Why I Can’t Stand Glenn Beck

Admittedly, I have been away for quite some time, but writing for fun loses some of its enjoyment when you’re constantly writing for a grade. However, I would like to start writing in this space again because I’d like to have some part in contributing more civil tones to political dialog in this country.  Since that is my wish, I’d like to start by offering a critique of one of America’s most uncivil political voices:  Glenn Beck.

I know, I know.  I’m a white, conservative, middle class American, who likes his guns and religion, so how could I not love the guy?  Simple.  While I am all the things I’ve listed above, I also enjoy the periodic sensible argument.  It’s quite a refreshing thing to hear if you haven’t had that opportunity, but Glenn Beck has a tin ear for the musical tones of logic.  If logical argumentation were music, Glenn Beck would be the tone deaf lead in a coffee house screamo group.

First, the logic.  Watch a segment of the guy’s show and count how many rhetorical questions he asks.  A rhetorical question is not a flourish for Beck so much as it is a carpet bombing.   The nature of the rhetorical question is that the answer is implied and not stated or proven.  It is thus not considered a premise capable of supporting a cogent conclusion.  Yet Beck jumps from these rhetorical questions to conclusions of impending communism and leftist plots upon the Constitution and the good people of America.  This is not to say that he doesn’t make arguments or present evidence, he does, and that’s my second reason for dislike.

Second, the evidence.  Most of Beck’s evidence is circumstantial.  Does Obama cater to progressive liberals?  Sure.  Does he have a less than accurate understanding of constitutional principles?  Perhaps.  Has he done little to improve America?  Most Americans seem to think so.  Does that make Beck right?  Absolutely not.  Beck takes these assertions about our President and the people he appoints and then spins together a narrative of impending doom and gloom; of the evil of socialism and the end of America as we know it (though in a segment this week, he claimed to have reason for hope).  Beck essentially takes what is known and then marries that knowledge to his preconceived notions about the nature of American government (more on this in a moment).  What he seems to forget is that evidence can be interpreted in a myriad of ways, and the presense of leaders with socialist tendencies do not make a socialist America a foregone conclusion.

Third, the false assertions.  Beck is a populist, no doubt about it, but that should not be counted against him.  Many great leaders have had similar political roots.  However, what is irritating is the false assumptions of Beck’s populist narrative.  He sees the Constitution as some semi-divinely inspired document with a more or less fixed meaning and tells people to read the Constitution as though it were some political cure-all.  It’s not.  It’s an open-ended document that is not interpreted by itself, but, for better or for worse, by the political philosophies of its handlers.  Additionally, Beck loves to castigate the “media” and the “elites” as bringing America’s crisis upon her (I believe our President likes to do that too).  In Beck’s populist fairy land, the common people are the suffering innocents.  It couldn’t possibly be our fault that such elected leaders get into office (did we really vote for them?); we couldn’t have been the ones to create our culture of greed and excess, oh no, that was the “elites,” a rather nebulous and undefined term, which I believe means anyone opposed to, and making more money than, Beck.

Finally, the self-righteousness.  Beck doesn’t just like telling liberals they’re wrong, he also loves reminding viewers he’s right.  No show (at least not the one’s I’ve seen) can go by without Beck reminding his viewers that he had predicted this event, or that occurrence as though he were some prophet of old.  I would almost be OK with such an attitude if Beck were seeking to justify someone other than himself.  It’s this kind of self-righteous, I-know-the-truth-and-am-graciously-imparting-it-to-you attitude that characterizes the man as more of a cult leader than a political pundit.

This is not all to say that there isn’t some method to Beck’s madness.  He has certainly hit a nerve with many American’s and in some ways provides a cathartic rant that many wish they had the opportunity to vent.  However, the fact that he and those like him (conservative and liberal) cannot step off their respective soap boxes, but would rather turn them in to small, self-serving industries of talk shows and best sellers suggests a deep cynicism of American politics and people that does little to move us past this current rut of acrimonious partisanship.

Obama Is My President

I may not have voted for him, and I definitely didn’t want him to win, but Barack Obama is my president.  Why do I say this?  Because this is democracy, and that’s what democracy is about.  Democracy allows for the public debate over what course a country should take and then it allows the people to choose that course.  However, the thing that makes a successful democracy tick is not the pre-election debate, or the free election.  What makes it all work so that we can do this again is the post election peace.  No rancor, no bitterness, and “charity for all” as Lincoln would say. 

I don’t agree with Obama’s policies, but I’m on board with his desire to make America better.  If he wants to make America better I’m okay with that.  I don’t think his ideas are the best way to make America better, but he promised America that he would listen to both sides and I’m willing to hold him to that promise in whatever small way I can.  He is my president now, and I am going to support him. 

Why?  It’s not only my duty as a citizen, it’s my duty as a Christian.  As a citizen, my service is to a country and a Constitution, not to an individual president, or congressman.  The only reason that America has lasted this long is because every generation has recognized that the power of America lies in its founding documents and institutions, not in the men and women who are elected to run those institutions and interpret those documents.  As such, how should my duty to my country change because the president has changed?  It shouldn’t change, and it hasn’t.

More importantly, as a Christian citizen my duty is to support my president.  This doesn’t mean I march lockstep with him.  It means that I intercede for him in prayer before God.  Paul spells out the basic duties of Christians in their relations to the state in his letters to Timothy and Romans.  One basic duty is to pray for leaders everywhere (1 Tim. 2:1-2), and the other is to submit to authorities (Rom. 13:1-7).  Both duties are incumbent upon all Christians to follow, and I feel they are quite often ignored in American churches.  Rather than praying for Obama this Sunday, I fear many pastors will be praying that God spare America from the damage he could do.  Rather than submit to the new presidency, give due honor and work with the administration, I fear first thoughts will be given to opposition.  We need to reexamine what it means to be not just a citizen, but a Christian citizen.

The real election battle has now begun:  how will we work with the new administration?  Will we be ready to pray for our president, his leadership and his wisdom?  Or will it be only embittered criticism and complaining that’s coming out of our conservative base?  It’s time to do what Americans do: work together and move on towards a greater goal than our petty partisan policies.

Candidates Make Their Cases at Saddleback

Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California hosted a open “Civil Forum” for the presumptive presidential candidates last week that set a new standard for political discussion in our harshly divided political landscape.  I was on vacation without a cable-equipped TV (the edge of civilization) and was unable to watch the proceedings until today, but before the event grows too old I must comment on it.

First, and foremost, people need to take note of this format.  Keeping the candidates separated during the discussion and presumably without the ability to hear the procedings in the next room while asking identical questions removed several layers of the carefully layered veneer of image that both candidates have slathered on in the course of  this race.  The impromptu nature of the candidates responses allowed for a more personal look to be had….  And in such a format, John McCain shocked me.

Yes, John McCain.  The guy everyone says is too old to run (I was one of them); the guy who’s fighting the last war and not this one; the guy who can’t keep up with the youthful exuberance of his rival.  If exuberance was a contest in this forum, McCain won hands down.  He punctuated his succinct and simple answers with personal anecdotes and stories with a gusto and passion that belayed his age.  He came into the forum with a message of sacrifice and no surrender, tempered by a devotion to hearth and home that I had never before seen him exhibit.  His support for private schools, vouchers, and homeschooling in his call for greater opportunity in education was of particular consequence to me, as a teacher and former homeschool student.

Though I’ve tipped my hand to show that I feel John McCain only improved his standing with this event, and even jumped ahead in some polls, I have to give credit to Barack Obama for his thoughtful answers.  People told me he hedged on answer, that he hemmed and hawed, and that he didn’t really answer the questions, but I respectfully disagree.  As much as I dislike Obama’s politics, I really like this guy.  He is a thoughtful man whose answers to Pastor Rick Warren’s questions were as nuanced as John McCain’s were succinct.  While McCain spoke with a directness that became him as a distinguished veteran and elder statesman, Obama spoke like the professor his is.  His answers were pithy and definitely demonstrated that the man giving them had thought about them very deeply.  Sadly, deep thought and nuance can quite often communicate as cop outs on prime time television.  Obama certainly seemed (a relative assumption) to not be as relaxed as McCain, but it didn’t stop him from giving forth his best efforts.

I’ve sung their praises, now the critiqe.  Obama got lost in his own intellectual depths.  He’s a smart guy, there’s no denying it, but sometimes intellectual depth doesn’t help when you’ve got limited time.  Obama enjoyed the intellectual aspect of the debate, but it kept him in an ivory tower of generalization.  McCain, with his concise language, was able to give more substance to his responses.  While I loved McCain’s simple response to dealing with evil (“Defeat it!”) there were definitely a couple times when his lack of nuance gave Obama more credibility than he might have deserved.  I point specifically to the question on what the candidates Christian faith meant to them.  Obama’s longer response brought a very positive approbation from the largely Christian audience while McCain’s shortness may have come off as disingenuous.

All in all, this was my first opportunity to see the candidates side by side, and now I can’t wait for the elections.  Two very different men with very different styles and ideas campaigning for the highest office in the land.  It doesn’t get much better that this.  Both demonstrated their abilities and proved that it is not a foregone conclusion as to who will be the next president.

Clyde Cook: 1935-2008

Last week, my alma mater, Biola University, lost one of its great advocates and leaders.  Clyde Cook, president from 1982-2007, passed away on April 11th at his home.  Having attended Biola when this man was president and seeing this dedicated servant lead with such humility and compassion I can say with the writer of Hebrews that this is a saint “of whom the world was not worthy.”

His passing was not marked in major newspapers, or periodicals.  And while thousands attend his memorial service, it will go unnoticed outside of Southern California.  However, this man is an example of what is best in humanity.  Raised on the missions field in Asia and imprisoned in camps with his family by the Japanese afer the fall of Hong Kong in 1942, Dr. Cook saw injustice at early age.  And yet, it is a testimony to the faith of his parents that he grew to manhood with an eye to serve and to continue to share the love of Christ with the world.  Having been recruited by 13 major schools as a star basketball athlete, he willing sacrificed the glory of the national athletic stage for the greater glory of the cross, attending miniscule Biola College in the 1950s and thus beginning a relationship with that institution that would span half a century.

I first met Dr. Cook as a prospective student visiting Biola in 2003.  Taking a campus tour, the group I was in ran into Dr. Cook outside the library as he was closing a meeting.  Though he had pressing engagements for the day, he stopped to chat with us about the school.  That interaction, was a determining factor in my attending Biola.  If the president of the school could take such an interest in students, I reasoned, certainly that same attention will be given by all those under him.  I wasn’t disappointed.

Dr. Cook led Biola as its president for 25 years.  In a world where the average term of a college president is less than 10 years, this is exemplary.  Dr. Cook oversaw Biola’s transition from college to university; and as the institution transformed itself into a leader in Christian thought and education Dr. Cook was there to keep it rooted in its foundation of biblical truth and scholarship.

Despite all his successes and incredible achievements, what remains is the man’s love of humanity.  He never tired of interacting with the students he led.  It was not uncommon to see him eating in the cafeteria with his wife Anna Belle, in the stands for basketball games and chapel, or walking the campus to see that all was in order.  And on the night before my graduation in a culmination chapel for the seniors I had an opportunity to thank him for his excellent leadership.  To my absolute surprise, after accepting my thanks he asked me, “Tim, what do you plan to do after you graduate?”  Somehow, with thousands of other names and tasks to keep in order, he had made the time to remember the name of one student and to inquire into his future plans.

That moment captures the spirit of that great man.  Everything he did was to see that students like myself where ready to go out into the world and to impact it for Christ.  He never forgot to remind us of our mission, and he didn’t forget the names of the people whom he was leading towards the accomplishment of that mission.

Dr. Cook, was a model of Christian charity and humility.  He was living proof that man is indeed made in the image of God, and sanctified by the work of Christ.   The man’s life and legacy will be a testimony to the love of Christ for years to come.

Evangelizing the Evangelicals

In 1979, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were known more for their work in Christian evangelical circles than for their influence in national politics.  Within a decade they, and the forces they rallied in the form of the Moral Majority, would be considered to be the deciding influence in winning two elections for Ronald Reagan, and one for his successor, George H.W. Bush, and cementing in the imagination of the American public an image of Christianity as a conservative social action group.  We’ve been going down hill ever since.

While there’s no longer a Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition makes sure that the grassroots evangelical political machine is ever-ready to act and advocate.  Yet despite the undenied influence of the evangelical block (witness GOP candidates vying for its support) it is interesting to note the failure of this demographic to meet some of its key policy goals.  These goals include outlawing abortion, and a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.  Even more interesting is the seemingly backward shift our society has taken away from the values and virtues this group extols though over 70% of Americans claim to belong to some Christian church.  Why the disconnect?  Why the failure?  I submit to you, my reader, that it is because Christians have failed to define their politics in light of their faith, but rather define their faith in light of their politics.  As a result, they no longer practically believe what they say they believe, nor stand for what they claim to stand for.  In short, the American church is dangerously close, if it hasn’t already become, an irrelevant agent of change due to its over-concern with politics and its lack of concern for God.  The apostle John would call it ”forgetting your first love.” 

No doubt different factions within the American church would blame some other group for what has transpired.  Conservative Christians would blame liberal Christians for ripping the guts out of the gospel, while liberal Christians would blame the conservatives for not moving with the times, but remaining locked in the past.  Both groups, however, miss the point:  they have defined themselves by a political ideology.  Liberal Christians are the Democratic Christians, and the conservatives belong with the Republicans.  Liberal Christians are accused, not without reason, or selling out to postmodernism; and conservative Christians, not without reason, are charged with being socially intolerant (a nasty charge in a free, secular society). 

Into this civil war within the church add the Federalist ideology that calls for freedom for all, and the American dream that promises success for the hard working, and you have a theology more rooted in modern social-political theory than in Scriptural theology.  Scriptures now tell us how to vote, rather than how to be saved;  how to be socially active, rather than how to know God.  Our gospel no longer redeems the lost, but rehabilitates the socially underpriviledged. 

The irony is that American Christianity became enmeshed in politics to prevent the very social disorder we now see occurring.  With that entanglement, the church worsened what it sought to solve because its politicization confirmed in the minds of secularists what they had believed all along:  that Christianity was a power hungry religion out to subject the world to its narrow minded faith.   The result is a social civil war that has given little hope to the hopeless and has not done anything to better our society.

Reader, whether you consider yourself conservative or liberal I ask you to consider what influences your faith.  Do we not first look at our world from a political perspective and then maybe try to fit it into a Bible verse (if we remember where we last saw our Bible that is)?  Do we not consider “What Would Jesus Do?” and then supply our own preconceived conclusions? 

The American church has become too enlightened for its own good, too full of its own thoughts to hear those of God.  We are shutting God out in favor of having a Christian president.  It is we who now need to be evangelized, for we are growing incapable of evangelizing.  We no longer are rendering to Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God’s.  Rather we chant with the Pharisees:  “We have to king but Caesar.”