Amen!!!

This is a misleading article. Within the UMC, the “social justice” groups are almost always the politically active left wing groups like “Methodists for Social Action” that routinely and explicitly advocate precisely what Beck is referring to.
So yes, while there are many conservative Christians who advocate and work for “social justice”, that’s not the same thing that Beck is talking about.

Ben,
I’m not a Beck fan, but I think you may be misunderstanding what he’s saying. If you’re not, then I think he would say you’re part of the problem. The Bible certainly speaks about giving to the poor, but I don’t believe that it espouses the notion that the poor are entitled to a guaranteed economic outcome. The term “social justice” has come to mean that if you have extra, no matter how much you’ve produced to earn that surplus, you owe it to those who have less than you do as a matter of obligation, no matter whether they have made efforts to provide for themselves. I don’t see that as a biblical idea. Judging by the excerpts I’ve read from “Jesus and Money,” I think you might disagree with me, which is okay. But I don’t think it’s helpful to the discussion to call Beck names and excoriate him for having a different interpretation of certain biblical admonitions than you do. You’re certainly not contributing to the idea of the tolerant Christian that I’m sure you aspire to be.

“None of those -isms existed in Biblical times,” but neither did the term “social justice.” The term “justice” appears, of course, but the ideas that “social justice” has come to represent is rather unrepresented in the Bible–progressive income tax, redistribution of wealth, welfare, etc. “Social justice” was coined in the early 1800′s and popularized for political purposes in the 1970′s via “A Theory of Justice” by John Rawls. The Bible is ambiguous with regard to the what the most “Christian” government programs would be, rather focusing on what Christians themselves should do. If a church preaches “social justice,” especially under Rawls’ definition and nothing more nuanced than that, then the church is preaching modern political philosophy, NOT the Bible.

Taking care of the poor, widow, orphan, and stranger was mandated to the church. It is not for the government to mandate or enforce. God is capable of seeing to it that his church does what he has called them to do. He does not need help from any government.

Glenn Beck has made a fine living from blowing off steam and preaching his own agenda, which is of course to raise his ratings and further his wealth. So be it. He is not the first, last, or only one doing so. However, when one can make such outrageous remarks and an open attack on the very basis of Christianity and receive support from from Christians, it is apalling. Clearly and certainly Jesus abdacated social action and justice. Whether you want to believe it or not, Christ also called Christians to action. Not the action we twist and writhe our way into – humble passive tithing and pitiful welfare programs – which exist primarily so we can feel more comfortable driving a Hummer while others struggle to fulfill the basic human rights of food, clean water, and protection from the elements. But, an action to provide basic human rights to all people. Any way you look at his comments Beck was wrong. I look forward to the day when Mr. Beck’s popularity wanes and he dissapears from all TV screens and radio speakers. Until then, Mr. Beck should spend some time in quiet reflection of the magnificent words of Christ to find his guidance. If he were to do so, I think all of us would be better served. Good Bye Mr. Beck you, nor the network that supports you, shall ever darken the screen of my TV again.

The “problems” (as in the challenges) of discourse:
1) The usage of terms without the explanation of terms. Here, both parties would do well (in accordance with some already given comments) to strive to combat the essence of meanings rather than the denotation of terms. Words have a tendency, like chameleons, to change color depending upon environment. I suggest that the purpose of letters and exchanges is to explain meaning, something that Beck most definitely needs to do, and would help BW3 in his exchange.
2) The art of persuasion vs. the attack of person. Both parties here have much to learn. While I will admit my bias is towards BW3 in his sentiments, the approach of verbal reprimands, and personal deprecation is not helpful, nor redemptive. Arguing in this tone towards someone like Beck is perhaps the worst way at persuading better behavior. Other techniques like the utilization of questions, reasoning, and reflective logic would go further in pointing out the other person’s illogicality. Again, I agree with BW3 in his sentiments, however, would suggest that there are issue of such import that a wiser approach is needed. As for Beck, well, I have not yet discerned his approaches to have much wisdom in this area whatsoever.
3) The greatest argument is a life well-lived. While the adage “the greatest ‘revenge’ is a life well lived,” I would humbly suggest that those of us who do have an affection and value for the Biblically commissioned “tzedek adonai” (the Hebrew term for “justice” in the Bible, roughly: “the righteousness of God”) use our words to affirm, and use our hands to apply this beautiful and life-giving value in the world. In addition to “Jesus and Money,” I would commend to you “To Heal A Fractured World” by Jonathan Sacks, “The Hole in Our Gospel” by Richard Stearns, and “The Good News About Injustice” by Gary Haugen.
לתיקון עולם

“Taking care of the poor, widow, orphan, and stranger was mandated to the church. It is not for the government to mandate or enforce. God is capable of seeing to it that his church does what he has called them to do. He does not need help from any government.”
But clearly one of two situations exist:
1) He is not motivating his church to take care of these people. or
2) The church is not listening.
Of course, such prattle often comes from today’s Christian, who is more married to their money than to the gospel they claim to follow.

I’m sorry but Glenn Beck richly deserves this reprimand. Just tonight he attempted to clarify and back down from what he previously said, a sure sign that he knows he went way too far. And the reason he is backing down and retrenching is precisely because quite a few Christians called him on it and rightly so. Whether you call it social justice or just justice, the Bible is clear on this matter. Unfortunately people like Beck do not engage in reasoned discourse. Their stock and trade is pure polemics, caricature and the like. And the attempt to blame the poor for their poverty when the majority of the poor are either: 1) children or 2) senior citizens, or 3) ill, or 4) have become poor through no fault of their own is just an attempt at self-justification when it comes to neglecting the poor. And as for governments, yes they do have an obligation to prevent the weakest members of society from getting ripped off. Its what laws and legislation is for. There should be equal protection under the law. And of course the church has an enormous responsibility to care for the least, last, and lost among us. We are called to be salt and light in the world.
BW3

Beck imagines that ‘social justice’ has only one meaning, his own bizarre definition.
If you ask 100 denominations to define the term, you’ll get 99 answers. The definition used by the Catholic church and others has nothing to do with Beck’s twisted parsing.
For Beck to presume that churches are using the phrase according to his weak understanding is beyond arrogant. The guy obviously has a poor grasp on Christian doctrine (including that of his own Mormon church), yet he still presumes to instruct us on which churches are acceptable? Wow.
Fortunately, freedom of religion means that we can belong to any church we desire, whether or not their teachings meet Beck’s approval.

Why would any Christian take religious advice from a TV talk show host, let alone one that isn’t a Christian?

There’s a problem with the concept of “social justice,” and it goes right back to the Bible. Christ says that the second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. That leads to the question: “Who is my neighbor?” Is it your literal neighbor? Your church family? Your “sphere of influence”? Or anyone whose problems you’re aware of?
If we are called to put the needs of others at least on a par with, if not above our own, and if ‘others’ means anyone we have any contact with, then all of us are hypocrites. We sit in air-conditioned houses and drive cars and sit at computers and eat our fill, and all around the world people are starving. Every dollar we spend on a creature comfort is a dollar that could be given to provide another person’s basic needs for a day (or whatever time frame you choose). So how can I do anything other than sell everything I own, give it to the poor, and sit in a mud hut eating rice, and still pretend that I put the needs of others on a par with my own?
If you’re not willing to make that commitment, then don’t say that you’re following Christ’s dictate in the way that you (generic social liberals) have interpreted it. Nonbelievers criticize believers for not living up to the standards they profess. They do this because not living up to the standards means you don’t really believe them. If you really believe their is a God and he says that homosexuality is wrong and punishable by eternal damnation, you wouldn’t be trolling for sex in public restrooms. The fact that a professing Christian would behave that way indicates that the beliefs he professes are just a tool for him to use to control others, rather that honest convictions. The other reason that nonbelievers seize on hypocritical behavior by believers is because it makes them feel better about the sin in their own lives – no one is without a conscience, some just try to ignore it.
So we’re left with American Christians living what are, by global standards, lives of obscene luxury, fighting with each other over who cares enough about the poor. The difference between the liberal and conservative approaches to poverty have nothing to do with caring, and everything to do with their understanding of human nature. Liberals think man is perfectable, and that with the right guidance he will act altruistically. Conservatives believe that man is inherently flawed, and systems need to be put into place to mitigate the damage we do to each other in our selfish pursuits.
So let’s not get hung up on phrases, especially when they’re thrown about by a clown like Beck. Let’s focus on finding the best way to bring the poor out of poverty in a lasting way. Let’s help each person maximize their ability to provide for their needs, and let’s find the most efficient way to help those who truly can’t help themselves.

I agree with your sentiment about Christians’ call to be involved in social justice, as long as we leave government out of the equation. Engagement in social justice is something we ought to do via the moral law stemming from God; however, involvement has to be an individual choice not something forced by governemental law or taxation. Our country is one that is based on limited government to preserve individual freedoms, God given freewill, which necessarily is in direct opposition to forcing good/moral behavior.

I enjoy this blog and forum. However, with most of the comments on this subject I completely disagree. I didn’t hear Glen’s latest polemic but I do not disagree with the suggestion that government intrusion and interpretation of social justice has never resulted in what Jesus intended. Those I know who have an active and vibrant personal faith with Jesus give of themselves far more readily and effectively than those that advocate for entitlements and inefficient government mandates. Government increase results in a decrease of effectiveness and real life transformation. The first thing government denies and removes is faith based initiative.
I think some of the comments on this post come from people who have never really served in the trenches. It sounds like modern elitism to me. Quite frankly I have no use for it.

One of the most despicable things about what Beck has said is that he is attempting to divide the church. He is dividing the body of Christ. The arm has no need of the leg. In fact, according to him, the arm is evil, while the leg is good.
Glenn Beck is an ignorant man who speaks of which he does not know. He is attempting to manipulate the church for political ends, but unlike others who have done this successfully in the past, he does not understand theology well enought to do it effectively. We can only hope that the church in The U.S. understands what is is called to be better than he does. I am not that hopeful in this, based on recent events in U. S. political history.

To make legitimate “justice” private and church-based is a distortion of biblical teaching. The Bible mandates government to be a control on evil-doers and to judge fairly. Nowhere does the Bible say, as some seem to think it does, that government is only intended for the purpose of keeping rich people safe.
Yes, there are those who go overboard, either toward the left or toward the right. But we have to do the hard work of discerning whether a given group or action really does go overboard. We can’t just judge people wholesale by looking at the rhetorical traditions they might be drawing on.

The comment of Adam, who supports Beck even though he has not heard what he has said support what I posted above. Christians who cannot recognize a demagogue are theologically naive. Beck is a demagogue who is an ideological conservative (which does not equal christianity), a mormon (not a christian) and divisive. He (a Mormon) actually asks Christians who agree with him to leave their churches. What more needs to be said? He is ANTICHRISTIAN.

Thanks for your response. I don’t think Beck can even begin to understand the damage he has done. Some church members are already looking for something wrong, and pastors certainly don’t need someone else urging them to measure every word on the church’s web site, in the bulletin or coming out of the pastor’s mouth. He has set himself up as the one who can tell us what we can and cannot say.

Quick points Dr. Witherington:
First, Beck did go too far in his original comments in his blanket condemnation of anything linked to “social justice.”
Second, his shows are generally well researched and well informed. In fact, for our short-attention-span culture they are dangerously close to lectures (complete with chalkboard and reading assignments!). From your comments I do not believe you are actually that familiar with Beck’s programs. That’s OK, you’re a busy man.
Third, when you say “there is more in the Bible about helping the poor than there is about salvation itself” that is misleading. Keep in mind that the whole OT “Israel” project was/is about salvation.
Fourth, we have to admit that there is a least a grain of truth to what he says here (even if admittedly over the top). We know that there have been people, movements and even denominations that over time have become EMBARRASSED by the Gospel (faith? resurrection?) and they have justified their continued existence by putting their shoulder behind a certain social agenda. And often that social agenda has many influences, only one of which is the bible. It’s those “other influences” (read: Marx/Progressive Thought) which, I believe, Beck is really objecting to.

I agree with the others who point out how wrong it is to try to say that social justice is for the church, but not for governments. At its best, a democratically-elected government serves the will of the the people it represents, and is composed from the people that it purports to represent. It does not have to be viewed as a big, evil entity. Government should be from us (the people) and for us (the people). So, the question is: what do we (the people) want our society to look like? Why should we arbitrarily say: “social justice is just for the church, not for government” – as if voters and government officials never were a part of a church, or as if churches should not care about the government. Why not support both the efforts of church and government in promoting a more just society?

The word ekklesia in the NT, the english word church, has at least two meanings as taken from koine greek, one is ‘assembly’ the other being ‘the called out’. If the followers of Christ are not the called out and are not called out from the brokeness of the world then what difference does it make to be a Jesus follower? Indeed we are the ekklesia and we are called out to make a difference. There are men far wiser than you Beckmeister, listen and learn from these that have posted here. Hear their words. See their called out lives in action. Do ye likewise!

Systemic problems require systemic solutions. To say that social justice is just a “personal issue” is not only an under-representation of Biblical justice, it is reinforcing sinful behaviors and attitudes that protect the rich and neglect the poor.
To pretend that Christians can be involved in justice without expecting and supporting political (yes even governmental) initiatives is purely short-sighted and lacks an understanding of the multi-dimensional approaches needed to help alleviate poverty.
I’d like to quote Robert Lupton, CCDA practitioner and expert:
“Ancient Hebrew wisdom describes four levels of charity. The highest level is to provide a job for one in need without his knowledge that you provided it. The next, lower level is to provide work that the needy one knows you provided. The third level is to give an anonymous gift to meet an immediate need. The lowest level of charity, to be avoided if at all possible, is to give a poor person a gift with his full knowledge that you are the donor.”
To say that the lowest level of charity is all that the Bible commands of us, only so that we can feel like we are “doing justice” therefor not needing to do the tough work justice actually requires, is just plain wrong.
Mr. Beck and those protecting him right now have grossly misunderstood Jesus and are advocating ideas that are simply anti-Christ.

Joey,
Those levels of giving are interesting. Notice that the two top levels involve giving someone a job, not giving them money. Helping them to use whatever talents they have to provide for their own needs. It seems to me that the person who takes his money and starts a business that employs workers, purchases goods, provides goods and services to the community at a fair price, and does it all efficiently enough to make a profit so he can continue the business is much more effective at defeating poverty than the person who gives his money away.
The worst thing anyone can do with money is destroy it. The next is to let it sit unused. The next is to give it to someone who is not prepared to use it wisely. The best is to use it to create opportunities for others to utilize their God-given abilities. Whether that means starting a business (or investing in one) that creates jobs, or purchasing things that create a profit for the one who made them, or contributing to education and other support programs that help people lift themselves out of poverty, the key is that using money to create more always enriches society as a whole.
Remember the parable of the talents.

Dr. Ben Witherington, III, & Rev. Jim Wallis, I don’t believe it’s Christian like to attack someone without asking for clarification.
Jesus said it will always be poor people among us. He ask you to do the Christian thing and help them, but he did not say change society for them.
We should not turn everybody else’s life upside down to try and save the ones that Jesus has already told you that they will always be among us.
That sir is socialism / communism ..

Jesus did in fact change his society, displaying many moments of disdain for the usual way of doing things. parables are all about upsetting common wisdom. The Bible is an antiemperial document and drives us to reconside some of the cultural and social decisions made by groups of people who may or may not be connecting ethical principles with their decisions. Just because a group makes a majority decision does not guarantee that it is morally or even legally acceptable. To misrepresent one side of this argument in order to pillory its adherents is the worst kind of advocacy thinkable. Know something about your statements before you make comments.

David, I very much understand what you are saying. And that is an accurate analysis of the levels of Hebrew charity. But there are two separate issues to discuss here:
1. There are very few churches that use “social justice” the way that Beck is saying they do (going so far as to say any church that uses those words fit into his minuscule little strawman). When churches speak of charity (well, thoughtful charity) or social justice they usually mean addressing issues that oppress and entrap those who are the most vulnerable in our midst. Sometimes that involves government partnership. Sometimes it doesn’t. Try starting a new business or a homeless shelter without an alderman on your side. Which brings me to point number 2.
2. Government is not the enemy the way that Beck is trying to make it. Of course private and non-profit institutions (although the recent supreme court review of the Boys and Girls Club by republicans is highly anti-conservative and would never happen with “private” businesses – only charitable non-profits trying to make the world a better place) are the most effective way to meet needs but it takes partnerships with government at every level to truly quell systemic problems.
Beck is simply using his undeserved clout to make it more difficult for people of faith to serve the least of these and he is damned wrong for it. To encourage Christians to deny one of the most fundamental parts of God’s Kingdom is unacceptable and needs to be opposed as a matter of faith.

Who practices social justice is not so much what matters here. Both government & churches can do so. I believe even Dr. Witherington has missed the point.
Like some transgressions are more a matter of motive (heart) than the act itself, the same can be applied to so-called altruistic endeavors. Like picking a fruit from a tree is not a sin, yet rather the motive for doing so is greater than the ban itself. Why else place a forbidden tree in the Garden? To expose the heart.
The government’s potential to use social justice as leverage for achieving power is not disputable. Nor is it disputable that such are the PRIMARY tactics used to achieve Marxist-type endeavors. Is government doing so from the goodness of their hearts? That is at best a mixed bag. But apparently such a mixed bag cannot be legislated. In today’s economy, those who’ve worked hard & long are treated no different than those who have long lived off government. Where is the social justice there?
Gov’t social justice will NEVER embody jurisprudence in legislation. Good people take care of one another. Bad people use others for selfish gain in the guise of compassion. To me there is a VERY clear line of distinction between the agenda of the left and that of the right and I could NEVER place an iota of trust upon the left. A simple search of history validates that their “social justice” amounts to social repression & aggression if opposed.
Beck was not all wrong. He was simply sounding a warning as many have done for a very long time. That Liberalism & Christianity are incompatible philosophies & that liberal Christianity is an oxymoron. Such is a representation of the final-days apostate churches (Laodicean-like) who believe man has as much the solutions to the world’s problems as God. Only God will be the bearer of everlasting peace and ALL forms of justice and man will NEVER achieve the same. BAD CHURCHES (false Christs) exist, but in our PC & ecumenical man-made mind-frames, we dare not say so or point the finger at the ones that may so be deemed by the ecclesia. Doing so means being demonized.

Thank you David for your most astute observations.
Who practices social justice is not so much what matters here. Both government & churches can do so. I believe even Dr. Witherington has missed the point.
Like some transgressions are more a matter of motive (heart) than the act itself, the same can be applied to so-called altruistic endeavors. Like picking a fruit from a tree is not a sin, yet rather the motive for doing so is greater than the ban itself. Why else place a forbidden tree in the Garden? To expose the heart.
The government’s potential to use social justice as leverage for achieving power is not disputable. Nor is it disputable that such are the PRIMARY tactics used to achieve Marxist-type endeavors. Is government doing so from the goodness of their hearts? That is at best a mixed bag. But apparently such a mixed bag cannot be legislated. In today’s economy, those who’ve worked hard & long are treated no different than those who have long lived off government. Where is the social justice there?
Gov’t social justice will NEVER embody jurisprudence in legislation. Good people take care of one another. Bad people use others for selfish gain in the guise of compassion. To me there is a VERY clear line of distinction between the agenda of the left and that of the right and I could NEVER place an iota of trust upon the left. A simple search of history validates that their “social justice” amounts to social repression & aggression if opposed.
Beck was not all wrong. He was simply sounding a warning as many have done for a very long time. That Liberalism & Christianity are incompatible philosophies & that liberal Christianity is an oxymoron. Such is a representation of the final-days apostate churches (Laodicean-like) who believe man has as much the solutions to the world’s problems as God. Only God will be the bearer of everlasting peace and ALL forms of justice and man will NEVER achieve the same. BAD CHURCHES (false Christs) exist, but in our PC & ecumenical man-made mind-frames, we dare not say so or point the finger at the ones that may so be deemed by the ecclesia. Doing so means being demonized.

Glenn Beck is very clear, to me, about what he is talking about when he uses the term “social justice”. I am afraid that you are misunderstanding what he is talking about or if you do then I agree with David, “If you’re not, then I think he would say you’re part of the problem.”
The belittling comments you make of Mr. Beck also makes me question your real motives for this article.

It might be if interest to note the comment posted by the Family Research Council with which I agree:
Rev. Wallis: Wolf in Shepard’s Clothing?
The Bible speaks consistently and forcefully about the need for justice throughout society. But the term “social justice” has become a code-term used by the Religious Left to mean everything from socialized medicine to redistribution of income. Their argument goes like this: Since God wants Christians to show compassion to the poor, government should work to meet the needs of everyone. But this argument is, oddly, a form of merging the roles of the church and state–something the Left says it opposes–and thoughtful conservatives should oppose. Faith and policy are closely linked but the institutional roles of church and state are, as our Founders recognized, distinct.
Last week, talk show host Glenn Beck said on his program, “I beg you, look for the words ‘social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church website. If you find it, run as fast as you can.” To which Jim Wallis, a leader of the Religious Left, responded that Beck “attacks the very heart of our Christian faith, and Christians should no longer watch his show.” Wallis’s comments indicate how deeply Beck’s comments cut. He has been the Left’s main proponent of merging the biblical idea of justice with the liberal agenda to transform America into a place where the government orchestrates all facets of the economy. The Bible teaches that the state has a very limited role, a view reflected in the Constitution. One of those roles is not mandating coercive charity- taking from some people to give to others, in the name of “compassion.”
That’s not compassion–it’s theft. And as the failed social programs of the past 40 years have shown, when Big Government usurps the role of churches, private charities, and voluntary associations, it creates dependence on programs that just don’t work. So we support true social justice: a transcendent understanding that all human life is sacred, that our liberty is granted by God, and that happiness is ours to pursue. It leads us to seek policies that establish: fair tax policy, economic freedom, greater opportunity for all, and protections for the weak from criminals. But to those who wish to cloak political liberalism in the guise of biblical language, beware. Being a wolf in sheep’s clothing is something Scripture strongly condemns.

Rick Rintamaa, if you are the Rick Rintamaa that knows Bill Gailey, he wishes you well.
I watch the youtube episode where Mr. Beck encourages Christians to abandon churches which claim to be called to pursue social justice. In that episode he never spoke of government programs for the poor only of church programs. He did claim that “social justice” was little different from Marxism and Nazism – which may infer a governmental nexus. But he was speaking to people as members of chrches and not as citizens. So here is my response:
God’s justice is beyond human comprehension – ask Job.
But whatever it is, it’s not about getting your fair share and its not about punishments and rewards. Instead of worrying about who’s entitled to get how much of whatever, over and over again, in the the New Testament and the Old, God calls on those who have to take care of those who have not. And he calls on them to do this as adherents of the Jewish faith and as citizens of the Nation of Israel.
Jesus repeats the message. Goats and Sheep; kingdom living comes down to whether we care for the least among us for it is in their faces that we encounter the face of God. The rest of faith lives is apparently of secondary importance.
Funny that in the episode recorded on youtube Mr. Beck would display a swastika. Isn’t he at least a little concerned that people might draw certain obvious connections?

It seems to me that Dr. Witherington may be misrepresenting both Mr. Beck’s position and Christ’s message.
Jesus certainly called His followers to help the poor. Thus, all Christians have an obligation to care for those less fortunate than themselves. In a properly functioning church, much of the proceeds from the weekly tithe should go toward helping the poor and the downtrodden in the surrounding community (rather than launching multi-million dollar building projects or buying the latest sound and lighting equipment).
What Christ did not do was authorize His followers to forcibly seize the private property of others and redistribute it as they saw fit. That is essentially what is being done when Christians support government welfare programs.
Dr. Witherington seems to be making the common mistake of assuming that if one does not support government welfare programs, then he or she does not care for the poor. On the contrary, many conservative or libertarian Christians care very passionately about the poor, but believe that the forced redistribution of wealth is tantamount to armed robbery and should thus be anathama to any believer.
The ethical, biblical way to help the poor is through the voluntary contributions of believers to churches and private charities. If such institutions prove insufficient, then Christians should call one another to give more generously and to use the funds more efficiently. What they should not do is support using the threat of violence (which is what government power amounts to) to force society at large to pick up the slack of a Church that has neglected its responsibilities.

This is quite a good discussion, and I have no desire to forestall it, but several things should be added: 1) I have watched Beck’s old show on CNN and found it sad and not actually very educational; 2) George you win the award to taking Jesus’ remarks out of context— the words ‘the poor you always have with you, are said in the context in which Jesus adds ‘but you will not always have me with you’ as a critique of Judas who objected to a lavish act of anointing by one of Jesus’ female disciples. Jesus provides absolutely no justification for the notion that Christians should not be concerned to help transform society in helpful ways, especially for those who most need the help. And no George, you cannot get away with calling it communism and misquoting Jesus just to let yourself off the hook.
Blessings anyway,
BW3

A P.S. to John. If you will read your OT a bit more carefully you will discover both there, and in the NT, that government when done right does have an obligation to take care of the widow, the orphan, and other indigent people. To call all government programs of compassion ‘welfare’ programs or to call taxes that support such programs ‘forcably seizing private property’ is to say the least a caricature. We as citizens of the wealthiest land in the world do indeed, as citizens have obligations to our fellow citizens some of which are addressed through taxes. The NT is perfectly clear that we are indeed to pay our taxes. While I agree that the church has indeed fallen down on the job of helping the poor and the needy, it is simply neither a biblical nor a reasonable position to say that government shouldn’t be taxing people for such purposes. And lastly, there is no such thing as either private or public property from a Biblical point of view— ‘the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof’. We are only stewards of God’s property.
BW3

Justice and helping the poor is indeed biblical, but a government intent on income redistribution is Beck’s target. Social parasites are warned by Paul that those who don’t work don’t eat (Amen!). Yes, I know he was talking about those who lazed around waiting for Jesus to return on the good graces of their brothers and sisters; Beck is talking about parasites who laze around waiting for the soon return of the welfare check. Those who cannot work or have not been able to find work are excepted.

“And lastly, there is no such thing as either private or public property from a Biblical point of view— ‘the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof’. We are only stewards of God’s property.”
Thanks, Dr. Whitherington. I’m glad somebody finally pointed this out.

When Jesus disciples figured out that there were too many people to feed they asked Jesus if they could send the folks away to fend for themselves, Jesus’ response was ‘no, YOU feed them.’ As Christians we cannot hide behind human judgments that the poor have only themselves to blame. Jesus’ message was loud and clear, as disciples the responsibility falls squarely on us. Even Judas understood this responsibility.
Nor is it appropriate for uncharitable Christians to hide their hard heartedness behind a laissez faire government. We live in a country where we are the government, and we choose how that government is going to treat the poor and marginalized. If our government fails to care for “the least of these” the blame for that failure falls on us. And when the time comes for separating the sheep from the goats it will do us no good to claim credit for the pittance we gave at church and expect that God will ignore the fact that instead of employing the enormous resources of the state to foster God’s justice we used those resources to preserve our hoarded wealth and coincidentally to perpetuate the plight of the marginalized.
I am not excited about tax increases or spending more of my hard earned money on people whom I suspect could be earning their own way. But I cannot ignore the clear and unflinching command to care for the least among us. And it is not for me to judge who is worthy to share from my pantry and who should be excluded. I can only trust that God will continue to provide, as he has always been faithful to me.
By the way, what is a social parasite anyway? I suggest that it is one who selfishly abuses the system to siphon off more than they need, damaging the system by their selfish abuse and thereby preventing the system from operating in a healthy way, in the best interests of all of its parts.

Dr. Witherington:
You said
“And lastly, there is no such thing as either private or public property from a Biblical point of view— ‘the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof’. We are only stewards of God’s property.”
This is simply not correct Dr. W, and the KIND of comment that erodes our political system and raises the hairs on Glenn Beck’s neck.
Certainly the earth is the Lord’s and we are only stewards. But it DOES NOT FOLLOW that there is no distinction between private and public property in the bible. The bible recognizes the existence of private property, otherwise there would be no prohibition on stealing. And the OT makes the point that neither the rich nor the poor are to be given an advantage in court. And the concept of private property continues in the NT. (Unless, God forbid, we are going to obliterate the distinction between CHURCH and STATE and force the whole world to behave as if they were disciples who had just left their nets to follow Jesus.)
For biblical theology, give me Witherington and other greats! But for a concrete political philosophy, give me Jefferson and Madison!

I just have to say that this is one of the most thoughtful, intelligent, civil discussions I have ever read on the internet. (And that’s completely independent of my attempts to contribute to it!) It’s refreshing to see that political discourse in this country can still be handled on this level. I think it says a lot that it happens on the blog of a Bible scholar. People who seriously study the Bible (as Dr. Witherington clearly does, and as those who follow him try to) can’t help but have its principles wear off on them. It speaks well of the community of active, engaged believers that we can discuss our differences in this manner.

Hi. I’m poor. I’m on food stamps. And I’m a minister. And I know I’m not the only one in this situation.
This is hard for me. I’ve given my life and my family’s life over to the body of Christ, and we can’t make ends meet. If it weren’t for the help of the government, we wouldn’t be able to make it.
I struggle because I wonder why those who are called to live sacrifically in all areas of their lives can’t seem to take care of their own but are willing and able to gun down the government when it steps in to do what some have said is “the church’s job.” I’m in league with BW3 when he says that the government is supposed to take care of its citizens — that’s what laws are, in theory, around for. There’s overlap there, whether we like it or not. Some have mentioned it above, but I’ll reiterate here that slavery and civil rights were issues for both the church AND the government. Granted, how the two groups do power are worlds apart, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t come together every now and then.
I digress. Again, my family is alive, yes, by the gifts of the God who provides for us, but I see his provision through an institution that seems to care more for its own people than the church does. This isn’t to say that the church does absolutely nothing, but it’s a scary thing to see the government, in some ways, act more like the sacrificial body of Christ than God’s own people.
Just venting. This is more complicated than most of us think it is. And if you’ve paid your taxes, thank you for taking care of my famiy. I mean that sincerely. Thank you.

I suppose we should not be surprised at the comments lambasting BW3 and extolling the virtues of Glenn Beck, but any fair reading of the Gospels and, indeed, the entire Bible, reveals God’s overarching concern for social justice. Theologian Marcus Borg (“Reading the Bible Again for the First Time” and “The Heart of Christianity”) argues that Jesus’ message is a continuation of the Old Testament concern for the poor and helpless, such as in the prohibition against usury and the establishment of the Jubilee Year’s cancellation of debt and servitude. Rather than a promise of eternal bliss in heaven, Borg contends, the fundamental message of the Gospels is a call for justice, for the founding of the “Kingdom of God” here and now. Assertions that Christianity has nothing to do with social justice overlook the overwhelmingly obvious.

Here is an article by a senior editor at Time Magazine on this subject.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/14/why-does-glenn-beck-hate-jesus/?xid=huffpo-direct

Mr. Pennoyer I have to take exception to what you say here. There is individual responsibility for property given in the Bible to all sorts of people as individuals , but that does not make the property private property. There is a difference between individually stewarded property and private property. Of course there are laws about theft, because if God has given X the responsibility for using and ministering with this piece of property, he has not also given it to Y. And as for public property that too is held in trust for others, and in the divine economy could be said to be property given to the whole people by God. So no…. I don’t want to do economics on the basis of modern theories of private vs. public property. Those categories do not work Biblically.
BW3

I’d just like to say that I fully support Ben on this. It’s clear from the Gospels that social justice is a key part of Jesus’ teachings (e.g. Matt 25:341-46).
How that’s accomplished (volunteerism, through the church only, in partnership with the government, government only) can certainly be debated, but to tell Christians to stop caring about those less fortunate – which is what Beck is advocating – is a deviation from what the Bible teaches.
I’d also like to congratulate Ben on posting about this. It’s so easy to remain silent and avoid controversy, especially with Beck’s noisome followers that are sure to pounce if he’s being criticized.

Our infant mortality rate and the fact that children without insurance are 60% more likely to die for lack of proper medical care are national sins.
American Christians ought to hang our heads in shame when we see that far more secular nations do a far better job of following the teachings of Jesus.
This has its roots in the modern concept that after Christians are saved, morality is irrelevant. Actions don’t matter. You can safely worship money and make profit the ultimate measure of holiness without regard to any consequences.
This is why atheists and agnostics tend to be nicer, more caring people, because they have not been given an apparent license by God to do anything they want to their neighbor and still get to heaven.
Because make no mistake about it, our American health care system, which is designed to produce profit rather than health care, deliberately and consciously kills poor men, women and children.
And American Christians will defend it with their last breath, because to them, the Free Market is God and the Word of God is that poor people don’t produce profit and so don’t get health care.

It appears that many conservative American Christians find it easy to compartmentalize their faith, that is, what they do on Sunday, and what they do intentionally as Christians seems disconnected from what they champion as citizens. There is little dispute that Jesus and a host of Old Testament prophets describe God’s justice exclusively in terms of giving aid and comfort to the poor and otherwise marginalized (including the foreigner, the sexual eunuch, the imprisoned, the blind, the widows, the orphans, and those who only worked for part of the day when others worked the whole day for the same wage). There can be no genuine dispute that pursuit of such justice is not voluntary but commanded, and perhaps may even be tied to entrance into the Kingdom (separating sheep from goats). And while it can be debated that Jesus saw a distinction between church and state (render unto Caesar) I think that the distinction that Jesus was really getting at was the distinction between living in the Empire under the rule of the human king (Caesar) who wielded power for the benefit of himself and the rich and powerful who supported his throne, and living in the Kingdom of God, under the rule of the divine King who wields power for the benefit of the rich and poor alike.
In our time and place there is no human king, there is only the government of the people, a people who can choose to operate their government according to principles consistent with God’s Justice, or not.
Many conservative Christians want to interpret God’s justice as optional, even for Christians, and are adamant in advocating that their government ought to ignore God’s justice and behave as if Caesar still wielded power for the benefit of the “haves”, leaving the “have not’s” to fend for themselves.
At the risk of melodrama I have to ask how they can ignore Scriptural injunctions such as this from Amos: “8:4 Hear this, you that trample on the needy, and bring to ruin the poor of the land, 5 saying, “When will the new moon be over so that we may sell grain; and the sabbath, so that we may offer wheat for sale? We will make the ephah small and the shekel great, and practice deceit with false balances, 6 buying the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals, and selling the sweepings of the wheat.” 7 The LORD has sworn by the pride of Jacob: Surely I will never forget any of their deeds.”
Do they think God will not notice, that God will not remember or that God just doesn’t care anymore?

Whoa, lots of comments here. And many good points.
As a Christian and a libertarian, I agree with Glenn Beck according to his definition of “social justice”. I also agree with Dr. Witherington, when “social justice” is defined the way he defined it in an earlier comment. The important distinction is whether it is coerced (NO) or voluntary (YES).
Jesus did not use the power of the State to aid the poor.

Hi Daniel:
Thanks for this. I guess the question for you is how libertarian are you, since the NT is perfectly clear that the government has a right to levy taxes for various good purposes. You can call this coercion if you like, I call this the price of civic duty and being a good citizen. I frankly find too much of libertarian politics just a guise for selfishness and individualism and avoiding having to do one’s civic duties. And frankly, America doesn’t need any encouragement to be more selfish, more radically individualistic, etc.
BW3

Serving the poor is an act of discipleship, no more, no less. Our chronic failure as followers of Jesus Christ, all across the theological spectrum, is to believe we’ve had our ticket punched for heaven and there’s no more worries. We can go on about our business, whatever that may be. We’ve done our best to dissociate faith and works. After carefully watching Glenn Beck he appears to me to be exactly this type of Mormon. I don’t see Beck differentiating between social (read liberal) justice and biblical justice. If he has such an understanding he certainly has failed to clearly state so.
To further the point: less dramatic than Amos, but still clear is James 2:14.

Hello Dr. Witherington. Libertarian enough to oppose state-administered welfare of any sort. The effect of state-administered welfare has achieved its opposite intent, as it relieves one of their civic duty to care for their fellow man. This is a dangerous moral hazard – and there is indeed a very strong correlation between increased state welfare spending and decreased private charitable donations. State-administered welfare is what appeals to individual selfishness (IMO). There is also a correlation between larger government and less religious observance. Not good.
That being said, Glenn Beck would be taken more seriously if he did not act like a buffoon so much. He could express his views in a more tactful way. It’s difficult enough to articulate libertarian ideas without being called selfish.
Paul urged the churches to be self-governing and not appeal to the State. Government and State are not necessarily interchangeable terms.

Daniel Hewitt says:
“Paul urged the churches to be self-governing and not appeal to the State. Government and State are not necessarily interchangeable terms.”
This was not for the sake of libertarian freedom, though. This was in order to keep the peace.

I think Beck is too polemic for my taste. Painting with a broad brush and using poorly defined terms is what gets his type of commentator in trouble. But many of us knew what he meant. I just wish this blog would take MSNBC, CNN, ABC, PBS, CBS, and the class clowns of Comedy Central to task for their rantings. Just a few minutes of these guys and their
arrogant disdain of any and everything I hold holy and sacred makes me fly back to Fox News. Warts and all, it’s “hard news” shows are so much better than the others.

“I just wish this blog would take MSNBC, CNN, ABC, PBS, CBS, and the class clowns of Comedy Central to task for their rantings.”
Yes, because as one of those “class clowns” (Jon Stewart) says, “The show that leads into mine is puppets crank calling people. If you want to compare my comedy show to a legitimate news network, by all means go right ahead.”
Seriously, Scott? Call comedy central to task? That is absolutely ridiculous.

Here’ hard news, Glenn Beck style:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WLs1t8UiK0

Beck has clearly crossed the line. But it’s also time for Christians to reclaim the fundamentals of a living faith by working for justice. For too long, many religious leaders have supported the prevailing greed in American society. It’s time for a change.

Many of the commentators focused on the roll of Government. The Problem is that Mr. Beck’s comments dealt with churches and did not mention Government. When Christians right stood up for Biblical Justice, they are being sucked into a debate about Government. It is not. Mr Beck is about theology and his lack of understanding of it.

Dr. Witherington:
Although I appreciate your response, I am at a complete loss to explain your apparent belief that the concept of private property is not recognized in the bible but is rather a construct of “modern theories” of economics. On the contrary, I believe it is affirmed – either explicitly or implicitly – on nearly every page! From Abraham acquiring many possessions, to Ahab envying Naboth’s vineyard, to (oh, yes!) Ananias and Sapphira improperly disposing of their OWN property.
Here’s why it matters to this discussion and not just some theological rabbit trail: Along with the separation of powers, private property rights are one of the key protections against tyranny in the system of government set set out by the U.S. Constitution and the Founding Fathers.
John Adams put it well in 1787: “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”
Re “social justice,” let’s love our neighbor and work for their genuine welfare – but let’s NOT pull the pillars of our society down upon our heads while we’re at it. If that happens, everyone loses, especially the weak.

“The effect of state-administered welfare has achieved its opposite intent, as it relieves one of their civic duty to care for their fellow man. This is a dangerous moral hazard – and there is indeed a very strong correlation between increased state welfare spending and decreased private charitable donations.”
What is particularly frightening about that statement is the complete trust in the responsibility and morality of individuals, which is really without much justification. We live in a sinful, broken world, and we are all at least equal parts selfish and charitable. I would not be content to abandon social programs in favor of trusting in the general charitable nature of individuals. Sounds like a recipe for everybody to pretty much just keep their money to themselves.

To Joey: I was objecting to the vile things that are said on Comedy Central that some who post here think are amusing or even “prophetic”.
Erase that reference from my original post and I stand by my argument.
To John Mc: I am sorry I was unclear. Beck is clearly NOT “hard news”, rather his show is opinion at best. Fox has few, but some very good NEWS shows. The “opinion shows”, as BW3 pointed out, are often hard to take…BUT it is not only the shows on the “right” that are pure BS…how about a blog taking on Rachel Maddow or Olbermann?

While I do believe Beck when to far in his rant, I believe your attack Ben goes to far as well.
Why can’t we have a dialogue about what social justice has come to mean in our churches and modern America? I think a case could be made that it has in some circles led to systems that resemble communism or fasicm. I think an over-emphasis of the “social gospel” has corrupted many churches and denominations.
Instead of berating Beck, it would be better served to open up a discussion on what does poverty mean today in 21st century America. Where does compassion cross over into enablement and false-entitlement? How do we employ social justice ministries that also maintain “the gospel”?

Chap, I can’t agree that Ben has gone too far. Not to sound like a head-hunter but when a blatant anti-Jesus sentiment is being adopted by Christians because a political opinionist (and a Mormon) told them to we must call a duck a duck.
I want to quote Glenn Beck himself:
“So Jim, I just wanted to pass this on to you. In my time I will respond — my time, well, kind of like God’s time, might be a day, might be a week to you, I’m not sure. But I’m going to get to it in my time, not your time. So you go ahead and you continue to do your protest thing, and that’s great. I love it. But just know — the hammer is coming, because little do you know, for eight weeks, we’ve been compiling information on you, your cute little organization, and all the other cute little people that are with you. And when the hammer comes, it’s going to be hammering hard and all through the night, over and over…”
This THREAT was in response to Jim’s open letter to GB:
“Now that you’re willing to admit that social justice is more than just a code word, we have a wonderful opportunity for the two of us to sit down together and have an open and public discussion on what social justice really means and how Christians are called to engage in the struggle for justice.
Why don’t we do that, on your show, or in some other venue. And let’s make this a civil dialogue and not engage in personal attacks on each other — which is never helpful in trying to sort out what is true. So let’s talk about the heart of the matter. When would you like to get together for this conversation?”
GB has fallen off his rocker. He can’t even engage in civil discourse without turning to threats and name calling.

Re-labeling “social justice” with modern pejoratives such as “communism” and “fascism” is obviously incendiary and cannot seriously be intended to foster any kind of genuine dialogue. If you want to suggest that God’s command to pursue “social justice” has been corrupted by contemporary “communists” and “fascists” then I suppose you have to identify the contemporary “communists” and “fascists” who have done this and it is only fair that you should also be able to support your claims by showing how these contemporary “communists” and “fascists” qualify for the labels you pin on them.
At the same time it needs to be explained on the one hand how these ‘neo-communists’ and ‘neo-fascists’ have perverted the commandment of God and on the other how conservative Christian resistance to government programs to aid “social parasites” adheres to the commandment.

Private property is the norm in the Scripture but God intervenes in the economy of Israel in an attempt to avoid a landed elite dominating and owning the underclass. I can’t see any other reason for those Jubilee laws of the OT. So, private property (his own vine and fig tree) along with laws that limit private property and even expropriate it when the higher good requires it.
We are called to tithe, at a minimum. The denomination I belong to has a per-capita giving level of about 2-4 percent. It is hypocritical of us to ask the government to do more when we do as little as we can get by with.
The Bible teaches me to pay taxes. It all belongs to him anyway.
I’ve done Christian relief work. It isn’t much easier weeding the “parasites” out in the private sector than the public.
I don’t think the church is wrong to ask the government to help provide for the most vulnerable among us. We ask for our pot holes to get fixed, after all…

My next statements are intended in brotherly love… I was a youth minister in the UMC for seven years and choose to leave for a more “evangelical” denomination because the trend of the UMC (at least in the north) was a drift away from biblical inerrancy and embracing only “social justice” issues. Perhaps many Christians outrage at Glenn Beck’s comments exist because he has hit a “nerve” of truth. Some examples…
1. The UMC church where I served (by the way one of the largest in our district and conference) hosted Al Gore’s “Incovenient Truth”. Please don’t misunderstand, I don’t think this is a litmus test–but the movie is filled with errors and is an over-hyped apopalyptic propaganda that has little to do with “conservation” or a Genesis centered worldview of creation-care.
2. Homosexuality and abortion (although not embraced in the book of discipline) were accepted as normative in the leadership and laity.
3. The term outreach had nothing to do with equipping and training laity for personal evangelism–but only helping the disadvantaged and addressing systemic issues of oppression. In fact, evangelism was subtly a “dirty word” since it indicated that we were intolerant of another person’s beliefs. Again, I’m not saying we shouldn’t be about social justice, but not at the expense of evangelism–in which in my view, every evangelistic conversation is a social justice issue.
I met a few wonderful evangelical pastors who I sat down with to address these issues when I was pursuing my m-div. They also affirmed the same problems and urged me to stay and be a part of the solution. I decided it was to great. Now watching the ELCA slide down the slippery slope of failing to hold tightly to the essentials of orthodox doctrine affirms many of my fears.
I make these comments not with any glee…since I know many wonderful UMC-ers, love John Wesley, admire people like Ben, nor do I paint all mainline churches with a broad brush, but I do think it is a problem (an elephant in the room) that must be addressed from the top down. I’m also not so naive as to think that it isn’t being addressed in some forums. But a visceral reaction to a guy like Beck seems prickly. By the way I hate it when guys like Dobson pronounce to Christians to “go tell your pastor…” this is much more annoying.
Finally, I think “evangelical” churches have ignored social justice issues at the expense of the “gospel” and are currently undergoing their own “chastening”.

So Chap, not trying to be facetious, but you moved from the UMC, in part, because they hosted An Inconvenient Truth to an institution which has probably, in more than one way, promoted Left Behind?
I understand your concerns with mainline denoms and churches but I’m not upset with Glenn Beck because he hit a nerve of “truth” but because he is leading Jesus’ sheep away from Jesus’ message.

First, I don’t think in any way Glenn Beck is prophetic. To me Glen Beck’s statement is as irritating as Jim Dobson telling people to go talk to their pastors about the next impending social evil. Dobson had much more sway in this area than Beck ever will (evangelicals have been dealing with this phenomenon for decades). My point is how serious people are taking beck’s comments AND perhaps there is a kernel of truth that has people riled up or fearful they will lose constituents. I think it is a stretch at best that Christians will be misled by beck’s statements. (especially since the only people who will fall for his line is hard-core conservative/fundamentalist evangelicals).
Second, the difference between Left Behind and An Inconveient Truth is at least Left Behind is based on the Bible (even if many would say wrongly). By the way, I’ve never even read one book in the series (nor did we promote the book). I think even a guy like Wesley would however subscribe to the premillenial, pre-trib theories of Left Behind. (could be wrong though).

I stand by my conviction that Christ would not advocate the forced redistribution of wealth. He would certainly call His followers to give generously to provide for the needy; but I find it very difficult to imagine Him condoning the threat of violence to force people to give up what is theirs.
Contrary to others’ arguments, I believe that the Bible clearly supports the right to private property. If the commandment “do not steal” is not a sufficient argument, consider the following: In the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Mt 20:1-16), the vineyard owner asserts his right to do what he chooses with what belongs to him (interestingly, supporting both Christian charity and the right to private property). Also consider Luke 12:14, in which Jesus Himself declares that it is not his place to be a divider of a man’s inheritance. If the Lord Himself denied such authority, how can one argue that He bestowed it to others?
Also, I readily concede that the Bible supports the legitimacy of civil government as well as the payment of taxes for its proper functions. However, I maintain that the functions of an ethical government consist of providing services for the general welfare such as courts, police, military defense, etc., which the private sector cannot provide. It does not have the right to take property from one individual and give it to another individual (nor does anyone).
As an aside, it is frustrating for Christian libertarians such as myself when it is automatically assumed that we don’t care about the poor. If we are suspicious of “social justice,” it is not because we lack compassion for the underprivileged, but because the term has become synonymous with economic practices that we believe to be unchristian. Feel free to disagree with us but do not accuse us of heartlessness, as has been done both implicitly and explicitly.

I find it frustrating when Christians use Scripture to justify avoiding God’s call for social justice.
To resist taxation intended to provide relief for the less fortunate while acquiescing to taxation and government spending designed and intended to support farm and other market subsidies, public education, capital gains income subsidies, mineral depletion subsidies, national park creation and maintenance, corporate and residential energy conservation subsidies, corporate sector bailouts, corporate research subsidies, emergency disaster relief, foreign aid subsidies, public highway subsidies, scientific research grants, space exploration, census taking, and weapons of war, all on the theory that the former constitutes unBiblical government sponsored wealth redistribution while all of the others constitute Biblically unimpeachable taxation practices and purposes, is simply indefensible.
A true “libertarian” would insist on a flat tax for purposes of supporting a small governmental bureaucracy dedicated almost exclusively to national defense. A true “libertarian” would oppose all government programs and most uses of tax dollars on the same premise – that is that the government should not be engaged in such activities. They would not be overly pre-occupied with resisting those programs oriented toward assisting the poor and marginalized.
A thoughtful Christin “libertarian” would not argue that when a government is engaged in so many il-liberal projects and handing out all those subsidies, projects and subsidies oriented toward assisting the poor and marginalized are especially heinous as such are unBiblical – when in truth such projects, seeking at least in theory to answer God’s call for social justice, are far more Biblically supportable than all the rest.
At this point in our history we are a long way from serious redistribution. but if we were talking about genuine wealth redistribution, the argument should not be that this is TOO MUCH social justice, instead one should be honest enough to just say “what is mine is mine and I have a right to keep it that way.” Go ahead be selfish – who in America could seriously criticize another for taking that position. Just don’t claim Scriptural support for selfishness. It’s unseemly.
But if one claims to be a committed Christian I don’t buy the argument opposing government welfare programs on Scriptural grounds. Such focused opposition is about hoarding wealth and playing keep away from the poor. It’s about taking the wrong side in the story of Lazarus and the rich man.

John, if you’re weary of the phrase social justice because you feel it has been hijacked then reclaim it. The word, and its real meaning (systemic and private wrongs being made right) is something we need to champion and embrace. Don’t run from a word but reclaim it.
Also, just because Jesus uses something in society as the context of a parable does not mean that he is legitimizing it as a practice. He used the image of yeast spreading through dough to describe both sin and the Kingdom of God. His intent in parables was never to describe the right system of governance or operation, but to use something familiar to re-frame how folks understand God’s mission – so your examples fall a bit short.
Private property is not a near-eastern idea. It is a western idea. Most eastern and near-eastern cultures, even today, don’t operate with an understanding of private property. Most of the cultures are communal. You are a steward of that and I am a steward of this but to say that “this is yours and this is mine” is a concept that is very foreign to a good portion of the world. Some people groups don’t even have language to describe private property.
If you are a Christian than nothing you have is yours. If the government wants to take your coat give him your shirt as well. But if the government wants to take the coat of the underprivileged then stand opposed.
The chasm between the richest 1% or our nation and the poorest 95% is so wide that it has nothing to do with “earnings” and everything to do with control of resources and hoarding. It isn’t an issue of taking from those who have worked hard to give to those who haven’t. It is an issue of spreading resources out to everybody so anybody who is willing to work hard has the opportunity to move up.

I fall more on Johns side of that argument. The discussions we are not having are…
1. What is compassion? Is it compassionate to force someone (nameless/faceless) to give money to someone else (nameless/faceless)who then determines who should receive it (nameless/faceless)? When Jesus was asked who is my neighbor? Wasn’t he really talking about “neighbors” i.e., people you knew? True compassion is personal.
2. Where does compassion cross the line to enabling complacency/laziness and actually demoralize people (there is a whole lot in the bible that talks about this issue). I think we can learn alot from the world of addiction and co-dependency in some type of definition of compassion. In a culture that just picks up and moves when things are difficult (move away from family, churches, institutions) that used to be our safety nets–isn’t it possible that more faceless bureaucracies compound the problem of poverty?
3. Finally, I will add this one. I believe personal evangelism is a missing ingredient to our conversation about compassion. I am speculating, but poverty in our society is largely a heart issue. I do not include mental illness, physical disability–or any case in which people through no fault of their own are poor (in fact this is the type of poverty that Jesus/OT seems to address most often). If you believe that people are lost in sin apart from repentance and conversion and therefore destined for eternity apart from God what is more important than the compassionate act of evangelistic dialouge. I ought to be as animated for digging wells for the underprivileged as I am about presenting living water.

Good questions, Chap.
I’d like to add a dimension if I could (well I’d like to quote Robert Lupton a bunch).
“Doing for others what they can do for themselves is charity at its worst.” (Compassion, Justice, and the Christian Life pg. 31)
Compassion – you say that true compassion is personal. I would say that is not a complete picture. Jesus’ own example of “neighbor” was not of two people who knew each other but of two strangers. Yet, this example is “personal” because the interaction is one of proximity and not distance.
To quote Peter Kreeft, “Agape’s object is always the concrete individual, not some abstraction called humanity.”
But personal compassion does not address systemic causes – a huge source of injustice in our world. Systemic injustice takes systemic solutions – solutions that go beyond the personal and reach out to reorient the systems which oppress and allow greed to dominate our market, rather than the well being of our neighbors.
Peter Rollins asks, what good is it to help an individual who is suffering whilst at the same time participating in the system that has caused/reinforced the suffering?
The most healthy systemic programs are those that focus on reciprocity. I’m sure you will agree. If we do not operate as if every person has something to contribute we marginalize people. We are the givers, they are the takers. True development comes with the realization that everybody has something of worth to offer. But any person involved in successful community development will tell you that without healthy partnerships with the government true development cannot happen. When we invest in systems the individual is (hopefully) always the eventual focus.
You ask:
“Where does compassion cross the line to enabling complacency/laziness and actually demoralize people (there is a whole lot in the bible that talks about this issue)?”
Lupton says,
“A truly worthy poor family: Is devout, close-knit. Has a responsible father working long hours at minimum wage wherever he can find work. Has a mother who makes the kids obey, washes clothes by hand, and will not buy any junk food. Lives in overcrowded housing; will not accept welfare or food stamps even when neither parent can find work. Always pays the bills on time; has no automobile. Has kids that do not whine or tell lies.
I want to serve truly worthy poor people. The problem is they are hard to find. Someone on our staff thought he remembered seeing on back in ’76 but can’t remember for sure. Someone else reminded me that maybe to be truly poor means to be prideless, impatient, manipulative, desperate, grasping at every straw, and clutching the immediate with little energy left for future plans. But truly worthy? Are any of us truly worthy?”
At some point in our charity, we have to be willing to be taken advantage of. We can’t refuse to support programs (private or public) simply because people will, inevitably, abuse the system. We will work towards better systems but action has to be taken at the risk of being taken advantage of. Otherwise people do nothing out of fear that their funds won’t do what they want them to do.
Lupton engages with this in “Their’s is the Kingdom” pg. 42:
“I can see the conditions I place on my giving, my own subtle forms of manipulation. I am confronted with my pride that requires others to conform to my image. I see my need to control, to meter out love in exchange for the responses I desire.
I will opt to be manipulated in person. For somewhere concealed in these painful interactions are the keys to my own freedom.”
You ask:
“isn’t it possible that more faceless bureaucracies compound the problem of poverty?”
Yes but it is also possible that something has to be done and nobody is doing it so I’ll opt for an imperfect system until we can creatively and responsibly address the issues.
Let’s look at Jesus for evangelism:
Luke 4 – He came to bring the Good News – What he brought truly was good news: release the captives, give sight, free the oppressed. Jesus was on about proclaiming his Kingdom imminent. Some would argue that, for Jesus, the eschaton (not the end of “time” but the end of “the age”) was AD 70. He was proclaiming the initiation of the unwrapping of His Kingdom and the end of “religion” as a means to God.
Proclaiming information without embodying it is verging on gnosticism. It is important to tell folks about Jesus. It is also important to embody his message. They are two parts of the same whole.

Let me begin by acknowledging that the original issue in this thread was Mr. Beck’s blanket indictment of all church supported ‘social justice’ programming because it was unBiblical. This thread has drifted from there into a debate on whether Christians can morally oppose all government welfare programs either as wealth redistribution or because the wrongly manifest compassion to those who are unworthy to receive it. I just want to keep the thread coherent.
Now Chap, you ask: “Where does compassion cross the line to enabling complacency/laziness and actually demoralize people (there is a whole lot in the bible that talks about this issue)?”
My first (rhetorical) question back to you is: when did you undertake the personal research to reach the conclusion that a proposed program will enable “complacency/laziness and actually demoralize people”? Such conclusion sound like self-serving assumptions to me.
While it may seem off-point, I would compare the question cited above to Peter’s question, “how many times must I forgive?” Compassion is about giving, not about measuring worthiness. The call to compassion, just like the call to forgiveness, is an obligation placed on us, and the obligation applies regardless of the worthiness of the person we forgive (again and again) or the person for whom we show compassion (even if he is a thief). For God commands to forgive and to show mercy, are not about the recipient but about the giver. When separating the goats from the sheep God will not consider the worthiness of those who received our compassion, nor the effectiveness of our method of distribution, only that we were ready to offer compassion when the opportunity presented itself. And I highly doubt God will give much consideration to rationalizations based upon libertarian political theory.
As Christians we are commanded to give and to forgive. Complex rationalizations will not, and cannot, justify our failure to comply. If we Christians begin to ration our giving and/or our forgiving based upon the character or degree of penitence displayed by the potential recipients, we are the ones who have impermissibly crossed the line.
As for counter-productive programs, I suggest that when we are inclined to just say ‘no, because the program is patently flawed,’ instead, we are obligated as Christians to come up with a better idea.
But just saying NO is inadequate.

Thanks for those thoughtful responses Joey. Honestly, I haven’t thought through deeply enough the issues of systemic poverty and admittedly is a part of the flaw in some of my thinking. I do think the answers to poverty include government, church and the marketplace–like a three-legged stool. Personally it seems to me that we’ve swung to far to the side of government??? I think Rick Warren is doing some great work in this area.
I also am not convinced that we ought not be discerning in giving or give blindly to an organization that may be corrupt or ineffective. I really don’t understand how this is bad? Why wouldn’t I want to give money to a charity that acts with integrity, that stewards its resources in order to insure it maximizes its mission to those it serves? If I do this accidently, fine–but never flippantly.
Just yesterday I gave $20 to someone (stranger) that I met privately with who explained some heart-wrenching experiences. He was able-bodied, yet in my mind not exerting himself to do what is noble (work for a living). In those circumstances I ask God for discernment…Lord will my charity help him? I know that it isn’t the best system–but it is intuitive at those moments. Many times I turn people down and refer them to local agencies that are best designed to help the whole person. I always listen and at times directly address them.
I struggle in this area because poverty is so complex and so personal. I love watching shows like “Intervention” because it illustrates the reality of compassion tangling with the adversary of enablement. How best do I love the addict in my life? No! is not an evil response to some manifestations of poverty…in fact I would argue it may be the most compassionate.
Personally, I don’t think our current Christian thinking about poverty is very helpful.
Joey and John Mc, I do appreciate your insights…

blog.beliefnet.com is great! Payday loans are etremely convenient as they do not involve complicated procedures to obtain it Bad credit payday loans are always linked with very high interest rates

you misunderstand what glenn beck means by social justice. you need to listen to his program.

Well, the submit is actually the sweetest on this deserving topic. I agree with your conclusions and will eagerly look forward to your incoming updates. Just saying thanks will not just be adequate, for the terrific clarity in your writing. I will at once grab your rss feed to stay informed of any updates. Decent work and much success in your business endeavors! qcwkngyelkytcjhjgrtlmpzjrntjmyqxyil
Mr. Payday Easy Loans Inc.

Whenever I run across discussions of this type, it’s striking to me how few of the actual “poor” ever contribute to the conversation. I am the single, 55 year old mother of an adult child with Down Syndrome. Prior to his birth, I worked as a legal secretary and as a paralegal. I had to give up trying to work at a “job” because he was constantly sick. Employers need someone who can be on the job consistently. Mothers of disabled children usually don’t fit into this category, unless their income level enables them to hire someone else to take care of the child. Sarah Palin is an example.
At this point, my son and I struggle to make ends meet – primarily through his governmental benefits. If we did not receive those benefits, we would be homeless and starving. I know other parents of disabled children who are similarly situated.
The point is this: I think that those who believe that providing the basics for people who can’t work or who are disabled is “theft” from the rich, are anti-Christian indeed. There are many intelligent, hard-working people in America who are very poor. Some of them became that way by taking responsibility for caring for someone else. Perhaps this is something to keep in mind when attempting to define “social justice,” or when criticizing “entitlements.”

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning more on this topic. If possible, as you gain expertise, would you mind updating your blog with more information? It is extremely helpful for me.

This website is the most desirable web blog. fpntvviw

This website is the prime web-site. usxktpem

I am looking for fantasy football online chat. How can I find it?

Incredible blogpost which involves Not at your Beck and Call– a Reply to Glenn Beck
- Ben Witherington on the Bible and Culture!

I do like the manner in which you have presented this specific situation and it does indeed offer me a lot of fodder for consideration. However, from just what I have experienced, I only wish when the opinions pack on that individuals remain on point and in no way start upon a soap box of some other news du jour. Still, thank you for this fantastic point and whilst I can not agree with this in totality, I value the viewpoint.

This is exactly what I was thinking and i’m looking for more at google

fkxk ijwvq Weight Loss Pills mnmxgdj q ek q lao