Get E-Mail Updates

Glenn Beck: Does He Really Matter?

In the course of our various responses and challenges to Glenn Beck, some have questioned why we have bothered. It is a fair question. After all, the critiques of social justice he offers are not particularly new nor are they particularly insightful. In fact, one has yet to hear a sustained argument (you know, with premises, conclusions, and the like), and instead we tend to get innuendo, misdirection, and assertions.

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. 

Virtually every strand of Christian faith has social justice of the kind Sojourners defends as a constituent part. Of course, the largest strand of Christian faith in the world, Roman Catholicism, makes social teaching a central component, and more than one pope has weighed in on the importance of both charity and just societal structures that are mindful and protective of what Scripture calls "the least of these." So, with all that, why bother to respond to Beck?

Well, unfortunately, we live in a time when up is being called down and down is being called up; a time when innuendo and misrepresentation are substituted successfully for reasoned discourse; a time when many Americans are deeply frustrated and angry. Under those conditions, fear and frustration often trump our common sense, our ability to discuss our disagreements in a reasonable fashion gets lost, and common sense easily falls by the wayside. Fear and self interest too frequently cause us to abandon the "better angels" of our nature and turn our backs on the "common good." The nature of the times coupled with Sojourners' mission to articulate the biblical call to social justice makes it imperative that we respond even to challenges like those tossed out by Glenn Beck.

We realize, of course, that hard-core Beck fans and hard-core libertarians are not going to change their minds, no matter what we say. Similarly, no amount of blustery assertion on Beck's part is going to change the minds of those who rightly see social justice not as something one adds to the Christian life, but rather see it as part and parcel of what it means to follow the Crucified One. However, as I have discovered over the years, there are many, many Christians who are intuitively committed to social justice, but through no fault of their own, have never heard social justice articulated in a clear, compelling fashion. There are also those who lean toward social justice, but are still in discernment mode. The former badly need an encouraging voice, and the latter badly need reasoned and respectful dialogue. Both are things Sojourners is committed to providing.

It is precisely because of the troubled times in which we find ourselves that one might even give thanks for someone like Glenn Beck and his raising the issues that he has. Why? Because, from his platform and with his audience, we are presented with the opportunity to articulate the biblical call to social justice to a broader audience, to some of those very folk in the last two categories above. His critiques elevate the notion of social justice to a wider audience, and our very calling requires us to take advantage of that and leverage the gospel's call to be about social justice.

It is our hope that reasoned discourse can be the outcome, a fair weighing of the competing views, so that folks might understand better the options and what is at stake. In fact, Jim Wallis continues to offer himself for open debate with Beck on the subject. What a boon it would be to America's theo-political discourse if the two could meet for a spirited debate about their differing views on scripture's vision of a just society!

In spite of -- and perhaps because of -- Beck's challenges, our constituency has grown, more folks have become committed to social justice and for that, we give thanks to God. And for these reasons, we will continue to see responding to challenges to the gospel's call to justice a center piece of our ministry.

Chuck Gutenson is the chief operating officer for Sojourners.

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

by: Xanderr

09-15-2010 @ 6:42pm

BlueDeacon,

Yes, some conservatives and many Republicans are as dishonest as liberals, and both sides need to admit their error.

No, for a Christian it's not simply about "Is this good and right for the greatest number of people?"

It's also about obeying the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.

Now, if you want to change the Constitution to give the government all the power it needs to satisfy every want and need in the land and make liberals happy, God's way is to do it legally, which under our form of government means adding Amendments to the Constitution.

That's my beef with lawless Democrats and Republicans

by: Neocon55

09-15-2010 @ 6:36pm

Just like liberals, who love the decision that "keeps the govt's hands off my body" yet want to have the govt involved in all aspects of healthcare and get its hands all over their bodies EXCEPT for the one that allows them to kill their children.

by: BlueDeacon

09-15-2010 @ 6:26pm

I've posted much about how our federal government was designed to be a LIMITED government, with few and specified powers. Liberals, on the other hand, like to pretend that the government has UNLIMITED power.

That's often a red herring. After all, conservatives often use the "limited government" shtick to oppose legislation they don't like or that doesn't benefit them directly. Besides, for the Christian it's not an issue of "how much government" but "Is this good and right for the greatest number of people?"

by: WaveTossed

09-09-2010 @ 2:33pm

Hammerud wrote: "Government should never have been allowed to take from one and give to another (I think it is called stealing), which is what we see today. Don't take money from me, give it to somebody else, and then talk about how compassionate and concerned for social justice you are. Use your own money. The socialistic path we are going down will result in the equal distribution of misery. I think Glen Beck has highlighted a lot of this, and at least has come against the policies of this administration, which need to be opposed."

I have never heard or read anywhere where Glenn Beck is opposed to the government taking MY tax money to fund such ventures as foreign military entanglements (such as in Iraq or Afghanistan), the useless "war on drugs", or for such protectionist Nanny State endeavors such as building fences and sending soldiers to the border to prevent the free market exchange of workers who wish to work and the employers who wish to hire them.

I've never heard or read Glenn Beck advocating an end to foreign military entanglements, which costs billions and billions.

I've never heard or read Glenn Beck advocating for an end to the "war on drugs" that costs billions and billion -- and may be the next excuse for sending in our troops into foreign countries. Alcohol prohibition didn't work and prohibition of other drugs isn't working either.

I've never read or heard Glenn Beck calling for comprehensive immigration reforms that will clear the INS logjam that prevents and holds up immigrants that wish to come into this country legally. For reasonable solutions, read what the Cato Institute has to say about immigration reform.

I did read where Glenn Beck has advocated for government to get out of the defining marriage business -- that people should be allowed to marry each other regardless of gender. That's a hopeful start. But before Beck can call himself a "libertarian," he needs to follow libertarian beliefs. Right now -- except for the gay marriage issue -- Beck is about as libertarian as George W. Bush.

by: Xanderr

09-15-2010 @ 6:11pm

liberalinlove wrote:

"It is human nature to want to believe what is most convenient. Those who seek truth even if it means rebuilding the house will be able to at least be a part of the solution instead of part of the problem."

Ok, then, are you willing to live by your own words? Will you consider that you might be wrong?

I've posted much about how our federal government was designed to be a LIMITED government, with few and specified powers. Liberals, on the other hand, like to pretend that the government has UNLIMITED power.

Both can't be right.

So, tell me where you think I'm wrong. Read my post from yesterday, which began: "Patricia, Whether or not I garner much support

by: Ston

07-31-2011 @ 10:36am

Different...

[

by: Patricia

09-09-2010 @ 2:19pm

Glenn Beck probably matters about as much as Father Coughlin. Now, he's a big deal. Later, he'll just be an embarrassment. My prayer is he begins losing his influence pretty soon, because his divisiveness, dishonesty, and irrationality are not helping us as a nation or as people of God.

by: Xanderr

09-15-2010 @ 5:28pm

Patricia wrote:

"That's ONE interpretation...the extreme libertarian interpretation...which is not the only interpretation. And, it seems more than a little incongruous to me. You cited yourself that in Article 1, Section 8, "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" I happen to believe that All of the "unconstitutional" programs and laws you cite are justified under this very section.

I think, in this case, you ought to exercise your openness to consider other points of view, and consider that you might be wrong :)."

Patricia, you're wrong. You have a serious misunderstanding of our form of government. That sentence in Article 1, Section 8 which you quoted, does NOT give congress power to legislate in all areas of our lives. Such thinking flies in the face of the limited government which our Founding Fathers created. Do you really think that our Founding Fathers intended to give UNLIMITED power to government, after having a war against too much government power? That's nonsensical and irrational. Do a little reading about their beliefs and you'll see that. It's history

by: castlebc

09-09-2010 @ 5:33pm

GB's calling social justice communism may have affected me personally. I just finished an MA in social justice and am having a hard time finding a college in Florida to let me teach it!

by: WaveTossed

09-09-2010 @ 5:17pm

Neocon55 wrote: "WaveTossed, instead of posting that in every thread why don't we just name it: WT Thread Response #1?

"We will know what you mean. :) "

Not a bad idea. :)

I keep repeating this because blog writers (and others) keep repeating the mistaken idea that Beck is a libertarian when basically, he is not; he is a typical neo-conservative.

The other reason I keep repeating this is because various people complain about their money being stolen by the IRS for giving to the poor. And I NEVER, EVER hear or see them complaining about the tax monies being stolen for foreign wars or for unnecessary Nanny State law enforcement purposes.

by: squeaky

09-15-2010 @ 8:30pm

You must be pro-choice, then, right? I mean, if we shouldn't legislate morality, then being pro-life isn't really a consistent stance, is it?

by: squeaky

09-15-2010 @ 8:29pm

So I assume, then, from your comments, that you think the Cordoba House should be built, and that US Citizens shouldn't be required to show ID to prove that they are Citizens in Arizona?

by: squeaky

09-15-2010 @ 8:26pm

I would note that our economy was in much better shape before the Bush tax cuts...

by: BlueDeacon

09-15-2010 @ 8:24pm

Uh -- probably the majority of conservatives and libertarians are pro-choice on abortion (which is why they tend to leave it alone). Besides, abortion laws were passed at the turn of the last century by liberals.

by: nissan canada

07-19-2011 @ 12:50am

nissan juke 4x4...

Awesome post, I've linked back to your blog here http://www.vwsuv.net/sites-we-like/ return the favor if you can, thanks!...

by: BlueDeacon

09-15-2010 @ 8:22pm

No, for a Christian it's not simply about "Is this good and right for the greatest number of people?"
It's also about obeying the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.

Yeah, right, as if we Christians shouldn't break the law when it conflicts with God's Kingdom agenda. That was the same excuse for folks trying to shut down the civil-rights movement and are probably still angry about that.

by: strawberryfarmer

09-09-2010 @ 7:05pm

I love sojourners... and its message of peace, social justice, fairness, equality, civility, and on we go... And maybe it is because I find Beck to be someone who, for various reasons, gets under my skin I say this: Is there anything else we can talk about? I understand he is a media god who brings in the masses. I understand he wrongfully attacked Christians who believe social justice to be important. I understand that opposite facts must be presented. But at what point do we feel like that has been done? When can we step back from this particular argument and stop with the responding. We have addressed this issue- repeatedly. But then again, the repetiveness and hostility of most things relating to the political element of late, makes me seriously wonder what life would be like if I lived somewhere else. When can we stop snapping, ridiculing, undercutting, lashing out and basically tearing each other down? Overall, it would just be nice to have a break from the venom, conflict, and constant bickering- but it is an election year, so....

by: BlueDeacon

09-09-2010 @ 6:38pm

I did not say that -- hacker. Cease and desist.

by: BlueDeacon

09-09-2010 @ 6:38pm

Cease and desist.

by: BlueDeacon

09-09-2010 @ 6:36pm

I keep repeating this because blog writers (and others) keep repeating the mistaken idea that Beck is a libertarian when basically, he is not; he is a typical neo-conservative.

In many respects, truth be told, they are the same thing. Both are ideologies that seek to deny justice and are based in a corrupting of scriptures.

by: BlueDeacon

09-09-2010 @ 6:33pm

Fair enough, but Beck feeds on publicity. How does the continued battle between Sojo and Beck not simply add to Beck's power?

Beck must be countered at every opportunity. His philosophy is based on a twisted reading of scripture that comes from a long line of conservative true believers that seek to divide people.

Wallis has been doing this for over 40 years and has no self-interest in having a public debate with Beck. Wallis is completely non-partisan. In truth, Beck is the opposite and attacked Wallis on his show.

by: Xanderr

09-18-2010 @ 1:23am

Hi, Kirk1,

The "social justice" which the sojo.net people like to promote isn't really justice at all, but rather theft and lawlessness. They want to help the poor, but they have no clue as to how to do it legally and morally. Essentially, they advocate the robbery of their neighbors to achieve their ends, which are endless social programs funded by wealth "redistribution" (another name for robbery) and borrowing

money. Their way of thinking is bankrupting our nation, and will eventually destroy us.

Their brand of "social justice" is not inspired by God

by: melayton

09-11-2010 @ 5:21am

Thinking about this whole debate, I am reminded of the old joke about the debate between the rabbi and the priest. I am all for raising the profile of social justice and for offering reason in an age where it doesn't seem to get through. But sometimes it seems like people are not speaking the same language, misunderstand each other too often and just aren't interested in communicating. It's as if the words we use mean different things. And in that case any call to debate will not help, because debate has become impossible. So I'd say the appropriate response isn't to encourage debate; that seems a bit like casting your pearls before swine on this point. The better approach is to lay the groundwork so debate will be fruitful. I just wish I knew how to do that... :-S

by: BlueDeacon

09-09-2010 @ 5:02pm

In those days, however, "kings" really answered to no one. Liberal democracies, however, do; they have to please their respective "constituencies" lest its members be voted out.

by: Jeremy James

09-09-2010 @ 4:57pm

Well articulated Chuck! I especially loved where you talked about the fact that we live in "a time when innuendo and misrepresentation are substituted successfully for reasoned discourse", this is absolutely true, and as such the innuendo and misrepresentation must be met head on.

by: Neocon55

09-09-2010 @ 4:55pm

I think the prophets had plenty to say about kings who placed oppressive taxes on their people. It's as immoral for govt to overspend as it is to neglect the poor.

And, just for the record, overspending has been a bi-partisan issue.

by: Neocon55

09-09-2010 @ 4:53pm

WaveTossed, instead of posting that in every thread why don't we just name it: WT Thread Response #1?

We will know what you mean. :)

by: Neocon55

09-09-2010 @ 4:52pm

Actually, Madison got the idea for three branches of govt from Isaiah 33:22:

For the LORD is our judge; the LORD is our lawgiver; the LORD is our king; he will save us.

by: Hebrews12

09-09-2010 @ 4:35pm

THANK YOU WaveTossed, THANK YOU! We need a "love it" button here. I felt like I was reading words that had come straight from my own heart!

by: BlueDeacon

09-09-2010 @ 7:51pm

That was the impostor; I do know the difference. (Your reply will not show up on my e-mail.)

by: BlueDeacon

09-09-2010 @ 7:49pm

That's it in a nutshell; in fact, theologically speaking, that's the genesis of all sin, even going back to the Garden of Eden. With what did Satan tempt Eve? "You will be like God."

by: WaveTossed

09-09-2010 @ 7:45pm

Don't know if this is the real Blue Deacon or the hacker.

At any rate, someone with the handle of "Blue Deacon" wrote: "[WT]'I keep repeating this because blog writers (and others) keep repeating the mistaken idea that Beck is a libertarian when basically, he is not; he is a typical neo-conservative.'

"[BD] In many respects, truth be told, they are the same thing. Both are ideologies that seek to deny justice and are based in a corrupting of scriptures."

Absolutely not true on both counts. Saying that all libertarians corrupt scriptures and seek to deny justice is like saying that all Muslims are violent. Libertarianism is a wide umbrella, with philosphies ranging from pure anarchism to Ayn Rand to Christian libertarianism and many other shades in between. Many libertarians believe in social justice; we just don't trust the government to be the main agency to provide it. Most libertarians are anti-foreign wars and against such laws as the recent Arizona law against immigrants (which supposedly is against "illegal" immigrants); instead, most libertarians are for comprehensive immigration reform. Most libertarians are against such invasions of civil liberties such as wiretapping, surveillance; we oppose the torture of prisoners and oppose places like Gitmo.

For the most part, neo-conservatives support these measures that libertarians oppose. Big difference. Apples and oranges.

by: Neocon55

09-09-2010 @ 7:24pm

So, then, it's all about power. Whether it's the big, bad corporations oppressing us or the masses who collectively get together to oppress the supposed "rich", it's just about who has power?

by: castlebc

09-09-2010 @ 5:33pm

GB's calling social justice communism may have affected me personally. I just finished an MA in social justice and am having a hard time finding a college in Florida to let me teach it!

by: Xanderr

09-11-2010 @ 3:52pm

WaveTossed wrote:

"The other reason I keep repeating this is because various people complain about their money being stolen by the IRS for giving to the poor. And I NEVER, EVER hear or see them complaining about the tax monies being stolen for foreign wars or for unnecessary Nanny State law enforcement purposes."

Well, I complain about ALL those things, and I know many other people who feel the same way.

First, our Constitution makes it illegal for the federal government to "redistribute wealth" by taking from some to give to others. Obama even acknowledged that that was a "weakness" of the Constitution.

Second, I hate unnecessary foreign wars, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and those wars aren't even legal because they're "undeclared." The U.S. Constitution requires that all wars be declared by congress. Congressman Ron Paul has often complained about these illegal and undeclared wars.

Third, unnecessary and illegal nanny state laws, such as the war on drugs, should be opposed by everyone who values liberty.

by: WaveTossed

09-09-2010 @ 5:17pm

Neocon55 wrote: "WaveTossed, instead of posting that in every thread why don't we just name it: WT Thread Response #1?

"We will know what you mean. :) "

Not a bad idea. :)

I keep repeating this because blog writers (and others) keep repeating the mistaken idea that Beck is a libertarian when basically, he is not; he is a typical neo-conservative.

The other reason I keep repeating this is because various people complain about their money being stolen by the IRS for giving to the poor. And I NEVER, EVER hear or see them complaining about the tax monies being stolen for foreign wars or for unnecessary Nanny State law enforcement purposes.

by: squeaky

09-15-2010 @ 8:30pm

You must be pro-choice, then, right? I mean, if we shouldn't legislate morality, then being pro-life isn't really a consistent stance, is it?

by: BlueDeacon

09-11-2010 @ 3:29pm

It's important to remember that Father Coughlin was originally a big supporter of FDR and his New Deal programs. You see, he abandoned him because FDR didn't go far enough. He was often quoted as saying "the New Deal is Christ's Deal" and "God is directing President Roosevelt." Father Coughlin was a progressive through and through and should not be compared to Beck.

by: squeaky

09-15-2010 @ 8:29pm

So I assume, then, from your comments, that you think the Cordoba House should be built, and that US Citizens shouldn't be required to show ID to prove that they are Citizens in Arizona?

by: BlueDeacon

09-11-2010 @ 3:24pm

Conservatives and "anti-government" types have cloaked their dislike for the poor in rhetoric like this for decades. In fact, it goes back to Goldwater. "Wasteful spending" and "accountability" are just code words for holding onto power and money. God speaks out against that throughout the Old Testament. You should read it.

by: squeaky

09-15-2010 @ 8:26pm

I would note that our economy was in much better shape before the Bush tax cuts...

by: squeaky

09-09-2010 @ 8:31pm

Well, yeah, basically. The kind of power the world worships is exactly the opposite of the power of the Kingdom, where the last are first and the first are last, where the peacemakers are blessed. Yet we keep worshipping it, in all its forms.

by: BlueDeacon

09-15-2010 @ 8:24pm

Uh -- probably the majority of conservatives and libertarians are pro-choice on abortion (which is why they tend to leave it alone). Besides, abortion laws were passed at the turn of the last century by liberals.

by: squeaky

09-09-2010 @ 8:29pm

Hacker dude--knock it off you cowardly jerk!

by: BlueDeacon

09-15-2010 @ 8:22pm

No, for a Christian it's not simply about "Is this good and right for the greatest number of people?"
It's also about obeying the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.

Yeah, right, as if we Christians shouldn't break the law when it conflicts with God's Kingdom agenda. That was the same excuse for folks trying to shut down the civil-rights movement and are probably still angry about that.

by: squeaky

09-09-2010 @ 8:28pm

Yeah---I haven't really seen anyone respond to WT Thread Response #1, either. What's up with that, eh?

by: Patricia

09-11-2010 @ 6:08pm

The problem with true libertarianism (and with other political philosophies) is that it all sounds wonderful in the abstract. "No redistrubition of wealth by the government"? Yeah, buddy! "Nanny State"? Heck NO! "Wasteful government spending"? Absolutely NOT!

BUT...

When the abstracts turn into real-world programs and consequences, the result is completely different. "End Social Security?" HELL NO! "End Medicare"? Don't you even think about it! "End Head Start"? NO - those kids need all the education they can get!

That is why libertarians, and most conservatives (neo and otherwise) strive to keep the discussion focused on the abstract. When they talk about what implementing those abstractions would mean in concrete terms, the vast majority of Americans become opposed.

In theory, many Americans are against that communist-sounding "redistribution of wealth" - it's a great sound bite, means absolutely nothing, and and gets people nice and irrationally whipped up. But when you start talking about what the end of "redistribution" means in concrete terms, people start thinking...and thinking about what it means to them in concrete terms...and support evaporates.

I understand that there are, in fact, libertarians and conservatives (especially rich ones!) who would be just fine with the real-world consequences - that's how the rest of us got saddled with the consequences of the Republican tax cuts. Gambling with other people's pension funds(thank God for social security!) , suspect "investment" instruments (by health insurance companies, among others - thank God for medicare!), shipping millions of jobs overseas for cheaper labor (thank God for unemployment benefits!), etc. But most Americans are just not that committed to the abstract, especially when the reality turns out to be nothing more than every person for themselves, and if anything bad happens, good luck to you!

by: strawberryfarmer

09-09-2010 @ 7:05pm

I love sojourners... and its message of peace, social justice, fairness, equality, civility, and on we go... And maybe it is because I find Beck to be someone who, for various reasons, gets under my skin I say this: Is there anything else we can talk about? I understand he is a media god who brings in the masses. I understand he wrongfully attacked Christians who believe social justice to be important. I understand that opposite facts must be presented. But at what point do we feel like that has been done? When can we step back from this particular argument and stop with the responding. We have addressed this issue- repeatedly. But then again, the repetiveness and hostility of most things relating to the political element of late, makes me seriously wonder what life would be like if I lived somewhere else. When can we stop snapping, ridiculing, undercutting, lashing out and basically tearing each other down? Overall, it would just be nice to have a break from the venom, conflict, and constant bickering- but it is an election year, so....

by: Xanderr

09-16-2010 @ 7:55pm

testing - testing - 123

by: BlueDeacon

09-09-2010 @ 6:38pm

I did not say that -- hacker. Cease and desist.

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

by: sgillesp

09-08-2010 @ 8:11pm

I suspect the reason Glenn hasn't responded to Jim's invitation is because he knows he can't defend his "point of view," such as it is, from scripture. But it would be great if he would study!

by: sgillesp

09-08-2010 @ 8:11pm

I suspect the reason Glenn hasn't responded to Jim's invitation is because he knows he can't defend his "point of view," such as it is, from scripture. But it would be great if he would study!

by: Hebrews12

09-08-2010 @ 8:24pm

Beck can't come forward into a debate, he has nothing to offer. After reading "Common Nonsense," by Alexander Zaitchik, I wonder if we are not just feeding the ego of this foolish, ambitious narcissist. He does not care what kind of attention he generates and has proven that he craves the negative.

He is completely and utterly addicted to the attention he is getting right now. Radio was hot, but the media spotlight is so much hotter! He may have got the cocaine/alcohol monkey off his back, but make no mistake he is an active practicing addict and his ranting behavior and manipulative emotional outbursts are proof of that.

by: Hebrews12

09-08-2010 @ 8:24pm

Beck can't come forward into a debate, he has nothing to offer. After reading "Common Nonsense," by Alexander Zaitchik, I wonder if we are not just feeding the ego of this foolish, ambitious narcissist. He does not care what kind of attention he generates and has proven that he craves the negative.

He is completely and utterly addicted to the attention he is getting right now. Radio was hot, but the media spotlight is so much hotter! He may have got the cocaine/alcohol monkey off his back, but make no mistake he is an active practicing addict and his ranting behavior and manipulative emotional outbursts are proof of that.

by: John Mulholland

09-08-2010 @ 8:24pm

"Does he matter?"

Wow. Really?

A) I suspect that he's made in God's image so yes, he matters.

B) The fact that you guys have donated a ton of time and thought to him indicates that your question is rhetorical.

by: John Mulholland

09-08-2010 @ 8:24pm

"Does he matter?"

Wow. Really?

A) I suspect that he's made in God's image so yes, he matters.

B) The fact that you guys have donated a ton of time and thought to him indicates that your question is rhetorical.

by: Dave Arends

09-08-2010 @ 8:28pm

Fair enough, but Beck feeds on publicity. How does the continued battle between Sojo and Beck not simply add to Beck's power?

by: Dave Arends

09-08-2010 @ 8:28pm

Fair enough, but Beck feeds on publicity. How does the continued battle between Sojo and Beck not simply add to Beck's power?

by: John Mulholland

09-08-2010 @ 8:30pm

One could say the same about Sojourners...oh wait, Chuck Gutenson did: "In spite of - and perhaps because of - Beck's challenges, our constituency has grown, more folks have become committed to social justice and for that, we give thanks to God."

by: John Mulholland

09-08-2010 @ 8:30pm

One could say the same about Sojourners...oh wait, Chuck Gutenson did: "In spite of - and perhaps because of - Beck's challenges, our constituency has grown, more folks have become committed to social justice and for that, we give thanks to God."

by: DJ9791

09-08-2010 @ 8:31pm

Truly, all God's creation matters....but you ignore the context of this piece and engage in your own rhetorical question.

We should be glad on one hand, that Mr. Beck's stand against social justice has opened the door for many to discuss what we should do as Christians.

On the other hand, we should pray for Mr. Beck, that if he truly wants to serve God, to stop preaching hatred and bigotry in the name of Christianity and patriotism. He has the ability to reach thousands with his words...and with that comes great responsibility to live out what he claims to believe.

Pray For Peace and Dare To Act!

by: DJ9791

09-08-2010 @ 8:31pm

Truly, all God's creation matters....but you ignore the context of this piece and engage in your own rhetorical question.

We should be glad on one hand, that Mr. Beck's stand against social justice has opened the door for many to discuss what we should do as Christians.

On the other hand, we should pray for Mr. Beck, that if he truly wants to serve God, to stop preaching hatred and bigotry in the name of Christianity and patriotism. He has the ability to reach thousands with his words...and with that comes great responsibility to live out what he claims to believe.

Pray For Peace and Dare To Act!

by: Ben Woodard

09-08-2010 @ 8:41pm

Beck matters. Not only as a child of God, but because he is an influencer. Millions of people watch and listen to him, and apparently believe him. As Edmund Burke said:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing."

by: Ben Woodard

09-08-2010 @ 8:41pm

Beck matters. Not only as a child of God, but because he is an influencer. Millions of people watch and listen to him, and apparently believe him. As Edmund Burke said:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing."

by: thomas0561

09-08-2010 @ 8:43pm

Gosh, I stopped caring about this feud a looooong time ago. Sojo, isn't it your turn?

by: thomas0561

09-08-2010 @ 8:43pm

Gosh, I stopped caring about this feud a looooong time ago. Sojo, isn't it your turn?

by: xfree9

09-08-2010 @ 10:35pm

As a hard-core libertarian and a social justice Christian, and somebody who likes Glenn Beck, I find this whole battle a bit amusing. Both sides have missed the other. Glenn Beck is off his rocker on many points, and Jim Wallis has misunderstood Beck quite often. Beck has misunderstood Wallis.

I'm disappointed mostly in Beck, though. He is acting a bit childish by refusing to have Wallis on his show. I suspect maybe eventually he will... he did have Al Sharpton in for some conversations, and it was cordial. But Beck would have to really eat crow since he already "denied" Wallis to come on his show.

by: xfree9

09-08-2010 @ 10:35pm

As a hard-core libertarian and a social justice Christian, and somebody who likes Glenn Beck, I find this whole battle a bit amusing. Both sides have missed the other. Glenn Beck is off his rocker on many points, and Jim Wallis has misunderstood Beck quite often. Beck has misunderstood Wallis.

I'm disappointed mostly in Beck, though. He is acting a bit childish by refusing to have Wallis on his show. I suspect maybe eventually he will... he did have Al Sharpton in for some conversations, and it was cordial. But Beck would have to really eat crow since he already "denied" Wallis to come on his show.

by: danlahm

09-08-2010 @ 11:01pm

HEY EVERYONE GLENN IS ON VACATION!!

by: danlahm

09-08-2010 @ 11:01pm

HEY EVERYONE GLENN IS ON VACATION!!

by: hammerud

09-08-2010 @ 11:03pm

Social justice should stem from the hearts of citizens, hearts that are softened by being exposed to Christianity. But, in our wisdom as a culture, we have allowed godless forces and a false view of the meaning of "separation of church and state" to largely remove the Christian values from the people. Social justice should not result from government grabbing money out of the hand of one citizen and giving it to another citizen. I should be allowed to keep my money and give it out by my own choice based on Christian sensitivities and concern for the poor. Government should never have been allowed to take from one and give to another (I think it is called stealing), which is what we see today. Don't take money from me, give it to somebody else, and then talk about how compassionate and concerned for social justice you are. Use your own money. The socialistic path we are going down will result in the equal distribution of misery. I think Glen Beck has highlighted a lot of this, and at least has come against the policies of this administration, which need to be opposed. I am happy that Glen Beck is around and making points that need to be made to a culture that for too long has been asleep at the wheel.

by: hammerud

09-08-2010 @ 11:03pm

Social justice should stem from the hearts of citizens, hearts that are softened by being exposed to Christianity. But, in our wisdom as a culture, we have allowed godless forces and a false view of the meaning of "separation of church and state" to largely remove the Christian values from the people. Social justice should not result from government grabbing money out of the hand of one citizen and giving it to another citizen. I should be allowed to keep my money and give it out by my own choice based on Christian sensitivities and concern for the poor. Government should never have been allowed to take from one and give to another (I think it is called stealing), which is what we see today. Don't take money from me, give it to somebody else, and then talk about how compassionate and concerned for social justice you are. Use your own money. The socialistic path we are going down will result in the equal distribution of misery. I think Glen Beck has highlighted a lot of this, and at least has come against the policies of this administration, which need to be opposed. I am happy that Glen Beck is around and making points that need to be made to a culture that for too long has been asleep at the wheel.

by: BlueDeacon

09-08-2010 @ 11:17pm

Does that "culture of taking" extend to corporate America, which does far more of that than government (and in fact controls the politicians)? You won't see that on Christian TV or radio because it's paying much of the freight.

And BTW, "social justice" is chock through the OT -- but we don't read those books.

by: BlueDeacon

09-08-2010 @ 11:17pm

Does that "culture of taking" extend to corporate America, which does far more of that than government (and in fact controls the politicians)? You won't see that on Christian TV or radio because it's paying much of the freight.

And BTW, "social justice" is chock through the OT -- but we don't read those books.

by: Hebrews12

09-08-2010 @ 11:31pm

I think hammerud almost makes a point. I don't agree with him as I don't mind paying taxes that fund social needs.

I don't know that this is the right column to be talking about what I am most concerned about. How can we effect positive change so that our government is more accountable for the money we give them? We pay a lot of taxes but there doesn't seem to be an easy way to voice disapproval of how money is spent...and have the consequences fall on the right people. Can't vote people out apparently. Too much time and money and attention is being given to campaigns rather than work. I want my Rep's, my Senator's, my council men to work for a living...not campaign.

Again, this isn't the column for this topic, but if we are serious about social justice, helping to enfranchize people, up the quality of life for the poor...we've got to create a path to show our disapproval to the folks that are mismanaging the money. That isn't the social worker at the SS office. That is the guy that wrote a bill and let so many earmarks get put on it so that it became indigestible.

So, what do we do?

by: Hebrews12

09-08-2010 @ 11:31pm

I think hammerud almost makes a point. I don't agree with him as I don't mind paying taxes that fund social needs.

I don't know that this is the right column to be talking about what I am most concerned about. How can we effect positive change so that our government is more accountable for the money we give them? We pay a lot of taxes but there doesn't seem to be an easy way to voice disapproval of how money is spent...and have the consequences fall on the right people. Can't vote people out apparently. Too much time and money and attention is being given to campaigns rather than work. I want my Rep's, my Senator's, my council men to work for a living...not campaign.

Again, this isn't the column for this topic, but if we are serious about social justice, helping to enfranchize people, up the quality of life for the poor...we've got to create a path to show our disapproval to the folks that are mismanaging the money. That isn't the social worker at the SS office. That is the guy that wrote a bill and let so many earmarks get put on it so that it became indigestible.

So, what do we do?

by: hammerud

09-08-2010 @ 11:32pm

Blue, I am all for taking care of the poor and against corporate abuse

and criminal activity, but I am against socialism and government

control of wealth redistribution. The pope recently said something to

the effect that the result of that path is demonic, not benevolent;

and, if nothing else, it is inefficient and is bankrupting our

country. BTW I read eight chapters of the OT every day.

by: hammerud

09-08-2010 @ 11:32pm

Blue, I am all for taking care of the poor and against corporate abuse

and criminal activity, but I am against socialism and government

control of wealth redistribution. The pope recently said something to

the effect that the result of that path is demonic, not benevolent;

and, if nothing else, it is inefficient and is bankrupting our

country. BTW I read eight chapters of the OT every day.

by: Patricia

09-09-2010 @ 12:02am

Um...I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood the Pope there...

by: Patricia

09-09-2010 @ 12:02am

Um...I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood the Pope there...

by: hammerud

09-09-2010 @ 12:11am

I heard it second hand. I think that is what he said. Did you hear

what he said? Christian leaders who came out of Communism know the

demonic aspect of government control over these things.

by: hammerud

09-09-2010 @ 12:11am

I heard it second hand. I think that is what he said. Did you hear

what he said? Christian leaders who came out of Communism know the

demonic aspect of government control over these things.

by: BlueDeacon

09-09-2010 @ 1:12am

The amount of Scripture reading you say you do doesn't impress me in the least because you can take it completely out of context. The OT says very little about concentrated political power (which was a given), but it says plenty about concentrated economic power (and the Prophets were killed for raising that subject). Deal with the second and the first will come more easily.

by: BlueDeacon

09-09-2010 @ 1:12am

The amount of Scripture reading you say you do doesn't impress me in the least because you can take it completely out of context. The OT says very little about concentrated political power (which was a given), but it says plenty about concentrated economic power (and the Prophets were killed for raising that subject). Deal with the second and the first will come more easily.

by: BlueDeacon

09-09-2010 @ 1:25am

Communism was as much an economic attitude as a political one; MLK Jr. noted that the problem with Marxism was that, my paraphrase, matter was all that mattered and the spiritual was irrelevant. In other words, "too much government" wasn't everything.

by: BlueDeacon

09-09-2010 @ 1:25am

Communism was as much an economic attitude as a political one; MLK Jr. noted that the problem with Marxism was that, my paraphrase, matter was all that mattered and the spiritual was irrelevant. In other words, "too much government" wasn't everything.

by: Lisa Belise

09-09-2010 @ 2:15am

The comment he's referring to is:

"Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic ." Pope Benedict XVI

by: Lisa Belise

09-09-2010 @ 2:15am

The comment he's referring to is:

"Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic ." Pope Benedict XVI

by: hammerud

09-09-2010 @ 2:32am

Blue - The problem is that this administration has made moves to merge political and economic power (take over of this and that etc). I only mentioned the amount of Scripture reading I do because you brought the subject up.

by: hammerud

09-09-2010 @ 2:32am

Blue - The problem is that this administration has made moves to merge political and economic power (take over of this and that etc). I only mentioned the amount of Scripture reading I do because you brought the subject up.

by: hammerud

09-09-2010 @ 2:37am

The problem is that human beings (me included) have fallen (evil) natures and you do not want too much power to be focused in the hands of one or a small group of people. Power needs to be divided to hinder the abuse of power, which is all too easy with human beings. More people in the 20th century were killed by their own governments than by anything else.

by: hammerud

09-09-2010 @ 2:37am

The problem is that human beings (me included) have fallen (evil) natures and you do not want too much power to be focused in the hands of one or a small group of people. Power needs to be divided to hinder the abuse of power, which is all too easy with human beings. More people in the 20th century were killed by their own governments than by anything else.

by: kansasmennonite

09-09-2010 @ 2:53am

Hammer said :"More people in the 20th century were killed by their own governments than by anything else. "

So, we can conclude that if we inact a more socialist healthcare system (like all of the more industrialized nations) more people would die than if we let everyone "fend" for themselves on this issue?

Are you Caholic? Why quote the pope?

by: kansasmennonite

09-09-2010 @ 2:53am

Hammer said :"More people in the 20th century were killed by their own governments than by anything else. "

So, we can conclude that if we inact a more socialist healthcare system (like all of the more industrialized nations) more people would die than if we let everyone "fend" for themselves on this issue?

Are you Caholic? Why quote the pope?

by: Roren

09-09-2010 @ 3:03am

"Virtually every strand of Christian faith has social justice of the kind Sojourners defends as a constituent part...."

Which begs the question, isn't the guy a Mormon? Yes, he is. Which means he considers himself a Christian but the rest of us Christians disagree. Mormonism is a huge cult in America - but it's just that. Mormons are great people and when they have great things to say (like Muslims or Jews) we should listen to them and debate with them but why are we treating him like a Christian? He doesn't know Christ! How can he possibly be seeking the heart of God for America?

by: Roren

09-09-2010 @ 3:03am

"Virtually every strand of Christian faith has social justice of the kind Sojourners defends as a constituent part...."

Which begs the question, isn't the guy a Mormon? Yes, he is. Which means he considers himself a Christian but the rest of us Christians disagree. Mormonism is a huge cult in America - but it's just that. Mormons are great people and when they have great things to say (like Muslims or Jews) we should listen to them and debate with them but why are we treating him like a Christian? He doesn't know Christ! How can he possibly be seeking the heart of God for America?

by: BlueDeacon

09-09-2010 @ 3:28am

So what? You still don't address the problem of concentrated economic power, which can (and in this country is more likely to) lead to the concentrated political power you fear. At least here, the politicians in theory are accountable to the people; the wealthy in essence are accountable to no one.

by: BlueDeacon

09-09-2010 @ 3:28am

So what? You still don't address the problem of concentrated economic power, which can (and in this country is more likely to) lead to the concentrated political power you fear. At least here, the politicians in theory are accountable to the people; the wealthy in essence are accountable to no one.

by: BlueDeacon

09-09-2010 @ 3:30am

GWB did the same thing, only in reverse -- he let the moneybags rape the political process, and we're still feeling the effects today. Yet many Christians still swear by him.

by: BlueDeacon

09-09-2010 @ 3:30am

GWB did the same thing, only in reverse -- he let the moneybags rape the political process, and we're still feeling the effects today. Yet many Christians still swear by him.