The other day some colleagues were giving me a good-natured ribbing about my blog response to a recent editorial in Christianity Today lambasting the Glen Beck rally last weekend.  So I thought that I would clarify a few things in my mind, as well as throw out a question.  Not that any of them read this.  

Firstly, I don't wish to sound to glib or dismiss the seriousness of a Christian crusade led by someone who - despite whatever language he chooses to use in public - professes faith in a heretical Christian cult is without a doubt sobering and serious.  Mormonism and Biblical Christianity are not tenable.  This is not a small issue, it's a major one.  And it points out the need for some serious teaching in a lot of churches about just what it is that Mormonism teaches and how it's not compatible with Biblical Christianity.  For a crash course, this is a good starter list of some major differences.  

Now comes my question.  It's based on a curious passage in the first chapter of Philippians.  The apostle Paul writes starting at verse 15:

This is a pretty challenging text, if you ask me.  It asks us not to focus on motives, but only on what is said.  From the accounts I've heard, Beck thus far has not gotten very specific in his talk about Jesus, and has avoided any statements that would reflect specifically Mormon teachings.  IF this is the case, then what are we to make of Mr. Beck's efforts?  If we assume from his Mormon affiliation that he believes Mormon doctrine, but he doesn't preach it, should we be rejoicing that he is limiting himself to preaching Jesus in a limited way that, if not the fullness of the Gospel, at least doesn't directly contradict it?  Or is the knowledge of his Mormon affiliation confusing enough so as to nullify the use of Jesus in the first place?

And this, by the way, is probably the key issue - the use of Jesus.  Paul is not talking about people utilizing Jesus as a means to an end, but preaching Christ.   This isn't really what Beck is doing - he seems to be preaching Jesus as a means to an end - national revival and renewal resulting in political and social change.  It's a form of social gospel.  This is different than preaching Christ crucified and resurrected as the sole message.  We can't tell what the people were saying that Paul references, but common sense would prompt us to assume that they were at least pretending to preach the Gospel.  Perhaps that was a different situation than what we have here.  Then again, perhaps it isn't.

I'm not a fan of Beck personally.  More accurately, I'm not a fan of rampant, shameless self-promotion, regardless of who is doing it.  Particularly when it is done under the guise of conscience or the public good, yet has the side effect of making the person quite a tidy some of money.  I'm a realist, and I distrust people's motives most of the time - including my own.  But all of those issues aside, should we be giving thanks for Jesus being in the public square - regardless of the motives of the people using him?  

Such an interpretation would be almost as radical as Paul's actual words.  And that has me thinking.

How about you?