13 Mar
2010
Posted in: Featured Highlights, Theology
By    2 Comments

This whole Beck affair

If you are not sure what’s going on with this uproar over Glenn Beck, that’s alright. He likes to cause a ruckus. But this one is fairly problematic. For some quick catch up, check out this intro by Eugene Cho, then Glenn Beck’s response, and then the invite from Jim Wallis for a conversation.

In short, Glenn Beck called for church goers to see if their church’s website mentions “social justice.” You know, the idea about caring for the poor, and so forth. Mr. Beck said “social justice” (along with “economic justice”) is code for communism and nazism. And what are church goes supposed to do should they find such teachings in their church? Run. “Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!”

I still haven’t come across Glenn Beck supporters on this one. But, I am really glad the folks at Sojourners were not the only big names to voice their opposition to Mr. Beck’s diatribe against social justice in churches. Ben Witherington III (BW3) submitted his thoughts. Read them over; but here’s the last paragraph:

You may think that your ranting and raving, first on CNN and then on Fox and on the radio is promoting valuable discussion of important issues, but in fact all your doing is adding to the coarsening of discourse in our culture and the closing of the American mind. I suggest you go back to school for a while and not open your mouth again until you have something well-informed, carefully researched, peer-reviewed, and of general value to the public to say. Until then—silence is golden. Recite this mantra to yourself before breakfast tomorrow—’bombast won’t last, but God’s concern for justice for the poor and oppressed will’.

Well said. I sure would like to find out who is supporting Glenn Beck on this, though. Who is on his side, defending his statements?

Tags: , , , , ,
  • http://notcaesars.blogspot.com/ gyakusetsu

    I've mentioned in other places that there is a disconnect here between ends and means. Each side is (in some capacity) ignoring the other.

    Sometimes “social justice” means self-sacrifice of one's time, talents, and resources to bring about positive change. This is commendable.

    Sometimes, however, (and frequently in the “anti-evangelical” church) “social justice” means _other_-sacrifice of time, talents, and resources. This is reprehensible.

    If I speak with my church family about how we can be more caring, more giving, more hospitable, more active in fighting dominating power structures, etc. and we are talking about what each of us can do to show Christ to others, that is one thing. But if I speak with my church family and urge them to support a violence-backed monopoly to threaten people with theft and violence if they don't do what we want, then that is entirely another thing.

    If I sacrifice in order to give bread to someone who is hungry, I do good. If I steal bread from someone, and give it to someone else who is hungry, I have still done evil, even if one of the results was good.

    I think the latter is what folks like Beck are more worried about, but in worrying so much about the means, they unfortunately fight the social justice that can be achieved through good means, as well.

    On the other side, however, we have the Sojourners crowd, that, so concerned with the ends, are willing to ask a violent monopoly (the state) to coerce their ends into place.

    I think both are lacking, in a way. Christians _ought_ to seek good ends, but only through good means.

    This is one of the core tenets, in my mind, of Anabaptism: a refusal to use dominating force to get what we want, even if our goal is holy.

  • http://twitter.com/Jason_T_Cormier Jason T Cormier

    I would hope not a single soul would, but I am sure that is wishful thinking.