(This is a revision of the original post. Same ideas, hopefully better language.)
A while back, Glenn Beck invited visitors to his web site who agreed with at least seven of his Nine Principles to send him a photo of themselves. He wanted to create a giant collage portraying massive support for these principles. I would like to send my picture as a witness against two of his Nine.
In number 4 Beck writes, “My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.” He is right that government is not the ultimate (final, beyond appeal) authority. In confronting inappropriate government authority, Christians have long pointed to the words of Jesus, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are God’s.” and Peter’s words, “We ought to obey God rather than man.” Christians have long resisted the notion that government is “the ultimate authority.” The Bible clearly supports the idea that government has real, legitimate authority. However, it is not ultimate.
Beck is dangerously wrong when he declares,“my spouse and I are the ultimate authority.” When parents beat their children and claim they have the right and responsibility to do so because of the authority given them by God, we reject their claim. Our rejection of their claim is a denial that parents are “the ultimate authority.” I could multiply examples of cases where parental authority should not be regarded as ultimate: a drug addict mother pimping her daughter, parents allowing or insisting on female genital mutilation for their daughters, dads who introduce their sons to prostitutes. Parents have real authority, legitimate, God-given authority, but it is not ultimate. Including the claim that “my spouse and I are the ultimate authority” in a list of Nine [Fundamental] Principles gives support to the minority of parents who are inclined to abuse their authority.
Parents are not ultimate authorities. Husbands are not ultimate authorities. Wives are not ultimate authorities. The government is not the ultimate authority. The church is not the ultimate authority. Rather all of these have a proper, limited authority. Holy, healthy life comes when all of these various authorities operate in balance. Elevating any single authority to the role of “ultimate authority” is dangerous.
Beck’s principle number nine states: “The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.” This principle (which is actually two distinct ideas) is toxic to individuals who embrace it and toxic to communities where these individuals live.
First, “government works for me.” The self-centeredness in this statement is obvious. Spiritual and social health is impossible without a regard for others. If Beck had written “government works for us” or “for all the people” or something like that, I would be less critical. But “government works for me!” I live on a hobby farm with eight horses. My property borders a creek. There are rules about what I can do with my manure because of the proximity of the creek. Those rules are not for my protection. They are for the protection of the people downstream. If the creek downstream is polluted with my manure that does not hurt me. However, it would hurt the people downstream. Of course, I benefit from government restricting what my upstream neighbors do with their manure, chemicals and trash. The point is making the statement “government works for me” a bedrock principle of life will distort how I understand both my privileges and responsibilities.
“I do not answer to the government, the government answers to me.” Here Beck argues that accountability flows only one way. Since government is the effective form of social cooperation in civilized societies, writing that “I do not answer to the government” is synonymous with writing “I do not answer to others.” Or “I do not answer to the community.” We cannot correct putative government overreaching by setting up as a principle of life the dictum, “I don’t answer to the government.” Government and the governed bear mutual and reciprocal obligations.
The authority of the government is not above challenge. It is not ultimate. However, government has legitimate authority. And if we acknowledge this, we must acknowledge that each of us as individuals is answerable to the government. And the government is answerable to all of us citizens.
These principles–Numbers 4 and 9–if taken just as they are written are a description of the criminal mind. Nobody tells me what to do. I answer to no one but myself. People who live like this are described in Scott Peck’s book, People of the Lie. They are truly evil.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
the entire point of the tripartite government is so that there is no one greatest authority. And if checks and balances don't work we have free speech and free press to keep everyone as honest as humanly possible. But Glenn here is an extremely paranoid little man who believes if you can't follow his extremely convoluted way of thinking then you're actively working against this country, it's sad that people buy into it of course but in the last year and a half we've seen people believe a large variety of strange conspiracy theories (the secret muslim, foreign birth, death panels and so on). But your points are well taken. There is no such thing as an "ultimate" authority that has no limits. Even in spiritaul matters we reserve the right to interpret the bible on an individual level. If I think differently than someone else in church or even "the church" that doesn't make me an apostate in the same way that if I have a different vision for this country than Glenn Beck this doesn't make me a traitor. Other religions and cultures seem to place a higher value on balance and moderation, perhaps this is something we lack
Matthew 19:19 is an unambiguous directive from Christ: “Honor thy father and thy mother.” Seems like ultimate authority on earth. That does not mean it is justification or permission for abuse. Is the authority to drive your vehicle justification or permission to drive recklessly? Parental “ultimate authority” does not imply in any way a denigration of the God-given rights of the children just like your ultimate authority over the vehicle you are driving doesn’t imply you can run over the annoying bicyclist.
“No one in the service of Jesus can act without reference to the authority of the Bible.” I agree, however, the statement is not always true if “the Bible” is replaced with spouse, government or church.
I buy a few square miles of land. I incorporate it: I am myself, I am the community, I am the government. I sell off a few acres and acquire neighbors: I am myself, I am a neighbor, I am the government. I sell off almost all of the land to many people. I and the people pay (and possibly elect) a mayor and other officials to perform jobs that consolidate effort and enable the rest of us to work at what we are good at: I am myself, I am part of a community, the mayor and other officials work for me and the community.
The mayor and other officials are the government. They are not the community, though as individuals they may be part of the community. They work for me and the community. I answer to the community (perhaps through the government but not to the government). The government answers to me, sometimes directly and sometimes through the community. The government administers only what I and the community allow it to. They are public servants. This is how it should be.
The second half of Matthew 19:19 is a directive to the community (by way of each individual in it): “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” If adhered to, it is sufficient to protect downstream neighbors and light sleepers. If the community decides it needs the government to enforce the directive, the resulting rules will in fact protect you from your upstream neighbors’ manure as it protects your downstream neighbors from your manure.
Taking part of Glenn Beck’s principle Number 4 or all of Number 9 without considering the other principles (for example: 2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.) and additional context he provides is analogous (I am not assigning Beck equivalent value here!) to taking two statements (paraphrased) let the one without sin cast the first stone and those that abide in Christ are sinless to mean that Christ expects and intends Christians to accuse and stone anyone found sinning.
Tim, your fundamental error comes right at the beginning of your comment. You appear to equate legitimate authority (e.g. parental authority) with "ultimate authority." I explicitly stated that I regarded parental authority as legitimate. However, it is NOT ultimate. Ultimate authority is authority from which there can be no appeal. Parental authority (and government authority and church authority, etc.) is subject to appeal to other sources of authority.
Glenn Beck is simply wrong when he writes, "My spouse and I are the ultimate authority." They are not.
The Nine Principles of Glenn Beck
1. America is good.
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
I am not sure if I agree with you on point number four. I think when you are considering a list of items you must consider them within the context of all the others. You cannot choose to disagree with just two of them or avoid to reference the others.
When you quote what the whole principle then I think that you may change your view. Beck is referring directly to the family and choices made within the family. Can ultimate decisions not be made within the circle of the family? If principle 4 is considered following what is said in principle 2, you cannot argue that he would not put God first before making a decision.
There are instances with which the government should step in since these days the community will not, e.g. abuse. I think he is talking more in reference to when the government starts to take the place and role of the parents in the form of a friendly alternative authority. An example of this is in the article below. The article refers to girls being allowed to have abortions without the consent of the parents. The parents may never know if their daughter was pregnant.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011445397_abortion26m.html
Now with principle number nine, I do wish it was worded differently. I cannot know how he meant it to come across. Again when in a list and when referring to the rest of the list, I am not sure this is meant to be selfish. I interpret it as if I were saying it. The government works for me because of my vote, I pay taxes, I elect and pay them to do what is best for me/community. But I believe this is to help an individual wake up and realize that he does have an affect on what happens in the government and his community, that he can do something to change it. That as an individual their thoughts and ideas do matter. That when our representatives vote or make decisions, they will have to answer to me/us and may loose my/our vote/endorsement.
Our government is supposed to be there for the people. We were built on the people and the government is only given power by the people.
"government of the people, by the people, for the people"
The following link may work if the one in Bryan's comment fails Abortion referral puts spotlight...
Bryan, What Beck "means" is not the issue here. The issue is what he says. He is a professional communicator. He is responsible for what he says. Principles number 4 and number 9, as they are presented by Beck himself, are dangerous distortions of truth.
Beck should reword them if he doesn't mean what he says. If he does mean what he says, then I believe prudent, balanced people have an obligation to speak out against his errors.
John,
I think you are conflating ultimate, which can have context, and absolute, which is God. Glenn Beck, in #4, uses ultimate specifically in the context of family. That is what #4 says. That use is certainly supported by Matthew 19:19, i.e., God delegated ultimate authority over the home to the parents.
Abuse of that authority or any other authority is a separate thing, whether it is abuse within the home, the church, or the government. When authority is abused the right to exercise that authority is compromised and the abuser may be punished. God, by human definition, cannot abuse authority.
Any authority the government may have comes from where? It comes from all the I(ndividual)s that make up the community the government is serving. That comes back to me and my spouse and everyone else who participates in the community. You and I have delegated but not abrogated certain authority to the government for the case that you or I, or any other member of the community, abuses their own authority. (You and I have the authority, but not the right or moral license, to abuse. We have delegated to the government the authority to met out punishment if you or I abused our individual authority in certain ways.)
There is no appeal against parental authority, delegated by and from God, except in the case of abuse of that authority. We are all subject to God, believing or not. You, I and the community we belong to define abuse, informed and empowered by our beliefs, to the least degree in the context of what authority we delegate to the government. You, I and the community we belong to authorize the government, and are therefore of higher authority than government. This does not mean we can thumb our noses at the government, or ignore the rules we have put in place, when it exercises the authority we have delegated.
Back to Matthew. When asked what commandments one must follow, Christ does not recite all ten commandments. He does not say, in those passages, that we must keep only one God, not make or worship graven images or keep the seventh day holy. Does that mean that as Christians we can ignore the commandments of God as expressed in Exodus?
So I ask you this: Why are you attacking Beck’s #4 & 9 as if there is no context and as if he hasn’t said, both in writing and on air, exactly what he means by them and what he sees their purpose as being?
ALL communication has context.
Delivery of “Intemperate, Inflammatory Rhetoric” in sermons and speeches is rooted in the Bible. Old and New Testament….. The preacher in every pastor will likely agree, if grudgingly, though they may prefer the synonymous “persuasion with passionate and provocative presentation of belief (or truth)” as a less pushy description of their pulpit.
I might add that it is worth considering 1 Cor. 6:19 specifically for this discussion:
"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own"
when considering your term "self centeredness".
Even in the absence of literalism, "I" is both biblically and socially important, relevant, and acceptable.
It does not imply a lack of interest or respect of "we", or the community and its servant government.
John,
I did not reference this as what was meant. I did however say this is how I interpret it. Based on my knowledge of the constitution and how our republic works, the government does answer to me and the rest of our population. As Tim said, "You and I have delegated but not abrogated certain authority to the government for the case that you or I, or any other member of the community, abuses their own authority."
Now, I do not know you John and have not heard any of your sermons. So my knowledge of you can only be based on what I have seen in some of the other blogs that you have posted. I didn't read all of them, but I do like some of the things you say. I did however see a political bias on your behalf, e.g. "2009 December, Sex as a Right Wing Weapon" (which you did comment that the "Left" does it to, after another reader pointed it out) and "2009 August, Christian Politics." I do think that as a leader in your community you have to be careful with what is posted, as you do influence thoughts. I like that you question what Glenn Beck has said, we are suppose to. But I do question why you do not blog about the other side of the spectrum. I would say question it evenly on your public blog or question none. I am not a fan of when people of authority express their political views in a biased manner, as people tend to be sheep. (Correct me if I am wrong and direct me to a blog that shows the balance, I may have missed it.)
Bryan, Commented on my apparent left-leaning bias and asked why I don't blog about the other side of the spectrum.
That is a valid challenge.
First, I admit I am biased against the right.
One reason for my bias is the way I consume media. I do not study politics. I do not listen to any talk radio--left or right. I do not watch any TV. I do read a daily newspaper--in print, not on line. I sometimes peruse Newsweek, Time and The Atlantic. I listen to NPR--which has a strong leftist bias according to some.
Most of what I know about "the Right" comes in emails from Adventists who forward stuff they like.
Many of these forwards appear to me to be unbalanced. Often they contain distortions of fact, if not, actual falsehoods. It is these emails sent to me by people who believe and endorse their content that provoke some of my anti-right wing writing.
If I received emails from people promoting left-wing ideology, I would respond to that. I just don't get that kind of content in my in box.
I have written in defense of a couple of solid conservative public figures. I defended Mike Huckabee in my Dec 2, 2009, blog. (This blog post was also published on the Adventist Today website.) I defended Brit Hume in my Jan 15, 2010, blog. On Dec. 27, 2009, I critiqued the arrogance of "scientism". On Aug 28, 09, I celebrated the blessings brought by capitalism or modern market economy. Oct. 7, 09, I quoted approvingly an article in Forbes magazine that highlighted the value of teaching abstinence as the best way to fight AIDS in Africa. Dec 4, 09, I spoke warmly of the service the Lakewood police and lamented their killing. October 7, 09 I posted "Saved by the Law," a celebration of the value of individual responsibility and initiative.
Again, I acknowledge my liberal bias and invite readers to take that into account. However, I am not completely silent about the dangers of leftist thinking. Since my readers are almost all Adventists I speak more often of the dangers from right wing thinking because I think that is a much greater threat to most Adventists. Liberal Adventists (like me) are rare. Conservatives dominate Adventist media and send me the most mail.
Tim:
It appears we agree on the following:
1. Parents have legitimate authority but not unlimited authority.
2. Government has legitimate authority but not unlimited authority.
3. Concern for personal, individual well-being has an appropriate place in Christian spirituality.
4. Concern for others has an appropriate place in Christian spirituality.
We disagree on the meaning and implications of Glenn Beck's Nine Principles.
Since I am not familiar with Glenn Beck, I defer to your opinions about what Glenn meant. As an editor and writer I stand by my critique of his language.
"said" verses "meant" is the argument? both what he said and what he meant are both splendid examples of short-sighted fallacy. There's nothing in his principles that isn't overly simplistic and overly emotional garbage. Take #1 America is good. Well that leaves a lot to be desired. for instance how do you define "good" In all the countries that have ever existed the USA probably ranks right up there with other "good" countries, but we're far from the best and we're far from perfect and there are a lot of toxic things in our past and philosophy. #8 goes to dissent but Glenn Regularly accuses anyone of remotely differing opinions to be something close to treason. Even if you ignore his attempts to redefine words to be something bad (like "social Justice") take other "bad words" like socialism and communism. These things aren't illegal in this country and there are socialist and communist political parties that are in no way treasonous, but not according to Glenn Beck who considers anything left of his far right positions to be extreme left. Where as he has a cable news and radio show. He is not being discriminated against. We can do this all day and point out how short-sighted and simplistic his views are. WE can point out enormous instances of blatant hypocrisy and grievous factual errors or gross distortions of the truth. Glenn Beck wouldn't know history if Thomas Jefferson came up and smacked him in the face. The point in all of this is not to take what we see at face value, to follow no one single drummer, to understand people and views and truth with moderation. In the discussion of Authority there is no "ultimate" just lots of little ones that we must pick amongst and choose with careful deliberation.
Post a Comment