To engage in civil protest to protect one's own financial interests is not exactly a Christian calling; one could argue that some brave people might justify it, by enduring suffering because of it, for the sake of standing up against true moral injustice, rather than for personal interest.

by: NMRod

03-25-2010 @ 5:18am

Kind of hard to imagine the Roman imperialists acting as salt and light or doing many good works in the nations they conquered by force of arms. That's OK - we don't either. It seems the more military expenditures we make, the more we follow those who crucified Jesus and executed Paul - and used torture regularly and without restraint. I don't buy that Jesus was teaching, that should we ever be in a psoition to influence government, that meant we should advocate for those things instead of other things that reflect better interests.

by: NMRod

03-25-2010 @ 5:14am

As a Southern Baptists, I was taught that Jesus' instructions in Matthew 5, 6 and 7 - the core teachings - are "not for us."

But if not for us, then for whom?

If not now, when?

by: Jesusistheway

03-24-2010 @ 11:54pm

Here is an excerpt from a letter from this week's ESA e-pistle:... "Jim Wallis, the leader of Sojourners and the progressive Christian movement, was a keynote speaker at the 2008 ACORN National Conference. This is what he said about ACORN: You cant change the politicians, you need to change the direction, and ACORN is an organization that can change the direction of the country by pressing from the outside and I have no doubt ACORN will be making their voices heard regardless of who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
It appears to me that his (Wallis') Gospel is greatly influenced by progressive ideology and is not too dissimilar to the liberal mainline churches. I question the judgment of anyone who gives creditability to any organization that is so corrupt and plainly political as ACORN..."

I think that Wallis would go a long way if he disassociated himself somewhat from liberal mainline churches...

by: PeterPerr

10-20-2010 @ 7:18pm

Jim, What you have said would be effective if it were true. As a member of the Evangelical Covenant Church of America (a church my family has been involved with for 125 years, as well as myself being a member for 35 years) I was broken hearted to see A man at a denominational meeting being honored for breaking into people's homes, changing the locks and moving in the "homeless," in order to "take care of the poor.". I'm sorry, I must have missed that portion of the Sermon on the Mount where our Lord advocated criminal activity to advance God's Kingdom. Where you miss the point is that Deut. 16:20 calls for justice for everyone, not just the poor or those you happen to favor today.

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

by: histrogeek

03-24-2010 @ 3:13pm

Well done! An excellent rebuttal.

by: histrogeek

03-24-2010 @ 3:13pm

Well done! An excellent rebuttal.

by: cincyjake

03-24-2010 @ 3:20pm

Excellent, Jim. Thanks so much for standing up to these kinds of smear tactics that muddle the thinking of so many well-meaning people. Your post brings a lot of much-needed clarity to Beck's intentional misrepresentations.

by: cincyjake

03-24-2010 @ 3:20pm

Excellent, Jim. Thanks so much for standing up to these kinds of smear tactics that muddle the thinking of so many well-meaning people. Your post brings a lot of much-needed clarity to Beck's intentional misrepresentations.

by: rickkristi

03-24-2010 @ 3:21pm

I would like more of Jim's blogs to be about things besides himself, but this time it is justified and probably the best thing Jim has written in quite a while.

by: rickkristi

03-24-2010 @ 3:21pm

I would like more of Jim's blogs to be about things besides himself, but this time it is justified and probably the best thing Jim has written in quite a while.

by: Nancy Duncan Daley

03-24-2010 @ 3:22pm

I bought your book a few minutes ago. I'll leave it around when my Glen Beck following family is around. ;)

I actually hope he continues on this tirade. Sorry you are the target, but you seem well equipped to deal with him. Give him the rope. He will hang himself.

Because what I know about God if I know nothing else.... He has a wicked sense of humor!

Grace and peace to you.

by: Nancy Duncan Daley

03-24-2010 @ 3:22pm

I bought your book a few minutes ago. I'll leave it around when my Glen Beck following family is around. ;)

I actually hope he continues on this tirade. Sorry you are the target, but you seem well equipped to deal with him. Give him the rope. He will hang himself.

Because what I know about God if I know nothing else.... He has a wicked sense of humor!

Grace and peace to you.

by: Mike Pollard

03-24-2010 @ 3:40pm

I stand behind you, Rev Wallis!

by: Mike Pollard

03-24-2010 @ 3:40pm

I stand behind you, Rev Wallis!

by: Batman

03-24-2010 @ 3:42pm

I did not realize that he's a Mormon. He's already so far off the true path before any of this, by virtue of his beliefs, that his opinions may be irrelevant.

I still don't get why more weren't against him when he was on CNN, as he's still the same guy. Maybe nobody was watching him when he was there.....

by: Batman

03-24-2010 @ 3:42pm

I did not realize that he's a Mormon. He's already so far off the true path before any of this, by virtue of his beliefs, that his opinions may be irrelevant.

I still don't get why more weren't against him when he was on CNN, as he's still the same guy. Maybe nobody was watching him when he was there.....

by: Joshua Rogers

03-24-2010 @ 3:47pm

Well said.

I'm praying that this massive amount of attention will be used for God's glory and won't hinder the message of his gospel.

by: Joshua Rogers

03-24-2010 @ 3:47pm

Well said.

I'm praying that this massive amount of attention will be used for God's glory and won't hinder the message of his gospel.

by: willhouk

03-24-2010 @ 3:56pm

This is really well written. Thank you for keeping things civil Jim. Great job.

by: willhouk

03-24-2010 @ 3:56pm

This is really well written. Thank you for keeping things civil Jim. Great job.

by: jeffschuh

03-24-2010 @ 3:59pm

Rev Wallis,

He used your own words. He didn't twist them. You refuse to attack him? Looks like you just spent a few hours and many words condemming him. My favorite line above in the article is this:

"Apparently Beck thinks social justice ends with private charity, but very few churches in the nation would agree with him."

If its not private and someone does it for us, by taking our income and giving it to someone else, such as welfare, food stamps, new health care bill, ect.... doesn't this go against being a cheerful giver which is what Christ really asks for?
Few churches in this nation agree with this? Perhaps Rev. Wallis you are walking into the wrong churches and affiliating your self with the wrong folks.

by: jeffschuh

03-24-2010 @ 3:59pm

Rev Wallis,

He used your own words. He didn't twist them. You refuse to attack him? Looks like you just spent a few hours and many words condemming him. My favorite line above in the article is this:

"Apparently Beck thinks social justice ends with private charity, but very few churches in the nation would agree with him."

If its not private and someone does it for us, by taking our income and giving it to someone else, such as welfare, food stamps, new health care bill, ect.... doesn't this go against being a cheerful giver which is what Christ really asks for?
Few churches in this nation agree with this? Perhaps Rev. Wallis you are walking into the wrong churches and affiliating your self with the wrong folks.

by: BlueDeacon

03-24-2010 @ 4:07pm

Let me ask this question: How would you deal with, say, abortion and other issues surrounding unplanned pregnancy? That's what Jim is getting at.

And no, he never personally attacked Beck, just his ideas and methodology -- which are fair game.

by: BlueDeacon

03-24-2010 @ 4:07pm

Let me ask this question: How would you deal with, say, abortion and other issues surrounding unplanned pregnancy? That's what Jim is getting at.

And no, he never personally attacked Beck, just his ideas and methodology -- which are fair game.

by: NC77

03-24-2010 @ 4:07pm

But surely the Sojourners organization in Washington DC gives directly and privately to the poor, don't they? How are the neigbors doing in that neighborhood?

by: NC77

03-24-2010 @ 4:07pm

But surely the Sojourners organization in Washington DC gives directly and privately to the poor, don't they? How are the neigbors doing in that neighborhood?

by: kdaves

03-24-2010 @ 4:09pm

Great article, praying for you and Mr. Beck!

by: kdaves

03-24-2010 @ 4:09pm

Great article, praying for you and Mr. Beck!

by: jeffschuh

03-24-2010 @ 4:15pm

Deal with abortion? I certaintly wouldn't have the govt. pay for it. Abortion is wrong on many levels, and this is not the issue i am speaking about. The issues being talked about are churches supporting the govt. and public organizations taxing Americans for the purpose of forced charity. We should give freely and without force. The tithe is given with your heart, not enforced by the Govt. I won't have many friends on this website, this I know as most of you are liberals and or Obama voters, but I also have a voice.

by: jeffschuh

03-24-2010 @ 4:15pm

Deal with abortion? I certaintly wouldn't have the govt. pay for it. Abortion is wrong on many levels, and this is not the issue i am speaking about. The issues being talked about are churches supporting the govt. and public organizations taxing Americans for the purpose of forced charity. We should give freely and without force. The tithe is given with your heart, not enforced by the Govt. I won't have many friends on this website, this I know as most of you are liberals and or Obama voters, but I also have a voice.

by: Patricia

03-24-2010 @ 4:18pm

I think Beck has made it pretty clear that he DOES think social justice ends with private charity, and KNOW that my (Catholic) church definitely disagrees with him.

I believe your problem is that you have accepted Beck's definition, rather than the definitions espoused by the various churches, and articulated here by Wallis himself.

Are you asserting that those churches do NOT believe what they say they do?

Are you asserting that Wallis does NOT believe what he says he does?

What would be your evidence of that?

by: Patricia

03-24-2010 @ 4:18pm

I think Beck has made it pretty clear that he DOES think social justice ends with private charity, and KNOW that my (Catholic) church definitely disagrees with him.

I believe your problem is that you have accepted Beck's definition, rather than the definitions espoused by the various churches, and articulated here by Wallis himself.

Are you asserting that those churches do NOT believe what they say they do?

Are you asserting that Wallis does NOT believe what he says he does?

What would be your evidence of that?

by: Patricia

03-24-2010 @ 4:23pm

As I maintained before:

Supporting government imposition of religious beliefs through repeal of Roe V Wade and opposition to gay civil marriage = good. Supporting government programs that may touch my mammon = evil.

by: Patricia

03-24-2010 @ 4:23pm

As I maintained before:

Supporting government imposition of religious beliefs through repeal of Roe V Wade and opposition to gay civil marriage = good. Supporting government programs that may touch my mammon = evil.

by: rickkristi

03-24-2010 @ 4:29pm

Jeff,

nothing you point out shows Wallis condemning Beck. He merely points out how, and most churches (in his opinion) would disagree with Beck. Not sure how this is an attack, unless your view of condemnation is pretty liberal.

I would say that Mr. Wallis does not feel that he is walking in the wrong churches, of those churches he is walking in actually practice the type social justice (by advocating) that brought the end of slavery, the relative equality of minorities, child labor laws and many other just advances (along with the possible change to abortion laws). All of that is also Social Justice, and most churches advocate some form of social justice.

BTW, I am a cheerful giver at my church and when I render unto Caesar.

by: rickkristi

03-24-2010 @ 4:29pm

Jeff,

nothing you point out shows Wallis condemning Beck. He merely points out how, and most churches (in his opinion) would disagree with Beck. Not sure how this is an attack, unless your view of condemnation is pretty liberal.

I would say that Mr. Wallis does not feel that he is walking in the wrong churches, of those churches he is walking in actually practice the type social justice (by advocating) that brought the end of slavery, the relative equality of minorities, child labor laws and many other just advances (along with the possible change to abortion laws). All of that is also Social Justice, and most churches advocate some form of social justice.

BTW, I am a cheerful giver at my church and when I render unto Caesar.

by: BlueDeacon

03-24-2010 @ 4:32pm

I'm sure it does. The point is that "charity" doesn't always help. Oh, wait -- Jim already said that.

by: BlueDeacon

03-24-2010 @ 4:32pm

I'm sure it does. The point is that "charity" doesn't always help. Oh, wait -- Jim already said that.

by: rickkristi

03-24-2010 @ 4:32pm

You do have a voice. And you have the opportunity to have that voice heard and responded to by those you disagree with. Just as I would have a voice, should I choose to head over to the comment section of the National Review, I would expect people to strongly and vehemently disagree with me. If they did not, I would be surprised.

I am sure you understand this, expect this and will not use this against Christians that disagree with you. If you wanted to express your views in a forum that does not elicit disagreement, then you should head to an echo chamber in which others trumpet the same views you do.

If you want actual dialog, then listen as well as speak.

by: rickkristi

03-24-2010 @ 4:32pm

You do have a voice. And you have the opportunity to have that voice heard and responded to by those you disagree with. Just as I would have a voice, should I choose to head over to the comment section of the National Review, I would expect people to strongly and vehemently disagree with me. If they did not, I would be surprised.

I am sure you understand this, expect this and will not use this against Christians that disagree with you. If you wanted to express your views in a forum that does not elicit disagreement, then you should head to an echo chamber in which others trumpet the same views you do.

If you want actual dialog, then listen as well as speak.

by: nuclearferret

03-24-2010 @ 4:36pm

Mockery is a whole lot different than "personally attack," I guess.

by: nuclearferret

03-24-2010 @ 4:36pm

Mockery is a whole lot different than "personally attack," I guess.

by: BuckeyeDon

03-24-2010 @ 4:40pm

So Glenn Beck won't meet privately with Rev. Wallis to discuss his differences; instead he goes on the air with them. How sad.

Someone ought to read Matthew 18:15-17 to Mr. Beck.

by: BuckeyeDon

03-24-2010 @ 4:40pm

So Glenn Beck won't meet privately with Rev. Wallis to discuss his differences; instead he goes on the air with them. How sad.

Someone ought to read Matthew 18:15-17 to Mr. Beck.

by: BlueDeacon

03-24-2010 @ 4:46pm

You didn't even read what Wallis wrote -- it's about changing structures so that the poor can make their own way without charity. What's so wrong with that?

by: BlueDeacon

03-24-2010 @ 4:46pm

You didn't even read what Wallis wrote -- it's about changing structures so that the poor can make their own way without charity. What's so wrong with that?

by: fundamentalist

03-24-2010 @ 4:51pm

"But neither of us have ever called for the "forced re-distribution" that you keep adding on to our words or say we "really mean."

If you use the power of the state to accomplish something that people don't do voluntarily, you are by definition using force. The only reason for the existence of the state is its monopoly on the use of force. The state equals force. The reason we pass laws is to force people to do what they don't voluntarily do. So any call for the state to take care of the poor is a call for the use of force against those who don't voluntarily give to the poor as much as "progressives" think they should.

"Serving the poor is a fundamental spiritual requirement of faith, but challenging the conditions that create poverty in the first place is also part of biblical social justice."

I would like to hear Wallis say more about what cause poverty. From an economic perspective, poverty doesn't need explaining; it is the natural state of mankind. Wealth is what needs explaining.

"

by: fundamentalist

03-24-2010 @ 4:51pm

"But neither of us have ever called for the "forced re-distribution" that you keep adding on to our words or say we "really mean."

If you use the power of the state to accomplish something that people don't do voluntarily, you are by definition using force. The only reason for the existence of the state is its monopoly on the use of force. The state equals force. The reason we pass laws is to force people to do what they don't voluntarily do. So any call for the state to take care of the poor is a call for the use of force against those who don't voluntarily give to the poor as much as "progressives" think they should.

"Serving the poor is a fundamental spiritual requirement of faith, but challenging the conditions that create poverty in the first place is also part of biblical social justice."

I would like to hear Wallis say more about what cause poverty. From an economic perspective, poverty doesn't need explaining; it is the natural state of mankind. Wealth is what needs explaining.

"

by: NC77

03-24-2010 @ 4:55pm

Hey Blue, what's happening?

According to the bible charity (love) never fails. So if I see my neighbor in need, and I have material possesions, and I choose to give to my neighbor's need. It doesn't help my neighbor? I would disagree.

If we take that attitude and that mindset, then no one would obey Christ. Why would Christ tell me to give to the poor if my giving doesn't help them? The arguement against private giving and charity in and of itself seems rather anti-Christ like. My spirit filled opinion of course.

by: NC77

03-24-2010 @ 4:55pm

Hey Blue, what's happening?

According to the bible charity (love) never fails. So if I see my neighbor in need, and I have material possesions, and I choose to give to my neighbor's need. It doesn't help my neighbor? I would disagree.

If we take that attitude and that mindset, then no one would obey Christ. Why would Christ tell me to give to the poor if my giving doesn't help them? The arguement against private giving and charity in and of itself seems rather anti-Christ like. My spirit filled opinion of course.

by: pooch

03-24-2010 @ 4:57pm

I'm often a critic of the political views of Mr. Wallis, but I have to admit this was a well thought out response.

I guess we just have irreconcilable differences in that Mr. Wallis has much greater faith in the ability of government to remedy many of the issues he cares about. And even though Mr Wallis is discounting redistribution's ties with Social Justice, it seems that the policies Mr. Wallis advocates in the name of Social Justice all require the redistribution of wealth. I and many others believe that, despite good intentions, most of these efforts simply throw good money after bad by creating wasteful bloated bureaucracies that rarely produce net positive benefits.

I agree that Social Justice does not directly equal Totalitarian goverment, but I do believe there is the danger of a slippery slope as government is increasingly entrusted with the task of resolving all societal ills. Totalitarianism was rarely the goal of such societies. Totalitarianism was the eventual result of powerful political forces trying to reshape society, often in the name of the common good.

by: pooch

03-24-2010 @ 4:57pm

I'm often a critic of the political views of Mr. Wallis, but I have to admit this was a well thought out response.

I guess we just have irreconcilable differences in that Mr. Wallis has much greater faith in the ability of government to remedy many of the issues he cares about. And even though Mr Wallis is discounting redistribution's ties with Social Justice, it seems that the policies Mr. Wallis advocates in the name of Social Justice all require the redistribution of wealth. I and many others believe that, despite good intentions, most of these efforts simply throw good money after bad by creating wasteful bloated bureaucracies that rarely produce net positive benefits.

I agree that Social Justice does not directly equal Totalitarian goverment, but I do believe there is the danger of a slippery slope as government is increasingly entrusted with the task of resolving all societal ills. Totalitarianism was rarely the goal of such societies. Totalitarianism was the eventual result of powerful political forces trying to reshape society, often in the name of the common good.

by: fundamentalist

03-24-2010 @ 4:57pm

BlueDeacon: "it's about changing structures so that the poor can make their own way without charity."

And how would you go about doing that? What structures need changing and how would you change them?

by: fundamentalist

03-24-2010 @ 4:57pm

BlueDeacon: "it's about changing structures so that the poor can make their own way without charity."

And how would you go about doing that? What structures need changing and how would you change them?