:rolleyes: You know, we already have a very vocal religious right in America that is a blend of religion and politics, and, during the Bush years, was an extension of the White House. They speak for a minority of the total population, even of the population of traditional religious believers. And perforce we have to care what they say, on account of their clout. Well, religious progressives also are a minority – but they have no less legitimacy than the RR, no less claim to represent the true message of the Gospels, and no less claim to be taken as representative of “religious America.”
Jim Wallis is actually, right now an advisor to the President. And at the same time launching this assault on Glenn Beck. I don’t recall anything like this w/Bush. And last I checked, “Bush did it too” wasn’t exactly a bill of good health.
The progressives are preaching collective salvation through government action. There are many interpretations of the Gospels, but none that I’m aware of translated as “give unto Caesar everything you have and then you’ll be saved”. Jesus taught about individual responsibilities, and individual salvation.
I didn’t claim it was unbiased. But it accurately tracked what I heard when I listened to the show. What did you think about this part of it?
See, Glenn’s book is a published source you could check. You don’t even have to buy it. You can go to the bookstore, verify the quote and then leave it on the shelf.
Do you reject the simple facts presented in the piece? Do you reject Jim Wallis’ own words about how the phrase “social justice” has been used?
Jesus also said, “If you would be perfect, sell everything you have, and give it to the poor, and follow me,” and, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.” And you can read in Acts how the early Christians practiced property-communism at the congregational level. There’s plenty in the New Testament for a leftist or progressive to cite. As for “collective salvation through government action,” the religious progressives are not so far as I can tell teaching that as “salvation” in a spiritual sense, though they are impelled in that direction by their sense of Christian ethics. In they sense they are aiming at, “collective salvation through goverment action” actually works, within limits – you can see the proof of that in every other industrialized democracy.
Psst, don’t tell Beck about the early church at Jerusalem, in which all members shared their property or sold it and gave the proceeds to the church leaders for the welfare of everyone else.
I’m somewhat familiar with Jim Wallis having read a bunch of his articles and watched several interviews. I’m sure he and I would not agree on everything but I appreciate his efforts to balance the religious right by demonstrating that other Christians feel and believe differently. I also watched a week+ of Glen Beck because a conservative friend asked me not to judge him by the out takes we see on the Daily Show and other sources. That seemed fair. After that week my opinion didn’t change. It seems obvious to me that Beck has little regard for honesty, or accuracy in presenting facts and details. It’s like the Colbert Report except he doesn’t openly acknoweledge that it’s a sham.
Christians can have an honest disagreement on exactly how Jesus wants them to help the poor and both can be sincere. Almost every Christian would agree that helping the poor is a key part of Jesus teachings. If the conservative Christians disagree with the liberal ones about how involved the goverment should be in that effort there’s room for an honest debate. Don’t be fooled into thinking Beck gives a crap about that. I read a couple of articles some critisizing Beck some Wallis and their perception of his desire for the goverment to dole out social justice. I thought this was interesting from here
here’s what Beck said that pissed Wallis off.
I find that so broad a brush that its ludicrious and irresponsible. In fact he may have to stop being a Mormon because of this
The blogger from the 1st link goes on to note
and then make the reasonable argument
which is a legit point of disagreement and discussion. The significant error IMO is this
It isn’t just unfortunate. It’s intentional. Beck makes millions by feeding the fires of fear with divisive rhetoric day after day with little regard for honesty or accuracy
If he wanted to point out the difference between social justice as a true and correct principle and social justice as means of expanding govermemnt power he could have. Instead he deliberatly chose less accurate and more inflamatory language. That’s his signiture move. He didn’t advise Christians to talk to their pastor about the aspects of social justice or what the governments role should be in social justice. He said, run away, leave the church.
He’s a money motivated charlatan plain and simple and I encourage conservatives to find a more sincere voice.
Wallis invited him to have a discussion. Said he’d go on Beck’s show to discuss it. Let’s see if Beck will invite him on to clarify the issue.
Disagreeing with Beck’s choice of words is not attacking him. In fact in one of your own links Wallis urges people to not attack Beck personally. He did “stop watching Beck” as a response to Beck’s urging people to flee their church.
You might be interested in knowing that Bush made significant changes in tax money going to sponser faith based organizations. Check out faith based initiatives Sounds a lot like wealth redistirbution to me. Alert Beck! He may want to mention how much it sucks and how dangerous it is to real Americans.
Once again your own links fail to make your point. In the video that trys to make Wallis out to be a extremist he commemts on the megachurches not doing enough to help the poor. Is that an unreasonable? He also says there nothing wrong with prosperity. He may have to surrender his communist membership for that. His point is that there is something wrong with huge discrepncies in wealth when the mega rich ignore poverty. That sounds completely in line with what JC taught to me.
To my knowledge Wallis has not denied that the social justice has been used for ideological purposes. What he objected to is Becks intentional inflamitory and irresponsible language. He was right to do so.
Come, now. I have nothing but admiration for people who willingly give of their own time and money to provide direct relief to the poor, but relying on them the deal with the problems of poverty in America is like relying on morphine to treat cancer. I know it, you know it, and Beck knows it.
There are no stats for this but I heard someone say once that if all the churches in America decided to help support two families, we could eliminate welfare.
I prefer the personal touch and am not fond of the waste that goes along with government programs but the fact is voluntary giving hasn’t done it. For those who believe the goverment shouldn’t be involved , do you feel that way about civil rights? Should we have just waited for the public to decide in thier own good time to allow women and blacks to vote, and all the other issues.
Unfortunately a lot of churches can’t even support themselves. The averge congregation size in my denomination (Episcopal) is about 65 people so they’re lucky if they can afford a full-time minister and pay the utilities. And most people in this country do not regularly go to church, but they all pay taxes.
My sister and brother in law attend a small church in a very small rural town. My brother and sister in law attend a larger church in that same small town. Lots of small towns in that area have quite an assortment of congregations and denominations. My sisters little church has been really struggling financially as the congregation got older and not enough new members were joining. It seemed so easy to me. Join another Christian church. I know it’s not that easy but why not consolidate resources if it helps. Are the details of doctrine so severe and important that you can’t?