This is simply a wrong-headed and poorly researched.

The author claims, "many white Christians supported the Civil Rights movement of the early 1960’s…from a distance". What study substantiates this? Where is the data?

Further, "[w]illing to chide their backward Southern brethren, these more urbane Christians ultimately disappointed the movement’s leaders with their lack of action.". How do we document their "chiding" (an author without bias might have chosen a term such as "challenged", "confronted", "educated"...) while simultaneously accusing them of "lack of action".

Since when, in a democratic society, does vocal protect, public outcry and debate become translated into "lack of action"? Does the author suggest that only specific kinds of legal or illegal activities meet some new standard of "action"?

It seems to me that challenging the voice of erratic monomaniacal demagogues is exactly the responsibility of the church as well as informed political and social action demonstrating our values. The church has a "self-esteem" issue on these kinds of optics exactly because many have chosen to not "chide" wrong-headed, unchristian and unjust people, policies and parties in the past - not that we didn't act morally to help and serve, but that we didn't rise to the full level of our place in our society to use our voice to create broader action.

The author concludes, [i]f we believe that social justice is central to God’s character and mission, then it is time for most of us to ignore Glenn Beck. Instead of simply talking about social justice perhaps we can begin taking our identity in Christ very, very seriously...We will be known not by feigned (now the author knows the hearts and motives of his anti-Beck brothers?) outrage or easy labels but by sustained and loving action rooted in our new life in Christ.

This is not only naivety sparked by misinformation and ignorance, it is just plain bad counsel. If the church is to work out its purpose, it will do so on both an individual and corporate level as well as by both personal service and challenging the power structures of our world (and their willful mouthpieces like Beck) in the public arena. Any lesser response will only result in our children looking on this generation of the faithful as weak and failed guardians of a great legacy.

DDavid,
As usual, I think you have some really good points here. True, if we would be busy with the work of love, then we'd have less need to worry about the Becks, et al, of the world.

However - and for one as generally thoughtful as you are I'm sure this is some sort of abysmal curse, and I apologize - methinks you are too easily dismissive of the effects of a silent Church (the dreaded "D" word ;=) ).

Prominent Evangelical leaders have been purposefully creating space for the type of thought espoused by this current crop of right-wing punditry for far too long. And others who knew better decided against clarifying the air.

For too long, good men have been silent and allowed the Christian faithful in America to abdicate responsibility for their fellow man. We have Cained ourselves from the poor, the widows, the orphans, the LBGT, the strangers, the criminalized, the hospitalized. Now a growing number of laymen and pastors are advocating for some cheap version of 'personal responsibility' - meaning that those who are poor and outcasts are that way b/c they're lazy and have no work ethic. It's supportive blaming.

Those of us who are speaking up against the Beckian theocratic view are not doing so lightly. We (or certainly many of us) recognize that evil men do evil things b/c few speak up against it. We need to activate the public, or we will forever be run by the vocal majority who vote against equal rights for those that are different than they.

We need to do the works of love, for sure. No doubt. But that means sometimes speaking truth against hatred that directly affects the poor and outcast. This recent round of violence against those who voted for a comparatively ineffective health care reform bill stands in direct opposition to what you seem to speak.

Respectfully disagreeing. And waiting for the s**tstorm,
Jason

David, in one sense I agree with you, in that we as the church should get busy with doing and not just saying. But as someone who has lived in the evangelical subculture for many years, and who has seen first hand how complicit it is with the "Fox" mentality, we Christians who aren't "outfoxed" need to and must speak up. But we need to speak up first to ourselves. I can't tell you how many of my good Christian friends watch Beck every single day and believe him in just about everything he says. So while we do need to speak out against what Beck (and Dobbs, Rush, Coulter, etc) is saying, we need first of all to speak to each other in order to remind ourselves of what our mission is as Christians. Lastly, I'm not saying that we need to reject right wing populism with left wing populism. That's just exchanging one idol for another. Instead we need to reacquaint ourselves with the Mission of God.

If Glenn Beck is your source of hope, then he IS the enemy. If Barak Obama is your source of hope, then he IS the enemy. If social justice is your source of hope, then social justice is the enemy. If you are concerned about secular public perception you are not spending much time in the Word.

The problem with the social justice movement is that it is not the Biblical gospel. O, sure, there are those who help the poor while also preaching the message of repentance from sin and the salvation that is offered through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. But they are the minority. And the world hates them. Even many in the church hate them. We all love our good works. And we all want to do only those good works that will make us look good in the eyes of the world. Helping those in Hati is a wonderful good work because we can work with non-Christians and they will think well of us. We can even say we are Christians and they can shrug and invite us to Starbucks. But don't mention that you are also involved in saving the lives of the pre-born or helping to preserve the traditional family. Here's the big difference; the un-saved (and even many who claim to be Christians) have no use for any good work that would convict them of their sin nature. Helping the poor (however you define that) doesn't require any repentance from sin, either on the part of the receipient or the giver. Hence, it is very attractive to young people who are weak or rebellious toward Biblical doctrine and moral obedience.

Jesus said, "Not everyone who says to Me, Lord! Lord! shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven.
Many will say to Me in that day, Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name, and through Your name throw out demons, and through Your name do many wonderful works?
And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness!" (Matt. 7:;21-23)

Wholeheartedly disagree in that Beck was calling Social Justice practicing churches Nazis and Communists.

That HAD to be addressed. The fact that he then refused dialogue and upped the attacks, spoke that he was indeed full of an agenda to discredit the Christian faith.

Melody,
you said that "Helping the poor (however you define that) doesn't require any repentance from sin, either on the part of the receipient or the giver."

Hmmm... That would only be true in a system where 'helping' someone doesn't really require self-sacrifice. Where we can continue to allow for substantial greed and selfishness, sure, there is no repentance to 'help' the 'less-fortunate.'

But when you recognize that there are systems in place to hold down others while lifting a few, and to call those systems into question as being sinful (workers of inequity?), then you are calling to repentance those who support that system.

Jason, the social justice crowd never calls the systems into question that "...hold down others while lifting a few". The systems of Africa, Iran, most of South America and many others, are never called into question. Only the U.S. is ever condemned by this group. With all due respect and full recognition of the so-called greed of the west (rich political liberals excepted, of course), the American system of free enterprise government, subject to the rule of law, is the only form of government in the history of mankind that has ever granted individual opportunity to ALL. Even those who have not made the effort to access the opportunities offered to them have still benefited from the diligence of their fellow citizens. Only arrogant, wealthy, greedy, spoiled, tenured university professors and their willing students seem unable to see this. If you really desire to see the 'less fortunate' helped in a significant way, you will seek the overthrow of the repressive governments that control them and allow those people to exercise free enterprise. They will surprise you with their ability to help themselves.

So your main point is don't be offended by those calling you out as part of a social justice movement when in reality you have little or no involvement in trying to bring about what you classify as social justice.
Seems fair enough.

So, this is getting off topic, Melody. But I have to ask where this assumption comes from that those interested in social justice only ever attack non-liberal rich people in the US and are not interested in the lives and broken systems of the emerging world? Because I have never seen nor heard any evidence to the contrary.

In fact, I've never heard that argument before.

"The church has a significant image problem"
3 Reasons the church has a bad image:
1. Jesus said those who follow Him will be hated. There is no solution to this. It's a problem Jesus is prepared to live with and we should also.
2. Believers are not doing what it takes for the world to like them. Many think believers should expand their like-ability by giving up on allegedly "old" thinking that says homosexuality is perverted, pro-choice is murder, and folks who have more money should not be forced to turn in their money to the government to redistribute. The world would like the church if these things were "fixed" in the church.
3. The evangelical church is dominated by a system of church that forces it to devote 75 - 86% of it's "giving" to buy stuff for the givers - otherwise known as pooling. The church now has very little left to serve the poor and send the gospel to all nations. The world sees this self-service. The twisted scripture used to justify this pooling is widely accepted and rarely challenge even by change agents who cry "the church is corrupt" but never address the systemic problems. The change agents want to get paid out of the offering plate too.

In my opinion, working on option 3 is the only valid way to address whatever image problem the church has. Option 1 is okay with God, option 2 is compromise with the devil based on shallow or non-existent faith.

"Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Believers hearts cannot leave their brick "sanctuaries" until they give up their institutionalized system for organic church where 100% of giving goes beyond the givers. It's all in the Word for anyone to read in plain English.

Melody,

You fail to mention that the same teaching you cite also speaks of those who DO the deeds of justice will be rewarded by Jesus...even when they didn't realize they were serving Jesus.

Just say'n...

"The American system of free enterprise government, subject to the rule of law, is the only form of government in the history of mankind that has ever granted individual opportunity to ALL."

Do what? Prove this statement. Show me how an American has more individual opportunity than someone in Canada, just to pick a country.

Part of the issue with American Christians is our placing of country before God, of making patriotism part of the gospel. I won't worship in a church where there's an American flag up front -- it reminds me too much of swastikas at the front of German churches.

Just for the record Glenn is a Mormon.

Jjoe, Canada is a lovely country filled with lovely people. They exist in relative freedom because they are protected by the U.S. simply because of their proximity to us. If you are unaware of the social and political upheaval in that country, you are on your own to figure it out. And your self-righteousness comparing the American flag to swastikas is disgusting. You haven't got a clue about history and don't seem to want one.

To clarify, I didn't mean that we should never speak out against those with whom we disagree, particularly as statements are made concerning the mission of the church. However, it seems that many of us very often rely on easy labels or quick outrage to prove our opposition rather than continue to Gospel-motivated good works we've (theoretically) been doing all along.

My hunch is that many- not all!- of us who look for these easy labels ("social justice Christian" for example) do so out of a desire to clean up our tarnished public image or from a crisis of identity. Neither, I assume, is enough to sustain a life of social justice.

Dave - For the record, your comment is helpful and welcome. But it's not really a clarification - since nothing in the article itself could lead a reader to the conclusions you add in the comment. Thus, it's a correction - not that it's any less welcome for being so. ;-) Jeff.

If we want to use these comments to nitpick, Jeff, then I need to point out that the article could lead a reader to the conclusions in Jeff's comment, given the right point of view when reading the piece. I hope this has been a learning experience for you. :)

Good thoughts about the cheapness of words. Words are so very easy!

Melody, I still disagree with you about "social justice" not being an expression of the gospel, but we've had that discussion in another post. Further discussion here may not be that helpful.

I feel like you know an awful lot about the motives of Christians who pursue social justice. I'm not sure I understand how you can be so confident that ALL people who pursue social justice do so out of a desire to avoid "unpopularity" in the world. Can you envision a place in the world where advocating for Christian social justice would actually make you less popular? For example, when working in a corrupt corporation (there are at least a few!) that takes advantage of people, feeling that one needs to speak up about the injustice at the risk of your job? Wouldn't that be a costly example of pursuing social justice? (A logical extension of this experience would be seeking to change things not just at the organizational level, but also at the political level.) Couldn't their motives be good ones in at least SOME cases? And if so, then doesn't that suggest that it is not a matter of rejecting "social justice", but simply using good discernment?

Furthermore, in some conservative parts of the country, it may actually be easier not to talk about social justice. In other words, don't you think that in some contexts, in some groups, and with some people, it might actually be easier to be opposed to social justice than to be for it? Does that invalidate the opinion of those that opposed "social justice", simply because those around also oppose it? What keeps me from accusing you of simply opposing social justice because you don't want to be unpopular with all of the people whose opinions you care about?

In other words, it isn't enough simply to show that a given position is more popular with the "world", meaning non-Christians. You also have to show that is actually un-biblical, something which I don't think you can actually do. I said it before in the last post, and I'll say it again. You and I might disagree about what "social justice" looks like based upon our reading of the Bible, but I am firmly convinced that multiple passages support the idea of social justice. We have an obligation as Christians to care for "the least of these" through our individual and corporate efforts, "corporate" meaning through our actions in our churches, society, and government.

It is not a matter of scoring political points for either party, it is a matter of providing the measure by which political proposals are judged. Republicans may argue that one policy best helps out the marginalized and poor, and Democrats may argue that another one does. You and I are free to argue at the political level about the effectiveness of these proposals. But theologically, I believe following after Christ will lead us in joining into his mission in "preaching good news to the poor" and in "releasing the oppressed". These are not optional, on my read, and therefore neither is social justice.

David,

Thanks for the clarification. I still have some reluctance with your article, although I agree with the premise. We should be *doing* rather than *talking/arguing/struttin' our stuff*.

However... :^P The Civil Rights movement was a long process. But not everybody joined on board for the majority of the time. Even at its height, the movement was disregarded as dangerous or unsuitable (or grandstanding) even by many whom would have benefited the most. Ethnic, racial and geographical separation made those who supported the work in principal not really give full support.

But at the strategic times, leadership mobilized the masses with extraordinary discipline.

We're still stuck in the infighting game here. And I can see why. We've allowed other, unbiblical, ungodly, unloving voices to carry the 'Christian' torch for the last thirty + years. For the entire span of my life, these 'leaders' have been telling us Evangelical Christians that if we want to help the poor, that's okay and nice and stuff, but it doesn't have much to do with the Gospel - the good news of Jesus which Jesus himself said he would deliver *specifically* to the poor.

That, to me, is devastating. And then to see so many of my brothers and sisters fight AGAINST giving poor people adequate medical attention...

To see this perverted idolatry of American Exceptionalism paraded around all over churches (and here in the comments) in the name of godly duty...

To see American Evangelicals flocking like lemmings to this blatantly unbiblical anarcho-capitalism...

Nah... I just can't be silent.

For what it's worth, Glenn Beck is the enemy. I have no problem saying that for several reasons. 1) He sets himself up as the antagonist; 2) He makes millions upon millions of dollars by lying about and to people; 3) He uses his platform to mock those who are different than him - including poor, black, those who work but barely make ends meet; 4) Calling him 'enemy' reminds me that I have to love him... (which, I'm sure you've figured out by now, I REALLY don't wanna do).
...
This went on longer than I expected... sorry... ;)

Christians have a PR problem???
Real data from the book "Who Really Cares" by Arthur C. Brooks

1. "Religous people--who, per family, earned exactly the same amount as secular people, $49,000--gave about 3.5 time more the money per year. They also volunteered more than twice as often." p. 34

2. "Imagine two people: One goes to church every week and strongly rejects the idea that it is the government's responsibility to redistribute income between people who have a lot of money and people who don't. The other person never attends a house of worship, and strongly believes that the government should reduce income differences. Knowing only these things, the data tell us that the first person will be roughly twice as likely as the second to give money to charities in a given year, and will give away more than one hundred times as much money per year (as well as fifty times more to explicitly nonreligous causes)." p. 10

The only PR problem religous people have is that the secular left has painted us falsely as greedy, tight-fisted puritans.

Well, anything I say at this point will be fairly redundant in that I agree with those who acknowledge that we do indeed need to respond to Glenn Beck and the like in order that people are given the opportunity to recognize what he is up to.
AND it is also true that there is a lot more room for people to actually take action instead of just spouting creeds and prayers, listening to sermons and attending coffee hour every now and then without actually following through on stated beliefs.

Jason Dye - I am totally with you there re: yes, the need for us who say we live these things to actually DO it - yep, loving our enemies. Hard as it may be. That's why I think that it's something to turn over to God as on my own it probably won't happen. At least not readily.

And Melody - I don't find Jjoe's comparison to be disgusting. My experience as a pastor has been that many people pledge & live out their allegiance to the flag far more readily than they do for the One whom they profess is Lord and Savior. And it is very much an echo of those who followed Hitler in his actions against anyone he deemed unfit to live. Much of the Church stood by and watched it happen while there were those who sacrificed themselves to stop him. And he did it behind the veil he called Chrisianity in the act of state sponsored terror.

David,

It seems like you're getting shot from both sides here so let me say I wholeheartedly agree with you. Social Justice problems will not be solved by denouncing Glenn Beck. The Church's PR problem will not be solved by denouncing Glenn Beck. The gospel ( and I mean BIG gospel) will not be spread by denouncing Glenn Beck. The truth is, the church's job is not to watch 24/7 cable programming or listen to talk radio to find what we dislike and then distance ourselves from it. It is to bring healing and hope to a very broken world. For so long the Church has been defined by what it is against instead of what it is for. And now as it appears the political pendulum is swinging again, those on the opposite side are doing the exact same thing. Denouncing his comments doesn't tell the world "I'm for social justice," it says "I'm against Glenn Beck." Why can't we let our actions speak instead of our words. If we really become the Church we are meant to be, both Glenn Beck and Keith Olberman will look foolish in light of the new reality that comes from the redemptive nature of the gospel. Our lifestyle, not our words, will be our apologetic. Thanks for a good article David, and keep up the good work.

While I watch Glenn with reservation, I have yet to hear anything he has said that is false. Though many folks complain, they somehow never manage to find anything wrong in what he says. This attack by the social justice crowd is just patently unfair. Let's be honest. Social justice MEANS taking from the productive and giving to the non-productive. It does NOT mean love or charity or compassion. The primary focus of social justice is to punish those who work and reward those whom society has traditionally viewed as "disadvantaged," without regard to Christ's admonition that the poor will always be with us. Poor of spirit and poor of penny. As previously stated by others, Americans and primarily CONSERVATIVES are the most generous, loving people on the earth. We give plenty. The problem is the lust for power and control over people's lives. That's what the social justice crowd lusts for. And THAT isn't biblical at all. It's drinking the koolaid.

I would like to say Christian men wrote the Bill Of Rights and the Constition for a Christian Nation. The LIBERALS HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DISASSEMBLE THEM FOR 175 YEARS all the way back to John Quincy Adams.

Uhhh, folks, Glenn Beck cannot speak for Christians for one simple reason: he's a Mormon...

Bob,
If you read the book "Myth of a Christian Nation" by Gregory Boyd, you will find that President Adams is quoted as saying 'this was not founded as a 'Christian Nation'. You will also find that the United States of America has never been a 'Christian Nation'. It's been a nation with Christian's in it but not a 'Christian Nation'. Boyd explain explains Biblically why this is true. It's a good read.

Where in Bible you found "social justice"???
You can find mercy, love, compasion...personal responsability but social justice?? Jesus never ask the "government" to do something for people, he did it himself and ask His disciples to do...but NEVER the government, yes the Church ... so, why is wrong to "run" from a Church that is looking for social justice and not for doing all the thinks we were told to do...

Your article didn't convince me that is something more than a political view and has nothing to do with Bible...
Another thing, since when the Church's concern is how is perceived by the "world"?

Where does the Bible speak of social justice? (We as Christians are called to care for the orpahns and widows.) Jesus' mission here on earth was redemption, NOT social justice. It's putting the cart before the horse to place greater importance on the latter. Only Christ can change man's heart and until HE does, we're treating the symptoms, not the illness.

Taxes of undocumented workers??? I don't think so.

I largely agree with Mr. Beck on this issue.

The term 'social justice' is a loaded one and goes well beyond the Gospel in our society. The Bible clearly calls us to care and demonstrate concern for those in need. Sadly the term 'social justice' encompasses not only this, but also the notion of retribution against those NOT in need.

The noun 'justice' sets up an adversarial dualism that is not present in Biblical calls, it involves bringing down or punishing those who are somehow seen as responsible for the lot of the downtrodden. The Bible does not blame the rich or well-off for the lot of those at the bottom. It only talks of offering a helping hand to them, not of demonizing or critcizing others. It does not comprehend forced taking from some to give to others as means to 'justice'. Yet 'Social Justice' as used in our society often encompasses all of these things.

By all means, our churches should be exercising 'social concern' and charitable action, but when it begins asking for economic 'justice' it treads places that go beyond the Bible.

Melody, read Matthew 25. It shows what true repentance and faith really look like. I'm not disputing that we are sinners in need of repentance, but practical works of compassion and help toward others (social justice) done out of love for Christ is what true repentance and faith look like. If it ain't happening in our lives, we can do our Christian subcultural equivalent of tearing our robes, beating on our breasts, and throwing ashes on our heads, making long public prayers on street corners; we can talk up the importance of "repentance" and our "debt" to a "Holy God" and all that, but it will be the hypocritical repentance of the Pharisee without acts of mercy backing it up.

That said, it is quite possible to do acts of mercy without the heart of Christ, out of guilt or a need for approval from others, out of pride and a variety of impure motives, even as Christians. If this is what you're getting at, I appreciate that concern.

Dave, I can really relate to what you say here, but I have also read (sorry, can't remember the sources) that local Christian churches are the social justice backbone of this nation and provide more, and more effective, social services than any other agency (gov't or private). That, I believe, was a study published in a book a few years ago. Secondly, I recently heard that conservative Christians are far more generous and give much more sacrificially to charity than secular liberals (who tend to be perceived to be the loudest public advocates for social justice). This was a recent broadcast statistic I heard on a WMBI commentary.

I do believe that many of us do exactly what you talk about in this post (cover up our angst over our identity and public image by noisy dissociation from embarrassing public figures perceived as in our group), but I also believe it is highly likely that as a population subculture, at least comparatively with many others, conservative Christians are much more engaged in social justice through personal sacrifice of some sort than the average citizen (and that is as it should be).

why do you spell GOD as G_d on this website?

Sheerahkahn,
Maybe I should have qualified: Glenn Beck is *an* enemy.

I don't mean that to say that I hate him (although it's hard for me not to. Perusing these misguided and misaligned comments and it's hard for me not to have that bitterness towards that Minister of Hate.), but in the context of Jesus' statement that we are to, "Love your enemies."

Which, to me at least, means that we can/should acknowledge that there are forces, people outside of our MAIN antagonist Satan, who come to steal and kill and destroy. Gang-bangers, rapists, child molesters, hateful talk show hosts (not that I'm trying to say that they're all on the same level) - they're all destructive, they are enemies. And they are all in need of much love. And grace.

But that's not to say that we shouldn't counter their evil actions.

Cleo asks, "Why do you spell GOD as G_d on this website?"

The author of this article does not spell "God" in this manner as seen in this statement: "Our churches admire those who have made significant sacrifices in pursuit of God’s justice..."
However, some who comment here choose to omit the "o" in God out of respect and reverence for His name. However, there is no prohibition in Jewish law from writing "God" in any language other than Hebrew. God's name is treated with unusual care in Jewish tradition. The divine name, YHWH (spelled with the Hebrew letters yud, hey, vav, hey) is never pronounced.

it's not any more wrong to publicly and noisily distance oneself from Beck than it is to publicly and noisily distance oneself from the crazy comments of other "voices" on the national stage that people fairly or unfairly associate with the Church.

It's just called being smart and it's called doing whatever I can to not have any more obstacles in the way of my reaching my friends and neighbors who believe that Beck and others like him are representative of my world view.

What's silly and immature is telling people they shouldn't be concerned.

Why is it that when media hounds like Bill Maher and Dan Brown produce works that mock and portray Christians poorly they are embraced by Christian leaders as opportunities to talk about Christ.
Some Churches will even run a series to coincide with the release with one of their books or movies to capitalize on the buzz.
Wouldn't the same approach work with Beck? Maybe instead of demonizing him and his viewers you might try engaging in a real conversation on thing like what social justice means to you. Who knows you my even learn a thing or two along the way.

1.) "WHERE in the world does any Bible-reading Christian find an example of Jesus helping the needy by going through the government?!?!"

First, Jesus calls me to be his disciple in every area of my life. Therefore, I can not stop being a Christian when I vote. I support helping the "needy" when I do individual acts of mercy, and I support helping the needy through appropriate government intervention. We are in a different political situation than Jesus was in, therefore, I do not expect to find exact instructions on how our government should work in Jesus' teaching.

However, the example of Nehemiah can be a helpful one. Nehemiah knew that the people in the city of Jerusalem were vulnerable in that they didn't have any city walls. So Nehemiah prays that God would move the heart of the Persian king and send him as an overseer to Jerusalem, with money to rebuild the walls. God so moved in the heart of the king, and Nehemiah gets to rebuild the walls. So, what we have is God's servant (Nehemiah) using government money (not his own, and certainly money that others did not want spent on rebuilding the walls) to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, in order to protect the vulnerable.

This story does not give us a blank check in using government funds or fixing everything through the government, but it does suggest that God can sometimes move through government channels to protect and provide for the vulnerable or marginalized.

2.) "Social justice MEANS taking from the productive and giving to the non-productive."

No. It doesn't. It's actually even harder than that. In David Gushee's words...

"...social injustice consists of misuses of power to create distortions of human community in which greed, domination, violence, and exclusion come to dominate human life. Social justice consists of human acts to resist social injustice by repairing such distortions of human community."

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-david-p-gushee/glenn-beck-vs-god-the-bib_b_497784.html)

So it is not simply turning the government into a Robin Hood, but trying to repair the results of our own greed and sinfulness at the social level. The "justice" part is real. If there is no injustice in a specific example of poverty, than social justice should not address it.

That said, a primary point of disagreement between conservatives and progressives is the level of injustice that is actually present in our society. But this disagreement does not mean that social justice is a bad concept, simply that many conservatives think that things are already basically just, while many progressives would question that idea.

3.) "As previously stated by others, Americans and primarily CONSERVATIVES are the most generous, loving people on the earth."

Being generous on an individual and social level is a great thing. "Conservatives" have a strength here that should challenge everyone to be more generous. But when we talk about social justice, it is a different area of virtue. We are not talking about the virtue of individuals, but the virtue of our corporate and political practices. In what ways are our systems and policies and organizations and corporations both righteous and sinful? That is the starting point for social justice.

4.) "but when it begins asking for economic 'justice' it treads places that go beyond the Bible."

As I have pointed out in previous posts, there are several places where the OT prophets call out Israelite kings for not using their position in government to make sure that the "orphan and widow" are protected. Since sovereignty now resides with us, the people, we should now here those words ourselves. Therefore, social justice, in that respect, seems to me to be very much within the bounds of the Bible.

Conservative Christians must surely agree with Beck about 'social justice.' Since conservative Christians are much more in tune with Biblical Christianity than are liberal Christians who focus on 'social justice,' I conclude that 'social justice' has no place in genuinely Biblical Christianity. "Social justice" is an invention of the political Left and has no place within Christianity, rightly understood. Today's sincere Christians should see in Beck's criticisms something to ponder carefully.

We should never take polls of non-Christians about Christians seriously. I have spent many years in polling and know for a fact that people lie. No non-Christian is going to say that they don't like the church because they love getting drunk, taking drugs and having sex with every woman they meet. But that would be closer to the truth.

For the full truth as to why non-Christians hate the Church, we need to read the Bible: they hate us because they first hated him.

Wrong, fundamentalist.

Before I was a Christian, I didn't like Christians because I had been emotionally abused by them. The cruelest people I have known in my life have called themselves Christian. Hypocrites who acted worse yet thought they were better. Beat their wives and children on Saturday, go to church on Sunday.

To say that my motivation for not liking Christians was instead that I liked to get drunk and sleep around is insulting to the point that I can't believe a Christian would say it.

Your comments are a good example of why non-Christians, at least in my case, hate the church. I know quite a few people who love Jesus, but hate the church, simply because they don't want to be in fellowship with folks like you.

And to the point of this entire thread: Yes, Glenn Beck is the enemy. Not Satan, but in league with him to increase the wickedness of this nation. We worship mammon, not God.

If the author indeed researched Biblical Social Justice, he'd come to realize that Glen Beck is not the enemy, but anyone who espouses Karl Marx ideology just may be. He may be a Mormon, but sooo...his beliefs are more in-line with Christianity than some of the beliefs of non-thinking, espousing Christians.

Social justice is not the central part of Christianity. Proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ and living in obedience to Him are the key. When Christians fail to do them, they get distracted. Social justice should be a natural outflow of living for Christ. By the way, let us not worry about the "poor image" of the churches. Let us focus on what the churches should be doing. Ironically, if churches and Christ-followers live according to the Bible, we will be unpopular. Just look at the church history in the past 2000 years!

David Swanson,

I am very upset, David. I do not mean to come across as rude or hateful but someone needs to teach you the difference between "Social Justice" and "Charity".

One way that you might learn the differences between the two would be to watch more of Glenn Beck than the video clips and sound bytes that are posted on Digg and the Huffington Post. Also, if you would just watch a fraction of ONE of his shows, you just might notice the "FAITH, HOPE, CHARITY" posters that are on his set every. single. day.

If I am totally wrong and you do in fact understand the differences between "Social Justice" and "Charity" (Coercion vs. "giving according to your heart"), and yet you still believe that Coercion is a Biblical concept, then this entire comment that I am leaving is likely a waste of time.

The very idea of "Social Justice" implies that you are an advocate of using the Government to intervene in the lives of others in order to take what is theirs and to disperse it accordingly to its own so-called convictions. This is called theft, and it is a basic form of slavery. If you disagree then I suggest that you take some time and really think about it long and hard. If you cannot connect these dots then you should not be teaching anything, especially Scripture.

Please tell me, when did you decide that it is the government who "taketh and giveth away"? Is it not the Church who is responsible for the benevolent? Is it not the Church who offers a sanctuary to the weak and weary? Is it not the Church that offers the necessities to a healthy spiritual, and ultimately physical, emotional, and financially stable lifestyle? Are these not our Father's promises to His adopted Sons and Daughters?

It blows my mind to think that a pastor of a Church looks straight past the Bride, fixes his gaze on the Government, and demands that it answers the needs of the people.

Un... be... leivable.

Some Thomas Jefferson quotes:

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

"Most bad government has grown out of too much government."

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

"I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

Jeff & MVT seem to have mistaken Dave for Obama! It seems to me they have also largely missed his point. Social justice in the context he is talking about has to do with individual Christians being willing to put their money and activities where their mouths are by actively pursuing charitable causes. Sometimes that has to do with resisting, protesting and trying to change gov't practices and policies that are unjust (such as discrimination on the basis of race). Other times it means sacrificing out of love for Christ by moving from a wealthy suburb into a less wealthy one and getting involved in urban ministry like Dave and his family have in order to show Christ's love through greater solidarity with the poor and underserved peoples of this country. Just to set the record straight . . . . because I'm seeing a lot more heat than light in response to Dave's post.

Well, since we're into quoting today, just thought that this section might come in handy:

A true revolution in values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called upon to play the good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

A true revolution in values will soon look at the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the sea and see individual capitalists of the west investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for social betterment of the countries and say: "This is not just."

It will look at our alliance with the local gentry of Latin America and say: "This is not just."

The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

A true revolution in values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: "This is not just."

The business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love.

A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

also, thanks Karen.
also.

Obviously, this is beyond your ken sheer, because taxes were extremely low in Jefferson's day compared to now. You're probably not aware that there was NO income tax until 1862, which was used then for the Civil War, and then it was eliminated in 1872. It was revived in 1894, and then declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court the following year. It was finally restarted permanently in 1913. My dad was born in 1923, so it's hard to believe, that until not that long ago, there was not even a federal income tax.

So, I'm glad you like those quotes from Jefferson, but he was probably talking about a quarter of one percent tax, not the huge taxes we have today. And yes, I would like to go back to much less federal government and to people keeping their own earnings. You are not entitled to my earnings, nor is anyone else. YOU did read his other quotes, didn't you?? You obviously missed the point of them. You proved there is a difference between reading and understanding.

Jason Dye:

A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

What about a nation that spends more and more then it earns forcing it to borrow more and more to the point it has reached the point like no other time in western civilization to borrow more.(Alan Greenspan)

That nation is approaching financial death which will bring down all well intended programs of social up lift.

The correct quote

"our buffer between our capacity to borrow and our actual debt is narrowing, for the first time, I think in the American history, there's a question, suppose we are wrong on the cost estimates, and, indeed they are actually much higher then the best estimates can generate, the consequences are very severe"

Alan Greenspan 4-4-2010

"...personal insecurities about our Christian identity..."

David, your words above remind me of this modified fable.

A man found a goose egg and put it in the nest of a backyard hen. The goose grew up with the brood of chicks.

All her life the goose did what the backyard chickens did, thinking she was a backyard chicken. Once in a while, she would thrash her wings and fly a few feet into the air.

Years passed and the goose grew very old. One day, she saw far above her in the cloudless sky, magnificent geese flying along in amazing "V" formation.

The old goose looked up in awe. "What's that?" she asked.

"Those are geese - they belong to the sky," said her neighbor. "We belong to the earth - we're chickens."

Pity the old goose. She missed a lifetime of relishing the real essence of community that the "V" formation exhibits – how it creates an aerodynamic uplift for each other as they flap their wings while traveling in common direction on the thrust of one another.

Pity the old goose. She missed such rare opportunities of seeing one of her own gets sick or is wounded by a gunshot, and falls out of formation; yet at one fell swoop, two other geese fall out and follow her down to lend help and protection.

Pity the old goose. She missed such poignant moments of watching how the two would stay with the sick or fallen goose, until she is able to fly or until she died; only after which they then catch up with the group to fly the thousands-of-miles journey home.

Pity the old goose, to the bitter end, she lived and died a chicken, for that's what she thought she was.

Has the Christian church, supposed to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth, chickened out and cooked instead her goose, in striving to fulfill her soar-in-the-sky mandate, as manifested by her failure, after 2,000 years, to establish a just and compassionate society in a now teetering-on-the-edge world?

Dan Vdm,

Thanks for countering. But I'm not sure what your point is... We could decide to go on for years and years just churning numbers and giving quotes. But what do King's quotes above have to do with the deficit? What doth social justice have to do with the deficit? What doth any of these comments above have to do with the deficit?

I can assure you that the deficit is NOT the result of looking for the good of the disadvantaged. That is has as its roots the costs of unnecessary war spending and cheap tax breaks.

But that's besides the point. Because, honestly, we've gotten off point.

My friend and former pastor David brought up much to talk about. Perhaps we can keep it on those points? If you want to talk about the deficit, write a blog.

I'm just saying I'm not sure what your point is, Dan. Still not sure.

Jerry, well I think I understand Jerry's point. It's sad and scary, but he has his point. But you never really made a connection from the thread here to your point.

Jason

To some the "edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring" could refer to the government and yes its over consumption of borrowing. This is an honest concern and it could have a huge impact on our governments ability to fund social programs. I could make the case from the perspective of our State government where we aren't funding a war or the recipients of huge tax cuts and although I am not sure it matters our State government isn't run by the Republicans. I can understand if this isn't where your interest is but would welcome the opportunity to make my case.
I am sure we have a similar heart it is just we approach the solution from different perspectives.

It is a tragedy Jesus of Nazareth did not have the knowledge and wisdom of 21st century Americans. If he did, he would not have appeared after the resurrection to a rag tag band of disciples (weird how they changed the world with his message through the Holy Spirit). If Christ had the acumen of our bloggers, he world have first appeared to Pilate and dragged him by the ear to Caesar. Rome was an effective and efficient state. If Christ’s immediate concern was the implementation of social justice by the point of the sword, then Rome was the perfect instrument.

Today, we argue for social justice – “God’s will” - health care, aid to the poor, free college, and whatever to be done through a third party - government force. The question I struggle with is - have I fulfilled my obligations as a Christian, freely assumed by my conversion, of giving what is required to the church? I would suggest before using the sword of government to take from those of other faiths and non faiths who may not share our freely assumed obligations that we should first examine our own lives. Have I fed the poor, visited the sick, and those in prisons?

It is interesting that studies have shown middle class families of the World War II generation are much more likely to tithe for their church attending history than subsequent generations. I wonder what miracles God could do through our churches if we 20 to 50 year olds showed up Sunday with half a tithe. Reckon that might improve the image of the church.

Everyone in the United States should go out and get as many credit cards as they can get their hands on. Then on one single day - we'll all go out and buy lottery tickets - using up all of the credit on each credit card we've got. Then at the end of the day - all of the evil credit card companies will be out of business - all of the citizens will have the same huge debt - and the government lottery will be rich enough to take care of us all equally. We will truly have social justice for all.

Sounds like a really great idea, right?