Wednesday, September 01, 2010

Is Glenn Beck More Christian than Barack Obama?

That is the question posed by Belief Beat’s Nicole Neroulias.

From the post –

Beck's evolution from comedic disc jockey to right-wing news commentator to angry prophet has caused concern for some evangelical Christians. While they may agree with his politics, his faith -- he's a Mormon, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- gives them pause. Considering the confusion lately over Obama's beliefs, whether he's suspected of being a secret Muslim or merely too much allied with Beck's much-hated "social justice" churches, it's interesting to note that Beck's own affiliation is not so acceptable in certain Christian circles.
There are some evangelicals that see Beck’s Mormonism as very non-Christian. Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said the following Monday on NPR’s All Things Considered:
I do not think Mormonism is an orthodox Christian faith, with a small O. I think perhaps the most charitable way for an evangelical Christian to look at Mormonism is to look at Mormonism as the fourth Abrahamic faith.

In a way I’m more shocked that he called Mormonism the fourth Abrahamic faith, since that would Islam the third such faith and that is not something a lot of evangelicals believe (in other words by calling Islam an Abrahamic faith, even indirectly, he has admitted that Muslims worship the same God as Christians and this is not a popular opinion with many in conservative Christian circles). Islam aside, it is clear that Dr. Land does not believe that Glenn Beck or any Mormon is a Christian and he is not alone.

Dr. Russell Moore provided a guest column for’s Perspectives entitled God, the gospel, and Glenn Beck. Normally I frown upon copying someone else’s work in it’s entirety, but in this case I just couldn’t find anywhere to make a break without losing a lot of the content and context. Emphasis is mine.

A Mormon television star stands in front of the Lincoln Memorial and calls American Christians to revival. He assembles some evangelical celebrities to give testimonies, and then preaches a God and country revivalism that leaves the evangelicals cheering that they've heard the gospel, right there in the nation's capital.

The news media pronounces him the new leader of America's Christian conservative movement, and a flock of America's Christian conservatives have no problem with that. If you'd told me that ten years ago, I would have assumed it was from the pages of an evangelical apocalyptic novel about the end-times. But it's not. It's from this week's headlines. And it is a scandal.

Fox News commentator Glenn Beck, of course, is that Mormon at the center of all this. Beck isn't the problem. He's an entrepreneur, he's brilliant, and, hats off to him, he knows his market (see video news report). Latter-day Saints have every right to speak, with full religious liberty, in the public square. I'm quite willing to work with Mormons on various issues, as citizens working for the common good. What concerns me here is not what this says about Beck or the "Tea Party" or any other entertainment or political figure. What concerns me is about what this says about the Christian churches in the United States.

It's taken us a long time to get here, in this plummet from Francis Schaeffer to Glenn Beck. In order to be this gullible, American Christians have had to endure years of vacuous talk about undefined "revival" and "turning America back to God" that was less about anything uniquely Christian than about, at best, a generically theistic civil religion and, at worst, some partisan political movement.

Rather than cultivating a Christian vision of justice and the common good (which would have, by necessity, been nuanced enough to put us sometimes at odds with our political allies), we've relied on populist God-and-country sloganeering and outrage-generating talking heads. We've tolerated heresy and buffoonery in our leadership as long as with it there is sufficient political "conservatism" and a sufficient commercial venue to sell our books and products.

Too often, and for too long, American "Christianity" has been a political agenda in search of a gospel useful enough to accommodate it. There is a liberation theology of the Left, and there is also a liberation theology of the Right, and both are at heart mammon worship. The liberation theology of the Left often wants a Barabbas, to fight off the oppressors as though our ultimate problem were the reign of Rome and not the reign of death. The liberation theology of the Right wants a golden calf, to represent religion and to remind us of all the economic security we had in Egypt. Both want a Caesar or a Pharaoh, not a Messiah.

Leaders will always be tempted to bypass the problem behind the problems: captivity to sin, bondage to the accusations of the demonic powers, the sentence of death. That's why so many of our Christian superstars smile at crowds of thousands, reassuring them that they don't like to talk about sin. That's why other Christian celebrities are seen to be courageous for fighting their culture wars, while they carefully leave out the sins most likely to be endemic to the people paying the bills in their movements.

Where there is no gospel, something else will fill the void: therapy, consumerism, racial or class resentment, utopian politics, crazy conspiracy theories of the left, crazy conspiracy theories of the right; anything will do. The prophet Isaiah warned us of such conspiracies replacing the Word of God centuries ago (Is. 8:12–20). As long as the Serpent's voice is heard, "You shall not surely die," the powers are comfortable.

This is, of course, not new. Our Lord Jesus faced this test when Satan took him to a high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the earth, and their glory. Satan did not mind surrendering his authority to Jesus. He didn't mind a universe without pornography or Islam or abortion or nuclear weaponry. Satan did not mind Judeo-Christian values. He wasn't worried about "revival" or "getting back to God." What he opposes was the gospel of Christ crucified and resurrected for the sins of the world.

We used to sing that old gospel song, "I will cling to an old rugged cross, and exchange it some day for a crown." The scandalous scene at the Lincoln Memorial indicates that many of us want to exchange it in too soon. To Jesus, Satan offered power and glory. To us, all he needs offer is celebrity and attention.

Mormonism and Mammonism are contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. They offer another Lord Jesus than the One offered in the Scriptures and Christian tradition, and another way to approach him. An embrace of these tragic new vehicles for the old Gnostic heresy is unloving to our Mormon friends and secularist neighbors, and to the rest of the watching world. Any "revival" that is possible without the Lord Jesus Christ is a "revival" of a different kind of spirit than the Spirit of Christ (1 Jn. 4:1-3).

The answer to this scandal isn't a retreat, as some would have it, to an allegedly apolitical isolation. Such attempts lead us right back here, in spades, to a hyper-political wasteland. If the churches are not forming consciences, consciences will be formed by the status quo, including whatever demagogues can yell the loudest or cry the hardest. The answer isn't a narrowing sectarianism, retreating further and further into our enclaves. The answer includes local churches that preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, and disciple their congregations to know the difference between the kingdom of God and the latest political whim.

It's sad to see so many Christians confusing Mormon politics or American nationalism with the gospel of Jesus Christ. But, don't get me wrong, I'm not pessimistic. Jesus will build his church, and he will build it on the gospel. He doesn't need American Christianity to do it. Vibrant, loving, orthodox Christianity will flourish, perhaps among the poor of Haiti or the persecuted of Sudan or the outlawed of China, but it will flourish.

And there will be a new generation, in America and elsewhere, who will be ready for a gospel that is more than just Fox News at prayer.
Dr. Moore is obviously not afraid to take on just about everyone with this column. He has attacked the Christian Right, the Christian Left, Mormons, and our general obsession in America with celebrity. Interestingly there is a lot that Dr. Moore has said here that I agree with. His analysis of the Christian Right and Left are very spot on and I think that people do try to fill the voids in their lives with, as Dr. Moore put it “therapy, consumerism, racial or class resentment, utopian politics, crazy conspiracy theories of the left, crazy conspiracy theories of the right; anything will do.” Where I differ from Dr. Moore is that I do not believe that the Gospels are the only thing that can fill that void. But admittedly that is a discussion for another time.

So here we have evangelical Christians who believe that Mormons are in fact not Christians and I have a feeling that many also believe that President Obama is not a Christian either. Obama’s dilemma, among many, is that his faith is not neat and tidy. Take his statement in 2004 that I recently covered as a Quote of the Day
So, I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people. That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there's an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived.
That is not traditional or orthodox Christian ideas but does that automatically kick him out of the Christian faith? I don’t think it does but I can understand why so many people are confused by his faith. The President’s faith isn’t something that can be easily summed up in a few words and often that is what people have a hard time wrapping their heads around. I know this based on my own personal experience in discussing my own religious beliefs with people. I have a couple of short phrases that I use to describe my beliefs but almost always they are greeted with looks of uncertainty, confusion, and misunderstanding. That is how people seem to be reacting President Obama. I’m sure Thomas Jefferson could relate.

But the big question still remains: who is more Christian, Glenn Beck or Barack Obama?

Honestly it is kind of a stupid question. People are going to quibble over the nuances of these two men’s faiths, pick them apart, and judge them against their own religious traditions and many will say that neither are Christians. If they both claim to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, then as far as I’m concerned they are Christians. Sure neither belongs to a traditional Christian tradition, but at one time anyone who wasn’t a member of the Catholic or Orthodox Churches wasn’t considered a traditional Christian, yet now there are hundreds of denominations that are considered part of traditional Christianity. What is important is how these men lead their lives, how they treat others, and what they do, not the name of their faith. People have argued and squabbled over what it means to be a Christian since the beginning of Christianity and I doubt that is ever going to change. Why not instead focus on the quality of people’s character instead of nitpicking their professed religion to death?

No comments: