I didn’t post my own thoughts about Glenn Beck’s rally in DC, and I’m convinced we need to do everything we can to dissociate our faith from a political party, though not from stating our views on particular issues, but I’m annoyed with his decision to weigh in on Obama’s theology and beliefs when Beck himself, a Mormon, seems to be siding with Christians — and I mean he is siding with orthodox, conservative, evangelical Christians — and seems to be taking their side when he makes those points.
Jason Poling, an evangelical pastor in Pikesville MD, wrote this response to Glenn Beck’s accusation against Obama’s theology …
It is passing strange for Glenn Beck to describe President Obama’s theological views as a “perversion of the gospel” given his conversion to Mormonism. Mormon theology is irreconcilably at odds with orthodox Christian theology at several crucial points.
Nevertheless, I am quite sure that many Mormons are in fact sincere and devout followers of Jesus despite the fact that they drink their doctrine from a poisoned well. The same may be said of people who adhere to the sort of liberation theology that is really Marxism with a thin veneer of Christianity.
I’ve commented on this at other posts, maybe even one of yours Scot, how hypocritical I find it of evangelicals who have been so critical of Mormons (some in my own church are appalled that we would have Mormon teems come work in our clothing bank) yet some of those same people are following Beck like he’s the Messiah. To me, it shows how easily Christians can be duped and their loyalty can be bought. When Bush said he was a Christian, everyone rushed out to buy his book and hailed him as the great hope for our nation. Christians that didn’t like Carter or Clinton brushed them off simply because they didn’t practice faith in the same way that they did or said Clinton couldn’t possibly be a Christian for doing what he did. Now they question President Obama for the same reasons. We are such hypocrites.
“yet some of those same people are following Beck like he’s the Messiah.”
Who is treating him as a Messiah? Are you confident that these are the “same people” who have been critical of mormons?
“When Bush said he was a Christian, everyone rushed out to buy his book and hailed him as the great hope for our nation.”
It certainly isn’t true that everyone went out to buy his book. How is Bush’s popularity with Christians an example of how loyalty can be bought?
“Christians that didn’t like Carter or Clinton brushed them off simply because they didn’t practice faith in the same way that they did or said Clinton couldn’t possibly be a Christian for doing what he did.”
It certainly seems unlikely that he was a practicing Christian while he was in the White House. It’s hard for the public to know precisely how a president engages his faith, so all anyone had to go on were his highly publicized tryst and lies about same.
I don’t understand how this is amounts to hypocrisy.
“Now they question President Obama for the same reasons.”
I think the reasons are very different.
Kevin S, you’re being argumentative and there’s no desire here to enter into a conversation with Pat. You want to prove her points wrong. Go at this from a different angle and we can have a conversation.
Thanks, Scot.
@Kevin, I realize my statements were too general. By “everyone” going out and buying Bush’s book, I didn’t really mean EVERYONE. That is not true; I was just using a superlative when I shouldn’t have. But many people in the circle of which I’m a part, did buy his book and seemed to simply think he was the next great hope for America simply because of his faith. I think we need to be a little more critical in our thinking and not simply be bought in to the notion that a profession of faith makes one a great president and that we can surely count on him or her to save the nation. Only God can do that.
As for Mormon critcism, again, in the circle of which I’m a part I can say “yes” some of the same people who are critical of Mormons are some of the same ones who follow him as though HE’S the next great hope for our nation. It’s as though these individuals have a sudden case of amnesia. What previously would not have been acceptable to them (Mormon faith) is now okay because he espouses their views.
As for Clinton,no, his behavior did not bring glory to the cause of Christ, but how can any of us know what is in the man’s heart? Maybe he was and is truly repentant for his behavior. No doubt what he says or does, it will never be good enough for some. We are pretty good at judging others’ walk, fall and redemption, but again, we are not the final arbiters.
As for President Obama, I think the reasons his faith is questioned are the same in that SOME people seem to be judging his practice as not meeting up to THEIR standard of faith, so he must not be a Christian. Again, I just think we need to be careful about judging another person’s faith and using our own measure. Yes, we will know people by their fruit, but what’s the fruit? Church attendance, recitation of scripture verses, publicly injecting one’s faith into issues?
Scot @#3, good of you to rebuke and ask for a different tack. Can you explain how Pat is not being argumentative? Broad sweeping statements are made (“everyone went out to buy his book”, references to “Evangelical” and “Christians” with no qualifications). How exactly can one disagree with such statements and not be criticized? It looks like Kevin is asking some questions that could use clarification. He stated that he disagreed and asked for elaboration. I am not trying to be cranky here, I am just wondering why you respond the way you do. I want to be sure to keep the rules of the blog and not be shut down just because things are not phrased correctly. I do hope you answer this and not delete it because it is not “on topic.”
To me, the larger issue (and something I’ve harped on here before) is the hyperlibertarian economic philosophy advocated by Beck and many of his followers. This rally was, in my view, an attempt to put a thin veneer of Christianity on what is ultimately an atheist, ammoral worldview–the same phenomenon as liberation theology, just at the other end of the ideological spectrum.
Good piece in this month’s CT on this broad topic:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/september/2.36.html
I think Kevin S. responded specifically to to some rather hyperbolic statements in Pat’s comment. He did engage Pat’s argument–it’s hyperbolic form. Seems to me that the accusations that Beck’s followers treat him as the Messiah deserves procedural admonition, not the person who pointed out the hyperbole.
Am I being argumentative by pointing out procedure?
I think people really do put quite a bit of hope in figures like Beck. And such hope is messianic in the sense of thinking that they can help bring about good, God using them. Pat was making general statements. We need to read each other’s thoughts with love, trying to put the best construction on each other’s words. I think we could recognize the hyperbolic element in what Pat is saying if we did so, and I’m in basic agreement with her assertions.
Everyone, I apologize for starting a firestorm. It was not my intent to do so and I incorrectly used hyperbole. I know that not EVERYONE or ALL evangelicals or Christians feel a certain way. My use of the superlative was probably out of my own frustration with SOME in the community of which I’m a part.
I apologize for correcting you kevins, and Scot can clearly speak for himself, but I interpreted his comment as being one about style rather than substance. It is fine to disagree with you Pat, but perhaps more like this (I am writing this not because I think you, kevins, don’t know how but to help with the conversations).
Pat, I believe that you are over-generalizing in your criticisms and comments (e.g. people critical of Mormonism casting him as messiah, “everyone” rushed out to buy Bush’s book). I believe it is possible for the people to have other reasons, for example….
I myself am really trying to come to grips with the right wing mindset. It is not a natural place for me to live, but it seems obvious that the organization of the right wing is going to make it influential in our country.
Someone else posted a link to this site:
http://www.yourmorals.org
and I have been thinking about it for a few days now. It seems to me that they are onto something here. I test out as a more or less liberal person. And I really have no ability to relate to the conservative perspective in the way it is presented.
In trying to apply it to this situation, it seems to me that it may be the white of Beck vs. the black of Obama that is getting the right wingers to support Beck, or perhaps Fox has been successful in getting all of their views to be seen as part of the right wing agenda, regardless of voice. Interesting and important stuff.
I’m not terribly concerned about the hyperbole, though I would note that much of the criticism of Beck stems from his use of same.
Moreso, I just don’t see it as being hypocritical to support Beck when he fights for a cause we believe in. Christians on the other side of the aisle are quick to remind us the Muslims revere Christ as a prophet, and chastise those who are ignorant of this fact.
If a church allows Beck to preach from the pulpit, then I think we can start to have a discussion about hypocrisy. Otherwise, the old aphorism about the stopped watch would seem to apply.
Actually, is that an aphorism, or is it just a metaphor? Either way, it applies.
kevin s.-
“…to support Beck when he fights for a cause we believe in.”
What is that “cause”?
In defense of Pat, a lot of conservative evangelical Christians were fully devoted to GW Bush — that’s not conjecture, I believe the polling data illustrated as such whereas Clinton was generally disdained by the same set of Christian folk. GW Bush wasn’t exactly a model of Christian living, with launching of illegal, immoral invasions and according to some prominent Christians (i.e., David Kuo) who worked with the administration and discovered that selling of faith was a lot more phony baloney than authentic.
And examine where Beck draws his greatest support — it is indeed the white conservative Christian block, predominately in southern and mountain states.
But back to the thrust of the post — on the absurdity of a Mormon casting ridicule and scorn on a self professed Christian. The popularity of hosts like Beck and Limbaugh (who also casts doubt on Obama) is why substantial percentages of Republican/Conservative voters think Obama is a Muslim or not a Christian.
Rick,
In this case, the expansion of federal government. Also, it appears, the need to embrace God through Christ.
DRT,
I think Beck’s appeal is less sinister than you describe. He is a libertarian at a time when conservative evangelicals are embracing libertarian principles. Pundits and political commentators tend to respond to the zeitgeist rather than define it.
It is true that Beck is white, and Obama is black. But Nancy Pelosi is also white, and she is less popular than Obama with Beck’s fans. Unless you can cite an area where evangelicals have glossed over major ideological differences, you have a long way to go before you can plausibly bring race into the discussion.
Well, back to the original post, I wonder if the opposition to Beck’s theological views has something to do with his being a conservative or libertarian? He does have a TV show on Fox and those on the Left view Fox as anathama. I don’t remember too many analyzing the religious views of those on the left. Maybe we should accept calls to “return to God” only from those who we agree with. Do we hit harder on those we disagree with? At what point should we politically cooperate with folks who are Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, atheists, and Muslims?
kevin s.-
“In this case, the expansion of federal government. Also, it appears, the need to embrace God through Christ.”
But the Beck rally in Washington, that created much of the discussion in the past week or so, was not a political rally. So it was more of a religous rally.
And if it was religous, and since Beck believes in a different “Christ” (not the same as the historic Christian faith), then is it really the same “cause”?
kevin s.
“It is true that Beck is white, and Obama is black. But Nancy Pelosi is also white, and she is less popular than Obama with Beck’s fans. ”
While I think you’re correct in noting that ideological differences are a major factor here, I honestly don’t think they’re the only one. Race and gender (that is, a strong and real–if unadmitted–anti-woman bias exists as well) play into these discussion more than many care to admit.
Mark Baker-Wright-
“Race and gender (that is, a strong and real–if unadmitted–anti-woman bias exists as well) play into these discussion more than many care to admit.”
Besides the fact that you cannot point to any stats to back that up, the fact that Sarah Palin is soooooo popular with that crowd demonstrates such bias is not much of a factor.
Should Christians avoid supporting Glenn Beck because he is a Mormon?
No.
Definitely not for being a Mormon.
But he should be shunned for his hate peddling, dishonesty and for running an unscrupulous and shameless pump and dump scam on overpriced gold coins.
Mark,
Rick,
It depends on your view of the limitations of civil religion, I think.
The problem with attaching the label of “unadmitted” bias to someone is that it us unfalsifiable. It becomes self-fulfilling. If I deny having a bias, that is only proof that I am in denial.
The evidence doesn’t seem to suggest an anti-woman bias. Sharron Angle is a product of the same movement, and Sarah Palin is its ostensible star.
Really, then, all we are doing is imputing a motivation of bias. It is rote assumption, which doesn’t foster any understanding of what animates the movement.
It is my opinion that ideological differences are the defining issue here. The tea party movement represents a more ideological vision than conservatives have seen in decades. A focus on ideology precludes, among other things, racial and gender consideration.
Nancy Pelosi is famously unpopular with the tea partiers. Sarah Palin is quite popular.
Rick,
The fact that Sarah Palin is popular does not disprove my point, which I imagine is more than demonstrable by stats if I were smart or diligent enough to find them. I trust that others can and will do so if the need is truly there.
But, briefly, the fact that some women are popular does not prove that anti-woman bias does not exist. It only proves that ideology is a major factor, which I’ve already granted.
Mark,
It seems to prove not only that ideology is a major factor, but that it is the overriding factor. Insofar as such bias exists, the focus on ideology is compelling people to look past it.
At minimum, then, the movement advances in spite of bias, not as a result of it.
Naum, your posts always make me laugh. Thanks.
It’s ironic how popular right wing icons (Beck, Limbaugh, Gingrich, Palin), who have personal family lives fraught with multiple divorces, chronic drug abuse, marital infidelity, out of wedlock pregnancies, etc. feel qualified to publicly cast stones at politicans of faith (Carter, Clinton, Obama), judging their real or imagined “sins” more egregious than their own.
There are so many things to respond to here, since I am late coming to the conversation, but what I would like to focus on first is the Pelosi vs Palin argument.
I think that Mark is right on here. The main difference between Pelosi and Palin is that Palin is, by and large, seen as falling well within traditional gender roles while Pelosi is perceived by some as a threat to these roles.
I would argue that Palin has cultivated this image quite intentionally. Think of the visual from the 2008 Republican Convention of her surrounded by her large family her use of the term “Hockey Mom” to describe herself or her recent coining of the phrase “mama grizzlies.” In all of these she has made her motherhood central to her identity. (It is quite possible that this is the center of her personal identity, but if it actually is [I'm willing to concede that it probably is] or if it just a political tool, the fact remains that this is how her image has been created in the public square).
Pelosi’s public image on the other hand has little to do with motherhood or traditional female gender roles. She has been cast as a purely political figure and as a (pardon my language) “Ball-buster,” the stereotype of the feminist crusader. She herself makes little reference to her 5 children or seven grandchildren.
So the issue is not what the actual sex of either person is, but how they are perceived. Palin is viewed as the paragon of motherhood and traditional gender roles. Pelosi is cast as the antithesis to this image. Thus both women are reduced to symbols and of these Palin is the less threatening to those that value “traditional family/gender” roles (I have put this phrase in quotation marks because I doubt that such a thing actually exists. Life is always messier than our neat little boxes!)
I hope this serves to bring some clarity to how gender can be playing a role even with both objects being women. Not sure if Mark would agree with analysis, so please don’t assume that I am speaking for anyone other than myself.
kevins, I posit (without statistics) that there are vast swaths of people (many many in my region, central VA) that hate Nancy P just because of Obama. They feel that everything in their world has been turned upside down and if they thought a Koran burning would help get him out then they would do it in a heartbeat.
This is not a matter of they have proved that they support women because of Sarah, this is all about allegiance to their clan that would never, ever put someone like that in the WH.
Without statistics I think what I am saying is nearly irrefutable.
Beck is a self-described rodeo clown — an entertainer; people on both sides get too worked up over him (and in the meantime ignore more important points being made on the left and right). I think the best approach is to ignore, although I have to admit I enjoy the fodder he provides for Stewart and Colbert. His MLK Dream day event was obviously just staged to outrage people and generate pulicity, so the best approach is to deny him what he wants, IMO.
Conservatives rightly respect Palin’s persona as a strong mother. Many of them also think she would make a fine president of the United States, which hardly fits with the female stereotype. And what about Michelle Bachmann? She might be a culture warrior, but she doesn’t play up her motherhood per se.
These two ladies have one thing in common with tea party supporters. Ideology. Pelosi enjoyed roughly zero support from Republicans before there ever was a Tea Party movement. Reason? Ideology.
That is the only consistent thread here.
I wonder if part of the left’s refusal to understand the tea party as an ideological movement stems from the fact that they do not understand the ideology. DRT above mentioned that he cannot wrap his head around it.
I think this speaks to some of the assumptions liberals bring to the table. If there is a societal problem, they assume government can manufacture a solution. If there is poverty, government should provide welfare. If schools are failing, government should fix them. If people don’t have health care, government should provide it.
For the last 10 years or so, Republicans have bought into this paradigm as well. Take NCLB and Medicare Part D, or even Bush’s (failed) Social Security reform plan. Those were government-centered solutions. You could argue that the Iraq war is the culmination of this attitude.
The Tea Party simply doesn’t take this paradigm for granted.
Most people are fine discussing ideas within a certain construct. But once you begin questioning core assumptions, there is a sense of violation and loss.
If you don’t believe me, just look at sports. Try explaining to a baseball writer why saves are virtually worthless measure of the quality of a relief pitcher (and they are). Try telling a basketball fan that Carmelo Anthony is not a superstar (he isn’t), or that Kobe Bryant is not one of the five best players in the NBA (he isn’t). You will be accused of much worse than being a racist.
I reacted the same way the first time I interacted with Calvinists. Unconditional election? Ridiculous. Clearly they are Godless fools. Haven’t they read the Bible?
It seems to me that the left was wholly unprepared for this movement, in much the same way they were unprepared for conservative talk radio two decades ago. Since they had not considered it, it must be invalid viz. racism/sexism/ignorance/hypocrisy.
I don’t think that is a helpful way to discuss the movement, or to proceed in thoughtfully debating the issues.
“I wonder if part of the left’s refusal to understand the tea party as an ideological movement stems from the fact that they do not understand the ideology….
I think this speaks to some of the assumptions liberals bring to the table. If there is a societal problem, they assume government can manufacture a solution.”
I think you misunderstand “the left” when you say they refuse to understand that the tea party is an “ideological movement” if you are saying this on the basis of my (or anyone else’s) comments regarding racism and/or sexism. After all, racism and sexism themselves are ideologies. Indeed, “societal” issues themselves are rooted from ideologies.
I’m not really a good person to speak for “the left” (my own ideologies are too far to the right for many of them, even if I clearly would fall to the left of kevin s), but I would argue that few on “the left” truly think that the government can “manufacture” solutions to these problems, if by that you mean that we (?) think that if only the right programs were in place, these problems would eventually disappear. We do, however, see that government intervention can be an essential component to such solutions.
Am I just being confusing, or is the distinction between these two things clear?
Returning to the original issue, or what I perceived it to be, I agree that it is more than a little odd for Beck to make the critique he did of Obama’s faith, calling it a perversion of the gospel, and to do so as a Mormon, which a huge percentage of evangelical American Christians (some of his biggest fans) consider to be a cult. It strikes me more as a “people in glass houses ought not throw stones” issue.
Don’t misunderstand me, either. If Beck wants to criticize the president for his economic policies based on libertarian ideas, so be it, and he’ll get plenty of ‘Amens’ from the many evangelical Christians who think the same way. But I don’t think Beck, as a Mormon, wants to start the conversation about “perversions of the gospel,” especially not with his fan base, not even by comparison. His fans would be the most likely people in the country to use the strongest possible language against his version of Jesus and the gospel.
@Mark
Racism is an attitude, typically predicated on assumptions. It can form the basis of an ideology, but it is not in itself an ideology. It certainly is not a political ideology.
The principles of the nascent libertarian movement within conservatism have nothing in common with ideologies that have, in the past, accommodated racism. Institutionalizing racism at a political level requires a heavy dose of governmental intervention.
The movement is not explicitly racist, nor is it explicitly opposed to racism. The whole question of race is wholly tangential to the core of the discussion. It is about the role of the federal government.
Why can’t it simply be that people have reasonable disagreements about the way government should be run? With respect to Beck, why can’t it simply be that he has tapped into the vein of libertarianism that appeals to a certain strain of the populace?
Yeah, the business with the Connect Four and the chalkboard is weird. Yes, Christians are more likely to accommodate differing theological means insofar as they find they assent to the ends.
This is nothing new. Many Christians like to listen to Michael Medved, who is Jewish. Many Christians greatly revere Gandhi. Many took comfort that Bush was leading the country, while many now take comfort in the fact that Obama is at the helm.
People are people. It happens. These things are much simpler than people make them out to be.
What did the people at the Beck rally go out to see? Some Christians say that his message was simple and should be uncontroversial for all Christians. But the message that we need to “turn back to God” has zero substance. zero.
The term “God” in our culture means anything and everything and nothing at the same time. However, the phrase “turn back” has significant symbolic weight for conservatives, although ultimately the turning back is to a mythological past, not a historical reality.
Scot @#3, are you sure you are clear regarding your own motives in your response to Kevin?
Rather than being argumentative, he factually and politely addressed her points. There have been many, many other comments posted in a similar fashion and style in many, many other threads here in the past to which I don’t recall you having objected. I can’t help but note that Kevin S is well known to be somewhat politically conservative in his posting history. To be honest, though you may not have intended it that way, your response to Kevin comes across as a bit of “bullying” of a politically conservative poster. Those posters appear to be in a decided minority here at the Jesus Creed. Comments like yours are likely to have a “chilling effect” that only causes them to continue to be so.