Is God for Social Justice? (and does Glenn Beck Hate Jesus?)
John on March 16, 2010 at 12:31 am
Glenn Beck says no. Jim Wallis says yes. Amy Sullivan agrees with Wallis and asks “Why Does Glenn Beck Hate Jesus?” So who is right?
This is one of those debates within the church that will never be settled. It won’t be settled because the evidence isn’t cut and dry. On the one hand, both the Old and New Testament do talk about justice. James says that true religion is caring for orphans and widows. Jesus says that it will be very difficult for a rich man to enter his kingdom.
The key verses probably are those found in Matthew chapter 25. Here Jesus is speaking to his disciples and tells them a story about the last judgment. In the story, people are separated as either sheep or goats (that’s heaven or hell) depending on what they did for “the least of these” during their lifetime.
Perhaps Jim Wallis doesn’t want to make any fine distinctions, but it seems to me that Jesus never suggested we will be judged based upon how we voted or which party we supported in elections. If God does keep track of that sort of thing, it must be on a very personal basis.
Paul has a discussion of the big gray areas in life in 1 Corinthians. He makes clear that food is neither clean or unclean, only what comes out of a man’s heart. By the same token, I think it’s very likely neither major political party is clean or unclean. What matters (if anything) is what the individual has in their heart in supporting said party.
For instance, the stereotypical rich Republican who uses his wealth to bribe the powerful and take advantage of the weak…not winning any points in Jesus’ book I’d warrant. The conservative pastor more interested in how people vote than their well being will come to regret it, I suspect. And on the other hand, the convinced liberal like Wallis, who believes in his heart that voting Democratic will make the world a more just place…Well, much as I disagree, there’s something admirable about that. His heart is in the right place and, with God, that really is what matters.
For my part, I’m quite certain that the free market has been the greatest institution in history for raising people out of poverty, bringing us specialization and with that advances in health and science, longer and healthier lives, not to mention the freedom it brings and the dignity of a job well done. In my mind, anything that seeks to replace the market (communism, statism) is daft, arrogant and borders on evil. I could say much the same about the salubrious nature of democracy, a far better system than the dictatorial Empire under which Jesus spent his earthly years.
And this isn’t just my feeling about the Bible, it’s right there in the Bible. Some of Jesus’ own parables presume free market ideas, such as the treasure in the field and the pearl of great price. God’s method of spreading the Gospel was entrepreneurial in the 1st century and still is. Surely it would have been much easier to assume command control and write what he wanted in the sky, but God never does that. His offer is always to “test and see” or more colloquially, would you like a sample? Paul shares the Gospel on Mars Hill in Athens and is mocked by some and accepted by a few. This is how God’s whole plan is supposed to work.
If the Bible is any guide, God clearly believes in the free market of ideas which is the real foundation of all free markets. The alternative, the way of the sword, the way of top down institution of God’s will through government dictat (as taken by Charlemange, for instance) is not the Christian way and never was.
It was the Hebrews who demanded a human king to reign over them. God made clear that he saw this as a failure on their part, a rejection of a better way. That’s not to say God is some sort of anarchist, only that the institution of government and law is not (from the Christian point of view) the goal. Winning the heart of the free individual is the goal. And that presumes hearts that are free to be won.
I’ve heard it said that the reason God only gave ten commandments is because it was so much easier to list the few things that were forbidden than the innumerable things which are not. There’s lots of freedom and a little restraint.
So while I’m all for charity and consider it one of the hallmarks of a healthy church, I’m very much against any proposed form of government which seeks to remove grassroots human effort from the equation. Charity, as you may know, is really a transliterated Greek word for love (caritas). If you take love out of the equation and replace it with a soulless bureaucracy you may reach more people, but you don’t have charity any more. Not in my view. And while you may promote some justice and do some good anyway, you will also likely attract crooks and scoundrels just looking to take advantage of others. This is not healthy for them or for society. And in the worst cases, you actually have nothing but crooks and scoundrels who prop themselves up while the hoi polloi are left to starve and suffer.
I suspect that’s about where Glenn Beck is coming from and I believe he’s right. It’s no accident that many of the worst dictatorships on earth are communist and anti-religion (or Islamic, a faith built in no small part on the way of the sword). Many of these governments (like China) are wary of Christianity because they sense that Christianity is a threat to their control. They’re right to think so because Christianity bears the seeds of freedom, freedom from the bottom up.
As for right versus left debate in this country, I’d like to remind Wallis that the same scripture that talks about justice and charity also says:
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” – 2 Thessalonians 3:10
I wonder what Jim would say about a conservative (like Glenn Beck) who said something like that? On a governmental level (and again, I’m not advocating this) that would mean no welfare whatsoever without work of some kind attached. I wonder if Wallis would call such a suggestion heartless? But again this is Paul, one of Jesus’ greatest Apostles…
So like I said, this is one of those debates that will never be settled, but those are my thoughts. What do you think?
Category: Politics, Religion & Faith |
The Wallis crowd is far removed from biblical truths. No matter what they read in the Bible they interpret it as a mandate for Christians to ask Caesar to take from neighbor A to give to neighbor B. It is all about income redistribution for them.
I find his whole theme to be disingenuous. Their bumper stickers proclaim that “God is not a Republican or a Democrat,” but their follow up message is basically that God agrees with all the planks of the Democratic platform.
The average person in the world makes $850 / yr. I’ll be impressed when Wallis & Co. voluntarily give away enough to achieve that. After all, why do they just focus on the U.S.?
One “pastor” on the Wallis blog even claimed that Ananias and Sapphira were killed for not redistributing wealth, even though Peter explicitly notes the real sin (lying to the Holy Spirit) and that the funds had been theirs to do with as they wished. You don’t need to be able to dissect the Greek to understand that one.
And the Sojourners folks are mostly pro-legalized abortion, as if any serious notion of social justice could include the right to crush and dismember an innocent human being. This “minister” thinks the health care bill is pro-life, even though it most certainly will lead to taxpayer-funded abortions. See Dems look to health vote without abortion foes for more on their deceptions.
Should Christians give generously? Absolutely! But it isn’t a virtue to give from your neighbor’s wallet.
Lobby for whatever political positions you like based on your case for why it is good public policy, but be very careful when you attach Jesus to your views.
Oddly, the social justice crowd does more to push their religious beliefs on the populace than anything the Right ever did. (We can argue the pro-life / pro-family case all day long with or without the Bible.) Why don’t the ACLU et al get mad about that? Oh, because they share the same political views.
It was also odd that they didn’t realize Beck was Mormon and/or that Mormons aren’t Christians.
P.S. I don’t watch or listen to Beck, Fox, Limbaugh, etc. Not that there’s anything wrong with that . . .
March 16, 2010 @ 7:26 amExcellent article, John, although I’m surprised Jim hasn’t been along yet to criticise your exegesis of Matthew 25.
Whilst I agree that there are too many who “will not” work, but survive on handouts, it is beholden to us to care for those who, for whatever reason, can not work. Sorting the wheat from the chaff is never easy, though.
March 16, 2010 @ 9:13 amJohn…
Well thought out. Many reasons why I visit this site is because all of you are able to articulate what so many of us already believe in, but may otherwise have been unable to articulate it ourselves. Makes it easier to understand and have conviction in our beliefs and philosophies. It makes us educate ourselves even more, and thereby arm ourselves with the knowledge necessary to “spead our gospel with an entrpenurial spirit”. Thanks.
Chris
March 16, 2010 @ 10:28 amI’ve been thinking a lot lately about how the gospel can still survive and thrive, even when the mob rules or caesar reins. Even if we find ourselves in a godless socialist american welfare state, we may take heart and continue to serve eachother with joy and peace. We can continue to work and serve the kingdom the same way we have since the beginning, because the gospel is both attractive and powerful; it can’t be stopped. I guess a lot of that kind of thought depends on a person’s eschatology. I feel bad for those who think the church will be a failure on the Earth and that the apocalypse is comming, “Don’t polish brass on a sinking ship.”
Also, because of this constant left vs. right mentality and everyone striving to get Jesus to join their political party, I have decided to start calling myself a classical liberal- most people don’t know what you’re talking about when you say that, and you can catch them off guard while they go around thinking you are a modern liberal. Classical liberals are more conservative than modern conservatives!
March 16, 2010 @ 3:11 pmLet’s assume that one believes that taking care of the needs of others is the moral thing to do. Many of the people holding this belief would be appalled if someone ask the government to enforce their ideas of morality in other area, especially the area of sexual behavior or abortion. If they were consistent, they would hold that charity is the moral thing to do but it is not a function of government to enforce morality.
Morality is a function of free will. Allowing the government to confiscate your money for redistribution because it has ultimate power over your life is not moral: there is no morality based on coercion.
Jesus walked the land, healing and feeding those he met. He did not establish free clinics or soup kitchens since His message was one of overcoming the physical.
March 17, 2010 @ 4:06 am“Classical Liberal” this is a description – Thanks Earl. I also call my self a “Culturalist” although some have happily called me a “Racist”. I would like to point out the Slavery that exists in this country that we label as “Welfare”, I have seen the people that have come to believe they cannot or are not capable of getting by on their own after years of “Social Help”. Millions of people are hooked and enslaved to the state who could other wise be productive and happier folks taking care of themselves. It is a shame how miserable many of these people are, believing they are “poor” or “the least of us” all while driving around in cars, talking on cell phones and living in heated and cooled houses to keep them comfortable.
March 17, 2010 @ 7:10 amServing each other with joy and peace is the essence of socialism, Earl. Karl Marx stole his best ideas from Jesus, he just threw the baby out with the bathwater.
Laurence – most of the laws in every country have their roots in moral beliefs. Your argument just doesn’t stand up.
March 17, 2010 @ 8:53 amA careful exegesis of the parable of the sheep and goats (Mt.25) requires the exegete to determine who the “brothers” are that Jesus refers to. Jesus defines who His brothers are in Mark 3:35. They are those who do the will of God. And what is the will of God? Jesus makes this clear in other texts where the ultimate will of God is to believe in the Son. So Wallis and his crew hang their hat on an incorrect exegesis of the parable. I did the same early in my Christian walk. I was a member of Evangelicals for Social Action.
Incidentally, Paul weighs in in Galatians 6:9 that we are to “do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.” Ultimatley we can’t take the view that since someone is not a Christian we don’t lend a helping hand. I believe the second commandment covers that one pretty well.
My main point is that I’ve seen pastors use the parable of the sheep and the goats into guilting people into being more socialy active. I’ve heard pastors claim that how we take care of the poor will determine our eternal destiny. This teaching in completely absent in Paul’s letters to the early church. Paul does take up a collection in his missionary journies but this money was to help those believers suffering in Jerusalem. Paul’s main emphasis was to proclaim the gospel. I could go on and on with this. I had to spend so much time being deprogrammed from the social gospel that it still leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
March 17, 2010 @ 10:39 amKeith – the biggest weakness of my arguments was that I was not making any; I was merely trying to share my observations and opinions filtered thru my experiences and worldview.
An example of an argument would be: given that every major attempt to make the individual and the economy subservient to the Utopian ideals of the state in the 20th Century had in common the mass murder of some of its citizens and that it is easier to justify such murders based on those Utopian ideals, therefore it is better to try to keep the state from acquiring too much power and to restrict the state from acting in too idealistic a manner.
An example of an opinion would be: there is no way a socialist state can succeed because, absent an albeit imperfect market, the people running it would not be smart enough to make the economic decisions required. Mises made an argument based on that but it is beyond me.
The question is not whether most laws are based on morality but rather upon whose moral standards are they based. I like living in a republic rather than a democracy because it affords some protection of the minority from the current morality held by the majority.
RE: Serving each other with joy and peace is the essence of socialism…
I think you meant quintessence because this is an ideal that has never been realized. The opposite results have been observed every time Socialism was tried. G B Shaw stated that one way to ensure the success of the socialist state was to require everyone to periodically go before panels in order to justify their continued existence. Perhaps the panels would eventually weed out enough wrongheaded people such as myself and thus achieve that goal.
I also hold that Karl Marx spent little time describing how his state would function. His work Capital was devoted to showing the faults of an existing human institution while promising a perfect replacement. Any human institution is imperfect and easy to attack.
March 18, 2010 @ 5:20 am