The stage is nearly as closely set for a return to the Social Gospel of the early portion of the 20th century. One particular reason is that the Social Gospel of that era was largely informed by the Postmillenial eschatology of most of the Protestant church in America.

Things have changed. One major reason is that the social justice of today is a far cry from the Social Gospel of then. I don't know too many evangelicals who are suggesting that to do justice will bring about the millennium. Rather the force of reason for our justice is that it is part of our faith. The reasons for doing justice, at least as expressed by many of the younger evangelicals I know, are mightily different than those of people like Rauschenbusch or Gladden.

As for Glenn Beck, well he's not an awfully informed person and has no place to speak to or about the Church imho. He's a fool. Why am I not surprised that as he speaks about justice he immediately conjures Nazism. Sort of like Godwin's Law being worked out before our eyes. Any reasonable person doesn't disparage their opponents by comparing them to Hitler. There's a deeper conversation to be had. Of course far be it from the tabloid journalism of FoxNews to achieve that mark.

"...there is a fearful response by some that we will slide down the “slippery slope” of liberalism into a social gospel..."

Skye, you're already there.

Thank you for tackling this issue head on, Skye...I shook my head with sadness when I saw this quote earlier today. It reminds me of the Conservative Bible Project which proudly proclaims to eliminate the "liberal bias" of historic biblical scholarship by doing such things as "explaining numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning..."

On the flip side, such banalities give authentic followers of Jesus an opportunity. We have a chance to articulate for the world what a life shaped by the unique and authoritative Word of God looks like. We get the chance to live out our faith and demonstrate by our actions that God's passion for salvation and justice go hand in hand. And they will know us by our love.

At the end of the day, our battle is not with the Glenn Becks of the world nor the authors of the Conservative Bible. I pray for their hearts and ask the Lord to convict them of their sin and perhaps we'll see Mr. Beck recant one day. Lord knows I have made many a statement I wish I hadn't! No, our battle is against the principalities and powers of this present darkness and their campaign to spread fear and distrust in our world. In the face of such fear, we lay claim to the promise that is ours from 1 John 4:18, "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear..." (I hope that one made it into the Conservative Bible...:-) Sorry, couldn't resist!)

I think we may have to realize that if we are being prophetic in talking about social justice, we may hit a nerve with people. Just because we have scared people doesn't mean we are right, but certainly if we are right it makes sense that some people would be scared. Taking social justice seriously would mean a lot of change in how we think and what we do. And change is hard and painful. The best way to help people change is to stay connected with them but keep challenging them. A split really wouldn't solve anything. I think we need to pay attention to the level of fear that's out there, and maybe spend time listening when it gets too high, rather than simply arguing. If we let ourselves respond in fear, than we will actually work against what we are hoping for. When things cool a bit, we can challenge again, and point out the myriad of theological and biblical reasons of why social justice is a faithful expression of the gospel. I think that the key will be staying power: if we can continue to witness to the broader church on this issue, and they can see that we aren't going away (or splitting), many will eventually start to work with us. And that day will be a great day for the Kingdom!

Now, is this the same Glenn Beck that blamed progressives with the laws of Prohibition? It seems to me that prohibition of alcohol would be a conservative, religious issue. Can't he make up his mind as to what is progressive and what is conservative? He continues to mislead the Chosen, does not that make him a false prophet? He contradicts himself daily. Nazis and communists hated each other. He needs to look up his sources and definitions of his terminology.
What I see with the Tea Party movement, the extremist evangelical conservatives, anti-social justice right wingers and neo-conservatives is similar to a once great football team losing 6 seasons in a row to their in-state rival. A bunch of sore losers.

i just wonder when pastors will start rebuking Christians for drinking from the toilet that is cable news.

it seems many Christians are being spiritually formed by it more than the Scriptures they claim to love.

a robust recovery of the prophetic witness of the Hebrew Scriptures for the life of communities is one of the few things that makes me have any hope for any kind of real impact in the world by Christians anymore.

wish I could attend the round table.

Skye, could you define what you mean by "social justice" so that responders could adress this isuue on the 'same page' so to speak?

It is interesting that you are having that conversation at Covenant Theological Seminary. I believe that one of the best ways to move appropriately forward on this issue is to look backward to the work of the Reformers. As much criticism as he often receives, John Calvin did much in Geneva to foster ministry to the poor and oppressed. He actually gave people a way to move forward and not just muddle in their situation. And of course he did this while championing grace, God's Word, Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross, and justification by faith alone in Christ alone.

There does not need to be an either/or scenario on this issue as many people assume.

"And then today I read that Glenn Beck..."

Well, Skye, I think I found where you went wrong...always, always consider the source first, and foremost.

I'm not confused about the social gospel, in fact it is really not that hard to understand, and Y'shua was blunt about how we were to carry out the social gospel...so, voila!
Our social gospel that Y'shua himself gave to us:

Love Your Neighbor As Your Self!

A good verse to remember...

1 John 4:5

"They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them."

The world will act like the world because they don't know any other way to be.

btw... I would run from a church where a majority of the people and leadership get more worked up and passionate about fair trade coffee, than sharing Christ with their lost friends and neighbors. Consequently I would run from a church that preaches the word, but shows no mercy towards the downcast, and poor.
Both have little regard for the Christ's teaching.
However, I know this is a blog where you have to have a "evil incarnate, straw man" to disparage so we can have meaningful conversation.

@Chapp,

couple questions:

1. Are you saying that Beck is a person Christians should heed?

2. Do you think the problems you articulate about churches trading one thing for another (on either end of the spectrum) really as rampant as some portray?

I just don't think fair trade vs. going to hell is really all that dominant of a view.

I'd be interested if you think it is.

I'm just perplexed why any Christian would give any weight to what a Mormon says about what kind of church we should attend. I most well go ask a bald guy to recommend me a good barber...

Justice: that's a Biblical term. Justice is: "What's right, according to God."

WHAT THEN, exactly, is "social justice". What is it, when you deliberately tie two words together that don't naturally flow together in a sentence? There IS an agenda. Why not just say "justice"? Because then GOD sits at the table! (with "social justice" God isn't invited... because the basis for consensus has been moved to "social"... not what is truly moral...)

It's a COMMAND to serve fellow humans...while leaving morality OUT. And while we're at it, we shouldn't demand that the spoken Word even BE present. Social Justice is the world telling to church to shut up & cooperate, while they steal the show. Sooner or later, we'll wake up & realize this.

I am not against serving others, reaching out in love, on an individual basis... but "social" justice often groups people together, and sets up a silent but oppressive STRUCTURE over them of tolerance toward sin, disreguard for the PRESENCE of GOD in an action, tolerance toward government monitoring and control, and allowing our SOCIAL situations dictate our MORAL obligations. Something just doesn't seem right about it. If your gut says that God isn't the captain of something... listen.

E Harris, thank you. Now I got it.

1. Are you saying that Beck is a person Christians should heed?
NO... I'm saying he is an easy target to stop dialogue about what justice is and is not and what tightrope ought we to walk as Christians.

2. Do you think the problems you articulate about churches trading one thing for another (on either end of the spectrum) really as rampant as some portray?
In some cases, yes--in most cases no. However, you only need to look at Methodists and Lutherans (many not all) slide into throwing the baby out with the bathwater to know that it will redefine soon to be formerly evangelical churches.
Besides my point was about the extreme fundamentalists we find in both camps.

yes in fact I do think "fair trade vs. going to hell" is an accurate word picture many evangelicals are struggling with today.

E Harris: I can not speak for all who use the term "social justice". I think I could simply expand your definition a little and be fine. So "Social Justice": What is right, according to God, in the social realm of life.

Is it possible that you are thinking of "social contract", a political idea that does involve the consensus of the governed? Do you think it is possible to have a social justice that would pay attention to what God says, rather than simply doing whatever the world says?

Here's how I think of social justice. In the past, the kings of Israel were responsible for looking after the vulnerable, the "fatherless and the widow". We don't have kings anymore. Sovereignty now resides in the people. So our structure has changed, and we (as the sovereign people) are now responsible for speaking up for those folks, to the extent that they represent the vulnerable in our society. This is an obligation we receive (from God) within a democratic form of government.

I am not sure I follow your argument about the results of pursuing social justice. Why does it have to "tolerate" sin? What do you mean by this precisely? Isn't the opposite of justice sin? So I would think that pursuing social justice would make our society less sinful, not more. But maybe I'm missing part of what you are saying?

Why is it the "world's show"? If it has become the "world's show" could it be because they stole it from Christians, not the other way around? Could you get behind a social justice that looked to apply Jesus' teachings to the way our society does business? One that included the proclamation of God's word as a regular part of its program?

Thanks for some challenging thoughts, hopefully the start of something fruitful. Peace!

tim your comments embody a new evangelical fundamentalism.

Chapp
Call it whatever you want. What matters to me is not what people think about it compared to huge generalizations, but whether it matches with the Word. That's what I care about. Lots of folks don't. That's for them to reap what they sow.

"If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?" -James 2:16 NIV

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." -Matthew 25:34-46

What I learned in my religious history class in university is that the Social Gospel movement of the 19th century, was largely a post-millennialism. In the same way that many modern Jews believe that keeping the Sabbath will speed the coming of the Messiah, post-millennialist Christians back then believed that creating a world through peace, harmony and equality through human effort will speed the second coming of Christ. Pre-millennialists, on the other hand, believed the world is naturally getting worse, and this is a sign that the second coming is getting closer. What I observed through my studies is that the post-millennialists became more concerned about improving society than preaching the Gospel, and pre-millennialists became suspicious of progress and wanted to maintain the ways of the past, while becoming disturbingly tolerant of human suffering. University was awhile ago, so if any of this is incorrect, please correct me. I never watch Beck. Did he mention the role of eschatology in Social Gospel movement and how he might that contributed its problems we now see in hindsight?? Because I don't understand how he could possibly have done any research on the Social Gospel movement of the 19th century without understanding the role of eschatology. And if he didn't research the topic carefully before voicing his opinion on it on national TV, it really makes me question how important truth is to him. See, I'm no academically recognized authority on Chrisitan eschatology of the 19th century, so that's why I ask you to let me know if anything I've written in incorrect. This is because truth matters to me and the Bible makes it clear that deception is not ok. Jesus says we are to be on the watch for wolves in sheep's clothing. We are to be as shrewed as snakes and innocent as doves. What really worries me, is that when Christians take at face value that which has not been varified as true, they can't convince the world that truth matters to them. And when Christians dismiss the facts of the world, they will not be trusted by my generation on things unseen.

Why is the church listening to anything that Glenn Beck says?

This issue will never be resolved if we continue using the tired old and unbiblical distinction between social and gospel, as if there were a core message ("Jesus died for your sins and NOTHING more") to the gospel to which we might judiciously add other appropriate things (helping the homeless, advocating for fair trade, fighting abortion). The good news is that God in Christ is reconciling the entire world to himself. That covers everything. God loves his creation and so should we. Everything about this world is redeemable, lovable, not hopeless. That, brothers and sisters, is really good news!

When I think of "liberal Christianity" I think of Churches who, well like someone else said, care more about fair trade coffee than evangelism. Even worse, I've heard liberal Christian who make me question the degree that they uphold the authority of scripture above all else. But this is what I learned in religious studies in university: the reason why liberal Christianity is the way it is is because it was trying so hard to avoid the pitfalls, legalism, injustice, indifference to suffering, etc. They went so far to the other extreme, many Christ followers where left wondering where it all went wrong. I mean we've all read Pilgrim's Progess here, right? Well when Christian was walking through the valley of the shadow of death he was walking a very narrow ledge, with the dangerous swamp on one side and the bottomless pit on the other. When he tried to avoid one he almost fell into the other. How he got through was to keep his eyes on the light at the end of the valley that God had provided him. The goal is not to find where one group has fallen short and run to the opposite extreme. The goal is to focus on Jesus and do His will.

Another point that I don't that anyone has brought up are the many churches and organizations who are so effective at sharing the Gospel and spreading social justice. My sister and brother-in-law are presently in Africa serving God through such an organization. I've heard that World Vision is so committed to meeting the spiritual and physical needs of the world's poor that they will even go in and meet physical needs when they have been forbidden by the government to preach the Gospel. St. Francis of Assisi said "preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words." Likewise, I bet that the world's most closed people to Gospel are those who (or who's ancestors) have been victimized by people claiming to be Christians. I worry about Americans who suffer for lack of access to health care, because they're uninsured or their insurance is giving them a hard time, and think that it's Christians who are standing in the way of health care reform. As a Canadian, I am constantly thankful that I am able to see a doctor and afford my prescriptions because of government support. If I lived in the USA I'd have to face the dilemma about staying in a low paying job without health benefits like the one I have now, where I am able to serve God by serving children with special needs. That would be terrible, because I truly believe this is what God wants me to do. This is why, in 2004, I nominated Baptist preacher and social Gospel movement member Tommy Douglas as greatest Canadian, because he brought us our health care system, as well as many other valuable reforms. He won because Canadians consistantly rate our health care system as one of the things we value most about being Canadian. Did Beck mention that, by any chance?

One last question: has anyone here studied Charles Monroe Sheldon? He was minister and leader of the Social Gospel movement. He coined the phrase "What would Jesus do?" And wrote a novel where a congregation is challenged to spend a year asking that question before every decision. Maybe Christians need to ask themselves that when they turn on the TV.

I don't buy the idea that everyone involved in the Social Gospel movement of the late 19th century and early 20th century was simply Postmillenial in their eschatology. I've read Walter Rauschenbusch and he is very clear that we on our own efforts can't bring the kingdom to earth. We can, however, live like Kingdom people on the earth and be Jesus to people here (btw, which is what we are commanded to do). Where I had some issues with Rauschenbush's work was simply that I believed he did have too much naive faith in the government to enact sweeping social change, but all in all, that's no reason to convict someone of being a heretic.

I also would say that it isn't fair to say a Premillenialists expect things to get worse. I'd say Dispensationalists do, but they are a small and relatively new niche within Premillenialism.

My mom went to Bible College in the late 30s, early 40s. "In His Steps" by Charles Sheldon was forbidden reading.

Many folks here have an interesting take on what the "social gospel" is and immediately associate it with something called "liberal Christianity." Yet most (but not all) here stake out positions within Christianity in political, not theological terms. SoI have to ask, are the social gospel and liberal Christianity intrinsically connected?

Ancilla, you made some very good points in your early posts and quoted a wonderful passage of scripture on the "cup of cold water". Unfortunately, things began to deteriorate with this sentence "...I bet that the world's most closed people to Gospel are those who (or who's ancestors) have been victimized by people claiming to be Christians." and went steadily downhill from there until finally it all landed in a heap of 'we Canadians are better than you U.S. folk who are standing in the way of nationalized healthcare - especially those nasty Christians' mentality.

Ancilla, please bear in mind that the U.S. taxpayer spends billions of dollars on a military that protects the borders of Canada and allows Canada to spend its tax dollars on your healthcare. Please bear in mind that the concept of universal healthcare does not exist in the Bible with the exception of the nation of Isreal which was a theocracy. Neither Canada nor the U.S. ever have been, or desired to be, a theocracy. The Christian people you claim stand in the way of government run healthcare are the most generous group of people on the planet and they have always been. They are the ones who started World Vision by the way. The mandate in the Bible (which you quoted) is not given to a government - it is given to born-again believers, period.

The concept of Christian people advocating ridiculously burdensome taxes to pay for something that Christian people themselves should be helping to provide for the needy is quite arrogant. Jesus did not exercise compassion with somebody else's money.

As several people here alluded to, there shouldn't be this separation of gospel and social justice. In the book of Acts, there was a complain in the early stages of the church where a certain group (widows if I remember correctly) were complaining that they were being left out somehow. The apostles response? "we must not neglect the word, but we do need to appoint people to help them out" - VERY loose paraphrase since I don't have a Bible in front of me. The leaders of the early church understood the WHOLE gospel.

Regarding Glen Beck: please fellow believers be wary of elevating commentators/politicians to the level of spiritual guides!!!! They ONLY weild worldly power.

@ trierr:

from the POV of many evangelicals, yes.

Ancilla: I am probably in sympathy with the broad strokes of your argument. However, I don't think its helpful to equate one particular political solution (universal health care) as belonging to the social justice side, while those who would oppose such an option as being opposed to social justice. Politics is complicated, and their may be different approaches in different countries and cultures that may extend God's justice into the social realm. I think concern about the cost of universal health care here in the U.S. is a valid expression of stewardship; if Social Security or Medicare end up in bankruptcy because there isn't enough money in the federal government's budget, than you can bet that the disadvantaged are going to suffer disproportionately to the well off. And that's what we all want to avoid.

Melody: I respect your standing up for the generosity of people like at World Vision. I think you make a valid point, in that people who are concerned about a particular political solution should not be labeled "ungenerous" simply because they oppose it. If social justice is seen to be competing with individual charity, as I think it appears to you, than that is certainly a problem with social justice.

However, I am concerned about your arguments regarding "theocracy". Are you suggesting that because we live in a democracy, God's expectation for what the government should do is different? In some ways, I can understand this. It would be improper for the U.S. to take action based upon receiving direct divine guidance from God, such as invading a country or building a temple. But I'm not sure how this would apply to upholding moral standards, individually and socially. Why would God's desire for rulers to look after the disadvantaged be affected by whether a government is explicitly theocratic or not? We can certainly disagree about whether this idea or that idea best helps out the disadvantaged, but I don't think we can avoid the guidelines God has set out for the purpose of government just because the U.S. is not theocratic.

Also, we already spend much of the federal government's money on programs that do exactly what you are saying, using "other people's money" to do what Christian's should be doing in helping the disadvantaged. (I would say using "our money", corporately owned through the government). This represents somewhere around 10-20% of the economy, as a gross estimate. Do you really think churches would step up to the plate and provide the same amount of services were Medicare and Social Security to stop? Even if they did, do you think our current church structures could handle so much money and responsibility well?

The question we are answering right now in the U.S., is not "Should we use taxes to help the disadvantaged", because we already do that. The question is "How can we use our money as a society to best serve and assist the marginalized and poor?". Different political parties may have different answers, but theologically, our mandate, as a society, to help these people is clear and biblical.

Tom, thanks for getting involved with my comments. For the record and because words mean things, I'd like to clarify that here in the U.S. we live in a Representative Republic, not a Democracy. Very few American's know this because our schools are dismal at teaching anything correct about our government (but that's a story for another post). A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). If you are going to make an argument that “...God's expectation for what the government should do...” is the same as what he commanded Israel to do in the Old Testament you will certainly have a lot of enemies. You say, “...I'm not sure how this would apply to upholding moral standards, individually and socially” Or, “... look after the disadvantaged...” Well, out the window goes divorce as we know it; father's who do not support their families will be put to death; sodomy is a death penalty deal; and so it goes. You can't put a Godly spin on caring for the poor (who gets to define that anyway?) without upholding God's laws for marriage and family, the Biblical work ethic, and Godliness to be taught in our schools.
As to the government using “...the guidelines God has set out for the purpose of government...”, many of our founding fathers (the guys who wrote the constitution) used Biblical principles from the beginning. George Washington said, “It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”They made the powers of government as limited as possible because they knew that power corrupts people (who are already sinful to begin with) even when they are legally elected. In fact, they are the only known group of people in history who won a war and gained all the power that goes with it, who then turned around and gave that power back to the people. Pretty remarkable when you think about it.

You ask if I think the church would step up to the plate to replace all the services of Medicare and Social Security and then ask if the church could handle so much responsibility well. Christian people ought to be better at handling power than non-Christians don't you think? It doesn't always work that way, but it should. Interestingly, “the people” didn't come up with the idea of all these social programs, the politicians did. Nothing like a give-away to one's constituents to keep getting re-elected. You claim that “...theologically, our mandate, as a society, to help these people is clear and Biblical.” Can you cite some specific passages of scripture that state such?

Melody,

I do not think that the U.S. should do exactly what God said for Israel to do in the OT. What I mean is that I think we can glean some priniciples from the OT that would still be helpful in how we think about the role of government today. You point out the absurdity of making the moral code exactly the same, and I want to affirm that I have no intention of making the social code the same either.

Morally, the Bible places a high value on marriage, however, we do not follow literally the commandments in the OT about adultery requiring death, to take one example. But certainly as Christians, many of us do work in the government for policies that strengthen marriage in principle. (See the CT politics blog for numerous examples of this.)

To take a social example, consider the OT prohibition on interest. The prohibition literally means that Israelites could not charge interest on loans made to each other (although they could to foreigners). See Leviticus 25:35-38, Deuteronomy 23:19-20. This was designed to protect the rich from using interest to take advantage of the poor. I do not think we should lift this straight out of the OT and prohibit interest today. However, in principle, it means that God cares about whether our financial policies take advantage of the poor in our own context. Therefore, we pass laws to regulate financial institutions so that they will hopefully be prevented from preying on people.

So I'm not sure I see why this would make me quite as many enemies as you say. Perhaps non-Christians will be opposed to it, but they are already opposed to us when we advocate for things like marriage. If I'm going to be hated for following part of the gospel, why not be hated for following all of it?

So in a sense you are right, that to whatever extent I advocate for social justice on biblical principles, I need to advocate for what God's word says about "moral issues". I don't have a problem with that. But I think that standard would apply to you as well, and so if you are passionate about "upholding God's laws for marriage and family, the Biblical work ethic, and Godliness to be taught in our schools", then you need to acknowledge that there is a corresponding need to examine our economic and social life to make sure that we fulfill God's desires there as well.

I do think that many of the principles that went into founding our country were biblical. So it makes sense that we would continue using biblical principles to figure out how to have a just society in the 21st century.

What I meant about churches not being able to handle it is that structurally, there is not the centralization necessary to pull it off. For example, Medicare right now is able to insist on lower rates for its procedures because it is big enough that the health care industry has to take notice. But if it were just a lot of individual churches, than the health care industry would not feel that same pressure, meaning costs would probably go up.

Who (on earth) gets to decide what social justice is? The church does, the same way it tries to figure out what is good for individual moral behavior, through good biblical exegesis and faithful listening to God in the midst of our present context. We might disagree, but then, we might disagree about anything else theologically too. Disagreement doesn't stop us from moving forward in other areas, so why only in the social realm?

Maybe the politicians did come up with the ideas about Social Security and Medicare, but those ideas are accepted and expected by a majority of people today. I don't think you'll find much support for ending those programs.

And finally, verses: Isaiah 1:10 shows an address to the "rulers of Sodom", which is really addressed to Israel. God hates their orthodox sacrifices, and instead tells them to "do good, seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow" (1:17). Of Israel's princes, they are "rebels" and "theives", why? Because they do not "defend the orphan and the widow's cause does not come before them" (1:23) Jeremiah's call to Israel is that God will not punish them if they "do not oppress the alien, the orphan, and the widow" (Jeremiah 7:5) Jeremiah 23 has a warning directly to the king of Judah. "Act with justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor anyone who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the alien, the orphan, and the widow..." Ezekiel 22:6, addresses the princes of Israel, and goes on to complain "the alien among you suffers extortion; the orphan and widow are wronged in you." I don't intend to proof-text; perhaps you will interpret these verses differently than I, but this is why I made the statement that there is a clear and biblical mandate to look after the disadvantaged.

Thanks for the good discussion, your questioning was helpful for me as I thought about how to clarify my own position.

To go a little different route....

It ticks me off that Glenn Beck would be telling people where to go to church. That secular cable news would be putting out litmus tests for church attendance.

Since so many Christians religiously absorb everything Glenn Beck says, I'm sure some of them are going to be criticizing their own pastor, or other neighborhood churches, that deign to say anything about social or economic justice.

I attend an evangelistic church located in an economically poor urban area. We don't focus on justice issues, but in our context we can't avoid talking about them. So Glenn Beck thinks people shouldn't attend my church?

Glenn--don't meddle in church issues. You're not qualified.

Is it possible that the term "social justice" has now been defined by polar opposite groups with polar opposite meanings, including meanings that are a total sheep's skin over a wolf body that believers should come up with their own term and abandon "social justice"? There is nothing sanctified or distinct about this term any more than about the brand names baptist or presbyterian. I think it's time for believers to come up with their own term and abandon "social justice".

I have yet to see a clear, specific definition of what you mean by social justice. How can you discuss/argue about it when you don't know what other folks mean by that term? That failure to be clear is what makes many critics so suspicious. And the ambiguity enables critics like Glenn Beck to stretch the term way beyond what most supporters intend.

"That failure to be clear is what makes many critics so suspicious. And the ambiguity enables critics like Glenn Beck to stretch the term way beyond what most supporters intend."

Agreed. That is why Glenn Beck's (mostly liberal) critics are so up in arms. They are treating his definition of "social justice" as their own. They know this and are milking it for all they got. Even more amazing is that often these are the same people who vilify Conservative Christians for trying to "legislate morality." This little controversy should be shoved in their faces whenever they use that excuse again. If anything Glen Beck has exposed the religious left for what they are: Theocratic.

"If anything Glen Beck has exposed the religious left for what they are: Theocratic."

What?
Religious leftwingers...theocratic?
Really?
I know the Religious Right has been all Theocratic with their dominionist agenda, but the left wing has signed on to that ideology as well?
When did that happen?

Don't worry about Glenn Beck. He is NOT our saviour. Don't worry about the definition of social justice or if someone is going to accuse you of being a Democrat if you give food to the poor. Just go out and do it.

Dan,Is there something wrong with being a Democrat? Wouldn't it bother you more if someone 'accused' you of being a Republican? Why folks might even think you were pro-life or some terrible thing like that! You should be grateful.

Melody; I was using sarcasm or something like that. There is nothing wrong about being a democrat. My point was to point out that believers should not worry about how someone is going to label them if you practice social justice. Unfortunately, too many people here are hung up on Glenn Beck or fear of liberalism or some other kind of "ism." Jesus said that if you do this (feed, cloth, etc) for the least of these, you do it for him. That is ALL he said. Meanwhile, too many people here are trying to define their terms and fuss over politics while someone goes to bed hungry AGAIN. Geez some people got their priorities completely wrong.

And I do see your use of sarcasm too!!!!

Thanks Dan.

No problem Melody!