John Schmalzbauer: Glenn Beck and Stanley Hauerwas
Last week FOX personality Glenn Beck criticized churches that talk about “social justice,” calling it a code word for Nazism and Communism.
Setting aside the part about fascists and Communists, his comments sounded vaguely familiar. When I read Beck’s words, I immediately thought of a book I first encountered twenty years ago. Published by the United Methodist Abingdon Press, it declared that “justice is a bad idea for Christians.”
Anyone familiar with the recent history of Christian theology would have no trouble recognizing the voice of Duke’s Stanley Hauerwas. Far from a partisan of FOX News, he has been a vocal opponent of America’s wars. All of them. Rejecting the God-and-country rhetoric of the Moral Majority, he once explained “why Jerry Falwell is such a pain.” Aside from a profile in "Time" magazine, he has little in common with Glenn Beck.
Unlike Mr. Beck, Hauerwas thinks that “freedom” and “Christian America" are bad ideas. Like his interrogation of the J-word, his critique of these notions is rooted in the conviction that the Enlightenment assumptions of the modern state have corrupted Christian thinking. Like the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, he has challenged the provenance of such taken-for-granted concepts, questioning the influence of Kantian philosophy on contemporary ideas of justice. From this perspective, the key questions are, “Whose justice? Which rationality?”
In the wake of the controversy over Glenn Beck, these are good questions to keep in mind. Though Hauerwas may have engaged in hyperbole, his critique is a reminder of the incommensurable ways Americans have talked about social and economic justice.
Not surprisingly, the phrase “social justice” appears 894 times on the web site of Sojourners, where it is associated with government health care and civil rights. Less well-known is the release of a six-lesson DVD series on social justice by the Heritage Foundation. Assuming that “social justice is not what you think it is,” the curriculum argues that government “doesn’t bear sole -- or even primary responsibility for justice,” a view echoed by the conservative Acton Institute.
Since the nineteenth-century, social justice has meant different things to different people. Coined by the Italian Jesuit Luigi Taparelli d’Azeglio, it has been embraced by such diverse figures as Pope John XXIII, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, and Mother Teresa.
On occasion, it has been co-opted by bigots, including Father Charles E. Coughlin, a notorious anti-Semite. Known as the “radio priest,” he founded the National Union for Social Justice in 1934. Though Glenn Beck has portrayed Coughlin as an exemplar of “liberal fascism” (a concept that has been debunked by serious historians), the Detroit demagogue was anything but, turning his vitriol against President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Federal Reserve, and an imaginary conspiracy of Jewish bankers.
Coughlin’s bigotry is a reminder of the plasticity of moral language. So are the contradictory references to social justice in contemporary America. Any phrase that can be embraced by the Heritage Foundation and the Nation does not have a stable meaning.
Like Father Coughlin, Glenn Beck has used the airwaves to play on the darker impulses in American culture. Fanning the flames of paranoia and suspicion, he has advanced a conspiratorial view of American politics. His smears against justice-oriented churches are part of the same toxic rhetoric.
Though Beck’s rant was misguided, it has provoked an important conversation. As religious leaders rise to defend social justice, they should take care to explain what they mean.
John Schmalzbauer is a sociologist of religion teaching at Missouri State University in Springfield, Missouri.
This is a great post, Dr. S.
This is a great post, Dr. S. Your analysis and conclusions are insightful, as usual.
Social Justice
It is hard to read Stanley H. and Glen B. in the same sentence. They are two radically different people. For me, social justice is simply living out the life of Christ. At the Urban Mission we feed the hungry because Jesus asked us to feed them. All the other social justice activities we engage in are expressions of discipleship. We are living the life we are called to live. I do not like that so many use social justice to advance petty political agendas and power grabs. For me it really is about faith and mercy as given by God to us first and then to all others we meet.
Thanks much, blogger
Thanks much, blogger Matt.
Bruce: Just to make things clear, I agree that Glenn Beck and Stanley Hauerwas are radically different (even though both have a problem with social justice rhetoric).
I'd also like to make it clear that I appreciate *both* Stanley's critique of "justice talk" and Nick Wolterstorff's careful argument for the importance of justice as a central category in Christian speech.
Of course, it is very easy for us to argue about this stuff on a blog. All of that can make us lose sight of the importance of what you do every day at the Urban Mission.
Social Justice
Hard to believe you took Glenn Beck's comments so completely out of context.
Likewise, you misrepresented Fr. Coughlin and liberal fascism. (Readers should see the book of the same name for actual details.)
You may disagree with certain ideas and argue against their implementation but that does not justify misrepresenting what has been said.
As long as misrepresentation is the style of the day we will continue to have divisiveness rather than solutions that actually help people.
No he didn't
Greg please say where John Schmalzbauer has taken Glenn Beck's comments out of context before you lecture him. Where precisely is he wrong?
Greg: This is the way that
Greg: This is the way that most people interpreted what Glenn Beck said. The Politics Daily news story I linked to includes a 3:34 clip from Mr. Beck. It includes this quote: "I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!"
Beck clarifies his stance on social justice here: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/38320/
Beck seems to accept social justice as private charity, but not applied to government. Catholic social teaching has historically recognized both, but as I point out (with help from Hauerwas) it is a term with many meanings. I guess Mr. Beck accepts one of them, though he sure ridicules churches that differ from his view of the concept.
As for Jonah Goldberg's argument about "liberal fascism," I linked to a historian who critiqued his book. For Jonah Goldberg's response, see this link: http://www.hnn.us/articles/122667.html
Here is the entire discussion: http://www.hnn.us/articles/122469.html
The historians at History News Network don't buy Goldberg's thesis. If you can find a good historian who does, please post a link here at the blog. Thanks for your comments.
I like your blog its very
I like your blog its very interesting, keep up the good work!
Discussion about Christian
Discussion about Christian poeple need to be nice to one another, and we should all stop killing people.
I have been around for a
I have been around for a great deal of time, but eventually chose to demonstrate my gratitude of your work!
I think that the
I think that the non-fundamentalist church is being a little unfair to Glen Beck. He's a tv personality and gets ratings because of his sometimes outrageous claims. However, if you truly listen to him, you see that he's not against social justice. He gives lots of money to charities. He simply doesn't agree with the church trying to bring justice through the government. Sure, we should vote with our Christian convictions and hope to make the US a better place, but the mission of the church is the mission of the church and not the state. Beck says, and I agree completely, that the church needs a change of heart. We have around 1 billion Christians in the world. If we truly preach church based social justice in our churches and challenge the hearts of those 1 billion Christians, we wouldn't need to look to government to feed the poor. Studies have shown that conservatives actually give more to charities and their churches than liberals. I don't think that the author intended to make this a conservative vs. liberal debate, but most of Beck's critique comes from self proclaimed "social justice" left. It's time for the left to put their money where their mouth is and stop relying on the government to do God's work. We critique the Falwell's and Robertson's of the world for pushing Christian Zionism in the US, why can't liberals see that they are doing the same thing?
I'll be glad whenever so called ecumenical, irenic Christians start treating the conservatives the same way. It seems that everyone (even non-Christians) have a place at the table except conservative/fundamentalists. (this is coming from a mainliner)
There are more civil
There are more civil advocates of the limited government/smaller state approach than Glenn Beck. Evangelical libertarians have made these kinds of arguments, minus the conspiracy theorizing and overheated rhetoric.
The major problem people have with Beck is his chalk board conspiracy theory approach to politics and the way he attaches dark, nefarious motives to those he disagrees with.
I agree that we could have a more robust civil society/non-profit sector. Sociologist Mark Chaves (a regular contributor to this blog) has showed how little social service activities many American churches engage in. I think that churches across the spectrum could step this up.
As for evangelicals/conservative Protestants having a place at the table, check out Michael Lindsay's Faith in the Halls of Power (Oxford University Press). Conservative evangelicals had access to the centers of power for eight years in the Bush administration.
Even in the Obama administration many evangelicals are in positions of influence, including Francis Collins (head of the largest science agency in the world), Scott Gration (point man on Darfur), and Joshua DuBois (head of the office of faith-based initiatives in the White House).
Beck isn't really at Protestant fundamentalist, in any event, but a Mormon who draws on a particular strain of LDS civil religion. Some of this civil religion is shared by some evangelicals (like Jerry Falwell, Jr.), but some of it is distinctive. It is not the same thing as Protestant fundamentalism.
"liberal fascism" not debunked
First - I appreciate and agree with the actual point of Dr. Schmalzbauer's entry. However, after reading this blog entry and the comments, I went to the link which Dr. Schmalzbauer cites as evidence, twice, that the "liberal fascism" argument and Jonah Goldberg's book of the same name have been "debunked."
As Goldberg points out in his reply, the introduction by Neiwert alone, with its tortured those-Nazis-compare-people-to-Nazis! example and frothing at the mouth tone ("teabaggers"? Seriously?) should have counselled you against any recommendation of this book as a serious academic treatment, much less a debunking, of the argument.
I have read Goldberg's book, and though not perfect and a bit overambitious, it is a far more serious and important work of (somewhat accessible) scholarship than any of the supposed critiques in the HNN response. Honestly, the poor attention to detail, misrepresentations, and flat-out inaccuracies are embarrassing.
As Goldberg's response points out, effectively demolishing the only near-respectable response in the group, his argument and the scholarship backing it up deserve serious attention. Perhaps one of these "respectable historians" will eventually respond to "Liberal Fascism" and prove Goldberg wrong - but it will take something of the quality expected in an academic journal.
Here's one guarantee: if neither the responding author nor the journal editors can even entertain Goldberg's argument long enough to read his reasoning and evidence carefully and
understand his conclusions, we will continue to see supposedly respectable scholars like the HNN folks embarrass themselves with mere ideological knee jerking.
Wonko: Thanks for your post.
Wonko:
Thanks for your post. One wishes that the back-and-forth on HNN would have continued a bit longer than one round. The HNN debate between Michael Novak and Joseph Ellis on America's Founding Fathers and religion is a much better conversation.
Not being an expert on the 1930s and American fascism, I shouldn't have pronounced the matter settled with the HNN review of Goldberg's book.
At the same time, the fact that the HNN reviewers may have caricatured the book doesn't make me any less uneasy about Goldberg's original argument. I've read enough of his stuff to see that he is more of a polemicist than someone for whom getting the historical record straight is a top priority. As you point out, the same could be said for some of the HNN critics (though not all of them).
I long for a conversation with some experts on the 1930s and fascism from across the political spectrum. Only in that kind of exchange can a non-specialist (like me) get a real sense of where the truth lies.
It is a shame that the politicization of history has led us to this point.
amrican
Just to make things clear, I agree that Glenn Beck and Stanley Hauerwas are radically different (even though both have a problem with social justice rhetoric).
John Schmalzbauer: Glenn Beck and Stanley Hauerwas
I appreciate and agree with the actual point of Dr. Schmalzbauer's entry. However, after reading this blog entry and the comments, I went to the link which Dr. Schmalzbauer cites as evidence, twice, that the "liberal fascism" argument and Jonah Goldberg's book of the same name have been "debunked."
I think that the
I think that the non-fundamentalist church is being a little unfair to Glen Beck. He's a tv personality and gets ratings because of his sometimes outrageous claims. However, if you truly listen to him, you see that he's not against social justice. He gives lots of money to charities. He simply doesn't agree with the church trying to bring justice through the government. Sure, we should vote with our Christian convictions and hope to make the US a better place, but the mission of the church is the mission of the church and not the state. Beck says, and I agree completely, that the church needs a change of heart. We have around 1 billion Christians in the world. If we truly preach church based social justice in our churches and challenge the hearts of those 1 billion Christians, we wouldn't need to look to government to feed the poor. Studies have shown that conservatives actually give more to charities and their churches than liberals. I don't think that the author intended to make this a conservative vs. liberal debate, but most of Beck's critique comes from self proclaimed "social justice" left. It's time for the left to put their money where their mouth is and stop relying on the government to do God's work. We critique the Falwell's and Robertson's of the world for pushing Christian Zionism in the US, why can't liberals see that they are doing the same thing?
I'll be glad whenever so called ecumenical, irenic Christians start treating the conservatives the same way. It seems that everyone (even non-Christians) have a place at the table except conservative/fundamentalists. (this is coming from a mainliner)
I agree that Stanley Hauerwas
I agree that Stanley Hauerwas and Glenn Beck are absolutely different in their approach and thoughts
ahh
Why do people keep calling everything communism? It is like a buzz word to get people emotional.
Zack
I'm really impressed with
I'm really impressed with your writing skills and also with the layout on your blog. Is this a paid theme or did you modify it yourself? Either way keep up the excellent quality writing, it’s rare to see a nice blog like this one nowadays..
Post new comment