Glenn Beck as Theologian

Yes...and you have pointed it out to him ad nauseum. Which is why when you call him judgmental for saying exactly what many here have already said of Beck and have received no such accusation from you, it seems more like it is you who are being judgmental at worst and nitpicky at best.

For some reason it is just fine when others say it of Beck. But as soon as Bluedeacon says it, it is judgmentalism. You are just picking on him. And if you don't think you are, then be aware that that is exactly how it looks. You remind me of the teacher who lets everyone get by with talking to each other in class, but as soon as her least favorite student says one word, he is immediately sent to the Principal's office.

A theologian is, quite literally, someone who speaks (logos) about a god (theos). Therefore, Glen is a theologian. The real questions are Is his "god speak" true, is it well thought out, is it in line with orthodox Christian thinking, etc. On all these questions the answers are all no. Yet this is not HIS concern since his purpose is to advance his own beliefs, not Biblical or orthodox ones.

Your comment on the surface sounds "Christian" enough if your intent is to shield an individual from ridicule. However I have been hearing evangelicals including those from the church I used to attend quote this verse non-stop since Obama was elected. It is the answer they give to why they are against health care reform. Perhaps it is no coincidence that these people are all in the well-do income range and live in wealthy suburbs.

The problem is not that Wallis takes Beck out of context; it's the Beck takes Wallis out of context. And you apparently agree with Beck, so, that's neither here nor there. Justice has to do with changing structures, which is that last thing that many conservatives want because they feel that the structures are being changed at their expense.

I personally don't agree with Beck's views on social justice, but I do agree with him on a small elite group of people writing laws that make everybody else fall in line with their ideals of "social justice."

And who do you think is leading the charge? A small band of elites -- but who have big mics.

As for Beck's faith, you are judging him based on his church's doctrinal statement, not whether Beck himself claims and lives to follow Jesus.

Beck doesn't claim the latter as far as I know. And I have every right to judge his faith based on what his church believes. (I would to do the same for someone more liberal.)

I think the real problem here is about worldviews. It's been my experience that people who don't think the same way I do are so protective of their worldview that any challenge is interpreted as a personal attack. It's really fear-based, to be truthful, because having to adjust a worldview is a gut-wrenching thing. (That's what we're asking folks to do when we evangelize.)

Again, the only people who have ever criticized me are those who disagree with me on the issues. Now, if people on my side (so to speak) were saying such things, that's another matter.

I'm sorry, a couple of times of cognitive dissonance is all I can stand. More power to you if you get something out of Beck but I find his whole process of discourse divisive, counter-productive and potentially dangerous.

Amen! Both are guilty of taking each other out of context. I happen to agree positionally with Beck, but Wallis does seem to be taking a more mature stance.

I don't see how that is besides the point. V. 13 ("never tire of
doing what is right") is in that chapter (not that the originals had
chapter and verse designations, but it is in the same section). Does
that just apply to those who thought Jesus' return was imminent?

Also, Paul doesn't contrast idleness with waiting for the Lord, he
contrasts it with being busybodies.

Do you think Paul viewed sloth as acceptable provided that one didn't
think Jesus was coming soon?

I encourage people to read the whole passage carefully for themselves.
Ask yourself if these are timeless directions or not.

Many of those millions believe a lot of what Beck says, so when you criticize Beck himself, you are indirectly critiquing those who agree with him. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be offensive to those who respect him.

The state which overextends its authority, to promote or enforce whatever aims it wishes, however otherwise commendable (e.g., sexual harmony between husbands and wives, prudent financial savings plans, regular brushing of one's teeth), is a state which has abused its power -- a power which has, after all, been delegated to it from God (Romans 13:1; John 19:11). And God clearly, explicitly forbids kings to swerve to the right or to the left from the well-defined path of His law (Deuteronomy 17:18-20). Indeed, the memorable words of our Lord in Matthew 22:21 inescapably teach that there must be a defining limit upon "the things which belong to Caesar." When Caesar demands of his subjects more than what is his -- more than what is "due" to him (Romans 13:7), Caesar's government inevitably acts as a "throne of wickedness...which frames mischief by a law" (Psalm 94:20). The fact that the civil magistrate makes something a law does not confer the sanction of God upon it. When the civil magistrate (God's "minister") exceeds the limits of delegated power, enforcing laws which are not authorized by God, he comes under God's wrath and curse: "woe to those who enact evil statutes" (Isaiah 10:1). The proper domain and divine calling of the state is that of civil justice, protecting its citizens against violence -- whether in the form of foreign aggression, criminal assault, or economic fraud. In order that men may live together in tranquility and peace (I Timothy 2:2), the state has been empowered with "the sword" for the specific purpose (note the telic construction and divine commission in I Peter 2:14) of "avenging wrath" against those who do evil (Romans 13:4). "For this cause," God says, taxes may be legitimately collected (v. 6). Beyond this the magistrate may not go. He is to establish the land by justice which is steadfastly followed in the courts (Proverbs 29:4; Amos 5:15). God's word does not, however, authorize the civil ruler to be an agent of charitable benevolence, financial welfare, education, and mercy. Scripture suggests nothing of state-enforced welfare programs or state interference in the free market. The state's way of dealing with social evils must be limited to those marked out by God's revealed law.

Only if you don't listen to him and have a charitable attitude toward those with whom you disagree. But he did clarify and "nuance" it the next day on his radio show. Wallis ignores that fact.

I never said you said that. I was using hyperbole. Sorry if it came off otherwise. My apologies.

"The point of this (and other recent Sojo posts) is not to put Beck down."

It certainly is, but under the guise of "civility." Wallis is indeed putting Glenn Beck, who claims to be a Christian and a follower of Jesus, down. He's certainly acting nicer than Beck is, though he is also spreading misinformation about Beck's views.

Also, claiming Beck is a non-Christian is quite a judgment call, isn't it? Beck himself claims to follow Jesus and live the Bible as best he can. Maybe he's a Christian, maybe not (yes, I'm aware he's a Mormon, but last I checked Mormons weren't on the "burn in hell" list in the Bible).

How? All I said was that Gutenson was right in that Beck was taking that Scripture reference out of context, suggesting that people would rather collect welfare than work (which generally isn't true). He was using that to scapegoat people who, for some reason, can't find a good-paying job (prison record, drug problems etc. that he doesn't consider).

No, the author is right. Keep in mind that the early church, as evidenced in Paul's other letters, believed that Jesus would return in the next few years; the attitude was, "Why work because Jesus is coming!"

And that means what? I truly do think that conservatives get a lot of stuff flatly wrong, and there's nothing arrogant in saying so -- except to those people whom I offend because they think they're always right (or want to be seen as such). Perhaps they're the ones that need the chill pill.

Yes, likely. I haven't been following your interactions that much over the last several months, but I do seem to recall appealing to all involved for more Christlike dialogue. It's something we all can do better, especially with those we don't agree with. Nothing will sway me from the belief that we can express our views and exude Christ's love at the same time. It's not easy, but it isn't impossible, either.

That said (and what follow is a general statement), what I have noticed is that when you appeal to your expertise in mass media, that seems to bring out the strongest responses. I've noticed that when I appeal to my expertise as a scientist as well. People have been offended when I have suggested I know more about geology than they for the simple reason that I have been educated in it and spend my days working in it. This is elitist to say for some really mysterious reason that I do not understand.

Maybe it is the general mistrust of media (although Fox gets a pass) and mainstream science. Or maybe it is the prevalence of the interwebs and the googly-goo which bombards us with information coupled with an inability to discern good from bad sources of information (even among college-educated folk, so it isn't a function of education level).

And...I fully expect to be attacked by the usual suspects for saying all that...but instead of attacking, why don't you guys try to explain it to me, as I really don't understand where you are coming from. Why don't you think Blue (or I) can claim a level of expertise in his chosen profession?

FCOL.

You accuse BlueDeacon of being judgmental because he thinks Beck's views are not truly Christian because he is a Mormon? I hope you are aiming that accusation at all the Christians here who have said the same exact thing. And many here have said it. Yet it is the first time I have seen you accuse anyone of being judgmental on that basis.

Excellent point -- they're bullies.

blue, this is an argument we're not going to win. it seems to me that beck and his ilk can dish it out, but can't take it. they don't like to be challenged, they really don't want to think for themselves, to analyse and question what they are being fed.

as an aside, it's rather interesting to me that the arguments about work often come from a portion of the population that praises stay-at-home mothers (unpaid work). they make assumptions about people who do not have paid employment, ignoring the unpaid work that such people may do on a daily basis.

I think we ought to have the right to point out poor attitudes and at least perceived tones in the comments that we believe are not exemplary of Christian behavior. Judgmentalism is one of them. BlueDeacon constantly points this out in others, yet refuses to accept that maybe, just maybe, there's a bit of it in him. I can recount on only one occasion that he's mentioned where he used to be _______ (name your sinful behavior, I won't bring his up here), but he saw the error of his ways. So I know he has it in him to admit his wrongful attitudes. It just seems pretentious to point lots of fingers regularly while being unwilling to accept the fingers point back at him.

That said (and what follow is a general statement), what I have noticed is that when you appeal to your expertise in mass media, that seems to bring out the strongest responses.

There is indeed an anti-elitist mentality at work here; my point is that I have access to a lot more information than the general public. I also know which sources of information are bad; virtually everything conservative fits into that category because, as I mentioned, all conservative media to my knowledge have documented ties to the Republican Party of conservative interest groups. I also get a visceral reaction when I hear things that I know are either untrue or distorted -- and you'd be surprised at the vitriol people express when you come against them with information that contradicts their belief systems. Two years ago a close friend whose politics are extremely right-wing e-mailed me a segment on FOTF about then-candidate Obama's vote on the partial-birth abortion bill in the Illinois Senate; I countered with a New York Times story that had more accurate information. Guess which my friend still believed?

"a couple of times" is insufficient. You may think you have a 'taste' but it is already clouded by your preconceived notions of what his show is, so anything you've actually heard will only "support" that. I used to think CNN was "liberal," since that was what I was told. Now that I've watched MSNBC and FoxNews, CNN seems pretty neutral. But only because I knew the context, and I gave it a chance.