Lest we not forget, there is also a “conservative” movement to edit the Bible, removing or adapting any language that sounds different than free market capitalism. How any person can take this (or Glen Beck) seriously I have no idea.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
Glen, what does the Lord have for you? But to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly.

we should urge Christians to abandon fox news. drop your remote and run for the door! open it, go outside and love your neighbor as yourself. then come back in and turn on espn. or just leave the tv off and love your family…

Context isn’t just for Bible study. Since I don’t have a the full quote, I can’t know what Beck was talking about, but I know a common complaint among conservatives is that “social justice” is being used as code words for leftist policies of income redistribution via the tax code — an idea that is notably absent from the NT passages quoted above.

It is a continuing source of pain and frustration not just that some people conflate their politics and Christianity in this way, but that so many seem to do so (or to blindly follow those that do so, if that’s a meaningful distinction).

Dude, are we on the same page or what? I just responded myself: http://churchedunchurched.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/social-does-not-mean-socialist/
This is horrifying, and it makes me wonder what kind of people are being taken advantage of through this kind of manipulation; not just the poor, but the people who, if they knew better, would otherwise help them.
Rock on, brother!

Great post Scot! It’s great to “hear” your thoughts on this one.

I’m not a fan of Glen Beck, by a long shot. But many of the responses to Beck I’ve seen elsewhere seem very confused about the notions of justice and compassion. I think the Catholics have a useful distinction. Social justice is about politics?government is God?s instrument for bringing about justice; while charity, or love, is what the church does. But many evangelical churches lump their works of (private) compassion and poverty alleviation under the category of “social justice”, which probably confuses poor Glen Beck. I think we should call the government to account for justice (which Beck won’t like), but most “social justice” projects on church websites are strictly private, non-governmental affairs. Google the papal encyclical “Deus Caritas Est” for good background.

“I have my own beefs with the word “social” with justice, thinking it too often gets lumped with the US Constitution, but all justice will manifest itself in social and economic ways.”
Bingo! What justice is there that isn’t social? Which has also raised the issue for me of why talk about “social justice” instead of “justice.”
There is a grain of truth in what Beck is getting at (as there often is with the populist icons.) In the world of Mainline Christianity “social justice” is virtually synonymous with political liberalism or progressivism. I’ve always been concerned about “social justice” and for me that has meant working in opposition to many aspects of political liberalism.
But as I hear Beck, our solution to any disagreement or tension over an issue is to all run screaming to our respective echo chambers. I guess I missed the biblical instruction when I read the Bible.

As Glen Beck seems to speak from an utter lack of knowledge of scripture, it seems that on this one we have to trust the Holy Spirit to lead the people away from deception and to the real gospel.
When people are willing to say absolutely anything — regardless of its relation to truth or anything else — to pursue their ends, it seems that it is out of our hands. This does not mean that we do not proclaim the gospel and its truth, but that we cannot expect, by our own efforts, to overcome this sort of thing.
Peace,
Randy Gabrielse

I believe Glenn Beck is a Mormon.
Anybody know an official LDS position on “social justice”?

Here are a couple of Catholic responses to help clarify the comments above. Glen Beck is getting hit from the Catholic left and the Catholic right… From the left by America magazine:
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=21159420-3048-741E-7761300524585116
From the right by First Things First:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/03/08/glenn-beck-thinks-catholics-should-leave-their-church/
Both are right on target.

@ Rusty #7
I’m inclined to nuance what you’ve said here – Social Justice is not a political issue. It is a social issue, a commonwealth issues, a faring well (welfare) issue, and a communal issue all of which make it a neighbor issue which make it a Jesus issue.
The prophets spent a great deal of energy (and relational collateral) speaking of social issues and calling folks back to justice.
Charity, in ancient Judaism, was an issue of both private and social action. Check out Robert Lupton’s writings on charity (Compassion, Justice, and the Christian Life: rethinking ministry to the poor) for a good resource on this.

@ChrisB
The Bible, in both OT and NT, clearly supports the concept of the rich giving up a portion of their wealth to help the poor. And the Bible specifically states that government is instituted by God. I fail to see how it’s a stretch that government should, to some extent, be utilized to help the poor. After all, conservatives seem happy to use government to institute other biblical concepts (abortion, traditional marriage, etc.).
Further, we’ve had income redistribution through the tax code for a century in this country now (marginal tax rates on the rich were much higher in the first 50-60 years after the federal income tax was adopted than they are now). I fail to understand how support for a progressive income tax suddenly makes someone a “leftist.”
I view Beck’s statement as a positive development, as it makes explicit the incompatibility of reactionary libertarian economic policy and a Christian worldview.

“I know a common complaint among conservatives is that “social justice” is being used as code words for leftist policies of income redistribution via the tax code”
That’s exactly what Beck said. Social justice is a code word for communism.
As far as income redistribution being “leftist,” all taxation is income redistribution, and therefore any taxation is leftist if you want to look at it that way.
Me, I like interstate highways, public parks, and libraries. I think public schools, police and fire protection and a US Post Office are good things. I don’t think that profit is the ultimate measure of goodness. If those are left-wing, God save us from the right.
The bottom line is that Beck compared liberal Christians to Nazis and Stalinists, with absolutely no reaction from conservative Christians — other than excuses for Beck.
If my choices were paganism and evangelical right-wing Christianity, hello Oak Tree, because the Jesus who places profit above everything is not the Christ I would follow.

From an ACTUAL conservative media voice, Mark Levin, concerning Glenn Beck:
“I have no idea what philosophy Glenn Beck is promoting. And neither does he. It’s incoherent. One day it’s populist, the next it’s libertarian bordering on anarchy, next it’s conservative but not really, etc. And to what end? I believe he has announced that he is no longer going to endorse candidates because our problems are bigger than politics. Well, of course, our problems are not easily dissected into categories, but to reject politics is to reject the manner in which we try to organize ourselves. …”
Beck’s nearing flat incoherence at this point . . .

My mom told me a long time ago to a) ignore the loudest dissenters, because they’re full of hot air and are looking for attention and b) walk away from the bully.
Glenn Beck is both of these in this piece. At some point, we as Jesus followers have to give up feeling the need to defend ourselves and our faith against loud mouths. Beck is getting from Christians exactly what he wants for himself–more publicity.

Scott: AMEN to YOU, AMEN to BECK! Beck is talking about a man driven and conceived institutional agenda to change people’s lives to amass power. Jesus is talking about doing these works in His power as His apprentice. Re-read Willard’s Divine Conspiracy Ch 3 The Gospel of Sin Management.
As for me and my house I will serve the Lord and carry out the mandate and mission of Matthew 4:17 because I LOVE JESUS and want to serve HIM. PERIOD!!! I need no man BECK, or you or Pastor —, etc to tell me to do this.

Gogism #2-
“…then come back in and turn on espn…”
But there are discussions of social justice on ESPN too. There is talk of the NCAA Tournament expanding to include over 90 teams! ;^)

ChrisB@3: In the passage from Luke 3 Jesus is reading from a GT prophecy alluding to the Mosaic law of the Jubilee. The Jubilee vision is of a radical redistribution of wealth, debt cancellaton etc so it’s hard to claim that this is related to (social) justice. As for calling social justice a code word for communism and nazism that is just propaganda talk not related to reality. It means that basically all allies of the US in NATO should be labelled communists or nazists.

Nicholas Wolterstorff makes a good analysis: poverty is not simply a ‘compassion’ issue, it is a justice issue. To summarize, his claim is that people have a positive moral right to flourish, or shalom. When people are denied the ability to flourish due to the inaction of people who are able to provide the ability, there is injustice. The deprived are treated unjustly, and the able are acting unjustly. Of course, this involves a commitment to positive rights, which a libertarian is committed to denying. However, the deuteronomic laws and provisions to mitigate poverty- the distribution of the tithe (Deut 14:28-29) and to leave harvest for the poor (24:19-22), make sense in this light. This understanding is distinct from utilitarian or equality-based understandings of economic justice, and it may be that Beck and his like may think in terms of a simple dichotomy between ‘libertarianism’ and ‘providing full equality.’
However, to address Rusty, he expresses a legitimate conceptual concern about government involvement. Does justice always require government involvement. It may be that the government promotes justice in certain circumstances by the absense of laws and policy. While the free market isn’t perfect, it has been a powerful force for increasing economic opportunity. Maybe there a number or preponderance of circumstances where a government brings about more justice by lack of involvement. However, even if that is the case, that does not imply that poverty is not a justice issue.
So I would urge churches that do talk about social justice to be clear on both what they mean and how they think it ought to be achieved (just like when they preach about anything else). The ‘how’ is not an easy question. And I would urge those who follow Beck to really wrestle with everyone’s obligation to the poor and to question whether it is exegesis or eisegesis to read libertarianism into the Scripture’s call to justice.

I?m not a Beck fan and it sounds like he is being inflammatory ? no surprise. He should be called out for that, and you are right to do so Scot. But it does seem to me that use of the term ?social justice? in certain Christian circles is not dissimilar to the use of terms like liberty and freedom in conservative Christian circles.
Few Christians are actually against liberty. Or freedom. Or justice (is there any kind of justice other than “social” justice?). But there are many of us who were, for example, against the political overtones contained in Jerry Falwell?s use of terms such as Liberty, Freedom, and the like, and his apparent belief that his take on those terms and their implications for American politics was THE Christian take. So it stands to reason that some might likewise cringe or bristle when ?social justice? is used in a way that carries heavy overtones regarding which American political party is God?s party and which types of compassionate help to the poor result in justice.
I think Beck goes way over the top. But I admit to having two, kind of conflicting responses when I see the term ?social justice? used by a Church or Christian author. The first impulse is to think ?Great! I bet they are concerned about the poor and aren?t captive to the religious right! How refreshing; the Bible is full of calls for justice and we should be way more concerned about those things as Christians than we usually are here in the comfortable West. I bet I can find something in common with these people.? The second impulse follows quickly on the first though, and goes something like: ?But I bet that after I sift through what they are saying I?m just going to find out that they mean ?God is an American progressive.? I hope that?s not all they mean but experience leads me to think I?m probably just going to be dealing with someone on the Religious Left, as opposed to the Religious Right, rather than actually finding a Third Way.? Sometimes I’m proven wrong. But that turns out to be the case often enough, that I do have that gut set of expectations created when I see the term.

Jesus did not just bring us the gospel, he lived out the gospel. This included minding the social and economic, and physical concerns, as well as spiritual needs, of humanity, so that all can be reconciled to the purposes and plans of God, one day (in the eschaton).
Glenn Beck enjoys rallying panic, or fear to build a following, rather than encouraging compassion, provoking thoughtful deliberation, and fostering goodwill and peace.
In fact, his ideas are rather secular.
But, then again, Beck-A Mormon-does not believe in the Trinity, or in Jesus as part of the Trinity, or fully divine. So, we can’t be too surprised. Perhaps, his world view is more like an effort at an ethical survival of the fittest, which is, of course, secular, and borrowing some ethics, ad hoc, from elsewhere.
My hope:
May The Kingdom of God be done on earth as it is in Heaven.

This is unfortunate for multiple reasons. 1) it will cause divisions in local churches. 2) it reveals the end result of hyper-conservative thought. 3) I anticipate that many Christians will embrace a theology of Glen Beck before a theology of Jesus.
This is also fortunate for many reasons. 1) for churches in transition it will give the opportunity to kindly let go of people that may be holding a church back from embracing the mission of God 2)it may cause socially minded conservatives to rethink how politics and christian ethics can interact for the detriment of the kingdom 3) a new and much needed additional denomination will be added to our number: The Glen Beck Brethren of America!

……. glenn beck was talking about the buzzwords for GOVERNMENT policies which would FORCE others to be charitable. This is contrary to the notion that all charity should be done voluntarily.
And seriously, Beck wasn’t saying he doesn’t care about the poor. That’s obvious. It was a political statement, not one on private charity. You’ve got PhD in this stuff. You’re better than that and you know it.

The Catholic Chuch is fundamentally opposed to Communism and any other government that restricts personal autonomy, but the Church is very supportive of social programs with ‘free’ states. From Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical Caritas In Veritate, June 29, 2009
25. From the social point of view, systems of protection and welfare, already present in many countries in Paul VI’s day, are finding it hard and could find it even harder in the future to pursue their goals of true social justice in today’s profoundly changed environment. The global market has stimulated first and foremost, on the part of rich countries, a search for areas in which to outsource production at low cost with a view to reducing the prices of many goods, increasing purchasing power and thus accelerating the rate of development in terms of greater availability of consumer goods for the domestic market. Consequently, the market has prompted new forms of competition between States as they seek to attract foreign businesses to set up production centres, by means of a variety of instruments, including favourable fiscal regimes and deregulation of the labour market.
These processes have led to a downsizing of social security systems as the price to be paid for seeking greater competitive advantage in the global market, with consequent grave danger for the rights of workers, for fundamental human rights and for the solidarity associated with the traditional forms of the social State. Systems of social security can lose the capacity to carry out their task, both in emerging countries and in those that were among the earliest to develop, as well as in poor countries. Here budgetary policies, with cuts in social spending often made under pressure from international financial institutions, can leave citizens powerless in the face of old and new risks; such powerlessness is increased by the lack of effective protection on the part of workers’ associations.
Through the combination of social and economic change, trade union organizations experience greater difficulty in carrying out their task of representing the interests of workers, partly because Governments, for reasons of economic utility, often limit the freedom or the negotiating capacity of labour unions. Hence traditional networks of solidarity have more and more obstacles to overcome. The repeated calls issued within the Church’s social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum, for the promotion of workers’ associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honoured today even more than in the past, as a prompt and far-sighted response to the urgent need for new forms of cooperation at the international level, as well as the local level.

Agreed, Karl. “Christian Left” is a valid term; their politics don’t get to go unquestioned because they’re “new.”
Beck knows what he’s doing. Being tactless and extreme is a sure conversation starter, I guess. Bleh. I’m not convinced he *really* believes what he’s saying.
Personally, if I’m helping feed the poor with a Communist, I don’t see myself leaving my church. Though I’ll probably ask the Communist why he wants the government to take over what we’re doing right now.

Jesus was referring to the Gospel of Salvation, and not a social gospel,or to political matters -Good news to the poor in spirit (not financially poor) -Regaining sight to the blind (the blind in spiritual things) -Set free those who are oppressed (oppressed by sin) -proclaim the year of the Lord (Jesus is Lord who came to die for the sin of his chosen people, the Church) -Today this scripture has been fulfilled (they were looking at the Messiah who was sent from heaven to die and shed his blood to pay for the sin of those he chose to save from the foundation of the world) I think that if you are going to quote the Bible you should know what you are talking about, after all it is a spiritual book and written by God who tells us in the Bible what we are to know about our responsibilty to God.

Beck was NOT talking about the government. Read it again — he was talking about what CHURCHES were advocating ON THEIR WEBSITES!! He’s saying that any churches that advocate anything like ‘social justice’ are LIBERAL CHURCHES. And that’s just not necessarily true.
And he knows it. He’s trying to get attention, like all the conservative shock jocks and all the liberal shock jocks like to do. And he has succeeded.

One more comment: There’s an assumption among conservatives that government social programs are a direct substitute for private charity. The majority of social spending, however, is better classified as a safety net than as simple charity: Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, public education.
If libertarians got their wish and government was reduced down to just national defense and protecting public safety, do we really think churches would be able to step in and, for example, provide long-term care for senior citizens who failed to save enough money to purchase health insurance, or provide educational opportunities for children in urban areas whose parents didn’t have the economic resources/will to do so on their own?
Like most political commentators, Beck dramatically oversimplifies the world. I think it’s important to think through what exactly his words–and the words of those who find kindred spirit with him–would mean in reality.

I think what many people miss is the fact that God called His church to help the poor. I believe it is fiscally irresponsible for our government host many of the social programs it does. Our government should focus on protecting and upholding the Constitution, something every politician swears to do, although many seem to try to manipulate it.
It is the job–and should be the joy– of us Christians to help the poor, to give what we can to the needy BUT, BUT, BUT!!! … also to teach and assist them to help themselves. Give a man a fish, and he’ll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he’ll hunger no more. What good does it do to give help if we don’t teach someone how to help themself and to help others?
I agree and disagree with Mr. Beck. It is vital that our church does not get caught up in government other than to ensure that the Christian principles to which it was founded endure. If the government takes away our free capitolism, the ultimate result is the government controlling all financial aspects of our lives. If the gevernment directs where our funds go, who gets what, and how much, then how are we to be free to give help when and where we see a need?
Again, I say in conclusion, that the government need not worry about the poor. They only need to focus on the strength, freedoms, and economical status of our country. Leave the job of helping the poor and needy to the Church. By God’s command, that is our duty.

I am glad to see Scott and others here have an issue with the regular use of the term “social justice.” I hear it used generally to refer to mercy ministries to the poor and needy. That is not “justice,” but “mercy.” “Justice” implies legal or government action. It would help the discussion if we used a more accurate phrase.

I have always had a problem with the term “social justice”. How does social justice differ from ordinary justice? The term implies that “injustice” is caused by “social structures” which invites some sort of collectivist strategy to alter the structures. It draws attention away from individual responsibility. And it is a term routinely used by, dare I say it, the Christian left to advocate for policies that are to the left of the political spectrum, usually more government. I read Sojourners daily.
Not sure I would run for the exits, as Beck suggests, but if the term is used in a church I attend, I would definitely have questions.
And as I understand it, Beck was pretty hard on the extreme right “fascist” side of the spectrum. He did say there are extremes on both sides.

geez Glenn you’re beginning to sound like you’re seized with “Progressive Paranoia”…I wonder how Glenn squares many of Jesus’ miracles & teachings which were addressing spiritual issues – but also certainly had an element of social justice i.e. the feeding of the 5,000 & 4,000 (God as the only true source of spiritual and physical food); the synagogue healing of the man with the shriveled hand (is it wrong to heal on the Sabbaoth?); the woman caught in adultery (let him without sin cast the first stone); the healing of the blind man (who sinned – his parents or him? It was neither, but that the Glory of God should be revealed)
We (the church) walk a fine line of being in the world, but not of the world, of being yeast and salt in a fallen world…My concern is that the modern church in its desire to influence society (both liberal and conservative leanings)that it may end up repeating the mistakes of the medieval church by becoming a part of the political class.

Worth noting is that the Bible isn’t written to Americans living in a capitalist republic either to validate or to challenge their personal political convictions.
People like Glenn Beck (or anyone else who does this sort of thing) are wrong to try to co-opt the Bible or religion in general to try to prove the God is somehow on “their side”. Telling people to go to churches who side with a certain side of the aisle is ridiculous. It is not the left or right or anyone in the middle ground who will ultimately be vindicated when it is finally revealed how God’s kingdom looks in its fullness.
It is God who will be vindicated and we would be wise to consider how we might be found “on His side” when all is said and done. A friend once told me that he heard it said, “Communism may be a misinterpretation of the Bible, but capitalism is an outright sin”. Friends, do not forget that we belong first and foremost to a kingdom and it’s King. We just happen to have been born is this country.

The Catholic Church teaches that there is both an individual charity and a social charity — some American Christians ignore or flat-out reject the second kind. More from Pope Benedict XVI:
…In the global era, the economy is influenced by competitive models tied to cultures that differ greatly among themselves. The different forms of economic enterprise to which they give rise find their main point of encounter in commutative justice. Economic life undoubtedly requires contracts, in order to regulate relations of exchange between goods of equivalent value. But it also needs just laws and forms of redistribution governed by politics, and what is more, it needs works redolent of the spirit of gift. The economy in the global era seems to privilege the former logic, that of contractual exchange, but directly or indirectly it also demonstrates its need for the other two: political logic, and the logic of the unconditional gift.
…When both the logic of the market and the logic of the State come to an agreement that each will continue to exercise a monopoly over its respective area of influence, in the long term much is lost: solidarity in relations between citizens, participation and adherence, actions of gratuitousness, all of which stand in contrast with giving in order to acquire (the logic of exchange) and giving through duty (the logic of public obligation, imposed by State law). In order to defeat underdevelopment, action is required not only on improving exchange-based transactions and implanting public welfare structures, but above all on gradually increasing openness, in a world context, to forms of economic activity marked by quotas of gratuitousness and communion.
…more economically developed nations should do all they can to allocate larger portions of their gross domestic product to development aid, thus respecting the obligations that the international community has undertaken in this regard. One way of doing so is by reviewing their internal social assistance and welfare policies, applying the principle of subsidiarity and creating better integrated welfare systems, with the active participation of private individuals and civil society. In this way, it is actually possible to improve social services and welfare programmes, and at the same time to save resources ? by eliminating waste and rejecting fraudulent claims ? which could then be allocated to international solidarity. A more devolved and organic system of social solidarity, less bureaucratic but no less coordinated, would make it possible to harness much dormant energy, for the benefit of solidarity between peoples.

So, where exactly did our Savior say we should pay taxes to an atheist government to redistribute wealth? How is it possible that by legislating the extortion – backed by the threat of physical force – of what I earned to be spent by bureaucrats on programs that promote sexual profligacy, child abandonment, drug abuse, and disregard for the law comports with the will of God?
My brother, if you have compassion for the poor, the widowed, and the imprisoned, turn your efforts to charity. Don’t steal from me to make yourself feel noble.

Steven Peters, you have a very limited view of charity. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
III. HUMAN SOLIDARITY
1939 The principle of solidarity, also articulated in terms of “friendship” or “social charity,” is a direct demand of human and Christian brotherhood
An error, “today abundantly widespread, is disregard for the law of human solidarity and charity, dictated and imposed both by our common origin and by the equality in rational nature of all men, whatever nation they belong to. This law is sealed by the sacrifice of redemption offered by Jesus Christ on the altar of the Cross to his heavenly Father, on behalf of sinful humanity.”
1940 Solidarity is manifested in the first place by the distribution of goods and remuneration for work. It also presupposes the effort for a more just social order where tensions are better able to be reduced and conflicts more readily settled by negotiation.
1941 Socio-economic problems can be resolved only with the help of all the forms of solidarity: solidarity of the poor among themselves, between rich and poor, of workers among themselves, between employers and employees in a business, solidarity among nations and peoples. International solidarity is a requirement of the moral order; world peace depends in part upon this.
1942 The virtue of solidarity goes beyond material goods. In spreading the spiritual goods of the faith, the Church has promoted, and often opened new paths for, the development of temporal goods as well. And so throughout the centuries has the Lord’s saying been verified: “Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well”:
For two thousand years this sentiment has lived and endured in the soul of the Church, impelling souls then and now to the heroic charity of monastic farmers, liberators of slaves, healers of the sick, and messengers of faith, civilization, and science to all generations and all peoples for the sake of creating the social conditions capable of offering to everyone possible a life worthy of man and of a Christian

And in the same breath, i don’t think one can claim ‘discipleship’ and also claim that hard work and good luck are reasons enough to claim one’s possessions as solely one’s own. Lest we forget, “the year of the Lord’s favor” aka Jubilee is a legislative event in the history of Israel. As such, government has a role in providing justice in the form of redistribution even if it is a limited role. As much as we would like it to be voluntary (which may be ideally Christian anarchy), justice (social, economic, political and otherwise) sometimes needs communal oversight (aka government) to offset run-away greed and the widening gap between rich and poor, particularly when people involved make no claim to be anything other than self-motivated.

Steven Peters is right. Forced socialism takes everyone to the lowest possible Soviet-style condition and everyone suffers. Free will in response to salvation has done and will do wonders to help the people of the world in need. Stifle that and the world will backtrack to barbarism. It is Christ who sets us free, to give and to receive. Atheistic governments, or religious movements, never received his sanction throughout sacred history.

Your Name,
The Catholic Church does not equate well managed social programs like unemployment insurance and job training, for example, with the kind of Socialism that hinders salvation. Conversely, the Church does view that materialistic, unregulated free-markets that ethics and thus are destructive to the human family. Again, from Pope Benedict XVI:
…No consideration of the problems associated with development could fail to highlight the direct link between poverty and unemployment. In many cases, poverty results from a violation of the dignity of human work, either because work opportunities are limited (through unemployment or underemployment), or ?because a low value is put on work and the rights that flow from it, especially the right to a just wage and to the personal security of the worker and his or her family?. For this reason, on 1 May 2000 on the occasion of the Jubilee of Workers, my venerable predecessor Pope John Paul II issued an appeal for ?a global coalition in favour of ?decent work?’, supporting the strategy of the International Labour Organization. In this way, he gave a strong moral impetus to this objective, seeing it as an aspiration of families in every country of the world.
…Both the regulation of the financial sector, so as to safeguard weaker parties and discourage scandalous speculation, and experimentation with new forms of finance, designed to support development projects, are positive experiences that should be further explored and encouraged, highlighting the responsibility of the investor. Furthermore, the experience of micro-finance, which has its roots in the thinking and activity of the civil humanists ? I am thinking especially of the birth of pawnbroking ? should be strengthened and fine-tuned. This is all the more necessary in these days when financial difficulties can become severe for many of the more vulnerable sectors of the population, who should be protected from the risk of usury and from despair. The weakest members of society should be helped to defend themselves against usury, just as poor peoples should be helped to derive real benefit from micro-credit, in order to discourage the exploitation that is possible in these two areas. Since rich countries are also experiencing new forms of poverty, micro-finance can give practical assistance by launching new initiatives and opening up new sectors for the benefit of the weaker elements in society, even at a time of general economic downturn.

Christ did not promote lazy behavior. He advocated helping the poor but he also advocated helping ones self. “Take care of your own house lest you be a burden”.
Walking out of a church because you do not agree with the doctrine is not un-Christian. It is wise if you can’t change it.
As a previous post said, “stifle free will and all will revert to barbarism”. That is apparent in our society. The more socialistic we become, the ruder and more demanding we have become. Ask anyone who works in retail. The cruel and rude customer was once the exception, now it is common.

Christ did not promote lazy behavior
Exactly! Christian laziness comes in many forms. When tasked to give as charitably as Christ, Christians instead only contribute a fraction of their time and funds, they are being lazy. When tasked to do business ethically for the common good, Christians instead focus on profit motive, they are being lazy. When tasked to treat – and to give – to all as they would their brothers and sisters, Christians ignore entire populations, they are being lazy.
The consequences of Christians failing to exercise their duty to live charitably – and instead focus on protecting personal wealth – are a fallen society that prompts Governmental intervention. So, when Christian business owners, bankers, investors, corporate officers, et. al. start acting like Christians instead of Capitalists, then the need for regulation and welfare will diminish considerably.
Having said that, the Church is also critical of social programs that do not foster independence, but then again that’s not the problem with Glenn Beck’s statement.

Somebody just sent me this petition to let Glen Beck know that justice is central to the Gospel:
https://secure3.convio.net/bread/site/SSurvey?JServSessionIdr004=0n40lgj1x4.app304b&ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&SURVEY_ID=3381

Steven Peters-
Don’t tell me you know the bible if you selectively forget Matthew 22:15-22.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith

We’ve become socialistic? What? This is the most independent, self-satisfying, personal salvation-focused, me me me, greed is good society I can imagine. That is why we’re rude, because we care not one iota about our neighbors.
For anyone to classify this dog-eat-dog society as socialist is laughable. That we’re even arguing the point shows just how capitalistic we are.
That every other developed country, with the exception of Mexico (I think), provides health care for all citizens does not make them socialist. It simply illustrates that we’d rather have a second-class health care system if it generates more return on capital than a first-class system — which is, in essence, the American Way.

As a Mainline Protestant I can say clearly thst “social justice” language is often cover language for “let’s give it to the government to do it.” Why I object to such a philosophy is that believers are to sacrifice their livelihood for the sake of the Gospel. We are not told to give it to Washington while we continue to sip our lattes and suck on our brie cheese. It becomes too easy for Christians to say, “Let’s give it to Caesar.” Having said that, Glenn Beck is clueless in reference to the whole discussion. I rememeber listening to him years ago on the radio when he sounded much more sane and rational. He has clearly fallen off the deep end along with Keith Olbermann.

“Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God?s word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering.” – Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience, Preamble, drafted October 20, 2009

>>That every other developed country, with the exception of Mexico (I think), provides health care for all citizens does not make them socialist.
Since when is Mexico a “developed” country? Surely “developed” countries don’t lose thousands of immigrants every day to a more prosperous – i.e. “developed” country, namely the US.

A lot of churches think that social justice is helping the palestinian arabs destroy Israel.

Beck is not wrong to assert that there is often a political agenda hiding behind the term “social justice.” Furthermore, not everyone who uses it necessarily means the same thing.
BUT -
If he is encouraging people to scour their church web site for a term and then run for the hills and hide their children upon finding it, he is very wrong. What does the church mean by it? Perhaps the church is engaging other churches in the area and simply speaking a common language. Perhaps the church assigns a straightforward meaning to the term and is working for justice on behalf of some people group in the area. What if the word appears in the sentence “People who believe in social justice are finks”?! Engaging church leadership and talking about an issue, not with the blood running hot, may lead to a helpful understanding all around. It may cause a church member to realize that he/she and the church are politically too far apart to cooperate. If it took this one coded, hidden phrase on a web site to reveal that, I’m curious to know how involved this church member really is…
Does it even stand to reason that a church would say one thing from the pulpit and something entirely different on the web site?
Encouraging people to look for one term as a litmus test, then assume the most extreme possible hidden message behind it and panic and run is out of line.
Is it possible he is playing games, doing some kind of Borat impersonation where he is playing the most extreme version of himself to see how people react?

The words of John the Baptist actually support Beck’s position. “Social Justice” in this context typically refers to some form of government activity meant to accomplish the teaching of the Gospel. But this is impossible. Like the tax collector and the soldier in the text, government will always take more than it needs. It redistributes by compulsion. We are required to share our extra tunic through charity. But government will use force to take the tunic I need and give it to someone who could have provided it for himself. This is not the teaching of John nor of Jesus.

Maybe the Mormon church is more interested in social and economic justice than Glenn Beck understands…
From the LDS magazine Ensign, January 1998
The morality of ?Love thy neighbor as thyself? (Lev. 19:18) came logically from a God who said, ?Ye shall be holy: For I the Lord your God am holy? (Lev. 19:2). These concepts from Sinai helped inspire later prophets such as Amos, Isaiah, Micah, and Jeremiah with their great resounding cries for compassion and justice?a ?prophetic protest against social injustice [that was] without close parallel in the ancient world.? 8
The Hebrew word tzedakah?often translated as ?charity??carries perhaps the most important moral value of the Old Testament. Its root actually means ?justice? and ?righteousness,? denoting not only feelings of charity but also actions of goodness and justice. 9 This concept of justice underlay many aspects of Hebrew social order: a person could not be punished for another?s crimes (see Deut. 24:16); at least two witnesses were necessary (see Deut. 19:15); and Israelites were commanded to exercise righteous judgment, without favoritism toward the poor or the mighty (see Lev. 19:15; Deut. 1:17). Thus even kings were not above the law. Because in Israel kingship was seen as an undesirable compromise with the world (see 1 Sam. 8:7?22), only in Israel could a prophet come to condemn a king to his face on behalf of an oppressed person. Elijah thus addressed King Ahab, and Nathan condemned King David (see 1 Kgs. 21:1?20; 2 Sam. 11?12). These events were without parallel in surrounding cultures. 10
Article–The Book That Built a Better World
Author–Chris Conkling

How different the vision of the NT than what we hear from Fox TV or our government:
John said to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, ?You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruits worthy of repentance. Do not begin to say to yourselves, ?We have Abraham as our ancestor?; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.?
And the crowds asked him, ?What then should we do??
In reply he said to them, ?Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise.?
Even tax collectors came to be baptized, and they asked him, ?Teacher, what should we do??
He said to them, ?Collect no more than the amount prescribed for you.?

I disagree with Glenn Beck adamantly but I wonder if the consequences would actually end up benefiting those churches in the end because the only people you’d have left would be the ones committed to supporting God’s justice in a fallen world. Talk about separating the sheep and the goats, eh?
What a joke… but it’ll help my more conservative church members begin to distinguish between Fox News/Conservative Politics and Jesus.

Dave #47:
Good catch on the Manhattan Declaration.
If not for the wisdom of Glenn Beck, I never would have realized that Chuck Colson was actually a Commie!

Wow. Really? That this was so upsetting to the writer is very telling indeed. Either faith in G-d and belief in His Son as kindsman redeemer will transform and suceed or the political systems of enlightened human klind will. Whitch is it? Will Allmighty G-d fail if we dont set up the “Just” progressive Marxist world government? It will be by the power of the Spirit or the power of Nimrod. Look how upset it has made you when even a slight and passive search of anti-christian communist and secular humanist “Social justice” areans will show the most heiniest of attacks. So if your piece is to say that Jesus did not support injustice I can meet you there but to say humanist organisations who perport to achieve this by the sweat of our human spirit (Even if they are disguised as churches) Will fail. There is first to be a great apostacy, falling away and it wont be to anarcy but to huminism and that son of perdition will then be revealev for what and who he is. There are no good intentions in the kingdom of heaven. And there is no rightousness within the human heart apart from the Grace of Jesus. I am so sad for you daer brother, I understand you believe this deception to be a good conscience and rightous indenation. You are in my prayers today. in love Stephen

The Design Spectrum
Dave #47 and AHH #55,
As to the quote from the Manhattan Declaration, I don’t see the phrase “social justice.” If churches would use the MD language instead, including “resisting tyranny,” this discussion would be very different.
Also, that is one quote. There is an entire document explaining exactly what they mean, and it is not what many churches mean when they use the phrase “social justice.” Read closely the section on religious liberty and recent government actions. Interestingly, that section begins with Isaiah 61:1.

“Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God?s word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering.” – Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience, Preamble, drafted October 20, 2009

Rereading my original post I found it too harsh. I respect you and do not wish to be abrasive, please forgive me.
I still have to disagree. In fact the terms as found on many of the church web pages I found was indeed in reference to supporting a political system. If you must align the question to mean that Those who are surrendered to Jesus are somehow supporting injustice then we agree. If the question is aligned to say that a heart transformed by the Love and Grace of our Lord Jesus will be led to charity and to justice then too we agree. But you seem to be saying that Father G-d and His Son Jesus are aligned with the progressive Marxist movement. This we must disagree on. The great apostasy and the coming Son of perdition will look to be righteousness itself. But I caution there is but self glory or Godly glory and self glorification in its counterfeit self appears to be righteousness and goodness and in align with the Fathers wishes. But it lacks the absolute surrender to the Son with in whom is our righteousness. Many will follow the son of perdition as he masquerades as the bright morning star but beware . The tell is this a spirit of rebellion and self glorification is always followed by a spirit of fierce self justification. It often appears to look like righteous indignation but it is rebellion. I offer this challenge, let us both set aside 30 minutes each morning first thing for one week to make ourselves available to the throne room of Father and seek for a mere 3.5 hours His direction. Meet back here or at my site or yours and see if asked for revelation knowledge is provided. Perhaps it is I that will. If neither of us is interested in being right in our own eyes then neither of us has anything to lose. Perhaps it is I that will repent to you. Any righteousness , like any love outside of that which is of the Father is counterfeit and will lead to darkness and death. Let us both agree to choose life. In love Stephen

When we deny health care to the poor, we deny health care to Jesus. He is crystalline clear about that.
Our infant mortality rate is a national sin, greater than abortion. For abortion can sometimes save the life of the mother, whereas lack of public health care is about nothing except money and protecting the profits of insurance companies.
When we start putting the needs of Blue Cross above the Cross that our savior died upon, our works illustrate our faith.

So here is the news flash. Glenn Beck is a Mormon=not Christian. Time for a little discernment in the ranks.

Scott, Thanks so much for your comments. I’m relieved to find others who share in my concern for Mr. Beck’s comments. It’s important to add that Glenn Beck seems to support private charities rather than government or public assistance in the alleviation of poverty. Churches that engage in the work Jesus commanded us to perform should be seen favorably by someone with his ideology. Much of what he said seems to be a reaction to churches like North Church UCC in Columbus, Ohio and their pastor Eric Williams. North Church is open and affirming, which I’m sure Mr. Beck opposes; however, Pastor Williams recently made an appearance on Rachel Maddow’s program to discuss the tax-exempt status of the C Street House in D.C. I’m wondering if Mr. Beck is trying to rally listeners against both Jeremiah Wright and Eric Williams. Mr. Beck has done us a valuable service though. He has, by calling us out on supporting the rights of “the least among these” he has clearly drawn a distinct picture of the body of Christ being persecuted for their works. I also feel compelled to mention that to follow the words of Jesus Christ is counter-intuitive. Our nature tells us to care for ourselves, not for others. Our nature tells us to affirm our own lives by denying mercy to our enemies. Every aspect of Christian Discipleship seems to point to self-denial through affirmation of Christ. Mr. Beck’s commands seem remarkably self-serving.

Couple of things. First of all, Glenn Beck, himself, is a mormon.
Secondly, Jesus Christ asked ALL of us to love and give to the poor. No where is it found that a “gun should be put at our heads” to give to them. Jesus says that if it is not given from the heart, it means nothing in itself. When the government is forcing something down your throat, that is not given in the spirit of Jesus Christ.
Glenn Beck, whether you believe him or not, whether you like him or not, you can not take away the fact that he is a honest and straight forward individual, which is a nice change from our politicians. He believes in honesty and truth!

But you seem to be saying that Father G-d and His Son Jesus are aligned with the progressive Marxist movement.

Stephen, who seems to be saying this? You’re projecting.

I’m sad that the government has forced libraries down our throat. And schools. Oh and roads. Those go down particularly rough.
Social Justice is a two pronged issue:
1. It has to do with systemics. When the system is causing social ills it takes systemic solutions to cure them. Private charities, which I wholeheartedly support, have a great position from which to address social injustices, but not without the help of politics.
2. It is a political issue. It takes aldermen, mayors, governors, educators, social workers, police officers, etc to work together to quell injustices. When there is a social ill the government has a role to play in addressing it. Example: a private charity can do all they want address housing but unless they have an alderman who will help them get the zoning correct they won’t get very far.
It is absolutely misleading to say that private charities should fix all the social ills and government should keep their hands out and stop spending “our money” (really? Your money? Who’s is it? Oh that’s right, it’s God’s) to address problems. It is a false dichotomy. It takes both thoughtful charity and responsible government working hand in hand.
“Force down our throats” is a tired phrase that has no substance.

The Catholic Church’s position on Social Justice & Social Charity:
Compendiunm of the Social Doctrine of the Church, Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, June 29, 2004
201. Justice is a value that accompanies the exercise of the corresponding cardinal moral virtue. According to its most classic formulation, it ?consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbour?. From a subjective point of view, justice is translated into behaviour that is based on the will to recognize the other as a person, while, from an objective point of view, it constitutes the decisive criteria of morality in the intersubjective and social sphere.
The Church’s social Magisterium constantly calls for the most classical forms of justice to be respected: commutative, distributive and legal justice. Ever greater importance has been given to social justice, which represents a real development in general justice, the justice that regulates social relationships according to the criterion of observance of the law. Social justice, a requirement related to the social question which today is worldwide in scope, concerns the social, political and economic aspects and, above all, the structural dimension of problems and their respective solutions.
207. No legislation, no system of rules or negotiation will ever succeed in persuading men and peoples to live in unity, brotherhood and peace; no line of reasoning will ever be able to surpass the appeal of love. Only love, in its quality as ?form of the virtues?, can animate and shape social interaction, moving it towards peace in the context of a world that is ever more complex. In order that all this may take place, however, it is necessary that care be taken to show love not only in its role of prompting individual deeds but also as a force capable of inspiring new ways of approaching the problems of today’s world, of profoundly renewing structures, social organizations, legal systems from within. In this perspective love takes on the characteristic style of social and political charity: ?Social charity makes us love the common good?, it makes us effectively seek the good of all people, considered not only as individuals or private persons but also in the social dimension that unites them.
208. Social and political charity is not exhausted in relationships between individuals but spreads into the network formed by these relationships, which is precisely the social and political community; it intervenes in this context seeking the greatest good for the community in its entirety. In so many aspects the neighbour to be loved is found ?in society?, such that to love him concretely, assist him in his needs or in his indigence may mean something different than it means on the mere level of relationships between individuals. To love him on the social level means, depending on the situations, to make use of social mediations to improve his life or to remove social factors that cause his indigence. It is undoubtedly an act of love, the work of mercy by which one responds here and now to a real and impelling need of one’s neighbour, but it is an equally indispensable act of love to strive to organize and structure society so that one’s neighbour will not find himself in poverty, above all when this becomes a situation within which an immense number of people and entire populations must struggle, and when it takes on the proportions of a true worldwide social issue.

honest and straight forward individual vs. politicians
the person in question isn’t a politician. so it’s apples and oranges.
and more to the point, sincerity is over-rated.
what happens when someone is honest, straight forward, in a position of influence and wrong?

It’s interesting too that after John the Baptist’s comment in Luke 3, it clearly implies that with those words he was proclaiming the good news (gospel). Social justice is not an optional add-on to the gospel; it is an essential part of it. In Revelation Jesus says ‘Behold I have made all things new’. Being a Christian is not just about going to heaven when we die; it is the absolute privilege of working with God to bring in the kingdom, a kingdom that will one day be realised when we have new physical bodies when heaven and earth come together and spend eternity with Jesus here, not in a disembodied existence ‘up in heaven’.

Actually I was hoping Dr. McKnight would develop this biblical ideal a whole lot more. This is theology light, and proof-texting at that. Granted it’s only a blog and he’s responding to a true nut case, but evangelical Christianity must wrestle with the biblical foundations of social justice from both the Old and New testaments.
Here are some questions to get started:
1. What is the theological essence of Jubilee theology?
2. What does the redistribution of land represent in an agrarian society?
3. How do these theological principles apply in today’s post-industrial world?
4. What biblical examples are there of obligatory government run social welfare programs within Israel?
5. What biblical examples are there of God holding pagan nations accountable for their treatment of the poor.
6. Can capitalism be sustained solely upon capitalistic ideology and principles or must it be necessarily tempered for its own long term sustainability?
One must really be able to answer these questions before we as evangelical Christians can have an informed and thoughtful discussion of this vitally important topic.

Here’s a tip. The theological opinions of someone who does not accept the historic formulation of the Trinity cannot be trusted. ‘nuf said.

I believe this article misses the mark and creates a conflict where one does not exist. I think if we define “Social Justice” to be “Justice” then there is not a conflict. However, that is not the definition of “Social Justice” as opposed by Glenn Beck. “Social Justice” is that which is provided by the culture and/or society. Hence, prime examples of Social Justice are: Hate Crimes Legislation, Green Movement, Genetics and Euthenasia. The True definition of “Justice” is that which comes from God alone and not the culture.
So the church has let these lies slip in their doors trying to befriend the culture, when they really should be focused on Jesus clear message of Love, Life and Liberty. True Justice comes from God and God alone. Social Justice is the product of the whims of men. Just like the Tower of Babel.

Your Name (post above)
You are strikingly illiterate regarding the biblical foundations for social justice. It is idolatry to be a conservative first and a Christian second. Repent!

Glenn Beck refers to “social justice” as being code words for Christian Socialism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism ) and other marxist movements that hide behind socially-acceptable religious monikers.
I might add those who guilt-flog with this term in order to elevate their egos without bothering to check in to what Mr. Beck is referring, are not doing your “side” any favors…

Gayle,
Even if we accept that Beck is sufficiently nuancing his understanding of “social justice” and communicating his definition of the term, the problem is that he doesn’t do so in his admonition for people to leave churches. The truth is that the term “social justice” means different things to different people – so telling his audience that the mere appearance of the term on their churches website is cause to run from that church is absolutely ridiculous. He doesn’t tell them to figure out what the church means by the term – he says if its there, leave. That is not in any way a nuanced position. And accusing those who point this out of stroking their own egos is no way to have a substantive, helpful discussion.
Of course, we could also have a discussion about his unwavering adherence to conservative politics and his apparent view that a conservative political position is the “biblical” position – which I find highly problematic since I don’t believe the Bible actually endorses any political party – but that’s a whole other discussion.

This is silly. Jesus speaks of a personal responsibility to the poor and oppressed. The fact that some people cannot discern between personal responsibility to charity and government forced confiscation of private resources to redistribute under threat of jail is baffling to me.
People need to wake up and realize that charity is measured by how much YOU give, not how much you force the government to take from someone else and give.
The inability of some people to make this distinction is, frankly, scary.

The Sife,
Well, ancient Israel’s laws mandated/commanded Israelites to share; that’s governmental and forced “distribution” at some level. What I would want to contest that “voluntary” and “government taxation” are that dichotomous.
Our option in the USA is not to vote for those who want to tax us more.
I wish more candidates would tell the truth about what they will really do.

The Sife,
Dr. McKnight was exceedingly gracious in responding to your biblical ignorance. What’s truly scary is how biblically illiterate and self-righteous most evangelical American Christians are today about this issue. Ezekiel 16:49 shows that God will hold even pagan nations to account for not caring for the poor. While Daniel tells the highest ranking government official in Babylon to show mercy to the poor. Don’t even get me started on Jubilee theology that eliminated both generational wealth and poverty from ancient Israel, and provided a government run obligatory system that ensured equal economic opportunity to every third generation.
“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” Ezekiel 16:49
“Therefore, O king, may my advice be pleasing to you:break away now from your sins by doing righteousness and from your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor, in case there may be a prolonging of your prosperity.” Daniel 4:27
It cannot be argued biblically that God does not call upon governments to provide for the basic needs of the poor, or that he will not hold them accountable for failing to do so.

AHH,
I don’t know if there is an official LDS position on social justice, but here’s a place to start.

Sorry AHH,
Here’s that link: The Mormons for Equality and Social Justice: http://gomakecontact.com/mesj/indexpage.htm

Well let’s see….. ancient Israel’s government was predominately a theocracy and much of what that government was about was the enforcement of their interpretation of “the law” upon the citizenry. And unless I am mistaken, Jesus said that they got it wrong, at least in their knowledge of and applications of the law. So I guess a comparison of the government of ancient Israel and our current government’s redistribution practices is valid. The only problem is that they both had/have it wrong.
Any redistribution of resources, whether through government taxation or personal charity, will not change the truth that “the poor will be with you always”. Redistribution can only change the definitions of the upper and lower range of what is considered rich or poor. Alleviating suffering is indeed a good thing and Christ honoring, but doing it in such a fashion that destroys the incentive to produce (work for) the abundant life, from which the tax or charity comes, is neither good nor Christ honoring.
The distinction between the “haves” and the “have-nots” would not go away even if all wealth were distributed absolutely evenly. The measurement would just become either (1) more intellectually (educated) vs. less intellectual or (2) powerful vs. powerless. It is far easier to imagine the wealthy giving of their abundance to charity, especially since they know how to earn more abundance, than it is to imagine either the powerful or the more intellectual giving up any portion of their “position” to those “beneath” them.
Please don’t stop sharing “fish and bread” with the destitute, but shame on us if in our rush to balance the scales of “social/economic justice” we forget to teach the destitute about personal responsibility and how to fish and make bread. Giving the poor their daily bread without teaching them how and requiring them to work for their daily bread only results in institutional and generational poverty….an enslavement process our government has perfected.
They only suggestion I would have had for Glen Beck, was that he should have put more emphasis on finding out what your church’s definition, understanding, and practice of “social/economic justice” was in actuality before taking action. And yes if your church is about promoting a “progressive social/economic justice” that will only continue to enslave the poor….run….don’t walk. Like ancient Israel, they have missed the whole point of Christ’s message.

deanwhit,
Your argument is riddled with false dichotomy. Why can’t it be personal charity, personal responsibility and a government run safety net, as it was for Israel regardless of the fact that they were a theocracy? Also, to argue your point biblically you would need to address the Ezekiel and Daniel texts I previously posted that stand outside the theocratic ideal. All your post demonstrates is that you are more committed to conservative values than to biblical values, which of course is idolatry.

serlenborn,
False dichotomy?????? Would you have us believe that personal charity and personal responsibility have the same foundations and purpose as a government safety net? Surely you’re just playing the devil’s advocate!
Personal charity and responsibility come from the heart and conviction of the individual and in the Christian context are born of the self sacrificing agape love and compassion that Christ calls us to. That which we invest our time and resources in is personally between us, those being helped, and the power of God to work in both the lives of those being helped and those doing the helping, all for His good purpose. And His purpose is that all might come into relationship with Him. Indeed the purpose of all our personal charity, while calling attention to the compassion of Christ, is to draw others to a saving relationship with Christ. Feeding the poor is a good thing, but its purpose is not just to fill their bellies, but rather to empower them to become all that God created them to be.
The sole purpose of the government, on the other hand, is always, and can only be, it’s own self preservation. Government programs, whether or not safety nets, are all about man made control of outcomes and orderly functioning of the establishment. A government can only promote the existence of people, not their salvation. The point is that it makes no difference whether the “safety net” is the result of a secular or theocratic government…..it’s still a government. And as such its purpose cannot and will not be achieving the full purpose of Christ.
Government “safety nets” only worked in theory. They all have become unsustainable, and impossible to fund institution of entrapment. Pouring more and more money at them only serves to delay their bankruptcy and the bankruptcy of the country. That’s reality, not theory.
Finally…. put the writings in Ezekiel and Daniel in the context of the entire Bible – they cannot justify a conclusion that contracts Christ’s message in the New Testament. Idolatry should not be defined by an a’priori conclusion. You have guessed wrong on my political leanings.

With the very defensiveness of deanwit, I’d say that serlenborn struck a chord. It sounds like deanwit is too bound up in his theory of government to approach the bible as it is.

CNN.com has headlined Glenn Beck & Rev. Jim Wallis, president of Sojourner’s all weekend. Whether he intended to or not, Beck has started a conversation amongst Christian churches that needed to happen.
While I have not read all the posts to this blog, I will say I am proud to be part of a worshipping community that does believe in social justice; and is pro-active locally, and internationally. I hope many others visiting this website share the same experiences.

There’s a saying among preachers that when you throw a stone into a pig pen, the pig that squeals is the one you hit. Deanwhit only continues to display his ignorance of the Bible and how to properly interpret it. I will say in his defense that government does seem to struggle significantly in balancing personal responsibility with a government run safety net for the poor. That is why I was so gungho about Bush’s faith based initiatives and then equally dismayed by the pure politics of it all. No grant money, and loans with interests rate that were higher than that which our church could obtain from the local banker, and not any more likely to get a loan either. It was pure B.S.
The true challenge that deanwhit rightly calls attention to is how to provide a gov’t run safety net for the poor without creating dependency and disincentives for personal responsibility. I believe it can be done, but will require a whole new paradigm to strike this difficult balance.
What is interesting to me from the Bible is that ancient Israel’s gov’t run safety net required farmers not to harvest the corners of their fields, and required the poor to then glean these areas for themselves, teaching them both job skills and personal responsibility. Giving people money or food stamps or whatever rather than providing opportunities for the poor to provide for themselves only perpetuates the problem as deanwhit correctly observes.
Our church started a monthly food distribution program with food that was approaching or just passed its expiration date. $20 gets people about $80 worth of food. The cool thing that developed is that over time the church volunteers who started the program were slowly replaced by those that were benefiting from it. It became a true partnership in which everyone had some skin in the game so to speak. This is the type of paradigm the gov’t desperately needs.

Can we look back further to when the socialized programs were first instituted? The church was the center of charity and of love and direction. Once the NEW DEAL was instigated, then welfare, then other “fares” in order to gain votes, the church has been severely marginalized. Each generation is MORE lost than it’s preceeding one. This is a grim statistic. You all can argue this philosophy or that one, who says this and who says that, open your eyes and your heads. Beck is trying to, in his own stumbling way, get us to look at where churches were replaced by politics, where Pastors and Priests were replaced by Politicians and the Bible with legislation. He may have addressed this from a strange vantage point, but this is what he is trying to get everyone to look at. Each person/politician can try to do great amounts of good and legislate this and that for the better of society, but really, is it for the better when we find ourselves more lost than the previous generation? So, in conclusion here, keep arguing this that is useless and realize where things really went wrong in our society and why.

I believe that Glenn is getting the Word out as much as the network will allow him. All the information that he puts out falls in with end time prophecy. Read this “Harold Stopher’s Testimony”. You may not agree with all that I say, but you will find it interesring. May God have mercy on us all.