Recently Glenn Beck said on his radio shows that if their priest or pastor or preacher is using the terms economic or social justice that they should leave their local congregation. To make sure that you do not think that Father Orthoduck is misquoting Glenn Beck, please go here to read his defense on his own website. In fact, Father Orthoduck thinks that there is some interesting stuff in his own defense posting. For instance:
GLENN: No idea. “Mr. Beck said on his radio show March 2nd, I beg you look for the word social justice or economic justice on your church website. If you can find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice are code words.” Quoting me. Am I advising people to leave their church? Yes, if I’m going, if I’m going to Jeremiah Wright’s church, he said, referring to President Obama’s former pastor in Chicago. If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish. Notice, notice, leave your parish, not your church.
What Father Orthoduck finds interesting is that Glenn Beck tries to make it appear that he was only talking about extreme congregations of the Jeremiah Wright type. And, at first he appears to have support from the transcript of the prior show. But, unfortunately, he then goes on to justify himself, and it is at this point that Father Orthoduck is unhappy:
GLENN: Yeah. Religion scholars say the term social justice now listen. This is a defense if you know history, this is their defense? Religious scholars say the term social justice was coined in the 1800s, codified by successive popes and adopted widely by protestant churches in the 1900s.
PAT: After the progressive movement had kicked in. Jeez.
GLENN: For the love of Pete. Marx started in 19 1848. All of this stuff started percolating, all of Nietzsche comes along, everything, it’s redistribution of wealth. I’ve told you this, the progressive movement started with people like Woodrow Wilson whose father was a preacher! They perverted Christianity! “The concept is that Christians should not merely give to the poor but also work to correct unjust conditions that keep people poor.” Yes! You’re exactly right. We should as Christians do that. But then there’s that added little step of having the government do it, not you.
Father Orthoduck would hope that there would be many Roman Catholics who would be incredibly insulted that there is a linkage made between their popes and Karl Marx. This would be especially true since the Second Vatican Council directly stated that social justice is part of the duty and responsibility of the Church. In particular, one should look at documents such as Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate. Mr. Beck goes on to try to defend himself by stating that he is only arguing about the use of government to accomplish social justice. But, here is the problem for Mr. Beck. He equates social justice merely with “give-away” programs, which he defines in the worst possible fashion. But, if one looks at the documents issued by both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church, social justice has a much deeper and stronger meaning than simply “give-away” programs. Our documents consistently link the idea of social justice to the call of the prophets, the apostles, and Holy Tradition for the care of the widow and the orphan, for judges that behave appropriately, for economic transactions that are fair and just (look up both the Book of James and how many times things like unfair weights, etc., are condemned in the OT)., etc.
Father Orthoduck has noticed that the Religious Right in this country is increasingly making wilder and wilder claims. With Glenn Beck this claim now goes far beyond what is appropriate to change Church teaching into something that it is not.
Father Ernesto has been doing some postings on short-term missions to which he will return tomorrow. But, he wishes you to know that, in one area, Tony Campolo has also slipped into this same problem of increasing denial of Church teaching in the area of social justice.
I’m not a fan of Glenn Beck; since I have no TV there are a lot of people I know nothing about. But I DO know that in many circles “social justice” (or among Catholics “peace and justice”) ARE code words, just like “women’s health” often means “abortion.” I’m sad that perfectly good words have been made useless, and not just in this area. “When Irish hearts are happy, all the world seems bright and gay…” is now unfortunately subject to misinterpretation. People who find “social justice” in their church’s materials DO need to find out what is meant, and then leave, or not. Sad but true.
Let’s go back to one of Father Orthoduck’s favorite authors, C.S. Lewis. Satan and his followers are quite experienced at mimicking legitimate and godly activities. In Screwtape Letters Wormwood is quite often involved in tempting his “client” by using The Enemy’s own language to make his “temptee” think that he is doing the right thing. In the same way, there are those who use the words “social justice” in the same way in which Screwtape and Wormwood use other words.
Nevertheless, the problem it not that the words, in and of themselves, are bad, but rather that they are being misused. In the same way, the words social justice are legitimate words, used by both our Patriarchs and the Roman Catholic Pope. But Glenn Beck (and others) has gone into Screwtape territory when he redefines the words in ways that are different than what the Church teaches.
I used to listen to Glenn when he was funny and touched on politics. Over time, he has become focused (read paranoid) and full of doom and gloom political rants and raves. It is hard to listen to him anymore as each day it is SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE TO HEAR. I can hear the black helicopters circling. Not that I am in favor of some of the latest out of Washington….I am rather a libertarian sort and think that less government intervention in our lives is better than more. Equating social/economic justice with the Communists and the Nazis is over the top IMHO. I work in my own small way for social justice and would hope that every person would wish to do so. This is NOT a government thing. This is IMHO an American thing. I think we are a country with high ideals–ideals we sometimes do not live up to. But I do believe that most people in the USA think that everyone should have an equal opportunity and no one should be gouging others. WE believe that the laws should be for everyone and should be applied to all. Are we perfect atthese things? No–not at all, but I think that most people of good will strive for them. The Bible talks about these things. To equate justice with extremes of wither the right OR the left is way over the top and I for one am tired of all the political retoric from both sides whether it is in the name of justice or equality or religion or whatever.
I wish I were more eloquent–but fear-mongering on both sides gets headlines just as blood and guts leads. This may be why I do not own a tv nor do I subscribe to a newspaper. sigh–I think there is major weirdness in politics at this juncture and since I am NOT that weird, I am weary of it.
Alix
I used to listen to Glenn when he was funny and touched on politics. Over time, he has become focused (read paranoid) and full of doom and gloom political rants and raves. It is hard to listen to him anymore as each day it is SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE TO HEAR.
I think both Glenn Beck and his predecessor Rush Limbaugh have been listening to their own PR for too long.
Salome Ellen, I know what you mean about “code words”. It doesn’t have to be the case, but often is.
Since we’re on the interlocking topics of social justice, short-term missions and Tony Campolo, let me remind ourselves of Liberation Theology, which grew out of the Roman Catholic Church’s fairly recent doctrine of “Preferential Option for the Poor” that was articulated shortly after Vatican II. It was about time, of course, after centuries of preference for the rich and powerful; but unfortunately it also was commandeered by the Marxists, at least part of the time (it’s important to understand that there are liberation theologIES, plural, not just one of them, and some are quite beneficial). Too often LT and the option for the poor falls into the leftist category, and certain governments south of the border are suspicious and will eradicate it, whether it be Marxist or not. Remember the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero in El Salvador.
Another example of LT is in the excellent film “The Price of Sugar” which tells of Father Christopher Hartley’s efforts to organize the Haitian sugar workers in the Dominican Republic. I highly recommend the film in order to understand the problem, but not necessarily as a solution. I’m not sure what the solution is. I certainly don’t know that boycotting sugar is the answer. At least Father Hartley raised awareness as did the film, narrated by Paul Newman.
Tony Campolo. Hmm. Not sure what to do with him. I have always been a fan, but he has caved on the side of the sugar corporations a little too much (and therefore on the wrong side of social justice, as Father Orthoduck suggested) by repeating the half-truth that the soil of the Dominican Republic is not fit for anything but sugar cane. This was in response to a complaint that the sugar corporations were effectively slaveholders by not permitting the Haitian workers to grow their own crops for sustenance, thus making them owe their souls to the company store.
Incidentally, the company stores on the sugar Bateys sell–above all else–liquor, batteries, soft drinks and not a whole lot of good food. But they control a lot of land on which it could be grown.
Glenn Beck afraid of social justice? Sure. For the same reasons as all of those right-wing thugs they have had as dictators in Latin American countries.
BTW, quoting Father Orthoduck:
“Father Orthoduck has noticed that the Religious Right in this country is increasingly making wilder and wilder claims. With Glenn Beck this claim now goes far beyond what is appropriate to change Church teaching into something that it is not.”
As for the changing of teaching into something it is not (in this case history), I am hopeful that Father Orthoduck will NOT bring up the topic of public education in Texas. I am fearful for his blood pressure.
ROFL, there is a problem there, in that they are afraid of quoting Thomas Jefferson too often. But, they actually have a point when they argue that one has to have a balance between “liberal” and “conservative” viewpoints. It would be much more helpful if textbook publishers would print materials that would make statements such as, “there are two (or three or four) major viewpoints in the USA on the subject of . . . .” Nevertheless, Father Orthoduck is not in favor of having every possible minor viewpoint represented. The problem with trying to represent every minor viewpoint is that eventually a society has to exercise some judgment in what it presents to young students. But that is a topic for another post.
…let me remind ourselves of Liberation Theology, which grew out of the Roman Catholic Church’s fairly recent doctrine of “Preferential Option for the Poor” that was articulated shortly after Vatican II. It was about time, of course, after centuries of preference for the rich and powerful; but unfortunately it also was commandeered by the Marxists, at least part of the time…
I saw the effects of Social Justice/Liberation Theology when it hit Newman Centers in my area in the very early Eighties. Before long the Trinity they were preaching consisted of Marx, Lenin, and Castro. (And the Yuppie Puppies from the Gated and Planned Communities in Irvine were its most forceful “Red Fanboy” advocates, a pattern that has held since the “British Jacobins” cheered on the French Revolution from the safety of across the Channel. What is it about Trust Fund Kiddies that they can recite Marxist Dialectic and quote Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book chapter and verse?) All in all, a really really bad scene — especially when someone who had actually fled Communism showed up and tried to object. Between the condescending pat-pat-pat on the head of “Poor thing, you couldn’t possibly understand” and the outright hostility of “Reaganist-Capitalist-Goldsteinist Stooge!”.
I don’t know where you heard of the term, but ever since then, to me the words “Social Justice (TM)” has the odor of Marxist-Leninist Communism with a Christian coat of paint. And the back-history of other Utopian movements dating back to the French Revolution.
“What a Long, Strange Trip it’s Been…”
— The Grateful Dead
Unfortunately, I think you’re right about the trust-fund kiddies altogether too much. I did a paper on liberation theology in the mid-90’s because of my trips to the Dominican Republic and Mexico, and found that it’s more of an intellectual exercise by elite western liberals than a grass-roots movement by campesinos. Later, I started going to Ecuador and haven’t encountered it there either. It’s a topic that simply doesn’t come up with the people I hang out with. They are very concerned with justice (they see the opposite all the time) but as an organized movement of “liberation theology” connected with the church (at least the Baptist churches that host us) it doesn’t connect. And if it did, they would simply organize la huelga, the strike, and would leave Jesus and the church out of it and do it on their own without any theology.
But it could be too that the Baptist and other evangelical churches in Latin America have zero clout with the governments and even less with the Roman Catholic Church. And they are often mission churches of the US denominations, which would shy away from liberation theology because of its works-orientation and sometimes-Marxism.
Father Christopher Hartley in the Dominican Republic (film The Price of Sugar) is also part of the privileged elite–his mother from a wealthy family in Spain and his father a wealthy Englishman. As a Catholic priest, he also had the support of his bishop and could never have gotten as far as he did without those connections. I’m not trying to take away from his dedication and his efforts, but the campesino could not and very likely would not consider doing this. I highly recommend the film.
Che Guevara is no exception either. He was well-educated, a physician, and from a privileged family too.
When I was in South America, neither Roman Catholics nor Protestants, nor Anabaptist Evangelicals were into liberation theology. Your analysis is quite correct. Most of the people that I met could have cared less about liberation theology. If they had a beef, they would simply go on strike. But, in the USA, we have destroyed any possibility of feedback by way of strike. We have either defined strikes as a “liberal” response or we have defined strikes as a “non-Christian” response.”
Glenn Beck afraid of social justice? Sure. For the same reasons as all of those right-wing thugs they have had as dictators in Latin American countries.
Yeah. When one of the serfs gets too uppity, the plantation owner (or middle manager for corporate interests) just points him out to El Colonel of the local Death Squad and says “Him Communist”. With one phone call the matter is taken care of, and the plantation owner/middle-manager’s hands are washed and clean.
Don’t know if I should post this, but here’s a YouTube mashup of Glenn Beck visuals with a Francis E Dec rant audio.
“THEY ARE CODE WORDS FOR COMMUNISM AND NAZIISM!”
Why do I keep hearing “NAZIISM = COMMUNISM! THEY’RE BOTH SOCIALISM! SOCIALISM! SOCIALISM!” from all over the Political Crazy spectrum? It’s almost a Pillar of the Faith.
The proof cited is that “Nazi” is a contraction of the NSDAP’s full name of “National Socialist”. The party was deliberately named that for reasons having to do with 1920s/30s European Politics.
In Euro-politics of that period, “Socialist” was associated with labor unions and “labor parties” whose platform emphasized the blue-collar working stiff against the Pointy-Haired Bosses. And European Pointy-Haired Bosses of the time had all the European tradition of hereditary aristocracy and rigid social class to fall back on; their robber barons thought of themselves as a New Aristocracy, with all the attitude. So “Socialist” in Europe of the time meant you appealed to the working stiffs against the Pointy-Haired Boss.
However, most Socialist movements at the time were “Internationalist”; their sights were set on “all the Workers of the World” in one Brotherhood of Man. Including the most extremist Socialists of the time — Naziism’s main rival, the Soviet Communists. And Germany had been screwed over by foreigners in the aftermath of World War One.
Given this situation, the name “National Socialist” was probably chosen to appeal to the constituency they needed to climb to power. “Socialist” means they were for the working stiff, and “National” meant they were for the GERMAN working stiff, not some other country’s interest (like Stalinist Russia). All in all, an understandable name.
And they weren’t the only politicians who camouflaged their real agenda with an innocuous or heroic-sounding name.
P.S. I remember a documentary once in the early Nineties (“Art and the Third Reich”, I think on A&E Channel) where they touched on how, during the decadence of the Weimar Republic, the up-and-coming Nazi Party positioned themselves as Guardians and Restorers of Traditional German Family Values against the bling and sexual looseness of the Berlin Cabaret Scene. Including propaganda pictures and movies eerily similar to today’s American Christian romanticization of the 1950s as a Godly Golden Age. (Even the similar sentimental style you see in the pictures in the Fellowship Halls of current rural American churches, harking Back to a Simpler and More Moral Time.) Effectively, the Nazis claimed the same Family Values/Public Morality positions currently associated with The Religious Right. (The guy watching the documentary with me immediately made the association “Pat Robertson is a Nazi!”; I just looked on it as there was a similar worry among Weimar-era Germans as among contemporary American Christians and the Nazis just appealed to it. Of course, once they got to power and staged their Coup from Within, they no longer had a need to appeal to the Germans with that PR.)
HUG says: “Why do I keep hearing “NAZIISM = COMMUNISM! THEY’RE BOTH SOCIALISM! SOCIALISM! SOCIALISM!” from all over the Political Crazy spectrum? It’s almost a Pillar of the Faith.”
I first heard that argument in 1989. An ultra-conservative friend of mine livened up the discussion with an article he had read in National Review.
[Insert moment of silence here for the late William F. Buckley, Jr., whom I really did like.]
Part of the “proof” that he cited from NR was the very word “Socialist” In the Nazi logo of NSDAP that you mentioned. Although the Nazis were extremely nationalist (not internationalist, like the communist movement) and functioned as capitalist (working through corporate bids to achieve the goals of war, roadbuilding, crematoria building, etc.) NSDAP stands for National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Sounded great in German rolling off the tongue of my history professor, a former member of Hitler’s Youth Guard). The words “socialist” and “workers” are enough for some people to insist that the Nazis were a product of the left, not the right. And they won’t shut up. I got into a discussion just the other day with someone who still believes this.
I don’t get it either. The Nazi movement didn’t look like a duck, walk like a duck or quack like a duck. And yet the right-wing insists that it’s a duck.
Check out the National Review from that period to see if I’m right. I don’t remember the author’s name, but the discussion would have been at Easter 1989 and the article was probably recent then.
It allows the Right to claim that they have never birthed great injustice. But, they have to conveniently ignore the alliances formed with Mussolini and Franco, neither of whom would have supported a socialist government in Germany. In fact, the Soviet Union supported the Spanish Republicanos against the Army and never supported Hitler.
And, here is the great irony of the language of that time. The National Socialists were actually right-wing, while in Spain the “Republicans” were actually left-wing socialists. The problem with the facile explanation by the modern Right crazies is that they have to fully ignore European history. But, then, that’s nothing new for them, is it?
Ignoring history (except to cite it to prove I Am Right) is no monopoly of the Right or Left.
“Men of Sin” will cite any cosmic-level authority — Bible, Koran, Marx, Freud, Nature, Science, History — to justify at a cosmic level what they wanted to do anyway.
True dat! The Left crazies do the same thing. In fact, the crazies end up acting like Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
It’s funny how the right disavow the past. The point about fascism was that it was the economic elites who acquiesced or in some cases encouraged fascist regimes to establish themselves as the lesser of two evils (the greater evil being social unrest and the threat of communism). I think the major reason contemporary right wingers claim that both socialism and Nazism are socialist is that their vantage point has moved significantly to the right, economically speaking. It isn’t only socialists who have traditionally believed in state control of key sectors of the economy for instance, but modern day right wing polemics tend to ally themselves to the idea of absolute free markets and very limited state intervention, mostly vacillating between social libertarianism and social conservatism or authoritarianism. It suits them to ignore historical context and instead opportunistically evoke emotive subjects like Nazism to smear views that they disagree with.
Ask some of the oldest French Canadians in mill towns in New England about their family history of owing your soul to the company store. A lot of folks were brought down from Canada and French speaking schools/churches/company stores opened by mill owners. Many were paid in script that could only be used at said company store. No one learned the English language–they didn’t have to–the company effectively gave them a little French ghetto to live in and by paying in script made sure they had to live in it. Thus none of them could get a job elsewhere because they did not speak the language, did not have the requisite skills because no way to pay for anyone to go to school to get them, etc. So in slow seasons, folks were laid off b y the mill owners who knew that whenever they needed them, there they would be…Then….the textile industry changed, the mill towns died and those same French speaking folks had to as my grandmother so charmingly put it, “root hog or die.” My generation has educated bilingual professionals who do quite well, thank you very much.
It is one of the oldest games in the book–effective slave labor without going to the expensive trouble of having to buy someone, feed and clothe him, and bury him. The thing is, it cannot sustain itself. The world changes. Real social justice might nudge the changes along a little faster. One might attempt to provide educational and business opportunities so that more options are available to said captive labor force. If the labor force is no longer captive, then working conditions/pay and such must improve to keep the necessary folks working for you.
That being said, it only works when you are a part of a system that allows such change. One might think that Ghandi might not have been quite as successful in India if the people he was non-violently protesting against were not people who could not in good conscious just send in the tanks. Repressive regimes do not hesitate to send in the tanks. How many people do you have to kill before the rest of them become more docile? It takes people of conscious and people of good will to exert pressure–to make being a nice employer more profitable than being a putative slaveholder. What is the best way to do that? I think we need saints!!
Alix
My question would be about the pastors of the churches to which those good New England congregationalists went. Your story is a good example of a time in which the local pastors should have preached and preached boldly on what was happening. If you look back at John Wesley and his preaching, he certainly took on gin mills, mine owners, etc. And, yet, he is also known as an evangelist and a strong preacher of the Gospel.
My question would be about the pastors of the churches to which those good New England congregationalists went.
The same New England Congregationalists who sold the slaves to the Southern plantations and then piously copped the Abolitionist attitude? That was a major North-vs-South beef from the beginning of the US through the Civil War.
I sympathize with Beck given my experience of Catholic priests and phrases like “social justice” ministries. But Beck also needs to be appreciated for the Mormon that he is… he lives in church world where to be godly is (almost) to be Republican, far more than Evangelicalism. He is wrong, but he does get the rhetorical battle. “Social Justice” can equal liberal politics like “Integrity” can equal pro-gay advocacy.
Actually, with the concern that he had about the 19th century and tying it all in to Marxism, it crossed my mind that Mormonism began that same century. So, I would agree with Beck that many heresies did begin in the 19th century (please note that Marxism is considered by many to be a Christian heresy).
In The Screwtape Letters, it is pointed out that one of the demonic favorite tricks is to take a Christian concept and misuse and redefine it so as to try to deny Christians the use of it. For instance, think about how the concept of “not judging” has been so cleverly misused by evil. Nevertheless, we must continue to preach the concept, but preach it correctly. And, we are to behave with integrity and preach on that. So, let’s us preach boldly and correctly that we are called to social justice by our Patriarchs.
Don’t forget Darwin. He and Marx affected much of what we believe today. Everything from that period tended to have “evolutionary” and “utopian” outcomes–not only species and governments, but religions such as Mormonism and–ironically–Dispensationalism, which I believe to be a direct descendant of Darwin.
And don’t forget the Free Market–although this is social Darwinism it has become one of the pillars of Evangelicalism.
I love irony; it’s considered a form of humor. Can we laugh at this?
And any introduction of Darwin in a Christian context usually leads to Young Earth Creationism Uber Alles.
Glen Beck is absolutely right, if your pastor preaches social or economics, run to the nearest exit and to a church that preaches Christ Crucified. The pastor at the church that I attend preaches Christ Crucified in Law and Gospel not social and economic justice.
This is very convenient for those who practice injustice, since it means that the pastors of the area will never point out the injustice and will keep the people complacent. That is, unless your pastor preaches the entire Bible, which includes the passages from the Old Testament that bewail false weights in the scales, inadequate wages, etc, and the passages from the New Testament that echo the Old Testament.
But, I find that when many pastors say that they preach only Christ Crucified, it means that they only preach part of the Bible. Please note that for a person who said he only preached Christ Crucified, Saint Paul managed to preach (write) about quite a few subjects other than that. And, remember that his letters were sent and meant to be read out loud to the congregation (in Corinthians he even uses the phrase, as you are assembled). So, they were written, but intended to be delivered sermon-like, as were the letters of the other Apostles, such as Saint James.
I would suggest to your pastor that he broaden his Bible preaching to include all the topics dealt with in Scripture. I would further suggest that all topics can be related to Our Lord Jesus Christ without stretching. Our preaching does need to be Christo-centric, but that does not mean it needs to be only about the atonement.
This is the latest example of the schism between the Social Gospel of late Victorian times and its Fundamentalist reaction.
The Social Gospel preached a Gospel of charitable works without personal salvation.
Its backlash (as per Glenn Beck & Henry above) preaches a Gospel of Personal Salvation and ONLY Personal Salvation.
Glen Beck is ridiculous. I cannot watch him for more than 5 seconds.
Glenn Beck is right, the purpose of the Church is to preach Christ crucified and preach the Word and rightly administrate the Sacraments.
Something Alan Colms said that floored me was something to the effect that: if Jesus were alive today, he would be a liberal!!!!!! Let’s see, I guess he thinks Jesus would stand up for Roe v. Wade, endorse taking His Father’s Commandments off the walls in courts, agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, … Anyone see a pattern here? Could it be that liberals (might as well say fascists) take the wrong side of EVERY controversy, and disguise their desire to destroy America behind “good intentions”? Our country is far worse off for the 2 years that liberal Democrats had a free hand in running the government of the US, and it serves to confirm that the misery the US felt under Jimmy Carter wasn’t just a case of bad luck, but that systemically, liberalism destroys what is good, and replaces it with what is bad, as the first 2 years of the Obama administration, following the same misguided approaches as Carter did. Jesus would not identify with liberals, He would condemn them for what they are, a generation of snakes!
Funny, I always thought that he would condemn both sides, the liberals for their anti-life approach on abortion and the conservatives for their anti-life approach on the care of widows, orphans, and workers. More than that, I notice some significant exaggerations. You are forced to go back to Jimmy Carter while skipping the fact that the only deficit reduction budget that produced a surplus was by the only Democratic president in many years, Bill Clinton. No Republican has produced either a balanced budget or a surplus for several presidencies.
You see, each side has something that they do that is unchristian. Each party has something of the anti-christ within it and each party has something of good about it, something like the wheat and the tares. And, it may be that both parties are wrong and the libertarians or the theocratic supporters are correct. This is why no Orthodox jurisdiction has officially approved either party, anymore than the Roman Catholic Church has approved either party.
Christians often have to vote based on what they imperfectly know each election.
just because one sits in a church does not make him a true Christian anymore than i sitting in my garage makes me a car !