A public figure, Limbaugh ought to be vehemently rebuked. Any public figure (including pastors; indeed, especially pastors!) who would like to be taken seriously must denounce Limbaugh's words without reservation. How could I expect to be taken seriously as a mouthpiece of truth on Sunday mornings if I were to hem and haw when asked (perhaps by your daughter), "Pastor, what's your take on Rush Limbaugh's comments?" Hem and haw on this one? Shame on me!
Indeed, the greater shame does not belong to Rush; after all, he's been distasteful and crude for years--this is no great secret, right? The greater shame belongs to radio stations that allow him to spread his manure all over their listening areas, to advertisers who feed the monster, to listeners who provide the motivation for the advertisers. The greater shame belongs to those who merely shake their heads and say, "Tsk, tsk."
Perhaps an even greater shame belongs to the leading Republican candidates, who, so far, have chosen not to condemn that which deserves condemnation. Mitt Romney simply says, it's "not the language" he would have used. Are you kidding? That is far less than the rebuke I once received for just saying "Oh shit!" in the house. Meanwhile, Rick Santorum ("Champion of Faith and Family" says his website) squirmed a bit and finally said, "He's being absurd. But that's, you know--an entertainer can be absurd." What?! Just absurd?! Oh, I get it--kinda like "boys will be boys"? Is that what we're saying?
I repeat, the greatest shame does not belong to Limbaugh (or even his ghost writers) but to those in leadership positions who refuse to give a powerful and unequivocal rebuke against this loudmouth who repeatedly called a young woman a "slut" and a "prostitute" on the public air waves.
For Romney and Santorum, this was a perfect chance for them to take a stand in favor of the high ground, regardless of politics. It was the perfect opportunity, but they blew it.
Leaders observe and clarify reality, offer vision, and speak the truth. Speak the truth! And, in a case like this, a tepid response will not do at all, will it? We would do well to remember what the risen Lord Jesus said to the church in Laodicea: "...Because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth."
Peace,
Rev. Randal K. Lubbers
_______
Rather than being leaders, being men of character, they tried to duck the issue. That, however, is the best case scenario, that they know in their hearts, and minds, that the remarks should be roundly condemned. The worst case scenario is that they agree with Limbaugh.
Where has morality gone? What kind of men call a woman a derogatory and a vile name, a 'slut' because of her political views - in a democracy!!! - views held by millions of others that, agree or disagree, are at heart about trying to help people stay healthy? What kind of a world would we have if we were lead by men like that?
That Romney and Santorum chose to respond so limply, if done out of fear of alienating voters, is downright shameful. But if done because they secretly agree with Limbaugh - then that is downright scary.
-- Marcus Hondro
9 comments:
Well said, and thank you so much for saying it!
Thank you Randy. As a woman who is also a pastor I am appalled and sickened that this kind of abusive language and behavior is for many seen as typically Christian. And I confess that the hate speech has been effective in silencing me. Struggling with that as I wrestle with God's word.
Wow.
A member of the Christian clergy referring to someone else as a 'jerk' seems much like passing judgement on said individual...having lived the "Christian" faith for some 20+ years, it was very clear that Christians are not to pass such judgement...yet, you are doing just that.
I could be wrong, but isn't that outside your authority just a little?
As a pastor, you're called to demonstrate the Christian faith which means that you are to be held to account when you don't...it comes with the territory of being an ordained minister.
Your remarks, your behaviour and your politics may be very much in line with the Presbyterian church organization but it is an affront to anyone who is watching to make sure that a Christian's actions support his/her words.
You ought to be ashamed.
@ExOrganizationMan,
It's interesting that you would be offended by the word "jerk" yet apparently not offended by the words used by Mr. Limbaugh. "Jerk" is a slang word, but its usage is not considered offensive or vulgar.
Nevertheless, I must confess, I might have used the wrong word. "Jerk" means "a dull or stupid person" and that's not really what I was meaning to say. To be honest, I was using "jerk" as a gentle euphemism for the word my dictionary defines as "a vain, self-important, silly, or aggressively stupid person." Perhaps I should have used the more accurate word. Mea culpa.
But, you see, I can say "jerk" in front of my mother. But probably not the other.
Concerning your other comments:
It is well within my vocation to stand in solidarity with persons being mistreated, oppressed, or abused; indeed, "He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8). In this particular instance I stand with Sandra Fluke and all women demeaned by Limbaugh's words; not because I had nothing better to do with my time, not because of politics or ideologies, but because of compassion and justice.
Ashamed? No. I would be ashamed if I had kept silent.
You are a an excellent representative of the hypocritical "Christian" faith...and an extraordinarily poor representative of Christ.
Justify your behaviour to your heart's content...I'm sure that your idea of a politically liberal Christ will not convict you at all...but there's no such guarantee with the true Son of God...
The irony of someone passing judgement on a minister for (supposedly) being judgmental and a "poor representative of Christ" and then trying to intimidate through shame by invoking the judgement of God is fascinating.
I'm a Christian who stands with 99% of women who think that responsible women should have the right to decide how many children they want and when and that insurance companies should cover that expense, just like they do so many other medications.
Hang in there, Celeste. Once I saw the hate speech as "shame-dumping," it was easier for me to dismiss. In other words, those who use the hate language need to dump shame they feel over something onto someone else so they feel better. Refuse to accept it. Recognize that it's their issue, not theirs.
Thanks for bringing this to light as a social justice issue, Randy.
--Cyndi's sister
It isn't ironic because it isn't intimidation...in any case, I see that the "Reverend" Lubbers apparently isn't up to engaging on his own and would rather let the surrogate non-males come to his defense.
Interesting that the "social justice" issue is more important than what ministers, ambassadors of God are first called to do.
"Reverend", the last response that you made was that of a classic modern-day liberal masquerading as a member of the clergy...parse those scriptures to suit the viewpoint to which you subscribe (context doesn't really matter, does it?). What you have managed to do is expose yourself as one who would rather be a foot soldier for the left on social issues and enjoy the acceptance of those with whom you obviously seek be popular instead of one who truly stands for what is right (by that book that you allegedly and so many other "Christians" regard as the authoritative word of God).
I'm sure that you're able to sleep at night...but I wonder how.
@ExOrganizationMan, Sorry to disappoint you, sir, but "engaging" with you is not my primary calling in life. Nor should it be, as you imply. Not even close.
If you have a specific disagreement with something I have written, feel free to share it, and I will respond as time permits. However, preparing for a funeral, studying for Sunday's sermon, keeping up with household tasks and my two cool kids... these all rank higher than checking my blog comments. And when the comments become merely rants--yes, I'm talking about your comments now--and the comments address nothing substantive related to my post, then commenting becomes an even lower priority.
That said, your concept or definition of what it means to follow Jesus seems to be myopic and misinformed. Most Christians, regardless of denomination, have historically embraced social justice as part and parcel of the Gospel--certainly not as an "add-on" to the good news, and not an option, and certainly not a substitute for the good news. Embracing the poor, the weak, the oppressed, and the humble is at the heart of the Gospel.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what you write, it doesn't sound like you've experienced the Gospel as something that is truly good news. I wish it could be... The only prerequisite is an open heart...
One final note, my windy-city friend of a facebook friend...
Personal attacks in this comments section will be deleted; and that includes any of your "cute little jabs" (read, "surrogate") at other persons offering comments. I know something of your history in this area and it will not be tolerated, period.
Peace...
Intolerance...the hallmark of liberal.
Post a Comment