What really caught my eye was that the appended image was of a church placard with a message saying something like "Sorry Mr Beck, Jesus preached social justice", but the church was a United Church of Christ! So my first reaction was "CNN thinks that the UCC is 'evangelical'?!" I guess that's not necessarily the case, but it certainly drew me in.
The Evangelical leader in question is Jim Wallis, which brings me to my curiosity over why CNN made this a central headline. Glenn Beck is a conservative; Jim Wallis is a liberal. One of the most obvious points of contention between conservatives and liberals (fiscally speaking) is that the former think that, as the article quotes Jerry Falwell, Jr as saying, "Jesus taught that we should give to the poor and support widows, but he never said that we should elect a government that would take money from our neighbor's hand and give it to the poor," and liberals believe in gov't that forces you to give them lots of your money, and then gives it to other people, a great deal of whom are poor for a reason - many are addicts, lazy, uneducated, not very intelligent, or some combination thereof. Not all, certainly, but many.
Liberals want a gov't that will force me on pain of death to give them money to pay for what turn out to be low-quality one-size-fits-all services, such as publyk skrewel edjamakayshunn, welfare, and DHS. Think about it - if I refuse to pay all the taxes I owe the gov't, they will attempt to garnish my wages, by force. If I find a way around that, they will send the police to my house to imprison me. If I resist them b/c I don't think that they should be able to force me to give them as much of my money as they demand so they can waste it, I'll be forcefully assaulted and restrained. If I fight too much, they'll kill me. Simple as that.
So, the only reason I can think of to headline this is b/c CNN and its liberal constituency don't like Beck b/c he and FoxNews beat CNN in the ratings and b/c they turn up their noses at grassroots efforts that Beck likes and supports such as the Tea Party. But why would this be news to me, that a liberal would criticise a conservative for thinking the gov't should have less control over the lives of its citizens? Has CNN just now discovered what Ronald Reagan generally thought?
Moving on to the content of the article:
Social and economic justice is at the heart of Jesus' message, Wallis says.Matthew 16:25 “For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. 26 “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 27 “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.
Mark 14:6 But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you bother her? She has done a good deed to Me. 7 “For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me. 8 “She has done what she could; she has anointed My body beforehand for the burial. 9 “Truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her.”
Matthew 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach and say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
Luke 19:10 “For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”
Mark 10:45 “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
Actually, Mr. Wallis, it sounds like the salvation of sinners is at the heart of Jesus' message. But a liberal can't accept that, since it clashes with his naturalistic paradigm and his presupposition that all people are good at heart.
Is he willing to talk with someone who he doesn't agree with?"That's rich, coming from a proponent of big gov't.
"If we all did as Jesus did when he helped the poor, we wouldn't need the government," says Falwell, the son of the late evangelical leader, the Rev. Jerry Falwell.That's exactly right! And answering the challenge "but not enough people do enough" with "so we need the gov't to force you to give up more of your money so that it can spend it much less efficiently than virtually any private charity" is not the answer, especially since "not enough people do enough" is far more applicable to a large amount of the recipients of social welfare. Would Jesus have had any concept of such a gov't structure as that? Did He ever address the gov't when He talked about the poor, or did He talk to individuals?
For other Christians, practicing economic and social justice also means trying to change the conditions that cause people to be poor or unemployed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. subscribed to this definition of biblical justice.1) Note the subtle bait and switch. This is implicitly cited in support of Wallis' big-gov't paradigm, when " chang(ing) the conditions that cause people to be poor or unemployed" implies nothing of the sort. This is either an example of dishonesty or just clumsy ignorance.
2) Another bait and switch occurs when they mention "Christians" and Martin Luther King. MLK, though many of his actions are to be commended highly, was no Christian, but rather a heretic idolater (as well as a serial adulterer).
I note that it gives me no pleasure to say that, but I must speak the truth.
3) How very postmodern of the author to restrict the question to what "some Christians" believe! Why didn't he ask what the Bible teaches? I wonder.
He is now regarded as a hero for some evangelicals because he applied his faith to the economic and social justice issues of his day, Duren says.Which is relevant to the government, how?
"The Old Testament is replete with examples of God threatening to judge a nation because of a lack of justice or carrying out that threat of judgment against a nation,'' Duren says.The Bible is also quite concerned with people simply going through the motions without heart involvement. If the gov't forces you to do something that your heart is not in, how does that please God? These men are asking the wrong questions.
Wallis, who counts King as one of his faith role modelsKing, who denied the Trinity, the inerrancy of Scripture, and the substitutionary atonement, is Wallis' role model for faith? This says alot about how deep Wallis is in the Bible.
Ah, the debate that nobody wants to see, between a liberal who makes the Bible say whatever he wants it to say and ignores it when he can't make it fit, and a Mormon. I'm sure that'd be loads of fun, and I'd set the over/under bet for "Bible psgs quoted in proper context" at 4 for the entire debate.Meanwhile, Wallis says he's waiting for that public debate with Beck. "I'll have it," Wallis says, "anywhere he wants."
So what are you saying: you don't want to pay taxes, or you just don't want to pay taxes if the money is going to help someone?
ReplyDeleteI read the link, but I didn't get how you can say Martin Luther King is a heretic idolater. Care to explain?
ReplyDeleteThanks
John,
ReplyDeleteI want to pay LESS taxes, that's for sure.
And the gov't is not there to enable those who take advantage of the system b/c they don't feel like working. If they don't feel like working, let them beg from good-hearted individuals and private organisations, not the gov't.
Have you ever noticed how little money actually goes to help ppl? Of the massive funds taken in, a lot is wasted on pork. Of the much smaller amount that goes into welfare, how much actually helps ppl instead of enabling their poverty?
marhaban,
Sorry, they changed the link. I got that info from what I believe was his master's thesis in seminary. It shocked me to read it, a few yrs ago. The link does say that he denied the inerrancy of Scripture, and the thesis makes clear that he denied the Trinity and the substitutionary atonement.
While we are here on earth, we will suffer many injustices. "Why do the wicked prosper?" David asked. Indeed, why? And why are there slaves on horses and princes walking on foot like slaves? There are many "evils" under the sun that Solomon mentions. Then there were those wandering in deserts and mountains, dens and caves clothed in animal skins of whom the world was not worthy.
ReplyDeleteOnly in God's Everlasting Kingdom will all be made right.
Rhoblogy,
ReplyDeleteLiberals want a gov't that will force me on pain of death to give them money to pay for what turn out to be low-quality one-size-fits-all services, such as publyk skrewel edjamakayshunn, welfare, and DHS.
I would think that if you want to reduce your taxes, you would attack the highest cost programs in our budget. The biggest piece of your tax dollars goes to finance the military, not social programs. Social security also takes a large amount of funding, but this is theoretically taking money from yourself to pay yourself later. Of the money used for health programs, most is used for Medicare(about 60%) which most people don't consider welfare, not Medicaid or CHIP which would be more welfare based. Much less money is taken out for social programs, like food stamps and AFDC, DHS, HUD, we are talking a small percentage of the budget.
Think about it - if I refuse to pay all the taxes I owe the gov't, they will attempt to garnish my wages, by force.
Didn't Jesus answer this complaint directly? I thought he told some dude to suck it up and pay the taxes.
But a liberal can't accept that, since it clashes with his naturalistic paradigm and his presupposition that all people are good at heart.
Why can't both be true? I don't see where advocating for the poor in any way diminishes or conflicts with someone's view of salvation.
especially since "not enough people do enough" is far more applicable to a large amount of the recipients of social welfare.
Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? How do you know this? How many is a large amount?
The Bible is also quite concerned with people simply going through the motions without heart involvement. If the gov't forces you to do something that your heart is not in, how does that please God?
From a biblical point of view, the book of Amos seems to have some pretty harsh words for a society that treats the poor unkindly. God may not be as pleased if you are forced to help others against your will, but wouldn't he be equally not pleased at people who ignore the poor and do nothing?
The link does say that he denied the inerrancy of Scripture, and the thesis makes clear that he denied the Trinity and the substitutionary atonement.
Ok, I can see where you would believe he committed heresy, but I still don't see the idolater part. Guess I'll have to read it.
Cheers
marhaban,
ReplyDeleteRe: military - I'm not a big fan of the overseas military or projection of military power, actually. I'd much prefer that US troops were not overseas and were instead charged with securing the US borders. So I agree with you.
But the military, while it wastes money surely, does not do it with the alacrity and speed that most porky social programs do. I prefer to target the highest ratio of waste, not the highest gross expenditures.
Medicare is a catastrophe that must be drastically reformed. It's a bad one, and will be bankrupt soon. And don't get me started on Social Security...
Yes, Jesus did tell Peter to pay the tax, but you're pulling the same bait and switch as the libs cited in the post. SOME taxes are good and necessary, and I've never claimed otherwise. But Jesus never said that the tax MUST be really high, nor did He preach that the gov't should be responsible for the welfare of the poor. He in fact preached just the opposite, charging individuals and the church with that task.
Why can't both be true? I don't see where advocating for the poor in any way diminishes or conflicts with someone's view of salvation.
Wallis said that it was the heart of Jesus' message. I pointed out that it's not, plain and simple.
How do you know this? How many is a large amount?
Whenever there is waste and money distributed to ppl who are of able body but don't want to work, that's too many. I know at least two able-bodied and lazy young men personally who are recipients of gov't redist of wealth, and that is wrong.
the book of Amos seems to have some pretty harsh words for a society that treats the poor unkindly.
Yep - INDIVIDUALS AND THE COVENANT COMMUNITY OF GOD.
Neither the Bible nor the Constitution of the USA know anythg of mass welfare for the able-bodied poor. Rather 1 Thess says, "If a man will not work, then he shall not eat."
I still don't see the idolater part
He made a god in his own image and worshiped him instead of Jesus. Everyone is an idolater to some extent, but some take it further than others. Those in the "Christian" clergy have the highest levels of acctability for that kind of thing, and so he will be judged harshly for it.
God grades us on what we do in life, and MLK was a sinner like the rest of us. Throw some good deeds into the mix, which I don't deny, and you get a sinner who knew to some extent the good he ought to do and yet did not do it. Only by the grace of the true Jesus can we be saved from the punishment that our sins deserve.
Ok. I agree with you somewhat on the waste thing.
ReplyDeleteOn MLK, why would ministers have a higher standard? I would think that it would just be a greater testament to God's power, that he can use sinful humans with limited understanding of him, to do his work.
I may be wrong, but it seemed like God loved King David's attitude and was able to ignore his sinfulness and use him anyway.
Yes, God did love David - all the stories of God using sinful men is a testimony to His grace and power!
ReplyDeleteBut the more we have and know, the more we're subject to greater acctability.
Lk 12: 47 “And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, 48 but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.
1 Timothy 5:17
The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.
Hebrews 13:17 - 17Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.
Rhoblogy,
ReplyDeleteI went back and read Amos, and I don't see where he would be talking to individuals instead of the nation.
The way I read this, Amos (Chapter 2) just got done talking about what God is going to do to punish the surrounding countries for their sins. Then he gets to Israel:
This is what the LORD says: "For three sins of Israel, even for four, I will not turn back {my wrath}.
They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals.
7 They trample on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed...
13 "Now then, I will crush you as a cart crushes when loaded with grain....
Anyway, I was wondering if you could point me to the resources available that you use to read/understand scriptures in the historical context. How do you know that Amos meant the individuals in Israel, not the country, for example?
I'm assuming www.tektonics.org/ is one, do you have any others?
Thanks,
No, even though I generally like tektonics.org, I just look at the context of the writing in question.
ReplyDeleteThis is what the LORD says: "For three sins of Israel, even for four, I will not turn back {my wrath}.
--Countries are made up of individuals.
They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals.
--Individuals sell the righteous for silver, etc.
7 They trample on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed...
--Individuals trample on the heads of the poor, etc.
13 "Now then, I will crush you as a cart crushes when loaded with grain....
--Crushing the entire nation of individuals. Apparently everyone in the nation was in on the sin.
FYI, Looks like the logical fallacy of division to me.
ReplyDeleteSo you don't have any then, thanks anyway.
I don't really think you understand the fallacy of division, then. Thanks yourself.
ReplyDelete