Subscribe to Posts
on rush limbaugh listening and wheat-from-chaff separation mechanisms
I’ve got some thoughtful responders to this blog and it’s one of the real benefits of a blog. You toss your thoughts out there and people respond. You rethink or you go a little deeper in your thoughts, maybe you revise, maybe you come away even more convinced having heard the responses of others. One of my thoughtful responders is Clif and I want to continue from a thought Clif laid down in a comment about the Rush Limbaugh post. Clif indicated that he thinks Christians who listen to Rush regularly do a pretty good job separating the wheat from the chaff. If Clif is right, then I’m probably a little overwrought in my previous post. But I wonder about that. Because there’s a Christian I know pretty well who used to listen more than he does now to Rush, and at least in one case, he didn’t do a very good job separating the wheat from the chaff. And I have a very high regard for the perspectives and discernment of this particular Christian, him being myself.
This came to me a few years back when I went on this retreat with a bunch of evangelical leaders and environmental scientists. Two nights and two days in Georgia hanging out together. Lots of time for formal and informal interaction. Many of the top environmental scientists and conservationists, so a pretty representative group.
And I found myself during that retreat shedding prejudices that I had accumulated toward these people. I’ve never seen myself as an “anti-environmentalist.” I’ve always been mildly supportive of environmental concerns. Maybe with a capital “M” for mildly.
For example, my impression of people who were passionate about the environment was that they were more “extreme” in their views than I found them to actually be. I had the impression that they were more negative to my faith than I actually found them to be. I thought they were much less concerned about things like the economic impact of improving our care for the environment than I actually found them to be. And maybe I’m being hard on myself here–it happens now and again–but looking back, I think I was harboring in my heart, or rather hiding in my heart something much nastier than all that: contempt. I was hiding that from myself because I never would have copped to it, because I didn’t see it. But now I see it, because on that retreat I believe that God showed it to me. I think that might be understating it. It was one of the more vivid experiences I’ve ever had of being convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit, and believe me, like you, I’ve given the Holy Spirit plenty of occasions to convict me of sin!
Where did this come from, I ask myself? As I’ve said before, ad nauseum, I’m a Jesus freak. I came (back) to faith in Jesus in 1971 as part of the Jesus movement, which at that time was part of the leftward leaning, counter-cultural, ecologically concerned social time of the boomers coming of age. Growing up in Detroit, my inherited politics would have been if anything, liberal, rather than conservative. My parents were part of the young socialists club before the war, when that was much more common. My father voted for Nixon, though, and my mother for JFK, but on the whole, it was a liberal-democratic family, I’d say.
But I too would listen a fair amount to Rush once he came on WJR, mainly in the car when I didn’t like whatever NPR was talking about. I too found him entertaining because he is so provokative. Like any comedian, exageration is a huge part of his schtick, and of course, he never admits that while “in character” which is the only time we get to listen to him. (Does anyone really know what the man really thinks? Or how seriously he takes himself? ) And yet he’s talking for a couple of hours each day about substantive matters, politics, public policy, things that matter: immigration, foreign affairs, the economy, abortion, affirmative action, global warming, you name it. (And I’m guessing, like many of the fans of the Colbert report, there may be plenty of Rush’s listeners who don’t think he’s putting on an act. How does that affect the way they listen to him, especially if they tend to agree with him? Another question: what does two hours of the Rush Limbaugh act five days a week most weeks of the year do to Rush Limbaugh?)
As a pastor I know the power of a crowd laughing. I’ve had frightening to me moments when I’ve said something really funny in a sermon, maybe an extended little comical riff that tickles the collective funny bone, and then in the middle of the laughter, I’ve dropped in some what I perceive to be dead serious truth. And I can feel it when that happens, the perceived to be dead serious truth lands in those moments. Like I said, it’s a little frightening. Laughter seems to open up some channels in the heart. I imagine there’s something going on in the brain that might even be closely related to crying, but at any rate, the heart seems to be engaged when we’re laughing. Or so it seems.
So I just wonder, and now I know I sound like a complete prude, like someone who thinks that all video games with violence in them make people violent themselves, but I just wonder how much of the chaff slips into our hearts when we’re being entertained? You need (or rather I need you) to understand: I know I sound like my wife here. Nancy hates (not too strong a word) to listen to any talking heads yelling at each other on the cable news shows. I find it entertaining, relaxing, even. It’s been a real blessing to our marriage that we don’t get Fox News and MSNBC and CNN on our television. That tells you how culture current I am.
It’s an honest question. If you’re a big fan of Rush, and a big believer in Jesus, what do you think? Do you find yourself thinking to yourself while listening to Rush: “What he’s saying about liberals or environmental whackos or whatever is so funny but it’s so grossly overstated that to call it true is a real distortion?” Or “That contempt he’s showing is entertaining, but these are real people, and I don’t want to let that poison into my heart.”
I honestly don’t know. I only know how my own wheat-from-chaff-separation powers let me down.
And then a second question: Is it a good thing for our culture, for our political discourse, for our working together to solve problems, that Rush Limbaugh has such a powerful voice in our culture?
I think back to the political conversations on the radio or television decades ago–back when politics and public policy were treated more as important matters to be taken seriously and less as fodder for entertainment. What if, like the fabled character whose name I can’t spell but starts with “R”, you fell asleep for forty years or so, and woke up to the cable news programs and the a.m. talk radio programs? Would it be startling? Would you feel like this is helping us face tough problems together? I don’t know, which is why I’m asking.
Tags: blog, conviction, discernment, environmentalists, jesus freak, rush limbaugh, talk radio
August 15th, 2008 at 10:36 am
I too was once a die-hard dittohead. Until I heard Rush bragging about his mansion and jets and money, and how a superior military is the key to peace. You start to realize that unbridled capitalism and military might weren’t exactly at the top of Jesus’s kingdom agenda. I would frankly question any self proclaimed Christian who also calls themselves a dittohead. Of course, we always have the most contempt for ideas we’ve most recently discarded. But seriously, Rush’s brand of politics and Christianity have NOTHING in common. I still don’t see the trademark infringement issue here, which is what I thought your point was in the first place.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Oh….and here’s another Ezekiel passage… 34:17-18
Is it not enough for you to feed on the good pasture? Must you also trample the rest of your pasture with your feet? Is it not enough for you to drink clear water? Must you also muddy the rest with your feet?
August 19th, 2008 at 9:44 am
To me the choice to not watch either Colbert or Limbaugh is a personal value issue (not political value). This make sense in terms of the effect of comedy. I was raised in a family where sarcasm was an art form and I became very proficient. There is a speaker I listen to regularly, Fr. Tom W., who explained the difference between sarcasm and irony. Sarcasm always has a “target” and can be considered a form of attack no matter how subtly phrased. Irony is funny but there is no target and it is actually more evolved because it requires the audience to be able to hold more than one thought in their mind at a time.
Part of my Christian walk is to try not to target people. I falter on a regular basis. I also avoid anything Rush like the plague because he comes off as mean-spirited. That is not something I want to cultivate.
Of note – the word ’sarcasm’ derives from the ancient Greek word ‘to tear flesh.’ That certainly gives me pause.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
I’m grateful you brought up the problem of contempt and that you described a moment of personal conviction.
Contempt is slippery. My experience is that it’s easy to see in others but a bugger to spot in oneself. While I’m criticizing the ’serious’ commentators, I’m feeling superior to them. And while I’m laughing with the ‘comic’ ones, am I just scratching the same itch?
Where’s the line beyond which God no longer requires us to have mercy? “There but for the grace of God…” Sometimes I catch myself thinking contemptuously of some public figure or another, and I imagine that more often I don’t. But not one of them got where he or she is without a logical journey. And at every fork that determined the next leg there was probably a need for mercy, to receive or extend it. Whether my having mercy can have any affect on some media personality I don’t know, but I figure it can only do good to me.
Of course, the next thing I find is that I’m feeling contemptuous of someone nearby who’s not practicing the same measure of charity that I’ve just managed … There appears to be no end of opportunities to grow in humility.
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Here’s a great Rush Limbaugh quote for those who aren’t sure trademark infringement, or Rush’s great influence on Christian dittoheads:
“If you don’t believe in God, you have no meaning in your life, and you will thus search for meaning, and you will find it anywhere. Most people, even atheists, want religion of some kind in their life. Hello, global warming, as a substitute—apparently unrecognized and not even organized—religion. Yet it is. So you can set the stage for more people, if the atheists were to ever get their way, of establishing global warming as an unofficial religion that does force people to behave in religious ways, just to a false god: the earth, a tangible god… The global warming people essentially are atheists. You cannot believe in the God of Creation and believe manmade global warming. You just can’t. You might run around and say, ‘I don’t want to destroy God’s creation.’ God’s laughing at you. You can’t! He could, but you can’t. You can’t create it; you can’t destroy it.” —Rush Limbaugh
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
This quote that Don entered is a perfect example of the need to separate the wheat from the chaff. Some things Rush says are silly, everyone, I think, knows that.
What is of more concern to me is if we set up the notion that there is this “trademark infringement” on the Jesus Brand, who gets to be the judge, or intellectual property mediator? That is a more powerful, and scary, notion than one radio talk show host saying things we don’t like or things that sound silly! It seems to me that nobody owns the Jesus Brand except Jesus. Concern about people mistakenly assuming that Rush is an example of Christians entering the political debate is one of 100’s of concerns about how Christians are perceived in a 100 different situations. If we start with Rush as an example of what isn’t the Jesus Brand, once he is taken care of, who else do we set our sights on?
August 24th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Jesus owns his own brand. I wear that brand myself, but if I start slapping that brand in all kinds of places where it doesn’t belong, that would be trademark infringement.
I think Ken’s point is that there are some very prominent voices out there who are purporting to represent Christians (or at least Evangelicals) who are really leading people down the wrong path and giving them a false udnerstanding of who Jesus is and what he cares about. If Christians don’t stand up and say “wait a minute!”, then who will? I think we’ll be judged for our silence just as much as for what we say.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
It’s probably a moot point, but recently in the Ann Arbor News there was a letter to the editor about Bill Maher’s Jesus joke.
http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews_opinion/2008/08/did_maher_show_any_guts_in_jes.html#comments
What ensues after the initial posting are your average caustic and judgmental views from all sides involved. As Christ followers we should want to respond differently than that. There’s something said about walking a blameless life, or trying to at least. If we have an issue we want addressed or a discussion to begin, we should start with Micah 6:8. Do Justice, Love Mercy,and Walk Humbly.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
I’m a little late to the discussion, but oh well…
None of us really has any idea what Rush’s relationship with Christ might be. We can guess…and I might guess him to be a “God and Country” type believer rather than what I would view as a committed follower of Christ…but we really don’t know.
This idea of him leading Christians astray, or infringing on the Jesus Brand, strikes me as kind of silly (with all due respect). The only place he might be fairly faulted would be some of the name calling he does (femi-nazis, environmental wackos, etc, as Ken pointed out)…but if you know anything about Rush you know he explains that he likes to “demonstrate absurdity by being absurd” or something like that. He usually labels those he sees as labeling others as a way of pointing out their own absurdity for doing such things. And much of what he does really is schtick…such as “half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.” He doesn’t really mean that folks!
In fact, there is credible evidence that he is actually a pretty soft-spoken, kind individual when met in person.
Beyond the possible criticism of his name calling I’m not sure what else he should be faulted on from a biblical point of view? Favoring smaller, less intrusive government? Favoring a strong military? Favoring lower taxes for all people…the poor, middle class and rich? Favoring upholding the rule of law? Favoring Supreme Court justices that interpret the constitution rather than legislate from the bench? Being skeptical of man-made global warming? Yøu may disagree with some of these views, but I know of nothing unbiblical with any of them. In fact, these views are held by many people who take their relationship with Christ very seriously and take applying the Bible to life very seriously. I’m one of them.
September 6th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Better late than never
Depending on your lens (personal worldview, molded by the shape/experience/”stories” of your own life and your genetic propensities), your view of “biblical” and “unbiblical” will inevitably be different than anyone and everyone else’s (despite contrary claims), much more so from some than others. Don’t get me wrong, there is an absolute Truth, God’s Truth (“biblical” truth), but depending on where you stand in the room (your lens/perspective/worldview), and no one else stands exactly where you do, you will only SEE the TRUTH from your particular vantage point, hence your take on “biblical” and “unbiblical” really isn’t about “objective” absolute truth, but it is YOUR TAKE on it (the TRUTH, which does exist).
So my point.. is that if you identify with someone and either think that you do or you actually do share a similar enough “perspective” on the world (you stand close to each other in the room, or think you do – no difference to you), then you will have similar takes on what is biblical/unbiblical (essentially the object of TRUTH) and therefore, that person is only as “right” as you are in your own perspective, and as “wrong” (by wrong I mean missing other crucial information, like what the “other side” of the object of TRUTH looks like) as you are.
The biggest mistake (shall I say “sin”?) that I think we as humans can make (and do make, all the time) is to presume that we (and others thought to be in the same corner of the room) have the correct and only legitimate perspective on this “object”, that it must look the same from every angle and anyone who says differently has problems with their eyes.
So does Rush say anything “unbiblical”? You tell me. From my vantage point I would say yes. You may say no. Then you just have to ask yourself, do you hold beliefs or say things that are “unbiblical”? I think if you did (or realized that you did), then you’d want to either change your behavior, or alternatively (this is the easier option) you’ll just shift your vantage point in the room until the “object” fit your behavior. Then you’re missing the point.
The beauty of community, church (esp. small groups), and the “blogosphere” even, is that the more we tap into and “have ears to hear” the various perspectives of the other image-bearers here in the room with us (not without a filter of course), the more we will be able to render a full 3-dimensional construct of what this multifaceted object of biblical truth REALLY IS. It takes a lot of humility and trust to actually believe and accept a perspective that you yourself do not hold (shaped by experiences you have not experienced), and you can’t just do so willy-nilly, and the Holy Spirit must be part of it to employ godly discernment (because each one of us must weigh the apparent evidence and give proper credit where we see, with God’s help, that credit is due).
I know I’m rambling and I doubt many people will actually read/understand/care about what I’m trying to say here, but that’s fine because writing down my thoughts in public isn’t really so much for your benefit (if that happens it’s a nice by-product) as it is a huge help for me to understand my own thoughts. You’re quite welcome to listen in.
Feel free to let me know if you’d like clarification on anything that likely came out quite muddled (from your perspective).
*this comment might be more suited for Ken’s old post on epistemology (see N.T. Wright’s drawn out, and at times seemingly “muddled”, explanation of Critical Realism, AKA the epistemology of love, from Volume 1 Part II of “The New Testament and the People of God”: http://www.amazon.com/Testament-People-Christian-Origins-Question/dp/0800626818
God bless,
if you know me you’ll know who I am
September 6th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Sorry to take up just a bit more space, but there is just this little wrench that I forgot the throw into my description of “the room” and each of our perspectives: We all have SOMETHING wrong with our eyes… hope that helps (not bloody likely =)
September 18th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Catching up on the blog, Ken. . .
I think I agree with your point about Rush, but to clarify for some folks–it’s not that Rush claims to be Christian and speak for Christians, but that so many of them listen to him and adopt his point of view. That’s their fault, not his.
I personally don’t listen to him often, but enjoy it when I do. And I take it all with a grain of salt–it’s obviously half entertainment, hyperbole, exaggeration. If you can’t see that, YOU’VE got half your brain tied behind your back.
I think a big part of why I like him is that a naughty side of me likes hearing him say the outrageous things that I could never say as a Christian. Or even as someone simply thoughtful and well-mannered.
The true problem is Christians’ inability to think critically about issues. I’m a Christian and I’m a conservative, but my Christianity comes first. And there are reasons that I’m a conservative that have nothing to do with my Christianity. But those reasons are always up for re-evaluation. My stand on some issues is based on my Christanity, but other issues are decided by research and science and history and common sense.
This topic of Christians thinking critically about the conservative/liberal labels and how they intersect with faith is intensely interesting to me. But it’s really difficult to even broach these topics with people because it gets so heated so fast. One of these days . . .