John Avlon on the Decline of Rush Limbaugh

John Avlon of The Daily Beast has an excellent article about the decline of Rush Limbaugh, both in terms of the number of his listeners and the quality of his program.  Here are some of my favorite quotes from Avlon’s piece:

“‘This controversy will no doubt give Rush a temporary ratings lift, but it won’t be worth the damage that’s been caused in terms of loss of revenue and advertiser confidence,’ says WTOP program director Laurie Cantillo, who previously directed Limbaugh’s flagship station, WABC. ‘It is perceived by many as an attack on young women who represent the holy grail for ratings. Women 25–54 is the prize demo for most advertisers. Rush’s remarks strike at the heart of the audience they’re trying to reach, hence the apology. This is an audience that’s already been in gradual decline on many right-wing radio stations, so Rush’s gaffe compounds the problem.’”

“‘There’s been a lot of research done on women and talk radio and while women are keenly interested in issues and politics, women tend to reject the in-your-face conflict and combativeness of politics. That’s just not how women are wired,’ says Cantillo. ‘We prefer more civil discourse on the issues. And that’s why all news and talk programming that’s more even-handed are gaining popularity.’  While Rush is still a giant of the talk-radio industry, there are signs of erosion. Right-wing talk-radio ratings have been declining, at least in part because of PPMs, a new, more accurate way of measuring listenership. In Chicago, Boston, and Minneapolis, local talk-radio stations outperform the station that airs Rush and his national conservative-talk cohort. In San Diego, Philadelphia, and Washington, the local NPR station outranks the Rush affiliates.”

“In what might be another ominous sign for Rush & Co., Mike Huckabee will be starting a nationally syndicated radio show in April for the Cumulus network, which could be positioned to displace Rush in some markets. A former preacher, governor, and presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee is highly conservative, but he is also unfailingly civil.”

“There is an irony in the spot Rush has put himself. His career first took off when he was hired as a replacement for the professionally offensive Morton Downey Jr. at Sacramento’s KFBK. ‘Rush was hired because he was passionate but polite—a nice Midwest guy. The agreement was that he would not be rude or cruel,’ says Valerie Geller, his former program director at WABC, director of Geller Media International and author of Beyond Powerful Radio.”

Some will probably doubt that there was ever a time when Rush was civil and polite!  After all, he used the terms “feminazis” and “environmental wackos” even in his early days.  But, in my opinion, whenever Rush focuses on discussing and debating the issues rather than calling people names, he can be quite effective, even logical at times.  And there was a time when he was more willing to dialogue with people about the issues in public, for he appeared on news programs and talk shows (i.e., Donahue) and debated people who disagreed with him.  He still does that sort of thing on his radio program, on some level, but I remember when he had more of a public profile in terms of discussing issues.

I’m pleased that there is a growing number of people desiring a civil discussion of issues—-an exploration of differences and policies as opposed to name-calling and “us vs. them.”

God and the Occult

Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy, Volume I: Greece and Rome (Westminster: Newman, 1959) 271.

The subjective belief in God’s existence is derived by Aristotle from the soul’s experience of ecstasies and prophecies in e.g. the state of sleep, and from the sight of the starry heavens, though such recognition of occult phenomena is really foreign to Aristotle’s later development.

This quote stood out to me because the “occult” and the paranormal have often assured me of God’s existence, or at least the existence of the supernatural. I get a cozy feeling whenever I listen to Coast-to-Coast, with all of its talk about aliens and psychics and haunted houses. I turn it off, however, when it starts talking about demon possession, since that’s something I prefer not to think about, and definitely not experience.

When I was in high school, I had a friend who liked sci fi movies. He was a nominal Catholic who didn’t go to mass that much, and I asked him if he believed in God. He replied, “There has to be a God–there are so many unexplainable things out there!” I’ve come to like his answer more and more over the years, since it finds a basis for piety in the phenomena that baffle us: psychics, aliens, ghosts, people having deja-vu, out-of-body experiences, etc.

Then there are times when fear of supernatural evil draws me closer to God, as I run to him for comfort, reassurance, peace, and strength. When I was young, Garner Ted Armstrong told us stories about how he cast out demons, even from himself (if I’m not mistaken). Whether or not that was true, I’ve heard that the movie, The Exorcist, was based on a real-life event.

That kind of evil scares me, so I try to think about positive things when I watch something about it on TV, hear about it on the radio, or read about it. You know how the Ray Walston character on The Stand said, “If Mother Abigail’s God is real, then the evil guy must be real too!” I tend to have the opposite reaction: If evil spirits are real, then I hope God is also–so he can protect me!

But can religion protect me? That little girl on The Exorcist was religious, for she had a cross near her! At the same time, she also used a Ouija board, and that may have opened her up to bad spirits. That’s where I appreciate the Bible’s injunction for us to stay away from the occult!

I’ve said in this post that the paranormal draws me closer to God. It does and it doesn’t. I talked about this a while back in my post, Ghosts and the Afterlife (see also BryanL’s comments). I wonder how to reconcile the existence of ghosts with biblical ideas about what happens to the dead (e.g., they go to Sheol, or Hades, or heaven, or they don’t know anything, etc.). Can things ever occur outside of this paradigm, as true as it may generally be? Or should we assume that every ghost is actually a demon?

For some reason, I like mystery, or I want to believe that God is behind the unexplainable. Part of me sees the Bible’s description of reality as too narrow and rigid. Yet, I’d be hesitant to visit the “occult” or “New Age” sections of bookstores, since I wouldn’t want to open myself up to something evil!

Is Dr. Dobson a Sinless Perfectionist?

Years ago, I visited the web site of Gil Moegerle, who worked for many years with Dr. James Dobson in Focus on the Family. Due to a variety of factors, Moegerle became embittered with Dr. Dobson, and he wrote a book with the subtle title, James Dobson’s War on America.

One thing that Moegerle claimed on his web site was that Dobson is a sinless perfectionist. In Moegerle’s eyes, that’s why Dobson is so judgmental and self-righteous. It’s part of his Nazarene heritage.

I first heard about the Nazarene doctrine of sinless perfection from a high school English teacher. She was a Baptist, and she and I disagreed on eternal security. One day, we were discussing salvation issues and comparing denominational notes, and she told me that the Nazarenes believe a Christian can arrive at a state of sinlessness. I had a math teacher who was a Nazarene, but I didn’t ask him if that was true.

But what Moegerle was saying about Dobson did not sit well with my spirit. Dobson did not strike me as a person who considered himself sinless. In the 1990′s, I heard him say about his wife, Shirley: “You know, the wonderful thing about marriage is that your spouse accepts you, while knowing about all of your flaws. That’s the way Shirley is with me.” In that statement, he admitted he had flaws. On a program about a couple that was doing good, Dr. Dobson said: “You know, we’re saved by grace, and so you don’t have to do any of this to earn God’s favor. And yet it’s wonderful when people like you choose to make an investment in the lives of others.” He kind of sounded like a free gracer there–like a Zane Hodges and Charles Ryrie type, as opposed to a John MacArthur “Lordship salvation” advocate. And so he did not strike me as a sinless perfectionist.

Dale Buss’ book, Family Man: The Biography of Dr. James Dobson, presents some of Dobson’s religious beliefs–in his own words. Here are some quotes, and I’ve emboldened the parts that I want to stand out:

“[A] notion that has shaped much of Dobson’s philosophy and life is…complex, and its complications come largely from the particulars of Nazarene theology. Because of its emphasis on individual free will, explains [H.B.] London (himself a former Nazarene pastor), his denomination believes in a ‘theology of standing’ in many ways: ‘It means you can lose your salvation. You’re constantly striving to measure up. [Our] definition of sin is that it’s a willful transgression of God’s law. And salvation isn’t automatic as in the Calvinist viewpoint. As a result, not only is there guilt but also pressure to measure up.’

“Dobson stresses that salvation is a gift of God and can’t be deserved by anyone. ‘If we could have earned our salvation, we wouldn’t have needed a Savior,’ he says. Nevertheless, Dobson believes that the Christian’s part of the ‘contract’ also calls for heartfelt repentance and right living after embracing salvation. The doctrine was strongly developed in the eighteenth century by John Wesley, the British founder of Methodism, and later further shaped by the Nazarenes. ‘There is a call on our lives to be as clean as possible with the help of Jesus Christ,’ Dobson says. ‘We fall short; we sin. But we seek forgiveness for sin, and it’s very much a part of our theology that we’re obligated to live as holy a life as we can.’

“‘I do believe someday I’ll kneel before the Lord, and I want to hear him say, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant!’ What I do and how I live is important. In Matthew 7, Jesus said there will be those on [Judgment Day] who confess him but whom he never knew. Why? Because they didn’t do–D-O–the work of his Father. It’s an emphasis on attempting to walk the talk.’

“Dobson is hesitant to discuss this aspect of his beliefs in public because some people misinterpret his holiness doctrine as an assertion that, with enough effort, a person can lead a truly sinless life. Nobody, he affirms, can avoid sinning in the sense of having shortcomings, faults, and other flaws that display our mere humanity. ‘But from the Wesleyan perspective, sin is a willful disobedience or defiance to a known law. When you refuse to do what God tells you, you know it and understand it. The apostle Paul writes that we have a conscience within us, so that none of us has an excuse. The concept of sanctification is that God gives humans the ability, through the Holy Spirit, to live without deliberately defying God.

“‘Just look at Hebrews 10:26,’ which promises God’s vengeance on those who insist on sinning after learning the truth of the gospel, Dobson says. ‘That’s interpreted very differently from my Calvinist friends. But I don’t believe you can disobey God deliberately, do all kinds of heinous things, and then just go sweeping into [God's] kingdom.

“The characterization that is made by people who don’t misunderstand it is that Wesleyans think they’re perfect or that they think they can live without any shortcomings. That’s crazy. But I try real hard not to shake my fist in God’s fist and defy him, and God gives me the encouragement and the strength through the Holy Spirit not to violate a known law. And that’s very important to me.’

“It’s clear, London says, that ‘a large part of the pressure that [Dobson] puts on himself to be such a perfectionist and to achieve may come out of his theology, or at least out of the inward pressure that we Nazarenes put on ourselves to be loved and appreciated–to be the best at what we do.’

“This also helps explain the high expectations that Dobson places on others in work, in relationships, and in life. And if the heresy of fist-shaking at God sounds familiar to his fans, that’s because Wesleyan theology also, as Dobson puts it, ‘influences my approach to child rearing. I’ve talked about having a three-year-old son, and if you tell him to go open the door and he misunderstands it and he closes it instead, he’ll never be aware that he’s done the opposite of what you just asked him to do,’ Dobson explains. ‘But when he stomps his foot and says, ‘I won’t do it,’ that’s when he’s most likely to face the consequences.’

“This worldview has influenced ‘nearly everything about me,’ Dobson says. ‘My teaching all comes out of my theology’” (23-25).

According to Dobson, Christians can arrive at a state where they do not commit deliberate and willful sins, even though they may still have flaws. But what is a “willful sin,” and what is a “flaw”? For example, are shyness and introversion “sins”? I know that God wants me to reach out to others and not be self-centered. But I have a lot of social anxiety, so I often don’t follow that command. Am I deliberately sinning? I doubt that Dobson would think so, for he has stated that some people are just naturally quiet, and he has tried to teach us quiet types how to have a conversation. And, yet, aren’t I violating a known law?

How about lust? I know that Jesus equates lust with adultery in Matthew 5:27-28. But I have it anyway, and I enjoy it. I don’t understand how Jesus can command us not to have sexual desire (if that indeed is what he’s doing), since it’s such an integral part of the human condition. Of course, Dr. Dobson has a looser attitude on this than many evangelicals, for he says that parents shouldn’t try to stop their kids from masturbating. In a book of his that I read many years ago, Dobson says that his dad told him not to worry about masturbation. “You can masturbate, and that won’t hurt your Christian walk,” he said. Dobson said that his dad was a conservative Nazarene, yet he was willing to make concessions to human nature. I can understand Dobson being real here, but how’s that mesh with his view that Christians shouldn’t deliberately sin?

There are some sins that I don’t want to do, but I can’t exactly shake them. I know that God equates hatred with murder (Matthew 5:22), for example, yet there are still people I hate. I don’t want to see them dead, mind you, but I just have a lot of anger towards them. I would prefer to have inner peace, but I can’t shake my ego, or my disappointment, or my sense of having been wronged, or my jealousy. At times, God’s known will appears unattainable.

And there are times when Dobson appears more compassionate and pastoral than the above quotes seem to indicate. From the above quotes, you’d think that a Christian puts himself on dangerous ground whenever he deliberately opposes God. But, in When God Doesn’t Make Sense, Dobson acknowledges that people may have legitimate reasons to be mad at God, for horrible things happen in life. But he says that we should bring ourselves to forgive God, which is not to say that God has done anything wrong. It just means that we should let go of our anger towards him. Here, Dobson recognizes that even Christians are human–with all of the imperfections that humanity entails. But how’s he reconcile that with his belief that Christians should be perfect, in the sense of avoiding deliberate disobedience or bad attitudes about God?

I agree with Dobson that being a Christian should make a difference in one’s life. The non-Lordship types act as if Christians are God’s children even if they live in sin, whereas Dobson seems to think that deliberate sin can disqualify a Christian from salvation. I wonder if there can be a middle ground between the two positions, one that stresses the need for holiness while preserving a God of unconditional love.

Personally, I assume that God is patient with me. He wants me to be better than I am right now, but that doesn’t mean that I have to stress out in an attempt to be morally sinless, all to preserve my salvation. In the words of the promises of Alcoholics Anonymous, “We seek spiritual progress, not spiritual perfection.” I still think that the goal is some form of perfection, however, but that’s the result of growth, not me deciding to do everything right at the present moment. And God is with me on this journey of growth.

Where’s My Bitterness?

I’m somewhat a part of the Armstrongite recovery community, since Felix links to my blog on his excellent site, Post WCG Life and Theology. For those who don’t know much about Armstrongism, it was a movement founded by Herbert W. Armstrong in the 1930′s. Armstrong was a traveling salesman, and he was one of the first evangelists to take advantage of radio. As a result, he built a religious empire, and he met with prominent world leaders later in his life.

The mainstream Christian community considers Armstrongism a cult because it denies the trinity. Also, it’s outside the norm because it observes the seventh-day Sabbath and the festivals of the Old Testament (or at least it claims to do so. An orthodox Jew would laugh off Armstrongite “observance” as a joke!). But Armstrongism is also what Hank Hanegraaff calls a sociological cult: it is oppressive and authoritarian. It fleeced the flock, which led to legal problems in the 1970′s. (60 Minutes did a story on this!) Several people still bear the scars of their experience with Armstrongism.

Readers of James’ Thoughts and Musings will probably notice a difference between me and other former Armstrongites with blogs: I don’t display any bitterness or anger towards Armstrong. Ordinarily, I refer to his belief system to inform the reader about how I was raised–the thoughts with which I’ve interacted most of my life. But I don’t talk about how that movement has mistreated me.

So why aren’t I bitter? It’s not because I’ve learned the art of forgiveness. Believe me, I’ve not! Here is the reason:

I was not really a part of Armstrong’s sociological structure. My parents taught me his belief system as the correct way to interpret the Bible. I listened to his movement’s tapes and read his books. Often, I played his tapes to help me fall asleep, not because they were boring, but rather because they put my mind in a state of coziness (believe it or not). When we went to church (and, many Sabbaths, we did not), we attended the Church of God, International, the group established by Herbert’s son, Garner Ted Armstrong, who was booted out of Herbert’s group. And the CGI wasn’t really that horrible, sociologically speaking. Sure, there was the typical group-think that exists in virtually every organization, but it didn’t boot too many people out, unlike its parent group.

My family also went to the Church of God (Seventh Day), the group from which Herbert Armstrong seceded to start his own movement. We knew that the CoG7 differed from us on certain issues. It didn’t keep the annual holy days, for example. But we still fellowshipped with them and enjoyed their company.

One thing I credit to my dad is that he never said something was true just on the basis of his saying so. Rather, he always showed us why he believed something was true. Although we as a family believed in certain doctrines, questions were always inevitable, because interaction with real life was a given. “Why can’t I keep Christmas, like my friends?” “We observe the Old Testament law, but didn’t Paul say we don’t have to do that anymore?” “You say the Holy Spirit is not a person. Then how come he does personal sorts of things in the New Testament, like speaking?” “We just went to a funeral in which the Southern Baptist preacher said that our great grandma is in heaven. But we believe that people don’t go to heaven after they die, right?”

I guess what I’m trying to communicate is this: It was all an intellectual exercise for me. In my eyes, the Armstrongite belief system was one way of seeing the world, in the midst of other ideas that were out there. For a while, I maintained that our belief system was the best (of course), but I eventually got to the point where I thought that Armstrongism wasn’t the only valid way to interpret the Scriptures. Sure, it has its points. I can see why someone may arrive at those sorts of doctrines in reading the Bible. But I can also understand why people may reach opposite conclusions.

It was never personal for me, for I had never experienced the group’s oppression. When we did go to church, we attended one that was tame compared to others that were out there. And we felt free to go outside of that organization for fellowship. Also, my family and friends in the Armstrongite movement did not just accept everything the organization told us. We questioned. We criticized. We even laughed and joked.

Although I don’t have much bitterness against Armstrong, I’ve been around the bitterness for most of my life. There are people in my family who experienced oppression by the movement. Every time my dad and I went to a new splinter group, I would hear the usual sad stories about how bad the Armstrongite movement was. I can understand their need to heal by talking about their problems. But the thought often entered my mind: “Just once, I’d like to hear about religion without hearing the name Armstrong!”

Don’t get me wrong. I have my bitterness against certain ideologies and movements: evangelicalism, liberalism, etc., etc., etc. Part of this is that their writings and speeches turn me off. But there is also the human element: I have met liberals and evangelicals who have somehow wounded me, not always intentionally. Or they have turned me off with their smug self-righteousness.

It would be so easy to bury myself under a rock and never interact with people again. That way, I wouldn’t get hurt! But I’d also miss out on all the decent people of faith who are out there, people who have much to teach me with their words and their lives.

Dr. Dobson and Authenticity

I’m reading Dale Buss’s Family Man: The Biography of Dr. James Dobson. It is a touching book, for it narrates how Focus on the Family has helped numerous families throughout the world.

As I was reading it, however, I was thinking about authenticity. Here are a few parts that disturbed me:

1. The chapter “The Velvet Microphone” traces the origins of Dobson’s radio program. Here are some excerpts:

“…Dobson works hard to make the honing of his delivery come across as unscripted. ‘He said being natural means you’re going to repeat, stumble around, sometimes rephrase things–not be perfect, like reading a script,’ Gary Bender says. ‘When he first started, he said, he had a terrible time trying to be natural, to be a communicator who didn’t sound as if he was reading something. But he got to the point where he understood who he was, that he could do it, and do it in a special way’” (81).

“‘Usually if [Dobson's] critiquing me,’ [radio associate Paul] Maier says, ‘he’ll say the content was great, very educational–but where’s the pathos, the heart, the emotion? Recently I was doing a show on foster care, and he complimented me on the show. But then he played the tape back and said, ‘Right here,’ when the woman said such and such, ‘you could have said something empathetic like how hard that must have been for her.’ He said, ‘Make sure you go for the pathos. That’s what makes good radio’” (82).

I don’t know. That just disappoints me. Dobson has to work hard to be authentic? So all that warmth and empathy are part of an act? I remember this one episode of Focus on the Family in which a minister broke down crying as he recalled his dad’s mistreatment of him as a child. Dobson then said in a solemn, compassionate manner, “Isn’t that amazing? How these memories can impact someone after so many years?” Was that an act?

I don’t want to imply that Dobson doesn’t care about people. Of course he does. He works hard, day in and day out, to meet the specific needs of every family that contacts him. He takes his work very seriously. He’s practically a perfectionist! But it bothers me when I read that someone is deliberately trying to sound authentic. It’s almost like he’s an actor.

But does anyone of us act differently in this regard? Those are what social skills are: trying to act in a way that puts people at ease, whether we feel happy and cheerful or not. I’m trying to learn such skills myself. In fact, I’ve said on James’ Thoughts and Musings that I have to work extra hard to write in a conversational manner, since that is what reaches people. And that’s probably what Dr. Dobson is doing: he wants to communicate his message to people to help them out, but he realizes that there is a specific way to do that effectively.

2. The chapter “The Political Animal” is about Dobson’s involvement in the Republican Party. In 1996, he was initially excited about Phil Gramm’s run for the Presidency. That was before he and other Christian conservatives actually met with Gramm. Dobson told Gramm the following:

“Senator, there are millions and millions of people out there, good family people, trying to raise their kids, trying to keep them moral, trying to teach them what they believe, who are very agitated and very concerned because they don’t hear anybody echoing what they believe…If you would hone in on those people and speak their language and talk to their hearts and identify with the things they care about instead of just talking about taxes, the economy, and money…you will have millions of people following you” (161).

“I’m not a preacher and I can’t do that,” Phil Gramm replied. “I’m not running for preacher. I’m running for President. I just don’t feel comfortable going around telling other people how to live their lives.”

Dobson then told him, “Senator, you will never reach our people.”

But at least Phil Gramm was authentic. What did Dobson want Gramm to do? Pretend like he was an evangelical to reach out to Christian conservatives? How’s it help anyone–Christian conservatives included–for a candidate to act like someone he’s not?

In virtually every Presidential election year (except when the nominee is a true believer, like Reagan or George W. Bush), Dobson threatens to form a third party if the G.O.P. doesn’t include a strong anti-abortion plank in its platform. But what’s such arm-twisting accomplish? If a candidate isn’t firmly committed to the pro-life cause, putting words on a piece of paper won’t do anything. Again, does making people inauthentic lead to genuine change?

I like Dr. Dobson, and I’m not saying these things to be hip among evangelical intellectuals–the types who try to act cool by criticizing Christian conservative leaders. I also believe that, in many respects, Dr. Dobson is authentic. He genuinely cares about families and the condition of our country. When he says something, you can be sure that he truly believes it. But public relations and politics involve a lot of inauthenticity, which is sometimes good, and sometimes bad.