The Creator principle
My 72-year-old mother had a hip replaced last summer but that didn’t stop her from hopping on a plane to attend Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally in the nation’s capital. After spending Friday evening in Virginia, she boarded the Metro for Washington, D.C., pulling her luggage behind her. Emerging from the subway, she fell in line with a crowd climbing a steep Metro escalator that had stalled. That’s when she answered my phone call.
“How you doin’ Mom?” I asked. “Oh, I’m excited! I’m really looking forward to this,” she said. “Where are you Mom?” I inquired. “I don’t know,” she replied. “You don’t know?” I asked nervously. “Oh, I’m somewhere in the city. Betsy (her friend from church) and I are in the middle of a huge crowd making our way to the rally with our luggage in tow,” said the intrepid activist. “OK, Mom, have a good time! Love you, Mom.”
Later that evening I turned on my computer to see what took place at the Lincoln Memorial. I was surprised at the nature of the reports. The headline of a New York Times article read, “At Lincoln Memorial, a call for Religious Rebirth.” Several lines into the story, the reporters wrote, “The event had a feeling of a large church picnic, with people, many from the South and Midwest, sitting on lawn chairs and blankets.” Politico reported, “At points, it felt like a mixture of old fashioned tent revival and a special (tamer than normal) episode of Beck’s show.”
I called my mother to see if the stories were accurate. “Mom, what was the rally like? What was the tone?” I asked. “Beck’s speech was primarily all about God,” she said verifying the news reports of the giant Tea Party. There wasn’t any focus on politics. It was about recognizing God.”
The first Tea Partiers dumped tea into the Boston Harbor in December 1773 to protest British rule. Responding to Britain’s intolerable treatment of the colonies at the First Continental Congress nine months later, fiery Virginian Patrick Henry said, “The distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, and New Englanders are no more.” I am not a Virginian but an American.”
What is an American?
I think this is the issue that Tea Parties need to address. Political strategist James Carville helped Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign focus by coining the phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Our economy is falling apart not for a lack of focus—there’s certainly been enough of that, too much. The economy is falling apart because our leaders don’t seem to understand the relationship between God and freedom, including economic freedom. The most important word in the entire Declaration of Independence is “Creator.” An American is someone who understands that it is the Creator who endows us with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our Constitution was put in place to safeguard this uniquely American principle. In America, our rights are God-given, not government-given and government-controlled. America will succeed when we restore the “Creator principle” of freedom. Beck got it right on Saturday. The key to restoring America is to humbly focus on God and to understand the nature of the rights He gave us.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top72 Comments to “The Creator principle”
You know, if Beck ran for president, I’d vote for him.
I dont think Palin, Newt, Obama, Huckabee, or any other person at the fore front of the next election has not only the understanding, but the means of accomplishing leaving out the politics and charades and bringing actual restoration and recovery.
Report comment to moderator
Quote:
* “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?” ~ Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia.
Jefferson wanted this nation to retain the conviction that our liberties are a “gift of God.” He was not trying to dictate or recreate any notion of God or change anyone’s notion. What he saw as a current conviction of faith in colonial Christian America, he wanted to remain in freedom. In fact, he believed our liberties are rooted in that faith conviction that he saw in our largely Christian people.
If a somewhat unorthodox “Chirstian” (which is a label Jefferson did use for himself) can say this (above), then so can a Mormon.
Report comment to moderator
Slightly different perspective on the Beck rally:
http://www.russellmoore.com/2010/08/29/god-the-gospel-and-glenn-beck/
Report comment to moderator
Oh, come on, I’m not a believer in Mormonism, but I am an American and I do believe he has a right to his beliefs. He’s a decent guy, he’s looking for common ground, and that’s what he found — and a lot of it. Anyone who includes the rabbis and imams along with the Christians isn’t aiming for a “Christian” America, but for a decent one with decent values. I congratulate him that he had the guts to do it. He doesn’t deserve to have his religion attacked when he isn’t attacking anyone else’s.
Report comment to moderator
I think Moore has a solid point in general, but how does that apply here?
He doesnt really reference where people think they “just heard the gospel”…
I could care less what the news media calls him, so should a southern baptist.
Moore needs to provide examples to substantiate his assumptions regarding this rally and the actual responses of other christian churches.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass – right on. Thanks for the link.
Report comment to moderator
“Moore needs to provide examples to substantiate his assumptions regarding this rally and the actual responses of other christian churches.”
Yes, he does. He seems to be a tad jealous that a Mormon pulled something like this off.
Report comment to moderator
BUDDYGLASS: Thanks for the link.
NJLawyer: Who’s looking to deny Glenn Beck his beliefs? And what’s with your “jealous” crack re: the Moore article? That’s just goofy.
Thorn, how is it you don’t see Moore’s point applying? Applying to what? What do you see his point as being? Don’t you agree that the references from the Right to a nebulous “god,” and possibly more specifically, in Beck’s case, to a *Mormon* god, don’t go an inch toward addressing the real problem we face–that of underlying sin and rejection of Christ as King over all realms of life, including the political?
Report comment to moderator
Goofy? He didn’t write a balanced article at all. Jealousy is what it sounds like to me. He sure wants to put down Mormonism.
Report comment to moderator
Good quote:
* “Many throughout history have underestimated the power of freedom to overcome tyranny and transform whole societies. Yet in the end, despite challenges and setbacks, freedom ultimately prevails, because the desire for liberty is written by our Creator in every human heart.” ~ President George W. Bush, Commencement Address at the US Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO, May 28, 2008.
Report comment to moderator
The keystone quote:
* “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” ~ The Declaration of Independence, signed by many founders of our nation.
Report comment to moderator
Sure, NJLawyer. It’s goofy. He (rightly) views Mormonism as a false religion. It’s goofy to assume that because he bases a part of his article on that belief that he’s just jealous.
What exactly do you suppose he’s jealous of? How is the article unbalanced? Do you agree Mormonism teaches a false gospel and worships another god?
Report comment to moderator
We need to do better than vague references to some Creator out there.
Report comment to moderator
Philippians 1:15-18
Although it is important for the church that we rightly understand doctrine and know the difference between Mormonism and Christianity (I pastored for a few years in Palmyra, NY and worked closely with ex-Mormons witnessing to others about those key differences at the Hill Cumorrah Pageant,) it is still a positive thing that even a lowest common denominator type of “return to God” message be heard on the National Mall.
Report comment to moderator
If according to Moore’s article, he’s not concerned with Beck or the tea party, and only the response of conservative churches, where is his evidence that any church considered Beck’s rally…a gospel presentation? Much less, why does he still then go into trashing his mormonism?
You do know the rally was a fundraiser for the Special Operation Warriors fund dont you? Soldiers?
I fail to see how this other perspective applies, unless you can fully substaniate that Beck was preaching his Mormonism…Moore, offered zero examples.
I dont know that Moore is jealous, but he’s certainly just using it as a lousy excuse to grind his gears.
Dont be so quick to judge someone, simply because he attends a Mormon or Catholic or insert other offshoot church. There will be a few of each in heaven, because the gospel isnt about what you get right…it is about Christ dying for everything you did wrong and got wrong.
It is Christ that saves, and not a church label.
And whether Beck is a christian or not, I dont know. But he has not pushed his Mormonism or his politics. He could very well beleive that Christ bled and died for his sins. I doubt Beck will be too upset if he gets to heaven and finds out he doesnt get his own planet…
And whether he is or not, does nto change the fact that it is our Creator who has given us life and liberty, that America is worth fighting for, and worth sustaining as a country of freedom, esp religious freedom.
If a conservative church is propping Beck up as some leader to look too, then Moore needs to give examples. Until then, he’s just one hand clapping in the wind…
Report comment to moderator
I saw most of it on C-SPAN and heard nothing about Mormonism, or any other religion or denomination, for that matter. It was a call to return to God, with great emphasis as Jesus the Christ.
when he wrote that. But I would vote for Sarah.
I saw nothing that I, as a conservative Christian, found objectionable.
Though, I disagree with Thorn about voting for him. I think Thorn was
Report comment to moderator
Haha, well I’m hoping Beck is right and we get another George Washington…I’d rather not have to vote for either of them.
My problem with Sarah, Chas, is that she let herself slide into the political shinanigans the rest of them do. Beck could fall to the same. I think he has a much better grasp on the nature of the economy and potentially what to do about it though, and his knowledge of american history is pretty good.
I actually think Haley Barbour would do better than both as president.
Report comment to moderator
I think his complaint was less “Beck is a Mormon; we shouldn’t listen to Beck when he talks about God stuff” and more “We’ve conflated the Gospel with a right-wing nationalistic political ideology.”
Relevant portions that I think back this up:
Report comment to moderator
Buddy,
I understand that his main piont was over the american christian response…but I dont see him backing that up with examples. It’s an assumption.
Plenty of people can agree that this country needs God. It is not uniting with mormonism or any other religious affiliation to agree on a common truth.
If the devil says 2 + 2 = 4, is it wrong to agree with him? Are you some how united to the devil for agreeing on a simple truth?
Nope.
So where as we need to be wary of looking to a man other than Christ for salvation or politicizing christianity, and I agree with that warning, he offers no evidence that this is the churches response to Glen Beck. It is just as likely that people in his church, wrongfully prop him up(Moore), as who they look to for salvation.
Report comment to moderator
I think you missed my point in #18. He seems to be talking about something bigger than just Glenn Beck and the recent rally.
Report comment to moderator
Which is what if I’ve missed the point?
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know that a civil religion rally led by a Mormon does all that much toward getting America back on the right track. Kinda reminds me of “Day of Prayer” events I attended in downtown Chicago when I was a college student. (I was editor of my college’s yearbook and got a complimentary $25 ticket, so I went twice.)
The first year I was bothered that it was all about Judeo-Christianity and didn’t seem to see Christianity as unique. But I realized I really couldn’t “expect” more than that. As a religious gathering it was therefore fairly useless, but oh well.
The second year they had added Islam to the brew, so speakers talked about the Muslim-Judeo-Christian American civil religion (this would have been in the early nineties, by the way, long before 9/11). It seemed as pointless as praying to a frog. And BTW, there really wasn’t any praying going on anyway–I forget whether there was even so much as an invocation; there sure wasn’t more than that. It was a time for political speeches, public appearances, special (non-offensive PC) music from a choir or two, and a meal.
A generic god-person isn’t what America needs, and for a Christian to look to a big-tent Mormon for any sort of religious leadership is, in biblical language, foolish. There is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus–and NOT the Jesus Mormons talk about, no matter how good their words sound. (I am not saying no Mormons can be saved. I am saying their religion is damnable along with all other false religions.)
Report comment to moderator
Excellent link in post 3. Michael Horton is another wise person on the danger of conflating the Gospel with Americanism and letting our civic religion be theology lite.
Report comment to moderator
#21: “Which is what if I’ve missed the point?”
What I said in #18:
“I think his complaint was … ‘We’ve conflated the Gospel with a right-wing nationalistic political ideology.’”
That’s sort of a general complaint; the recent Beck rally is just one example.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. – Good stuff. Downtown Chicago… which college did you attend out here, if you don’t mind me asking?
Report comment to moderator
Publius, I never identify it on the blog for privacy reasons, but would do so over e-mail if you e-mail me (there’s a link to my “anonymous” website at the top of mt post, and one of my e-mail addresses is given in “meet the regulars”).
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
Agreed. We will become a more just nation when we return to the God of the Christian gospels. If we merely band together with Mormons and rally around an idolatrous civil religion, we should expect no more blessings than the Israelites received for bowing down to the Baals.
Report comment to moderator
Biblically, our Creator did not guarantee US life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, or as the earlier drafts mentioned: life, liberty, and property.
We are given life by HIS grace and rebirth by the same. Where the Spirit of the LORD is there is liberty. So, Glenn Beck certainly has the directional heading aimed well. May we use what liberty we enjoy to submit to this Creator and proclaim liberty throughout the land – life in the God of Israel and HIS Messiah Yeshua (Jesus).
Report comment to moderator
Glenn Beck is a Mormon. We all know this by now. In #25, Publius wrote,
I would add that for every Amen! we evangelicals shout in response to Beck’s invoking God, we’re confirming to Mormons that they’re with us on the same basic path to God; our differences in theology don’t matter that much. Various posts in this thread openly confirm that sentiment is just fine! Mormonism, and Beck if he knows anything of the religion to which he subscribes, preaches a different gospel; it worships another Christ. To anyone doing the slightest bit of background, this shouldn’t come as a surprise. It’s indisputable. Mormons would be no closer to worshipping the true God if they deified Elvis.
Paul was adamant about getting this detail right (Gal 1: 8,9):
Report comment to moderator
One thing that’s interesting to me here is that the two posts on this blog about the event, both written by Christians as far as I know, seem to ignore (or maybe not even be aware, somehow?) that this man is a Mormon and thus a heretic. This is a great conversation to be having, but I admit I’m saddened by the “Mormon? So what?” discourse. But then, I grew up knowing the ways in which Mormonism is weird and definitively un-Christian, and maybe there really are Christians who aren’t sure of that point.
Thank you, Macrutabaga, for bringing Paul into the discussion. I really think the line talking about “an angel from heaven” is a prophecy pointing straight to the false doctrine of Mormonism, said to have been given to Joseph Smith by an angel (though decidedly not one of God’s).
Report comment to moderator
For those who appreciated the Moore blog post, you may also find this longer paper insightful:
http://www.mendingthesoul.org/files/2009/01/familyvaluesetsrev.pdf
It’s a presentation by Stephen Tracy (professor at Phoenix Seminary) at the 2008 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. I find very little to disagree with. Caveat: he criticizes Olasky’s “compassionate conservativism”.
For what it’s worth, I don’t know Tracy from Adam and have no affiliation with Phoenix Seminary.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: He doesn’t deserve to have his religion attacked when he isn’t attacking anyone else’s.
But Obama does?
Report comment to moderator
#32
Some people may believe that Obama used his religion (Christianity) as cred to get elected. He was not going to be elected as a Muslim or an agnostic, because that just doesn’t resonate with mainstream America.
Glenn Beck is aware that his stated religion (Mormonism) is already a drag on his credibility with those same mainstream Americans. So it’s really just a cheap shot when the media piles on.
On the other hand, criticisms from Christians are more credible to me in that they are more likely to spring from a sincere concern about the Christian faith being conflated with a strange doctrine, whether Mormonism or Liberation Theology.
Report comment to moderator
Some people may believe that Obama used his religion (Christianity) as cred to get elected. He was not going to be elected as a Muslim or an agnostic, because that just doesn’t resonate with mainstream America.
You guys really need to coordinate which attack on his religion you’re going to settle on. Sometimes he’s a radical Christian in the thrall of Marxist Liberation Theology. Sometimes he’s a secret Muslim. Sometimes he’s an agnostic or atheist.
It all seems to depend on which of those accusations is most likely to be damaging on any given day. Which strongly suggests there’s no actual substance to any of it.
Incidentally, “Liberation Theology,” for all you folks have been trying to demonize it lately, is nothing new and nothing strange and nothing really all that radical. It’s just about emphasizing the parts of the Bible that have to do with doing justice, freeing the oppressed … you know, the stuff that radical hippie Jesus was always going on about.
Those parts ARE in there, you know, and they’re not a trivial part of Jewish and Christian teachings. It’s really bizarre that Glenn Beck or anybody else can criticize his religion on the grounds that it’s too Biblical. (Which is the criticism even though the critics don’t realize it.) And it has its roots in the Roman Catholicism of the 1950s, not some ’60s black radical as Xion wants us to think.
Report comment to moderator
#18 – “We’ve conflated the Gospel with a right-wing nationalistic political ideology.”
How? When? Where?
Frankly, I respect the right wing when it shows that it understands that we should NOT isolate our faith from the rest of our lives, including our political ideology.
I respect the right wing also when it shows that it understands that the gospel rises above culture and earthly agendas as defining elements.
And I respect nationalism when it is based in informed gratitude and patriotism. To love and be grateful for one’s nation and try to make it strong and preserve it’s time-honored traditions is a great thing — regardless of your faith connection.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. (22): Kinda reminds me of “Day of Prayer” events I attended in downtown Chicago when I was a college student. …
The first year I was bothered that it was all about Judeo-Christianity and didn’t seem to see Christianity as unique. …
The second year they had added Islam to the brew, so speakers talked about the Muslim-Judeo-Christian American civil religion (this would have been in the early nineties, by the way, long before 9/11). It seemed as pointless as praying to a frog.
Frank: Nail on the head. We are a nation of practical polytheists.
Does nobody recall the worship service in the National Cathedral (a Christian, not a government, edifice) on 14 September 2001, the National Day of Prayer and Remembrance?
At the start of the service, the Dean of the National Cathedral, Nathan Baxter, invoked the “God of Abraham and Mohammed and Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ” — as if they are the same person.
The god of Mohammed is demonstrably not the God of Abraham and Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ. No brainer, there.
But then comes the much more subtle — indeed, it is unspoken, but strongly implied — conflation of the god of contemporary (talmudic) Judaism with the God of Abraham and Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
To be sure, the God of Abraham is the Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ. He is also the triune God of the Bible — Father, Son and Holy Ghost. (That historic, creedal formulation was also notably absent from Rev. Baxter’s invocation.)
But the Scriptures make it clear that the triune God of the Bible is not the god of contemporary Judaism.
Also strangely absent from Rev. Baxter’s invocation was any mention of the one god that ostensibly holds all these other competing gods together: the demos — We the People.
The religion of Americanism is probably the strongest competitor with Christianity for the affections of America — indeed, the world — today. Yet American Christians are all bent outta shape over Islam?
Report comment to moderator
Well said, Frank.
Report comment to moderator
I also find it strange that there is so much speculation about President Obama’s faith (Is he a Christian? Is he a Muslim? Does he advocate “black liberation theology?) and yet evangelicals have few qualms about lining up with a Mormon.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, Liberation theology goes far beyond emphasizing the parts of the Bible about justice. It rewrites the meaning of Jesus, death, burial, and resurrection, and it ignores pretty much everything else outside of justice in the Bible. There is no mercy, no grace, etc. God is not just just, He is also merciful and graceful.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Beck later had some pretty strong criticism about the president’s faith calling it “liberation theology”.
“You see, it’s all about victims and victimhood; oppressors and the oppressed; reparations, not repentance; collectivism, not individual salvation. I don’t know what that is, other than it’s not Muslim, it’s not Christian. It’s a perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ as most Christians know it.”
Beck also said, “”People aren’t recognizing his version of Christianity,”
I find this very interesting when the Mormon religion is also considered a “perversion of the Gospel” and is not recognized as Christian.
Report comment to moderator
Rom: I don’t think that’s true. It IS true, however, that liberation theology is deeply intertwined with Marxist politics, especially in Latin America, which is where it’s mostly been prominent. (And it’s mostly been certain orders of Catholic clergy, against the dictates of the Vatican, not the UCC or any other Protestant sect.)
The conflict is largely about how embroiled with politics should the church get. In Latin America there have been priests and Catholic laypersons aligning with groups such as the Sandinistas in their revolution against Somoza, in the most radical manifestations of Liberation Theology. More commonly, it’s been about supporting political movements and candidates.
But while the methods and alliances are often quite controversial, there’s no denying that the motivating force is the Gospel. If they put too much emphasis on justice, I think it’s also true that conservatives often put too little … there’s certainly been no interest shown in justice, except in the most superficial sense, in the recent arguments over Muslims and immigrants, from the right. (”Justice” is not “punish the immigrants for coming here illegally.” It would be more about siding with them against the forces that cause the poverty at home they’re fleeing from … doing justice for man without regard to manmade borders.)
I don’t see that the Christian right shuns political involvement. Quite the opposite. The objection, the real objection, to Liberation Theology is not that it involves religion in politics; it’s that it sides with the downtrodden and not the powerful. And in that, I would say it is the conservatives who have got the message exactly wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, the Gospel itself sides with the downtrodden and not the powerful. That isn’t at all the problem with liberation theology; it sees the downtrodden as needing mercy but not repentance. It discards the core of the Gospel, the Cross, for all practical purposes.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, if the so-called “powerful” truly repent, the gospel sides with them too.
In Paul’s letter to the Romans, we see that a City Director of Public Works was part of the church and included among Paul’s circle of fellow Christians (Erastus, Romans 16:23).
Jesus and Paul both cared for the downtrodden, but being downtrodden is not a specific criteria or element that makes one a Christian or a follower of the gospel (not that you said it was). The gospel is on the side of those who truly repent and embrace its good news of forgiveness.
I’m not presuming this as a different view from yours but just clarifying.
Report comment to moderator
#38 “ I also find it strange that there is so much speculation about President Obama’s faith (Is he a Christian? Is he a Muslim? Does he advocate “black liberation theology?) and yet evangelicals have few qualms about lining up with a Mormon.”
Hopesprings,
The Mormon isn’t pushing us toward Marxism—or Mormonism for that matter. Faith is a particularly legitimate matter of public concern when it affects public policy or is perceived to do so. And that is the question.
Report comment to moderator
#40 “Mr. Beck later had some pretty strong criticism about the president’s faith calling it “liberation theology”.”
Hopesprings,
I have not heard a credible refutation of this. Have you?
Report comment to moderator
“#21: “Which is what if I’ve missed the point?”
What I said in #18:
“I think his complaint was … ‘We’ve conflated the Gospel with a right-wing nationalistic political ideology.’”
That’s sort of a general complaint; the recent Beck rally is just one example.”
Buddy,
I understood that point, I echoed the same in 19. The problem is, who is “WE”? He gives no references other than his own general complaint. And further, if his beef isnt with Beck, then Beck is not an example. The examples need to be these right wing churches, of whom he lists none of.
I’m not even saying he’s wrong, just saying, back it up…
I think most consevative right wing churches have a problem with Mormonism. As by the split here, they arent going to go signing up with Beck or any other generic religious rally as some presentation for the gospel.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, sadly a lot of evil comes out of Liberation Theology, the radical elements that align themselves with the Sadanistas being the worst, as some priests in the South of Colombia allow these satanists to do human sacrifices in the basements of their churches. A ton of messed up and just plain evil stuff has come out of that fringe. But in general, Liberation theology tends to see Jesus as being a victim during the Crucifixion, not as the Passover lamb, not as the sacrifice for mankind’s sin that He was.
My other problem with Liberation Theology is that it reduces the Bible to class-struggle. Jesus did teach us to care for one another’s needs, but not just the physical but also the spiritual as well. Also I dislike it when churches become nothing more than political vehicles, since politics should most definitely not be the primary pursuit of the Church. Rather the primary reasons the Church should have should be to build up one another, aka to disciple one another and to spread the Gospel. Caring for one another and for those around us is part of both of these.
Report comment to moderator
Debra, the criticism Beck leveled at the president could be leveled at himself. When Beck says of Obama, “”People aren’t recognizing his version of Christianity”, what does he say about his own version? Are people recognizing Mormonism as Christianity now?
If I’m not mistaken, Beck delivered the commencement address at Liberty University and was given an honorary doctorate which would indicate that Mormonism might be becoming more acceptable in Christian circles. What makes Beck so welcome? Why do evangelicals align with him? Is it his conservatism? Is it because of his “Christian” vocabulary?
Report comment to moderator
HopeSprings: If I’m not mistaken, Beck delivered the commencement address at Liberty University and was given an honorary doctorate which would indicate that Mormonism might be becoming more acceptable in Christian circles. What makes Beck so welcome? Why do evangelicals align with him? Is it his conservatism? Is it because of his “Christian” vocabulary?
I think it’s because people who have strong views are generally happy to latch onto any figure that commands public attention and express their views.
This is how Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrinch, both of them divorced and remarried multiple times, come be popular with people who believe in “family value.s:
Or how Ann Coulter, childless and never married but in a powerful career, can preach against the very feminist principles that allow her to live as she does.
And now, apparently, a Mormon can be the public face of conservative traditional Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
ROM: I think that’s a pretty fair analysis.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
Name one Christian leader who has commended the divorce(s) of Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrinch–Keep reading.
But as flawed men, are you now against their participation in public discourse? I don’t think so. More importantly, can a flawed person (right or left) have positive gifts or insights to contribute? Can we not pick out the bones and find the good?
The entire Democrat Party came to the lock-step defense of President Bill Clinton (despite token condemnations in rhetoric only) after he lied to the Grand Jury, committed perjury, contempt of Court and adulterized with a White House intern?
Does this mean that Democrats per se support lying and adultery and reject “family values”? I would not say so as a blanket generalization, though I disagreed with their unjust defense of him.
Why did the entire Democrat Party tolerate and minimize the horrific racism and multiple ongoing hatreds of Barack Obama’s close spiritual mentor for 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright? If you want to smear those who revere “family values” by citing their association with flawed individuals, then do you smear
Obama for his association with Rev. Wright?
Why did Democrats keep electing Ted Kennedy and keep him so popular? Do they all support adultery, divorce, running away from crime scenes, getting drunk and so on? I would not say so on that basis alone.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
Jesus was childless and never married and had a powerful career. There is nothing inherently wrong with being childless and unmarried.
Most on the Christian right understand that an American who is a Mormon has all the rights and privileges as the rest of us. All sides of the political spectrum have to discern the good and bad of all people.
Report comment to moderator
Hopesprings,
You haven’t answered my question in #45: have you heard a credible refutation of the assessment that Obama has been seeped in liberation theology, and by all appearances, still follows it?
Do you have reason to believe it’s not true?
Report comment to moderator
Hopesprings, I’m less concerned about Glenn Beck, than I am our duly elected president. He’s the one signing and implementing some of the most egregious quota-filled legislation in history. Not Glenn Beck.
Report comment to moderator
I ran across this pastor’s blog. He is an “emergent Nazarene”, but don’t throw the baby out with the bath water before you read.
http://holinessreeducation.com/2010/08/30/mondays-are-for-glenn-beck-and-liberation-theology-ramblings/
Report comment to moderator
I don’t understand your point, Hopesprings. If you’re trying to make a case for ’social justice’ then you’d still be left with the problem of the devastation brought about by Obama’s policies: loss of liberty, mandates, small businesses forced into untenable positions, institutionalized racism….
Report comment to moderator
Honestly, Debra, my point is very simple. I am not making a case for anything other than that people that live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, well if Beck were pushing Mormonism, I’d agree. But he’s not. At the same time, it does seem to me that Obama is supporting the Marxist tendencies of liberation theology. And that, I think, is the relevance of his religion to public policy.
Report comment to moderator
But when Mormonism becomes acceptable in mainstream Christianity, wouldn’t you see this as a problem? Perhaps a bit of a compromise?
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think it is becoming acceptable as mainstream Christianity. But, yes, if it did, I would not see that as a good thing. But even a Mormon, or a Jew or a Muslim can agree with mainstream Christians that we do need to turn to God, and return to honor and our founding principles in this country.
Anyway, I figure if God can move through a pagan king, Cyrus, or speak through Balaam’s ass, he can surely speak and move through the most unlikely of people–maybe even Beck. Acknowledging that doesn’t mean I agree with the policies of Cyrus, or wish to follow the theology of a donkey.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: Why do you presume so much?
Name one Christian leader who has commended the divorce(s) of Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrinch–Keep reading.
I didn’t say that. The question was why Christians overlook Beck’s Mormonism, and I suggested that Christians (and more broadly, conservatives) are willing to overlook a lot of things in order to embrace a powerful figure who echoes their beliefs on a national level.
They don’t “commend” Beck’s Mormonism, and they don’t — and I did not say they did — “commend” Limbaugh’s and Gingrich’s marital histories. They are, however, quite willing to politely ignore those things in order to lionize those people.
Can you deny it?
But as flawed men, are you now against their participation in public discourse? I don’t think so.
Well I’m glad you don’t think so, because it’s not true. I’m not “against their participation in public discourse,” and nothing I said should have suggested I was. Why do you leap right to that conclusion the moment a breath of disagreement is heard?
They have every right to participate in the public discourse. I have the right to point out that they’re not exactly living what they preach. Why does that bother you?
More importantly, can a flawed person (right or left) have positive gifts or insights to contribute? Can we not pick out the bones and find the good?
Of course. Where did I say otherwise? I was offering my opinion on Beck’s popularity among Christians. It is a fact that (1) he is popular and (2) he is Mormon and (3) many Christians regard Mormonism as heresy. So there has to be some explanation as to why they’re flocking to hear a heretic preach a sermon, which is what he did Saturday. It seems obvious to me that it’s because he’s echoing many of their conservative values, religious differences nonwithstanding, and getting a great deal of exposure for their common cause. If you have a better theory, share it with us.
Now we move into the customary “here’s why you guys are worse” (even though I didn’t say anything was bad) section of your post.
The entire Democrat Party came to the lock-step defense of President Bill Clinton (despite token condemnations in rhetoric only) after he lied to the Grand Jury, committed perjury, contempt of Court and adulterized with a White House intern?
False. He had many supporters, but not universally as you describe. The organization MoveOn, in fact, was originally founded to advocate “Impeach Clinton so we can move on.”
And it’s Democratic party.
Does this mean that Democrats per se support lying and adultery and reject “family values”? I would not say so as a blanket generalization, though I disagreed with their unjust defense of him.
Since this is based on a false premise it’s not a valid question.
Where there was defense of Clinton, it was not about his sexual transgression, which we all agree was shameful and sleazy. It was more about the (valid, in my view) idea that spending vast sums of taxpayer money on a witch hunt trying to find anything to hold against him was pure partisan vindictiveness.
But in any event, it was not the uniform, monolithic block you pretend it was.
Why did the entire Democrat Party tolerate and minimize the horrific racism and multiple ongoing hatreds of Barack Obama’s close spiritual mentor for 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright? If you want to smear those who revere “family values” by citing their association with flawed individuals, then do you smear
Obama for his association with Rev. Wright?
Once again, bad grammar and false premise. The “entire” Democratic party did not tolerate this. Obama won the nomination against Hillary Clinton only through the vagaries of the delegate system. She actually had the majority of the popular vote. Obviously it was from the “entire” party that supported Obama, although it’s not knowable how many of his opponents objected to Wright.
Also, people supporting Obama support Obama, not necessarily every individual who has ever had a role in Obama’s life.
Nor was I trying to “smear” anyone. I was answering a question, stating an opinion.
As for me, I actually don’t understand what Wright said that was supposedly so horrible. He uses strong rhetoric, but I think the whole flap was overblown. Even the notorious “God da*n America” sermon was about calling America back to righteousness and arguing that God withholds blessing from nations that stray. That is, exactly the same argument that many white conservative preachers make, but since Wright is black, liberal and used the word “da*n,” a good piece of video to attack Obama with.
Why did Democrats keep electing Ted Kennedy and keep him so popular? Do they all support adultery, divorce, running away from crime scenes, getting drunk and so on? I would not say so on that basis alone.
Not being a Massachusetts voter, I don’t know.
But the point being, your whole argument here is flawed because I never said nor hinted that Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter or anyone else should not have a place in the dialogue. All I did was opine on the question of why Christians seem untroubled by Beck’s Mormonism. And since HopeSprings raised that question, it appears that it does trouble some people.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: Jesus was childless and never married and had a powerful career. There is nothing inherently wrong with being childless and unmarried.
Are you just being obtuse on purpose? Where did I said there was anything inherently wrong with that??
Jesus was not railing against the evils of being childless, never married and having a powerful career while doing exactly that.
Ann Coulter is anti-feminist while enjoying a lifestyle that, for women, feminism made possible. You don’t see a contradiction there between preaching and practice?
Report comment to moderator
#61 All that space to say so little.
Report comment to moderator
Debra: Joel Mark wrote a long post to question me and I did him the courtesy of trying to answer it in equal detail. Why must you disparage the effort?
Report comment to moderator
#64 A comment that long should at least be entertaining if not original. Don’t mind my quibble; I have a scroll button. Carry on.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
Report comment to moderator
#57 – “…people that live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”
Unless, of course, they are courageous enough to speak the unpleasant truth responsibly regardless of consequences. Jesus’ solution was simply to not live in a glass house.
Report comment to moderator
How many are really looking for Jesus’ solution, though?
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
You mentioned the divorces of Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrinch with the clear implication that it seems inconsistent for those who believe in family values to appreciate them (they are recognized spokespersons for conservatism).
So I asked you if you knew of anyone who respects family values who has commended them for their divorces, to make the point that they can still have a constructive role even though they are flawed individuals and that people who do not agree with them on some personal aspects can still agreee with them in other aspects.
Beck’s Mormonism and Gingrich’s divorce can be criticized freely by anyone, but it does not mean they are unworthy of support or agreement on other topics and grounds from people who are not Mormons or who oppose divorce.
It should not be a tough concept to get.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, your opinion on Beck’s popularity among Christians makes no sense to me. Christians are not obligated to shun or disregard those who are flawed or do not share their faith in all ways.
No “explanation” (which you said is necessary) from Christians is needed, unless you actually think they should not be allowed to appreciate anyone who is not exactly like them.
I strongly disagree with George Washington on slavery. Still, I think he was one of the greatest Americans who ever lived and he is a hero of mine for reasons unrelated directly to his view on slavery.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
The Democrat Party came together with great party unity to save Bill Clinton from justice. The Republican Party mixed their votes far more than the Dems on his removal from office after impeachment.
Conan wrote; “Also, people supporting Obama support Obama, not necessarily every individual who has ever had a role in Obama’s life.”
Which was my point, Conan. I’m not sure you got my point. If we can be fair-minded in various ways about Democrats and their associations and flaws, etc., why not also be fair-minded toward Beck, Limbaugh, Gingrich and conservatives and their flaws and other associations (like with the Mormon church)?
Conan, if you don’t understand what Rev. Wright said that was supposedly so horrible, then you are irresponsibly uninformed or beyond objective help. Among so many other horrific public statements, remember the context for “America’s chickens are coming home to rost.” Dispicable.
Report comment to moderator
#68 Hopesprings,
I think we would be safe to say that more people were looking for Jesus’ solution on 8/28 at the Mall than there were the week before.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!