Recently, the Web lit up with responses to Glenn Beck’s most recent controversial statements. This time, he urged people to leave their churches if their churches promoted “social justice”. Here’s the statement that launched a thousand responses from all over the religious/political/ideological spectrum:

I beg you, look for the words “social justice” or “economic justice” on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes! If I’m going to Jeremiah’s Wright’s church? Yes! Leave your church. Social justice and economic justice. They are code words. If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish. Go alert your bishop and tell them, “Excuse me are you down with this whole social justice thing?” I don’t care what the church is. If it’s my church, I’m alerting the church authorities: “Excuse me, what’s this social justice thing?” And if they say, “Yeah, we’re all in that social justice thing,” I’m in the wrong place.

We all know that subtlety, nuance, and context are not Beck’s strong suit. He’s all about the diatribe, and he’s equally loved and hated for it. However, those responding to Beck are often little better. As I waded through the responses, it felt like the general tone of most of them was “Glenn Beck is an idiot” and left it at that.

Which is why I appreciated Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.‘s “Glenn Beck, Social Justice, and the Limits of Public Discourse” so much. Mohler—who is currently the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary—begins with some criticism of Beck’s statements.

At first glance, Beck’s statements are hard to defend. How can justice, social or private, be anything other than a biblical mandate? A quick look at the Bible will reveal that justice is, above all, an attribute of God himself. God is perfectly just, and the Bible is filled with God’s condemnation of injustice in any form. The prophets thundered God’s denunciation of social injustice and the call for God’s people to live justly, to uphold justice, and to refrain from any perversion of justice.

[...]

To assert that a call for social justice is reason for faithful Christians to flee their churches is nonsense, given the Bible’s overwhelming affirmation that justice is one of God’s own foremost concerns.

Mohler then goes on to define and explore the history of social justice within the context of American Christianity. In other words, he brings some nuance and historical context to the conversation that was sorely lacking in both Beck’s statement and many of the responses.

The immediate roots of this phenomenon go back to the mid-nineteenth century, when figures like Washington Gladden, a Columbus, Ohio pastor, promoted what they called a new “social gospel.” Gladden was morally offended by the idea of a God who would offer his own Son as a substitutionary sacrifice for sinful humanity and, as one of the founders of liberal theology in America, offered the social gospel as an alternative message, complete with a political agenda. It was not social reform that made the social gospel liberal, it was its theological message. As Gary Dorrien, the preeminent historian of liberal theology, asserts, the distinctive mark of the social gospel was “its theology of social salvation.”

Even more famously, the social gospel would be identified with Walter Rauschenbusch, a liberal figure of the early twentieth century. Rauschenbusch made his arguments most classically in his books, Christianity and the Social Crisis (1907) and Theology for the Social Gospel (1917). In a 1904 essay, “The New Evangelism,” Rauschenbusch called for a departure from “the old evangelism” which was all about salvation from sin through faith in Christ, and for the embrace of a “new evangelism” which was about salvation from social ills and injustice in order to realize, at least partially, the Kingdom of God on earth. He called for Christian missions to be redirected in order to “Christianize international politics.”

He follows that with some great words of wisdom for Christians regarding social reform platforms and movements:

As an evangelical Christian, my concern is the primacy of the Gospel of Christ—the Gospel that reveals the power of God in the salvation of sinners through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The church’s main message must be that Gospel. The New Testament is stunningly silent on any plan for governmental or social action. The apostles launched no social reform movement. Instead, they preached the Gospel of Christ and planted Gospel churches. Our task is to follow Christ’s command and the example of the apostles.

There is more to that story, however. The church is not to adopt a social reform platform as its message, but the faithful church, wherever it is found, is itself a social reform movement precisely because it is populated by redeemed sinners who are called to faithfulness in following Christ. The Gospel is not a message of social salvation, but it does have social implications.

Finally, Mohler closes with both a excoriation and a word of caution:

Glenn Beck’s statements about social justice demonstrate the limits of our public discourse. The issues raised by his comments and the resultant controversy are worthy of our most careful thinking and most earnest struggle. Yet, the media, including Mr. Beck, will have moved on to any number of other flash points before the ink has dried on this kerfuffle. Serious-minded Christians cannot move on from this issue so quickly.

All in all, a thoughtful, well-reasoned article that is respectful to Beck while being critical of his shallow announcements and that also fills in some of the context that Beck left out or ignored—context that is sorely needed when dealing with a hot button issue such as this one.

It can be a fun and very enlightening process to look at a painting or sculpture and “decode” the symbolism contained therein. We did this all the time in my art history classes and when done carefully, thoroughly, and responsibly, it not only fostered a deeper understanding and appreciation of the art in question, it often provided a unique window into the mores and traditions of societies now long gone.

But what Beck does reminds me less of art history class and more of those videos I watched in my high school youth group that “uncovered” the Satanic messages and symbols in the artwork of rock n’ roll records. “If you turn this Blue Öyster Cult album upside down, hold it at a 45° angle, and squint really hard, you’ll see that that tiny white blob in the corner is obviously a pentagram.”

At the 8:04 mark in the video, Beck references Mark 8:18a (“Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?”). It’s one thing to have “eyes but fail to see”; it’s quite another to have eyes that only see what you want to see.

If you look hard enough, you can find almost anything you want in a piece of art: communist imagery, Christian imagery, Satanic imagery, etc. That doesn’t mean that that imagery is actually there, or that that is what the artist intended to communicate. (And it’s especially easy to miss that if you begin exchanging the facts surrounding the art that you’re “decoding” for rabbit trails and non sequiturs.)

Just a few random reflections from the previous night and this morning.

• Thank God it’s over. Seriously, thank God it’s over. Yes, there is/was an awful lot at stake with this election, but the power of politics to reveal even the most rational of individuals as complete asshats and/or total ignoramuses has never been clearer than it was this year.
• Of course, it’s not really over. There’s a lot of work and rebuilding to do, and people can still easily become asshats and/or ignoramuses at the drop of a hat.
• John McCain’s concession speech was full of decency and class. I just wish his supporters would’ve followed his example.
• I found it interesting that when Obama spoke of McCain, his crowd applauded.
• I’ve seen several folks already talking about 2012 with a slight bit of yearning. Stop it. It’s 2008 and you need to live in the now, so to speak, because that’s the only time you’ll be able to make a difference. The only plans I’m making for 2012 are plans to be more informed than I am now.
• I’ve become increasingly convicted about my Christian duties with regards to the president, and I think they can be summed up in two words: “respect” and “pray”. Neither of which, to my shame, I did well when it came to Bush.
• Speaking of respect, his name is Barack Obama, not Barry, the Obamessiah, or any other juvenile reference. Same goes for “Dubya”. You’re not in second grade: have the common courtesy to call your president by his real name.
• I need to stop watching The Daily Show and The Colbert Report as much. They’re brilliant shows, and like all comedians, they often have the ability to say things that others should be saying but aren’t—and get away with it. But for me, they feed into so much cynicism and skepticism when it comes to my leaders, that it’s not very healthy. But to each his own.
• Holograms look really cool in Star Wars and Star Trek but look like absolute crap on cable news networks.
• I sincerely hope that Obama supporters will be able to take all of that faith that they’ve placed in their man, and translate it into action. That they’ll really listen to him when he talks about sacrifice and service, and actually do such things, rather than simply stop after celebrating their victory. That they’ll take to heart what Obama said last night: “This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change.”
• I hope and pray that Obama has a change of heart when it comes to abortion.
• I am anxious about the next four years, but more than ever, I realize that my ultimate assurance and comfort don’t come from an election, a president, or a political party, but from the fact that God is still on His throne, He is still sovereign, and He is never moved by the plans of man. And I realize that, while I’m to be loyal to my country, even if I oppose some of what it stands for, my ultimate allegiance lies with the Gospel of Christ and the Kingdom of God.

There’s this old adage that has become even more pertinent in recent years: “If it’s too good to be true, it probably is.” This is due primarily to the countless e-mails circulating the Intertubes promising instant wealth if only you turn over sensitive bank information to some foreign dignitary. However, the same logic should apply to e-mails that contain juicy information and damning info about your least favorite political candidate(s).

But if you ever receive an e-mail claiming that so-and-so is a godless heathen who wants to teach America’s schoolchildren how to participate in gay threesomes, or that they have a history of committing war crimes and want to drown cute baby seals in crude oil—you know, the kind of e-mail that you just can’t wait to send off to your family members and friends (Facebook or otherwise)—there should be a red flag or two popping up in the back of your head.

In light of the most recent round of spurious and specious rumors flying around the political campaign trail, I have a single and simple favor to ask. The next time you receive one those e-mails, spend 10 minutes on Google to check it out. Heck, just head on over to Snopes, and see what they’ve already debunked. For example:

• Barack Obama is a “radical Muslim” who “will not recite the Pledge of Allegiance”
• Barack Obama’s birth certificate contains damaging information about him
• Sarah Palin wanted to ban A Clockwork Orange, A Wrinkle In Time, Huckleberry Fin, and other books from the Wasilla, Alaska public library
• Sarah Palin posed in a U.S. flag bikini while holding a rifle
• John McCain said he was a war criminal on 60 Minutes

Surely there are more legitimate issues, complaints, and criticisms that can (and should) be raised than those that can be debunked with a simple Google search. To harp on the same lies and falsehoods is not just dishonest, it’s lazy and ignorant—and I hope to God we’re better than that.

Via

...I think Andy Whitman has a pretty good idea:

I have a crazy idea: let’s apply the same standards to journalists that they apply to politicians. For every breathless story written about a politician’s foibles, some other journalist gets to write a breathless story, after doing a solid background check and thorough vetting, of that journalist’s past. I know. It will never happen because nobody really cares about what a journalist might have done a quarter century ago. Exactly.

On a related note, I think most people would agree that, while it’s certainly not out of the question, the behavior of one’s child doesn’t automatically reflect, or speak to, the quality of one’s parenting, at least not completely. I know of several people who came from good families with loving parents, and still made mistakes (including the same one that Bristol Palin made). Conversely, there are just as many instances of children who have come from bad families who went on to live good, solid, productive lives. It’s certainly important, but nurture is not the whole story.

And if that’s all the case, then I wonder why so many people—on both sides of the fence—seem to feel that recent revelations say anything of value concerning Palin’s governing abilities. Certainly, there are more legitimate issues that can be raised and debated. Frankly, this whole business of rumors, conspiracies, and conjecture surrounding Palin’s children—and grandchildren, for that matter—merits an even lower circle of hell then its closest degenerate relative, “celebrity journalism”.

I used to think that sports announcers had just about the most worthless job in the world—essentially, all they really do is state the obvious while occasionally tossing out some vaguely interesting bit of trivia that is tenuously connected to the events that just occurred on the field. But while the incessant coverage of the Olympics hasn’t really raised my opinion of that particular profession much (with a few exceptions), I have come to the conclusion that there’s one career choice out there that’s even more pointless and pathetic: television political analyst/commentator/pundit.

Here’s the sad truth: these folks are paid to be little more than whiny little bitches. They’re less interested in actually bringing to bear any insightful commentary on the issues and topics at hand, and are far more interested in twisting and obscuring what is actually said and discussed so as to have better comebacks, putdowns, and zingers to use against the other analysts in the room. In other words, they’re less concerned about the issues and more concerned with how they can one-up each other.

Case in point, Barack Obama and John McCain’s recent appearance on the Saddleback Civil Forum. Pastor Rick Warren interviewed both of the presidential candidates—Obama first, and then McCain—and asked them questions on issues ranging from abortion and war to education and energy. The event itself was admirable and even enjoyable, giving us voters an opportunity to hear the candidates speak for themselves plainly and honestly. In short, it was a very refreshing change from what passes for much of the “conversation” that occurs during presidential campaigns.

And then the analysts and pundits had to go and take a nice, long piss all over it.

For starters, it was obvious, from the get-go, which analysts would go where on the event: one merely needed to discover their “liberal” or “conservative” persuasion. And then there was the blatant twisting of what the candidates said, such as when one Fox News pundit—I didn’t catch the name, they all look and sound alike to me—implied that Obama listed only his wife, grandmother, and Ted Kennedy in response to Warren’s request to name three people he’d go to for advice. Which was a gross simplification of what Obama actually communicated.

And finally, let’s not forget the shrill, annoying tones in which all of this “analysis” took place. It was almost as if the analysts were determined to go against the entire raison d’être of the Forum, which is “to promote civil discourse and the common good of all”, with the emphasis on the word “civil”.

Now, I didn’t sit through all of the analysis. I’m sure that, somewhere, on some channel, someone threw out a thought-provoking and cogent observation. However, when one of MSNBC’s commentators kicked off that channel’s post-Forum discussion by tallying up how many times Obama and McCain each said “God”, “Jesus”, and “Christianity”—almost as if he truly believed keeping score like that told you something valuable about the candidates—I knew I’d only be able to stomach so much commentary of that caliber before throwing up a little in my throat.