Posted on 03/15/2010 6:29:32 AM PDT by SLB
Fox News broadcaster Glenn Beck is famous for launching verbal grenades, and he did so again in recent days, calling upon church members to flee congregations that promote social justice. His comments incited an immediate controversy, where far more heat than light has yet been evident. As expected, there is more to this story than meets the eye -- or may reach the ear via the public conversation.
During his March 2, 2010 radio broadcast, Beck said this:
I beg you, look for the words "social justice" or "economic justice" on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes! If I'm going to Jeremiah's Wright's church? Yes! Leave your church. Social justice and economic justice. They are code words. If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish. Go alert your bishop and tell them, "Excuse me are you down with this whole social justice thing?" I don't care what the church is. If it's my church, I'm alerting the church authorities: "Excuse me, what's this social justice thing?" And if they say, "Yeah, we're all in that social justice thing," I'm in the wrong place.
Almost immediately, reaction statements emerged with furor, found in press releases and public statements made by figures like Sojourner's editor Jim Wallis and various social justice advocacy groups. Like Captain Renault in Casablanca, various media outlets rounded up the "usual suspects." The resultant public conversation has not been very substantial, but it has offered media magnetism.
Some of those outraged by Beck's statements immediately insisted that social justice is the very heart of the Gospel, while others insisted with equal force that Beck had offered a courageous call for Christians to flee liberal churches that had abandoned the Gospel.
As anyone familiar with incendiary public debates should have expected, though the truth is a bit harder to determine, the issue is indeed worth whatever hard thinking a clarification of the issue requires.
Is Glenn Beck right? That is the question most in the media were asking, along with a good number of Christians who were aware of the debate. With just a few words, Beck, a convert to Mormonism, set the world of American religion into a frenzy of discourse.
At first glance, Beck's statements are hard to defend. How can justice, social or private, be anything other than a biblical mandate? A quick look at the Bible will reveal that justice is, above all, an attribute of God himself. God is perfectly just, and the Bible is filled with God's condemnation of injustice in any form. The prophets thundered God's denunciation of social injustice and the call for God's people to live justly, to uphold justice, and to refrain from any perversion of justice.
The one who pleases the Lord is he who will "keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice" (Gen. 18:19). Israel is told to "do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness you shall judge your neighbor" (Lev. 19:15). God "has established his throne for justice" (Psalm 9:7) and "loves righteousness and justice" (Psalm 33:5). Princes are to "rule in justice" (Is. 32:1) even as the Lord "will fill Zion with justice and righteousness" (Is. 33:5). In the face of injustice, the prophet Amos thundered: "But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream" (Amos 5:18). In a classic statement, Micah reminded Israel: "He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" (Micah 6:8).
To assert that a call for social justice is reason for faithful Christians to flee their churches is nonsense, given the Bible's overwhelming affirmation that justice is one of God's own foremost concerns.
But, there is more going on here. Glenn Beck's statements lacked nuance, fair consideration, and context. It was reckless to use a national media platform to rail against social justice in such a manner, leaving Beck with little defense against a tidal wave of biblical mandates.
A closer look at his statements reveals a political context. He made a specific reference to Rev. Jeremiah Wright and to other priests or preachers who would use "social justice" and "economic justice" as "code words." Is there anything to this?
Of course there is. Regrettably, there is no shortage of preachers who have traded the Gospel for a platform of political and economic change, most often packaged as a call for social justice.
The immediate roots of this phenomenon go back to the mid-nineteenth century, when figures like Washington Gladden, a Columbus, Ohio pastor, promoted what they called a new "social gospel." Gladden was morally offended by the idea of a God who would offer his own Son as a substitutionary sacrifice for sinful humanity and, as one of the founders of liberal theology in America, offered the social gospel as an alternative message, complete with a political agenda. It was not social reform that made the social gospel liberal, it was, its theological message. As Gary Dorrien, the preeminent historian of liberal theology, asserts, the distinctive mark of the social gospel was "its theology of social salvation."
Even more famously, the social gospel would be identified with Walter Rauschenbusch, a liberal figure of the early twentieth century. Rauschenbusch made his arguments most classically in his books, Christianity and the Social Crisis (1907) and Theology for the Social Gospel (1917). In a 1904 essay, "The New Evangelism," Rauschenbusch called for a departure from "the old evangelism" which was all about salvation from sin through faith in Christ, and for the embrace of a "new evangelism" which was about salvation from social ills and injustice in order to realize, at least partially, the Kingdom of God on earth. He called for Christian missions to be redirected in order to "Christianize international politics."
The last century has seen many churches and denominations embrace the social gospel in some form, trading the Gospel of Christ for a liberal vision of social change, revolution, economic liberation, and, yes, social justice. Liberal Protestantism has largely embraced this agenda as its central message.
The urgency for any faithful Christian is this -- flee any church that for any reason or in any form has abandoned the Gospel of Christ for any other gospel.
As I read the statements of Glenn Beck, it seems that his primary concern is political. Speaking to a national audience, he warned of "code words" that betray a leftist political agenda of big government, liberal social action, economic redistribution, and the confiscation of wealth. In that context, his loyal audience almost surely understood his point.
My concern is very different. As an evangelical Christian, my concern is the primacy of the Gospel of Christ -- the Gospel that reveals the power of God in the salvation of sinners through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The church's main message must be that Gospel. The New Testament is stunningly silent on any plan for governmental or social action. The apostles launched no social reform movement. Instead, they preached the Gospel of Christ and planted Gospel churches. Our task is to follow Christ's command and the example of the apostles.
There is more to that story, however. The church is not to adopt a social reform platform as its message, but the faithful church, wherever it is found, is itself a social reform movement precisely because it is populated by redeemed sinners who are called to faithfulness in following Christ. The Gospel is not a message of social salvation, but it does have social implications.
Faithful Christians can debate the proper and most effective means of organizing the political structure and the economic markets. Bringing all these things into submission to Christ is no easy task, and Gospel must not be tied to any political system, regime, or platform. Justice is our concern because it is God's concern, but it is no easy task to know how best to seek justice in this fallen world.
And that brings us to the fact that the Bible is absolutely clear that injustice will not exist forever. There is a perfect social order coming, but it is not of this world. The coming of the Kingdom of Christ in its fullness spells the end of injustice and every cause and consequence of human sin. We have much work to do in this world, but true justice will be achieved only by the consummation of God's purposes and the perfection of God's own judgment.
Until then, the church must preach the Gospel, and Christians must live out its implications. We must resist and reject every false gospel and tell sinners of salvation in Christ. And, knowing that God's judgment is coming, we must strive to be on the right side of justice.
Glenn Beck's statements about social justice demonstrate the limits of our public discourse. The issues raised by his comments and the resultant controversy are worthy of our most careful thinking and most earnest struggle. Yet, the media, including Mr. Beck, will have moved on to any number of other flash points before the ink has dried on this kerfuffle. Serious-minded Christians cannot move on from this issue so quickly.
bump
Here's a clue - if you have to enforce your "justice" at the point of a gun, as the United States of America does, it probably doesn't please Christ.
Good article by Dr. Albert Mohler. Informative/educational. Thanks for posting.
You are welcome. I have found the majority (all) of his articles are great. He usually posts three or four times a week.
Beck is right. Mainstream Religion has been going this route for a long time. Any organization that is a member of the World Council of Churches, or the National Council of Churches is basically an arm of the Communist party.
That said, Beck’s warning rings hollow when you realize he doesn’t run from his own cult which is steeped in the hallucinogenic rantings of a sexual pervert.
That is because the Christian community does not study Torah sufficiently to understand the many New Testament references to the social action it prescribes.
I think you might advise them to 'flee' that apostate place....
..which is what Beck, imo, is doing.
As far as I know, I've never had reason to disagree with Mohler, but I find this particular diatribe out of line.
I think he disagrees with Beck because of Beck's denomination, regardless of any common sense Beck has to say....and Beck has plenty of common sense.
If he's truly worried about Beck's salvation....PRAY for him.
This article is pure nit-picking to me.
The marxists are always happy to declare that jesus was a communist to co-opt the church......
Then shoot you in the head later for havng a bible...
I think the difference between the social justice that Beck talks about and the social justice that is part of the traditional teachings of Christ is that today’s social justice demands that the government have programs for social justice. The traditional teachings are that Christians are saved by grace and are therefore inspired by their salvation to go out and personally help the poor and afflicted. They are not to pay more taxes and “delegate” that social justice to someone else. The end goal is to get these people to Christ, not a Heaven on Earth mentality.
Mohler is wrong. I usually like his articles, but he is flat wrong here. He is taking a Marxist term "social justice" and assuming that it means "justice in society." It does not. It means placing one's hope in the government to redistribute wealth 'fairly'.
There are battle lines being drawn, and the church has been infiltrated by agents of Satan. Anyone who suggests putting faith in government is no friend of the Gospel. I stand with Beck: leave churches that are committed to 'social justice'. Nuance is for sissies.
It is hard to determine because the Marxist and Orwellian perversion of the language. In this case it is the words “social justice”.
“Social justice” sounds so warm and fuzzy. Doesn't it? But in the Orwellian word of Marxism words do not mean what they mean. Sow confusion in language and we have a confused people. A confused and rudderless people are more easily controlled.
By the way...I am glad that the movie “Alice in Wonderland” is a mega-hit. It will prompt thoughtful people to actually read the book. In the wonderland world of Marxism words don't mean what they mean.
Lib Protestant clergy and Catholic bishops who think they can create some social justice Utopia where the government provides for everyone without oppressing them are dangerously disconnected from reality.
The Bible teaches faith in God and faith in one self. If our righteousness does not exceed that of the Pharaohs, the liberal church and political leaders of the day, we'll never be able to enter the kingdom.
Churches teaching "social justice" are condoning the sinful lifestyles that got the poor in their dreadful position in the first place.
This Jim Wallis was on the evening news on (Friday, I think) as a “Christian leader” criticizing Beck.
This Jim Wallis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Wallis
Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850; The Law
The Proper Function of the Law...
And, in all sincerity, can anything more than the absence of plunder be required of the law? Can the law — which necessarily requires the use of force — rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution — so long searched for in the area of social relationships — is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice.
Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law — that is, by force — this excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential organization — justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being used against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its proper purpose?
The Seductive Lure of Socialism...
Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.
This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.
Enforced Fraternity Destroys Liberty (excerpt)...
Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: “Your doctrine is only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity.” I answered him: “The second half of your program will destroy the first.”
In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot
Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy.
The Law and Morals...
You say: “Here are persons who are lacking in morality or religion,” and you turn to the law. But law is force. And need I point out what a violent and futile effort it is to use force in the matters of morality and religion?
It would seem that socialists, however self-complacent, could not avoid seeing this monstrous legal plunder that results from such systems and such efforts. But what do the socialists do? They cleverly disguise this legal plunder from others — and even from themselves — under the seductive names of fraternity, unity, organization, and association. Because we ask so little from the law — only justice — the socialists thereby assume that we reject fraternity, unity, organization, and association. The socialists brand us with the name individualist.
But we assure the socialists that we repudiate only forced organization, not natural organization. We repudiate the forms of association that are forced upon us, not free association. We repudiate forced fraternity, not true fraternity. We repudiate the artificial unity that does nothing more than deprive persons of individual responsibility. We do not repudiate the natural unity of mankind under Providence.
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G708
Thanks to FReeper raygun for the link.
May I suggest the best way to resolve such issues is to look at what these calls meant in the time, place, and society they were issued. Some things jump out at you. God did not want the wealthy to take unfair advantage of the poor simply because they could overcome the limited power of the poor to seek justice. God wanted the rightful cause of the widow and of the orphan to be pleaded in court, rather than ignored or turned aside with nonsense (”a word”). God smiles on private charity to the poor (the ancient Hebrews had no equivalent to our modern tax funded dole). Yet God did not want envy of the stature of the contender in court to pervert what was legally right, i.e. no “reverse discrimination” as we call it today. Some pieces taken in isolation seem to bolster favorite liberal causes, but the whole thing tells a much more evenhanded story.
When a church believes you are not truly a Christian because you believe God called YOU to open your heart and give to those in need instead of forcing everyone to give through taxes, it is time to leave.
If something had to be said, which it did, and Beck was the one who said it, which he was, he only deserves praise.
Government is the wrong tool for any form of charity. Someone has to have the permission for the controlled use of force to prevent the uncontrolled use of force.
The only proper use of force is the suppression of uncontrolled force, any other use is evil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.