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!

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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