Rush and Rousseau
Monday, March 9, 2009 at 10:55AM 
As someone who has been in radio for nearly twenty years, I truly admire Rush Limbaugh's tremendous skills as a broadcaster. To spend three hours mid-day (not in drive-time) without guests, and still maintain his huge listening audience (and keep their attention as he does) is a truly remarkable accomplishment. I'll give him that.
While I have certain sympathies for Limbaugh's brand of libertarian/small-government conservatism, his lack of any category for human sinfulness (and the need to restrain it) has always troubled me. I'm glad to know that I'm not alone (h.t. Gene Veith). Click here: Limbaugh vs. the Front Porch | Front Porch Republic
Speaking of Rush and all the hubbub about his recent comments re: Obama's presidency failing, it is interesting to note that a mere three years ago a majority of democrats admitted to hoping that George W. Bush's presidency failed. Don't all partisans hope that the other guy fails? This is just another sad example of the fact that the level of political discourse in this country is an embarrassment to all of us--or it should be. Click here: Flashback: 2006 Poll Showed Most Democrats Wanted Bush to Fail - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.c
Uncertain times often bring out the worst in people. David Wilkerson (of the "Cross and the Switchblade" fame) is telling everyone he knows that the Holy Spirit is urging him to warn people of some sort of impending judgment to come upon New York and New Jersey. It is remarkable to me that these "dire warning" messages seem to come more often when a democrat (especially one considered to be no friend of evangelicals) is in the White House. But didn't 9-1-1 came to pass when an evangelical was president??? Meanwhile, so much for the sufficiency of Scripture. Wilkerson gets his news directly from the Spirit. Click here: David Wilkerson Today: AN URGENT MESSAGE
Come to think of it, why should we worry about what the Holy Spirit is supposedly telling David Wilkerson? Date setter Steve Coerper expects the Rapture on, or about, May 31. Hmmm . . . Who you gonna believe???? Click here: The Final Fulfillment of Pentecost
Reader Comments (36)
You ask the question, "What is our top priority, political issues, or theological issues?" You also ask how this fits in with the two kingdom theology.
Both are extremely important. Of course, with the providence of God, we have the comfort of knowing that God is in total control -- unlike deism.
Naturally, theology is first. But, with Luther's two kingdoms, I am able to have my proper distinctions and catagories. I am able to focus much more sharply on these issues.
I am truly able to fully enjoy -- to the max -- both kingdoms. I am able to get into both, without mixing the two. Because of the two kingdom theology, I can really enjoy politics and world events with a correct understanding of both.
Luther says that mixing the two kingdoms is the devil's work. Luther also hated the monks (and I know that you are certainly not a monk), because they tended to separate themselves.
Enjoy both kingdoms, and have fun with it! It is, indeed, fun to be a part of the two kingdoms!
What I am referring to when I ask how much our theology effects our political ideology is more in the realm of policy then being fit for office because of some wacky theological ideas. Or, voting for someone based on the theological views they espouse. For example, how you attack the economic and political issues that are going on today is going to be influenced by your theological views (I think but does it have to?). I have found that most people who hold to confessional reformed and Lutheran theological views tend to be libertarian, do not want too much government intervention into their lives and into the economy and espouse some sort of Austrian economic ideas. What I am asking is this consciously done or is it because they are influenced more by theologians they read and the political views they find they hold? And whether this is a good thing or not. Does our policy tendencies have to be influenced by our theology or can we strictly use our reason only in regards to policy issues? How much do they actually interact? Can we be limiting ourselves in our reactions to various policy issues that Obama is trying to push through Congress at this time? (some have already been passed by Congress) Can we be more of a polarizing force because of our theological ideas instead of actually doing some good in the political forum in the public square?
Another example I would use is this issue of Keynesian economics and the aversion Austrian types have to Keynes ideas. In the situation we are in right now it may make sense to use some government intervention into the economy. The problem is Obama seems to be playing politics and paying off those who voted for him with government money rather then putting this money in places that will do most good for the economy now. This is where this gets confusing. If you are a strict Keynesian or a strict Austrian economist you will come up with differing policies. However, what lies behind Keynesian and Austrian economic ideas may be theological ideas or lack thereof. Am I making myself clear?
Whether or not you personally agree with Rush's political and social ideology, the spirit in which he communicates his ideas comes from a root of utter PRIDE, ANGER, and SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS, which reflects ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of the nature and character of our TRUE LORD, SAVIOR, AND KING JESUS CHRIST. So i cannot understand how any follower of Christ would voluntarily subject and align themselves to something so contrary to the biblical fruits of the Spirit and very person of Christ himself?
When will the body of Christ in America finally break their divisive worldly socio-political ties (liberal and conservative alike) and pledge no allegiance to the kingdoms of this world? Lord Jesus forgive us for our idolatrous, lofty, man made ideologies that have no place in your body and no relevance to your True Kingdom.
I think we have to be careful about whether we have a correct understanding in regards to policy issues. We can be dogmatic in regards to our reformation theology (the truths that surround the doctrine of justification by faith alone) but in regards to policy issues in the political and economic realm I am not so sure we can be so dogmatic.
So, what are you saying- we should totally separate ourselves from the kingdom of man and not interact with those we come into contact with in the vocations we are involved with? Do we not discuss politics and policy issues with those who have no allegiance to the kingdom of God? I guess I am confused about your post. I agree with your comments about Rush Limbaugh- I think he is a loud mouthed blow hard who is polarizing and dividing Americans more than anything else. Even if we do agree with his political commentary.
I think my points about Romney, Palin and Maher are more relevant to the questions you ask than you seem to think.
But be that as it may, I think the coincidence of confessional Prot’s with libertarians has more to do with, well, coincidence than the idea that there is something resident within the theology that begets the ideology. It also has something to do with, as you suggest, reading certain theologians who also espouse certain ideologies and thinking one must have something to do with the other. It’s also a function of a pretty deeply-ingrained Constainianiam; ever since Constantine brokered peace between the kingdoms by making Christianity an official state religion westerners have assumed it all goes together somehow. I don’t see anything in scripture to suggest that. I see being told to render unto Caesar his due without any caveat for the fact that he thought himself the deity, etc.
I am pretty sure I understand what you are saying and I would agree with you. I am totally against Constantinianism also and we should not take a culture war attitude into the public square with us. That is, the kingdom of God versus the kingdom of man type of mentality. However, we can take policy differences and beliefs with us but this should supposedly not have anything to do with the kingdom of man versus the kingdom of God. We are just joining with our fellow citizens in fighting what we believe to be common problems in the culture. And we can debate what we believe to be the best policies to confront these problems.
We should point out when others are acting out of a Constantinianism though in order to avoid unnecessary polarization. So, it is very possible we can be joined with atheists, Mormons, etc, etc, in regards to what we believe the best policies for a particular problem should be. In this manner we avoid the problem of a particular group seeking power over others rather than joining together collectively to deal with problems in the culture.
I’m no fan of “culture war” either. At the same time—and in light of some rants in this thread which imply truer piety wants nothing to do with strong opinion—I think it is worth considering that there is a difference between understanding that the realm of politics is perfectly good and over-realizing it. It seems to me that at least part of what is going on with Limbaugh-ism and its larger context known as “culture war” is to think that politics does more than simply get us from day to day in relatively one piece. One result is that people get burned out and begin to think politics isn’t so good because it hasn’t gained utopia like the Limbaugh-ites and their detractors both seem to convey. Then believers start ranting about the evils of being involved in the world because it can get a bit dirty at times. The key seems to be keeping a restrained perspective. I think what Darryl Hart says:
“Liturgical Protestantism offers a way around this impasse. A different way of putting it is to say that liturgical Protestantism represents a way for Protestant believers to support the wall between church and state. By looking for religious significance not in this world but in the world to come, liturgical Protestantism lowers the stakes for public life while still affirming politics’ divinely ordained purpose. The public square loses some of its importance but retains its dignity. It is neither ultimately good nor inherently evil; politics becomes merely a divinely appointed means for restraining evil while the church as an institution goes about its holy calling.”
http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2007/10/17/tracking-with-the-liturgicals/
Excellent- that is a very good and I think accurate biblical perspective to take. I agree with you whole heartedly. The important sentence here is the following: ".....is to think that politics does more than simply get us from day to day in relatively one piece."
Great food for thought. I come from an extended family that is both reformed and avid listeners of Rush. No doubt he is a unique, entertaining radio talent, and I enjoy listening on occasion (less so in recent years), but I think there might be a tendency for some folks in our circles to embrace his "worldview" uncritically and treat him as one of our own.
Perhaps there are parallels between Rush, not formally "educated," and certain talking heads in the theological world who emerge and develop large followings but lack rigorous, formal theological training?
Mike
I apologize, my post may have come across a bit over zealous. I am just saddened and confused because I so often see Christians identify themselves by their cultural and political affiliations before or on equal par with their allegiance to Christ as if they are one in the same. As if by proponing the cause of the free market they are fighting for the cause of Christ, and in doing so aligning themselves with such aggrivators of fear and hatred as Mr. Limbaugh.
I am in no way encouraging separatism, but quite the opposite. I propose we as the church run directly into the world of death with open arms and doors proclaiming the words of Christ, "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Instead off passing "the losers" as Mr. Limbaugh refers to them off to secular institutions which only perpetuate the global problems we are facing. The solutions will never come from Adams or Marx, but only in Jesus Christ.
As far as discussing politics and policy as followers of Christ, We must examine our positions and ideals first and foremost in relation to the nature and character of Jesus Christ, and not against the temptation of worldly practicality. I have personally found that the call of Christ to be a peacemaker and to love my enemies isn't very practical in a world (and nation) founded on the values of competition and "rugged individualism."
That was a great link you had Zrim- just finished reading it all and when I came back to the site I noticed Ian had responded to my post. This two-kingdom theology business requires us to use our minds in more subtle ways then we are perhaps used to. I know it has taken me awhile to get a good grasp of it and I still feel as though I have a lot to learn. It can get a bit confusing.
Our main allegiance is to the kingdom of God but we still have responsibilities to perform in the kingdom of man. We should have servant attitudes towards those who do not share our beliefs even when the going gets tough and dirty and we get misunderstood. As I heard one Lutheran pastor say the other day "holiness always has dirt under its fingernails."
Best regards Ian and thanks for the clarification.
I think there's a couple of things to remember when thinking about Rush Limbaugh:
1) Dr. Riddlebarger is right to say that there's more "Rousseau" than "Reformed" in Rush's doctrines. The problem is, conservatism is currently undergoing a major ideological shift as the older generation of conservatives dies off, the anti-commie conservatives become the old conservatives, and the neocons become the middle-aged and "mainstream" conservatives. All of which means that pointing out Rush's optimism about the nature of man can no longer be said to be strictly un-conservative. Though I think the category of "classical liberal" still works best for him, for a few more years anyway.
2) Even with these shifting categories, I think a fair analogy can be drawn if I can flash back to my standardized testing days: Rush Limbaugh is to conservatism as C.S. Lewis is to reformed theology. That is, there are clear overlaps and points of absolute agreement, even on (dare I use the word?) fundamental issues. But, when you start trying to systematize them and force them to fit into a pattern, the differences become obvious. So, just as C.S. Lewis was clearly a Christian of some sort, he was not reformed doctrinally, rather he was a professor of literature; so too Rush Limbaugh is clearly a conservative of some sort, but he is not systematically or philosophically conservative, he's a talk radio host .
I like working with fake-real TV personalities better than real-fake radio ones: paleo-conservative is Jack McCoy, neo-conservative is Jack Bauer. No, you can't have both. I was half-joking a couple posts back, but now I am all serious.
It strikes me that for those who think the Bible implies forms of government, like liberal democracy or libertarianism, haven't connected that the Bible is rife with monarchy. It seems way easier to say God wants us all to be (intrusive) kings and subjects than (hands-off) senators and constituents. Phew, good thing Jesus said the scriptures were exclusively about him.
You're (or your prof) is technically right, Theodosius the Great established Christianity as the "official" religion of the Roman Empire in 380AD.
But, the whole Christianity/state mix-up business is generally considered to have started with Constantine because he, acting as Emperor, called a chuch council (the Nicene Council) in 325AD, and even participated to some extent in the council's proceedings. Once the Emperor had taken a hand in politics, the old days of church/state opposition through persecution were basically finished for a very long time in the West.