Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
12 vicious values (cont’d.)

12 vicious values (cont’d.)

Last updated on: March 28, 2010 at 4:15 pm by Fred Clark

12 vicious values (cont’d.) 2010-03-28T16:15:29-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I think part of the reason Glenn Beck's 912 Project opts for the term "values" rather than "virtues" is because virtues take work. They require practice to acquire as habits.

This is not what the 912 Project is for. It is not a group or "movement" of people who have chosen to practice these 12 virtues in order to acquire them as habits. It is not a group that seeks to learn or to embody those virtues at all.

Look at that list again: Honesty, reverence, hope, thrift, humility, charity, sincerity, moderation, hard work, courage, personal responsibility, gratitude.

Does any of that characterize the agenda or the practice or the visible habit of Beck's tea partying mobs? Were any of these virtues on display in the town-hall disruptions, in the angry marches or the signs carried under Beck's "912" banner? Was there even a hint that these gatherings were composed of people even slightly interested in such virtues?

This is why Beck's list of "12 values" can't withstand comparison to the first similar-seeming list that comes to mind, the Boy Scout Law. The Boy Scouts of America isn't my favorite organization as I'm not a

fan of either homophobia nor vacuous civil religion, but I am a big fan
of that Scout Law:

A Scout is: Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.

Against such there is no law.

The 12 virtues listed there are at first glance quite similar to Beck's, but the differences are telling. The Scout Law begins "A Scout is" — these are not just external ideas to be "valued," they are aspects of what a Scout is to become, to be. That's the difference between values, to which one can pay cheap lip service, and virtues, which require practice, practice, practice until they are ingrained as habit and character and identity.

The Scouts' list is far more directed toward action — action centered around helping others, around relationship. Here is another distinction between the cheapness of values and the costly commitment of virtues — virtues must be practiced in relationship. The Scout Law requires them to be out in the community and in the world doing things — helping the proverbial little old lady across the street — and thereby becoming things. But Beck's list doesn't require any such movement or action on behalf of his followers. All his list requires is that one sit around thinking of oneself as a person who values those values and who is, therefore, better than other people who presumably don't because they haven't joined the club.

And that, I think, is the primary point of Beck's list of "values" for him and for his followers. It's not about becoming virtuous people who practice these habits and come to embody them as character. It's about the pretense that asserting them means possessing them in greater measure than the Others, in whom such values are presumed to be absent.

Beck's list of 12 Values, in other words, is an accusation.

The accused — Obama voters, "progressives," "social justice" believers, feminists, environmentalists, CNN viewers, newspaper readers, intellectuals, non-whites, etc. — are said not to care about these bedrock values the way Beck and his followers claim to.

This accusation is, again, a kind of bearing false witness. And like all such bearing of false witness, it begins to look shaky when this testimony is compared with reality. Upon examination those infidel Others, the accused, do not seem to fit the vile caricature of Beck's portrayal of them. Many of them, in fact, seem honest, reverent, hopeful, thrifty, humble, charitable, sincere, moderate, hard-working, courageous, responsible and grateful.

Sustainably portraying them as otherwise, therefore, requires withdrawing from reality in at least two ways. First it requires refusing to deal with these Others as they actually are, opting instead for the strawman and the demonizing caricature. This is harder than it might seem at first as it means there's a whole universe that one mustn't look at — a wide world which one must pretend to oneself that one didn't see after inevitably catching repeated glimpses of it throughout the day.

Sustaining feigned indignation in the face of inoffensive reality always takes a lot of work. That work is much like the work and practice of acquiring virtue, except it's working in the opposite direction.

The second way in which belief in this accusatory list requires one to withdraw from reality has to do with the list itself and with the meaning of the words therein. The meaning of words are also part of reality and so they too must be brought under the governing pretense of the false witness. Words are "in on it" too. So the pretense of this accusatory list is sustained, in part, by redefining words.

I hinted at some of those redefinitions in the previous post, but let's do more than that for a couple of these values: Charity and personal responsibility.

What does Glenn Beck mean by "charity"? He means "charity" instead of justice. Charity as opposed to justice. He means charity as a strictly voluntary, optional, extravagant (in nature, if not in scope) act.* He means he owes nothing to the needy, that the rich man owes nothing to Lazarus at the gate.

This is a redefinition of charity that was invented expressly for the purpose of defending a lack of charity. It is "charity" that proclaims the right not to share, not to give, not to be affected at all by the need of others. It is a denial of obligation, a denial of connection and of interconnection, a denial of kinship. It is the charity of Cain, rejecting any obligation to be one's brother's keeper.

That same insistence — we are not our brother's keeper — is also at the heart of what Beck means by the term "personal responsibility." For the 912 Project this does not mean that you must take responsibility for your choices and actions, not blaming others for your misfortunes. It means, rather, that you are responsible only for yourself and that you are free of any and all responsibility for anyone else. For Beck, in other words, "personal responsibility" is a declaration of irresponsibility.

This idea combines with the stunted anti-justice redefinition of charity to rationalize the refusal to assist others as a humane "do not feed the bears" policy. Which makes sense if you think of the world as an uncivilized jungle. And if you think of people in need as subhuman beasts.

"If you quit giving people that stuff, they would figure out how to do it on their own," one of Beck's 912 disciples said to The New York Times' Kate Zernike.** That man collects unemployment and Social Security, but spends most of his free time angrily making sure no one else can.

That's personal responsibility, Glenn Beck style. It means, "I got mine, you're on your own."

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

* For a fuller exposition of this duty-free meaning of "charity" — of charity as the opposite of justice — see Marvin Olasky's infamous book The Tragedy of American Compassion.

Olasky offers a mendaciously selective revision of 19th- and early 20th-century evangelical charitable movements in America. He portrays these groups as focused exclusively on a tough-love approach — requiring work as a prerequisite for any assistance. And he suggests that these charitable groups were therefore opposed to any form of public assistance or safety net, which he says they believed would have undermined their effective tough love. He argues that these charities were ultimately destroyed by the New Deal (which I guess is why the Salvation Army closed up shop in 1932, never to be seen again).

Olasky thus presents the odd notion that FDR invented and created American poverty — that America's poor were fewer in number and less desperate before the safety nets of the New Deal were put in place. That thesis falls apart when one looks at the facts of the matter. It isn't hard to find the statistics on the extent and degree of 19th-century poverty in America and to compare that to the extent and degree of late 20th-century poverty and realize that Olasky's whole argument is nonsense.

But the larger problem with Olasky's Tragedy is that it commits horrible abuses against its source material. A handy resource illustrating this point is Norris Magnuson's Salvation in the Slums: Evangelical Social Work 1865-1920. Magnuson relies on the exact same source material as Olasky, but he presents it unredacted, providing a revealing glimpse of just what Olasky skipped over in his selective reading. Many of those charities Olasky hails as champions of tough love in a Social Darwinist jungle were, in fact, calling for greater public support and exactly the sort of safety nets Olasky claims they oppose
d. And as much as I might disa
gree with his thesis and argument, my opposition pales in comparison to what the people he selectively cites actually said about people like him.

Many of the supposedly anti-government charities Olasky commends were actually deeply involved in the pre-Rauschenbusch social gospel movement, which in the late 19th-century preferred the term "Christian socialism." That phrase is, of course, the bogeyman Glenn Beck invokes in his rants against "social justice" churches that he sees as the enemies of charity and personal responsibility. But those 19th-century Christian socialists can't be so easily dismissed — without them, we wouldn't have the Pledge of Allegiance or WWJD? bracelets.

** Zernike also covered the "Tea Party Woodstock" yesterday in Searchlight, Nev., where former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was the headliner. That rally drew about 9,000 people. That's about 3/4 the size of the crowd at a New Jersey Nets home game this season. The Nets are 9-64. Just sayin'.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

March 23, 2010

Glenn Beck Bingo

Next Post

March 29, 2010 T.F.: Then as farce

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was known for his great strength and long hair?

Select your answer to see how you score.

David Samson Peter Elijah