Crucify Him

Then again, there’s always Luke 11:37-54. And, while we’re at it, much of Paul’s letters to both those idiots in Galatia and the selfish, social-climbing, holier-than-thou folks at Corinth. When confronted with injustice or human brokenness, I think passivity and silence are always the wrong answer. It allows brokenness to spread.

The challenge comes in how we respond. If I describe Monsieur Beck in terms more fitting to diseased barnyard animals, I’m not calling out his error. I’m attacking him personally. If I drop innuendos about Pat Robertson’s family history, then I’m not just correcting his questionable theology. I’m attacking him.

In this culture of bloviating and trollsmanship, it’s easy to fall into that trap. We can correct, sure, but only for the purpose of building up. As you say, it’s harder. But it’s necessary if we’re to truly call ourselves followers of Christ.

I think Jesus’ statement chiefly applies to interactions with non-Christians. Because he also says that if your brother sins against you, rebuke him. We have to be able to bring correction, though you’re certainly right that the manner in which we do it is key.

I think the biggest thing here is that to have a conversation with these guys is impossible. Pat Robertson is off limits because he has made himself that way.

I was listening to Glenn Beck the other day and I heard him talking about exactly what he said. Basically he was criticizing anyone who disagreed with him and calling them a marxist. Kind of hard to have a conversation with someone like that.

But I will say that you are right. It is easier to attack then conversate, but the conversation needs to be there first.

Good thoughts. I think the reaction comes from being a politically correct society. People react from that angle. However, if you are going to have such a antagonistic view, then you need to expect an antagonistic response. I have found that out in my own writings that if you take a view that doesn’t go with other peoples’ status quo, then you are going to get attacked or have other people with differing opinions speak up.

Even using the term “the truth in love” means that you hold the truth and you are sharing it in love to the person you feel is wrong.

My favorite retort that people use now is “you’re judging” if you hold a different opinion. Stupid, silly and completely keeps from having a valuable discussion around the topic.

I think you are more disgusted with the ad hominum attacks going on where people make fun of others to attempt to make their point. In philosophy, we learned that this is an ineffective way to argue.

Just some snapshot thoughts. =)

Tyler,

I agree with your point about criticism. I would love to offer one clarification though RE: the Beck/social justice issue. Glenn Beck was speaking against churches that want to use the pulpit to push for social justice on by the the government.

He has spoken at length about the need for churches and individuals to permeate social justice – to care for the poor, the downtrodden, etc. He just doesn’t believe it is the proper course for government and, as such, doesn’t believe that pastors should be using the pulpit to promote social justice through government policy/force.

It goes hand-in-hand with my belief about charity. Charity is when I or my family help a neighbor who has lost his job. Charity is when we giving to our church, a homeless shelter, our missionaries or some other worthy cause. Charity is NOT when the government uses its powers to confiscate money from me to give away. That is not charity. That is the “social justice” in which I do not believe.

I would consider much of Christ’s actions on Earth to be actions of “social justice.” The difference is that He carried out the actions Himself and/or He exhorted His followers (His church) to do the same. He did not call upon the Jewish or Roman authorities to carry out acts of “social justice.” That is what many churches do today – they promote the idea that the government is to be the solution of societal ills rather than encouraging the people to help those around them.

Jesus preached to “love your neighbor as yourself,” not “Have the government use the force of law to confiscate property from others so that they can love others on my behalf.”

That’s my take on it.

As context, it might be useful to note that Fox is backing Beck pretty aggressively on this one. There’s an article up today attacking Jim Wallis, who took Beck to task on his statement. Wallis is, according to Fox, “Obama’s new pastor,” which may be somewhat of a surprise to both of them. He is also described as a “socialist activist who has championed communist causes.”

There’s a theme here, one that involves a vision of the world that is so disinterested in the truth that it does seem to beg some resistance.

http://www.thefoxnation.com/culture/2010/03/16/not-again-meet-obamas-new-controversial-pastor

In the case of Pat Robertson, I saw some unjustifiable backlash. There was need of correction but the way people put it wasn’t really helpful.

Maybe I’m not following the right people, but most of what I’ve seen re: Glenn Beck has to do with deconstructing the absolutely insane jumps he makes to make his assertions. It’s slippery slope, it’s guilty by association, it’s distorting the gospel message, it’s half-way lying and twisting quotes, shoot, when he tried to say that he didn’t say what he said, he went against his transcript. That sort of thing requires a response. I think Jim Wallis and Soujourners have done a very good job of crafting a gracious and yet strong response to Beck and his way of responding to Wallis is pretty tell tale of how he wants to proceed with this.

Definitely a conversation with one of these “famous” men is almost impossible. A conversation between us is possible though and I’d prefer the conversation to be rooted in grace instead of throwing our opinions around.

Totally agree with you Zack. Again I’m not backing Glenn and what he said.

For one, the guy isn’t even a believer. So why do we get all up in arms over one man’s opinion that doesn’t even hold the same beliefs Christians do? I don’t get that. And beyond that, the way many have responded has gone way too far.

Don’t listen to Glenn Beck and move on.

Doesn’t this just feel like a bunch of infighting though? More of who’s right and who’s wrong? Do we really need more of that?

Have you noticed that it’s the people on the TV that cause the biggest upsets to peace? I got rid of the Extended Cable stations and don’t listen to talk radio for the main reasons that these are sensationalism and all they do is spread “hate”.

Just look at how the media loves to show people being “bad” and how often the good stories about love, life and goodness are not there.

Turn off the TV, put on some good music. Let the blowhards try to blow HIS house down, I’ll bet that Beck and anyone else won’t be able to do it.

Great perspective,

I think that many Christians are quick to respond in order to distance themselves from unpopular opinions. This is done, I believe, not to stand up for truth alone, but to distance themselves from somebody who is under fire. I like how you found truth in Glen Becks perspective despite the immediate reaction of many to simply dismiss a provocative interpretation. I agree with your perspective and completely disagree with Beck’s approach and do not find any contradiction.

I agree that counter attacks on people like Beck and Robertson don’t really do any good. But I do think that if we are going to be serious then we need to starts with the people that are on our own side. So when Evangelical Christians attack (or counter attack) someone, if you are an Evangelical then I think it is part of our role as a Christian to appropriately tell them to stop it. When you are a Republican and some Republican inappropriately attack or counterattack someone, it is your job to hold them to the higher level of accountability. (Same if you are democrat). The best people to hold someone accountable is those that are on their side and have credibility. That is why I think responses by Richard Land and Al Mohler were appropriate and why I think Wallis’ response was fairly worthless.

It takes some effort to not make excuses for the people that you generally agree with and not vilify the people that you generally don’t agree with, but I think it is worth the effort.

I’m with Steven. I don’t watch cable news anymore because most of it is sensationalism and it’s garbage.

I’m in the middle of a debate right now however on my own blog about the subject of “social justice.” I won’t go into it here, but I do want to say that I agree with what Tyler is saying. I think when we rush to condemn someone it often gives people an excuse, particularly on Twitter and on blogs to “pile on.”

Tiger Woods does his thing and across Christian blogs and across Twitter it’s all about the GRACE we should be bestowing upon him. That’s true. But the notion of grace goes flying out the window in many other cases.

Adam, thanks for the reference to Al Mohler. Just read that piece. Good stuff.

I’m not sure if it’s “infighting.” It is conflict and disagreement, true. But if someone actively lies and distorts, then disagreeing with that distortion is necessary. Allowing it to remain unchallenged doesn’t do anyone any good. Challenging it through ad hominem attacks and trollsmanship is the wrong way to go about it…but that doesn’t excuse passivity.

I think the point made by Shields is a good one. The best corrective comes when we’re willing to correct “one of our own.” Or, better yet, ourselves.

Good reference to Tiger. Great example of how we can’t decide if we should condemn or forgive.

When it comes to ideological differences, play the ball, not the man.

Thank you for this.