“News programs? Are you serious? What true, non-biased news do they do? Their complete satire and that’s what their supposed to be. As far as their delivery of the “news” – they’re just like all the other news outlets. (and no – that’s not a compliment).

I couldn’t agree MORE with Glenn Beck. Social justice and economic justice coming from, supported by and given by the government is never a good thing and we SHOULD run like hell in the opposite direction.

What Beck says (I know because I listen to him often and watch him daily – because he shares my views) – once you’ve listened to the whole context of any of his “rants” – is that when you’re talking about social and economical justice in the way the government *pushes* it (through FORCED charity, redistribution of wealth, etc.) – it’s a very dangerous situation. When you’re dealing with social justice and economic justice in a GODLY sense – through the way of CHRIST – It will bring blessings and prosperity every time AND it will actually enrich the lives of those who are involved.

Even Jesus himself warned against the political leaders at that time (you know that). You know exactly the harsh words he had for all of them. With that in mind – do you really believe that Christ would support ANY social and economical justice today that was being controlled by and through the government? As far as the churches go – there are indeed (sadly, tragically) churches who support government programs of social/economical justice in every way because they’re convinced that it’s a Godly thing when in fact the tactics have nothing to do with God but with control. That’s the point Beck makes. Of course, for the liberal media to explain him in context would be the day the space time continuum would be irreversibly disrupted.

Sorry, if I’m coming off defensive or testy – it’s been a frustrating day filled with me dealing with a few individuals who continually take things out of context and refusing to listen to the whole story. You know (I hope) that I don’t mean to put you in that same category. This post of yours just came at a bad time for me. I’m sorry for sounding like an annoying broken record – er – CD.:-)

Bravo!!!! I agree with you sooooo much Julie!

I’m sorry but I had to add something to my previous remarks – I think that John Stewart and Steven Colbert make a mockery of ordinary Americans and for that reason as well as others, I believe they are the worst Programs on Television. I watch Glen Beck on a regular basis also and I am so tired of people who make judgements that are based on what other people’s opinons are. I don’t mean to be harsh either but be careful – this is a very very touchy subject. The idea that anyone who watches Glen Beck is either stupid or a fear monger needs to watch the show. Pick up a history book. Our great Country was built on faith and belief that we have a right to choose – a right to freedom but that it is given by God and God alone.

“Pick up a history book.”

Just be careful of what history books you pick up. LOL! Sadly, many have changed a lot of history. I’ve learned that the hard way myself. Read original documents. Or as close to them as you can find.

I agree with you both totally. When more taxes are placed on people, there is less money to create jobs and give to churches and charity.

@Julie – I disagree. I think Jesus would support using the government to help the poorest members of our society. Throughout his ministry Jesus made it perfectly clear that we are obligated to help the poor. The parable of Lazarus illustrates this principle fairly well.

I can agree that it is better that people give willingly instead of being forced to give, but forcing people to help the poor (via taxes) is certainly better than allowing the poor to starve to death (or to die due to a lack of proper medical care).

Also, Jesus’ harshest words weren’t directed at political leaders, like Herod or the Romans. His harshest words were directed at the hypocritical religious leaders. As far as politics goes, he told people to pay their taxes, even though those taxes were going to an oppressive government.

Finally, the Old Testament Law required the Israelites to provide food for the poor, prohibited them from charging interest to the poor, and required them to redistribute the wealth every 50 years.

If Jesus had argued that social justice was a bad thing, he would have been going against much of what the law and the prophets had been teaching for centuries.

“Also, Jesus’ harshest words weren’t directed at political leaders, like Herod or the Romans. His harshest words were directed at the hypocritical religious leaders.”

True – basically that’s who I was talking about. The Jewish leaders were not only the religious leaders but (from my view) very political as well.

“I can agree that it is better that people give willingly instead of being forced to give, but forcing people to help the poor (via taxes) is certainly better than allowing the poor to starve to death (or to die due to a lack of proper medical care).”

So God giving us a free will means nothing? Because you can’t give freedom of choice and force people to make the choice you want at the same time. You can have one or the other – not both. It doesn’t work that way. If freedom of choice was not something that God valued (and *values*) then:
Number one – He would not have given it to us.
Number two – He would force himself on everyone to accept his son as their Saviour therefore making the mission of saving souls irrelevant. (among other points that I won’t bother naming)

God is a perfect gentleman. If *anyone* could get away with forcing anyone to do anything – it would be God because his way of forcing would be perfect. However – being forced is contradicting to freedom (but then again, I don’t want to be repetitious from my above paragraph) – which is why God doesn’t force. The government – being imperfect (apart of human nature), being crooked (both parties), accepting bribes (both parties), so on and so on….yeah, sorry – with all due respect – but I don’t trust the government being the one in control of yet MORE forceful actions they already have in our lives.

Not to mention – all counties who have had governments forcing their people to do and give anything (these countries have been drenched in socialism and communism) – they have all had their citizens dying left and right from starvation and/or lack of medical attention. (the former USSR, China, etc….). I really don’t want to give up our Republic for that.:-)

Right on Julie.

“I agree with you both totally. When more taxes are placed on people, there is less money to create jobs and give to churches and charity.”

Except that Government spending also creates jobs and Government support networks (like welfare) are better organized and more comprehensive than churches and charities (especially when churches of rival denominations refuse to cooperate).

Besides, God’s people should find it in their hearts to be generous whether their take home pay is a lot or a little.

“So God giving us a free will means nothing?”

I value our freedom to choose, but I do not believe that that freedom trumps all other considerations. Governments have the God-given right to impose order and justice by punishing lawbreakers and collecting taxes.

One of the themes that ties all of scripture together is that God judges societies based on how they treat the poor. Considering that, it seems reasonable that the government should make sure that the poor are able to get by and aren’t being exploited.

“Not to mention – all countries who have had governments forcing their people to do and give anything…”

I agree that a purely communist/socialist system fails to take care of the poor. However, there are plenty of countries (Canada, the UK, Sweden) that are more progressive than the U.S. that are able to take care of the poor without ruining their economy or giving up their freedom.

There is a middle way. We can have more social justice in this country without becoming like China or Soviet Russia.

“Except that Government spending also creates jobs….”

Not always. This “stimulus” package and tarp (I believe it was called) under Bush both saw unemployment rise (and continues).

“and Government support networks (like welfare) are better organized”

If by better organized you mean that welfare is in debt, as is social security, medicare, medicaid – “cash for clunckers didn’t last 6 mouths before going “belly up”….

“Besides, God’s people should find it in their hearts to be generous whether their take home pay is a lot or a little.”

Absolutely. However, if it’s not God coming in and doing the changing then no change of heart has taken place at all. Not to mention unless God is telling you to spend a certain amount of money, I garauntee you that my contribution – at least – will not be able to be what it would have been if I *had* the bigger paycheck to work with.

“Governments have the God-given right to impose order and justice by punishing lawbreakers and collecting taxes.”

I don’t think I believe that. It’s true that governments have the right to “impose order” – so to speak – if someone breaks the law. For example, if someone murders or steals then yes, the law needs to be enforced. However, look at other countries where it is against the law to preach the gospel of Christ. Does the government then have a “God given right to impose prison on them or even execution? Just because something is a law does not always give any government a “God given right” to enforce such law(s).

The above example is one for your previous statement when Jesus said “Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s (sp)….”. We do need to abide by the law, yes – but not when that law requires us to be ungodly and break the commandments of God (ie: preaching His gospel). I’m not encouraging all to “go rogue” (and obviously, what some view as “ungodly” are very well different than the view of others). At the end of the day though, the Kingdom of God must come first. Obviously.

“Considering that, it seems reasonable that the government should make sure that the poor are able to get by and aren’t being exploited.”

In that case, our government and (pretty much) all others in the world will have a harsh judgement with God. LOL! Mostly because they themselves are the ones doing the exploiting, stealing, cheating, bribing, etc….and that’s just to the poor alone. (There are some good people within the governmental system – don’t get me wrong but unfortunately their numbers are few)

“However, there are plenty of countries (Canada, the UK, Sweden) that are more progressive than the U.S. that are able to take care of the poor without ruining their economy….”

With all due respect and without trying to insult your intelligence, I’d double check that if I were you.:-) These economies may not be too far gone yet (yet being the key word) but I wouldn’t want to bet any of my own money on their economy (nor America’s for that matter)

“We can have more social justice in this country without becoming like China or Soviet Russia.”

That’s the thing though. Once you open up the window and start on that slope….it’s no telling where it will turn up. History, however, has not told positive stories of anything so called “middle ground”. It may not take over night, it may not take next year but eventually – governmental social justice and control has indeed eventually gotten there. Besides, ask yourself, how did the former USSR (and they’re the “former” USSR for a reason) – and all the others financially start? My point is that it wasn’t over night. It was a gradual process – and then everything hit the fan.

We’re obviously going to have to agree to disagree on this but maybe now we have a better understanding of where we all are coming from.

Hi Everyone - So sorry for the delay in responding. I’m normally try to be more on top of comments, but it’s been a crazy busy week.

Wow, this turned into quite a discussion!

First, I appreciate that everyone here has conducted themselves with tremendous civility. These kinds of conversations usually turn into name-calling, and I’m very pleased that hasn’t happened here!

Second, I should say that my comments about The Colbert Report and The Daily Show being the best “news shows” on television was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. I know they aren’t really “news” shows.

However.

Frankly, I think these shows are – ironically – usually more biblical in their commentary about religion than typical conservative talk show hosts, who, in my opinion, are usually woefully biblically illiterate and simply pandering to cheap American populism.

On the other hand, Stephen Colbert’s skits on religion are usually a thinly veiled masque of highly orthodox theology. This particular skit is a classic example. In poking fun at Beck, Colbert is revealing – through satire – that Christianity IS actually deeply about “social justice.” It’s funny because it’s true.

Now, I’ll give you this: Beck is much closer to the ideals of the founding fathers than Colbert. But, in this case, Colbert is much closer to the ideals of scripture. I think a very difficult conundrum for American Christians is resolving that tension. Do your loyalties lie first with your citizenship as an American, or with your citizenship in the Kingdom?

Julie - I’m afraid I don’t agree with your theological dichotomy between a government distributed program of social justice and a privately distributed brand of social justice. Nowhere in scripture is care for the poor held in competition with sincerity. Rather, God connects them explicitly, especially through the pre-exilic prophets, John the Baptist, and Jesus. God’s issue isn’t with care for the poor that isn’t sincere, his issue is with religious rituals that don’t include care for the poor. When Christ rebukes the hypocrites for giving to the poor insincerely, he doesn’t say, “It’s better not to give than to give insincerely,” he says, “It’s better to give in secret, than to give for the wrong reasons” (Matt 6). Your argument is essentially that God is more concerned for individual liberty than for seeing the poor cared for. That’s a very American value, but it doesn’t exist anywhere in the bible.

Now, let me be absolutely clear: I’m deeply suspicious of bureaucratic solutions, mostly because I distrust aggregated power and the ability to be fiscally responsible at that level of control. That’s why I’m an anabaptist, and as such, I’m a big believer in separation of church and state.

However, there’s a BIG difference between saying that big-government solutions are a bad organizational idea on the one hand (which, I tend to agree with) and saying they are a perversion of the gospel on the other (which, they’re not). The fact is, the bible has no problem whatsoever with mandatory charity.

Indeed, biblical practices of social welfare are far more radical than any of the socialist practices we’re familiar with today. Jubilee, land distribution, tithe practices, gleaning laws, and kinsman-redeemer practices are just a few examples of government-enforced social welfare programs in scripture. When these practices weren’t honored, God had harsh judgments for the Jews.

Consider this: When God judges his people – through the OT prophets like Isaiah, Amos, and Micah – he doesn’t judge them for not giving people personal liberty. In fact, there are absolutely no passages I can think of where God expresses displeasure with his people for not respecting personal liberty. Rather, God’s judgment is always because his people have failed to keep that part of the law that ensures care for the poor.

One could argue that Jesus condemns the pharisees for laying too many laws on the people, but a closer inspection reveals that Jesus’ real issue is that the pharisees manipulated the law so they don’t actually have to fulfill it – and the fulfillment of the law isn’t personal freedom, it’s care for others.

Becky – Thanks so much for taking the time to comment! I appreciate your kind words on the other post. I’ve read your stuff too, by the way, and like it very much!

I certainly didn’t mean to insinuate that Beck’s listeners are stupid. My apologies for that. I don’t think Beck or his listeners are stupid. However, Beck is dead wrong about the gospel. I’ve listened to all of his comments about this matter, and it’s clear he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. His definition of the gospel (“It’s all about YOU”) is a common, Modern perversion.

I don’t know what most Americans believe, so I don’t know if Colbert and Stewart are making a “mockery” of American’s beliefs or not. Perhaps they are. But I can tell you I’m personally routinely shocked by what the Americans I meet believe about God. People obviously don’t read the whole bible, and clearly not many of us take Jesus seriously. If we did, “there would be no poor among us” (Act 4:34). Probably no rich people either (Ex 16).

To Everyone - Again, I don’t have high hopes for government solutions.

Personally, I would prefer to see the Church-at-large demonstrate a contrast society of deep social justice, as a sign and foretaste of the Kingdom to come. I think that’s our calling. However – and this is important I think – such a program in church would, for all intents and purposes, be “mandatory” as well. It simply isn’t realistic to leave social welfare to the good and sincere intentions of individuals. There must be a social expectation and accountability for it. Consider the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 4 and 5. When they didn’t pony up to the mandatory communal program of wealth redistribution, they were killed by God on the spot!

Finally, my issue with Beck isn’t political. I don’t really care if he’s a republican, or libertarian, or whatever. But when he attempts to redefine the gospel in terms of American individualism I’m going to cry foul.

“If by better organized you mean that welfare is in debt, as is social security, medicare, medicaid”

The fact that our government is going bankrupt helping the poor while our churches remain profitable pretty much tells the whole story. If our churches modeled themselves on Jesus’ teachings, they’d be the ones going bankrupt helping the poor and needy. Then there wouldn’t be a need for programs like welfare or medicare.

I don’t see that happening though, so I’m glad the government is helping us out.

“However, look at other countries where it is against the law to preach the gospel of Christ. ”

Here you make a good point. I don’t think governments have the right to suppress the gospel of Jesus.

Of course, we’re not talking about suppressing the gospel, we’re talking about helping the poor and needy. If the government uses our tax money to help the poor, then they’re only doing what we’re supposed to be doing anyway. That’s not the kind of thing Christians should be complaining about.

“In that case, our government and (pretty much) all others in the world will have a harsh judgement with God.”

Absolutely, all the nations of the earth will be judged by Christ (see psalm 110). Of course, we live in a democracy and have the right to vote. This means that we bear some responsibility for the decisions our government makes.

On election day too many Christians think only about gay rights or abortion. They forget about the poor. This is a dangerous thing to do, if the Bible is any kind of a guide.

“Once you open up the window and start on that slope…”

I’m going to study up on the economies of Sweden, Canada and the United Kingdom. While I’m doing that, you should go to wikipedia and learn about the slippery slope fallacy.

The only two things I will suggest/add are:

“Jubilee, land distribution, tithe practices, gleaning laws, and kinsman-redeemer practices are just a few examples of government-enforced social welfare programs in scripture. When these practices weren’t honored, God had harsh judgments for the Jews.”

I’ve thought about that in the past as well but I wonder….do you think it’s possible that the reason God had harsh judgements for the Jews who didn’t honour these practices were perhaps because it was “the way of the world” so to speak at that time and perhaps because God expected the Jews (who were/are his children) to be a good witness of him that it would have come off as more of a bad witness if/when they disobeyed it and not *necessarily* that God was in favour of some of the practices themselves (except for tithing, of course, which God did command) – though I’ll go back and re-read as I haven’t read that part in ages. Maybe that’s the only reason for the harsh judgement (maybe not but it’s a thought in this very deep abyss full of ideas and thoughts I tend to call my brain).

Secondly: “Consider the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 4 and 5. When they didn’t pony up to the mandatory communal program of wealth redistribution, they were killed by God on the spot!”

True – but again – that was God leading the “charge” not the government in charge (of course, I haven’t read that particular story in ages so I could very well be wrong).

“Your argument is essentially that God is more concerned for individual liberty than for seeing the poor cared for.”

Although I can see how you’ve come to that conclusion – I don’t exactly believe that (yes, I know it sounds like I’m contradicting my self – and perhaps I did word things in that fashion). One of my main fears with individual liberty in this country is that little by little (as it has been happening over the last hundred years – give or take), as the political powers stifle more of our freedoms, it will compromise the Constitutional free will that I believe up holds God’s gift of free will for us. (Not to mention – if you’re not God – you have no right to take away from the peole what he has given but I digress)

I *do* believe that caring for the poor is among the top priorities on God’s list that he wants us to accomplish (if not thee top priority). HOWEVER – if our individual freedom (free will) is taken by the political powers that be….then when people see the poor being taken care of, they will see it more as the law of the land and NOT the Grace and love of God. WE will know why we give – but I fear the true reason and message will be lost on those who watch from afar.

Am I making sense or just rambling? LOL!

Jimmy – again, I can see your point (and a few things I agree with – a few things only to a degree) but for the most point – we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

The bottom line with me is that while I would NEVER display any violent action towards the government myself (although I think it would be a great idea to make slapping many governmental officials an Olympic sport. I would DEFINITELY get the gold on *that* one – LOL) nor would I advocate violence towards them from anyone else….I do not trust the majority of them. (a few through the years have earned some of my trust but not many) Nor do I trust them to do the right thing. One reason why I can only read the news and not watch it any more is because the sheer sound of their voices make me feel so disgusted that I just want to take a shower! LOL!

I think Colbert did a great job with this and I loved what the priest had to say:)