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 . . .

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

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.

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.

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?

“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

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.

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.