Why Glenn Beck is a Danger to True Evangelical Theology

I agree with your first two points. I have a question about the second. When you say the "nations will be judged" do you mean nations as in "countries" or ethnic groups or all people as a group? What does nations mean to you and/or what does it mean when it's used in the Bible?

As for the fourth, this is the entire problem with this debate between Beck and people on God's Politics. No one bothered to define the term "social justice" before throwing it out there. Yes, it has been used to cloak Marxism or Socialism by some people, but it's also used by Christians around the world to refer to actions taken to create a just society, which could merely mean making sure there's adequate low-income housing in a neighborhood or something as innocuous as that. When people don't define terms before using them we end up with debates like this one where people are talking past each other.

We are currently living in "the kingdom of the world" with all of its flaws so that is where we are going to do whatever we choose to do. If we choose to do as shown by Christ, hopefully that will make this a better world to some extent. We seldom know what the impact any particular action is going to have. We have to trust in God that those things we do consistent with his will make a positive impact. It's not just about voting. It's about living His will in all aspects of our lives. We have more choices than most people have ever had in history. We can express our views, demand justice, criticize our leaders, require accountability from the powerful. You can view these things as a blessing or a curse. Your choice.

We are currently living in "the kingdom of the world" with all of its flaws so that is where we are going to do whatever we choose to do. If we choose to do as shown by Christ, hopefully that will make this a better world to some extent. We seldom know what the impact any particular action is going to have. We have to trust in God that those things we do consistent with his will make a positive impact. It's not just about voting. It's about living His will in all aspects of our lives. We have more choices than most people have ever had in history. We can express our views, demand justice, criticize our leaders, require accountability from the powerful. You can view these things as a blessing or a curse. Your choice.

Any answer to those questions would depend upon the nature of the injustice. God calls us to do justice. But that will look differently depending on the situation. My reaction to a hungry man next door is going to be different to my reaction to hungry people in another country.

It's also going to vary depending on the individual Christian. God has given us free will to act as we best see fit to address injustice. He has also given us different gifts and skills.

eqnh ... ethnE... G1484... n_ Nom Pl n... NATIONS

tribes, ethnic groups, nations, Gentiles, everyone who is not Jewish

not an individual term!!!

Agree -- I would also add that God has given those of us here and in all the industriallized countries a place to live where we actually have a voice in the government if we choose to use it. I believe we are supposed to use all of our assets to do His will and to help those less fortunate. To do less would be to fail to life our claimed beliefs. In other words, we are not just supposed to be Sunday morning Christians. If we truly believe in Christ's way, it applies to all parts of our life.

Social inequality most certainly implies injustice, especially in a world in which everyone is created equal. Humans exist in Imago Dei (the image of God) thus social equity is a just pursuit. The brand of libertarianism that values individual liberties more than the good of the whole society is unChrist-like.

In reply to Conditioning:
1. Equal means equal in the sight of God, of equal intrinsic worth. Clearly some are tall, some short, some bright, some dull, some industrious, some indolent and all the gamut on each scale.
2. Freedom is a greater good than material equality, if indeed material equality is a good at all. Without freedom to choose there is no virtue.

3. Economic freedom has done more to lift up the poor than any attempt to achieve material equality through state coercion.

memls01,
"Material equality" is not the same as social equality, in the future you should be careful not to confuse them.

You are correct in saying that we are equal in God's sight; this is the foundation of social equity -- if we are equally valued by God, we should value each other in the same manner.

I have been in plenty of churches that promote right wing politics and tout conservative candidates, but I have not heard of any churches touting Marxism. Would it be fine for churches to preach capitalism? I don't find this -ism in my Bible either. As far as individual responsibility vs. corporate or government responsibility for social justice, don't we live in a land with a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people?" Should I not vote, write letters to my congressional representatives, and advocate for the poor, the widow, and the orphan? For those of us in the USA, there isn't much difference between individual and corporate responsibility, is there? I don't see how anyone can argue that Christians should oppose government (group efforts of residents) spending for these causes and rely solely on individual gifts. (One report showed Christians in the US spend more on pet food in a year than they give to charity.) I don't understand how individual contributions can create justice even if they do accomplish charity. I don't understand why my being forced to support wars of choice is spreading democracy and therefore reasonable, while my advocating for "social justice" forces recalcitrants to support something of which they do not approve and is unreasonable. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?

The word "nation" is the closest thing to what we call "people groups." It does not mean geo-political nation, or nation-state, in the same way we do. Regardless, it is definitely a collective term/phrase.

However, it does not automatically follow that we as followers of Christ must advocate actions or behavior that require others to live by our standards of ethics based on who will (and how they will) be judged in the end.

It's both/and, not either/or. We will be judged as individuals, and we will be judged collectively. If the former were not true, then I don't have to personally engage with justice, but just have to be part of a "collective" that does. I doubt any social justice Christian would permit such immature thinking. But when we focus only on the individual side of the gospel, we place unusual emphasis on things like the afterlife and heaven/hell, rather than on what Jesus came to do: establish a kingdom that transformed THIS world.

It's one thing to reform the "kingdom of this world" because we want to effect social change. It's quite another to reform it by using the very institutions that make it unjust and corrupt in the first place. You don't put new wine into old wineskins.

You're right, it is about all aspects of life, not just voting. But voting is a tacit participation in a system that creates winners and losers, breeds resentment and pride, and leaves those elected to interpret "the voice of the people" however they wish. Accountability is a mirage. Please don't tell me you believe our elected representatives are actually being held accountable?!

I can see where you are coming from, though. Voting is but one way to have a voice, along with many other ways where we affect things in the world.

are you saying the sojo concern is about money and getting more of it? that seems too cynical

yet i agree that glenn beck focus is becoming tiring

Thank you so much! My conservative libertarian son urged me to watch Glenn Beck's show yesterday. He's hoping to "convert" me! I missed the show but may have gotten it on tape to watch this evening. Thanks for helping me frame my rebuttal. To my sorrow my core beliefs have affected both of my sons in the opposite way I'd hoped and continue to pray.

I do not watch Beck's TV program. I've heard him on the radio 2-3 times; just enough to determine that he spews the same type of hatred as Limbaugh and Hannity. And I've seen his picture on the book covers wearing his Nazi uniform. In my opinion, he is a danger to evangelical Christianity only to the extent that they allow him to influence or reinforce beliefs and prejudices that they already have. The fellow Christians that I know who are working among the poor and fulfilling Christ's command to minister to the least of these are not dissuaded by anything that Beck or his ilk have to say.

Those who are casting their lots with Beck are doing so because they were already preconditioned. I believe that the more that we hear Beck speak, the more we will recognize his objectives. The most effective antidote for a load of crap is ventilation.

You reference Matthew 25, but are the goats separated because they didn't individually feed, visit and cloth the least of these, or because they didn't vote for greater gov't control and higher taxes from their neighbors to fund some agency to feed, visit and cloth the least of these? This is the difference in how Sojourners and Dr. Beck view social justice.

In that culture, there was no such thing as "individuals" because, relatively speaking, very few people actually had that much. The inference is that they did nothing to change their states when they knew what caused their suffering.

"My conservative libertarian son"

Glenn Beck is about as libertarian as George W. Bush is -- which means not libertarian at all. Glenn Beck might preach a "small government" line, but for his own pet causes, he would like to have big, intrusive government.

Two of Beck's big-government-for-his-cause issues are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and immigration.

For the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he has always supported invasions of foreign countries with U.S. troops in order to "spread freedom" -- as if freedom can actually be spread via the barrel of a few guns. These sorts of beliefs in foreign military intervention are not at all beliefs in small government. To gain insight on true libertarian beliefs on foreign intervention, check out the views of Rep. Ron Paul or those of his son, Rand Paul.

As for immigration, Beck wants a big fence and loads of troops to build a big-government protectionist barrier to prevent workers from immigrating to our country and to prevent employers who would like to legally hire these workers from hiring them. This is one area where I emphatically disagree with Ron and Rand Paul, who wish to engage in similar modes of big government protectionism. On this issue, to find classic libertarian views, check out www.cato.org and read their views on immigration both "legal" and "illegal."

"My conservative libertarian son"

Glenn Beck is about as libertarian as George W. Bush is -- which means not libertarian at all. Glenn Beck might preach a "small government" line, but for his own pet causes, he would like to have big, intrusive government.

Two of Beck's big-government-for-his-cause issues are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and immigration.

For the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he has always supported invasions of foreign countries with U.S. troops in order to "spread freedom" -- as if freedom can actually be spread via the barrel of a few guns. These sorts of beliefs in foreign military intervention are not at all beliefs in small government. To gain insight on true libertarian beliefs on foreign intervention, check out the views of Rep. Ron Paul or those of his son, Rand Paul.

As for immigration, Beck wants a big fence and loads of troops to build a big-government protectionist barrier to prevent workers from immigrating to our country and to prevent employers who would like to legally hire these workers from hiring them. This is one area where I emphatically disagree with Ron and Rand Paul, who wish to engage in similar modes of big government protectionism. On this issue, to find classic libertarian views, check out www.cato.org and read their views on immigration both "legal" and "illegal."

Thank you Mr. Smith for raising awareness to this issue.
It seems that many people are failing in line with Mr. Beck's points and I have not heard a big conversation against what he has to say.
I think you hit the nail on the head with what you said.
Now you will probably be labeled as a Marxist or Communist, but whatever.

I believe that wisdom can be found in a Mormon, Buddhist and atheist. Jesus told a parable where it was the religious outsider, the Samaritan, who acted with Godly wisdom, not the insider priest and Levite. Now does this particular Mormon personality has godly wisdom? My vote is "no"

Meanwhile, I experience the "social justice is a code word for socialism" line as bullying. Now, if I use the term "social justice" I can expect to be called something I am not. When I say I am not, then they say "yes, you are". So I am not allowed to define myself. I do not experience Christ's love and grace in such a tactic. If the tactic continues, I must say to the bully, "see ya later!"

"God has given us... a place to ... have a voice in the government." Is it from God? Or is it just a distraction from the real onus of Kingdom work of the people of God? Participation in the kingdoms of this world could possibly be a capitulation to and explicit endorsement of that which is wholly corrupt and impossible to reform. Voting, at least in a democracy, implicitly acknowledges that there are "winners" and "losers," unless there is 100% vote. The early church, when they made decisions, were not voting as we do in our country today, but listening to the Spirit of God for direction.

I'm not convinced that voting is in any way a gift from God. I used to believe this, but it really just feels to me like participation in an unjust system of control.

Apparently you don't read, watch, or listen to Beck very well, because you would not really describe him as arrogant or bigoted or all those other things.

As for populist movements, I think you've taken your history facts from the "Official Version of History," and haven't questioned the status quo. Fascist populism was largely a leftist movement during the Progressive Era, and resembles more left-wing ideas than right-wing. (This isn't to say that the Right isn't fascist.)

Unfortunately, the ramifications of the "code word" notion is true. But I would say that this is true perhaps because the secular progressives have hijacked the idea of "social justice," leaving the Church's terminology without any other practical meaning other than marxism and/or socialism.

The church needs to define social justice by the teachings of Jesus, not by using the political terminology and all its trappings. The phrase itself is certainly not intended (by Christians) to be "marxist," but the reputation remains because of the practical use of the phrase. I think Christians ought to fight for the real meaning, rather than the political one.

I know it might be baffling to most people here, but I would call myself a "social justice Christian," as well as a rabid libertarian. Most people think of those two trajectories of thought as mutually exclusive. I find them inextricably necessary and very closely aligned in principle. I find state-based solutions rather sickening, and only acceptable to Christians in our culture today merely because we've accepted the charade of being "participants" in the government that is over us.