(I usually don’t cross post with the podcast, but this is an exception. If I’ve missed a great source on Rush’s spiritual views, I welcome correction.)
For several years, I was a devoted Rush Limbaugh listener. I rarely missed a day. I haven’t listened to him much since Clinton left the White House, but I logged some serious dittohead time in the 90’s.
I think Rush is a very smart fellow. I think he’s right at times, and wrong at other times. He’s certainly influenced millions of people to rethink their political beliefs and he’s been a formidable opponent to liberals on a number of fronts.
When I first starting listening to Rush, I wanted to know more about his spiritual beliefs. He did an interview in the old Wittenburg Door magazine, and after consulting it, I recognized Rush as a rather interesting irony: a conservative whose theological beliefs were far closer to liberals than to conservatives.
Now I don’t know much about Rush’s religious beliefs beyond his answers in that interview and what I’ve read in his books. He believes, according to him, in the Christian God. He doesn’t have anything to say about the Bible, Jesus or the Gospel, but I think he’d say he’s for them all, and not against them. I’ve never detected a distinctively Christian worldview at work in his thinking. He goes to the Constitution, and to Jefferson’s “creator.” That’s it.
You won’t find Rush saying anything about the fall or original sin. You won’t hear him talk about the Kingdom of God. God is, in the sources I’ve been able to read, the one who gives and guarantees freedom and human rights. God is, in Rush’s view, opposed to the policies of liberals, supportive of America, in favor of our war on terrorism and is the author of capitalism and what we call the “American Dream.”
Of course, Rush is passionate about being pro-life and against gay marriage. He’s passionate about the defeat of liberals the need for America to be won to conservative values.
Which brings me to my observation:
What do you have when you have a person who is…
-passionately against abortion and gay marriage (and able to explain why)
-self-identified as a “conservative”
-able to relate their social, cultural and political beliefs to their beliefs about God
–not distinctively anchored in the historic Christian faith, particularly its beliefs about the authority of scripture, the fall, the church, the Gospel and the Lordship of Jesus Christ. These doctrines seem to play little or no part in this person’s thinking/living.
Is this a disciple of Jesus Christ? Is this a picture of what the church is to produce?
Well, don’t look now, but we’ve got several millions of these folks.
They are some of the primary evidence in my contention that evangelicalism is in trouble; the kind of trouble that will begin to manifest itself in the next 10-20 years.
I’ve been asked all week how I could question the value of evangelical involvement in the culture war. I don’t question the fact that we care about issues that are related to the Christian view of truth or the distinctive nature of Christian witness and compassion.
But I do question the value of abandoning the primary mission of the church- promoting and communicating the Gospel- in favor of anything else.
I really question the assumption that we are somehow fighting the enemies of America in a culture war rather than representing Jesus in the movement of the Kingdom of God.
I’m very suspicious of the church being seen as a constituency to be marshaled into battle for political, cultural and social gains.
Whatever transformation the church is able to affect for the cause of compassion, justice and righteousness must come as a derivative of its witness to and for Jesus Christ.
Otherwise, it’s not the church and its not the Gospel. A lot of what evangelicals and others have done has happened in an environment where the Gospel has been neglected, even compromised or abandoned, and the legitimate calling of the church on earth has been replaced with a political identity.
Now wait….is that a bunch of young Obama supporters I see out there enjoying this post? Sorry to tell you….you’re every bit as guilty if not more so. At least Rush doesn’t model the kind of near-messianic attitudes many evangelicals voting for Obama displayed in the last election cycle. Assessment of anyone in the seat of power in the empire should come from our loyalty to Jesus Christ, not our devotion to secular political causes or our desire to be associated with a winner.
It’s sad to see Christians on both sides of these issues content with a weak and anemic church, a second-rate message, milquetoast cultural Christianity and all of it in the midst of their passion for politics, pundits and power.
Where is your Jesus? Where is his church? Where is the Kingdom of God? Which defines you, your passions and your life priorities?
Let me clear. It’s not the job of any talk show host or politician to spiritually lead Christians. It’s the job of the church and its leaders. Catholics are so far ahead of evangelicals on this one it’s painful to talk about. (Well….if they would excommunicate a few more politicians it would be a bit more credible.)
American evangelicals: Limbaughized or Obamaized- either way is the wrong option and the wrong answer. We are the Church. Jesus is Lord. The Gospel is our business. Whatever we do for the love of neighbor must come from the Gospel. Whatever we do in politics must be done in submission of our lives and loyalties to the Kingdom of God.
If you think the Kingdom of God is getting a 100% score on a Limbaugh or Obama values checklist, you need to meet Jesus. You’ve apparently misplaced him.
The Internet Monk Archives 
Good article. It is challenging for followers of Christ to “speak the truth in love” to our generation. From the comments it is obvious there are varying interpretations of what that means. I am disturbed that some think Rush is evil simply because he makes money. I admire Rush for standing up for what he believes, and resisting the prevailing thoughts of our day.
I think the church has trained its members “to be nice guys” who don’t fight for what we believe. Jesus had an awesome sacrificial love… NOT the same as being a NICE GUY. Though we are not trying to create Christendom, we should try to restrain evil when in our power as it is in a democracy. Let Christians assume a Prophetic voice that resists and reforms and rescues some of the world!
LikeLike
Hey, Kat #1:
A little unfair to the Pharisees, don’t you think. Not only is your statement historically empty, but it seems “Pharisee” to you means “the epitome of evil.”
Hey, iMonk:
Great thoughts on rightism instead of relationship with the living God.
Derek Leman
LikeLike
I do feel that Rush is a spiritual leader. Many Christians probably spend more hours listening to him each week than they do their pastor, or reading the Bible. This cannot help but produce an effect.
I like the phrase “social darwinism.” I think it is another aspect of limited government we don’t like to talk about. We’re essentially saying that the poor and the hungry are that way because of the choices they’ve made, so they deserve what they are getting.
Suppose God does us that way? Suppose He decides to give us what we deserve?
LikeLike
“Now wait….is that a bunch of young Obama supporters I see out there enjoying this post? Sorry to tell you….you’re every bit as guilty if not more so. At least Rush doesn’t model the kind of near-messianic attitudes many evangelicals voting for Obama displayed in the last election cycle.”
The only ones I ever heard/hear refer to Obama as a messiah was Rush, Hannity, and their ilk. I think young evangelicals just voted for the least objectionable choice and in their perception pull the pendulum back the other way for a few years.
LikeLike
Most of his thinking (I used to be a dittohead too) comes from his fondness for Teddy Roosevelt-style “rugged individualism.†Americans should do for themselves, and as they do, society will automatically improve for everyone. And when they don’t, they deserve to fail and stay on the bottom rungs of society—in other words, social Darwinism. — K.W.Leslie
Which is funny, because TR was one of the first Presidents to buck the Social Darwinist attitude of the time. (The original Individualist Social Darwinism, as contrasted to Marxist class Darwinism or Fascist race Darwinism.) After the depression of the 1890s, TR advocated the original “safety nets” to cushion those who fall onto the bottom rungs, plus establishing the National Park system in that era’s version of environmentalism. Established the FDA to head off Caveat Emptor in the areas of foodstuffs and medicines, again against Individualist Social Darwinism.
TR was a complex and very passionate man (in the original sense of the word), with a firm belief in right and wrong and what to do about the second.
LikeLike
I don’t see conservative politics as opposed to Christianity, but I definitely see some of the motives of conservatives as opposed to Christianity.
Let me explain. Back in the ’90s, when I was a knee-jerk conservative, I was a lot more involved in the Republican party, and that’s where I discovered there are two classes of Republicans:
(1) Those, like me, who got involved for moral reasons—they wanted to fight abortion, they wanted to put prayer back in schools, they wanted to keep gays out of the military, etc. Many of us were there because we were Christians and felt if our government embraced such evil things, it would envoke God’s wrath. Many of us were there because we were bigoted and reactionary. Some of us were both. Some of us fought the other group.
(2) Those who got involved for fiscal reasons—they wanted low taxes, they wanted government to be non-interventionist, they wanted free trade, State Department support, military support, etc. And because they fund the party, they get to run it. They put up with the rest of us from group #1 because, by and large, they agree; but not as fervently, and not when it interferes with the almighty dollar.
All these conservatives were—are—united by a common goal, but the causes range from the noblest ideals to the most depraved forms of greed, anger, and hatred. Even among so-called Christians, who hadn’t learned the difference; they just figured they were in the company of fellow Christians, so that made everything okay.
Embracing Limbaugh because he’s a fellow conservative never touches upon why he is conservative; and it ain’t for Christian reasons. Most of his thinking (I used to be a dittohead too) comes from his fondness for Teddy Roosevelt-style “rugged individualism.” Americans should do for themselves, and as they do, society will automatically improve for everyone. And when they don’t, they deserve to fail and stay on the bottom rungs of society—in other words, social Darwinism.
Are either of those things Christian virtues? No. Jesus calls us to community, not individualism. He tells us to love our neighbors, not let them do for themselves, or let them suffer when they fail. He states that people have lack not because of sin, but in order to show God’s power—through God’s people helping care for the needy.
But that’s what Limbaugh stands for, and every time Christians thoughtlessly stand up for him rather than biblically critique him, they give his unChristian ideas a free pass to influence and corrupt every Christian in the conservative movement.
LikeLike
CORRECTION: When I said,
“Some people are already trying to award Obama an ersatz canonization.”
I meant that some people SEEM to be trying to give Obama an ersatz canonization. “Are” makes it sound like I think there’s some big conspiracy going on to canonize Obama, and I didn’t mean that. I only meant that, in contrast to Christians’ view of Rush, some people really do seem to view Obama’s present position in spiritual terms.
LikeLike
iMonk –
Hey, I don’t believe Rush is “the only conservative politics” either, but since William F. Buckley’s not on trial in the media every day….
I’m not trying to be a jerk about this, and I’m like you: I listened to Rush a lot in the 90’s but only about 2-3 hours in the last 3 years. I just think that this idea that Rush is somehow “speaking for God” or invokes God in any way in relationship to his political opinions is insupportable. I think people jump to this conclusion all the time because by and large evangelical Christians are likely to be politically conservative and more receptive to Rush’s views. I think that it’s important that if we’re going to be critical of somebody, we need to make every effort to represent them accurately. Just because Christians like a person’s commentary doesn’t mean that they are seeking spiritual sustenance from that person, and just because someone’s political commentary resonates with Christians doesn’t mean that the commentator should be held to a New Testament standard for a biblical teacher.
Toward the end of your article, you mention Obamazized Christians. You know, I’ve yet to see Rush Limbaugh’s image on a votive candle, but I’ve already seen Obama candles. Some people are already trying to award Obama an ersatz canonization. I find that far more disturbing than the fact that many Christians like Limbaugh.
LikeLike
FWIW I have to admit I have never seen any Obama=Messiah activity, even though I live in liberal California (and one of the poorer/ non-white areas at that). Even on the internet I’ve seen more “I hate Bush” than “I love Obama”. Thus, my vote for Messiah politician of the year goes to Ron Paul.
LikeLike
DK:
Alright. I’m not inclined to argue this one. Those are my conclusions after listening to Rush for years.
And I don’t believe conservative politics are opposed to Christianity. I also don’t believe Rush L = the only legitimate “conservative” politics.
Enjoyed the discussion.
ms
LikeLike
They have to go another route to what?
Are you saying conservative politics are by nature opposed to Christianity? That somehow Rush’s political opinions on taxes or limited government are tainted by Deism and not appropriate in a Christian worldview? I don’t see that.
I’ve read your essay over again a couple of times, and I keep coming to the conclusion that you are insisting that Rush is or is regarded as some sort of spiritual teacher. You said this:
“You won’t find Rush saying anything about the fall or original sin. You won’t hear him talk about the Kingdom of God. God is, in the sources I’ve been able to read, the one who gives and guarantees freedom and human rights. God is, in Rush’s view, opposed to the policies of liberals, supportive of America, in favor of our war on terrorism and is the author of capitalism and what we call the ‘American Dream.'”
2 things:
1. Rush doesn’t say anything about the fall or original sin or the kingdom of God because he’s not spiritually focused. That’s not his “ministry”, so to speak.
2. I’ve never, ever heard Rush say that God is “opposed to liberals” or “in favor of our war on terror” or anything else. I’ve never heard him deign to speak for God at all. That’s never been how he frames the issues. It’s not even close.
LikeLike
DK: I agree. I think you’re reading me wrongly. I don’t think he’s infecting people with his beliefs. I think his deism explains how he sees the world, but evangelicals ought to be able to understand that whatever the guy is or isn’t, THEY have to go another route.
LikeLike
iMonk:
So he doesn’t believe in several cardinal Christian doctrines – so what? Is his concern a spiritual one? No, it is not.
Do you recommend that Christians restrict themselves to only reading/watching/listening to people who are explicitly Christian? I doubt that you would.
I’m aware that his spiritual beliefs are basically non-combative Deist, but it’s entirely irrelevent to his radio show and publications as far as I’m concerned, because his area of interest is entirely secular.
Rush’s view of American privilege and his generic God of the Constitution are his own opinions and he has every right to voice them. I’ve never once met a Christian who had his/her view of spiritual things affected in any way by Rush Limbaugh’s rarely voiced opinions on such matters. From reading your response, I get the idea that you think that Rush is somehow dishonest in how he expresses himself about his spiritual beliefs. I do not. I’ve long noticed that he goes out of his way to avoid such topics or to deal with them very gently, but I’ve never heard him represent himself as something that he is not.
LikeLike
dkmonroe:
It really isn’t important whether Rush is an atheist or an ordained Bishop. I’m curious about his spiritual beliefs to see how they match up with what I hear on the radio, because on the radio and in his books he clearly does not believe in several of the cardinal Christian doctrines- original sin, divinity of Jesus esp.
What is important is what evangelicals do with what they hear. I don’t hold rush responsible for what millions of evangelicals do with his message, but I do think it’s worth noting that they do morph towards his presentation and away from a Gospel-centered worldview.
Rush’s view of American privilege and his generic God of the constitution are important matters to consider. If his personal beliefs differ, great. What is significant is the effect of his public pronouncements.
ms
LikeLike
Jesus Christ said to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting…My kingdom is not of this realm”. The NT Scriptures say, “We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against…spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.”. There is not a hint of social or political activism in the NT church. The Lord said, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…teaching them to observe all that I commanded you…” As far as our relationship with the gov’t, “…I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.” and “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority…”. I know there are exceptions.
The point is that those born again through faith in Jesus Christ have far more important matters in which to engage than political or social activism. We are a heavenly people, “…our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ…”. Christendom is dead – its involvment in such worldly activities just another indicator. What to do ? “Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. So, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach. For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come.”. “…Behold, I have put before you an open door which no one can shut, because you have a little power, and have kept My word, and have not denied My name”.
LikeLike
Rush Limbaugh is a political commentator. He’s not a pastor and not even a self-proclaimed person of faith. Because he is a conservative, a lot of his political positions mesh with those of conservative Christians. No surprise there.
I really don’t see the tendency of some to try to put Limbaugh under a theological microscope. He’s not a spiritual person – I don’t mean that as a insult, and I’m sure he’d agree with me. His sandbox is not theological, it’s political. He’s no more a spokesperson for evangelicals than Hillary Clinton is a spokesperson for Methodists.
I’ve been hearing this sort of “just how good a Christian is Rush Limbaugh?” analysis for over a dozen years now, and in my opinion it’s a complete non-sequitor. He’s a secular personality that a lot of Christians appreciate to a certain extent. Why that should surprise or scandalize anybody is a mystery to me.
LikeLike
Contrast fundamentalist Christianity with fundamentalist Islam. Islamists want to return to 7th century Arabia. Fundamentalist Christians want to return to Reagan-era America. — Alfred
Actually, more like The Nifty Fifties than the Reagan-era.
I’ve seen lots of evidence that a LOT of Christians view the 1950s as some sort of Godly Golden Age — not the real 1950s, but a Mythic Fifties according to Ozzie, Harriet, and Donna Reed.
THAT’s their version of the Islamists’ Perpetual Year One of the Hegira; a Perpetual Ozzie & Harriet Christian Fifties.
LikeLike
And if you don’t know objectivism and what it means, hold your hats. It’s about as radical as Marxism, only in the other direction. — Ky Boy but not now
Objectivists. Who started coming out of the woodwork after the last election, all named “John Galt”, some literally quoting Atlas Shrugged chapter-and-verse.
Ayn Rand was a funhouse mirror reflection of Lenin & Stalin. A Russian expat who fled the Bolshevik Revolution, she flipped one-eighty in the other direction, starting a Personality CULT of Total Selfishness with herself as cult leader — the Objectivists. (The Communists were all about The Collective being everything and the individual nothing; Objectivists became all about The Individual and others (including responsibilities outside self) being Nothing.) If Rand had ever gotten the same absolute power over a country as did Stalin, I have no doubt she would have been just as bloody.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t use Al Franken as a reference point. — Rob
I remember the first time I saw Al Franken on Saturday Night Live. He wasn’t funny then and he isn’t now.
His act back then consisted of reading the Manifesto of the Revolutionary Communist Party (the ones who think the Khmer Rouge didn’t go far enough). Found out later it wasn’t an act.
LikeLike
I heard somewhere that “William F Buckley is conservatism as Philosophy. Rush Limbaugh is conservatism as Theater.”
Always wanted to do a filk of Fleetwood Mac’s “Tusk” about Rush Limbaugh, but all I was able to do was a general idea of each verse giving a different opinion of him and (of course) the chorus:
“Ditto, RUSH! Ditto, RUSH!
Ditto! Ditto! Ditto! RUSH!”
Political messianism sure was creepy. I’ll never forget reading about the flakes and New Agers who latched onto his name and likeness, turning ‘Obama’ into One-ness chants with the Divine Nature and rushing over one another to declare who he is a reincarnation of. Pagan nonsense has never, ever died.
Remember that scene in Acts?
“THE VOICE OF A GOD! NOT OF A MAN!
THE VOICE OF A GOD! NOT OF A MAN!”?
THAT’s what Obama Fanboys kept bringing to mind.
I’ve said before that 2008 was a secular version of Left Behind, with Bush cast as The Antichrist (since 2001) and Obama stepping into the role of the Coming Christ Figure to end The Great Tribulation and Establish His Kingdom.
Last time I saw that sort of Messiah Politics in action was 1992 (my parents were Perotistas and literally Witnessed to me every chance they got), except Ross Perot didn’t have the charisma to pull it off and Obama did.
LikeLike
Alfred, just because you want things to “stay the same” does not make the other side the aggressors. If you are constantly oppressing one group and they rise up against you, are they the aggressors?
Or is it perhaps that the whole “war” analogy is faulty?
I really don’t think that anyone is actually trying to stop you from being Christian, or acting as a Christian should. All that we liberals and libertarians want is that we are not forced to act the way you think we should. If you want to go to church, then hurrah for you. Off you go. But equally, if we want to have massive gay orgies, then hurrah for us, and off we go. I don’t see that as an aggressive state of mind, do you?
LikeLike
I am thinking back to an evening in the 80’s when I was listening to Francis Schaefer as he was reflecting on theology and politicians. While I can’t quote him exactly he expressed a warning to us as christians by saying, “a humanist conservative is no better than a humanistic liberal”. I turned Rush off in the mid 90’s. I doubt if Francis would be listening either.
LikeLike
Rush
Rush is the voice of angry white men age 45+. He sounds like a completely toxic to many younger people I’v3 spoken too (they don’t listen to AM talk). He is an entertainer that makes gobs of money and lives royally in Palm Beach. His wealth and a good lawyer kept him out of FL jail for a serious prescription drug offense that has snared many others in FL a few years back. Why anybody would even think of this guy as an even remotely religious person is a testemant to his talents – like many other prominent GOP types. Wake up.
LikeLike
In my experience, people tend to embrace the Christian side of whatever politics they had before they came to Jesus.
If liberal, they join the Christian Left. If conservative, they join the Christian Right. If they cared about the homeless before, now they want to preach Jesus to the homeless as well. If they always were a bit homophobic, now they can defend their bigotry with bible verses.
I rarely see people base their politics on their Christianity. Virtually always, it’s vice-versa. When Jesus tells a conservative to give to the poor, the conservative always balks if the government is the route. When Jesus tells a liberal to reject sin, the liberal always weasels out of the rejection sounding like it has any conviction behind it. Our politics are too often idols that we bend our faith to fit.
…If we had any faith to begin with. That’s why we have so many of those folks Michael described in our churches. They’re born-again politicos, but only nominally Christian. You can tell them by the fervor they get in them when you talk about the world, but the drop in interest they exhibit when you try to switch the subject to Jesus.
LikeLike
Pastor M.
I wouldn’t use Al Franken as a reference point. He is a quite the tale-bearer himself. Didn’t mister raise everyone’s taxes Al Franken avoid his own taxes. Just saying.
LikeLike
Oh Please!!!! Everyone is ripping on Rush Limbaugh and the Evangelical right. The most divisive people on God’s green earth are liberal minded people. I live in Ann Arbor Michigan, arguably one of the most Liberal cities in America. The left leaning people are “open-minded” and “consider all views” as long as you are lined in congruent with their views. If you want to see people with peace symbols and Volvo’s blow their stack, just question liberalism. If you really want them to lose their calm and “accepting” composure, just mention that you are a conservative, or better yet, that you believe in the Genesis creation. If you want to be real brave, just question global warming. While attending Liberty University; liberal student’s would often challenge Conservative Professors. In a respectful manner, the conservative Professor would engage the liberal student in a dialogue. At the end of the day, they would respectfully agree to disagree. That definitely is not the case at the UofM where I currently attend. Many Liberal professors demean any student with a Christian worldview, or right leaning opinion. I am sorry; but these pious, self-rightous statements from some people in this blog, futher strengthen my assessment. I will freely admit that I find Rush Limbaugh a little to rich for my blood; but in the spirit of honest assessment let’s not make the mistake of thinking that mean sprited people are only on the right. If you need futher evidence just listen to the Air America network, or watch MSNBC.
LikeLike
Sarah
For many of us around before Rush, we feel he appropriated many of our general goals and made them mean. And I do have some close friends who really like Rush and O’Rielly and I tell them I don’t listen because I feel they are not a part of any solution a Christian should want to have.
So while I may agree with some of Rush’s points IN GENERAL, I do not want to be a part of his “team”. But his mic is louder than mine so it seem at times as if I am following him. Oh, well, life’s not fair is it.
LikeLike
@ this world is not my home:
I have tried to point this out at Christian gatherings, and the anger directed at me was brutal. One thing I have observed among many, many people who listen to this fare on a regular basis, is the difficult time they have really communicating with other people who do not make this the basis of their identity. Empathy with “the other†is already in short supply here.
Me, too. (In my case, it’s been about attempting to discuss Islam and Muslims, taking the stance that the majority are *not* anywhere close to the radicalized terrorist groups that harm others in the name of God.) “Brutal” pretty much sums it up.
As for the rest of your post, I couldn’t agree more. Although I’ve not been on hiatus from the media in the way you have, I’ve pretty much been keeping myself away from TV news for the past 20+ years, and have never gone near talk radio (of the virulent kind, no matter who’s on or what views they’re espousing). I’ve had to back away from these things because they’ve had a very negative impact on me, and I felt that the wisest course was to turn off the TV. (Especially post-9/11 – I lived very close to one of the attack sites at that time and could only handle newspapers, both online and off.) So, like you, I’ve been truly shocked by what passes for “talk” these days.
In fact, I have a hard time imagining what it’s like to not have good journalists like Huntley, Brinkley, Walter Cronkite (et. al.) as a point of reference.
iMonk, I’m a bit disappointed in you – or in your comments about Pres. Obama, at least. I live in a rural area that just happened to be “Sarah Palin Central” for the final weeks of the campaign. I *really* wanted to be able to put up a small Obama sign, but I was literally afraid of vandalism, crank calls – maybe even worse – as a consequence. (I live alone.) I kept my head down, and so – apparently – did most other Obama supporters. And I mean that I kept quiet. Everyone I know who voted for Obama (just a handful of people in these parts) have been extremely reluctant to talk about that choice in *any* group of people – and will only say so if they know that whoever they’re speaking with is sympathetic to their views. I’m most definitely *not* talking about getting into obnoxious conversations where people are slamming their views onto others – no. I mean just saying things like “I really like Obama.”
This kind of fear and self-censorship was (for me) unthinkable pre-9/11.
Times have changed, much more than any of us realize (I think). And not necessarily for the better.
LikeLike
Drew G – some of us don’t think that the government “wastes” your money any better/worse than you may yourself. Abortion clinics may be even better funded when people are just able to send their tax-money to whichever nonprofit they want. Just sayin’ I don’t think your concepts will create the solution you desire.
Ky Boy – Yes, I am young. I don’t umm, have any recollections of Carter’s presidency, sorry. To me, when I hear people say that to be Christian means being a political/fiscal conservative I simply hear them parroting Rush. Dobson may have been able to pull the moral conservatism on his own for the last two decades, but not the political/fiscal. I read an article a while back, The Christian Paradox by Bill McKibben [http://harpers.org/archive/2005/08/0080695] (maybe it was already discussed on this blog somewhere, I dunno), but he has a statistic that 75% of Americans think “God helps those who helps themselves” is in the Bible. When I posted this on my Facebook a friend said “I remember as a kid watching a cartoon about Noah’s Ark, and the theme song had that phrase in the chorus.” So yes, the problem is longstanding. But what I see is Rush giving the “talking points” and everyone else is held captive. I remember growing up the pastor of my Baptist church would rant from the pulpit about the evils of the welfare system. But when Clinton tightened it up? He said nothing. The fact that single moms would now have to put their babies in full-time (if not full and a half time) daycare didn’t matter, even though, as any good Baptist knows, daycares are of the devil since they break up families and teach humanist philosophy. Did the pastor urge his congregants with young families to go out and save one of these daycare babies and bring them up in a loving Christian family? (That question is for you, Drew G). Obviously not. These daycare babies, as far as the pastor was concerned, just as well might not have existed. His tax-money was no longer going to “bums” and that’s all that was important. The mentality is insidious, yes, but right now Rush is it’s spokesperson.
LikeLike
Sarah
“It’s tragic that so many Evangelicals think that a good Christian must also be a small-government free-market capitalist. I consider Rush to be largely responsible for this, and, by mixing religion with a political philosophy, it weakens the message of both.”
Christians wanting small government free-market capitalism was around long before Rush. Decades.
Are you showing your youth? And if I’m mistaken here I don’t mean any disrespect.
While there’s nothing wrong with being young I’ve noticed those of us who lived through the 60s, Nixon, Carter, Regan, etc… have very different views of the world than those who came of age after Reagan was president. Both conservative and liberal. And it is hard for me to wrap my head around Reagan left office 20 years ago.
LikeLike
I have been a Christian for a long time, and one of the initial works of the Holy Spirit in my life was to pull me away from radio, TV and daily reading of newspapers for many years. I lived most of the 80’s and 90’s (the era of the rise of talk radio) without hearing Rush Limbaugh or having watched Fox News.
When I did finally listen to Fox in 2005 my first thought was “This is demonic!” (See Galatians for the works of the flesh) The rage, anger, rancor, bitterness, attacks on others, fear, constant grievance and resentment, strife, name calling, shouting over others were shocking. Then I listened to Rush Limbaugh, and was even more troubled. I felt like I was being pummeled over the head by a very angry man, but one who hadn’t grown up very much emotionally or spiritually.
Having spent a long sweet period in the embrace of the Holy Spirit, I could not understand how people — Christians or otherwise– could consume this fare on a daily basis without damage to their spirits. And for those announcers/ hosts who consider themselves Christians how is their conduct in keeping with the fruits of the Holy Spirit? We are called to holy conversation (King James speak for both walk and talk) whatever our occupation.
Moreover, we are called to make disciples. How can I win you to the kingdom if I am so primed to hate you for your political beliefs? How can one have compassion and a heart for the lost if Christ’s messengers are filling up on rage, contempt and utter disdain for those who are in sin and don’t fit their political outlook? Can you even think about or speak with them in a manner which conveys their worth and dignity as made in the image of God?
I have tried to point this out at Christian gatherings, and the anger directed at me was brutal. One thing I have observed among many, many people who listen to this fare on a regular basis, is the difficult time they have really communicating with other people who do not make this the basis of their identity. Empathy with “the other” is already in short supply here.
The conflation of the gospel with late twentieth, early 21 century American nationalism is so short sighted and dangerous. It’s another form of Christless Christianity.
I, too, have wished that I could leave this country so that I don’t have to hear any more adulteration of the gospel, and after this post, I am going to do more than wish. I am going to actively pray that the Lord would bring me out.
LikeLike
“Some of the better conservative blogs are written by atheists and functionally agnostics”
Objectivists hold down much of the hard right side of conservative movement. This movement was started by Ann Rynd of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead”. Many of the senior leaders in the financial and CEO world are devotes of this system of thought. And Rush has quoted from these books on the air.
But the key point I’m making is that from the point of view of most of us here Objectivism is a religion. Basically they say it’s a philosophy of life that should replace religions now that we are advanced enough to realize belief in God is a waste of time.
Is Rush an objectivist? I don’t know. But he seems to admire a lot of their thought.
And if you don’t know objectivism and what it means, hold your hats. It’s about as radical as Maxism, only in the other direction.
LikeLike
Sir–
well said, as always.
LikeLike
I’m not sure how wanting to vote for candidate is evidence of idolatry. Especially after seeing churches put “Bush-Cheney” signs on their lawns back in 2004.
As for the “Christian nation” types (of every stripe), sorry… “Moral Government theology” is not the Gospel; neither are reconstructionism, “strategic-level ‘spiritual warefare’,” or whatever else you feel like calling your movements.
There are times I wish I could move to another country to just get away from the conflation of religion and politics. Some lines were crossed during Bush’s terms in office that are just plain unacceptable – but it will take years to undo the damage.
And in the meantime, many suffer because those lines were crossed. Is it any wonder that the media (as addressed in another of your recent posts) tends to give the spotlight to New Life, et. al.?
Rush Limbaugh has always been cruel in his labeling of those with whom he disagrees, and more than a little misogynistic. I’ve often wondered why a lot of us professing Christians have been willing to put up with, even embrace, that kind of nastiness? Criticism is one thing; demeaning people is another – the latter is contrary to the Gospel.
OK, I’m rambling. Better fold up my soapbox and call it a night. 😉
LikeLike
It became convenient and evident for “Christians” to marry themselves into the conservative movement for social issues… we could claim we won the culture war.
No longer is the word of God preached in power and the power that transforms lives with the conviction “For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.”
No Abortion — No Homosexuality — No taxes! The battle cry went forth and thus we have “The Limbaughization of Evangelicals”.
We can deny our self indulgent lifestyles (which Limbaugh is a prime example) and proclaim the power of the gospel where we can “set the captives free”!
LikeLike
If in fact there is a culture war being waged in America let’s not forget that there are two sides fighting this war. The question is: who are the aggressors in this war? I contend that the aggressors in this war are those on the Left (i.e. the progressives). The Christian Right would be quite content if things remained the same. That in fact what conservatism is about: conserving the status quo. Progressives on the other hand are trying to “progress†forward. Invoke change.
I liken the Culture Wars to Newton’s third law of motion: “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” The harder the Left pushes the harder the Right pushes back in an effort to slow the progression of change. Part of the Left’s offensive is the rather brilliant strategy of shaming the Right into silence. By casting Christians in an increasingly negative light, Christians have being ever more hesitant to even admit to being Christians. After all, who wants to be affiliated with a band of narrow-minded, bigoted extremists who are obviously on the wrong side of history? Movies like Religulous and books like The End of Faith paint just such a picture of Christians. When was the last time you saw a Christian on TV or in a movie who was cast in a positive light. Make no mistake these are deliberate attempts to silence the opposition in the Culture Wars. The media unquestionably have taken sides with the Left in the Culture Wars. When the Right fights back the media respond by accusing the Right of being Culture Warriors. When the Left attacks well they are just doing the right thing.
It is not clear to me what the appropriate Christian response is to the aggressive attack on Christian values. Where Christians in California right to oppose gay marriage or should they have silently watched from the sidelines as the California Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is constitutional right found in the California Constitution? Should Christians have remained silent while black slaves were treated like cattle in the South? Should Christians silently stand by as pregnancies are terminated by the millions? Is abortion a civil rights issue or is just a group of Christians trying to impose their Biblical views on the rest of America?
These are not trivial questions and honest well-intentioned people can come down on opposing sides of how Christians ought to be responding in the Culture Wars. However, I believe we can all agree that Christians ought to respond to both friend and foe with humility and grace.
LikeLike
“Rush’s “theology†isn’t just pragmatically absent. It’s wrong. Where’s the fall? Where is original sin? Where’s Jesus? Rush’s God is pro-American. He’s the God of the U.S. constitution. He’s in favor of American captialism. Are all these things true?”
Why would Rush talk about these things, or even think that it’s his role to talk about these things? I think he wouldn’t for the same reasons he doesn’t talk about drug addiction. I’m sure he feels that this subject is better left to people more qualified like the IMONK. defining Rush’s God as a God of American cpatialism and the constitution is a bit of leap. I’ve listened to my share of Rush and I can’t relate anything to that. It may be that He doesn’t talk about these things because he has reverence for them and doesn’t think they are appropriate for his show, does that make him a hypocrite?
Regards
Scott
LikeLike
I dunno, I’ve met quite a few ditto heads who are every bit “in Rush we trust” as the wanton obamamaniacs are.
Other than that, nice post…
LikeLike
Another thought…
in light of your complaint about going after other culture warriors…
In the bigger picture of things we might need to start taking an account of how deeply people (christian and otherwise) have been wounded in the name of Jesus by the way evangelicals have conducted themselves within the cultural/political discussions of the recent past.
Again, I’m not trying to attribute that to you…I’m just speaking in general.
It may seem unfair to lay things at the feet of the “millions” that you say have not been idolatrous, but these people also aren’t really doing anything more than just rolling their eyes or feeling embarrassed when certain well-known national voices in evangelicalism help contribute to the communities *ahem* PR problem with the larger culture by either their rhetoric or their intolerance even within their own community. (Think the railroad job on Cizik who they tried to take out long before his SSM gaffe.)
Again, I’m not trying to lay the wood to you, I’m just saying that these are things we have to account for and deal with if we are going to move ahead in a productive and God honoring way, IMO.
Thanks for listening.
LikeLike
[Mod edit]
Part of the problem with this sort rejection of messianism by evangelicals now is that too often it still comes through the sanctimonious filter of setting people straight and makes it sound like, for all its late and ironic character, that such messianism was never a problem for evangelicals.
And that’s part of the PR problem for evangelicals even before this particular issue.
Again, I’m not saying you’re doing this specifically.
I’m just commenting with some thoughts…conversation, etc.
Peace to all.
LikeLike
Christianity, as all religions tend to be, is bound in tradition. As such, Christians have tended to embrace the traditions of Western culture even when those traditions are contrary to the Christianity. Scriptures have always been interpreted through the lens of the prevailing culture. In some ways that is a strength of the Christian faith – it evolves with the time. Contrast fundamentalist Christianity with fundamentalist Islam. Islamists want to return to 7th century Arabia. Fundamentalist Christians want to return to Reagan-era America.
So if Christianity has always embraced the culture of its time why is this era so different? The answer is that since the third century AD Christianity (at least in the west) has resided within a more or less Christian culture. However, Western culture at around the time of the Renaissance began to take a turn. At that time it took on a distinctly humanist philosophy where man became increasingly the center of the Universe and God ever sense has increasingly been pushes aside. Over the centuries Western culture has evolved to the point to where we now live in a post-Christian culture. In this culture self-centered man is King and God is dead.
This can be seen readily in the mega-church setting where self-centered consumerism is the order of the day. Market-driven Pastors seeking growth are compelled to water down Christianity. The relationship between the Church and the church attendee is similar to what we see between a large company and its customers. The church provides a portfolio of products and services and customers, for a fee we call a tithe, “consume†those goods and services. The advantage of this consumer model is that the fee paid for services rendered is tax deductible.
So in America today we have the Right battling for the more traditional American values of self-centered individualism while the Left is fighting for the newer socialistic values of continental Europe. Both sides find the origins of their values in the humanist philosophy of post-Renaissance Western culture. The church in America embraces, as it is apt to do, the older tradition of the Right. But make no mistake, neither is a friend to Christianity.
So what is the Church to do? First it must break it blind allegiance with the Right. This will be very hard to do since it will feel as though we are breaking with critical elements of Christianity itself. This is undoubtedly how slaveholders in the South must have felt when abolitionist told them that slavery was wrong.
Second, it must be carefully not to replace one idol for another. The emergent church movement has, in my opinion, done just that. They appear to have gone from the arms of the Right directly into the arms of the Left. The difference is that the philosophical demands of the Left has also required them to abandon theological absolutes as well.
Finally, it must do the hard work of studying the Bible and how the lessons of God’s word apply in this post-Christian era. This also means learning how to constructively confront this culture in an uncompromising manner. This will not be easy. We are in for very troubling times but the Church will prevail.
LikeLike
Thanks for thoughtful and objective commentary. The church needs large doses of such observations, hopefully to inspire honesty and commitment to the purpose of the church. My son, Professor Charles Marsh of the University of Virginia, has written a book that might be of interest to you…WAYWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS by Oxford Press.
Anyway, thanks
Bob Marsh
LikeLike
I really like the general direction of this conversation:
“Hey evangelicals. Don’t think you’re going to have even one blog take an improved position on how evangelicals view the culture war. No way are we going to let that happen.”
If you guys really want some hardcore culture warriors to taunt, why don’t you go somewhere else, instead of writing comments on the posts where I am deviating completely from the positions you’re ranting at?
LikeLike
Nathan:
>It does seem a bit hypocritical though for any evangelicals to suddenly be concerned about idolatry when you consider the rhetoric of support that has marked their own enthusiasm for certain other political figures.
Uh….what? Pronoun trouble.
>It is a problem for “any” evangelicals to be concerned about idolatry…
Why? Why is that ever a problem? It may be ironic or a late development or learning from past mistakes, but it’s not a problem.
>When you consider the rhetoric of support that has marked their…..
“Their?” Whose? Mine? Not mine. Not millions of other evangelicals who haven’t been excited about a candidate for who knows how long and many never.
ms
LikeLike
I have read all the comments above and think most of you are missing the boat.
Christianity can be boiled down to one thing, the message of Jesus.
Conservatism can be boiled down to one thing, LIMITED Government.
IMHO Christ called on ME to do certain things and I believe the best way for ME to do those things is for Government to get out of the way. It is much easier and more effective for me to take care of my family, give to the needy, church, widowed, orphaned etc etc, when the Government is not taking a huge percentage of my wages and wasting it (or using it to fund abortions).
There is nothing Anti-Christian about wanting and supporting limited government politically.
LikeLike
Political messianism sure was creepy. I’ll never forget reading about the flakes and New Agers who latched onto his name and likeness, turning ‘Obama’ into One-ness chants with the Divine Nature and rushing over one another to declare who he is a reincarnation of. Pagan nonsense has never, ever died.
More disgusting to me though is the calm utility with which all that horrible rhetoric on the part of the paranoid conservative right was sleighted away after the election – what ever happened to “lets make sure Obama is really a citizen”? If we were smart, we’d take the names of people who spread such obloquys and make sure we never forget their fear-mongering and seditious conduct.
What was wrong with us??
LikeLike
It’s just kinda funny to me when politically fixated evangelicals get all “anabaptist” when their candidate/party of choice loses.
It only helps perpetuate the perception of sanctimony and highmindedness.
Again, not saying that’s what you’re doing, but I think it needs to be remembered.
LikeLike
I’ll grant you that iMonk, when it’s actually happening.
I’ve just seen too many evangelicals use the “messiah” charge when they hear a sense of positive support or enthusiasm for a candidate they didn’t like.
I’m not saying it’s what you’re doing, but the “messiah” charge is too often used to try to neutralize or belittle someone’s support for that candidate.
It does seem a bit hypocritical though for any evangelicals to suddenly be concerned about idolatry when you consider the rhetoric of support that has marked their own enthusiasm for certain other political figures.
If anyone has taught us to be ok with idolatry in politics, the evangelical community needs to own their part.
Just say’n.
LikeLike
Christians worshiping a political candidate as the source of hope is idolatrous. No matter what the policies or the person. We have a messiah. The behavior of Christian political types in adoring candidates is unseemly, to say the least.
LikeLike
What I mean was “I’ll grant” not “I’ll great”
LikeLike
In your warning to Obama supporters, I would also warn you not to paint with too broad a brush.
I’ll great there was a ridiculous level of putting the guy on a pedestal at times by some, but a galvanized section of the electorate a messiah does not make.
People actually being excited about a candidate, as opposed to just hating the other guy more(or in this last election “gal” too) doesn’t happen often. So I wouldn’t begrudge it when I see it in others.
LikeLike
What do you have when you have a person who is…
-passionately against abortion and gay marriage (and able to explain why)
-self-identified as a “conservativeâ€
-able to relate their social, cultural and political beliefs to their beliefs about God
-not distinctively anchored in the historic Christian faith, particularly its beliefs about the authority of scripture, the fall, the church, the Gospel and the Lordship of Jesus Christ. These doctrines seem to play little or no part in this person’s thinking/living.
You have someone whose primary narrative and worldview are something other than what we find in the story of redemption and love as told in scripture. As a result, the criteria for leadership isn’t biblically-based either; so while they may self-identify as Christian, they follow those who by biblical standards would not be qualified to lead, and whose lives don’t really evidence the fruits of the spirit.
LikeLike
“but might I submit that virtually all Christians end up viewing the gospel thru the prism of their own world-view? That is, a capitalist will interpret scripture one way, a communist another way, each quite content that Jesus is on their side. We would like to think that our meditations on Jesus shape the way we order our lives, but is it not more likely to be the other way around?”
The problem with this approach is that, instead of understand Christianity as a level commitment that any two people may make despite their different (secondary) political ideologies, you risk assuming that their commitment to the “prism of their own worldview” is the primary thing about them worth characterizing. Unfortunately, getting an accurate picture of how somebody interprets the world is a lot more difficult than just finding the right appellations to describe their politics or religiosity. And even then, if you want to seriously understand how a person relates to their faith and their prayers, considerations of their “worldview” are probably distractions.
Politics and faith aren’t really the same, so as far as I can tell, it’s just not sensible to assume that somebody’s fervor of faith (or the providential value of that devotion) is somehow a function of whatever social policies they happen to support this year.
Whether or not the realized Christian faith is itself a worldview is an interesting question though.
LikeLike
I’m with Pastor M up-thread a bit.
LikeLike
I stopped listening to Rush several years ago because I would listen and become angry at and fearful of all those “godless liberals”. Yes, there may be some truth in what Rush says but in Jesus day, the government was at least as corrupt as today, there were much less religious and human rights and injustice abounded. Yet Jesus never expressed anger toweard or fear of the government. The only anger he expressed was toward dead, legalistic religion.
LikeLike
I don’t mean to wander too far afield in the discussion, but might I submit that virtually all Christians end up viewing the gospel thru the prism of their own world-view? That is, a capitalist will interpret scripture one way, a communist another way, each quite content that Jesus is on their side. We would like to think that our meditations on Jesus shape the way we order our lives, but is it not more likely to be the other way around? Of course, people will recoil at this notion; they understand Jesus *objectively*, don’t you know. Allow me to doubt.
And in answer to Rick’s question:
*A man receives 400 million dollars to “talkâ€. Can there be any greater example of western hedonism?*
Sure there is. Hollywood. Professional sports. Starbucks. Senator Kennedy. Robert Rubin. George Soros. It’s a long list……if we define hedonism in such a manner. Was Jesus anti-hedonist, pro-hedonist, or did he have a null position on hedonism?
LikeLike
Why don’t you simply ask Mr. Limbaugh if he feels that he has any spiritual basis for his political leanings? A well-written email with some probing questions might bring enlightenment. He doesn’t seem terribly shy about expressing himself.
LikeLike
Rush spews hate and distrust masked as Christianity and patriotism. Both couldn’t be further from the truth.
LikeLike
>Their popularity among evangelicals is a breathtaking looking glass into the shallow, nationalistic, and morality gospel that has become entrenched in the western evangelical genre.
Amen. All I hear from many of my co-workers as we eat together is “Fox News” outrage. They are emotionally and visually addicted to Fox and its approach to political/cultural reporting.
I’ve watched this take over the time and perspective of some people very close to me. Sad.
LikeLike
The constant, caustic complaining and attacking coming from Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, and other talking heads have no resemblence to New Testament, cross carrying Christianity. Their popularity among evangelicals is a breathtaking looking glass into the shallow, nationalistic, and morality gospel that has become entrenched in the western evangelical genre.
A man receives 400 million dollars to “talk”. Can there be any greater example of western hedonism?
LikeLike
Karl: I can’t listen to Coulter. I saw here on TBN once and wrote about it. https://internetmonk.com/archive/the-tactics-of-failure-why-the-culture-war-makes-sense-to-spiritually-empty-evangelicals
I understand she’s Catholic? (I’m not at all sure on that one.)
LikeLike
It’s tragic that so many Evangelicals think that a good Christian must also be a small-government free-market capitalist. I consider Rush to be largely responsible for this, and, by mixing religion with a political philosophy, it weakens the message of both. In my opinion, it makes Evangelicalism (and hence its Christian message) Enemy no. 1 for a large segment of the population.
I worship now in a church where, I know, some of my fellow parishioners are Libertarians, some are Communists, and most are anywhere in between. It makes for some spirited debates in coffee hour, but we all agree that Christianity transcends any political philosophy. (Well, if one takes into consideration the cultural/social background of Jesus’ statement “In my Father’s house are many mansions” he was probably talking about something akin to a kibbutz, but I don’t think where we live is going to be top priority in heaven).
To head off a common response, yes, I’m pro-life, but no, I don’t let that dictate my whole politics. From my point of view, the federal administration has changed parties many times since Roe v. Wade, and things haven’t changed a bit. Why should I think that who I vote for will matter on this issue? I have two cousins who got pregnant while unmarried and still in school. The whole family openly discussed it, supported them and loved them. Both of them, I’m proud to say, not only had their babies, but are now raising them. This is where this issue matters to me, not at the ballot-box.
LikeLike
The notion that Limbaugh is a practicing *Christian* of whatever stripe is laughable. Who expects him to be? I’ve listened closely to the man for 16 years as I believe him to be the shrewdest political analyst, bar none, in the America media. That is what his program is all about: politics.
I don’t expect religion from him and I don’t get it. I don’t expect profound erudition from him and I don’t get it. I do get incisive political commentary and vast amounts of laughs.
William F. Buckley once defined conservatives as people standing athwart the march of history yelling “stop!” That’s all Limbaugh is about. He accepts the country as it once was and wants to keep it there. The so-called progressive agenda of the past three generations is anathema to him, with the exception of civil rights, not because of any deep-seated religious beliefs, but because he believes (and I concur) that that agenda is demonstrably harmful to individual liberty and prosperity and counter to the traditions responsible for the uniqueness of this nation.
If you’re looking for any particular religious underpinnings in Mr. Limbaugh you’ll be looking a long time.
I am amused, however, whenever I see Jesus invoked to advance a secular political agenda (see the risible post by Lar above), whether by Tony Campolo or the late Jerry Falwell. Evidently my copy of scripture has somehow redacted the sections where Jesus leads a political movement, creates a welfare state, and sets about enforcing morality at the point of a gun (er, sword). Something about His Kingdom not being of this world, etc. etc.
LikeLike
I thought that Al Franken had it about right in his book on Rush. That may not be a popular opinion here, but it’s where I am with Rush.
LikeLike
I wonder how Anne Coulter sits with you? Both Rush and Coulter do share significant overlaps between their respective audiences…
LikeLike
I’m sure that if Rush thought shouting out for Jesus on his show would get him more listeners or advertisers, he’d shout out for Jesus. Or whatever. The same goes for any number of politicians and TV evangelists.
LikeLike
To be fair, I’m no more sure of Limbaugh’s spiritual bona fides than Bono’s.
LikeLike
Rush makes a lot of statements that are supportive of the Pope and the Roman church. Conservatism has an uneasy relationship with the concept of human depravity. It underlies many of their basic tenets, but individual human ability to do good and “succeed” is greatly overemphasized. They don’t mind speaking of “blessing” but election – in any sense other than national – is probably also very tough for them. It’s bootstraps vs. grace and he bootstraps often win.
LikeLike
**** Whatever transformation the church is able to affect for the cause of compassion, justice and righteousness must come as a derivative of its witness to and for Jesus Christ. *****
This statement is key. Christians aren’t called to transform the world, in socio-economic, political or spiritual. Christians were given the commission in Matt 28:19. Are we to take care of the poor? Yes, as a witness to Christ, however we don’t to the transforming, God does. We have faith that faith allows us the relationship. The relationship produces us to love and that love exhibits itself in works such as feeding the poor and taking care of widows…. In the name of Christ.
Cheers
LikeLike
Miguel,
Don’t feel stupid. I grew up in a good church, but I was taught that those catholics over there don’t believe Jesus ever rose from the dead – that’s why they have a crucifix up instead of just a plain cross. I felt so sorry for them that they “just couldn’t see the truth”. Talk about feeling dumb when the wake-up call rolled around. Thank God he opens eyes to see.
LikeLike
I remember that Wittenburg Door interview, and it struck me the same way it did iMonk. If I recall correctly, Rush grew up in the Methodist Church. It got the impression that the Limbaughs were a church-going family, but not particularly devout.
LikeLike
I remember how Limbaughization happened to me. I feel deeply hurt and resent ever have been a pawn of the religious right movement (though I was too young to vote at the time).
It goes like this. Non-denom church pastor preaches the gospel from the pulpit. A few times in succession. Young me already converted is re-affirmed in my conviction and ready to live it out. After that, pastor proceeds to (insert fav topical 5-principles to avoid hangnails) sermon series which eager young disciple embraces with fervor, because, after all, since I’m already saved now all I want to learn is how to live more like Christ.
Are you seated?
My young mind could only wonder, now that I’m already saved and we have no unsaved coming to our service, why would the preacher want to preach the gospel message again? After all, we all here already buy into that, right? What we need is somebody to show us how to live. That was my logic.
Open door, enter religious right.
And how was a zealous and newly baptized 9-year old to understand that a regular proclamation of the gospel was the most distinctive and regular feature of the catholic (not Rome) church for centuries before “Your Own Personal Jesus” was ever even sung?
I feel so stupid. And I agonized over why my atheist friends just couldn’t “get it.”
LikeLike
Dittos, Spence!
LikeLike
It is a little off-putting to see that one’s politics can overwhelm their other affiliations. Because of this it doesn’t surprise me to have seen Limbaugh’s and Dr. Laura’s books in the Christian bookstore in the 90s, and Glenn Beck and Dr. Phil’s in the 00’s (although I admit to knowing next to nothing about Dr. Phil’s faith). One of the more uncomfortable interviews Dobson had in the early decade was with an atheist on his show who agreed with him about homosexuality. Even if they agreed, what would be the point of having him on your show?
Some of the better conservative blogs are written by atheists and functionally agnostics – some of which are quite antagonistic about Christianity as well. Salem Radio carries Michael Savage and Michael Medved under the guise of the culture war. Salem also knows full well that stations running Charles Stanley and Chuck Swindoll pale in comparison to those running Savage. Bible teaching doesn’t pay the bills, railing against liberals does.
Then again, I’m convinced that the Religious Left is on course to be just as bad at the Religious Right in only half the time. “Hate Bush and spread rumors about Palin” are no more Biblical values than calling Obama a Muslim. It gets to me that Morgan Spurlock and Rev. Billy are taken seriously, or that Bill Moyers is nearly as ambiguous as Limbaugh yet is given as free a pass. It gets to me that they believe they own the politics of compassion and justice — just like the right thinks they own the politics of morality and family.
It reminds me of Screwtape reminding Wormwood to get his victim to be a follower of “Jesus And.” When we allow this, we’ll do questionable things to advance the “And” part and allow those who think the “And” part is more important to take sole possession of the microphone.
LikeLike
Read some Marcus Borg, and some Emmanuel Swedenborg if you have the time.
Jesus’ message was about love, compassion, and forgiveness for others.
But Jesus said a rich man would have to give away everything and follow him to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Seems to me paying taxes that leave one with plenty to live on is actually the Christian thing to do, and government caring for the downtrodden is exactly what Jesus expects of a society that has any claims to being religious.
WOuldJesus advocate de-regulation so that people can be ripped off and oterwise taken advantage of ? Of course not.
Cut taxes so people can be wealthier and then control more food and housing ? Un-Christian. What is the love and compassion there ?
Rush is first and always a rich getting richer entertainer, who depends on other unkind people to listen to him. If you ask me, listening and following Rush is guaranteeing yourself a ticket to anywhere but Heaven. Rush makes $20,000,000 a year, and does not want the government to help anyone. How can you think he’s even remotely Christian ?
The Christian politcal litmus test should be, does a policy primarily help people or harm them ?
Corporate mergers ? Reduce jobs, and competition allowing increase in prices.
Export of jobs ? No local replacement for lost jobs, more profit to corporate owners, prices unchanged. No benefit to the common man.
Do your own analysis. What would Jesus say to Rush, really ? I think he’d pull the plug on him and try to shut him down. And Rush would be the first in line to try have Jesus silenced for trying to stop him.
LikeLike
I was a Rush fan but haven’t listened to him for years now. Though I may agree with him on a lot of issues, I’m not as conservative as him. I believe Rush is smarter than we give him credit for because he is a defty post-modern who, if he is not religious like he claims he to be, he is able to present his views in a way that doesn’t come across as religious. It’s funny that I don’t remember him ever saying anything about his faith.
LikeLike
The “church”, in my opinion, is the illegitimate child of an unholy union between the Bride of Christ and the empire. Now she wants to reform daddy’s family. Mind you, they may need reformed, but is it her job, and is it really working?
By the way, Rush identifies himself as an “entertainer”. That’s what I see.
Personally, I choose to follow Jesus, not an entertainer. Nor am I interested in devoting my time and energy to reforming this illegitimate child’s daddy’s family.
Rush, Bush, “church” and the rest of that package has distracted millions from following Jesus. I choose to follow Jesus, and only Jesus.
LikeLike
I agree with you and have thought the same thing concerning Rush for years. I do listen to him occasionally for the news he provides. But, his views do seem to be based in humanism. The furtherance of the Gospel of Jesus should be the predominant thing to the Christian.
Like you I have also become quite disgusted with evangelicals. I don’t see it as a bad thing that they have gotten into the culture war. It is however a bad thing that they seem to have lost Christ’s message in the process. They have also lost His love, in carrying it to some of those who need it most. Instead of loving the sinner and hating the sin, they seem to hate the sinner and the sin. It’s quite a shame.
You are correct in saying that they seem to care more about the culture than they do about the mission of the Church. We have stopped making disciples for Jesus and began making disciples for conservatism. Christianity has suffered greatly.
The culture should be getting challenged in the name of Jesus, instead of the name of conservatism.
LikeLike
Amen! It wasn’t until the last election, after much “education” from many Christian friends and co-workers who are avid dittoheads, that I discovered that God (read with much sarcasm) is a white male American capitalist who loves Bush, hates Obama, and wants everyone to be prosperous white, upper middle-class suburban Americans. I, too , used to listen to Rush until I grew up and realized that a man with drug problems and multiple marriages isn’t a role model to follow. He’s far too often the pot calling the kettle black.
LikeLike
I don’t know if Rush is personally anchored in the Christian faith.
What I know is that if I am pro-life for any reason other than the Gospel, it’s not Christianity. It may be humanism, Islam or whatever. And it doesn’t matter to me. Christians are explicitly tied to a Christian identity via Baptism and loyalty to the Kingdom of God as ruled by Jesus. That is their explicit command for interaction with the world.
Rush’s “theology” isn’t just pragmatically absent. It’s wrong. Where’s the fall? Where is original sin? Where’s Jesus? Rush’s God is pro-American. He’s the God of the U.S. constitution. He’s in favor of American captialism. Are all these things true?
I don’t normally care to defend what I write because too many readers will do what they want with it, but I didn’t make the leap you described. You can approach Rush as a Christian, and you can support him as one. But Rush’s message is explicitly not the Biblical message.
peace
ms
LikeLike
I have liked a lot of your writing in the past, but the logic here (if I am reading you correctly) disapppoints me. Your entire argument seems to rest on the following leap:
Because Rush Limbaugh does not use theology to explain his political ideology on
a secular radio program, he is therefore obviously and definitively “*not*
distinctively anchored in the historic Christian faith.”
That leap is not supported or warranted.
LikeLike
I’m in pretty much the same place. I was once an avid listener, but stopped in the mid-90’s. (In my less-gracious moments, I identify that as “then I grew up.”)
I’m actually very concerned about the Limbaugh effect on Evangelicals, because he does sell an entirely-world-focused view as Christianity.
By abandoning the spiritual focus, Christians lose our mission.
There was another article about Limbaugh’s spiritual views recently at Get Religion:
http://www.getreligion.org/?p=7417
LikeLike
Thank you Tom,
I’d like to see this addressed in other forums. I believe there is some “wisdom in hindsight” on a couple of issues. Another one is our relation to parachurch ministries like FotF. It all comes down to churches deserting their posts, and the end result is something unanticipated.
Luther’s Two Kingdoms would make a good discussion.
peace on ya brother.
MS
P.S. Move the conference back to Birmingham 🙂
LikeLike
Michael:
Good words. I used to say, “Rush Limbaugh is about as good as common grace can produce,” but changed my tune about the time you stopped listening to him. I am not sure if I lost confidence in him or gained confidence in common grace. Your point about the gospel is right on. Who cares if the USA becomes a Republican haven ruled by dittoheads if we completely forget the gospel in the process? One of my greatest fears about some of the culture warriors is that they might actually win.
Keep pressing on, bro.
-tom
LikeLike
Caesar is Caesar, however pleasant his smile. Your observations remind me of John Howard Yoder’s classic book, “The Politics of Jesus.” It’s one of my favorite Christian reflections on politics, and it’s pretty much calculated to tick off anyone satisfied with the Republican and Democratic parties’ simple answers. Christians who are beginning to realize how deeply un-Christian — even evil — the Bush Administration was, but who correctly suspect Obama is more of the same, should pick it up.
LikeLike
A Southern Baptist?
LikeLike
“What do you have when you have a person who is…
-passionately against abortion and gay marriage (and able to explain why)
-self-identified as a “conservativeâ€
-able to relate their social, cultural and political beliefs to their beliefs about God
-not distinctively anchored in the historic Christian faith, particularly its beliefs about the authority of scripture, the fall, the church, the Gospel and the Lordship of Jesus Christ. These doctrines seem to play little or no part in this person’s thinking/living.
Is this a disciple of Jesus Christ?”
No–In fact there are some pretty strong parallels here with the Pharisees of Jesus’ day.
LikeLike