I was intrigued by television personality Glenn Beck's advice that Christians “run as fast as you can” from a church that has “social justice” on its website. Beck apparently sees “social justice” as something new, springing from Marxism and not only irrelevant but harmful to Christianity.
Thinking about Beck’s advice, I asked myself, WWJD, “What Would Jesus Do?” and immediately wondered WWLD, or “What Would Lucifer Do?” Which one, Jesus or Lucifer, would run away from a congregation that has “social justice” on its website? For those of us who want to do good, not evil, what does the Lucifer Effect tell us about Christianity and social justice?
The biblical roots of social justice go deep. Jesus, a devout Jew who became an itinerant teacher for the last three years of his life, preached from his Jewish tradition. He quoted Isaiah and Amos, the Hebrew prophets who called on their political leaders for social justice.
The political connection is important.
It’s true that Jesus did not aspire to a career in politics. His focus was on the minds and hearts of the individual human beings he met on his journey. He encouraged people to be reconciled to God by loving their enemies, feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, and visiting those in prison. He urged people to treat other people as neighbors.
Jesus told the story of the Jerusalem road and the Samaritan who helped an injured man lying by the side of the road—in stark contrast to the two religious leaders who “passed by on the other side.” That story shows clearly the distinction between WWJD and WWLD, because Jesus would help, while Lucifer would come up with “reasons” to pass by on the other side.
Folks like Glenn Beck may argue that Jesus was all about individual conduct and did not tell followers to create justice in their social system. Yet Jesus began his three-year ministry by reading from Isaiah’s Chapter 61: “The Lord has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.” In this chapter (well-known at the time), Isaiah describes the kind of nation Israel can become if it is a nation based on justice. The prophet Isaiah preaches God’s message: “For I, the Lord, love justice.”
This prophet, this chapter, launches the ministry of Jesus. And why not? Anyone who has worked seriously to help the poor soon becomes aware of how the roots of poverty are deeply embedded in the structures and institutions of our society.
As citizens we vote for our political leaders. WWJD? Elect leaders who refuse to change systems that perpetuate injustice? Or choose leaders who understand that an individual’s power to help those in need is affected by social systems that perpetuate poverty? As citizens, do we work to change unjust social systems? Or do we insist that social justice is none of our business?
What would Lucifer do?
The insidious message of the Lucifer Effect is that systemic poverty is not our problem, that we have enough to do taking care of ourselves, our families, and the individuals to whom we are charitable. This is a self-focused, narrow benevolence. It’s much easier to be merely charitable than to accept personal responsibility for social systems that perpetuate poverty. And when celebrities like Glenn Beck label social justice un-Christian, the Lucifer Effect encourages us to go along with the behavior and advice of an outspoken leader who offers us the easier path.
So take a look around. We’re all on the Jerusalem road, and in many ways it’s not a safe place to be. It may be OK for the well-to-do, who can hire private security guards, send their kids to the best schools, and pay for good medical care. But for the vast majority of working people—whose income simply isn’t enough to pay the bills and whose kids are trapped in dead-end schools—the Jerusalem road can be deadly.
WWJD and WWLD. Is the only difference between Jesus and Lucifer that Jesus would help the occasional victim while ignoring the unsafe conditions…and Lucifer would ignore both? Or should we read Jesus’s message of personal transformation in the larger context of social justice, the context Jesus himself established by choosing the words of Isaiah as his first public teaching?
The words of the prophet echo down through the millennia, resonating with the hearts and minds of so many others who are religiously inspired to create justice in our world.
Comments:
"Social Justice" a modern formulation. Modern meaning within the past couple of hundred years. Beck, quite rightly I think, tells us to run because what passes for "Social Justice" today in many congregations is the current Democratic Party Platform and the Justice there a bit questionable. As my Green Candidate said in the paper today, so this Reform Bill will fine a guy underwater on his house? So where's the justice there?\
I'd argue Social Justice the Church's response to Marxist and secular criticisms of religion.
Before those critiques, there wasn't much desire to figure out WWJD because in all honesty, that kind of social revolution wasn't on Jesus's mind.
I applaud my colleague, Rev. Brooks, for speaking out on this very uncomfortable topic.
The little nugget of truth in Glenn Beck's criticism of "social justice Christians" is that Jesus was not an economic theorist. Jesus was neither Marxist nor libertarian. Jesus simply held up the vision of God's reign on Earth, a vision rooted in thousands of years of Jewish scripture (that's the "Old Testament" to Christians)and tradition, and reminded us that God intended humanity to live in equality. It's up to us how we get there. So far, no human economic system has succeeded. We've been through many centuries now of feudalism, mercantilism, capitalism, socialism, communism and whole bunch of other "isms." The system isn't the point. It's all about the result. We can have rational discussions about the best way to achieve the ideal. Hurling the epithet "social justice Christians" at those who favor social activism as the vehicle for transformation will not facilitate those rational discussions. Labeling those who do not hear a call to social activism in their theology as "fundies" or some such is equally unfair and unproductive. I pray that all Christians, whether they self-identify as "evangelical" or "progressive" or whatever, can come together, calmly and rationally, to do some serious theological reflection on these issues.
By Rev. Curtis Webster | Posted on March 31, 2010, 2:16 pm
The comments by Rev. Webster and Bill Baar lift up for me the point that in discussing this issue the definition of "social justice" is important. I agree with Mr. Baar that it is unjust to impose a fine on someone who is behind on mortgage payments and can't afford health insurance. A particular law may have both just and unjust aspects; so may legislative proposals or political party platforms. For me, working for "social justice" means working to transform society in accord with Jesus's teachings. I hope to help the injured man on the Jerusalem road, wherever I find him. That also means I must consider the plight of families without a means to pay for medical care, or threatened by the loss of their homes, and ask myself what needs to change. Like Rev. Webster, I hope that all Christians can recognize that individual Christians struggle to be guided by what Jesus taught, and we should not fling derogatory labels at one another if our understandings differ. "Breathe prayer."
Bill Baar wrote:
-snip-
"Before those critiques, there wasn't much desire to figure out WWJD because in all honesty, that kind of social revolution wasn't on Jesus's mind."
Jennifer,
I wonder what folks like Glenn Beck and Bill Baar would say about John Dominic Crossan's take on the "Blessed are the poor for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven."
Crossan suggests that Jesus is talking about structural economic and political oppression that was squeezing the landless peasants in Roman-occupied Palestine. With this type of indirect and systemic oppression, nearly everyone except those who totally marginalized are complicit in this oppression.
Crossan suggests that the modern-day paraphrase for this saying of Jesus would be "only the homeless are innocent."
Jesus name-called Herod a "fox." I'll go one better on Beck. He's a blind egotistical nut. Jim Wallis is right. You take out the readings in the bible referring to God's preference for the plight of the poor and needy, the marginalized and oppressed, and the alien and despised and you essentially have no bible left. Jesus, like the prophets before him, confronted authorities and powers "of this world." His was a clear "social gospel" if ever there was. He died because of what he taught, did and said! He did not die for singing Amazing Grace of asking people to hold hands in love. He died because he was a threat, both religiously and politically, to the status quo! READ THE STORY. Communism? Read Acts 1-4. Jesus sends his followers out with NOTHING to live on the compassion of others. He criticizes and institution that would break people economically for their own gain! "They devour widow's houses!" Is Social Justice in the bible? Absolutely....without a doubt!
By Brad | Posted on April 29, 2010, 1:35 pm
Bill Baar said, "I'd argue Social Justice the Church's response to Marxist and secular criticisms of religion."
I'd argue that an otherworldly focus on sin and salvation is the Church's invention. A Jewish Jesus enduring the crushing heel of the Roman Empire in the colony of Palestine was not terribly concerned about the next world, he was desperately concerned about his own. For Jesus that began at the bottom where the poor were, in the words of Hebrew prophets Jesus often quoted, being crushed into the dust and sold for the price of a pair of sandals. While Jesus was prescient in suggesting that the poor we will always have with us, that was hardly a statement of acquiescence, let alone affirmation of the status quo. If the poor are blessed, according to Jesus, what implications for those who make and keep them poor?
By Harry Coverston | Posted on May 2, 2010, 8:46 am
I think "Reverend" Jennifer might want to look a bit more closely at her bible before she talks about what Jesus meant regarding social justice. After all, it says that she's supposed to remain silent. But how can she do that and be a reverend?
"As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." Corinthians 14:33b-36
I agree that the Conservatives have it all wrong regarding government's role in our lives, but using religion to back up such an argument is ludicrous. Following religion is what got us into this mess.
By Barbara | Posted on May 15, 2010, 5:58 pm
Barbara's comment challenges a woman's leadership role in the church by quoting the infamous passage of Paul's epistle to the Corinthians about women being "silent" in church. Setting aside for a moment the very interesting scholarly debate about the authorship of this passage, or its meaning in the context of Paul's confidence and reliance on women in the early church, I'll say only that Paul's epistle is not the same as the teachings of Jesus.
Barbara's observation about religion that "got us into this mess" merits the same response: "religion" is not the same as the teachings of Jesus.
The involvement of institutional religion in war, genocide, bigotry, and hatred is tragic. It's especially tragic that religious institutions ostensibly based on the teachings of Jesus have been responsible for persecution and oppression. One thing is very clear: Jesus was not teaching people to persecute, exclude, denigrate, or diminish other human beings.
But let's get back to the point of my blog post, which Barbara apparently challenges. It's not relevant to the question whether Jesus had a social justice consciousness that religious institutions sometimes take an indefensible stance.
Forget the Glenn Beck spin about Marx. Jesus, in his teaching and in his living, taught that we are to include everyone at the table. He ate with outcasts and told people to feed the hungry. He quoted Isaiah's passages about justice (passages aimed at government). In every word and deed Jesus showed compassion for people in need.
I respect those teachings. I believe they are important. And if in my own time and place I discover a system, structure, or institution that keeps people poor or hungry or without shelter, then I feel a personal obligation to walk the walk.
In the houses of worship, in the halls of power, over the airwaves and along the fiber-optic cable, Glenn Beck and other religious leaders may read aloud the teachings of Jesus. Every time someone thinks that merely saying the words is enough, the Lucifer Effect is at work. After all, after he finished telling the Good Samaritan story, Jesus said: "Go and do likewise."
The problem with this article is that the idea or meaning of "social Justice" has changed. Its relative, not absolute and leaves a huge area for opinions on what is right or wrong. The biblical roots of social justice are very different from todays idea of social justice. Therefore I find it weak footing that jesus's actions should be used to make a point in this article. I also feel the author may not have a concrete understanding of Glenn Becks philosophy on the issue. She may be surprised. I am a member of the UCC and I heard the comments he made about social justice and also used UCC as an example. I was offended at first but after some research and subsequent Beck shows, I have a better understanding of what he is talking about. Most people now a days see social justice as everyone being equal...finacially.
See I think neither Jesus nor Lucifer would have ran away. WHAO now there's an idea! Jesus would have done his thing but lucifer would have waited around to put his spin on it...to make it damaging to the psyche/soul of the person being administered to so that he could destroy the works of Jesus. I think jesus meant for us to want to help others from our heart...not for us to be forced to. Just as God has not forced us to Love Him...would it really be considered love then? Would it really be considered helping then? Jesus was clearly teaching us what to do personally...he wasnt teaching a country what to do with its poor. Our social programs focus too much on giving people what they need plus some. And they do have all that! Their poverty is in their mentality! There is a lot of emphasis on just giving to them...there is no emphasis on what is in their heart. Which is what Jesus did for those people he "helped"...he changed their hearts and minds. He didn't just help the people materialistically. In fact, I would argue that wasnt his intention at all. Just one way to get their attention. A large government handing out food and money is not going to win their hearts for God. Thats the difference between the socialism today and percieved socialism of Jesus. A democracy gives voice to all...even the ones who I may think are misguided. The other options are not any better...kind of like picking the less of two evils. We live in a fallen world and that’s the unfortunate truth and the very reason we haven't been able to attain the global utopia that all people seek…because of the "lucifer effect" or EVIL. Where Lucifer comes in on social justice...He's can take an idea of jesus's...replicate it but give it in excess so that now there is a dependence on it even entitlement…we believe we have a right to that…or that all people have a basic human right to that. The problem is that “what” we have a basic human right to keeps growing. Every body thinks that it is progress to offer more because our idea of what is "enough" has changed...our standards have changed. Lucifer can spin this until he breeds the idea of entitlement and with entitlement comes selfishness and with selfishness comes self centeredness and so on...all the while seemingly logically in their heads walking away from the very thing that Jesus taught us. Jesus also believed in personal accountability. You see there are people out there that are in a hard place because of their choices. Then there are people out there that are in hard places not because of their own choice. Even that line is being blurred because people claim they didnt have a choice or they are not responsible for their actions...its always someone elses fault. Its harder everyday to discern between the two types. The "self-focused, narrow benevolence" doesn't lie in the fact that some people believe you should work for what you get and help the people you can...it lies in the people who expect to be helped. There is proof that mental health issues are very prevalent in poor areas...God did not make us to subsist upon other people...he made us to work hard and to praise him. Some help is fine but be careful of it in excess. Be careful of how definitions and standards change and ask yourself if it is damaging to the soul to provide more...you know spoiled? Theres a reason why they call it spoiled...What did "spoiled" consist of 20 yrs ago...50 years ago etc. You will find just how much it stretches and in how little time. Do you not think there is a direct correlation between the decline in number of people who have less, have healthy minds, positive outlook and the incline of wealth, "stuff", depression, suicide, murders and so on? Our poorest people are richer than other developed countries "poor people". In fact, the top 2%. Lucifer will twist any situation to his benefit. Its dangerous to think that Lucifer would look for the opportunity to "pass by the other side" There is a war for your soul.
The question arises on weather or not you should try to press your beliefs on others. We could technically be doing that right now according to some. Taking the world and looking at it through our own beliefs and trying to shape it to our standards. Political correctness dictates that we shouldn't. However, I would argue that if we don't, someone with ill ideals will. I would very strongly argue that each and every one of us does that...regardless of religious beliefs so its nothing attributed just to christians. Something no one can logically ignore whether aethiest, agnostic, etc...is that there is a good and bad. Hmmm...I wonder where that popped out of nature from? Anyway...be careful of those who try to tear you down because you have a clear idea of right and wrong and don't agree with something. Just because you think there is a limit to how much you should help does not make you anti- christian or a bad christian...and you're definatley not heartless. They'll spin that one all day long and christians everywhere will back off and let it go because they don't want to be percieved as hypocrites or bad people. Wouldn't that be considered the "lucifer effect" at its finest?
There must be a balance between logic and heart. Neither are perfect by nature but they do provide a check and balance for each other. Thinking solely with the heart will cause you to falter because there is a lack of discernment...only your desires...ill intentioned or not. Thinking solely with your mind will cause you to falter because there is a lack of compassion...only numbers and facts. Perhaps it would do the author some good to understand Beck's idea more clearly rather than shooting at him from the hip because of your first impression or because of what you feel with your heart. I would argue that the "lucifer effect" isn't only present when Glenn Beck speaks about when the wrong kind of social justice permeates the church. You need to watch that double edged sword...or tounge. Ignoring it completely and labeling Glenn Beck as someone evil leading us down the wrong path may also have the "lucifer effect". Do you think the devil will not try to tear the church apart? Will he not try to use the church as a means for his delivery? To think so is quite nieve. You might be able to speak for your church but can you speak for them all? We are all sinners and subject to the "lucifer effect" We all need to have knowledge to balance that though. We have our own opinions based on what we see. How would you build your knowledge if not on the back of someone else? Again, discernment is KEY! I think to label Glenn Beck as a partaker of the lucifer effect, demeans the term. The lucifer effect is when good people do evil things. Is Glenn Beck doing something evil by proclaiming that social justice has infiltrated the church and that we should run from it? The author hasn't for sure made the case that God/Jesus approves of social justice in the context that Glenn Beck is speaking in for one thing. Secondly, Glenn Beck didn't say to run away from God/Jesus...or even from all churches...or even to not help others. Simply those that promote this idea of social justice that the liberal progressivists have taken hold of. Sort of a wake up call. An idea that might do all christians some good by opening their eyes to what is going on in their church rather than being complacent pew warmers accepting everything they are being told rather than going out and studying the bible and recieving the holy spirit so that they too can have discernment and the armor of God to protect them from evil. Allowing them to know right from wrong and not allowing those lines to be blurred. After all that is exactly what happens in the "lucifer effect"...lines between right and wrong being blurred.
Im confused by what the author is asserting exactly so forgive me if im off base...there are quite a few things that I disagree with and I do understand that perhaps the intentions are just not clear. It seems, according to the author, that Jesus was a socialist or at least akin to socialist ideals and so we should be too...but yet social systems can perpetuate poverty? I wonder if the author would agree that adding more social programs (healthcare bill included) would only perpetuate poverty. Instead working to fix the ones we've got might be a better idea...even perhaps limiting welfare etc. so people will get back on their feet instead of demanding more free stuff all the while feeding their entitlement and narcissism?
By Sommer Alvarez | Posted on May 28, 2010, 7:28 pm
oops...I meant to say to NOT think so is quite nieve. Paragraph four I think. :(
By Sommer Alvarez | Posted on May 28, 2010, 7:39 pm
question for Mr.Zimbardo:
Do you think that if we put even just one hour of social education in class we could me some diference? i think that may if we learn our childrens how to be a good person, and how to said "no" without bein mean of agresive we could make it better. thanks and sorry for my english. i really apreciated if you response me.
By esther c. | Posted on June 1, 2010, 9:11 pm
Agreeing that all sin is social: this is the necessary conclusion of a belief that "God is love, and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God."
And if sin is social, then so is righteousness.
Or putting the thing another way, if the greatest commandments are to love, then the greatest sin is to neglect.
YOU HAVE IT RIGHT.
YOUR BASIC IDEA IS VERY SIGNIFICANT REGARDLESS OF HOW IT IS PHRASED.
WE MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT IS IMPORTANT IN EDUCATING OUR CHILDREN BOTH IN FORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION AND IN HOME AND RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
WE DECIDE NOT ONLY WHAT TO PUT IN AND EMPHASIZE BUT ALSO WHAT TO OMIT.
WE HAVE RECENTLY OMITTED LESSONS ON SOCIAL JUSTICE, ON HUMAN RIGHTS, OR MORAL CHARACTER, ON LEARNING AND PRACTICING COMPASSION AND SO MUCH MORE THAT I THINK ARE ESSENTIAL FOR FOSTERING GOODNESS IN OUR CHILDREN AND IN ALL OF US.
MY HEROIC IMAGINATION PROJECT, OR HIP, HAS THESE GOALS AS ITS BASIC MISSION.
WE ARE DEDICATED TO SOWING THE SEEDS OF HEROISM AROND THE WORLD, OF ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO PUT THEIR BEST SELVES FORWARD IN SERVICE TO HUMANITY.
PLEASE VISIT US AT:
WWW.HEROICIMAGINATION.ORG
I SHOULD ALSO ADD THAT WHEN JENNIFER, CURTIS AND I ENVISIONED THIS THEOLOGY MEETS PSYCHOLOGY BLOGS WE HAD HOPED FOR LIVELY INTELLECTUAL EXCHANGES SUCH AS THIS ONE STIMULATED BY
JENNIFER'S REACTION TO BECK'S PRONOUNCEMENT AND HER VIEWS ON JESUS' TAKE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE.
THANKS FOR ALL OF YOU FOR CONTRIBUTING.
MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU AND ALL OF US SO WE CAN CREATE A MORE FAIR AND JUST WORLD FOR EVERYONE.
PHIL ZIMBARDO
By Phil Zimbardo | Posted on June 6, 2010, 3:38 am
I find the language in all the posts interesting, for all use stereotypes such as conservative, liberal, Marxist, Libertarian, Christian, all ways of dividing up and segregating us an individuals. They are words which make adversaries of others. It regresses into a series of attacks and repudiations. It is not the language of Christianity that I understand or adhere to. It is precisely what Paul attempts to address in his letters to the Churches.
Christianity is to provide us with the strength to face all, the faith and assurance that God stands near always, and an understanding that fear is a tool of the enemy, not the Lord. Telling people to run is not an act of faith, but of fear. David did not run from Goliath... he acted in faith.
So my faith and convictions have led me to engage what by definition is evil in dialogue, not run from it. Have led me to question what road that person walked down to lead to those conclusions, not denigrate it, but try to understand it. My faith and convictions have led me to try and understand, not flee, my enemy. (OK, I'm suppose to love him, but that's a lifelong lesson learning. Love is easiest when informed by understanding)
I don't know who Glen Beck is, or the UCC, so I cannot comment directly on that issue (although I did Google it so have a general understanding of it now) But the comments certainly don't, to this ear, reflect the message and meaning of Christianity as I understand it.
It is dangerous to let others do your thinking for you. While I love my church, and I love the Christian faith, I also understand the sentiment "God, save me from your followers" and yes, ways in which Lucifer, particularly as an acronym for blind spots and ignorance, invades each one of us at particular junctures.
If you would know the heart of God, sit in a field alone, turn your face towards heaven, and talk to Him. Understand that the messages and sermons of all religious leaders are colored by their own personal desires, goals, experiences. God is not be found in them. Look for Him no where but in your own heart.
The journey inward first must be taken before looking outward.
My personal belief is that churches should be divorced from political action and language. With that said, I also feel it is a non sequitur that it's members, male or female, should not be politically active. To impose any code to the nth degree becomes an abuse, as Christ himself noted with the legalism of the Pharisees.
But what do I know, I'm just your average Joe throwing a humble opinion into the fray... oh, and one who once lived on welfare, btw, who benefited from the free entitlements and was a bottom feeder. That was 20 years ago. I'm about to return to being a bottom feeder not because I feel "entitled", or that someone should "take care of me", but because quite simply, even with a college education and years in the workforce, there are just no jobs out there. Even with renting a room, I can't make ends meet.
With no social programs in place, it means securing a livelihood anyway I can, and therein lies the rub, for Lucifer waits for opening like that, does he not?
Yet every adversity is an opportunity also, and that's how I choose to look at it. It is an opportunity to serve God, to reach out to others, to see where He exists out there in the world, in the hearts of men, which IS His church.
By Karen Meyer | Posted on June 15, 2010, 2:21 am
DEARLY BELOVED,
In preface, I want to say that any/all of my commentary is my PERSONAL belief. And I pray for a "watchman on my tongue", (or in this case, my fingers as I type), so that I do not offend.
I continuously seek for WWJD, and from what I've read today, regarding "the Lucifer effect", am once again quietly amused. Because I seek, and also sincerely wish and pray for others, that PERFECT PEACE in my own heart which "passeth all understanding". Please don't misunderstand; I'm not bragging here, only expressing my personal outlook. I believe that praying for someone's peace is the best I can offer. Everything on this earth is so fleeting:the blink of an eye... and so I am compelled to look at THE BIGGER PICTURE.
When I give a stranger a $20 bill because he/she caught my eye as I passed and I momentarily listened to whatever that person was imploring, I attempt to "...feed me when I was hungry", etc. I don't ask for a receipt of what the person did with the money, because the (almost selfish) blessing it gives ME far surpasses any expectation of wise use of this small gift I have just had the HONOR of giving. Yes, I have an agenda. But I attempt/seek for it to be a personal one. In this way, for ME, in an attempt to see Jesus' face in everyone, I am the one who is blessed.
Regarding the Glen Becks, the Rush Limbaughs, and all the other soap-boxers, I learned a long time ago that when someone is arguing vehemently over some issue, you can be convinced they don't quite fully believe it themselves. Quiet amusement. It's like watching the highlights of a game: you already know who won, but it is sometimes fascinating to watch how they did it.
And when I am personally offended, I pray, as a Christian, for DAMGE CONTROL. Hoping and praying that whoever is listening to that person on the soapbox has that quiet place in their heart of PEACE and spirit-filled understanding/discernment, so that they can separate the wheat from the shaff.
Thank you.
By Joy W. in FL | Posted on June 18, 2010, 10:42 am
Re: "I wonder what folks like Glenn Beck and Bill Baar would say about John Dominic Crossan's take on the "Blessed are the poor for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven."
I'd quote the old IWW song,
Long haired preachers come out every not
try and tell you what's wrong and what's right
but when asked how bout something to eat
they'll answer with voices so sweet
You'll get pie in the sky when you die
Jesus was thinking heaven. I think the here and now. I try not to mix them up...as did Jesus, I think. He's not the guy I turn too for the practical answers for building wealth and creating prosperity... for all.
a) Folks like Glenn Beck may argue that Jesus was all about individual conduct and did not tell followers to create justice in their social system
b) Thinking about Beck’s advice, I asked myself, WWJD, “What Would Jesus Do?” and immediately wondered WWLD, or “What Would Lucifer Do?”
QUESTION: WHY aren't you asking yourself/shouldn't the MOST RELEVANT question be: "What did Jesus tell us to do?"
What he did & endorsed as his personal mission is NOT quite the same as what he advised/directed us to do. There's an "apples & oranges" issue there.
It seems to me that what G. Beck is advocating relative to his advice: "“run as fast as you can” from a church that has “social justice” on its website" is the following:
1) Such churches display (as a very common denominator) use of seemingly benign-thru-beneficial "social justice" projects to further some very nefarious activities;
2) Not all churches that use "social justice" are necessarily bad, or, their particular "social justice" programs are necessarily bad -- in fact, they may be quite good;
3) But, most people cannot, or do not, discern the reality until too late, if ever. THAT's G. Beck's point -- most of us lack the insight (for any of a variety of reasons having nothing to do with character, intellect, etc.) to discern a wholesome "social justice" church project from a diabolical one -- and a substantial number are diabolical.
Which leads to the Biblical adage, 'the Devil can quote scripture for his own purposes.' While Jesus didn't quite state that overtly, He did point out that pattern when He was tempted by the Devil.
One of "evil's" most common patterns is to masquerade in some form as a morally upstanding person, institution, etc. Sociopaths are a prime example of this characteristic.
What would Lucifer do? masquerade as morally upstanding. Also, induce churches (via key personnel) to perform his diabolical plans under the guise of a wholesome initiative.
What would Jesus do? Point out the WHOLE story, just like he did when Lucifer tried to temp him.
ISSUE HERE -- What this Blog Author Did: Framing this G. Beck quote as an either/or sort of issue (i.e. that Beck's approach is either right or wrong) completely misses the point Beck was addressing (he really presented a prescription for playing the statistical odds that chances are that a church that has this particular symptom is worth avoiding)) by grosssly oversimplifying the issue at stake. That's exactly the opposite of Jesus' approach.
By Ken | Posted on July 21, 2010, 3:18 pm
To continue an earlier comment:
Consider what "social justice" means in modern churches that use the term... Generally it incudes values/goals that most would consider socialistic along the lines of 'wealth-redistribution' and/or social equality, etc.
Consider Jesus' statements...are such initiatives consistent with His views?
Consider just the FACT that He (Jesus) mentions slaves & masters -- with the admonitions that slaves should support their masters & the masters should treat their slaves reasonably, for example.
This indicates that slavery was NOT objectionable to Jesus (he made no statements to suggest he wanted to change the social structure relative to this fundamental arrangement).
Paul, shortly later, addresses a number of dysfunctions in the early days of the church at Corinth in which, among other things, some wealthy members brought plenty of food for the celebratory meals while other church members had 'gone to sleep' (i.e. had starved to death). Paul advocated some communal sharing & pooling of resources--socialistic/communistic to be sure, but even he did not advocate a fundamental change in a very hierarchical social structure that accommodated slaves and radical wealth inequality.
When one views ancient society--the one Jesus lived in--thru an accurate lens it is unmistakable that acceptable "social justice" then (& to Jesus' views) would be considered beyond intolerable today. Which suggests that the "social justice" values of some modern churches are very out of synch with Jesus actual values per the few surviving statements we have from Him.
Which, again, indicates that what these churches are really up to is suspect.
Also, didn't Jesus tell the parable of the three servants each given a bag of money -- with the clear lesson being to make the most of what one has been given?
And also consider the comment about 'knock & it shall be opened; seek and you shall find' etc. (from which comes the paraphrased, "the Lord helps those who help themselves").
Sure Jesus (& afterwords Paul) were keen on helping those in need -- but they present some very clear benchmarks that indicate that help is limited and does NOT include a complete restructuring of society (what G. Beck is concerned about) to coddle some people perpetually -- this is what many if not a vast majority of churches espousing "social justice" are about...which is NOT supported by a complete reading of Jesus' views or those of his immediate successors.
The issue NOT being addressed here is that when one reads the Bible as a source, one MUST consult ALL relevant portions to complete the picture.
By Ken | Posted on July 21, 2010, 3:39 pm
I don't typically listen to talk shows much and this is the first time I've seen this website about this study, but the Glenn Beck comment debate caught my eye, so I have to reply.
I tend to totally agree with Beck on this. I've come to the same conclusion (and have stated it myself to friends) over some years of observation and experience. Namely it seems to me to be like this: those whose primary focus in their religion/spirituality is "social justice" tend to be...no way to put this delicately, not very deep in their spirituality. They also are often quite "anti-authority" in their words and actions in all spheres - including church authority. For me, I guess it ties into the Faith & Works "issue". Protestants say "by Faith alone" and Catholics say not just faith, but works as well (James 2:14-26). I take the Catholic position. In other words, works are an outgrowth --a result of faith --and a very deep spirituality and relationship with God. The Faith part comes FIRST, yes. But in too many "social justice" focused congregations, the WORKS part comes first--and is not based in a "listening ear" to the word of God. Maybe it didn't start that way, but it so, so often ends up that way. These people and their efforts burn out b/c they are not strongly "grafted to the vine". Not surprising. That "listening ear" part is not easy. It comes generally after many years of quiet meditation & contemplation and dying to self. Mother Theresa didn't go out there on the streets of Calcutta on a whim or a fit of rage about the unjustice of it all. It came out of many years of prayer, sacrifice and the development of a listening heart to the whispers of God. She felt it was what GOD was asking her to do--not that everyone else had to do this, just HER ...and the rest was in God's hands.
By Karen | Posted on August 6, 2010, 10:17 am
Having read the Lucifer Effect some years ago, and however profound the conclusions may be on the potential for evil within human nature itself, resolving the issue of 'evil' has yet to happen. This was the responsibility claimed by religion which has self evidently failed to deliver on the promises of the Incarnation.
As religion, at least mono theism, is founded upon the interpretive process generally called theology, one might ask against this failure, if theology isn't the problem? Presuming or pretending to know the mind of God by a process of natural reason. For if reason was able to know God by itself, there would be no need of a revelation as we would all understand the will the God.
The tragic irony would be if religion itself wasn't standing in the way of moral progress? That is the argument being made by a wholly new interpretation of the moral teachings of Christ spreading on the web. And this interpretation comes with 'teeth' theology can only dream of! So anyone interested in resolving the problem of evil might do well to start at: http://www.energon.org.uk
The Rev Brooks is no more a Christian than Lucifer himself and that is the point of of the "Lucifer Effect" and how evil so easily inculcates an individual. She may be heavily into her goal of "social justice" but that has nothing to do with Christianity. Her willingness to view all theologies as equal [you'd have to be comatose to view that as "Christian"] and her ardor to perform marriages between homosexuals [may as well drive the stake through the flesh personally]show that she is irrelevant in any discussion of historical Christianity - except as an object lesson and a warning to the depravity and apostasy of endtime humanity. I'm sure her two adopted children and her "partner" like her as a person but she is simply not a Christian in any sense of that word.
Judas was enamored of 'social justice too' when he was outraged that a years wage worth of ointment had been poured on the feet of Jesus. In Jesus's reply to him you see that 'social justice' itself is not mocked - just the use of it as a tool to deny that "the poor you will always have with you".
New morality social engineers attempt to use Christianity - not follow it.
By Litebluesky | Posted on August 26, 2010, 1:24 pm
It is difficult for me to understand how anyone can classify me as "not Christian" without knowing what is in my heart. Throwing stones, and judging others...surely Christians aspire to a higher standard. Even more ironic is the assumption that someone with adopted children must therefore have a "partner" (implication: homosexual partner). The teachings of Jesus emphasize that we have a duty to act as neighbors to one another. The ointment story shows Jesus in a compassionate moment, honoring the life-transforming insight of the woman who poured out the costly ointment. The honoring is what Judas didn't get. Jesus's comment, "The poor will always be with you," was a quiet critique of Judas's timing and tin ear for redemption. In the face of riveting revelation, Judas totted up the material cost. Jesus asks that we be attentive to the lives in front of us; that we honor their struggles and their growth. He counts each life transformed as a major triumph. But nothing in that story says that it doesn't matter how we treat the poor, or that we must refrain from efforts to eliminate poverty. To the contrary: helping the poor is more likely to save us than save those in material need. Social justice is the recognition that until the reign of God is established on earth we humans have a lot of work to do, and it is transformative. After all, Jesus didn't criticize the Samaritan for being a Samaritan. Jesus told us: Go and do likewise...without casting stones.
It is difficult for me to understand how anyone could classify themselves as Christian who denies all of the major tenets of Christianity, and cherry-picks the broad morality sayings , in order to support a socio-political goal/viewpoint - while ignoring their context both within the Scripture itself and within Historical Christianity .
Do not judge others or throw stones are not sayings with ANY intention or sense to allow you to "marry" homosexuals or to pronounce that - one theology is just as good as another. There are many sayings of Jesus that command 'righteous judgement' by believers and Jesus was hardly against "throwing stones" in all cases. biblically He is going to be treading the winepress of the "wrath of God" and what He calls 'sin' - for which He lovingly gave His life to rescue fallen man - is a huge thrown stone. Jesus never meant for the "believer" to sit on the throne and decide what is righteous or unrighteous or to decide where stones need to be thrown - but he certainly instructed his followers as to what was against His Will and "sin" and to be avoided at the peril of ones eternal future and to speak as "salt and light" to the world about His Judgements.
Jesus never said you are not to help the poor and neither did I - that is a straw man. What Jesus did do and say - time and time again - is that everything is secondary to a personal relationship and sincere obedience to Him - Through His Word - which is the ONLY way this world even knows that a man named Jesus once walked the earth.
The type of "social justice" you espouse - is a gross denial of His Death and Ressurection upon the Cross - by means of a humanistic effort to convince men and women that homosexuality needs not repentence but a "marriage license" and that 'any old religion' will do.
I commend your interest in the misfortune of others and hope you continue to work toward your goal of relieving it and you seem a 'nice enough person' - but what you are doing is denying the Cross - which calls for a new creature in Christ through repentance and obedience to the commands and morality of the Lord - starting with "Hear O Israel The Lord Our God is One God " There is One Door , One Shephard and One fold and it's a narrow and straight way out to the pasture -requiring both compassion and obedience , in Spirit and in Truth ... I am sorry to be so blunt. I would ask you to refrain from claiming Christian belief.
In conclusion , let me state that I never said it does not matter how we treat the poor [actually it matters most how "i" treat the poor] or that anyone should refrain from helping - but Jesus did say that the "poor you will always have with you" - not because he is a negative person but because He knows the state of men's hearts and the nature of this fallen world. Jesus knew that all the material comfort on this earth means nothing if a person is not 'born again' in Him - because that person will perish without Him. So by all means if you want to claim Jesus as your own - help the poor , but, do not marry homosexuals and tell men and women that Mohammad is "another way" to God - because Jesus called that "anathema".
P.S. I no more like telling someone they are non-Christian than Paul probably liked excluding men from Christian assembly on the basis of their sexual actions. You may also note that Jesus commanded his listeners to follow every Word that the Pharisees spoke but NOT to do as they did - because the Pharisees sat in the "Seat of Moses" - which is the chair in the synagogue from which the Law and Prophets were read.That includes the 'stoning of homosexuals and adulterers among many other judgements. At His incarnation He did show that He , as God, had the power to forgive what the Law could not and foreshadowed that His Own Blood was to cleanse men from all unrighteousness -after His Death and Ressurection - the blood of bulls would not be necessary. After His Ressurection and the gift of the Spirit of God - men then had a way of repentence that the Law never knew or allowed - as only the Blood of the Covenater may pay for the annulment of the Covenant.
In essence I judge you not a Christian in the same way I judge Obama not a Republican - his acts, beliefs and intentions run counter to all this is 'scripturally' :) and historically "republican".
By Litebluesky | Posted on August 29, 2010, 12:40 am
