Glenn Beck gave the CPAC conference a history lesson the other day. He explained how, in his understanding of American history, “progressive ideas” have consistently harmed the country:“Woodrow Wilson gets in and he gives us the Fed. How’s that working out for us, huh?... Then he gives us the – let’s remember this America – progressive income tax. He gives us the income tax.”See the video here:
“Oh, they’re going to be so unhealthy, and we all want health care – Teddy Roosevelt was the first one to say, we should have universal health care.”
“Oh they’re going to be unhealthy, we can’t get that universal health care thing done, but you know what we can do? We should limit some of their choices. Prohibition. So he took away the alcohol. Progressive plan to take care of everyone.”
“Then he promised he wasn’t going to get us into war, because they’re a party of peace – peace and progress – and we went right to World War I.”
Of course, Beck does not have a degree in history. He told the folks at the CPAC conference how he became such an authority on history: “I went to the library, I educated myself. Books are free.”
Jon Stewart poked fun at this, since Beck had just spent the majority of his speech at CPAC railing against taxes paying for community-owned services. Stewart said,
“Glenn, Glenn, Glenn. The library isn’t FREE! It’s paid for with tax money! Free public libraries are the result of the progressive movement to communally share books! The first public library was the Boston Public Library in 1854. Its statement of purpose: ‘Every citizen has the right to access community owned resources.’ ‘Community owned?’ That sounds just like communist! You’re a communist! It’s like saying, ‘Diet plans can’t help people. I learned that when I was dropping weight at Weight Watchers.’”
Beck fancies himself a historian. His book, Arguing with Idiots, features a chapter from which his speech at CPAC sprang on the U.S. Presidents, entitled, “A Steady Progression of Progressives.” He also gives a history lesson on the Constitution and everything from education to immigration.
I’ve talked to many evangelicals who honestly (and literally) think that Glenn Beck is a Godsend, providing the American people with “the truth” about the history of America.
There’s a little problem with this contention. Glenn Beck became a Mormon in 1999, the year before his radio show went national. Now, I’m not contending that he isn’t allowed to choose his own faith. That’s one of the most precious American rights. My contention is this: Evangelical Christians see Glenn Beck as the one who understands and tells the truth about American history. But here’s a guy, at the age of 35, chose to join the Latter Day Saints, and to this day continues to be a Mormon.
Here's Glenn Beck talking about his Mormon faith:
Why is this significant? Because this bastion of truth about American history has embraced a religion that is demonstrably false historically.
The Book of Mormon is purported to be the history of two ancient civilizations on the American continent (here's the wikipedia article). According to Mormon history, the first group (the “Jeredites”) came to America after the tower of Babel. That civilization was destroyed because of “corruption” and “apostasy.” The second group came to America around 600 B.C. They were righteous Jews led by a man named Nephi. This group split into two warring camps, the Nephites and the Lamanites (which, according to the book of Mormon, were the American Indians). The Lamanites were ungodly so they were cursed with dark skin. Jesus Christ then came to America to reveal himself to the Nephites, creating a latter-day group of Christians (or the “latter-day saints”). However, the Lamanites defeated the Nephites, annihilating them in a battle in Palmyra, New York in A.D. 385. Some 1,400 years later, Joseph Smith discovered the Book of Mormon, written in a reformed Egyptian hieroglyphic on golden plates.
The Book of Mormon explains how great these two civilizations were.
- There were 38 cities cataloged in the Book of Mormon.
- “The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings” (Mormon 1:7).
- “Fine workmanship…in iron and copper, and brass and steal, makings all manners of tools” (Jarom 1:8).
- “did multiply and spread…began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east” (Heleman 3:8)
- “Their shipping and their building ships, and their building of temples, and of synagogues and their sanctuaries” (Heleman 3:14).
My point is this: Glenn Beck, the “researcher” that finds the truth about America’s history readily available in the local library, cannot figure out the truth about the fallacious historical claims of Mormonism.
And we evangelicals are supposed to applaud his historical acumen?
Not me.
__
related post: An Example of the Stormin' Mormon (Glenn Beck)'s Mode of Operation: Glenn Beck and Historical Inaccuracies
22 comments:
Not your finest post, my friend; a pretty weak argument. I say that, of course, as one who agrees on the basic proposition that Mormonism is based on bad history--but would you be in sympathy with an atheist who suggested you or I couldn't be trusted because they found Christianity to be ahistorical? Granted, of course we agree (and I preach regularly) about the importance of Christian history being true; I of course believe that it is and can be demonstrated so to be.
But instead of joining the chorus of folks attacking the messenger--such as silly folks like Jon Stewart whose job it is to poke fun--what about what he actually has found out in his reading of books? Are his facts wrong with regard to progressives? If they are wrong, then publish that...but I don't think your line of reasoning is particularly effective. A person is capable of being spot-on in some things and dead-wrong about others, be they history or otherwise. Despite his flaws--and he has some, to be sure--I think that Glenn is a patriot who is trying to present the facts of history as he's uncovered them in order to help us try to not repeat the mistakes of the past. I applaud that--and find him pretty funny in his delivery at the same time.
Christians' alignment with political parties and agendas may well be their undoing here in the United States. Perhaps that undoing is just what we need. The ascension of the power and influence of folks like Beck and Bill O'Reilley (someone who regularly confesses to a Christian perspective) have over Christians is a reality I find worrisome and deeply troubling. Beck's fear-mongering should be exposed by Christians who, with God on our side, have nothing to fear - not a socialist take over of our government, not the weakening dollar, not the Iranians, nor any other pet fear tactic in Beck's bag.
I am challenging our church to take this season of Lent and fast from political media. We have exchanged the power of the cross over for the sword of Rome. Shame on us.
And, by the way, that Stewart quote is hilarious.
Byron,
Not your finest comment ;-)
Of course I wouldn't be "in sympathy with an atheist who suggested you or I couldn't be trusted because they found Christianity to be ahistorical." Why? Because we have the historical proofs that Israel and Jesus actually existed.
My point, which seems to be lost on you, is this: If Beck sets himself up to be an expert in American history, then why is it that he is so unable to discern the clear historical flaw of the faith that he has chosen?
Also, consider this: Beck is the expert at creating these kinds of connections for his listeners and viewers (for I watch him all the time): If a person believes these clearly false things, can we not question him about these other things? And if a person associates with these false teachers, can we not call into question that person's integrity on a lot of other things as well? (How is this any different than Beck's rantings about Barack Obama being in Jeremiah Wright's church?)
Well, of course I agree with you on all points of Christian history--but take the resurrection (not the simple historical facts of Jesus' existence). There are plenty of atheists who would acknowledge the one but doubt the other. Would/should they disqualify me from speaking on other topics merely because they'd not find historical support (to their satisfaction) of the resurrection?
I do think that you raise a fair question for Mr. Beck--heck, let's ask him!--regarding his scrupulous historical search in one area and not in another. It is my impression of him, by the way, that he has latched onto his Mormonism with a somewhat less-than-critical approach--much like that of many evangelicals, sadly. He seems, for instance, unable to make distinctions that for me are pretty clear (his "God" is pretty generic, it seems, from some of his quotes). I think, in other words, that while he would cling "faithfully" to his faith, his practical interest in life is far more in things American than in things Mormon, much in the same way a lot of Americans have their names on church rolls, even attend those services with regularity and profess Christ, but are far more worked up about their IRAs and Lexuses than they are about Jesus, when it comes right down to it. He comes off to me as the Mormon equivalent of many evangelicals who do their "religious duties" and would defend God, the Bible, etc. a lot more readily than they'd alter their lifestyles to seriously follow Jesus as Lord.
Your last point isn't without merit; I do think that it's fair game for our questions (much as I wonder whether or not I could vote for Mitt Romney, for the same reason). I'm not sure your Wright/Obama analogy is apples to apples; sitting in a Mormon church for the 10+ years he has would of course cause me to suspect him as an expert on theology, even on the truth of Mormon history, to be sure. Would it warp his thinking substantially on issues of American history? That's another question. Obama sitting in a church--giving tacit approval to what was being said there--as radical/unChristian as Wright's is, to my way of thinking, another question. I'm puzzled by why you seem to take up for Jeremiah Wright, and how/why yourself, as well as a lot of other evangelicals, proclaimed Obama a Christian on the mere basis of his profession (which having read it, seems dubious, to say the least).
But I digress...Beck would encourage (and as you know, he does encourage) people to go out and get the facts for themselves, to educate themselves as to the truth of what he's saying. He challenges people to prove him wrong, and as I said, he could be very right on his facts (and I'm betting that he is, frankly). He does cite his sources (at least often).
What I just wrote to Glenn Beck:
Glenn,
I'm a listener/watcher (when time permits), and I've read two of your books (and love 'em, by the way). I just read something critical of you by a blogger-friend of mine, and while I took up for you in the comments, I had to admit that he raised an interesting question (you might actually NOT like some of what I wrote in the comments; it's just what comes off when I listen to you, so I'm just being honest, but again, I'm a defender and a fan), and it's this (I paraphrase): you read a whole lot with regard to American history, and you pass this on to your listeners/watchers. And yet there seems to be little historical evidence for the truth of Mormon faith, the claims of Joseph Smith, etc.; it seems clear to him (and to me, Glenn) that the facts are out there. His question was, in effect, why should we trust Glenn as a historian in one area when he is an adherent of a faith that doesn't pass the muster of history? Please, if you read that as "ugly", THAT IS NOT MY INTENT...though I do agree with his analysis of Mormon history. As I said in my comments, I did feel that to be a fair and reasonable question. Again, not trying to pick a fight over faith or anything like that; I'm on your side in most of what you're trying to do, though we do differ significantly on the issue of faith. But since I agreed with the blogger that his question was fair, I decided I'd ask you. So that's why I write.
In case you're curious, here's the link (click "Show Original Post" to see what Bob originally wrote).
(I put a link to these comments in at this point).
Respectfully, a listener and a friend,
Byron Harvey
Be interesting to see if/what Glenn writes back.
Me neither, Bob. Thanks!
Still seems pretty much a canard to me, Bob. Not saying your point has no merit--witness my question to Glenn--and I wouldn't characterize it as an ad hominem attack on your part--because you do raise a question that is legitimate--but I've no interest in hailing him as a historian, but rather learning what has happened in history. Are his facts wrong? And if his facts are right, then caterwauling about "fear-mongering", or concerning yourself with the fact he's a Mormon, fade considerably as to their significance.
Thought about another thing: by your logic, it would seem that any historian you would have any trust in would have to be a believer in Christ, or at the very least, to believe in the historicity of the resurrection. Help me with that if I'm getting it wrong: we believe that there's sufficient historical evidence to validate the resurrection, and that that evidence is available to all (much as evidence re Mormonism is). So by your reasoning, would you just as readily dismiss the work of any other historian who hadn't done his homework on the reality of the resurrection? Would all of the other historical research done by such an individual therefore be suspect?
Ball's in your court...
Byron,
1. Why is this a "canard?" A canard is "a false or unfounded report or story; especially: a fabricated report (b) a groundless rumor or belief" (Webster's Dictionary). What have I fabricated? I don't get your use of this term.
2. Good for you for not "hailing him as a historian." You're wiser than those evangelicals who have gave me his books because they see them as the best sources on political history going. And, btw, whether or not you see him as an expert historian, Beck markets himself as just that. And I call THAT into question.
3. And, yes, he gets his facts wrong. Regardless of all his ballyhooing that he alone gets the facts right, he very often does not.
4. About your scenario on historians and the resurrection: I think we can agree that we don't expect all historians to have studied the apologetic arguments on the historicity of the resurrection. That's not the point. If a historian is a specialist on first century Judaism, yes, I'd expect him to have to deal with this issue. But other than that, no. So, for instance, I wouldn't expect a specialist in Civil War history to deal with the historicity of the resurrection.
I agree that Beck has every right to offer his perspective on American history. And he should be judged by his historical accuracy. That being said, I still believe it is appropriate to call his discernment into question. Mormonism is rooted in a revisionist American history. Major red flags should be thrown up when a person who is offering a very specific interpretation of American history is a member of a church that has as its mandate the perpetuation of a revisionist American history.
Ever use a word you were sure of the definition, and then were wrong? "Canard". Mea culpa. "Red herring" might have been a better term?
Facts he's gotten wrong? If it happens "very often", certainly you can list several clear examples? And is he just lying on those, or (IYHO) misunderstanding the facts of history?
Seems to me, though, that your Point #4 makes MY point. You wouldn't expect a specialist in Civil War history to deal much with the resurrection (nor would I); I don't necessarily expect Beck to have deeply questioned the historic roots of Mormonism (any more than I think a lot of evangelicals have more than a surface understanding of certain tenets of the faith--unfortunately), much as I would like him to, but that fact doesn't for me call into question the idea that he could have read deeply/widely and gotten a pretty good grip on American history. I just don't think a failure to have a lot of mastery in one area precludes having mastery in another--as I read your Point #4 to be saying, that's all.
And thus, while your question is a valid one, I don't think that overall your point is very well-taken this time around.
Byron,
You really don't believe that Beck's ideology slants his take on American history? Really? You don't think he cherry-picks history in order to make his ideological points? Really? You don't think he articulates the "facts" in such a way that it matches his agenda? Really? You think that if the history rubbed against the grain of his presuppositions, he'd report that? Really?
That seems rather naive, especially for you.
The historical inaccuracies of Glenn Beck are so often, and so subtle, that there could be an entire blog dedicated to it. Every time I watch him, I squirm, because at some point he will do these things.
Read today's post for an example of Beck's twisting of history for his political ideology.
That's a subtle shift in the argument there, Bob; I don't think we were talking about biases. By the way, I'm replying to this post without having read your newer one (out of town; not as easy access, is why I hadn't responded to this point).
Of course he's biased, just like you're biased. In fact, I think I may well be the only perfectly, completely unbiased person on the planet...
Look, we all have biases, of course, but Beck isn't hiding anything; he's very up front about what he believes; he doesn't pretend to hide behind the cloak of utter objectivity. We all come from a vantage point (surely your pomo friends have helped you see that). Beck is no different.
But a viewpoint isn't like choosing your favorite football team; it's not an utterly arbitrary choice. We arrive at our worldviews--or should--by trying our best to understand the world as it is. We ought to take history and common sense and observation into account. It's clear to me, for instance, that free-market capitalism is the worst economic system ever invented, except for all the others. Does that color everything I think about such matters? Of course it does...but I am convinced that that viewpoint is true, and until I see real evidence that convinces me otherwise, I'll be biased in that direction. I think that the evidence is pretty clear from history, both American and world, that socialism doesn't work, won't work, is founded upon presuppositions that are contrary to Biblical principles, and is thus flawed from the very get-go. Now, I don't think socialism is an either/or proposition, but rather is a sliding scale kind of thing; I wouldn't call Obama, for instance, a "socialist" (though he could well be), but his thinking seems consistently to be grounded in what Beck calls "progressivism", a hallmark of which is a belief that government solves problems. I think history suggests that Ronaldus Maximus had it right: government is the problem (and of course, that's an oversimplification, so don't read me as an anarchist, but as you know, I'm real close to libertarianism, for that very reason). By the way, GWB was pretty much a progressive as well; it's not about Republicans or Democrats, though generally speaking, effectively every Democrat is a progressive, while only a percentage of Republicans are.
Back to the point of bias. We all do the same thing. Beck is no exception. The implication of what you're suggesting--if I read you correctly--is that Beck is intentionally misleading people, telling them things he knows to be untrue in order to mislead them. I categorically reject that interpretation, if that's what you're driving at. He may be right or he may be wrong, but any idea that he's not sincere is just nuts.
That's sorta rambling; I could amplify a lot more, but I'll leave it at that.
Byron,
"That's a subtle shift in the argument there, Bob; I don't think we were talking about biases… Beck isn't hiding anything; he's very up front about what he believes; he doesn't pretend to hide behind the cloak of utter objectivity."
Not as “subtle shift in the argument” as you would like to think. Beck sets himself up to be a historian, presenting the facts of history to make his ideological points. That would be fine if he arrived at his ideology based on history, but that’s not the case. He cherry-picks history in order to make ideological points.
This is not good history!
And this is my point!
He is critical of scientists who choose to present only evidence that makes the case for global warming (betraying the fact that their ideology comes first, not the evidence), but he does the exact same thing with history.
The implication of what you're suggesting--if I read you correctly--is that Beck is intentionally misleading people, telling them things he knows to be untrue in order to mislead them. I categorically reject that interpretation, if that's what you're driving at. He may be right or he may be wrong, but any idea that he's not sincere is just nuts.
I honestly don’t know. He is either one or the other: (1) Naïve about American history, unable to see his misleading ways, yet sincerely telling people what he believes, or (2) Making a lot of money as a TV personality that makes a even more money each time he gets people all riled up about the way the country has lost its way.
Either way, as a Christian, I see Glenn Beck as presenting "canards"!
Frankly, this sounds like Evangelical sour grapes to me. What does it matter which religion Beck belongs to?
Here is the bottom line and I challenge you to disprove this: If Beck were Protestant and was saying the EXACT SAME things, changing NOTHING, you would not have a problem with him. Right? You really can't deny that politically and historically he has been saying good, sound things. So what does Athens (or Washington) to do with Jerusalem? Nothing. The same thing could be said about Romney, too.
It seems the only reason you have animocity towards Beck and his solid arguments is because it galls you that in his non public life he chose to be LDS. That's kind of lame.
Anonymous,
Please identify yourself. If we're going to have a conversation, I ask that I know who you are. I'll break with my rule of not answering anonymous comments, because it will give an opportunity to explain my true intentions.
You are so absolutely wrong in thinking that the reason I wrote these posts is that I oppose Beck simply because he's a Mormon. You must be new to Vanguard Church, or else you'd know that what I try to do here is help evangelicals get past their blind loyalty to right-wing political ideology. I believe, to paraphrase David Koyzis, that ideology easily becomes idolatry. And what I see in my camp, that is, the evangelical camp, is an idolatry based on political ideology. (BTW, I see political idolatry in the mainline protestant church and the emerging church as well, only toward a left-wing ideology).
So, I've consistently written on this:
-I wrote about how preachers can, and should, engage in politics from the pulpit to model how not to make political ideology an idol.
-I encouraged evangelicals to read their own best historians (Noll, Hatch, and Marsden), who illuminate us about the myth that's in vogue about the Christian faith of America's founding fathers.
-Again, I explained the true history of founding father Benjamin Franklin so that evangelicals could stop buying into the myth that the country was intentionally founded as a Christian nation.
-I then said that Obama's language to the Muslim world (saying America is not a "Christian Nation") was the same founding father John Adams.
-When the head of the evangelical political think tank, Center for Public Justice, asked “What do American evangelicals need most, today, to help us discern our political responsibilities?” My answer included "We need to rise above punditry," and "We need to remember that 'God is not a Republican or a Democrat.'".
-When evangelical publisher Thomas Nelson published "The American Patriot's Bible," I was appalled that political ideology would find its way into the pages of our most sacred text.
-I explained that, contrary to the likes of Keith Olbermann's view, that the First Amendment does not say that the government cannot aid or cooperate with religious bodies.
-I pointed out that James Dobson's political ideology completely slanted his view of Barack Obama's speech on the place for faith in American politics.
-I gave reasons why evangelicals could vote for either John McCain or Barack Obama in the last election.
-I did a whole series theologically criticizing an evangelical group that denies man-made global warming because of their political ideology.
As a frequent foil for Bob, and as someone who agrees with you on Beck, I'll add my two cents worth in response to you, Anonymous. You really couldn't be missing it much further in your allegations that Bob is picking on Beck simply because he's Mormon, and that if Beck were evangelical, Bob'd have no problem with him. Now, he wouldn't have this problem--which I don't see as nearly the problem Bob does--but you're missing Bob's heart and motives on this one.
Now, if you'll give your name and help me to work on Bob's head, you'd be a valuable ally...
The link to my interaction with left-winger Olbermann on the First Amendment was incorrect. Here it is.
I hear what you are saying, but in all of this you are still hinging your argument against Beck on his Mormonism. You hold that because Beck believes in the Mormon paradigm with its historical views we cannot trust any historical analysis from him.
Here's what you said:
"My contention is this: Evangelical Christians see Glenn Beck as the one who understands and tells the truth about American history. But here’s a guy, at the age of 35, chose to join the Latter Day Saints, and to this day continues to be a Mormon."
That's the qualifier (or disqualifier). But LDS theology has nothing to do with politics or United States history. The Mormon Church has no official position on any U.S. history.
You said: "Why is this significant? Because this bastion of truth about American history (Beck) has embraced a religion that is demonstrably false historically."
These comments have everything to do with his Mormonism. It is clear that you are rejecting Beck's authority on this point. So indeed you are basing your view of Beck primarily on his faith. I come back to the fact that if he were Evangelical you would give him a pass.
The trouble is this is a very slippery slope. Obviously there are many Secularists who use the same logic on Evangelicals. I recall Bill Maher interviewing a Christian congressman in the hit piece "Religulous" where he mocks belief in the supernatural Garden of Eden account, something about Adam & Eve riding dinosaurs to church. "Fit to legislate? No!" Alarm bells should be ringing for you. Remember, the secularists are winning right now, especially among youth. A wave of athiesm and agnosticism is sweeping the west and I think your passion is better spent forging a bullwark against that threat than in alienating the Mormons who, politcally and socially speaking, have always aligned with Evangelicals.
Just my take. Good luck with your ministry. I am Mormon by the way. Hopefully that doesn't destroy my credibility here... ;)
Ethan,
Yep. You've heard me correctly there. I feel that anybody who speaks on history and theology as much as Beck does loses credibility if he can't discern the false teaching of Mormonism on both history and theology. But here's the nuance to my point that will give you a little more insight:
I'm writing to evangelicals. That's who reads this blog. Many evangelicals have moved beyond right-wing politics (thank God!). We've seen the idolatry that comes when we combine our Christian faith with a particular political ideology. However, I am amazed how many are still holding to their political ideology as if it is gospel. As an evangelical, I'm not sold on Glenn Beck's political ideology. And I am frustrated when people in my evangelical camp put as much faith in right-wing politics as they do in Jesus Christ. To me, Glenn Beck's popularity represents just another of many cases where right-wing evangelicals are not placing Christian faith ahead of political ideology. So, for the sake of evangelicals who correctly see the Church of Latter Day Saints as a false religion, I point to Beck's Mormonism. Not as the only reason to stop trusting him, but as yet another reason why we should call into question his ability to think with discernment about history and theology. When you say that "LDS theology has nothing to do with politics or United States history. The Mormon Church has no official position on any U.S. history," you forget that (a) the LDS claims that they have a sacred text that explains the history of two civilizations on the American continent that actually never existed, and (b) the history of Mormonism is very much an American history, including how Brigham Young, "the American Moses" led God's true people "from persecution in Illinois, through plagues in the plains, to the Promised Land of Utah."
Ethan,
You say, "The trouble is this is a very slippery slope. Obviously there are many Secularists who use the same logic on Evangelicals. I recall Bill Maher interviewing a Christian congressman in the hit piece "Religulous" where he mocks belief in the supernatural Garden of Eden account, something about Adam & Eve riding dinosaurs to church. "Fit to legislate? No!" Alarm bells should be ringing for you. Remember, the secularists are winning right now, especially among youth. A wave of athiesm and agnosticism is sweeping the west and I think your passion is better spent forging a bullwark against that threat than in alienating the Mormons who, politcally and socially speaking, have always aligned with Evangelicals."
I agree with you that there is a secularist agenda to marginalize Christians. I, too, think that Bill Maher is a pompous fool.
But as I see it, the way to overcome the secularists will not happen by seeking to perpetuate myths about the Christian faith of the founding fathers (a myth that is properly mocked by anybody with any knowledge on the founding fathers). Overcoming the secularists will not be accomplished by restating the false myths concerning how America is the New Israel, delivered Exodus-Style from the tyranny of England. Overcoming the secularists will not come with claiming that the country was founded as a Christian nation.
Rather, it will be done by stating clearly the truth about how the nation was founded, and how we, as a nation, should embrace religious freedom as the Constitution had it construed.
I echo Noll, Hatch, and Marsden, when they wrote, "Does it really matter if people hold to this mistaken view that America is, or was, or could become a truly Christian nation? Yes, it does matter. It matters because, if we are going to respond effectively to relativistic secularism, then we need to base our response upon reality rather than error. This is not to deny the positive influence that Christianity has indeed had upon the American way of life. Rather, it is to take it all the more seriously so that we may respond to it all the more effectively."
How would you be able to discern, Bob, between those who "put as much faith in right wing politics as they do the gospel", and those who simply, wholeheartedly, believe that the best course for America (politically) is to move in a direction represented (by and large) by the conservative movement? Can one not endorse conservative values and principles--believing as I do that they represent not only the intent of the Founding Fathers, but the best, proven course of action to take--and at the same time recognize the significant limitations of government and politics to effect the needed changes in this country (i.e., politics/government have their role, but they are far, far less trustworthy/important than faith in Christ)? And how do you know when one has crossed that line?
Byron,
Now that's an excellent question. Worthy of a post of its own! (Which I hope to get up in the next couple days).
It has to do with my belief that all political ideologies are actually religious in nature, providing their own version of the Christian "Creation - Fall - Redemption" story, with "redemption" being found in their political solutions. As such, they are inherently idolatrous.
Not that the political ideologies do not have aspects that are good and noble, and that we cannot engage the political vocation with the tools found in the political ideologies.
But the problem of the fallen human heart is that it too easily runs toward false religions. A Christian who replaces his or her Christian faith and worldview with the faith and worldview of a particular political ideology has crossed the line. They mistakenly see their own political ideology as the source of societal salvation, and sees all other political ideologies as "false religions" - not only are they untrue, they are dangerous. They may see some faults in their own political ideology, but they only see fault in any other political ideology - the other ideologies are seen as evil.
A Christian, on the other hand, is called to not be captive to any one political ideology, seeing the good and the faults in each.
More on this to come...
Bob,
I have no desire to engage in an LDS/Evangelical taffy pull with you. I've seen too many of those in my day. Obviously, I disagree with your assessment that the LDS faith has been disproven. It's certainly not an uncontested slam dunk the way you make it out to be. Mormon studies are probably not your forte. I have spent years examing the scholarship on both sides and personally find that Mormon apologetics are currently winning. Nobody has ever conclusively proven it to be false. No more than the athiests have "disproven" your faith claims. We don't have to get into that here. I'd be happy to field any LDS questions or clear up any issues you may have.
However, this post and its subject should be operating independently of all that. That is why I maintain that Beck's role as a conservative (Libertarian) voice, who happens to draw parallels with history to make his points, should not be qualified by his religion. Again, US history has nothing to do with theology or ancient history. Neither of the 2 points you held up are relevant to our discussion.
I agree with Byron that there are likely many Americans who are simply fed up with the state of things and want to get back to a more conservative model. What Beck says to this end is resonating big time. In a way you are implying that Beck is pulling the wool over our eyes. American Evangelicals are not sheep, they are not stupid. They can recognize when truth and sound principles are presented and discern between the alternatives in an intelligent way.
I don't agree with every position of Beck, but I think generally his prescription for this nation is well advised. It almost sounds like you are advocating anarchy or complete no confidence in the ability of the government to handle any idealogy outside of the framework of Evangelical Christianity. Is that your position?
Post a Comment