Otherwise, it really doesn’t matter what Glenn Beck meant about social justice. It’s a moot point, even if Beck and I were in total agreement. As soon as he instructs people to leave their church if they don’t agree with something for political reasons, he is instructing people to value their personal political philosophy over the unity of the body of Christ. That is indefensible. If a political liberal made an equivalent comment, I’d say the same thing.

Part of the church’s beliefs about social ethics has included not just charity to the poor and needy, but concern for the larger societal structures that made them poor in the first place. We may disagree with the political philosophy that corrects those larger societal structures, but when we divide ourselves based on political philosophy we turn politics into an idol.

No one, and no church community, is ever politically “neutral” whatever that would even look like. I, who have been “left leaning” (I hate the simplistic categories but for the sake of argument) since college, have put up with plenty of political crap I’ve disagreed with from the mostly in-love-with-the-right evangelical churches I’ve attended. I would never leave, and I especially would never instruct someone who trusted me to leave for such a theologically indefensible reason as Beck did. As O’Reilly pointed out, he’s asking all Catholics to leave their church… even after Beck corrected what he “really” meant.

Glenn Beck is not against helping the poor and needing. He in fact gives quite bit of his own wealth to various causes and encourages others to do the same. What he is against is what he views, ironically enough, is the politicization of this very act within the realm of the church. An article which discusses this well can be found here: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/04/what_glenn_beck_meant_about_social_justice.html

In the short time I’ve been on this blog, I’ve been learning how to listen to others and how to disagree without being an a-hole. That said, I’ll probably have to make a public apology before the week’s out (change of heart comes slow). Thanks for offering us a refreshing alternative.

For those of us who are Christians, I wonder if it might be truly productive to have a discussion about Social Justice and how it relates to involvement in government, or further how do we all hold as valuable what Jesus held as valuable while having strong differences in how we go about that.

@Heather – could you tell me what you found as sarcastic? The only thing I’ve seen that way is the campaign to report yourself as a social justice Christian to Glenn Beck which to me is more a non-violent response than anything else. Has there been something else that you’ve seen as sarcastic or demeaning that I’ve missed?

What does surprise me, however, is the response of Sojourners. While Jim Wallis has called for a discussion, and has appeared to remain calm, Sojourners, the magazine he founded and of which he is editor, has jumped to the defensive. In their weekly emails they send out, presumably to thousands of people of faith and people of possible faith, their tone has turned sarcastic and condescending, which is a shame.

If unity is what we’re aiming for, doesn’t that unity involve respect, even when our feelings get hurt?