Get E-Mail Updates

Glenn Beck and a Neighborless Christianity

I want to thank Glenn Beck. His recent tirade against liberation theology has granted that particular conversation more press time than it's been given in years. It's hard to make a theology that bangs the drum of the preferential option for the poor sexy in our land of excess and wealth. Sensationalized stories of sex slavery make the airwaves from time to time, but a theology that makes us take a hard look at economic injustice of our culture, not so much. So, thank you Glenn Beck for introducing a new generation of Americans to liberation theology.

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. 

But, obviously, Beck's portrayal of liberation theology wasn't exactly positive. Besides calling it socialist (seriously dude, stop being such a one trick pony), he said it wasn't Christian because it focused on social sin and "collective salvation" instead of the strictly personal salvation message that is at the heart of Beck's interpretation of Christianity. Granted, Beck knows his audience. His average viewer most likely believes that the message of Christianity can be reduced to this concept of one's personal relationship with God. The message one hears in many conservative evangelical American churches can be boiled down to "Jesus died for ME. God demands MY worship. I must attend church to strengthen MY faith."

To question this self-focused religion (even by proposing an outward purpose for our faith) is tantamount to heresy. For instance, I've been reading critiques of the evangelical feminist movement and many of them mock the movement because it prompts people to focus on the needs of women and men instead of solely focusing on God. These books suggest that if we were true Christians, we would only care about our relationship with God and not the petty needs of other people. To serve others or to care for people apparently have nothing to do with our personal relationship with God and so therefore must be cast as a deterrent to faith.

I've heard the same reasoning applied to Christians engaging in environmental action. I got in trouble when I was in junior high for wearing a "save the dolphins" necklace. I was told that in caring for the dolphins I was worshiping the creation and not the creator. My time and energy should be devoted only to developing my personal relationship with God -- which at the time was defined as reading my Bible, praying, doing devotions, singing, and attending church. And as I've written about before, I received a similar response at a moms group when I mentioned how important ethical consumption was in my life. I was informed that as a wife and a mother, God does not expect me to care for the poor, but to only make sure I am fulfilling my role in tending to my family (since that is how a woman best serves God).

This "it's-all-about-me" religion generally masquerades as being "all about God." In fact in such circles, books, buttons, and bumper stickers that say "it's not about me" are quite popular. And while I think there are serious issues with some of the self-deprecating, soul-silencing, and passion-erasing messages that such a stance often promotes (like telling women they are selfish for pursuing a career or that to cure depression one just needs to get over oneself and pray more), on the whole this sort of religion is very self-focused.

But the disturbing consequence of making Christianity all about my personal relationship with Jesus is that we eliminate our neighbor. Oh, we are taught to pray for our neighbor in order to strengthen our own faith. We are taught to fear the corrupting influence of our neighbor. And, above all, we are taught to condemn our neighbor. But we have inoculated ourselves from having a neighbor to love. If we are not to care about the plight of women, or the destruction of the environment, or the oppressed Third World farmer because it would take away from our complete devotion to God, then the idea of loving our neighbor becomes a meaningless concept. That command then becomes so confusing that we have to start focusing on the "as yourselves" part of the verse instead -- making sure that each of us loves ourselves enough to devote ourselves only to God.

Having no neighbors to love does make our faith easier. As long as we aren't going on murder sprees, cheating on our spouse (or looking at porn), and only gossiping in the form of "prayer requests" we don't have to do the hard work of repentance very often. But add social sin into the mix and say that part of worshiping God involves caring for the poor and oppressed, and faith becomes exponentially more difficult. None of us could claim a good relationship with God by those standards. And most of us would have to drastically alter our consumeristic lifestyles in order to avoid daily sin. So therefore it is easier to ignore the parts of the Bible that tell us God hates our worship and closes his ears to our prayers unless we are caring for the poor and the oppressed than to actually figure out how to do it. It is easier to label (and mock) such things as socialism or to say that loving our neighbor distracts us from loving God than it is to repent of social sin. It is easier to say, "MY faith is all about ME and MY relationship with God" than it is to making living sacrifices of ourselves.

So Glenn Beck gets it right -- at least when it comes to understanding the felt needs of his target audience. Who cares if you are ignoring scripture and rewriting Christianity, the best way to keep ratings high is to define right living and true religion as looking out for number one. Because, seriously, who needs a neighbor to love when we have ourselves?

Julie Clawson is the author of Everyday Justice: The Global Impact of Our Daily Choices (IVP 2009). She blogs at julieclawson.com and emergingwomen.us.

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

by: Lisa Belise

07-24-2010 @ 3:57am

That isn't a difficult concept AND all of the conservatives that I know understand it perfectly. What "so many" liberals either don't know, or refuse to believe, is that there are statistics that prove over and over again that conservatives not only give more of their money to charity than liberals do, but more of their time AND to a greater number of charities than liberals

Here's a link to an article that was in the Wall Street Journal last year by Arthur C. Brooks who wrote the book "Who Cares"?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258358706104...

In the appendix of one of his books, there are statistical charts of every kind, and from every agency imaginable. One of the GSS (General Social Survey) charts covered the "giving" habits of 5 different categories of people who responded to the statement "The Government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality". The respondent categories were "Strongly Agree", "Agree" "Neither", "Disagree" and "Strongly Disagree". The giving from those who answered "Disagree" and "Strongly Disagree" beat out every other category by huge margins. In religious AND secular giving. In Health, Education, Social Welfare, Environment, Arts and International Aid.

And as old and tired (and flat out false) as the argument is that conservatives are selfish or uncharitable, an even more old and tired argument is that the "rich" are even worse. In 2006, Bank of America and Indiana/Purdue University published a study on "High Net Worth" individuals and their charitable habits. From the study:

"High Net-Worth households, those with incomes of greater than $200,000 or assets in excess of $1,000,000, represent 3.1 percent of the total households in the United States. This very small number of households has an enormously disproportionate impact on charitable giving

by: Lisa Belise

07-24-2010 @ 3:57am

That isn't a difficult concept AND all of the conservatives that I know understand it perfectly. What "so many" liberals either don't know, or refuse to believe, is that there are statistics that prove over and over again that conservatives not only give more of their money to charity than liberals do, but more of their time AND to a greater number of charities than liberals

Here's a link to an article that was in the Wall Street Journal last year by Arthur C. Brooks who wrote the book "Who Cares"?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258358706104...

In the appendix of one of his books, there are statistical charts of every kind, and from every agency imaginable. One of the GSS (General Social Survey) charts covered the "giving" habits of 5 different categories of people who responded to the statement "The Government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality". The respondent categories were "Strongly Agree", "Agree" "Neither", "Disagree" and "Strongly Disagree". The giving from those who answered "Disagree" and "Strongly Disagree" beat out every other category by huge margins. In religious AND secular giving. In Health, Education, Social Welfare, Environment, Arts and International Aid.

And as old and tired (and flat out false) as the argument is that conservatives are selfish or uncharitable, an even more old and tired argument is that the "rich" are even worse. In 2006, Bank of America and Indiana/Purdue University published a study on "High Net Worth" individuals and their charitable habits. From the study:

"High Net-Worth households, those with incomes of greater than $200,000 or assets in excess of $1,000,000, represent 3.1 percent of the total households in the United States. This very small number of households has an enormously disproportionate impact on charitable giving

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-24-2010 @ 3:44am

Has God given you property? What is the extant of your right of ownership? By what authority are you granted those rights?For example, if you own a piece of land with a stream running through it, do you have the right to control the flow through damming? If so, from whom were these rights obtained originally? Should you have the right to create a pesticide dump in the property? Why or why not?

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-24-2010 @ 3:44am

Has God given you property? What is the extant of your right of ownership? By what authority are you granted those rights?For example, if you own a piece of land with a stream running through it, do you have the right to control the flow through damming? If so, from whom were these rights obtained originally? Should you have the right to create a pesticide dump in the property? Why or why not?

by: Lisa Belise

07-24-2010 @ 7:24am

I ask with the same logic that you presented-has God given you, or the government or any other entity the right to determine what my rights are? Or the extent of those rights? If so, from whom did you obtain that right originally?

Ecclesiastes 5:18 and 19:
" Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is his portion.
Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God."

Everything God has seen fit to grant to me as the result of my labors is "my portion" of His creation. My life, my family, the house I live in, the clothes I wear. Do I own them? No. Am I His steward over them until I die or He returns? Yes. When He inspires me through His Spirit to share my portion with another, I am obligated to do so. For example, I consecrate more than 10% of all I am given by Him to my church to feed the poor, clothe the needy, shelter the homeless. IF/WHEN He informs me that I need to turn over part or all of that stewardship to my govt or you or anyone else, I will happily do so, because He is the owner and I answer to Him.

But, I am under NO obligation, as a Christian or disciple of Christ to turn over anything that belongs to Him to my govt or anyone else simply because "they" say I should or that I have to. I report to NO ONE except Him. His sheep hear His voice and they know Him and respond to Him. I will follow no other shepherd.

by: Lisa Belise

07-24-2010 @ 7:24am

I ask with the same logic that you presented-has God given you, or the government or any other entity the right to determine what my rights are? Or the extent of those rights? If so, from whom did you obtain that right originally?

Ecclesiastes 5:18 and 19:
" Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is his portion.
Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God."

Everything God has seen fit to grant to me as the result of my labors is "my portion" of His creation. My life, my family, the house I live in, the clothes I wear. Do I own them? No. Am I His steward over them until I die or He returns? Yes. When He inspires me through His Spirit to share my portion with another, I am obligated to do so. For example, I consecrate more than 10% of all I am given by Him to my church to feed the poor, clothe the needy, shelter the homeless. IF/WHEN He informs me that I need to turn over part or all of that stewardship to my govt or you or anyone else, I will happily do so, because He is the owner and I answer to Him.

But, I am under NO obligation, as a Christian or disciple of Christ to turn over anything that belongs to Him to my govt or anyone else simply because "they" say I should or that I have to. I report to NO ONE except Him. His sheep hear His voice and they know Him and respond to Him. I will follow no other shepherd.

by: Lisa Belise

07-24-2010 @ 7:43am

I am glad you are not a Marxist, nor did I suggest that you were one. I am not a libertarian nor is my thinking dominated by the philosophies of any political party. But here's another Ayn Rand for you:

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."

by: Lisa Belise

07-24-2010 @ 7:43am

I am glad you are not a Marxist, nor did I suggest that you were one. I am not a libertarian nor is my thinking dominated by the philosophies of any political party. But here's another Ayn Rand for you:

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."

by: Ngchen

07-21-2010 @ 7:38pm

Thanks. I'll try to check the stuff out when I get a chance, although I'm afraid from what you've presented so far that there's a good chance liberation theology will be either heretical, and/or involve a good deal of eisegesis if it goes beyond simply a "let's put our faith into action calling." But I could be very wrong.

by: Ngchen

07-21-2010 @ 7:38pm

Thanks. I'll try to check the stuff out when I get a chance, although I'm afraid from what you've presented so far that there's a good chance liberation theology will be either heretical, and/or involve a good deal of eisegesis if it goes beyond simply a "let's put our faith into action calling." But I could be very wrong.

by: BlueDeacon

07-21-2010 @ 7:32pm

Sorry, jesse3, but his arguments are clear. You just agree with them.

by: BlueDeacon

07-21-2010 @ 7:32pm

Sorry, jesse3, but his arguments are clear. You just agree with them.

by: jesse3

07-21-2010 @ 7:27pm

Another day, another post from a Sojo contributor criticizing Glenn Beck for misrepresenting progressive Christians while at the same time misrepresenting his arguments. Seriously dude, stop being such a one trick pony...yawn.

by: jesse3

07-21-2010 @ 7:27pm

Another day, another post from a Sojo contributor criticizing Glenn Beck for misrepresenting progressive Christians while at the same time misrepresenting his arguments. Seriously dude, stop being such a one trick pony...yawn.

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-21-2010 @ 6:59pm

US History Encyclopedia:
Liberation Theology
Top
Home > Library > History, Politics & Society > US History Encyclopedia

Liberation theology emerged from a long process of transformation in post-Enlightenment Christian theological reflection. As science and historical criticism challenged the findings of traditional metaphysical foundations of theology, theologians were widely expected to reconcile their findings with modern principles of analysis and criticism. Where theological reflection was previously focused on the metaphysical and supernatural, it became increasingly concerned with pragmatic and concrete problems.

Liberation theology originated in the 1960s in North and South America, although it was rooted in works by post

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-21-2010 @ 6:59pm

US History Encyclopedia:
Liberation Theology
Top
Home > Library > History, Politics & Society > US History Encyclopedia

Liberation theology emerged from a long process of transformation in post-Enlightenment Christian theological reflection. As science and historical criticism challenged the findings of traditional metaphysical foundations of theology, theologians were widely expected to reconcile their findings with modern principles of analysis and criticism. Where theological reflection was previously focused on the metaphysical and supernatural, it became increasingly concerned with pragmatic and concrete problems.

Liberation theology originated in the 1960s in North and South America, although it was rooted in works by post

by: kansasmennonite

07-24-2010 @ 12:47pm

Lisa quote:"For example, I consecrate more than 10% of all I am given by Him to my church to feed the poor, clothe the needy, shelter the homeless. IF/WHEN He informs me that I need to turn over part or all of that stewardship to my govt or you or anyone else, I will happily do so, because He is the owner and I answer to Him. "

IF you think that giving 10% to your church is going to feed the poor, etc. you'd better think again. How much of that actually goes to the poor? You'd better increase that giving to 30-40% to cover the part you don't want gov't to interfere with. I love people who think that 10% is the magic number. That's just the start lady!

Where do you forget the verse to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar? Oh, I get it, you report to no one! Your religion is such an individual one you can see only yourself.

Ezekieal says: "
Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

by: kansasmennonite

07-24-2010 @ 12:47pm

Lisa quote:"For example, I consecrate more than 10% of all I am given by Him to my church to feed the poor, clothe the needy, shelter the homeless. IF/WHEN He informs me that I need to turn over part or all of that stewardship to my govt or you or anyone else, I will happily do so, because He is the owner and I answer to Him. "

IF you think that giving 10% to your church is going to feed the poor, etc. you'd better think again. How much of that actually goes to the poor? You'd better increase that giving to 30-40% to cover the part you don't want gov't to interfere with. I love people who think that 10% is the magic number. That's just the start lady!

Where do you forget the verse to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar? Oh, I get it, you report to no one! Your religion is such an individual one you can see only yourself.

Ezekieal says: "
Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-24-2010 @ 2:06pm

Thank you for your reply. One thing that might facilitate conversation is for each of us to stop presuming the default agenda of the other. I do not ask the questions with a "logic" already in place. The part of your post I thought answered some of my questions was your reference to Ecclesiastes and the fact that God gave you a house. To follow my line of questioning up; do you have the right to the wind over your house or the right to drill for oil/gas. In answer to your question and to tell you a little more about my approach to this subject I will say that I believe that, yes, God owns the earth and all that is in it but that God gave the earth to man (corporately and not individually) to tend it. The rights to capital belong to the community and the community designates the appropriate means of distribution of those resources in accordance with the parameters of justice laid out by God.

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-24-2010 @ 2:06pm

Thank you for your reply. One thing that might facilitate conversation is for each of us to stop presuming the default agenda of the other. I do not ask the questions with a "logic" already in place. The part of your post I thought answered some of my questions was your reference to Ecclesiastes and the fact that God gave you a house. To follow my line of questioning up; do you have the right to the wind over your house or the right to drill for oil/gas. In answer to your question and to tell you a little more about my approach to this subject I will say that I believe that, yes, God owns the earth and all that is in it but that God gave the earth to man (corporately and not individually) to tend it. The rights to capital belong to the community and the community designates the appropriate means of distribution of those resources in accordance with the parameters of justice laid out by God.

by: Martha Bergin

07-21-2010 @ 9:03pm

Perhaps Mr. Beck is popular because he gives voice to a sort of fear-based (there's only room for Him and me in this elevator! I don't care where you go, but don't make me have to care about you--that's not right!) way of thinking that represents a sort of glossing over the DEPTH and BREADTH of what happens when a person opens to the Lord in their heart. They can open up more, and then, I think inescapably, they will be reaching out to humanity, because the Lord is with them! All things can be transformed in Him. It just doesn't happen all at the same time, here in this world. I think that's the good news--the positive side...

by: Martha Bergin

07-21-2010 @ 9:03pm

Perhaps Mr. Beck is popular because he gives voice to a sort of fear-based (there's only room for Him and me in this elevator! I don't care where you go, but don't make me have to care about you--that's not right!) way of thinking that represents a sort of glossing over the DEPTH and BREADTH of what happens when a person opens to the Lord in their heart. They can open up more, and then, I think inescapably, they will be reaching out to humanity, because the Lord is with them! All things can be transformed in Him. It just doesn't happen all at the same time, here in this world. I think that's the good news--the positive side...

by: BlueDeacon

07-23-2010 @ 3:41am

The problem is that we take such an individualistic read on Scripture that the true meaning is lost. Middle Eastern culture is and has always been more collective and community-oriented, so Jesus wasn't always talking about individuals. Besides, one thing we don't talk about very much especially in evangelicalism is service -- it's too much about power, who has it and how much.

by: BlueDeacon

07-23-2010 @ 3:38am

The pieces where I read that didn't have the specific data that I can recall.

by: Lisa Belise

07-23-2010 @ 3:19am

That seems an awful lot like "exaggerating" someone else's beliefs...or totally misrepresenting them. At least boiling the baby WITH the bathwater.

Most people believe taxes are a necessary evil in any form simply because ALL people are selfish...even poor people.

God told US to use HIS money to help our neighbors and the poor immediate to us. He did NOT tell us to give His money to our inefficient and corrupt government so they can fund bureaucratic monstrosities that then hire millions of people (who are not poor) and spend all of HIS money on wages and benefits for THOSE people INSTEAD of the poor. When you can PROVE to me that the govt makes better decisions with His money than I do, I'll give it to them HAPPILY.

If we let gov't do the social justicing WE were commanded to do, then IT may very well get whatever reward we hope for.
Does Christ say "I was hungry, and you sent the gov't to me, thirsty and they brought me a drink, naked and they clothed me"? Or does He say YOU fed me, YOU clothed me, YOU visited me, YOU took care of me?

There is exploitation of workers in this country, but not just by evil employers and corporations. The unions exploit the very people they claim to be protecting AND the government high fives them for it.

The wealthy won't inherit anything. But neither will the covetous or those who assume authority in God's name that they were never given.

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-23-2010 @ 3:16am

Who "owns" land and it's accompanying resources, biblically speaking?
Who owns water, especially the ocean and it's bed,biblically speaking?
Who owns air and the space above land, biblically speaking?

by: melayton

07-21-2010 @ 10:19pm

I'm not a hardcore fan of liberation theology of anything, but I do think there's a major difference between social justice and charity. You said it yourself, when you said that "conservative evangelicals give more of their money to church, charity and the poor than liberals." Emphasis on *their*. With charity, the rich decide that some need of the poor is worthwhile enough, and so the rich "give" money to satisfy that need. That's better than doing nothing, but it's also infantilizing. Social justice is about making sure everyone has what they need to cover their needs (if they decide to - the choice of how to use that money is theirs).

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-23-2010 @ 3:02am

Blue: Do you have data on that? It makes sense to me because what I see is foreclosures of speculative "flip" houses and second homes in resort states. Hardly what the poor are investing in IMO.

by: melayton

07-21-2010 @ 10:19pm

I'm not a hardcore fan of liberation theology of anything, but I do think there's a major difference between social justice and charity. You said it yourself, when you said that "conservative evangelicals give more of their money to church, charity and the poor than liberals." Emphasis on *their*. With charity, the rich decide that some need of the poor is worthwhile enough, and so the rich "give" money to satisfy that need. That's better than doing nothing, but it's also infantilizing. Social justice is about making sure everyone has what they need to cover their needs (if they decide to - the choice of how to use that money is theirs).

by: Lisa Belise

07-23-2010 @ 2:54am

I'm glad you brought up those parables.

Jesus had no problem associating with "the rich"-in fact he greeted Zacchaeus, (a rich publican) who had climbed a tree in order to see the Lord better, by name and said "Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for to day I must abide at thy house". Zacchaeus "joyfully" does just that and welcomes the Lord into his home. Those who witness this are shocked because they believe Zacchaeus to be sinful because of how he earned his "wealth". He tells the Lord that he gives "half" of his goods to the poor and repays fourfold any man whom he has wronged falsely. (And he's STILL "rich") And the Lord responds by saying "This day has salvation come to this house".

It wasn't wealth that troubled the Lord, it was those who loved their riches more than Him. The parable of the camel/needle doesn't say it is impossible for the rich to enter heaven, but that a rich man shall (dyskol?s) "with difficulty" enter heaven.

If all wealth comes from God, then God gave great wealth to some of his choicest prophets and servants. Jacob. Joseph. Solomon. Job. There are many fine wealthy people today who use their wealth to bless others in numerous ways.

Money is not evil. Love of money is. But so is coveting things we do not have. And so is stealing or taking things that do not belong to us.

I'm also glad you brought up Jubilee and tried to equate it with the "involuntary redistribution of wealth" being called for by many on the left today. *First of all, it was a commandment given to Israel alone. It did not apply to others outside of that nation or covenant and Israel did not "force" others to participate in their traditions.

*Second-During Jubilee, Israelites who had voluntarily sold themselves into paid servitude were to be released and any of their remaining debt was to be forgiven. Of course people who want to restore the law of "Jubilee" must be willing to also restore the commands given in verses 44, 45 and 46 :
"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
"Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour." That should go over well...

*Third-it was a very specific law and did not apply to money or other belongings. It applied to the return of Israelite property and Israelite people to their property.

A "return" of something you previously owned, or that belonged to your family is not a redistribution.

by: Lisa Belise

07-23-2010 @ 4:24am

That Pastor Jeff, sounds an awful lot like a reply based on several presumptions...or guesses anyway. You seem to take it for granted that you know exactly how anyone who disagrees with me feels about the words of Jesus. Or that just because in your book you've already written an ending where I view you as "lowlifes" and tell you to go to hell, that my book ends the same way.

But I forgive you. I can only ask for your forgiveness in return.

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-27-2010 @ 2:49am

Thank you for admitting that the community has a rightful claim to your property backed by both the Scriptures and the Constitution. Here's another interesting real life application question: Should the government use it's right to eminent domain to prevent the building of a Muslim community center near the site of the former World Trade Center?

by: Lisa Belise

07-23-2010 @ 5:17am

So why don't we START talking about service? No matter who has the power, or how much power they have, they have no control over how we, as individuals living in a community, serve one another.

Christ didn't say to give the poor money-He said to FEED them, CLOTHE them, visit the sick, the lonely, the imprisoned. Christ did not redistribute anything. He didn't go to Rome or command the government of Rome to do His work. He loved. He blessed. He spoke of a life beyond this physical one. Have we truly followed in His footsteps if we care more about spreading "things" around more than we care about spreading His gospel?

Isn't it possible that Satan (who uses truth to accomplish wickedness) is successfully preventing us from doing the REAL work of God-saving the souls of mankind-by distracting us with all the details of improving their physical lives instead? Isn't it just a TAD blasphemous to believe that we, as fallen, sinful, corrupt mortals can somehow bring about peace and equality and restoration when the word of God declares that only His return and reign can accomplish such a thing?

Now mind you, that does NOT mean that we aren't supposed to do anything. We are supposed to love each other, care for each other, SHARE willingly with each other. But along with sharing THINGS, we're supposed to be sharing salvation, gospel truth, and the good news of man's ability to be reconciled to God.

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-27-2010 @ 2:45am

"Did God ordain you with the authority to ridicule in His name at the same time He granted you the exclusive ability to speak with God? "

Yes, I got that right around the same time God gave you a house.

In answer to your other questions; yes, absolutely. Soul liberty is a powerful Baptist distinctive. God places authority in our lives (The Bible, covenant brothers and sisters' counsel, leadership (pastoral and governmental), elders) to guide and focus the direction of the Spirit. I have found it uniquely Mormon to seek the exclusive direction of God to determine God's will. when I asked the missionaries if they would leave their wives for no other reason than God telling them to do so, they immediately answered in the affirmative. This doctrine is nothing short of self-worship, which I see in other "me and God alone" attitudes toward giving expressed by you and others on this thread.

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-27-2010 @ 2:49am

Thank you for admitting that the community has a rightful claim to your property backed by both the Scriptures and the Constitution. Here's another interesting real life application question: Should the government use it's right to eminent domain to prevent the building of a Muslim community center near the site of the former World Trade Center?

by: Minnesotan

07-24-2010 @ 4:54pm

When I see that free markets have lifted millions out of poverty in China, India, South Korea, it says to me that the concept of 'social justice' urging more government control of the economy will in the long run, not help poor people.

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-27-2010 @ 2:49am

Thank you for admitting that the community has a rightful claim to your property backed by both the Scriptures and the Constitution. Here's another interesting real life application question: Should the government use it's right to eminent domain to prevent the building of a Muslim community center near the site of the former World Trade Center?

by: Minnesotan

07-24-2010 @ 4:54pm

When I see that free markets have lifted millions out of poverty in China, India, South Korea, it says to me that the concept of 'social justice' urging more government control of the economy will in the long run, not help poor people.

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-27-2010 @ 2:45am

"Did God ordain you with the authority to ridicule in His name at the same time He granted you the exclusive ability to speak with God? "

Yes, I got that right around the same time God gave you a house.

In answer to your other questions; yes, absolutely. Soul liberty is a powerful Baptist distinctive. God places authority in our lives (The Bible, covenant brothers and sisters' counsel, leadership (pastoral and governmental), elders) to guide and focus the direction of the Spirit. I have found it uniquely Mormon to seek the exclusive direction of God to determine God's will. when I asked the missionaries if they would leave their wives for no other reason than God telling them to do so, they immediately answered in the affirmative. This doctrine is nothing short of self-worship, which I see in other "me and God alone" attitudes toward giving expressed by you and others on this thread.

by: Lisa Belise

07-23-2010 @ 6:15am

We both know the answer to that....at least I'm going to ASSUME that we do. :P

So who among us has been called to "distribute" or "redistribute" His belongings? Who among us has the authority to determine who is squatting on "His" land and who isn't or whom He wishes to have certain things?

Biblically speaking-the House of Israel should start reclaiming not only their land, but the descendants of their ancestors slaves because God gave both to them.

That is the problem with trying to command all of society based upon the commandments written in the Bible. You can't "piecemeal" govern with the parts you like and ignore the parts you don't like without destroying the word of God as a whole. He didn't ask us to govern the world or control the people, or expect more from them than He did. He asked us to teach, to endure and to submit. Part of having FAITH in Him is believing that He's got things covered. That He will make all things right in His own due time.

Paul mentions those who "have not submitted to God's righteousness going about to establish their own righteousness". We do that when we take more upon ourselves than God saw fit to give us. We are not to say "I will recompense evil" we are to "wait on the Lord" and His justice.

Above all, I believe that God desires for His children to rely on HIM for the blessings/things/prosperity in their lives. He wants us to turn to Him, to ask Him, to depend on Him-rather than learning to expect or rely on the "arm of flesh". If we, being evil know how to give good gifts to our children, how much more can, and shall, the Father in heaven give good things to those that ask Him?

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-27-2010 @ 2:45am

"Did God ordain you with the authority to ridicule in His name at the same time He granted you the exclusive ability to speak with God? "

Yes, I got that right around the same time God gave you a house.

In answer to your other questions; yes, absolutely. Soul liberty is a powerful Baptist distinctive. God places authority in our lives (The Bible, covenant brothers and sisters' counsel, leadership (pastoral and governmental), elders) to guide and focus the direction of the Spirit. I have found it uniquely Mormon to seek the exclusive direction of God to determine God's will. when I asked the missionaries if they would leave their wives for no other reason than God telling them to do so, they immediately answered in the affirmative. This doctrine is nothing short of self-worship, which I see in other "me and God alone" attitudes toward giving expressed by you and others on this thread.

by: kansasmennonite

07-23-2010 @ 12:18pm

I stand by my comments.

BTW: DOn't you wish you had a union job? I sure do at times. Maybe I like to be exploited.

by: melayton

07-21-2010 @ 11:11pm

Thanks for clarifying what you mean by charity. Based on that, I'd say that it is a very different thing than what I think of when I mean justice. With charity, you are still deciding whether someone's need is important or not. Justice, on the other hand, is about making sure everyone has enough resources so that (under normal circumstances) they can meet their needs through a reasonable amount of work. That isn't total redistribution of the wealth; there can be unequal distribution so that one person's *wants* are met while another's isn't; but there are limits.

No one should be in a position to be dependent on someone else, in the normal course of events. Disasters and special circumstances are different, and there's real room for charity in places like Haiti or the Gulf Coast. But if someone is working as hard as they can and still can't afford basic needs, something is very wrong there. It's an unjust situation, and it's not right to give someone else control over which of their needs are met. (Which is basically what your "stewardship" seems to amount to - your decision rather than the person in need.)

There is a need for both charity and social justice, in my opinion.

by: melayton

07-21-2010 @ 11:11pm

Thanks for clarifying what you mean by charity. Based on that, I'd say that it is a very different thing than what I think of when I mean justice. With charity, you are still deciding whether someone's need is important or not. Justice, on the other hand, is about making sure everyone has enough resources so that (under normal circumstances) they can meet their needs through a reasonable amount of work. That isn't total redistribution of the wealth; there can be unequal distribution so that one person's *wants* are met while another's isn't; but there are limits.

No one should be in a position to be dependent on someone else, in the normal course of events. Disasters and special circumstances are different, and there's real room for charity in places like Haiti or the Gulf Coast. But if someone is working as hard as they can and still can't afford basic needs, something is very wrong there. It's an unjust situation, and it's not right to give someone else control over which of their needs are met. (Which is basically what your "stewardship" seems to amount to - your decision rather than the person in need.)

There is a need for both charity and social justice, in my opinion.

by: BlueDeacon

07-23-2010 @ 3:41am

The problem is that we take such an individualistic read on Scripture that the true meaning is lost. Middle Eastern culture is and has always been more collective and community-oriented, so Jesus wasn't always talking about individuals. Besides, one thing we don't talk about very much especially in evangelicalism is service -- it's too much about power, who has it and how much.

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-24-2010 @ 7:38pm

"But, I am under NO obligation, as a Christian or disciple of Christ to turn over anything that belongs to Him to my govt or anyone else simply because "they" say I should or that I have to."

1. I am sorry that you have abdicated your relationship and responsibility to your government.
2. Are you an anarchist?

by: Patricia

07-21-2010 @ 11:06pm

Just who are these "many" people who believe this?

Certainly not those who are fervent believers in "redistribution of wealth" upwards to the top, like we have now. Redistribution of wealth is a fact. It's just the direction of the redistribution that is an issue.

by: BlueDeacon

07-23-2010 @ 3:41am

The problem is that we take such an individualistic read on Scripture that the true meaning is lost. Middle Eastern culture is and has always been more collective and community-oriented, so Jesus wasn't always talking about individuals. Besides, one thing we don't talk about very much especially in evangelicalism is service -- it's too much about power, who has it and how much.

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-24-2010 @ 7:38pm

"But, I am under NO obligation, as a Christian or disciple of Christ to turn over anything that belongs to Him to my govt or anyone else simply because "they" say I should or that I have to."

1. I am sorry that you have abdicated your relationship and responsibility to your government.
2. Are you an anarchist?

by: Patricia

07-21-2010 @ 11:06pm

Just who are these "many" people who believe this?

Certainly not those who are fervent believers in "redistribution of wealth" upwards to the top, like we have now. Redistribution of wealth is a fact. It's just the direction of the redistribution that is an issue.

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

by: faithex

07-21-2010 @ 2:17pm

OK I missed how Glenn Beck's stance on liberation theology means he doesn't care about the poor. People can disagree with liberation theology and liberal teachings about social justice and still help the poor. In fact, I'm willing to go out on a limb and bet that conservative evangelicals give more of their money to church, charity and the poor than liberals- evangelical or otherwise.

by: faithex

07-21-2010 @ 2:17pm

OK I missed how Glenn Beck's stance on liberation theology means he doesn't care about the poor. People can disagree with liberation theology and liberal teachings about social justice and still help the poor. In fact, I'm willing to go out on a limb and bet that conservative evangelicals give more of their money to church, charity and the poor than liberals- evangelical or otherwise.

by: faithex

07-21-2010 @ 2:17pm

OK I missed how Glenn Beck's stance on liberation theology means he doesn't care about the poor. People can disagree with liberation theology and liberal teachings about social justice and still help the poor. In fact, I'm willing to go out on a limb and bet that conservative evangelicals give more of their money to church, charity and the poor than liberals- evangelical or otherwise.

by: BlueDeacon

07-21-2010 @ 2:24pm

Here's how.

The issue isn't "charity" -- who gives how much to whom -- but "justice," which truly empowers the poor to make their own way. You see, "charity" still keeps people in debt to their benefactors, often encouraging or obliging them to behave according to their culture, ideology or social norms.

One example from nearly two years ago was the sting operation on ACORN that he publicized on his show. You would never have heard about that if the group weren't registering the poor to vote, probably exclusively for Democrats. Anyway, Beck will never encourage the poor also to run for office, become community activists or buy homes, which give people a stake in their own lives -- and thus challenging the "status quo," which Beck represents.

by: BlueDeacon

07-21-2010 @ 2:24pm

Here's how.

The issue isn't "charity" -- who gives how much to whom -- but "justice," which truly empowers the poor to make their own way. You see, "charity" still keeps people in debt to their benefactors, often encouraging or obliging them to behave according to their culture, ideology or social norms.

One example from nearly two years ago was the sting operation on ACORN that he publicized on his show. You would never have heard about that if the group weren't registering the poor to vote, probably exclusively for Democrats. Anyway, Beck will never encourage the poor also to run for office, become community activists or buy homes, which give people a stake in their own lives -- and thus challenging the "status quo," which Beck represents.

by: BlueDeacon

07-21-2010 @ 2:24pm

Here's how.

The issue isn't "charity" -- who gives how much to whom -- but "justice," which truly empowers the poor to make their own way. You see, "charity" still keeps people in debt to their benefactors, often encouraging or obliging them to behave according to their culture, ideology or social norms.

One example from nearly two years ago was the sting operation on ACORN that he publicized on his show. You would never have heard about that if the group weren't registering the poor to vote, probably exclusively for Democrats. Anyway, Beck will never encourage the poor also to run for office, become community activists or buy homes, which give people a stake in their own lives -- and thus challenging the "status quo," which Beck represents.

by: hikerrev

07-21-2010 @ 2:37pm

Even beyond the truth that giving money and caring for the poor and marginalized are not necessarily synonymous, part of the trouble with the way we think about money in our culture is that we believe it belongs to us.

I get a paycheck, which means the money must belong to me, and so I get to decide what to do with my money. Thinking about 'I' and 'mine' does not seem to sit well with the idea that the earth and everything in it belongs to G-d.

What if to truly care about the poor, we decided that none would be poor again? Of course, Jesus did say we'd always have the poor with us, but I chalk that truth up to human greed ~ if no one is poor, then no one can be rich (since 'poor' is only defined in comparison to 'rich'), and we all are greedy and want to be rich.

$0.02

by: hikerrev

07-21-2010 @ 2:37pm

Even beyond the truth that giving money and caring for the poor and marginalized are not necessarily synonymous, part of the trouble with the way we think about money in our culture is that we believe it belongs to us.

I get a paycheck, which means the money must belong to me, and so I get to decide what to do with my money. Thinking about 'I' and 'mine' does not seem to sit well with the idea that the earth and everything in it belongs to G-d.

What if to truly care about the poor, we decided that none would be poor again? Of course, Jesus did say we'd always have the poor with us, but I chalk that truth up to human greed ~ if no one is poor, then no one can be rich (since 'poor' is only defined in comparison to 'rich'), and we all are greedy and want to be rich.

$0.02

by: paulwhiteleysr

07-21-2010 @ 2:41pm

Quote from St. Augustine: "Charity is no substitute for justice withheld."

by: paulwhiteleysr

07-21-2010 @ 2:41pm

Quote from St. Augustine: "Charity is no substitute for justice withheld."

by: paulwhiteleysr

07-21-2010 @ 2:41pm

Quote from St. Augustine: "Charity is no substitute for justice withheld."

by: Patricia

07-21-2010 @ 2:51pm

I don't have any problem with people disagreeing with liberation theology and liberal teachings.

What I have a problem with is people deliberately distorting those teachings, and deliberately and falsely equating those teachings with political ideologies and figures (SOCIALISM! MARX! STALIN!) in a deliberate effort make those teachings appear frightening and evil.

What I have a problem with are people who are too intellectually and spiritually lazy to do anything beyond spouting off whatever their particular favored ideologue tells them about liberation theology or liberal teachings about social justice as gospel without first finding out if what they have been told is the truth or not.

What I have a problem with is people who do not bother to honestly and sincerely make an effort to be sure they actually understand what the concept or theology they are so strenuous about "disagreeing" with actually means, holds, believes, or teaches, before setting off on a "disagreement" campaign.

What I have a problem with is people "disagreeing" out of ignorance, laziness, or commitment to political ideology before their commitment to the Word of God.

by: Patricia

07-21-2010 @ 2:51pm

I don't have any problem with people disagreeing with liberation theology and liberal teachings.

What I have a problem with is people deliberately distorting those teachings, and deliberately and falsely equating those teachings with political ideologies and figures (SOCIALISM! MARX! STALIN!) in a deliberate effort make those teachings appear frightening and evil.

What I have a problem with are people who are too intellectually and spiritually lazy to do anything beyond spouting off whatever their particular favored ideologue tells them about liberation theology or liberal teachings about social justice as gospel without first finding out if what they have been told is the truth or not.

What I have a problem with is people who do not bother to honestly and sincerely make an effort to be sure they actually understand what the concept or theology they are so strenuous about "disagreeing" with actually means, holds, believes, or teaches, before setting off on a "disagreement" campaign.

What I have a problem with is people "disagreeing" out of ignorance, laziness, or commitment to political ideology before their commitment to the Word of God.

by: Patricia

07-21-2010 @ 2:51pm

I don't have any problem with people disagreeing with liberation theology and liberal teachings.

What I have a problem with is people deliberately distorting those teachings, and deliberately and falsely equating those teachings with political ideologies and figures (SOCIALISM! MARX! STALIN!) in a deliberate effort make those teachings appear frightening and evil.

What I have a problem with are people who are too intellectually and spiritually lazy to do anything beyond spouting off whatever their particular favored ideologue tells them about liberation theology or liberal teachings about social justice as gospel without first finding out if what they have been told is the truth or not.

What I have a problem with is people who do not bother to honestly and sincerely make an effort to be sure they actually understand what the concept or theology they are so strenuous about "disagreeing" with actually means, holds, believes, or teaches, before setting off on a "disagreement" campaign.

What I have a problem with is people "disagreeing" out of ignorance, laziness, or commitment to political ideology before their commitment to the Word of God.

by: Shane Raynor

07-21-2010 @ 2:59pm

I realize you weren't referring specifically to me, but allow me to assure you that I don't buy into everything anybody says... Glenn Beck or otherwise. Beck is a Mormon so I generally look at anything he says about religion through a lens of skepticism. But on liberation theology and social justice, he's closer to the truth than most of his detractors.

by: Shane Raynor

07-21-2010 @ 2:59pm

I realize you weren't referring specifically to me, but allow me to assure you that I don't buy into everything anybody says... Glenn Beck or otherwise. Beck is a Mormon so I generally look at anything he says about religion through a lens of skepticism. But on liberation theology and social justice, he's closer to the truth than most of his detractors.

by: Shane Raynor

07-21-2010 @ 2:59pm

I realize you weren't referring specifically to me, but allow me to assure you that I don't buy into everything anybody says... Glenn Beck or otherwise. Beck is a Mormon so I generally look at anything he says about religion through a lens of skepticism. But on liberation theology and social justice, he's closer to the truth than most of his detractors.

by: Patricia

07-21-2010 @ 3:03pm

I disagree - he is not anywhere near the truth about liberation theology. He's just twisting and distorting it, like he twisted and distorted social justice, to make a buck.

by: Patricia

07-21-2010 @ 3:03pm

I disagree - he is not anywhere near the truth about liberation theology. He's just twisting and distorting it, like he twisted and distorted social justice, to make a buck.

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-21-2010 @ 3:11pm

When my brother is poor, so am I.

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-21-2010 @ 3:11pm

When my brother is poor, so am I.

by: Scott Eppler

07-21-2010 @ 3:22pm

I have to agree with you Shane. I think Beck has distorted Liberation Theology a little but he's still closer than most. He is right about "Collective Salvation" he just seems like he doesn't fully understand what it means.

However, I believe that Christianity is all about your personal relationship with Christ. It's just that your relationship with Him should lead you to obey his commandments which are to "love your neighbor as yourself" and take care of the poor, oppressed, the widows and orphans, etc. But I also see Julie's point in this article that many Christians use their "personal relationship" with God as an excuse for not doing what they are commanded.

Although I don't find this to be the message preached "in many conservative evangelical American churches" as Julie suggests, instead I find this to be the actions of many of those that attend the churches. It's like they listen to the message on Sunday that says they should do these things, then go out and Monday and think...someone else will do that stuff.

by: Scott Eppler

07-21-2010 @ 3:22pm

I have to agree with you Shane. I think Beck has distorted Liberation Theology a little but he's still closer than most. He is right about "Collective Salvation" he just seems like he doesn't fully understand what it means.

However, I believe that Christianity is all about your personal relationship with Christ. It's just that your relationship with Him should lead you to obey his commandments which are to "love your neighbor as yourself" and take care of the poor, oppressed, the widows and orphans, etc. But I also see Julie's point in this article that many Christians use their "personal relationship" with God as an excuse for not doing what they are commanded.

Although I don't find this to be the message preached "in many conservative evangelical American churches" as Julie suggests, instead I find this to be the actions of many of those that attend the churches. It's like they listen to the message on Sunday that says they should do these things, then go out and Monday and think...someone else will do that stuff.

by: pcnot4me

07-21-2010 @ 3:32pm

"His average viewer most likely believes that the message of Christianity can be reduced to this concept of one's personal relationship with God"

Reduced? The awe of the Gospel and the fact that God sent his own son to die for ME and MY sins can never be reduced. In fact as one truly understands how much God has done for him. He does more for others. As one deepens in his relationship with God, he helps others. He becomes God focused and then others focused.

The importance of one's personal relationship with God can never be "reduced".

by: pcnot4me

07-21-2010 @ 3:32pm

"His average viewer most likely believes that the message of Christianity can be reduced to this concept of one's personal relationship with God"

Reduced? The awe of the Gospel and the fact that God sent his own son to die for ME and MY sins can never be reduced. In fact as one truly understands how much God has done for him. He does more for others. As one deepens in his relationship with God, he helps others. He becomes God focused and then others focused.

The importance of one's personal relationship with God can never be "reduced".

by: BlueDeacon

07-21-2010 @ 3:44pm

However, that's often not what you hear on Christian media -- there, it's all about the individual, to the point where some people won't even join or even attend a local church (they think they can get all they need on TV/radio or personal study). Calvin said, "We are not saved by the church, but we are not saved without the church."

by: BlueDeacon

07-21-2010 @ 3:44pm

However, that's often not what you hear on Christian media -- there, it's all about the individual, to the point where some people won't even join or even attend a local church (they think they can get all they need on TV/radio or personal study). Calvin said, "We are not saved by the church, but we are not saved without the church."

by: hikerrev

07-21-2010 @ 3:54pm

The trouble with placing emphasis on one's personal relationship with God is that the Christian life quickly becomes all about what I'm doing right and what I'm doing wrong. The truth is that we all sin and fall short of the glory of God; that I cannot ever improve my relationship with God; that any good thing I do is God working through me; that I cannot be Christian without a community holding me accountable for my shortcomings, calling me to repentance, and speaking God's word of forgiveness to me.

If the Christian life is only about my personal relationship with God, I will fail every time, every day, every hour. The Christian life is about becoming the Body of Christ in the world ~ and none of us does this by ourselves.

We cannot be Christian in isolation. One's personal relationship with God is important ~ but we only live this relationship within the context of the community of the church, broken and flawed as it is.

$0.02

by: hikerrev

07-21-2010 @ 3:54pm

The trouble with placing emphasis on one's personal relationship with God is that the Christian life quickly becomes all about what I'm doing right and what I'm doing wrong. The truth is that we all sin and fall short of the glory of God; that I cannot ever improve my relationship with God; that any good thing I do is God working through me; that I cannot be Christian without a community holding me accountable for my shortcomings, calling me to repentance, and speaking God's word of forgiveness to me.

If the Christian life is only about my personal relationship with God, I will fail every time, every day, every hour. The Christian life is about becoming the Body of Christ in the world ~ and none of us does this by ourselves.

We cannot be Christian in isolation. One's personal relationship with God is important ~ but we only live this relationship within the context of the community of the church, broken and flawed as it is.

$0.02

by: Scott Eppler

07-21-2010 @ 4:33pm

I completely agree here. I think the best example/verse for this is Matthew 22:34-40. When Jesus tells the Pharisees the two greatest commandments are to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind" (personal relationship) and to "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Church, Evangelism, Charity, etc). Notice that even though they were only asking for the first, Jesus knew that it was very necessary that they understood that the second was just as important so he made sure to add it in as well.

by: Scott Eppler

07-21-2010 @ 4:33pm

I completely agree here. I think the best example/verse for this is Matthew 22:34-40. When Jesus tells the Pharisees the two greatest commandments are to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind" (personal relationship) and to "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Church, Evangelism, Charity, etc). Notice that even though they were only asking for the first, Jesus knew that it was very necessary that they understood that the second was just as important so he made sure to add it in as well.

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-21-2010 @ 5:11pm

Agreed. In fact, it's so important that the two become one in Jesus' mind. Our only measuring stick for our relationship to God is our relationship to the least- another description of Liberation Theology.

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-21-2010 @ 5:11pm

Agreed. In fact, it's so important that the two become one in Jesus' mind. Our only measuring stick for our relationship to God is our relationship to the least- another description of Liberation Theology.

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-21-2010 @ 5:11pm

Agreed. In fact, it's so important that the two become one in Jesus' mind. Our only measuring stick for our relationship to God is our relationship to the least- another description of Liberation Theology.

by: titopoet

07-21-2010 @ 5:15pm

"Reduced? The awe of the Gospel and the fact that God sent his own son to die for ME and MY sins can never be reduced."

When Jesus taught us to pray, the first line of the prayer is: "OUR Father ..." not "MY" Jesus died for OUR sins. Every letter of St. Paul, except one, was written to a group, not to an individual.

John's Gospel say "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish," (notice John does not say for God so loved you.) The original sin of Adam and Eve was the sin of ME, ME, ME. The sin of ME, ME, ME in Biblical terms is called the sin of pride.

The Kingdom of God is not a kingdom of the individual.

by: titopoet

07-21-2010 @ 5:15pm

"Reduced? The awe of the Gospel and the fact that God sent his own son to die for ME and MY sins can never be reduced."

When Jesus taught us to pray, the first line of the prayer is: "OUR Father ..." not "MY" Jesus died for OUR sins. Every letter of St. Paul, except one, was written to a group, not to an individual.

John's Gospel say "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish," (notice John does not say for God so loved you.) The original sin of Adam and Eve was the sin of ME, ME, ME. The sin of ME, ME, ME in Biblical terms is called the sin of pride.

The Kingdom of God is not a kingdom of the individual.

by: titopoet

07-21-2010 @ 5:15pm

"Reduced? The awe of the Gospel and the fact that God sent his own son to die for ME and MY sins can never be reduced."

When Jesus taught us to pray, the first line of the prayer is: "OUR Father ..." not "MY" Jesus died for OUR sins. Every letter of St. Paul, except one, was written to a group, not to an individual.

John's Gospel say "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish," (notice John does not say for God so loved you.) The original sin of Adam and Eve was the sin of ME, ME, ME. The sin of ME, ME, ME in Biblical terms is called the sin of pride.

The Kingdom of God is not a kingdom of the individual.

by: rustys1

07-21-2010 @ 5:40pm

This is a "straw-man" If I ever saw one:
"It is easier...to say that loving our neighbor distracts us from loving God than it is to repent of social sin. It is easier to say, "MY faith is all about ME and MY relationship with God" than it is to making living sacrifices of ourselves."

Loving my neighbor distracts me from loving my God?? I admit that there are selfish people in the world but honestly, who is out there "saying" (and more importantly, believing) these things? Less people than you'd like to admit.

This is getting so old...

- Beck ignores the spiritual side of liberation theology
- Clawson oversimplifies Beck and his audience likening them to spiritual hermit crabs.
- Beck reduces and conflates the concept of "social justice" to "socialist justice".
- Clawson and others impugn American Christians as selfish and greedy capitalists.

Can we just stop the oversimplified name-calling and have a real discussion about how we help one another overcome sin and live the gospel?

by: rustys1

07-21-2010 @ 5:40pm

This is a "straw-man" If I ever saw one:
"It is easier...to say that loving our neighbor distracts us from loving God than it is to repent of social sin. It is easier to say, "MY faith is all about ME and MY relationship with God" than it is to making living sacrifices of ourselves."

Loving my neighbor distracts me from loving my God?? I admit that there are selfish people in the world but honestly, who is out there "saying" (and more importantly, believing) these things? Less people than you'd like to admit.

This is getting so old...

- Beck ignores the spiritual side of liberation theology
- Clawson oversimplifies Beck and his audience likening them to spiritual hermit crabs.
- Beck reduces and conflates the concept of "social justice" to "socialist justice".
- Clawson and others impugn American Christians as selfish and greedy capitalists.

Can we just stop the oversimplified name-calling and have a real discussion about how we help one another overcome sin and live the gospel?

by: rustys1

07-21-2010 @ 5:40pm

This is a "straw-man" If I ever saw one:
"It is easier...to say that loving our neighbor distracts us from loving God than it is to repent of social sin. It is easier to say, "MY faith is all about ME and MY relationship with God" than it is to making living sacrifices of ourselves."

Loving my neighbor distracts me from loving my God?? I admit that there are selfish people in the world but honestly, who is out there "saying" (and more importantly, believing) these things? Less people than you'd like to admit.

This is getting so old...

- Beck ignores the spiritual side of liberation theology
- Clawson oversimplifies Beck and his audience likening them to spiritual hermit crabs.
- Beck reduces and conflates the concept of "social justice" to "socialist justice".
- Clawson and others impugn American Christians as selfish and greedy capitalists.

Can we just stop the oversimplified name-calling and have a real discussion about how we help one another overcome sin and live the gospel?

by: grazorblade

07-21-2010 @ 6:09pm

liberation theology for me is a call to personal holiness. It does nothing to undermine my belief in penal substitution and is merely a branch of sanctification by regeneration. Lots of big terms there, I'd like to read a lolcatz version of what i just said

by: grazorblade

07-21-2010 @ 6:09pm

liberation theology for me is a call to personal holiness. It does nothing to undermine my belief in penal substitution and is merely a branch of sanctification by regeneration. Lots of big terms there, I'd like to read a lolcatz version of what i just said

by: grazorblade

07-21-2010 @ 6:09pm

liberation theology for me is a call to personal holiness. It does nothing to undermine my belief in penal substitution and is merely a branch of sanctification by regeneration. Lots of big terms there, I'd like to read a lolcatz version of what i just said

by: Ngchen

07-21-2010 @ 6:28pm

I agree completely with your sentiment. Speaking of which, with all the controversy surrounding liberation theology, can someone please recommend a text or two that defines and describes it in detail, so that we can debate and discuss it honestly?

by: Ngchen

07-21-2010 @ 6:28pm

I agree completely with your sentiment. Speaking of which, with all the controversy surrounding liberation theology, can someone please recommend a text or two that defines and describes it in detail, so that we can debate and discuss it honestly?

by: Ngchen

07-21-2010 @ 6:28pm

I agree completely with your sentiment. Speaking of which, with all the controversy surrounding liberation theology, can someone please recommend a text or two that defines and describes it in detail, so that we can debate and discuss it honestly?

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-21-2010 @ 6:59pm

US History Encyclopedia:
Liberation Theology
Top
Home > Library > History, Politics & Society > US History Encyclopedia

Liberation theology emerged from a long process of transformation in post-Enlightenment Christian theological reflection. As science and historical criticism challenged the findings of traditional metaphysical foundations of theology, theologians were widely expected to reconcile their findings with modern principles of analysis and criticism. Where theological reflection was previously focused on the metaphysical and supernatural, it became increasingly concerned with pragmatic and concrete problems.

Liberation theology originated in the 1960s in North and South America, although it was rooted in works by post

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-21-2010 @ 6:59pm

US History Encyclopedia:
Liberation Theology
Top
Home > Library > History, Politics & Society > US History Encyclopedia

Liberation theology emerged from a long process of transformation in post-Enlightenment Christian theological reflection. As science and historical criticism challenged the findings of traditional metaphysical foundations of theology, theologians were widely expected to reconcile their findings with modern principles of analysis and criticism. Where theological reflection was previously focused on the metaphysical and supernatural, it became increasingly concerned with pragmatic and concrete problems.

Liberation theology originated in the 1960s in North and South America, although it was rooted in works by post

by: PASTOR JEFF

07-21-2010 @ 6:59pm

US History Encyclopedia:
Liberation Theology
Top
Home > Library > History, Politics & Society > US History Encyclopedia

Liberation theology emerged from a long process of transformation in post-Enlightenment Christian theological reflection. As science and historical criticism challenged the findings of traditional metaphysical foundations of theology, theologians were widely expected to reconcile their findings with modern principles of analysis and criticism. Where theological reflection was previously focused on the metaphysical and supernatural, it became increasingly concerned with pragmatic and concrete problems.

Liberation theology originated in the 1960s in North and South America, although it was rooted in works by post

by: jesse3

07-21-2010 @ 7:27pm

Another day, another post from a Sojo contributor criticizing Glenn Beck for misrepresenting progressive Christians while at the same time misrepresenting his arguments. Seriously dude, stop being such a one trick pony...yawn.