Q&A: David Limbaugh on Faith and Politics (Part 1)

David Limbaugh, a nationally syndicated columnist and author of the 2003 book Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity, is a conservative commentator with a distinctly Christian worldview. Limbaugh, an attorney, is the brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh. In this first installment of a new Q&A feature for stanguthrie.com, Stan asks David for his take on faith and politics. This is the first in a two-part conversation.

How did you become a columnist?

I’ve always enjoyed writing and had done quite a bit of it in different places when Joseph Farah, at WorldNetDaily, asked me to do a column. I began to do so and also submitted op-eds for the Washington Times during the Clinton impeachment in 1998. After writing for a while, I approached Creators Syndicate about syndicating my column, and they agreed—in early 1999, I believe. I have been writing a twice-weekly column since then.

In your books and columns, you seem to take an up-front approach to issues of faith. How do your beliefs influence what you do?

I didn’t become a Christian until 12 or so years ago. I was raised as a Christian and went to church, but I really didn’t buy into it until relatively recently. I was long a seeker and was searching for answers to problems I had with the faith. In the process, I studied apologetics and theology and, of course, began reading the Bible seriously. Once I finally became a believer, I decided there was no reason to be silent about it. My Christian worldview drives my political views, especially today with the culture wars raging as they are.

I believe that as a latecomer to the faith, the least I can do is to be unapologetic about my beliefs. As Christians, I think we owe it to Christ to speak the truth and not to cower from it for fear of disapproval by the popular culture. I don’t want to wear it on my sleeve or turn people off by getting in their faces, but I do believe I should boldly proclaim my faith and discuss it in my columns when it is relevant to the topic I’m discussing.

A couple of years ago, you wrote the heavily researched book Persecution. You described a worrisome pattern of legal and cultural discrimination against Christians—in the courts, in the workplace, and elsewhere across American society. Since this book was published, do you think things have gotten better, or worse?

My impression is that it’s gotten both worse and better in the following sense. While our culture is constantly coarsening and secular America is becoming more militant, there is also a revival of sorts occurring in the Christian world. When I was growing up, you rarely heard of adults getting together and meeting in small groups for Bible study. Today, my church alone at any one time has dozens and sometimes as many as a hundred small groups meeting. There is a genuine rekindling of the faith in these circles. There are many, many people in mainstream churches—not just the so-called fundamentalists—who have come to believe in the divine inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. Prayer warriors are everywhere, not just an exceptional few in churches. People in increasing numbers are genuinely trying to lead Christ-centered lives.

So what we are seeing is neither a trend toward Christianization alone nor secularization alone, but strong movements in both camps, leading to heightened polarization. I do see a greater awareness of the issues of religious freedom I raise in my book and an effort by many Christians to begin to stand up for their rights and participate in the culture wars, fighting for the sanctity of life and the many other values issues that are so important to us.

At the same time, though, I see a growing disdain by secularists and hostility toward Christians. They are particularly disdainful of those, like me, who bring attention to the assault on Christians and their liberties. They vehemently deny they are engaged in such an enterprise while in the very process of engaging in the enterprise—demeaning Christians and seeking to suppress their religious liberties. The thing we must remember is that the secularists will not relent; they will not tire; they aim to continue until they win. We must not, therefore, become complacent, apathetic, or lazy and must prepare ourselves to remain in this war as long as human history marches on. And we must stay engaged. As Christians, we have that obligation.

Some critics—like Christianity Today—who otherwise like the book have faulted it for the title, saying that the word "persecution" should be reserved for people undergoing much more severe opposition for their faith, such as martyrdom or imprisonment, not whether they can speak about Christ at a high school graduation ceremony. Do you still think the title fits our experience here?

As I’ve told you in our private conversations, I think this is a fair criticism—to charge that the title, as opposed to the contents, is a bit over the top. I am not, as the text of the book makes clear, equating the mistreatment and discrimination against Christians I chronicle in my book with the types of much more severe persecution that have occurred against Christians and Jews historically and even today—especially in other countries.

But I do believe the climate that now exists in this nation with respect to Christians is the very type that existed in societies, including Nazi Germany, preceding this more severe form of persecution. The soon-to-be-persecuted class was originally stigmatized as mean-spirited and intolerant, justifying suppression of their liberties. The demonization grew systematically, and eventually full-blown persecution occurred.

So you may reasonably quibble with the title of the book if you choose, but it is important that we call attention to the discrimination and mistreatment that is occurring and alert people out of their slumber who believe this is nothing more than preventing them from speaking "about Christ at a high school graduation ceremony." While that is certainly not imprisonment, please do not underestimate nor understate the significance of its portent for future infringements. This nation was born to establish religious liberty. My book documents how our religious liberties are under real attack. We deny or diminish this at our peril.

Next: Part 2

Journalism’s Credibility Gap

The mainstream media have been having a bad year, to say the least. Newsweek’s infamous “toilet story” is only the latest–and possibly the most devastating–example of the partisan scribes flushing their own credibility down the Porta-Potty. There are many others, including:

– CBS News and Dan Rather using obviously forged National Guard documents in an attempt to sling mud on the commander in chief during the presidential campaign;

– On the eve of the election, the New York Times trumping up a now long-gone story about phantom explosives ignored by American soldiers;

– The endless, out-of-proportion reporting on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, coupled with dark and unfounded intimations that the corruption reached all the way up to Bush and Rumsfeld.

No wonder an increasingly skeptical public continues to turn to more credible sources for news.

Like Abu Ghraib, the Saddam photos, and now the news that American soldiers may have murdered two prisoners in Afghanistan, the Newsweek story couldn’t help but serve as a prime recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Only this time, there was no truth to the charge that American interrogators at Guantanamo Bay had flushed the Qur’an, which Muslims consider the literal word of God, down the toilet.

Muslims consider even placing a copy of the Qur’an on the ground to be a sign of profound disrespect toward God. Didn’t Newsweek’s editors know they were indulging in the journalistic equivalent of lighting a match in a room full of explosives?

Where is the discretion we should expect of highly paid professionals who have (or think they have) highly sensitive information? Even if it were true, did this information need to come out? To what end?

While Newsweek’s editor eventually apologized for the blunder, there are signs that the scribes still don’t get it. Yes, they have acknowledged that it probably isn’t a good idea to rely on a single anonymous source speculating about the contents of a government document that no one has seen.

But no one–especially not star investigative reporter Michael Isikoff–has lost his or her job over the fiasco. Yes, 17 lives were lost and the United States faces an even more skeptical Muslim world, but let’s not be so simplistic as to blame Newsweek.

Trying to turn the page, journalists appear to be closing ranks. One reporter cynically asked the White House whether it expected the press to only report “how great the military is.”

Several have said Newsweek reported the non-story “by the book.” (Then perhaps it’s time to get a new “book.”) To the media elite, responsibility for the carnage lies elsewhere. They seem to be offering a collective, “Moi?”

For example, Jack Shafer of Slate asked, "Are the riots and the deaths the magazine's fault? I say no, whether Newsweek got the story right or wrong. If Al Jazeera published the most inflammatory story it could find—or make up—about the pope or the Virgin Mary, would we blame the satellite station if Rome rioted or the Romans?"

Actually, we would be right to blame both. As they say, never yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

And the example is absurd anyway. I doubt there would be a riot among Christians in Rome. They have shown very little propensity to do such things. Yet, unfortunately, Muslims have shown quite a bit. It's often shoot first and ask questions later.

The media elite, for their part, are acting like a bunch of 3-year-olds. They want rights without responsibilities. They want to be able to float unsubstantiated rumor against the United States in a time of war and then walk away unscathed.

While the nation needs the media to help keep the government honest–this is a prime function of journalism–the media need the country, too. But too many journalists display a hyper-detachment, as if it is somehow wrong to support this nation in wartime. Too many are reliving what they see as the glory days of the press during Vietnam.

But the press during World War II actually engaged in some strategic self-censorship, understanding that freedom of the press is not free. But a few years ago, Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee admitted that if the newspaper had uncovered secret Allied plans for D-Day, he would have published them.

No wonder press coverage of the Iraq war is so unrelentingly negative. While taking advantage of all the freedoms this country offers, the media show it absolutely no loyalty. Don’t the scribes realize that if the Islamists win, they will be first against the wall?

If that happens here, journalists will have a lot more to worry about than their yawning credibility gap.

Author Insight: Dick Staub on the Star Wars Myth

Back in 1977, George Lucas set the film industry on its head with Star Wars, which combined rousing action, boffo special effects, and pop religion into a box-office monster. The mystical Star Wars franchise has made Lucas a very rich man, generating nearly $3.4 billion in global box office receipts and $9 billion in retail sales since 1977. With the release of the sixth installment, Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, set for May 19, interest is peaking again. In his new book, Christian Wisdom of the Jedi Masters, faith and culture commentator Dick Staub uses the Star Wars mythos as a vehicle to share Christian truth with a generation searching for authentic spirituality. Staub also wrote Too Christian, Too Pagan.

Which is your favorite Star Wars movie, and why?

The Empire Strikes Back, because it reveals such essential elements of the Luke/Leia/Vader relationship and introduces us to Yoda, through whom we learn the sad tale of the Jedi decline. At the same time, we begin to see the Jedi comeback as Yoda comes out of retirement to train Luke. We see Luke begin his transformation from clueless young man to Jedi Knight. In Christian Wisdom of the Jedi Masters, I show how Luke’s development is analogous to a serious Christian’s progression as a follower of Jesus.

How do you explain America’s enduring fascination with all things Star Wars?

George Lucas created an epic tale that taps into the universal themes of good versus evil, and did it in what was at the time a next-edge use of technology and special effects. The alienation of parents and children and allusions to the spiritual and unseen connected at a deep level with a generation seeking something more. A great story and an advancement of filmmaking combined for a memorable and enduring series.

In the book, you call both Star Wars and Christianity “mythology.” What do you mean?

A myth is a story that confronts us with the “big picture,” something transcendent and eternal, and in so doing, explains the worldview of a civilization. Given that definition, Christianity is the prevailing myth of Western culture and Star Wars is a prevailing myth of our popular culture. However one of these myths is actually true and historically based, and that is Christianity. Both C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien loved great myths, but each believed beneath all well-crafted myths there was the one true myth, Christianity.

Many observers have viewed the impersonal Force of Star Wars as a popular presentation of dualism or Hinduism, with both sides locked in a perpetual struggle, and neither one ultimate. In Christianity, light and dark are locked in a similar struggle, but good—being grounded in a personal God—is ultimate, while evil is merely a perversion of the good. Why then have you chosen the George Lucas mythology as a vehicle to convey Christian truth?

Christian Wisdom of the Jedi Masters was born after a conversation with a young Microsoft guy. We had seen one of the prequels, and over coffee afterwards he commented that he wanted to go deeper in his faith, but wouldn’t ask most guys my age for advice, because we were all idealists in the `60s and then sold out and never really did the radical Christian deal. I said, “Oh, so you want to be a Jedi Christian and my generation didn’t produce a Yoda!” As I thought more about the themes of Star Wars, the connection to helping the next generation become “Jedi Christians” just started falling into place.

My book is not a theology of Star Wars, but rather is a look at Luke’s development from a directionless young man who discovered his life purpose after encountering Obi-wan and Yoda and learning from them about the “unseen Force.” Today, many young people are seeking meaning, and my generation has failed to pass on the authentic and radical adventure offered by Jesus. This book is written for the next generation and those who love them. I hope it inspires people my age to step up and become the kind of followers of Jesus who inspire the next generation by example. I also hope the younger generation will desire a deeper, authentic faith, and as they seek out more mature Yoda’s to help them on the path they will find them.

George Lucas, to my knowledge, has never made explicitly Christian claims for Star Wars. How would you compare his fantasy world with those of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien?

As you mentioned, the Lucas story is more theologically attuned with Hinduism. In Jedi mythology, the highest good is achieved by balancing light and dark, whereas Jedi Christians believe the highest good is achieved when darkness is defeated. In Jedi Christian lore, the dark side is not just the opposite of light, but is an unequal opponent of God, who, in Star Wars terms, is the Lord over the Force.

In Tolkien’s "Lord of the Rings," there is a ring over the other rings and then there is a Lord of the Rings. The wizards Sauron and Gandalf represent the dark and light sides, but Tolkien’s title reveals his Christian belief that above all the rings and all manner of powerful wizardry, there is a Lord of the Rings who rules over all, and who will bring history to a just and good conclusion. Tolkien said of his work, “'The Lord of the Rings' is a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; it is about God, and his sole right to divine honor.”

Lewis also recognized the ultimate rule and authority of God over the “forces of good and evil.” As Lewis put it, we must ultimately decide whether Jesus was a liar, a lunatic, or who he said he is, the Lord.” The first chapter of Christian Wisdom of the Jedi Masters draws this important distinction between the Star War’s Hindu, monistic worldview and Christianity, which teaches that there is one who is wholly other and Lord over all.

What are some key insights we can learn from the Jedi masters?

The progression of the aspiring Jedi involves recognizing the existence of the force, then seeking, understanding and using the force against the dark side. The progression in Christian discipleship involves recognizing that there is a Lord, then seeking, understanding, and serving the Lord, which involves a battle against the dark side.

Each chapter in Christian Wisdom of the Jedi Masters starts with a quote from Star Wars and then a quote from Scripture. For example, when Luke tries and fails to lift the X-wing starfighter from the swamp he says in exasperation, “I’m trying.” Yoda replies, “Do or do not. There is no try.” In the same way, Jesus challenged his followers to be doers of the word and not hearers only. The serious disciple understands that following Jesus is not something you “try.” Jesus is one you pursue without reservation, and with no turning back. In the book, I expand on 41 of these parallel truths.

Why did you present Christian teaching in this way?

At Mars Hill, [the apostle] Paul quoted pagan poets and used the cultural icons of Greek culture to build a bridge to Christian truth. I came to faith in the ‘60s in San Francisco. Since that time, I’ve been trying to understand faith and culture and interpret each to the other. In preparation for this book, I reread each Star Wars script as well as a number of Star Wars resource books. I think correlation of faith with a popular cultural icon requires appreciating and respecting both. Because Star Wars is the prevailing epic filmic myth of our era and Christianity is the prevailing faith tradition in the West, I think relating them to each other can help us understand both more fully.

Sometimes in our important quest for propositional truth, we lose sight of the importance of imagination and metaphor. C.S. Lewis believed that “reason is the organ of truth and imagination is the organ of meaning.” Metaphor helps us understand underlying truth, and my book explores the analogous metaphors of Star Wars and biblical truth.

Which is the bigger danger for Christians today—embracing the world and losing our distinctives, or rejecting it and losing our ability to communicate with our neighbors?

This is not an either-or. Throughout history, Christians have wavered between equal and opposite errors. We have either cocooned ourselves from the world, which means we lose the ability to relate, or we conform to the world and lose the ability to transform. Like Jesus, we are called to be a loving, transforming presence. This is the way of the Jedi Christian and the path I lay out in Christian Wisdom of the Jedi Masters.

Deadly Pity

Recently after work, I stopped at the grocery store to pick up a few things before heading home. While checking out, I noticed a boy of about 10 looking at me. When I got out to the parking lot, there was the boy again, still staring, while I loaded the groceries into my car.

I was a little concerned, because I didn’t see a mom or dad with him, so as I pulled out of my parking space, I decided to make sure everything was all right. I rolled down my window and asked him in a friendly way if he was with anyone. He said yes and then blurted out, “I just feel so bad for you!”

Instantly, I realized that the boy had been staring at my unsteady gait all that time. While I was worried about him, he was worried about me. His response (not all that unusual) didn’t bother me, and I assured him that he didn’t need to feel that way because God is taking good care of me.

Pity is a common response of the able-bodied toward the disabled. Honest pity is better than mockery, but in this case it was entirely misplaced. While my physical condition is far from ideal, I live a full life and have been blessed with a lovely, intelligent wife and three beautiful children. I live in a nice house in a desirable city, own two cars, and do challenging work that allows me to influence others for the good. Besides all that, I sense God’s presence and guidance through all of life’s ups and downs.

But how do you tell all that to a 10-year-old boy in a parking lot who can only see your physical defects? You can’t. You just hope that as he matures, he will learn to look past the surface, develop true compassion, and begin to appreciate people for who they really are.

But at least the boy was trying. Many people, forgetting that we all bear God’s image, have stopped trying altogether.

In the Flanders region of Belgium, a recent study published in The Lancet, a medical journal, found that nearly half the newborn babies who died during one year were illegally “helped” to do so by their doctors. According to the Telegraph, “Most commonly, that involved withholding or withdrawing treatment because physicians believed the baby had no real chance of survival or the baby had no chance of a ‘bearable future.’”

How do they know what constitutes a “bearable future,” and who gave them the right to decide? Like the boy at the grocery store, they have no idea what God may choose to do with the life of a physically or mentally challenged child. Not only that, they miss out on the character development and spiritual blessings that often flow to those who help the weak and defenseless.

Instead, bowing at the recently constructed secular altar of physical perfection, these physicians practice a pity that compels them to weed out those with lives they deem not worth living. Doing so, they blatantly disregard the 2,500-year-old Hippocratic Oath, which says, “I will not give a fatal draught to anyone if asked, nor will I suggest any such thing.”

This deadly pity extends to adults, too. Since 2002, Belgian doctors have had the right to euthanize adults who are suffering from “constant and unbearable physical or psychological pain” who request to die. The Netherlands passed a similar law in 1995, and it’s not just people who want to die who are at risk.

Arno Heltzel of the Catholic Union for the Elderly supports “voluntary euthanasia,” but even he acknowledges the existence of “social pressure” in Holland toward old people because of high medical costs. “Old people have to excuse themselves for living,” Heltzel recently told the Wall Street Journal. “When they say that all of their friends are dead, people say, ‘Maybe it is time for you to go too,’ rather than, ‘You need to find new friends.’”

Pity alone is not enough. We need less pity, and more compassionate people willing to look past the surface and see the intrinsic value of all God’s children.

The “People of Faith” Kerfuffle

In case you missed it, there was an Al Gore sighting last week. During a speech in Washington, the former vice president warned darkly that Republican moves to halt Democratic filibusters of the president’s judicial nominees would amount to a “poison pill” for democracy.

Gore further lambasted the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group that opposes the filibusters, as among the “extremist groups” supposedly threatening the independence of the federal judiciary. Gore, who wrote the overwrought book Earth in the Balance, surely knows something about extremism. He was speaking to activists connected with the MoveOn Political Action Committee. MoveOn’s website, you might recall, accepted an ad during the campaign equating George W. Bush with Hitler. Compared with MoveOn, I suppose even the Rotary Club appears extremist.

FRC President Tony Perkins has been in the liberal gunsights for some time. Perkins, a former legislator from Louisiana, has been indulging in some over-the-top rhetoric as well. Perkins recently said that activist, unaccountable judges pose a greater threat to our democracy than terrorists do. Picking up a Republican attack that surfaced two years ago during the battle over Alabama Attorney General William Pryor’s confirmation hearings to the federal bench, Perkins has said Democrats in the Senate are betraying an animus toward “people of faith.”

Democratic leaders are crying foul, but there’s no doubt they are none too partial to people whose faith leads them to oppose abortion. Keeping abortion safe, legal, and common is the unquestioned cardinal tenet of today’s Democratic Party. That’s why they are fighting tooth and nail to overturn over two centuries of Senate precedent. The Democratic minority wants to use the filibuster to thwart last fall’s elections and exercise a veto on the president’s judicial nominees.

People like Pryor, a Roman Catholic who takes seriously his church’s teaching about the sanctity of human life, are anathema to the high priests of sexual license. Despite Pryor’s stellar record, New York Democrat Chuck Schumer stated, “[H]is beliefs are so well-known, so deeply held, that it is very hard to believe, very hard to believe, they are not going to deeply influence” his performance as a judge.

Similar comments about nominees’ “deeply held” beliefs from pro-choice icons such as Ted Kennedy and Dianne Feinstein understandably sound to Perkins and others on the right like code words to exclude “people of faith.” But it isn’t necessarily so. I would argue that the secular left doesn’t care what your faith is, as long as you support legal abortion. If the Democrats do harbor an anti-faith bias, they camouflage it well. Liberal Democrats are more than willing to co-opt “people of faith”–even evangelicals–as long as they don’t too noisily question the party’s pro-abortion doctrine.

In fact, Democratic leaders skillfully have turned the “people of faith” barb back on the Republicans. Last week’s anti-filibuster “Justice Sunday” event, held at a Baptist church in Louisville, led to spurrious charges that groups such as the FRC are unfairly injecting religion into politics.

Yet these Democrats are a little inconsistent about faith and politics. They never seem to mention the perennial campaigning in black churches by Democratic candidates. And Ken Salazar, a Democratic senator, called Focus on the Family, one of the event’s backers, “the Antichrist of the world.” If that’s not injecting religion into politics, then what is?

This kerfuffle over judicial filibusters ought to teach people on both sides of the abortion debate to tone down the rhetoric and simply say what they mean. Pro-choice Democrats should be honest and say they will block anyone who thinks Roe v. Wade is bad law. The conservatives, including FRC and Focus on the Family, need to drop the “people of faith” line of attack and simply point out the obvious–that Schumer, Kennedy, Feinstein, and Gore have a pro-abortion litmus test–and they’re willing to break Senate tradition to enforce it.

Then let America–including its people of faith–decide.