Social Gospel? Beck Should Read the Prophets, John the Baptist, and Jesus March 14
I am in Israel but am reading about what I see as a strange controversy in the USA. It is Glenn Beck’s call for people to leave church’s that preach a "social gospel", but then goes on to discuss social action and issues of justice as if to do so is unbiblical. The confusion is that these are NOT all the same thing. Let’s be clear: the gospel is NOT about doing social work.
I am in Israel but am reading about what I see as a strange controversy in the USA. It is Glenn Beck’s call for people to leave church’s that preach a "social gospel", but then goes on to discuss social action and issues of justice as if to do so is unbiblical. The confusion is that these are NOT all the same thing. Let’s be clear: the gospel is NOT about doing social work. The gospel is not doing social work, but that does not mean social work is irrelevant ot those who embrace the gospel. Social work can be a witness for the gospel or real evidence of a proper response to God, a product of the gospel. The roots are in the Prophets, such as Micah 6:8.
He has told you, O man, what is good,
and what the LORD really wants from you:
He wants you to promote justice, to be faithful,
and to live obediently before your God.
Or try John the Baptist. In Luke 3:10-14 when he is asked to explain what repentance is that is ready for the Lord to come he says:
So the crowds were asking him, “What then should we do?”
John answered them, “The person who has two tunics must share with the person who has none, and the person who has food must do likewise.”
Tax collectors also came to be baptized, and they said to him, “Teacher, what should we do?”
He told them, “Collect no more than you are required to.” Then some soldiers also asked him, “And as for us—what should we do?” He told them, “Take money from no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your pay.”
To turn to God means I relate to other peopel differently.
Or try Jesus’ words to his audience (Matt 5:14-16):
You are the light of the world. A city located on a hill cannot be hidden.
People do not light a lamp and put it under a basket but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before people, so that they can see your good deeds and give honor to your Father in heaven.
Or the story of Zacchaeus in Luke 19:5-9:
And when Jesus came to that place, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down quickly, because I must stay at your house today.” So he came down quickly and welcomed Jesus joyfully. And when the people saw it, they all complained, “He has gone in to be the guest of a man who is a sinner.” But Zacchaeus stopped and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord, half of my possessions I now give to the poor, and if I have cheated anyone of anything, I am paying back four times as much!” Then Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this household, because he too is a son of Abraham!
Something about Zacchaeus’s heart was right in showing concern for the poor. Jesus commends the attitude. So let’s not let Christian virtue get captured in ideological political rhetoric of cultural wars that take people away from the call of the gospel to be socially sensitive. Let’s be sure we read and listen to the prophets John the Baptist and Jesus. May political commentators giving advice to members of the church be sure and read their Bible first and not oversimplify what God asks of people who serve him. Yes, the gospel is about salvation of the soul, but service to the world and caring for justice and the poor grows out of responding properly to God. Once again what some want to make either-or is actually a both-and when bibically defined. Let’s not villify with political associations of communism or socialism a concern and compassion Jesus asks of people who love their neighbor, part of what Jesus called the greatest commandment.
39 Comments
Brett Williamss
The good and bad social gospels
Many believe that you first 1) try to win someone to yourself, first gaining their trust, and then 2) winning them to Christ. The first stage is actually designed to NOT give out the gospel of Jesus Christ until later in the “process.” Showing the love of Christ is the first step of the gospel presentation.
For example, before a hungry person will give you a hearing, it makes sense to first feed him (stage one). After feeding him a few times, he sees the love of Christ in your actions. Then, when he has experienced the love of Christ, he would be more open to the gospel, so some would argue.
What is the difference, according to Beck’s concern, between 1) first showing the love of Christ and after some time of gaining their trust, you then present the gospel, and 2) the social gospel?
May I also ask two brief questions:
1. How do you define the ‘social gospel’ that you believe is the wrong approach?
2. How do you define the ‘social gospel’ that you believe is the biblical approach?
bock
social gospel response dlb
Brett:
I will not try to speak for Beck. I can’t.
I did not affirm a social gospel on purpose. My point was to draw attention to biblical values that do speak positively about compassion and social justice from the prophets, John the Baptist and Jesus to show it is a biblical concern. The danger of Beck’s remarks (even when liberation theology is a part hispoint) is that it makes it too easy to ignore so much the Bible does say about such calls to social engagement– and it says it many times. Social engagement and reflecting God’s love is the point here, even in corporate structures that are rooted in taking advantage of people or are tied to greed.
Mike
don’t forget amos!
Just a reminder – Don’t forget Amos! I have a PhD seminar on Amos this semester, and one thing keeps hitting me is that Amos is almost wholly about justice and treatment of fellow human beings. Even the condemnation of the worship sites (like Bethel) is due to the fact that the elite who visit them are trying to be spiritual while also being unjust in their lives and unbothered by the needy poor. In the 8th century it seems Amos hammered home a “social gospel” of sorts while Hosea attacked idolatry.
So much of the dispute over the social gospel seems all about nomenclature. We shouldn’t have to call living justly and practicing righteousness towards the needy poor the “social gospel” – it’s called obedience, righteousness, uprightness. It’s how we should behave towards others whether they choose to listen to our good news about Jesus Christ or not. We are responsible for working towards this ethical ideal AND for bearing witness to the person of Jesus Christ, i.e. sharing the gospel.
Just some thoughts. I personally think nomenclature has bogged down these discussions for years, although some really do seem to think the church is misguided if it chooses to help the poor (which I think is erroneous), while others really seem to think that living justly and helping others is the gospel (which I think is erroneous).
Chris Skinner
Social justice
Darrell,
Do you really mean to say that the Gospel is NOT about social work? Really? Not at all? Are you defining “gospel” too narrowly? It seems to me that the *Preaching* of the Gospel is not about social work but that overarching commission we refer to as the “Gospel” has a great deal to do with social justice. Could you add some nuance to your statement, or do you really intend that last statement of your post to exist without qualification?
Hope you’re well.
Chris
bock
Social Justice Skinner dlb
I said what I meant and meant what I said. To me the social action is a result (an important and crucial one) of gospel response, but is not the gospel. The gospel leads into such action and caring for sure, but the gospel is about the new life Jesus gives. Living out the gospel takes us there, but that is not the gospel.
Totah
Right on!! We are not saved
Right on!! We are not saved to do good works but because we are saved and have a new life in Jesus and an increased love for Him and for what He did for us in order to save us, then good works follow and flow out of us because of that love for Him.
Anonymous
Social Justice
Dr. Bock,
I respect your ability to study the Bible in its proper literary and historical context. I urge you to do the same thing when you critique others in our own day and time as well. Beck was not saying that people shouldn’t be charitable and help the less fortunate, or that churches shouldn’t be charitable and help the less fortunate.
His concern is for churches who advance liberal government fiscal policies under the guise of social work. He chastises churches who use phrases like “social justice” or “economic justice” as code words for government entitlement programs like the health care initiative on the table today. He believes, as I am sure you do, that giving our tunic should be voluntary not required by a government entity. Now, he does overstate his case, because some churches are using these phrases as code words for “socialist policies,” but others mean it in a different way, referring to just the act of taking care of people’s physical needs. So, Glenn is also focusing on words and not paying attention to context, but that doesn’t give us the right to take him out his context either. I hope that in the future you will pay attention to context before you lash out.
bock
Social Justice dlb
Sorry I do not buy it. The division between acts of compassion and faithful action, wedded together in the Great Awakening was severed in a bad way in the early twentieth century. Now it is a part of culture wars. I noted in my comment above that I was aware of the liberation theology context of his remarks, but the lack of nuance (not to mention the ignoring of whole portions of Scripture) was why I wrote. Code words cut two ways. Calls for justice are quite biblical and reflect core biblical values the prophets sought to teach God’s people. We need to hear them and not the talking heads.
steve hays
Of course, Beck is Mormon,
Of course, Beck is Mormon, so we wouldn’t expect him to have any grasp of the Gospel.
Jeremy Pierce
Beck did pretty clearly
Beck did pretty clearly state that he’s not opposed to charity but is criticizing forced charity. He’s drastically wrong in thinking that everyone who uses the expression “social justice” means it that way. Most in fact don’t. But he rightly makes the distinction between the thing that in fact most people mean by it and the thing he’s criticizing, even if he gets the language wrong.
I’m not sure what you mean above when you say you don’t buy it. Are you not buying the distinction between forced redistributed income and voluntary charity? Surely there is such a distinction? Are you questioning whether Beck himself gives to charity? Presumably there’s some way to discover that, but I wouldn’t expect you engaged in such research. I know there are people who hold exactly his view who give a high percentage of their income to charity (e.g. Dick Cheney). So there certainly are economic conservatives and libertarians who oppose government social programs who give far more money to help the poor than most who favor liberal government programs (e.g. the current President of the U.S.A., who doesn’t even tithe).
bock
Beck did dlb
Jeremy:
I made a similar distinction in terms of the gospel, but calling such action charity clouds the discussion. The Scripture speaks of justice and compassion as key values. My complaint is that the way Beck approached the issue clouds that scriptural emphasis. As for whether governments should do it or not, the fact these are values tied to things like the great commandment means that it is for people and nations as the prophets also show. The word "forced" here is important in your response. The question is what should people be willing to do both as individuals AND as part of a caring people. They should be for justice and compassion. Once again, this is not an either-or (what individuals do is key, not what governments or churches do), but a both-and. People can and do err on both ends.
L.L.
His Causes
It is interesting that many Christians feel it is a foregone conclusion that governments should not be involved with seeing to it that its people have their health care needs met. People crying out, “we can take care of ourselves!” Is that so? I shudder to think what we would see if not for Social Security and Medicare, programs that many have criticized as socialism.
Also, in reference to comments, it is an oversimplification to reference the health care issue in the same context as the concept of whether we give our tunics voluntarily or by government mandate. Charitable giving does not address these issues and needs of people in our nation.
Health insurance related horror stories and bankruptcies are numerous, and I have to wonder where the concern is for these people in the addresses of many Christian conservatives. People like Pat Robertson, addressing the issue by saying “if someone gets their head bashed in they will get treated in the emergency room.” This is a non-answer to a complicated issue. The conservatives typically aren’t addressing the real issues, and it’s a sad commentary on what many will see as a mentality that is bred by Christianity itself. I have no doubt that God is concerned, and yes offended, with the painting with a broad brush the concepts of social justice and economic justice, supported by churches, as one and the same with communism or an ungodly agenda. Intentions aside, Glenn Beck is only promoting ignorance and paranoia, not the cause of Christ, which does concern both the gospel of salvation and social justice.
Sean
L.L.
I appreciate your
L.L.
I appreciate your disgust with the occasional evangelical assumption that a compulsory, implicit, blanket acceptance of non-governmental intervention is part of a Christian world view.
However, your disgust seems to be in contrast with the “real issues”? What are the “real issues”? And how does government takeover necessitously obviate them? What “churches” are supporting what measures? To what end? And, how does government takeover of health care – which is inevitably what will happen – represent a Christian view of justice and compassion? What I mean is, what is lost or gained in a Christian worldview in either stance on this matter?
Your post is replete with assumptions that “doing something”, as in government-run-health care, will address the “real issues”. How is it that you think this is the case and will come to be?
Sean
L.L.
Sean,
The only single
Sean,
The only single “Christian worldview” that should be embraced by all believers, and all people of conscience, is concerning a commitment to the belief that ALL PEOPLE should be able to have a quality of health care available to them in a prosperous nation, which is the reason why the issue has been brought to the forefront of our concerns as a nation. Including for the needs of a blessed and hard-working middle class. It seems to me that certain people would do well to get beyond their own satisfaction with what they have, and consider the bigger picture, as always. My comment was addressing the discussion that I have seen, and in regards to Christianity as seen in the political arena. I freely admit this is one person’s observation. Nowhere in my comments will you find an endorsement of a “government takeover” of health care in America.
The other gentleman who took umbrage at my comment gave links to other political philosophies and ideas, and everyone has access to all views to consider. I wonder what the scenario would be, as to what people would have done in their aging years without the programs over the past four decades that have been denounced, by many a notable conservative, as socialism, misguided, and something to fight against. Furthermore, I wonder how the function of “Medicaid,” and other state-run programs for low-income people, should be handled without government involvement.
My displeasure was specifically towards the attitudes of some people, in what has come across to me as a contentment with the status quo, and a desire for the government, which was elected by the people, to stay out of the healthcare issue. I can’t provide you with a study on what churches are supporting what philosophy–but almost half of our nation, which largely claims the Christian faith, believes that the new law is acceptable and will address these needs. Half believes that there should have been a “public option” plan available to all people. Half believes the law does not provide enough government regulation of the insurance industry. About a third feels that the level of government involvement on the issue overall will be right and just.
I will take this opportunity to correct myself on a point: I said that Mike Huckabee puts the uninsured at “5%”. I realized a couple hours later that it was “5 million” people that he believes are the only ones that truly need addressing, which is substantially less people than the number I gave there. It was a while ago that he said this. I decided that it didn’t matter, but just to correct the record on my comments.
steve hays
LL:
“I shudder to think what
LL:
“I shudder to think what we would see if not for Social Security and Medicare, programs that many have criticized as socialism.”
Both of which are going broke. Moreover, the health care bill slashes Medicare. So how does this prove your point? Doesn’t it disprove your point?
“Health insurance related horror stories and bankruptcies are numerous.”
It’s easy to cite horror stories for every position. There are horror stories for Canadian healthcare, British healthcare, Dutch healthcare, &c.
“The conservatives typically aren’t addressing the real issues.”
What conservatives do you read or listen to?
“I have no doubt that God is concerned, and yes offended, with the painting with a broad brush the concepts of social justice and economic justice, supported by churches, as one and the same with communism or an ungodly agenda.”
You paint conservatives with a broad brush.
L.L.
reply…
To Steve Hays,
1. Considering that my address wasn’t an endorsement of any specific health care bill, the fact that a bill may slash Medicare doesn’t disprove my point. My point was simply that these programs–which many have criticized as socialism and therefore should not exist–have been indispensable to the lives of countless people who have relied on them for basic survival over the decades. The fact that these programs are in need of an overhaul, doesn’t make a case that they should never have been created in the first place.
2. Regarding horror stories: You seem to be saying that it is inevitable that some people are not going to have their health care needs met in a reasonable manner, if at all, regardless of the particular system, therefore, it is best to leave well enough alone, because the wealthy are doing fine in America. Feel free to correct me, but you seem to be supporting the status quo.
The real stories of our citizens are a testament that intensive study by those who are knowledgeable on the issue, and an overhaul of the system, is needed. I’m making no claim that we should be replicating any other country’s system. I believe we can be optimistic that there is a better way, and, as a compassionate and progressive nation, we might as well be the ones to find it. The only detail that I am addressing as to how to go about that, is the part about a caring and giving people, as was spoken of by Dr. Bock, and as we see ourselves to be.
3. As to the conservatives’ addresses of the issue, I mentioned two: One was a well-known, and respected by many, televangelist, and the other was an anonymous, ordinary person, claiming that we can take care of ourselves. I haven’t heard everything that has been said in the public arena, but in my experience, the conservative position doesn’t address the full scope of the issues; they speak of how nice it currently is for the well off, as compared to other systems, and how that would supposedly be taken away from them if all people are considered. They seem to avoid most of the discussion on the need for a change, because they do not want to appear to be on the side of the Democrats. This is how it has come across to me, and pitifully so. I haven’t heard much open and honest discussion, only what has seemed to me to be self-serving.
4. As to “painting conservatives with a broad brush,”…actually, when you use words like “typically” and “many,” both of which appear in my comment, this is not a statement on all conservatives. Beck is telling people to leave churches who use particular phrases, which he clearly has painted with a broad brush, and has done a disservice to the very concepts of compassion and justice, and which I believe is unhealthy. I’m all for a fair and intelligent discussion. But I do stand by my statement, that I believe it is the typical conservative position to blatantly avoid the key elements of the issues, in all different areas of discussion. I believe fear is a guiding force of many who speak in the public arena on the issues. The prophets speak much more profoundly.
Steve, do you believe it is accurate to address the health care issue in the context of whether we are to give our tunics “voluntarily” or “by force”? Is it possible that we need to become a more giving people, in terms of what the government can do to insure support regarding the massive costs of health care that is needed by many of our citizens?
Lynn
steve hays
Lynn:
“Considering that my
Lynn:
“Considering that my address wasn’t an endorsement of any specific health care bill, the fact that a bill may slash Medicare doesn’t disprove my point.”
The immediate context was clearly the debate over Obamacare.
“My point was simply that these programs–which many have criticized as socialism and therefore should not exist–have been indispensable to the lives of countless people who have relied on them for basic survival over the decades.”
That ignores the alternatives. For example, what if the income which gov’t garnishes in payroll taxes had been invested by wage-earners in compound interest-bearing accounts?
“The fact that these programs are in need of an overhaul, doesn’t make a case that they should never have been created in the first place.”
“Overhaul” is euphemistic. These programs are demographically doomed: too few workers to support too many retirees.
Moreover, as long as the gov’t controls the money, the so-called trust-fund will simply be a cash cow for politicians to raid and squander on their pet projects.
“It is best to leave well enough alone, because the wealthy are doing fine in America. Feel free to correct me, but you seem to be supporting the status quo.”
Since Nancy Pelosi is one of the wealthiest members of the Senate, your class warfare rhetoric is oddly misaligned. Moreover, I was simply making the point that anecdotal horror stories cut both ways. Answering you on your own terms.
“As to the conservatives’ addresses of the issue, I mentioned two: One was a well-known, and respected by many, televangelist, and the other was an anonymous, ordinary person, claiming that we can take care of ourselves. I haven’t heard everything that has been said in the public arena, but in my experience, the conservative position doesn’t address the full scope of the issues; they speak of how nice it currently is for the well off, as compared to other systems, and how that would supposedly be taken away from them if all people are considered. They seem to avoid most of the discussion on the need for a change, because they do not want to appear to be on the side of the Democrats. This is how it has come across to me, and pitifully so. I haven’t heard much open and honest discussion, only what has seemed to me to be self-serving.”
I don’t see any evidence that you have made a good faith effort to seek out conservative intellectuals who speak to these and other issues. For example, Albert Mohler is a far more reputable spokesman for the religious right than Pat Robertson. In addition, we have Christian bioethicists like Francis Beckwith, Robert George, and Wesley J. Smith.
On a related note, OT scholar James Hoffmeier wrote a book last year (The Immigration Crisis) in the course of which he discusses the Biblical notion of charity and how that could be applied to public policy today.
On the immediate point at issue, here are two discussions which present a conservative alternative to Obamacare:
http://www.aei.org/docLib/ABetterPrescription.pdf
http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/PCAsummary15p.pdf
“But I do stand by my statement, that I believe it is the typical conservative position to blatantly avoid the key elements of the issues, in all different areas of discussion.”
Your impressions of conservative thought seemed to be filtered through secondhand sources in the liberal media. What comes across is prejudice.
“Steve, do you believe it is accurate to address the health care issue in the context of whether we are to give our tunics ‘voluntarily’ or ‘by force’?”
That was addressed to Jews living under Roman occupation. Have you even considered the historical setting?
And I don’t see Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, or Michelle Obama sharing their wardrobe (or any of their other personal effects) with the poor, do you?
“Is it possible that we need to become a more giving people, in terms of what the government can do to insure support regarding the massive costs of health care that is needed by many of our citizens?”
That’s an ironic question since you’re taking the status quo for granted vis-à-vis the cost of healthcare. Conservative reformers have proposed various initiatives to make healthcare more affordable and thereby more accessible.
L.L.
reply to steve
Steve,
I don’t know which blog you’re reading. The discussion here was the definition of a “social gospel,” and Glenn Beck’s skewed statements. I don’t see a debate over Obama’s plan for healthcare reform, nor is it part of my point in my comment. Healthcare was only touched on in previous comments.
The first part of the first paragraph was regarding a presumption of some Christians, that the “correct” Christian viewpoint is apparently no government involvement. It was subtle, but I was actually referencing an earlier comment, where someone spoke for Dr. Bock, saying that he would, of course, be against a government mandate of forced giving of the tunic. (comment titled “Social Justice” by anonymous) Obviously I don’t know Dr. Bock’s political positions on these issues, or other issues for that matter, but it was interesting that this presumption was spoken in this particular context. Dr. Bock went on to say some very refreshing and interesting things regarding not only personal giving, but the role of a people and a nation in seeing to it that compassion and justice for its people are reached.
The second part referenced a woman who cried out, “We can take care of ourselves!”…which speaks for a position of no government involvement needed, and which I find a bit absurd, considering the role that Social Security and Medicare has played in the lives of people, and the question of what would people have done had these programs not been created.
As to the alternatives to these programs, I’ve said nothing against possible alternative plans. I was speaking against the notion that the arm of the government need not be a part of whatever plan can be implemented to meet these needs. There seems to be plenty of disdain for government today, and I see no way for any plan to be carried out, short of government intervention and mandates that require specific actions from its people, including taxation and higher premiums, if need be. I am on the side of major reform in the government, and I don’t know what sane person would not be. The people’s money is being wasted, while the fox guards the henhouse, and major financial reform is long overdue.
The claim of some conservatives that Medicare is socialism isn’t quite the case, as it is an insurance program and not a hand-out, nor did it bring about the demise of our country. What specific plan would be a better alternative? Reform of Medicare, or scrapping it altogether for another government-run program? I’ll let the well-studied on these things work this out. Perhaps I’m speaking in too basic of terms and I missed the subtlety of her outcry, but it sounded unrealistic to me, in light of the role of these programs over the past few decades. If they have become outdated and unworkable, then change them or create new ones…which they have been toiling over for a while now, and it is obviously not over yet. The role of the government is still essential.
As to your comment about Nancy Pelosi and her wealth…I don’t know what this has to do with anything that I have said, or the issue itself for that matter. I think you’re in some battle that doesn’t actually involve my comments.
The voices that I have heard from conservatives seem to be supporting the status quo, which is why I referenced the people’s stories. These particular conservative voices dispute the number of those who are without insurance–Huckabee puts it at 5%–which suggests that the problem is not what it is being made out to be. I can’t speak about what his entire case was. I believe the problem is what it is made out to be, and his numbers are not true. The citing of emergency room care suggests that people are better taken care of than the Democrats would have us believe, which doesn’t begin to address what people are going through with these issues and what is needed. They put fear mongering out there, based on falsehoods, i.e. death panels, which, it is my understanding from those who actually read and studied the bill, did not exist there. They talked much, however, about how those who are content would theoretically be affected. It is also interesting that the higher the income bracket, the higher number of people are not in favor of the reform plan. I think it says much.
My point in referencing the stories, was that I didn’t hear conservatives speak about the crises that many people have endured, which is the basis for reform. It didn’t seem to be part of their conversation. I do watch quite a bit of news. I’m not talking about second-hand sources, and it is not prejudice. They have as much opportunity to be heard in the mainstream media, which obviously is not only left-leaning, as anyone does. I don’t believe non-believers witnessed any “compassionate conservatism” from these individuals. But I could be wrong about that. Maybe they did. Republicans are notoriously anti-government and self-serving, as a matter of philosophy many would agree, and as a matter of record. I think any address of reform was only a self-defense stance, not a fire in the belly to help people. There’s been plenty of opportunity. This is my opinion on what I’ve seen. Unlike race, sexual orientation, and gender, politics are about ideology. But I would not want to stereotype anyone. If they have repented of this and have embraced a different position to reach out and consider others, I would stand corrected, but I personally didn’t see it. (I am speaking about politics, not necessarily the church itself.)
I make no claim to have full knowledge of every aspect of the plan, or the ramifications of it, but I would say it looks pretty good to me. It seems to be a plan that addresses many important issues. People will now have health insurance. We cannot be denied on the basis of pre-existing conditions. All people will be required by law to be insured, which makes perfect sense to me. I don’t understand the opposition to this. The well off are not happy with the plan, because it possibly cuts into their pocketbooks, or simply due to their current contentness.
Which gets into biblical issues.
The biblical principle of “giving what you have to those who do not have” has nothing whatsoever to do with historical context. It is the heart of God. He desires for His people to emulate His heart and nature. I find your comment a little shocking, assuming that you are a born-again Christian, and I can’t believe it is what you meant. Giving on a personal level would, of course, not be mandated by the government. A belief in the government staying out of the healthcare issue, in favor of voluntary giving, doesn’t seem to make sense. Charitable giving could not address the issue on a large scale, in terms of a reliable system of funding the massive costs of healthcare for the uninsured. Would this system be in addition to all that people give currently to other charities and causes?
I’ll read The Immigration Crisis sometime. This is an issue that I happen to be very conservative on, which I’m certain would be very surprising to you. But it will be interesting to see what kind of science fiction world voluntary giving, in addressing the healthcare issue, would look like. Pardon me for that. I am open-minded, and I personally am pleased with the new plan. I’ll leave it there, but I would be interested in reading your concerns about it. I truly cannot believe the threats and the level of anger–there is a higher power in control.
It wasn’t my intention to discuss politics to any great extent, but I see that I touched a nerve, and I wanted to address your charge of prejudice. I realize they are only protesting a particular philosophy, but my point remains the same regarding a giving and caring spirit. Jesus Christ will be coming soon, and He will be examining the hearts of all people in truth, which ultimately is all that really matters. Take care.
Anonymous
Dr. Bock
You should edit
Dr. Bock
You should edit your work before posting it on the internet. I am hardly going to take you seriously because you have so many typos.
bock
edit
I try to read over what I type, but often miss things. But thanks for the word.
dlb
Anonymous
Petty comments
“You should edit your work before posting it on the internet. I am hardly going to take you seriously because you have so many typos.”
That’s a frivolous and petty criticism. Blogging isn’t the same thing as publishing a book or essay.
Dr. Bock is a busy guy with a far-flung ministry. You should be thankful that he takes time out of his busy schedule to blog at all. It shows his sense of Christian outreach.
KStret
Glen Beck
This whole discussion on Glenn Beck is a canard. Glenn did not say to leave your churches. He is not against charity either.What he did say is leave your church if the definition social justice is based on communism rather than the gospels. Communists and fascists have been using the term social and economic justice for a long time. They also have a habit of infiltrating churches as well. In other words, if the gospel that is being preached sounds like the reverend Jeremiah wright, then you should leave.This deliberate distortion of Glenn Beck's words came from Jim Wallace. Wallace is a admitted communist who believes the central theme in the bible is the redistribution of wealth. He is also President Obama's new spiritual advisor. Jesus did preach about helping the poor, he did not preach about the redistribution the wealth.
Darrell L. Bock
Not so sure
kStret:
I am not sure Beck said the kind of social justivce he condemned was only and explicitly said to be tied to communism. What he said was that such concerns are inherently linked with the concenrs of such groups and the church then is liberal. It was precisely this kind of equation that was the problem. (By the way, the name of the figure you criticize is Jim Wallis-and Wallis is not a communist- I know him). Yes, Beck did tie Rev Wright to this issue, but it was the lack of qualification that was the problem here. Finally, did Jesus not tell the rich man to sell all he had and and give it to the poor- (teaching a concern to share resources)? My point in making these points is that this discussion is more nuanced than Beck's remarks or, perhaps, your defense of Beck. We need to be biblically discerning on both sides of this debate. Our only options are nt fascism, communism or the free market. Having compassion as World Vision or Samaritan's Purse does speaks volumes about Christians and their care for those God seeks to come to know him.
KStret
Glenn Beck and the poor
Dr Brock, I deeply respect your opinion on Biblical subjects. I think you have offered substantial rebuttal to attacks on Christianity from people like Bart Erhman and you should be commended for that. On this subject however, with all due respect, you aren't getting the story correct. "I am not sure Beck said the kind of social justice he condemned was only and explicitly said to be tied to communism. What he said was that such concerns are inherently linked with the concerns of such groups and the church then is liberal. It was precisely this kind of equation that was the problem" Glenn Beck has stated explicitly if your church is like Reverend Wrights Church, you should leave. He clearly stated that his problem is not churches that are on the liberal side of things, his problem is with churchs who are being used by socialists and communists for a political agenda. In other words, what he is saying is almost like a separation of church and state agrument turned on it's head. Instead of the church infiltrating the government, the government is infiltrating the church. He has bent over backwards to state this. "(By the way, the name of the figure you criticize is Jim Wallis-and Wallis is not a communist- I know him)" Wallis is on tape saying the theology behind the gospel is all about the redistribution of wealth. He is also on tape talking about meeting he had with a 60's radical icon. In describing his meeting with her, she asked him if he was a communists like she was.I believe he answered yes. He also has a history of supporting communist regimes. He is the presidents spiritual adviser and also gives policy advice. Two other of Obama's top advisers are also attacking Beck. This is about politics not about religion. Your position on Beck is indicative of not hearing Beck in his own words, but getting a skewed interpretation from a second hand source. My guess is the second hand source has an agenda. That being said, I disagree with Glenn Beck on theological issues in some respects. He tends to have a all faith is as good as any other approach when it comes to religion. He picked the Mormon church mainly because he liked the people. Mormonism stands or falls on Joesph Smith. Obviously, if you look into the history of Smith it doesn't look too good and it also contradicts the Bible. "Finally, did Jesus not tell the rich man to sell all he had and and give it to the poor- (teaching a concern to share resources)' Yes, Jesus did tell the rich man to sell all his possessions and give them to the poor. However, the choice to do so was the rich mans. Jesus did not say, the government should take the rich man's money by force and give it to the poor. If you concerned about the poor, you obviously want a system that helps the poor the most. How is a system that is mired in bureaucratic red tape,corruption, and wastes 60 to 80% of every dollar that is collected helping the poor? Wouldn't it be better to cut the middleman out and then you have 60 to 80% more money to help the poor? Then there is the issue of the government dependence keeping the poor in poverty instead of getting them out.
Darrell L. Bock
short reply
Please get names correct. My last name is Bock. Asking that resources be used generously and compassionately is not communism. That was my key point. Yes, Jesus did not force the man. Jesus only said that this is what God's sent one was telling him to do! That tells us a lot about what God values. Yes, one can discuss the most effective ways to do this (as you appropriately raise), but that does not involve the way Beck generalized. Some evangelical churches have social concerns that do not equal the social gospel. That distinction is what I was defending and trying to make clear.
KStret
Dr Bock, I apologize for
Dr Bock, I apologize for misspelling your name. I put the R in there out of habit and I was sleep deprived on top of that. Also, Jim Wallis referred to himself as a Marxist not a communist. "Asking that resources be used generously and compassionately is not communism" Do you mean asking or forcing? There is the fundamental difference between the two positions. A forced redistribution of wealth isn't charity and it is consistent with a communist, socialists, or Marxists philosophy. It's really just a politically correct word for stealing. Taking away the choice to give freely also goes against Jesus message. Taking away people's free will to give or not to give would also go against the bible. Does God force himself on people or do people choose God with their own free will? Adam and Eve had the free will to eat from the tree, even though God knew they wouldn't listen to him. "Jesus only said that this is what God's sent one was telling him to do! That tells us a lot about what God values." If you look at the history of Communism, socialism and Marxism, it has the highest death toll in human history. Between Mao and Stalin alone, you have about 100 million people who were murdered. I think you could say with absolute certainty that God would be against those kinds of political systems. Also, How do you explain 2 Thessalonians 3:10,"If anyone doesn't want to work, he shouldn't eat"? "but that does not involve the way Beck generalized" Dr Bock, with all due respect, it is clear that you didn't hear what Glenn Beck said directly from Glenn Beck. You are getting a skewed second hand account for someone with a political agenda. As I said before, Becks problem is with the government using churches as propaganda arm. This is what the first amendment is explicitly against. For example, there is a "coalition" of Churches who are supporting the upcoming cap and trade bill. When you go to the donations part of the web site, it takes you to a socialist/ progressive activist group web site. Do you have a problem with that? Let's say a atheist group went on a full coordinated attack of Christianity. Part of their strategy to win public opinion was to repeatedly state in various forms of media that you admit that the Bible has 40,000 inerrancies and agree with Bart Ehrman. Would you say that was fair? Obviously you wouldn't. The truth is that you did say that there are 40,000 inerrancies and Erhman is correct. However, you also said that 99% of the inerrancies are essentially meaningless and one of your problems with Erhman is that he tends to mislead people. It's what he doesn't say that you have a problem with and frequently overstates his case.That is the equivalent of what is happening to Glenn Beck. "Some evangelical churches have social concerns that do not equal the social gospel" What social concerns do churches have that you think don't pertain to the Gospel? The political issues that most conservative minded churches are concerned with are abortion, pornography, over sexualization/ sexual ethics and the direction the culture is going. I wouldn't say that those issues don't pertain to he Bible. As far as the culture goes, the example of Sodom and Gomorrah show that God is concerned with issues like that. Jesus said to even look at a woman with lust in your heart is committing adultery and it would be also safe to say he wouldn't have been a big fan of pornography. I think the notion that the more conservative minded Christians are essentially ignoring the social gospel is a misnomer. One of the things the far left does is control the language of the debate. If you control the language, you have a better chance of winning. That is precisely what they have done with the term social gospel and social justice. Social gospel and justice has been hijacked to mean 60's radicalism. The notion that Jesus would be driving around in a smoke filled VW bus listening to Creme and Pink Floyd while talking about bringing down the man is ludicrous. If you see the social gospel through this prism you are going to think that conservative minded Christians are not following the Bible. However, Statistics prove that point wrong. The largest contributors to charities are conservative Christians and the second largest are liberal Christians. Secular conservatives follow the liberal Christians and secular progressives come in dead last. Why would progressives come in last? It's because they believe the government's job is to redistribute the wealth not theirs. "Our only options are nt fascism, communism or the free market. Having compassion as World Vision or Samaritan's Purse does speaks volumes about Christians and their care for those God seeks to come to know him." I am not sure what you are saying here.You almost sound like you could be supporting a global governance idea here. If your point is we can pick and chose aspects from each economic philosophy, I disagree with you. Mixing economic principles is kind of like mixing religions. Can you mix Christianity, Hinduism, and atheism? No. That idea is what got us into the economic mess that we are in right now. This is why Marx said socialism is the pit stop between capitalism and communism. Why did he say that? The problem with socialism is you inevitably run out of other peoples money. As government spending grows, you get to a tipping point. The government has two choices, they can dramatically cut back on spending or let it ride and print money that is based on nothing. Most governments choice to keep printing money which leads to the government collapsing. When this happens, the man on the white horse comes in with a new idea that isn't a good idea or a new one. What you end up with is an huge oppressive government. The problem today is this is happening on a global scale. Socialism, fascism, communism, and Marxism have failed every time it has been tried. You can not be a christian and a Marxists. Marx said in order to implement his system you have to eliminate about 10-20% of the population.I don't think Jesus would support that idea.
Darrell L. Bock
short reply
KStret:
I agree that conservative churches concerns about moral values are a part of this discussion and are underappreciated. However values related to compassion or concern for the pour literally appear throughout the Bible. They are a part of the point that social concern need not equal political ideology, a point you seem to question that was at the core of my original point in the post.
Was Micah a communist, fascist, or socialist? Did he not write Micah 6:8? Isaiah? What about Isaiah 58:6-7? The political categories you name did not exist then. Yet the prophets made such a call to God's people. Do those values matter? Should we not look to help?
I Thes 3:10 cannot negate the emphasis here from several texts throughout the Bible. Not everyone who is poor seeks not to work and is in view in 1 Thes 3. What do you say and do with the large number of people seeking work who have not been able to find it for months in the USA?
James 1:28 is but one example of an exhortation to care for those in need. When Jesus says give alms to the poor in the Sermon on the Mount, is he leaving it to our choice or does it matter that he exhorts us to be generous and compassionate? Does it matter this is a call from God's word and God's sent one to his people? Is this a value we should seek to emulate?
I am surprised you have no idea what my remarks about World Vision or Samaritan's purse is saying. Your response automatically makes associations that do not follow (VW bus and Pink Floyd, Marx and eliminating 20% of the population, mixing religions and atheism are examples having nothing to do with the questions and points I raised). What do organizations like World Vision and Samaritan's Purse have to do with global governance? Nothing. They are Christian compassion and relief organizations that meet the needs of the poor around the world and often have schools and orphanages for the disadvantaged. I know of a World Vision school that teaches literacy to kids living in a garbage dump in Guatemala City. Why do they do it? To help bring education to the children in the hopes that these children can be lifted out of poverty by being self sustaining citizens. Why immediately associate their work with politics versus caring for one's fellow man as Jesus urged in Matthew 25?
Churches that look to serve and give and meet needs of people in need do live out what a changed life can mean (Read Luke 3:10-14 and what John the Baptist taught about what repentance looks like). That call and concern is biblical (even though it is distinct from the gospel). Not everyone who pursues compassion is liberal. What Beck blurred, your responses also blur. So I can see why you are complaining about the thrust of my post.
KStret
More Beck, Politics, and the Poor
Dr. Bock, "However values related to compassion or concern for the pour literally appear throughout the Bible. They are a part of the point that social concern need not equal political ideology, a point you seem to question that was at the core of my original point in the post." We are not disagreeing about the Bible's concern for the poor. You are not making your position clearly. Are you saying that because the Bible states that people should care for the poor, that it justifies some kind of monstrous Socialist, Marxists, Fascist or communists government? "Do those values matter? Should we not look to help?" Again, we are not disagreeing on caring for the poor and I am not saying that we shouldn't help them. My problem is that you seem to be supporting a redistribute the wealth type of philosophy without actually saying it. "They are Christian compassion and relief organizations that meet the needs of the poor around the world and often have schools and orphanages for the disadvantaged. I know of a World Vision school that teaches literacy to kids living in a garbage dump in Guatemala City." Why would I have a problem with that? "What do you say and do with the large number of people seeking work who have not been able to find it for months in the USA" They do have unemployment don't they? Why would I have a problem with that? Do you have a problem with people being on welfare for generations? Unemployment is a long way away from Marxism. I would also argue that the steps the government is currently taking is making the economy monumentally worse. "What Beck blurred, your responses also blur. So I can see why you are complaining about the thrust of my post" Glenn Beck did not blur anything. If anything you are distorting his position. As I said before he is against the government using churches as a political propaganda machine. That is all he said. That is all I am saying. I am for helping the poor and people in need. I am against Marxism and socialism. If a church sends people to help the poor in this country or other countries, I don't have a problem with that. I think that's great. If the Church is telling me that I need to support president Obama, cap and trade,a Health care bill or other political issues and I find out that my church is in bed with a progressive/ socialist activist group, I do have a problem with that. Do you accept that or are you against that statement? You have stated that you know Jim Wallis and that he is not a communist. However, his own words contradict that point. He has a long record of supporting far left ideologies. I don't know the extent of your relationship with him.Are you simply taking his words that he isn't a Marxists and believing what he tells you about Beck or do you subscribe to the same ideas he does? I don't think wanting to keep the government out of the churches is a controversial idea. Most people would agree with that. I will restate my point that Christianity and Marxism are inconsistent. You can't be both. You are not stating where you stand and that's where our problem is. As I said before what troubles me is you seem to equate being against left wing political ideologies with being against the poor. 1. Are you against the government infiltrating churches and using them for a political agenda? 2. Are you for or against Marxist or socialist type of political philosophies?
KStret
The Poor cont.
3. What is your position on the best way to help the poor?
KStret
The Poor cont.
"They are a part of the point that social concern need not equal political ideology, a point you seem to question that was at the core of my original point in the post." My question is what mechanism do you use to help the poor? The mechanism does equate to a political ideology. The difference in the political philosophies amounts to the saying; feed a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life. If you continually supply a fish to a man, the man becomes dependant on you. If the man becomes dependant on you, you can control the man much easier. If you teach the man to fish on his own, he becomes self sufficient. Are you for individualism or collectivism?
Darrell L. Bock
Response to posts
KStret:
I did not mention political ideology, you did in your response. I am for a variety of means to help the poor. I regard the choice between collectivism and individualism as a false one. We are all individually a part of a society that has to function (hopefully) with a sense of care, compassion, justice and responsibility.When I mention care, your posts continually jump to types of government styles. I am not for communism or marxism. I am for working as a church, society and as individuals to be sure basic humans needs are met. Helping the poor requires all kinds of efforts and I am not in principle against efforts that our representative elected government chooses to utilize to help, provided they are well conceived. Remember my original complaint against Beck (and I still hold to it and your posts reinforce why the point needs to be made) was that such compassion and church concern need not be a liberal political agenda. Poverty is a deep and complex problem. It calls for much thought and coordinated attention to even make a dent in it and the suffering it brings. Asking either/or questions or even thinking in those terms does not move us towards addressing it. Yes, there are certain places we should not go or types of efforts that are counter productive, but seeking to help is not automatically liberal or far left. It is being compassionate for people made in the image of God. That idea is not conservative or liberal, it is biblical.
KStret
Dr. Bock, As I have said a
Dr. Bock, As I have said a few times now, Glenn Beck's and my problem is with the government using churches to promote a political agenda. The government is now promoting a faith based initiative for churches and the government to form a "partnership" to support things like the cap and trade bill. I find that frightening. That is text book propaganda and sounds like something they would do in Nazi Germany. Jim Wallis surprisingly enough is involved in that. I have asked several times whether or not you support that or not. You have refused to answer the question. Not only that, but you have continually ignored the point that the context of Glenn Beck's comments were against the government using churches as a propaganda arm. I find it disturbing that you have not answered that question. Do you support a government church "partnership" or are you against it?
Darrell L. Bock
As I have said..follow up
I am about done interacting. I did answer your question. I am content with proposals that involve helping the poor that are well conceived regardless of who participates in it. Social activity can involve church and state without being reflective of a full governmental ideology. For you the two are so equated they cannot be separated. This is where we disagree. Beck spoke about more than government and church, so did God in what he calls us to value. You are choosing what to focus on. You love simple contrastive questions. I replied that issues do not break down so simply all the time.
KStret
Dr. Bock ” I regard the
Dr. Bock " I regard the choice between collectivism and individualism as a false one. We are all individually a part of a society that has to function (hopefully) with a sense of care, compassion, justice and responsibility.When I mention care, your posts continually jump to types of government styles" With all due respect, you are being overly vague. What does that mean? Individualism and collectivism are two diametrically opposing views. As I said before, we agree that the gospels do say you should care for the poor. At this point I can't even say that we disagree on how to care for the poor because you are all over the map and won't articulate anything other than generalities.If we agree that it's important to care for the poor, the next step is the best way to care for the poor. If being poor is a problem what is the best solution for that problem? Obviously, if you can get some of poor out of poverty, you are solving the problem. That gets into the mechanics of getting the poor out of poverty. The mechanics of solving the poverty problem does involve politics. 1. The government takes over everything and everybody gets a fair or equal redistribution of wealth and property. This would be a collectivist approach. 2. You teach the poor to get out of poverty and they become self sufficient. This would a individual approach. 3. You could have a mix. The problem with mixing the two is you are mixing two opposing view points.What inevitably happens is the collectivist approach gets bigger and bigger and collapses the individual approach. Your political view point also colors how you view the poor. Do you see them as helpless that need a constant handout or do you see them as people who are just down on there luck and need a hand up? Have you ever watched the movie or read the book the Pursuit of Happiness? Helping the poor is in the bible but the mechanics of helping the poor can be anti biblical. Communism was sold as a great way to help the poor and I would say that the results would not be consistent with biblical values. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Darrell L. Bock
short reply
We agree to disagree. You think in polar opposite categories. I do not. Poverty is so complex (and some of it structural in origin) that simply saying individual, yes, collective or corporate solutions, no is far too facile. You keep accusing me of having a politics when all I have raised in my responses is a question of applying biblical values. You run to communism and hell so fast when the suggestion of care is put forward. I even gave you examples of care that you did not comment on. Each question you ask is two options in contrast. Sorry, that approach to issues does not work for me at all. I agree the mechanics of how to help are important and make a difference. My starting position is we should do what we can in a variety of ways to be of help, not only in trying to meet core needs but in providing for people so they can be more accountable for their own future. Sorry, you think I am vague. Actually, I am trying to make clear what the principles are and then go one proposal at a time. Some I would find helpful and others not so. But I do not in principle automatically rule out cooperative efforts.
KStret
“Remember my original
"Remember my original complaint against Beck (and I still hold to it and your posts reinforce why the point needs to be made) was that such compassion and church concern need not be a liberal political agenda" Why do you keep arguing against a point that Glenn Beck did not make and I am not making. If the whitehouse is attempting to use churches for it's own political propaganda, what type of propaganda would that be? Conservative propaganda? The president is clearly a progressive and has a left wing world view. Therefore, the propaganda that the government is attempting to infuse into churches would be of the left wing variety. I have no problem with things a church going to Africa and helping people suffering from AIDS,setting up soup kitchens, and providing beds for the homeless. I think that's a great thing to do. Why do you keep equating being against churches being used by the government as being against helping the poor?
Darrell L. Bock
Response to remember my original
See my previous response. You have a principle that says no government role in this effort. I do not. For me, it depends on the program and how it is structured. Remember that faith based initiatives started with Pres. Bush II, who is not a liberal. This may be my last response. Also remember that my original post simply pointed out caring for the poor is not a liberal or conservative issue. The Bible calls us to care about the poor. So the link that seems so automatic to you with politics (or a certain kind of politics) I do not share.
KStret
government and church partnerships
"You have a principle that says no government role in this effort. I do not." My policy is no government and church partnership. My policy is the government is constitutionally prohibited from using the church for propaganda. That is the issue. If this administration is infiltrating the church, it would be left wing propaganda by it's definition. It also makes this a political issue. What is happening is the far left is hijacking the social Gospel aspect of the bible to mean progressive activism. Churches should not be in bed with Marxist activist groups. This applies overly or covertly. That is what I am against. When the argument is presented like that, 99% of people would agree with it. Instead, my position has been flipped on it's head and distorted to mean that I am against churches helping the poor or all government intervention. If a state wants to set up soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and things like that they have a right to do so. If the programs get too big and wasteful, you can put pressure on the officials to clean the programs up, vote the people out of office or leave the state. I generally lean against federal programs because they are so far removed from people, that they aren't accountable and there is a massive amount of waste. Once implemented they are almost impossible to get rid of. My belief is the smaller and more local the program is, the more efficient it is and the more people it helps. This also goes to the subject of states rights vs federal. Then there is the issue of people becoming dependant on the government. Welfare programs have shown over and over again that they keep people in poverty rather than get them out. Those are entirely different issues from the church and government merging.
KStret
Faith based initiative
"Remember that faith based initiatives started with Pres. Bush II, who is not a liberal." President Bush is a progressive that leans to the right. He is by no means a conservative. He spent a massive amount of money. I was against president Bush's faith based initiative. Let's look at what happened with the faith based initiative. 1. President Bush gives churches who do charity federal money 2. President Obama takes it a step forward. Now the government isn't just giving churches federal money, they want to form a partnership with them. They want churches to spread the gospel of government programs. What do you think the next step is? 3. The government doesn't like the churches talking about certain things like abortion or maybe they think it's wrong for someone to claim Jesus Christ is the only way to God. That is offensive to other religions. Maybe certain churches will refuse to promote certain issues that the government wants them to. What happens next? First the government uses the money they give the churches to blackmail them. If the Churches don't comply, they lose their funding. Then you see some kind of hate speech law implemented. The churches who don't comply and fight the government get shut down. You will probably ignore this or argue that this is far fetched. This has happened in Canada and is going to happen here. If you believe that the government is God, people of faith are going to get in the way of your agenda. This why oppressive governments either attack churches as Stalin did or infiltrate and destroy the churches from with in as Hitler or the Marxists do in south America. Progressives are people who are for big government. They conceal what they believe and take baby steps to get to their end game, which is Fascism or Marxism. These were the two competing new ideas in Europe in the early 1900s. Progressives goal was to get America into one of the two camps but they realized the American people would reject the idea. They came up with the idea of taking baby steps to get there. It's a throw a frog in boiling water and they will jump out but if you put them in warm water and slowly bring up the temperature to a biol you will have frog legs for dinner philosophy.