[Update: I've decided to do a giveaway for this post. If we get more than ten comments - excluding replies by me - then I will have a drawing for a $10 Sock Dreams gift card, for anyone who has ever commented to the blog. If you're a PTS student you can't win, though. I'm so sorry; it would just cross a line. Everyone else, though... go!]
So Glenn Beck had a big God Fest on Sunday night, evidently, and the scuttlebutt is that people with important things to say about religion are supposed to care.
Sigh.
Okay, confession time: It is unspeakably difficult for the theological part of my brain to take Glenn Beck seriously. This is not to say I pay him no notice whatsoever. To the contrary, the political part of my brain can’t help but regard him with the sort of seriousness with which one regards a sewer backup in the basement. In other words, it’s not that I behold the smelly spectacle and conclude, “Wow, this is a phenomenon about which I need to go off and have a long think.” No. But I do look around, groan, and say “Oh, my, this is serious.” I may even marvel: “Mercy, I’ve never smelled something this bad. That came out of humans?” For what else would one do upon coming across noxious stuff that ordinarily stays below the surface, other than deal with it, hopefully taking periodic breaks for fresh air?
But when he starts playing at theology… look, NO. No no no no. I’m sorry. I can’t write the long, somber Niebuhr- and Cone-quoting post explaining why he’s entirely wrong about Jesus. Others can, but I can’t. He’s gotten everything so invincibly backwards, and is so preeningly happy to have done so, that to even contemplate addressing his… I mean, what? What are they? They don’t really rise to the level of “claims.” Addressing his maxims, let’s say… Well, it just makes me tired to even think about composing some kind of theologically smart correction.
This is not an instance of having to back the truck up to the last intersection and take a different turn. This is an instance of the truck not running at all, because although you ordered a truck and paid for a truck, what you actually got delivered from the factory was a ski-lift chair with a cardboard box draped over it and some headlights drawn on. And, look, even a ski-lift chair might POSSIBLY be a form of conveyance if it were attached to a ski lift, but it’s not. It’s detached from anything that might make it go anywhere. And you’ve got the guy from the auto dealer on the phone saying, “Well, what do you mean there’s something wrong with it? Can you be more specific? Most people find the seating very comfortable.”
Oh for heaven’s sake. Do you see? Do you see the kind of tortured analogies to which I must resort when trying to talk about something so convoluted and incoherent? Glenn Beck is someone who asserts “America is good” on principle, then says “[God] is the center of my life,” evidently unconcerned with the possibility that those two tenets might – even theoretically – conflict; then decries as unjust any effort of the government to “force” people to “share;” then says (about immigration, for example) that the law is what it is and nobody is above it. How do any three of those hold together, I’d like to know? He is someone who evidently believes that Jesus — a first-century Palestinian Jew who was perceived as such a threat to the empire that he got executed — cares a great deal about being in individuals’ hearts, but does not care about “oppressor and victim.” Indeed, he thinks that any theology which includes such an analysis is not “true Christianity.”
And the sad thing is, exactly none of this is new or interesting or original. The only interesting wrinkle is the fact that Beck is a Mormon… which is “interesting” inasmuch as it tends to prompt us on the religious left, with characteristic smugness, to pop some popcorn and settle down to watch what we hope will be a slug-fest between the evangelical Protestant Christian right (who don’t believe Mormons are Christians) and the theologically unfussy tea partiers. (There is nothing we on the Christian left like better than to catch the right in a moment of hypocrisy. It’s like birthdaychristmaspromjazzhands!)
As Sarah Posner writes at RD:
As a religion reporter, I actually find Glenn Beck pretty boring. His schtick is derivative, and his line-up of faithy speakers is so familiar to me. His history “professor,” David Barton, feeds him his “Christian nation” mythology, and the falling on your knees to pray for America bit is old hat.
As a theologian, let me go a bit more ranty: What does Glenn Beck mean theologically for progressive people of faith? Nothing. Seriously. Nothing. To suggest that he should be the impetus for “our side” making our case more urgently or differently, gives him far too much importance. It suggests that we couldn’t be bothered to do so with conviction until some petty half-coherent demagogue came along… whereupon we all collectively said, “Oh, gosh, maybe we should really argue the ‘social justice’ bit and claim that identity proudly.”
Which, honestly, I’m rather worried is in fact the case, so I’m throwing up my hands here and saying “Change the subject, for, literally, the LOVE OF GOD. Please change the subject!” Beck has brilliantly positioned himself to be the spokeperson for a kind of intellectually dishonest religious hackery that preceded him… whose tenets can be reduced to three or four pious-sounding yips for which logical coherence is entirely beside the point. And oh, incidentally? We on the left have our own versions of the same.
But theology that’s thoughtful — not necessarily highly thoughtful, or correct, or unassailable, or just, or privilege-aware, let alone interesting or intellectually sound; but even just minimally thoughtful — will never out-sound-bite this kind of fatuous blahblah. Like, seriously, can… can we please stop trying to do so? Minimally thoughtful theology takes more than a few sentences to say. It will account for more life experiences than just those of the speaker in the last five minutes; and it will reckon with history and cultural context. Now, me, I think that’s a pretty low bar. But a lot of people seem to love running headlong into low bars, so ::shrug:: I’m more interested in shutting up about Beck and doing better.
Thanks for this Sarah. As someone who has recently blogged about Beck and “Restoring America’s Honor,” I am less concerned about Beck’s theology and more concerned with those who resonate with him. I am reminded of Barth’s initial reaction to Hitler, which by some accounts to be a mild disdain, but more of a “surely this nut job won’t gain any traction.” Of course that is not a direct quote, though! I am not sure we progressive Christians need to respond to Beck at every turn a la Jim Wallis, but I do thin we need to be quite cognizant of the discontent that Beck is representative of and be writing passionately about what Christ calls us to. I think sometimes that will mean calling out Beck.
Thanks Brian. You’re adding nuance to my post where it definitely needed it. I guess – and this is maybe where I’m no postliberal (possibly, I don’t know) – I don’t think we need to give theological corrections or rebuttals to Beck. I think it’s enough to say things like, “Dude is a racist self-promoter who wants to make money by capitalizing off the racist grudges of white people,” and it’s even better to get all up in their business whenever they try to gain ground.
I realize I’m trying to slice the pastrami a little thin here… Did Bonhoeffer (genuine question) spend a lot of time theologically dismantling the bizarre and appalling pagan mythology of National Socialism? That’s sort of the distinction I’m trying to get at. Angry white take-back-America folks need to be resisted, for sure; but I don’t think we need to waste any energy patiently saying, “No, see, where you have conceptually misunderstood liberation theology is…” or “No, you see, there are many different kinds of Islam…” to people not interested in having considered opinions.
After reading the article linked, the first thought that crossed my mind was Homer Simpson when he does the “d’oh” maneuver. That’s what I felt like doing.It’s bad enough that he’s doing the dangerous maneuver of mixing politics and religion together (like Sally Kern here in Oklahoma is doing), but he also adds arrogance when he claims that he’s going to bring a new “Great Awakening” to America, not to mention his mistaken belief that the Founding Fathers created the US as a Christian nation (which they didn’t). The only thing that concerns me about Glenn Beck is that his “followers” will listen to his drivel without looking into his claims.
Having said that, eep! Let me hasten to add that I’ve not actually read your blogging on the subject, Brian! (Though I expect it’s excellent. Forgive me, I’ve just discovered Twitter and have gotten behind on blogs.)
But I do think, esp. among… okay, I’ll say it, “my sort,” the basically comfortable educated progressives who approach these things with an air of “Now isn’t that interesting? Tut tut!”, you find an indulgent way of engaging in conceptual dismantling because it’s a relatively easy way of feeling superior. I mean, how much more simple could it be to show Beck’s claims as theologically vapid? But more’s at stake than the sullied reputation of Niebuhr or Cone, you know? Anyone who would ever give James Cone a fair read is not someone who would listen to Glenn Beck’s arguments to the contrary; anyone who is convinced by Glenn Beck would never give a fair reading to James Cone.
I like seeing ol’ Glenn get a little more religious and a little less political, because I think his embrace of religion is incoherent and sincere. His politics I consider waaay more objectionable.
And maybe at some point in the very near future, some nice Mormon in a position of ecclesiastical authority will pull the man aside and say, “Hey, Glenn? Just FYI, calling people not ‘real Christians’ is kinda an asshole behavior, and we Mormon people should maybe not go there.”
Or perhaps he will have picked that up himself.
Anyhoo, VFenn, the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation is actually a piece of genuine Mormon theology. That’s where this is coming from. Of course, this belief is based on the assertion that everyone who is moved to come to the United States is being inspired by God. So I look forward to a completely unexpected New Glenn on immigration policy–the Emma Lazarus version.
To the extent that you’re comfortable with people who already agree with you smiling and nodding, and thinking “Ah, internet kindred spirit,” I understand your position. But to the extent you want to change anyone’s mind who may believe Beck (and maybe you think this is impossible), I don’t think the dismissiveness you advocate will work. In fact, articles like this, if read, I suspect only exacerbate the state of the discourse.
If you turn on Fox News right now- any given day, and listen to Beck and O’Reilly, you’ll hear the word “elites” or “liberal elites” at least three times. Other commentators are worse. A false dichotomy is being crafted between the out-of-touch academics and the “real American”. And it’s ridiculous, but it’s also a little ingenious I think. If you can alienate the other side to such an extent that defending your views to them isn’t even possible, let alone required, you’re free to say even more outlandish things. This becomes a vicious cycle where you can incrementally widen the perceived chasm between the two sides, while escaping scrutiny because your detractors are so extreme as to be unable to hold you accountable.
And while I normally enjoy your posts, I find you guilty of that here. What you perceive as unworthy of dignifying with a response, a good half of the country listens to intently. Not taking Glenn Beck seriously means not taking those who agree with them seriously- their brains, their faith, their ability to be discriminating. And that’s also a ridiculous. Maybe not in the same way. But it smacks of elitism and contempt and being out-of-touch- the exact things Fox News would love for you to be. Because then, when you do have something to say? No one else has any obligation to listen.
Beck deserves to be taken seriously. If it’s easy to take apart his theology, do it. By simplified bullet point. By hundred page treatises of well-researched, mind-blowingly logical counterarguments. By anything in between. What you don’t want to hear is ” I could say something, but he’s not worth responding to.” Because I guarantee you’ll hear it right back.
The problem I have with Glenn Beck is this: where do you start? How do you even begin to refute some of the things he’s saying that aren’t right, but aren’t even wrong?
I mean, if you have two people, one believing that fire is some kind of reduction-oxidation reaction, and the other believing that it’s the release of phlogiston, there are points that each of them can make to the other to attempt to convince them of their rightness or wrongness on the subject. But, if you take those same two people, one who believes it’s a reduction-oxidation reaction, the other who believes it’s phlogiston, and Glenn Beck, who believes that it’s a conspiracy by Congress to build an army of homosexual illegal-immigrant zombies so they can prevent you from worshipping Jesus, which is exactly what the Nazis did to the Jews, and also fill the reflecting pool with bongwater, well, you’ve just left the realm where logic is going to be an effective tool to convince anyone of anything.
It’s a mistake to call him a pundit; he’s a bad stage magician, and I think he probably needs to be debunked the way a bad stage magician is: while he’s holding up a crucifix or an American flag or a picture of Osama Bin Laden or Hitler or what-have-you, watch what his other hand is doing.
Do Pagan religion bloggers get a pass?
So that’s (at least) two smart people who thought I was advocating a generally dismissive approach, as opposed to just a theologically dismissive approach, which signals to me that something went wrong between what I thought and what I wrote. Seriously, thanks, y’all, and point taken, and I think you’ve got me there. May I clarify? I think Beck is dangerous and horrid. I just don’t think he’s worth treating like a theological debating partner, precisely because he’s so horrid and there are more important things to focus on than that he’s not clear on Niebuhr, you know?
And, you know… okay, I suppose there’s nothing saying that you can’t do both. Fair point. And as I think about it, here’s what rankles me a bit: the teabag/Beck crowd is scary, really scary and incendiary. I was sad to see a lot of social justice Christians save their particular ire for, well, Beck’s attack on social justice Christians.
If you turn on Fox News right now- any given day, and listen to Beck and O’Reilly, you’ll hear the word “elites” or “liberal elites” at least three times. Other commentators are worse. A false dichotomy is being crafted between the out-of-touch academics and the “real American”. And it’s ridiculous, but it’s also a little ingenious I think. If you can alienate the other side to such an extent that defending your views to them isn’t even possible, let alone required, you’re free to say even more outlandish things. This becomes a vicious cycle where you can incrementally widen the perceived chasm between the two sides, while escaping scrutiny because your detractors are so extreme as to be unable to hold you accountable.
And while I normally enjoy your posts, I find you guilty of that here. What you perceive as unworthy of dignifying with a response, a good half of the country listens to intently.
Well, that’s just a really good point. [No snark.] Does my clarification of what I was thinking (understanding that that didn’t come through in the OP) speak to it at all? The other point, though, is exactly Huey’s: what do you do when the other side isn’t even engaging in civil discourse where points have to kind of cohere and be able to be checked against something?
@Deborah Lipp — Well, AWESOME pagan religious bloggers do, so you’re good.
@Starling — Oh, please please please give us the Mormon skinny. (Er, if you want, I mean.)
Ergh, have more to say but am getting interrupted by kids needing to get to bed…
Huey: …while he’s holding up a crucifix or an American flag or a picture of Osama Bin Laden or Hitler or what-have-you, watch what his other hand is doing.
Heh. Nice!
Starling: Of course, this belief is based on the assertion that everyone who is moved to come to the United States is being inspired by God. So I look forward to a completely unexpected New Glenn on immigration policy–the Emma Lazarus version.
Innnnnnnnnteresting. Where does that belief come from? Is it Joseph Smith?
Ooh, happy to! The first and second citations come from the Book of Mormon, which Mormons consider co-authoritative with the Bible.
Starting with:
1 Nephi 13:12 And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.
…
18 And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle.
19 And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations.
…
30 Nevertheless, thou beholdest that the Gentiles who have gone forth out of captivity, and have been lifted up by the power of God above all other nations, upon the face of the land which is choice above all other lands….
And more!
2 Nephi 1:5 But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.
6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.
And then there’s this, from the Doctrine and Covenants, which are considered communication from God to Joseph Smith:
Doc & Cov 101:80 I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose.
So a very strong streak of American exceptionalism, not surprising for a church best known for having an “American Bible.” (Well, maybe best known for polygamy. But I digress.) The 19th century reading of these passages was that the Mormon settlers were not only authorized but sent by God to preach to the Native Americans, and turn them from their wicked traditional religious practices. (Yeah, don’t get me started.) But they’re also very clear in endorsing completely unrestricted immigration from the rest of the world to the U.S., a point which I argue with my grandma about once every three months.
In the plus column, the purpose mentioned by Doctrine and Covenants citation was the eradication of slavery.
Hope you found that obscure religious doctrine interesting!
Oh, and there are stacks of non-canonical LDS Church discussion and declaration on the topic, but these are considered Authority, not merely talk.
Fascinating! Thanks Starling! So, okay, question. (Ooh, and Stephanie is LDS, correct? Stephanie?) Is it the case that for LDS theology there genuinely *isn’t* a way in which the claims “America is good” and “My primary allegiance is to God” could ever come into conflict?
Very amusing! I never really had much interest in what Glenn Beck says. Recent posts about him haven’t really made me want to find out, either. Learning for the first time that he’s a Mormon just strikes me as odd. Especially since the whole “America is good” really doesn’t go well with the LDS faith, which is very, very international and the church, at least, strives to be politically neutral. Or maybe it used to and stopped–I haven’t been paying attention to the church, per se, for the last few years. Also, charity (in both the love sense and the sharing sense) is something we’re to strive to be good at. Maybe not being a very good example of Mormonism is why he gets along better than one would expect with the religious right?
I agree that thoughtful theology cannot compete directly with sound bytes. Thoughtful anything cannot compete directly with sound bytes. Thoughtful reaches one audience and sound bytes reach another–unfortunately it seems to me the second audience is the larger of the two. (There is, of course, some intersection, but that’s a whole ‘nother matter.)
Ooh, no, actually, the righteousness of the USA is tied to a prophecy that at some point, “the Constitution will hang by a thread” and only the righteous will be able to preserve America in her divine greatness. (Per Joseph Smith, quoted by Brigham Young.)
Now that’s something that makes the whole Glenn Beck phenomenon much more comprehensible, isn’t it? And you can see why a lot of the religious right’s talking points resonate with Utah.
I’m not familiar with that passage, but the connotations of what you’re saying contradict the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately, there seems to be a point in Joseph Smith’s life where his prophesies consistently strayed from the Book of Mormon, so it may be that what he said contradicted the Book of Mormon or that it has since been interpretted in such a way. Or it may be a Brigham Young thing–he seemed to lead the church further from its origins than any one prophet I’m familiar with.
However, after 9/11, the prophet was stressing the international nature of the church over the fervor of nationalism.
As for the religious right resonating with Utah–I can’t say. I’ve never been to Utah. Here in Wisconsin, the same people who stress the talking points of the religious right are those who worry about my eternal soul for converting to the LDS faith.
Stephanie–
Sorry, I should have cited that. It’s Joseph Smith as quoted by Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses. I found the citation in a New Era article written by L. Tom Perry for the 7/76 issue. If you are interested, there is an article by Gordon B. Hinckley in the 1/02 Liahona, “The Times in Which We Live”, which pulls both threads together–the international nature of the Mormon church and the historic emphasis on the United States as the Promised Land and the original Eden.
I’ll look that up, thanks.
Pingback: Here, Have Some Links « The Seedbed
@Starling and @Stephanie — Okay, you both have me fascinated now in Mormon theology (vastly more interesting than Beck’s God yaps) and I came across this, which suggests that Beck’s indebted to someone who was very much on the outs with standard LDS thought:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/print.html
Thank you thank you. And don’t get me started on LDS theology. Seven years as a Unitarian Universalist minister in Salt Lake City nearly did me in.