Because last week, he suggested if you find “economic justice” or “social justice” on your church’s web site, that you should run away, leave the church, and go find — I’m not entirely sure what. Does Beck have a church he’s starting?
You can hear Beck’s anti-sermon here.
Do you think he’s O.K.? I mean, taking on the likes of Martin Luther King, the Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa like this? Because to me, it sounds like Glenn Beck’s final unhinging and maybe someone should step in and help him or something.
His comments have certainly riled the Catholics, here and here. Come to think of it, as a hard-shell Protestant, I believe that picking on Glenn Beck is akin to slapping a slow child, but sometimes? You just have to call a person out on their nonsense.
And thanks, Sis. Sharon, for the link.
UPDATE: The New Evangelical Partnership (my people!) for the Common Good is raising money to counter Beck’s hateful message. You can learn more here.
Dating Jesus 
Judging from some of the comments at the FirstThings.com link, it seems to me a lot of Catholics have bought into the Protestant notion of a “personal relationship” with Jesus, to the exclusion of any sense of corporate responsibility or corporate action. E.g., “I don’t have to give to the poor unless I really *want* to.” Is it truly only the Episcopal Church that keeps alive the notion of corporate sin and corporate responsibility in the Baptismal vows? “Do you renounce the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God?” Help me out here, Bro. Jay.
Yes, the baptismal vow you quoted is important. But another aspect is the Baptismal Covenant, pp. 304-305 BCP–
After the celebrant asks the congregation (not just the individual baptizee) if they believe the faith as outlined in the Apostles’ Creed, the celebrant asks five questions:
Will you continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers?
Will you persevere in resisting evil and, whevever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord?
Will you proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ?
Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself?
Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?
After the people respond “I will, with God’s help,” we continue with prayers for the candidates (I dislike that word!) bless the water and baptize the candidates.
Interesting that the people are corporately asked these five questions but the response is individual. We have both an individual and a corporate responsibility.
“the people are corporately asked these five questions but the response is individual.”
But the ritual also includes this:
“Will you who witness these vows do all in your power to support these persons in their life in Christ?
“People We will. ”
Then later: “We receive you into the household of God. Confess the faith of Christ crucified, proclaim his resurrection, and share with us in his eternal priesthood.”
Questions addressed to the Body are responded to by the whole Body.
“We have both an individual and a corporate responsibility.”
Yes, but you can’t have one without the other. A purely “individual” Christianity, divorced from any body of other Christians, which is how I read some of the comments on other forums and how I read Glenn Beck’s words, is not a true Christianity as has been understood for the last 2000 years. Some of the same people who want to impose their interpretation of Christianity on the entire nation, at the same time do not want the guvmint telling them when their tax dollars should be spent on the poor. Talk about having it both ways. “We want to return America to its Christian roots, but at the same time we’re redefining Christianity to be a “personal” experience.” More and more I’m convinced that what we’re dealing with is a small group of people with multiple personality disorder.
“slapping a slow child…”
Quite the metafore there, DJ.
If you believe that your church is involved with left-wing or a socialist agenda, then I guess you distance yourself if you are a true conservative Christian.
But then is it OK to follow your Church teachings if their Church teachings are leaning is a bit to the right?
Churches have always been at the center of social justice and should continue to do so.
What would Jesus do?
It this case, he might just slap Glen upside his head.
It’s interesting to see the twist on this. Perhaps GB should consider that a church doesn’t follow a political agenda, but instead people in a church choose to either match their politics to their faith or they don’t. Fundamentalists may choose conservative politics because they both judge/condemn certain groups. Whereas, other Christians may align themselves with politics that are in sync with feeding the poor and caring for the sick.
Glenn Beck’s fear tactics are so tiring. He’s sunk to a new low by inferring that the church may have a hidden agenda to turn you into a liberal. Should we stop learning what Jesus taught us, Glenn? Is it too dangerous? This is sounding a bit like the fear that overtook Jesus’ enemies.
Beck will say or do anything for ratings. The fake tears, his constant reminders about his recovery…I am not buying much of what he says. It seems as if Beck has wandered off of the reservation…he has company-looks as if Dan Rather and Chris Matthews have stepped into something that really stinks too:
Dan Rather Thinks Obama is Articulate but Can’t Sell Watermelons
Ethel C. Fenig
Dan Rather, former star network newsreader, is continuing to make news. Rather, of the fake but accurate letters supposedly proving that then president George W. Bush (R) used daddy’s influence to avoid serving in the Armed Forces, proved to be an inglorious finale to Rather’s career.
But Rather babbles on , most appropriately –where else?– on Chris Matthews’ increasingly irrelevant show. Expressing disappointment in Barack Obama (D), Rather concluded, as only a liberal can,
`Listen, he’s a nice person, he’s very articulate,’ this is what’s going to be used against him. But he couldn’t sell watermelons if it–you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.
But don’t worry about Dan Rather and Chris Matthews being called a racist for this stereotypical insight. They are liberals. Unlike conservatives, who would be ruined for linking Obama with watermelons, liberals can’t be racists so the two of them will be praised. And since Matthews’ legs get so tingly at the thought of Obama that Matthews forgets Obama is black–certainly there is a reason that Matthews has scrubbed Rather’s comments from his show’s website.
I’m not a fan of any of those talking heads, Todd. I think they’re all full of sh!t. They are all about ratings, ratINGS, RATINGS!
Now these Talking Heads are another story:
(This one’s for you, DJ)
YEH!!!!!!!
My turn!
Ah. I was a live adult when this song was big.
“Unlike conservatives, who would be ruined for linking Obama with watermelons, liberals can’t be racists so the two of them will be praised”
Not necessarily. The “watermelon” comment is a stupid comment, and one would hope that people who’ve made their livings speaking in front of other people would have a better idea of what’s appropriate and what’s not.
Cynical,
Do you think that Rather said that in an attempt to once again make his name relevant? Shock people like Howard Stern.
If Rush, or Beck had said this…I suspect he would have gotten the “Imus Treatment.”
Rush and Beck have proven they can say whatever they want without repercussion.
I don’t know what Rather says from day to day, and I have no idea why he said this dumb thing. But I frequently am informed about what Limbaugh says (racist hateful stuff) and Beck says (uh — hateful stuff). I don’t watch or listen to ’em, I have better things to do with my time, but are my informants reporting incorrectly?
Um, it was liberals who went off when Chris Matthews made his statement. So if righties did as well, bravo, but saying they get a pass is ridiculous.
Glenn is a rodeo clown – I believe Keith Olberman is responsible for that appellation – who is out to make the most money he can by saying the most outrageous things he can to keep his name (I accidentally typed “mane” and realized how appropriate it was) in the news; he is doing his best to distract your attention from things of substance and import (the bull). I do not believe HE believes a word he is saying. It’s all show, again, no substance. His crying, his seeming obsession with communism and socialism (two things diametrically opposite), his blackboards, his fawning over Sarah Palin, his lack of any moral compass or scruples. I was a Catholic, well, I was raised as a Catholic, so we were raised to be “apostolic” in our ways of life. Couldn’t do it. Proselytizing just doesn’t do it for me. I think you believe or don’t. Personally, I know there’s something out there, beyond our comprehension. What/who it is, if ti is, we’ll KNOW when we die. Until then, I’m all about Karma – doing good so good will find its way back to you, hopefully. If it doesn’t come back around, doing good is still intrinsically GOOD!
David G
Great song Jac! That band, and that song soooo remind me of college.
Loved that song – still do. I was at the tail end of college at the time.
Not true Vegas,
Rush lost a job while working at ESPN. Limbaugh made a comment about the Eagles quarterback (Donovan McNabb) and was fired shortly afterwards.
Ooooo, something about an athlete. On a sports network. But he says horrible stuff about… let’s see …. women, liberals, furriners, … help me out here…… And he makes a FORTUNE doing it.
Cynical,
In an above post you admitted that you actually do not listen Limbaugh…so the accounts of what you hear from your sources may or may not be accurate. Right?
All I was doing was stating that Rush said something…and got canned for saying it. There seems to be a different standard for liberals like Matthews, and Rather.
Rush regularly says racist, horrible things and for the last 7+ years suffers no repercussions, only gains more followers.
If Chris Matthews said what he did on ESPN, he would have been canned as well. It’s all about your audience and the aim of the network. ESPN can’t afford to have racist commentators.
But he WAS skewered by people for his comments. I don’t know anyone that likes him anyway.
Apples and oranges.
“… you admitted that you actually do not listen Limbaugh…so the accounts of what you hear from your sources may or may not be accurate. Right?”
Absolutely — except what usually happens is people send me clips or quotes — it’s not just the ol’ telephone-game (she said that he said that she said….).
“All I was doing was stating that Rush said something…and got canned for saying it. There seems to be a different standard for liberals like Matthews, and Rather.”
That game can be played on either side: “if it had been a liberal saying that” “if it had been a conservative saying that” ….
Vegas encapsulates this very well in her note that directly follows yours.
I wouldn’t feel too sorry for Rush. Most people in business /entertainment / life have losses for a number of reasons. He still has vast wealth, earned because he spews hate, and people who are afraid of any sort of change or of The Other or of feeling like someone else looks down on them find that Rush is speaking their language, it appears.
He resigned and had no negative repercussions, he’s still got loads of money and the highest rated show in the nation. He lost nothing.
Once again not true Vegas…
How do you know “he lost nothing?” Mr. Limbaugh recently wanted to buy the St. Louis Rams football team. Because of his forced resignation at ESPN the NFL felt that he wasn’t up to snuff to being a NFL owner.
Here’s what Rush actually said:
“I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well,” Limbaugh said on Sunday. “There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve. The defense carried this team.”
For you to write that he’s lost nothing is really not fair. He took a hit for what he said…having what you wrote “loads of money and the highest rated show in the nation” does not preclude the man from feeling that he was punished.
The whole fire/resign thing is really semantics. I know a few people who work at ESPN and they told me that Rush was told by ESPN what to do.
“I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well,”
BTW, do you think this was an okay-thing to say?
Again, apples and oranges to compare his issues with ESPN and the NFL to someone like Chris Matthews or Dan Rather. His (Rush’s) main job, his pulpit, did not and does not suffer from his racist comments.
There are consequences to everything we say and do. The consequences to Rather and Matthews is that they lose viewers. Rather doesn’t really have anything to take away so I’m not sure what you expect there. Rush and Glenn spew hate day after day and to say they would suffer in ways that Rather and Matthews have just makes no sense.
“…would suffer in ways that Rather and Matthews have just makes no sense.”
should read, “have NOT”
It’s sad, but true. (What Vegas said.) Rush suffered no real consequences. It ended up drawing more attention to him and that was good for him overall. The more outrageous they are, the more money they make. Apparently, there are a lot of people that find these guys entertaining. I don’t see it, but my vote against them is obliterated by their large audiences.
I feel like I’m not making my point clearly. It’s very simple. The difference here is not politics, the difference is networks. ESPN would not tolerate racism from Olberman any more than they did from Rush.
1.) Wtf is up with that picture? I mean, it’s a professional picture. What grown person would allow themselves to purposefully be photographed that way?
2.) I’m going to make a guess Beck has some truly special opinions about those hate crime laws.
Yeah, there’s a video of him doing that photo-shoot, I believe.
Cynical,
I agreed with everything Limbaugh said, except the part when he used the word “black.” I do like it when the media gets poked…it seemed to me that Rush was trying to create a dust-up…and he got what he wanted.
With the election of Obama in 2008, I thought that we’d get past this “first____” and the “first _____that.” It appears that we have not.
You mean like “first female director to win an Oscar”? We’ll get past it once we’ve conquered all the firsts plus a few.
I hope that’s true, Vegas, but I started my career in journalism writing the first-this and the first-that when it came to women and we’re still doing it. We’re moving our firsts along very slowly, I think.
That’s my point though. One black president doesn’t make for a post-racial America. A few “firsts” for women doesn’t make us equal. We’ll stop talking about firsts when we stop having firsts.
“With the election of Obama in 2008, I thought that we’d get past this “first____” and the “first _____that.” It appears that we have not.”
Really??? Do you think that one election made up for EVERYTHING that’s come before it?
I’m still in shock that it wasn’t until 1993 that the NIH Revitalization Act was passed insisting women and minorities be included in all human subject medical research.
That is a tough one to swallow, isn’t it?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-james-martin-sj/glenn-beck-to-catholics-l_b_490669.html
Time magazine weighs in on the controversy–
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/14/why-does-glenn-beck-hate-jesus/?xid=huffpo-direct
They’re late, she said sweetly.