What’s the Frequency, Russell?

A friend posted a link to this editorial through his Facebook page today.  I’m not sure what to make of it, and rather than comment on his link (which might come off as a bit adversarial when I’m really just looking for enlightenment), I decided to blog on it here.

This editorial confused me a little bit.  What is at issue here?

* Glenn Beck?

* Mormonism?

* Greed?

* Conservative politics?

* The recent rally?

* The need for Gospel-centered churches?

There aren’t’ specific references to the rally to indicate what the author finds particularly “scandalous”.  I didn’t watch (or attend) the rally, so I’m not sure what his beef is, exactly.  

I agree with his call for Gospel-grounded churches.  However he himself sees this as only part of the solution (it’s “included” in the solution, which leads me to think that he seems to think there is more to the solution, but he doesn’t identify what it is).  Is it the solution or is it only part of the solution?  If it’s only part of the solution, what is/are the remaining part/parts?  And why was the rally not part of the solution, in his opinion?

I agree as well that Mormonism is not at all compatible with Biblical Christianity and that confusion of this is detrimental, as is the confusion of any heresy.  But was Beck preaching Mormonism at the rally?  Based on the prominence of this in the article, it seems as though the author feels that he was, somehow.  Is anything a Mormon says or espouses voided by the fact that they are a Mormon?  Is that what he’s getting at?

The author clearly has issues.  Beck.  Mormonism.  Heresy.  Churches not fulfilling their vocation.  Sectarianism.  He just completely fails to connect the dots, leaving the reader to fill them in for themselves, which seems as dangerous a sectarian activity (and one that is likely prone to heresy as well) as any the author fears.  It just reads as though Christianity Today wanted desperately to make some sort of negative comment on the rally, and didn’t have time to think through what it wanted to say very well.  I don’t care if it agrees or disagrees with the rally, it’s just pathetic that a publication of its prominence could sanction – even online – such a poorly written and thought out editorial.