Kris and I listened last night to James Dobson’s criticisms of Barack Obama’s 2006 speech. I found it on the “Listen to Daily Broadcast”. I don’t know if it is archived, but I did my best to listen carefully and fairly. What to say?
The scuffle was made public yesterday on the internet, and I first read it on CNN. Essentially, Obama spoke about how to be religious and live out one’s faith in a pluralistic society and do so in a way that respects the views of others. Dobson essentially accused Obama of distorting the Bible and the Christian faith and how Christians ought to live in our society.
I hope you can listen to Dobson’s talk; listen to how he represents what Obama was saying. Listen carefully. Judge for yourself. Weigh in here.
Here’s my take: Dobson and his companion commentator routinely distorted what Obama was saying by rephrasing and capturing what he said in their own context and for their own agendas. For instance, Obama hypothesized (Dobson didn’t get this) what would happen if we moved all nonChristians out of our society. Even then, he was suggesting, we’d have diversity. Then, Obama asked, if we lived out the Bible which parts would we choose? Would it be Leviticus or Deuteronomy — and he brings up shell fish and stoning one’s son — or would it be the Sermon on the Mount, which Obama stated would be difficult for the Defense Dept to apply. Dobson and his guest got into how the OT laws aren’t for today.
What they miss here is that Obama is talking about how to live in a pluralistic society.
Here are the words of Obama: “Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?” Obama said. “Would we go with James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s?”
Dobson’s response here was to use the word “equate” — as if Obama equated the two. Dobson’s show suggested that inasmuch as Sharpton was a racial bigot that he (Dobson) was being accused of that, which is filling in the lines with things Obama did not say. This was an unfair and uncharitable representation of what Obama was saying. Obama was giving two examples, two completely at odds versions of the Christian faith in our world. Obama doesn’t equate the two; he connects the two as two kinds, two ends of a spectrum perhaps. Diversity will still obtain is his point.
My big point is that Dobson is doing Christians, evangelical Christians, and the country a disservice in misrepresenting the intent of Obama’s comments.
Look, this is not about my defense of Obama for President; I still don’t know who I will vote for. This is about public civility and discourse, and we’ll never get anywhere if we don’t represent the other person accurately.
Any comments? But please be civil and reasonable.
Dobson on Obama
June 25, 2008 By 210 Comments
Scot,
Have you seen this site “James Dobson Doesnt Speak For Me”?
http://www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com
It seems to be a pretty good side-by-side comparison of what the two men said, along with a petition to sign for those who disagree with Dobson.
Well said Scot. I think your thoughts will resonate with many on this topic. And I totally agree with you.
I second the “well said”.
Dobson has a political agenda which drives him, I guess. This is not (only) about a dissection of Obama’s view on religion, this is about making one party look ‘more Christian’ than the other.
So is this. Were I an American citizen, I would totally vote for Obama.
Scot McKnight on Dobson and Obama « Ramblings from Red Rose
[...] Scot McKnight on Dobson and Obama Evangelical scholar/emerging church writer (if that’s how you would describe him) Scot McKnight of Jesus Creed has posted his thoughts on Focus on the Family’s James Dobson’s criticism of Democratic presidential candidate Barak Obama. Â McKnight feels Dobson distorts what Obama was trying to say and that he didn’t fully listen to him. [...]
I haven’t re-read Obama’s speech, but I did read it a few months ago and was overwhelmed by its clarity and general level of religious discourse for a politician and lawyer.
The quality of Obama’s address has not changed in the intervening years, but the level of discourse has. Dobson has brought the discussion down to his level, more about misleading than having folks decide for themselves. It worries me that we’ve arrived here as a country. The question remains where we the conversation.
Thanks for chiming in on this, Scot. We’ve got to be able to talk about religion in public life, including our beloved version of Christianity, without demonizing those grappling with pluralistic society. I am sorry Dr. Dobson appeared to try to score points at Senator Obama’s expense.
Here is where I found this program archived and was able to listen to the segment on Obama: http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Focus_on_the_Family/archives.asp
Unfortunately, I agree that James Dobson and his host misunderstand what Obama was getting at. Unfortunately this program has alot of clout, but people need to understand where Obama is coming from. And what I hear from the clips, as well as what I remember of that speech as well as what else I’ve heard puts Obama in a different light than what Dobsen and company understand. In fact, if that’s the same speech I read in the past, and I did read one on faith and government from Obama, I found it very good, myself. I don’t think at all that Obama was putting down Dobsen as Dobsen thinks he was.
This also reminds me of Reinhold Niebuhr who I want to read, and the recent discussion from Dr. Stackhouse’s book. As well as Bonhoeffer’s “Letters and Papers in Prison” which I haven’t finished, and I need to get my own copy of it.
But people will have to judge for themselves on all this. The people who reguarly listen and are influenced by James Dobson are not going to get into all of that, I suspect, but evangelicals who begin to do so are going to have some problems, I’m afraid, with James Dobson.
I was disturbed by Dobson’s misrepresentation of Obama myself. Just because Obama has certain ideas and platforms that do not cohere with the Scriptures does not mean that taking him out of context is acceptable. Nothing hardens the heart towards a person or movement more than hard-headed nearsightedness. It makes Christians look like they are out for the sake of fighting and not for truth or love. There are too many reasons to be suspicious of any politician–too many, in fact, that it strikes me silly that Dobson would feel that he needs to distort words and context. While I would tend to agree more with Dobson than Obama on most issues, I just cannot support misrepresentation.
Great comment, Jimmy. I really appreciate your honest and fair-minded approach. Just the sort of dialog we need these days.
Itâs too bad that Dobson didnât let Obamaâs voting record do the speaking. Obama is for expanding abortion services. He voted for partial birth abortion and against parental notification. Those issues should disqualify him as a canidadate
I am not at all a fan of Mr. Obama, but I immediately came to his defense after I heard the ill-considered remarks of Mr. Dobson! Oh! Jimmy said it best: “While I would tend to agree more with Dobson than Obama on most issues, I just cannot support misrepresentation.”
Amen and Amen to all the above. This is exactly what the book “UnChristian” is all about. Taking a fellow brother to task over the airwaves is wrong in my humble opinion and even worse is mis-representing him. I am becoming increasingly annoyed by the approach of many of these folks. What ever happened to listening to what Jesus said, i.e., “Love your Enemies”; “Turn the other Cheek”, and all those other difficult sayings of His. I guess more and more of these folks are finding easier to follow thier own agenda versus His; and then we wonder why folks just look at “Christians” and just shake their head in wonder and sometimes disgust…..
Sad days these are fer sure…..; but we who Love God and Love People must press on in Love!
IHL,
Richie
I don’t think Dobson is misrepresenting what Obama said specifically about the bible – the fact is based on what Obama said – he does distort the the traditional understanding of the bible and it as a born-again Christian – it was pretty offensive.
Scot,
The speech to which Dobson is responding is from a 2006 conference hosted by Jim Wallis and Sojourners. Here’s a link to the speech: http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0611&article=061110.
In the speech offers a Rawlsian view of faith in public life. Along the way, he makes comments about the Bible that are not helpful. Playing Leviticus against the Sermon on the Mount actually has the effect of undermining the credibility of Leviticus (and thus of the authority of scripture). When you combine this with the fact that earlier this year he played Romans 1 against the Sermon on the Mount in defense of homosexuality, I think we can see a pattern of scripture distortion.
You already know how I feel about Obama. He is the most pro-abortion candidate that has ever been nominated for President. How any pro-life person could even consider voting for the guy is beyond me.
Thanks,
Denny
I am happily surprised at the comments thus far on this thread as I have been in Christian groups where Dobson is revered almost more than Jesus.
Yet Dobson has a history of this kind of distortion. I have heard and read Focus on the Family in several instances strongly imply (but never state explicitly) that Roe vs. Wade legalizes abortion at any point in a pregnancy, up to the moment of birth, when that simply is not true. One does not have to believe in abortion to condemn twisting the facts about it. This kind of distorting, I believe, fundamentally holds his audience in contempt, treating them not as people to be informed but as objects to be manipulated. This strategy has worked very successfully for him in the past, and I am grateful he is finally being called on it.
Hey Denny. The issue for the post, though, isn’t about the merits or demerits of Obama … but whether or not Dobson has distorted what Obama said.
I confess to having stopped listening to Dobson many years ago and those reasons will not be listed here.
But in this campaign, Mr. Dobson will not have a franchise on misrepresentation. I think this campaign is going to be pretty ugly and not necessarily by the candidates themselves.
However, at the very least those of us who claim to follow the Lord Jesus Christ have an obligation to communicate truth in context in all of our communication. I hope those who have platforms will not sacrifice truth on the altar of their own polictical agenda(s).
I don’t understand why Dotson has to misrepresent Obama to make a point when there are plenty of honest conservative issues that can and should be brought up. Unfortunately Dotson is blinded by his own political bias and is unable to listen carefully to anyone he perceives to be on the wrong side of family values as he understands them. I would agree with Dodson on most issues but I have noticed for years that He unfairly demonizes those with whom he disagrees with.
McKnight on Dobson on Obama » The Upward Way Press
[...] Scot McKnight agrees with me: Dobson on Obama My big point is that Dobson is doing Christians, evangelical Christians, and the country a disservice in misrepresenting the intent of Obamaâs comments. [...]
“It makes Christians look like they are out for the sake of fighting and not for truth or love.”
That sums things up very neatly. Dr. Dobson is in permanent culture warrior mode, which I think detracts (1) from his personal ministry and, ironically, from the very political causes (the pro-life cause, in particular) he is trying to advance. From the comments I’ve seen in recent years, he doesn’t seem to be able to process anything outside of a political lens, which is particularly interesting in this case since he has said he won’t vote for McCain.
Scot,
Don’t you agree that it’s a “distortion” of the Bible’s message to suggest that it endorses slavery and that it enjoins execution for disobedient children? That’s what Obama said, and I totally see why Dobson sees it as a distortion. Do you disagree?
Denny
Denny,
I realize I am not Scot – but will comment anyway. I do think that it is a distortion of the Bible’s message – but only because we read the Bible as a progressive revelation. Through the ages many Christians have in fact read the Bible (OT and NT) to endorse slavery, servitude, and the execution of disobedient children.
Denny,
Wasn’t Obama asking which portions do we choose if we say we are going to live by the Bible? If we choose Leviticus, if we choose Deuteronomy? Isn’t that the point Obama was making? (Do you doubt that those two texts contain texts like that?)
Scot,
Of course those two laws are in the scripture. They are components of the theocracy of Israel. But that’s not the point. Obama suggests that the Bible means to endorse slavery and execution of disobedient children. Obama sugggests that’s its message for readers now. I do not think that is the Bible’s message for readers now, even though clearly those laws were a part of the theocracy of Israel.
Do you think that the Bible enjoins its readers to adopt the theocracy of Israel? Obama speaks as if it does.
Denny
I don’t Dobson was fair. I also don’t think it was a surprise to anyone that he would not support Obama. But I think Dobson could have presented a deeper Christian (both in logic and in rhetoric) view for opposing Dobson than the way he characterized Obama here.
oops..I cut and pasted again while I was writing..”for “opposing Obama” in 26.
Dobson’s comments « The Humble Whinery
[...] 25, 2008 · No Comments James Dobson has blessed the world with his views on Obama. Some evangelical Christians arecriticising his characterization of Obama’s views. Not enough, however. [...]
Your point is well made, but remember Dobson, who is not by academic training a theologian, has before made comments about “signs of the approaching end times” or Apocalypse. His education is in child psychology, although I doubt he’s much good at that either, since in all his reading of the Scripture, he failed to note no translation or version of the Bible mentions ANY signs or cues to coming of the Apocalypse. The Apocalypse of John (“Revelation” in most Biblical texts) describes the event, but doesn’t cue its arrival.
Denny,
“Obama suggests that the Bible means to endorse slavery and execution of disobedient children. Obama sugggests thatâs its message for readers now. I do not think that is the Bibleâs message for readers now…”
Well of course not and I agree with you. But to evangelical Bible-literalists, as Dobson is about every other day of the year, it can’t be ANYTHING BUT the Bible’s message for readers now. Even some Orthodox Jews don’t eat shellfish now, or they adhere to similarly antiquated dietary restrictions. One can’t demand the entirety of the Bible be taken literally for our society, including the age of the planet and universe, prohibitions and admonitions on homosexuality, (by the way, the equivalent of a mere venial, not mortal, sin even in under strict Biblical law), etc., and then say, Except those parts about which people will laugh at me for supporting.
Denny, would you mind explaining what exactly you mean by “a Rawlisan view of faith in public life”? “Rawlsian” can mean a lot of different, but if you are using it how I think you’re using it — to suggest that Obama thinks that only secular arguments and motivations have a place in the public square — it seems to me to be a particularly inapt description of Obama’s speech. He says, “I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change.” He explicitly advocates using religious ideas and language to make political arguments and says, “secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.”
This is, in fact, in an important way the *opposite* of the Rawlsian understanding of faith and public life. Perhaps, however, there is another way in which you mean Rawlsian that I have missed or misunderstood.
I believe this is an example of the Christian right trying to manipulate and guilt people with their ideology. James Dobson has an agenda and wish he could be open minded to other peoples veiws. We don’t follow the entire Bible. We don’t stone our children or adhere to the levictical laws. We must understand that God’s grace is something we can never begin to comprehend. It covers you, me, Obama and even James Dobson. I think Christianity is diversy because it is beautiful in the eyes of God. God uses different backgrounds, races, social status, political views, and faith experiences to make a beautiful masterpiece which is his Church. Let us the beauty in our diversity. Thank God that he gave us a brian to think on our own about politics, theology and what his word says. Scot thanks for letting us know about this broadcast and allow us to way in on this topic.
I appreciate the good work Dobson has done in many areas…but his vituperative attacks are simply mean and shrill. He does not speak for me on matters of politics, biblical interpretation or theology. I do not look to political candidates for exegetical insights. Disagreeing on political issues and debating policy can be done in a way that does not degrade or attack people because I/we disagree with them. Furthermore these kind of attacks do nothing to further the mission of Jesus. They just add more reason for people of faith to be shrugged off as mean-spirited and ignorant.
No, Denny, that’s not what Obama said and you are now trading in Dobson’s similar misrepresentation. First, you hermeneutically explain those laws as the “theocracy” of Israel, which not all agree with and you assume your view is in fact the right one and the only one. That’s how Dobson operated and it is precisely the point Obama is not making: that is, if we do adopt the Bible, which Christian view will we adopt. It is important to understand him this way, Denny. Second, Obama is asking if you we live by the Bible which portions do we choose? So, he’s forcing the hermeneutical question, which happens to be the game you are playing with your word “theocracy.” So far as I can tell, Obama doesn’t take a stand on that issue. Third, Obama does not mean to suggest they are to be applied — he’s pushing the issue of learning how to speak publicly and in a way that can convince a majority in the public forum. His point is that Christians will differ. He does not, so far as I can tell, think that message is for now. It is unfair to him to say he says this unless you’ve got evidence.
I just finished reading Richard Mouw’s “He Shines in All That’s Fair” Interestingly enough Mouw brings up the same exact point of Obama. In a pluralistic society we need to express Christian values in terms and language that those who do not hold “Christian” beliefs can agree too and understand.
To my knowledge, this was the same point that Obama was trying to make. I happened to agree with Obama and his speech He made in 2006.
Sadly once again Dobson has like other Christian “superstars” made a mockery of the faith. Dobson showed a lack of respect towards Obama by twisting his words into a straw man. If there is anything that we need now is people who can respectfully enter into dialogue with people of different views.
…perhaps it is time for a change.
Sean (in #28),
I mean Rawlsian in the traditional sense. Obama says that religious people can and should participate in public life. He also says, however, that they should not argue their case based on religious ideas.
Here’s the quote:
“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those
with no faith at all.”
If that’s not Rawlsian, then I don’t know what is.
Thanks,
Denny
Dobson was unfair, no surprise, but that doesn’t mean Obama was right. To ‘universalize’ Christian belief in some Kantian sense is ultimately self-defeating. For instance Obama says, “Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal rather than religion-specific values.” Do we believe the Church is Catholic? Do we believe that Jesus Christ is Lord of the Universe? My ‘religion-specific’ values are not sectarian or merely a part of the picture. Taking into consideration everyone’s limited viewpoint, and the demise of Christendom, ought we still assert the cosmic truth of Jesus as the ‘one in whom all things hold together’?
Scot,
I know that this casts us into the domain of hermeneutics. But I don’t think it’s helpful to speak of the Bible as if we cannot know what it means. Obama seems to be suggesting that the laws of the theocracy are incompatible with other portions of scripture (in particular the sermon on the mount). I’m not willing to grant that premise because I think it is a distortion.
Thanks,
Denny
Denny at #37, no he doesn’t say that. That is your interpretation of his statements. He is asking — Denny be fair — which portions do we choose? How he would put the Bible together is not, so far as I can tell, even mentioned. He might well agree with your “theocratical” view. He may not. But, the theocratical view can be taken as a dismissal of those text too. Don’t forget that. Theonomists would say that.
Your Rawlsian point above is fair enough; I’m Anabaptist and I tend to think Os Guinness gives us a better chance (than Rawls) of public speaking in the secular forum, but here’s my point: Dobson responded to the Rawlsian viewpoint very poorly, as if he didn’t quite get the issues at hand. But, listen brother, the alignments conservative evangelicals made with other conservatives from the Reagan era on have had a fair share of Rawlsian approach to them. They have reduced things to common denominators and in so doing have surrendered some key distinctives of a Christian ethic. I doubt you’d disagree with me on this one.
Obama states: “Now this [making proposals that are arguable and amenable to reason] is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do.”
I think that this is a leap on his part. Why? I don’t think a high view of Scripture is incompatible with a belief in Natural Law which allows for a discussion of issue from a religious perspective absent religious language.
The key may be “some” (i.e., Dobson?)
Thanks for speaking out on this Scot. Dobson’s approach, in my opinion, was to demonize his opponent. This violates the gospel.
Denny, At risk of pursuing too far the rabbit trail of what it means for something to be Rawlsian, a Rawlsian vision of faith in public life includes more than a translation of arguments. Rawls thinks that arguments can’t even be motivated by religious concerns. That is the point of the veil of ignorance and the original position. What would make Obama’s speech sufficiently Rawlsian is an argument that there is some place to stand that avoids all religious motivations, not merely that beliefs must be translated. Many people think that. The fact that he suggests there can and should be religious motivations, especially when he attacks those who thinks all arguments should be secular, leads one to think that he is intentionally disagreeing with Rawls.
This claim doesn’t stick to Christians anyway since Christians don’t have values.
Scot (in #38),
I don’t know what Obama’s views are on the OT law. The statements in question appear to me to be based on the premise that there is some incongruity between OT law and the Sermon on the Mount–a view which Jesus himself emphatically rejected in the sermon on the mount (Mt 5:18). It’s the premise that I am quibbling with.
Fair enough on your second point.
Thanks,
Denny
to clarify: by “many people think that’ i meant to say that the suggestion that there be a language of public reason is not a specifically rawlsian claim. it is not really fair to call him “rawlsian” given the arguments presented.
Should I Vote According to Dr Dobson? | Damascus | Faith and Life by Scott Fillmer
Yup. We’re going there … The Obama-Dobson Quarrel
I opened my browser yesterday morning and pulled up cnn.com. It’s sort of part of my morning routine. Get a cup of coffee. Open the MacBook. Scan my RSS feeds. Check the news. You get the picture.
Yesterday’s headline was the very public q…—–
[...] I am not going to re-hash the ins and outs of the speech and what Dobson said, there are two very good blog articles about it already, see Dobson on Obama from Jesus Creed, and James Dobson Accuses Obama of ‘Distorting’ Bible from the Christian Post. But I am interested to know who influences your vote now? [...]
Sean in #43 … come again with this one because it is not real clear yet and the point is important for clarifying a Rawlsian view of public discourse.
It seems to me that both Dobson and Obama have no true ecclesiology. They are both hard-core politicians and America is their church. However, I wouldn’t trust Dobson when it comes to his description of the truth of Christ, much less, when he represents his adversary Obama’s political speech.
You may be interested in a worthwhile column, in recent days, by David Brooks (NYTimes) regarding the character of Obama and his mode of operation.
Regards,
” I wouldnât trust Dobson when it comes to his description of the truth of Christ, much less, when he represents his adversary Obamaâs political speech.”
Thought we were trying to be charitable?
Scot
I know that you would rather this be a post for Obama (perhaps Dobson), but let me express my distaste of the topic being presented in this forum at all. There are too many reasons why this blog is ill-equipped to handle a discussion about someone like Dobson, for the simple reason that he is too hot a topic to be taken seriously by drive-by commenting which seek to make a quick hit on why they have written off Dobson and now find it to be the popular thing to pronounce to the world instead of really dialoguing. I’m sorry, but this is where the blog (any blog) has reached its limit.
And that is probably why the posted comments read more like attacks and laments than true discussions, some of which would lead me to think that they would break fellowship with Dobson instead of embracing him as a believer. I’m not saying this is the case, but the points given here (as with any who want to attack Dobson) might be read in that light – I don’t think that you have to remove them from their context to do so, either.
Does Dobson get it right all the time? No.
Does Dobson claim to get it right all the time? No.
Does Dobson speak on behalf of all Christians (evangelicals)? No.
Has Dobson ever claimed to speak on behalf of Christians? No.
Is Dobson overly-revered in some circles of our culture? Probably.
Does Dobson have much control over this when he does not seek out such position? No (he does not wish to be an ‘evangelical pope’ as some have suggested?
So, let’s get these simple facts out of the way first – which would certainly limit the amount of posts I would have to read on the subject. I have yet to review the relevant data here, I will do so later today. But it makes little difference in the discussion that has already occurred. For one thing, Obama lacks so much in substance one might need to work hard to reconstruct his statements in order to find meaning. He has yet to say anything beyond *hope* and *change* – which makes it hard to criticize him.
On the other hand, Dobson has once again stood up for his convictions, knowing full well of responses such as this. Perhaps he has made an errant move, we will see. But at the end of the day, I would rather stand on with those who might have been wrong sometimes but passionately pursued the work of truth in the world and followed the calling of God upon them.
Scot, I know that you are in no way questioning Dobson’s faith or commitment, but others are. This brings me back to my opening comment: a blog (even your very good blog) cannot be the proper forum for a discussion such as this because of our increasing inability to ponder and reflect rather than regurgitate ear-candy to each other. I’m sorry, but I have to say again – I’m quite disappointed.
Rawls thinks that no public argument can be religiously motivated, but that all motivation should proceed from an “original position” in which only “justice” as a formal rule and no substantive account of the good is taken into account. It is not enough to say that a position is Rawlsian just because it says all the discourse is publically accessible. The actual arguments can’t even be translated from religion. This is precisely the point of his famous “veil of ignorance” and “original position.” We should argue publically from this third place and not from any of our distinctive understandings of what constitutes teh good life.
james dobson critcizes barack obama « signs of life
[...] Thankfully Scott McKnight, a much more articulate blogger than yours truly, has a very thoughtful and charitable response on his blog this morning. Hereâs my take: Dobson and his companion commentator routinely distorted what Obama was saying by rephrasing and capturing what he said in their own context and for their own agendas. For instance, Obama hypothesized (Dobson didnât get this) what would happen if we moved all nonChristians out of our society. Even then, he was suggesting, weâd have diversity. Then, Obama asked, if we lived out the Bible which parts would we choose? Would it be Leviticus or Deuteronomy â and he brings up shell fish and stoning oneâs son â or would it be the Sermon on the Mount, which Obama stated would be difficult for the Defense Dept to apply. Dobson and his guest got into how the OT laws arenât for today. [...]
:mic at #49,
). But, a blog can do only so much and I wrote what amounts to an editorial today — a statement that claims Dobson distorted what Obama was saying. We expected some pushback and some heated discussion. Overall, though, I think it is good to raise this issue on a blog even with its limits.
Fair enough and thanks, but all forms of communication have their limits. I don’t think it is fair, though, to say we have drive-by comments here. Yes, some have said some harsh things both about Dobson and some about Obama (
Obama is pointing out the obvious. America is filled with diverse religions. Among Christians there are many groups with many different readings and views of scripture, vastly different agendas, and deep divisions that cannot be resolved.
His point in the speech was not to advocate for one religion, or one Christian view over another, but, instead, to suggest that it’s not possible or appropriate for government to do so in a religiously free society.
If civic leaders and institutions cannot pull people together with language and ideas that transcend political, religious, and ethnic divisions, they will not be able to sustain a pluralistic society, let alone help it move forward. The only other option would be to pick one view and ignore/eliminate the others (which I’m sure Dobson would be fine with).
The world view that separates Dobson from Obama is not theological or religious (though their differences in this arena are profound). Rather, Dobson is advocating for his vision of Christian society while Obama is advocating for a free society that guards freedoms for Christians and non-Christians alike.
Yes to #34.
Hi Scot,
I wonder if it’s possible to split the difference with you and Denny on this one. I did find Obama’s comments rather troubling when I listened to this speech a year or so ago. It did have this air of “the Bible says a lot of stuff, and people can interpret it just about any way they want, and so the Bible isn’t useful as a guide to civilization.” In our sound-bite world, where there are only thirty seconds or so to debate any single issue, this simply seals the matter. Christians disagree on any number of things, but the great majority of them agree on the great brunt of the message of the Bible. The Bible does have insights to bear on public life. Now, Obama may have only wanted to raise the question of pluralism and the public good, but he did so in a way that tapped into a common contemporary canard that erodes confidence that the Bible has any sort of cohesive and coherent message.
I also found his admonition against theocracy troubling – indeed, a bit insulting. For conservative Christians are pushing for largely two things: an end to abortion and the protection of traditional marriage. Neither of these are a matter of “the Bible said it, so it should be law”; Both of which are defensible on the basis of traditional western values and the common good. There was just this air that, while religious “language” is useful for communicating his ideas, true religious content didn’t really have anything to contribute.
Having said that, I applaud that Obama strives to speak competently on religion, and he doesn’t stumble for want of effort. As such, he is a breath of fresh air. I wish he were pro-life and I could vote for him in good conscience.
:mic in #49
Does Dobson speak on behalf of all Christians (evangelicals)? No.
Has Dobson ever claimed to speak on behalf of Christians? No.
Quoted from Yahoo News:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/ap_on_el_pr/dobson_obama_8
Tom Minnery, a senior vice president at Focus on the Family, responded: “Without question, Dr. Dobson is speaking for millions of evangelicals because his understanding of the Bible is thoroughly evangelical.”
Yes, Dobson does claim (thorough his staff) to speak for “millions of evangelicals”. That’s part of the problem
I reread Obama’s speech this morning. I’m pretty sure Dobson’s accusing Obama of things he didn’t say — the usual problem of skimming something quickly and assuming you’ve properly understood it.
That said, Obama did highlight his biblical ignorance again with that bit about having to impliment Leviticus if we want to let the Bible guide public policy. It nicely compliments his bit about the OT story of the Christians in the lions den in his book.
Let’s flip the commentary and consider the implications of what the story in the media would be if the conversation was reversed.
âI think Dobson is deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theologyâ
âAnd if Dobson canât get everyone to agree with him, he thinks it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that he finds offensive to the Scripture. That is a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitutionâ
âWe do not have to go to the lowest common denominator of morality, which is what Dobson is suggestingâ
My point being is this… This is a personal attack piece by misrepresenting Obama, his faith, and the intent and scope of his speech. This was far from academic, and could be seen as mean spirited and by my standards condescending, uncharitable, and less-than the standard set for dealing with conflict within the body of Christ. If Dobson was interested in meaningful dialogue would he not have made every attempt to sit down directly with Obama to raise his concerns instead of these air-lobbed accusations and assertions based on a speech that was all too conveniently forgotten about until election year?
For the record, I’m bordering on thinking voting for Obama is a sin. If I was Catholic, I might say a mortal sin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg8lCLumByw&eurl=http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=18533
Here’s the speech. I liked it.
Capa,
Please tone it down. Your language is too strident. I’ve deleted two comments and won’t permit your caustic language on this blog. This is a difficult enough subject.
I suggest you have a bias in favor of Dr. Dobson.
No, Capa. We have a bias in favor of Christian goodness and charity, and reject to the ugliness of your slander (just as we also object to Dobson’s misrepresentations).
Good post, Scot. As one who disagrees with Obama on some of the issues dealt with in his speech, Dobson does harm to the name of Jesus in his response in exactly the ways you describe. He could have disagreed with the express and implicit ideas therein, even strongly so, without being logically sloppy and with such emotional disdain. I don’t see how either is respectful.
Denny, I know you know that Scot and most readers here don’t think “that the Bible enjoins its readers to adopt the theocracy of Israel”, but clearly there are people who read the bible and really do conclude a very wide variety of things about the levitical laws, days of worship, medical use of blood, communism, death penalties, governmental aid to the poor, the proper use of violent force, if any, etc. As one who actually does think that Jesus is entitled to be followed by everyone, right now as lord of the earth, even by its ‘kings’ and leaders, I struggle–just within myself, let alone with others!–with how, exactly, kings and presidents and governors and legislators should do so here and now in their offical capacities, and how that can or should play out within a nation with a law such as our first amendment.
The point Obama was making (I will freely admit he was making it in part to weaken the presumption from the right that their agenda is THE ‘biblical’ agenda) was that even if we only had Christians in this country, there wouldn’t be anything close to uniformity about what the ‘biblical’ priority structure would or should be, and how our government should embody it under the first amendment. Imagine the intrafaith disputes over time on the following: If all schools were Christian, for example, would they teach 6-day creationism, theistic evolution, or both? Would they say the pledge of allegience every day, or never? Would it be an enforceable rule? Would gluttony or individual wealth be regulated in some way? Why or why not, biblically speaking? Would drugs be outlawed? Porn? How much would we spend on either vs. care for orphans & widows? Would we have a death penalty? Do we bless and give and lend to our enemies, bomb them, or both? These are all areas ripe for disagreement even among the bible believing. For each, the bible alone won’t settle the dispute. This is Obama’s point, at least in part. Christians must offer more for there governmental proposals than “the bible says so.” We must articulate and argue for our proposals using biblical grounds along with other means of persuasion that even unbelievers can understand and acknowledge.
Dobson could have certainly handled this better, perhaps by discussing it with the Obama camp first (he may have tried, but I have not heard of such an attempt).
That being said, I like Wonder’s thoughts in #54.
Ditto with Rick (63); I’m with Wonders in #54. Lots of quicker comments today!
As a Neo-Calvinist, Dobson doesn’t speak for me
Scot may not want to take this discussion to another level, but let me ask this:
Suppose one assumes you can establish a consensus on which areas of scripture are more or less relevant to how we live our lives today (example: the four Gospels are fully relevant), how then would we apply those passage to public policy. Does scripture have more to say about tax policy than about environmental policy? Should the directive to “turn the other cheek” be applied literally to public policy?
Again, Scot can delete or direct the conversation away from this. These are things that have been bouncing around in my head recently. And I think it’s hard to see what the logical extreme of Dr. Dobson’s line of thinking is, outside perhaps the issue of abortion.
ysmarko
[...] i’ve been trying to decide, for the last 24 hours since this news story started getting so much front page press, if i should post about dobson’s comments about obama. but this morning, i saw scot mcknight’s helpful post, and thought he says everything better than i would have. so i’ll just link to his post and highly suggest you read it. No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> [...]
**off topic to ChrisB** Who pray tell are you voting for then? McCain isn’t pro-life either…
Suppose one assumes you can establish a consensus on which areas of scripture are more or less relevant to how we live our lives today…
Unfortunately you have to actually do that before you can answer any of your other questions.
JWT, McCain’s wrong on stem cells, but that’s nowhere near the caliber of Obama’s repeated vote against born-alive protection and his promise to sign a bill that would undo every single prolife victory that has ever been won.
It seems to me that Dobson may not be able to hear Obama’s comments with the intended context, because, IMHO, Dobson sees a pluralistic world as something to work against. That doesn’t mean that Obama is working for a pluralistic society, but rather accepts that’s what we have.
This appears to be a conversation between what I want the world to be (Dobson) and what the world is (Obama).
Dobson on Obama « Rob’s Blog
[...] Some others have weighed in on how fairly they though Dobson interpreted was Obama was saying. Scot McKnight weighs in here. Jim Wallis weighs in here. CNN weights in here. [...]
JWT,
McCain is a lot more pro-life than Obama. At least he had the moral fortitude to vote for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, as did Clinton. Obama’s votes in Illinois amounted to support for infanticide.
This is from Pro Choice America:
“The REAL McCain has spent the last 25 years amassing one of the worst anti-choice voting records in Congress.”
Oh Please!! Dr. Dobson Reacts to a Speech by Barack Obama « Elemental Children’s Ministry
[...] we call “children’s ministry.” « Rethinking our assumptions Oh Please!! Dr. Dobson Reacts to a Speech by Barack Obama June 25, 2008 I was just reading Scot McKnight’s blog and he had a post about a Focus onthe Family episode where Dr. Dobson was commenting on a speech by Barack Obama where Dobson’s name was used. [...]
someone remind me: what does this discussion about abortion have to do with THIS topic?
More and more I feel like democracy is a bit of a curse to the Christian life. The NT gives us so much guidance on dealing with government authorities in submission in a role secondary to the Father. Unfortunately we get no guidance on how to choose our leaders.
It’s frustrating to put faith and democracy in the arena together. There are never easy answers. When it comes to candidates, you can try to make it a simple faith decision, but the bottom line it’s much more a matter of personal opinion than it is faith. I hope we figure this out someday.
In case you’d like a to take a quick break from the discussion for a laugh.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/81337
Sean, it’s a winding trail. In #3, we find: …this is about making one party look âmore Christianâ than the other. So is this. Were I an American citizen, I would totally vote for Obama.
To which I replied in #58: For the record, Iâm bordering on thinking voting for Obama is a sin.
In #68, JWT correctly assumed I was referring to Obama’s appalling position on abortion, and we’ve made the leap from Dobson to abortion.
**to Sean** That was my fault…I tried to ask my question on the individual’s blog but the link failed…so I shot my question across the table at the ole Saloon…since my horse dropped out of the race I am also pondering the presidential question…Blessings!!
wadehodges.com UnChristian: Too Political
[...] For more, check out what Scot McKnight has to say. [...]
I think the comments here are a perfect example of Obama’s point – that is, even if we managed to get rid of all of the non-Christians in this country we would still have profound disagreements on what “Christian” values are and how to apply them to our laws and government. There is a suggestion here that Obama deliberately distorted the scriptures but bringing up those scary verses in Leviticus – but the fact is those verses are there and conservative Christians often invoke Leviticus when condemning homosexuality, for example. So it’s not as if we say, “well, the OT is just about old Israel and the rules were made for that time”. We say “bits of the OT and those laws we can’t possibly justify in today’s world so those bits we’ll attribute to progressive revelation, but there are still bits we really like and so we’ll keep those parts and say they are God’s eternal truth.” I playing Devil’s Advocate here but this is what you are saying looks like to Christians and non-Christians alike who don’t hold to similar interpretation of Biblical inerrancy. While “progressive revelation” is one way of explaining away verses like that, that is simply one particular interpretation, and certainly not universal. I might also add that “progressive revelation” is somewhat of a two-edged sort and could be to explain away a lot of ideas conservative Christians would rather not.
If we as CHristians are far from consensus on what the bible tells us, and even whether the bible is infallible AND we do live in a pluralistic society and non-Christians are not going to leave on mass any time soon, how do we govern such a nation fairly and how do CHristians bring their values to the political arena. All Mr. Obama is saying is that if you want to represent your values to the greater society you have to come up with something better than “my interpretation of the Bible says so”. Because that will be an unconvincing argument to the majority of people who do not accept your interpretation. You therefore have to argue from reason and “universal” values.
Great post Scot – thanks so much for the clarity.
Over the last several years, Obama has been consistent in his outreach to voters with Christian views that differ from his own. He described a meeting a few weeks ago in Chicago with evangelical, Catholic & Pentecostal faith leaders:
I opened up the meeting by quoting Ronald Reagan which was saying, I know you can’t endorse me, but I endorse you. I endorse the good works that are being done, the wonderful ministries that are taking place all across the country and my goal here is just to have a dialogue to listen, to learn, to share my faith journey and I think people came out of it, not necessarily agreeing with me on every issue, but I think that they recognized that I respected them, I respected their faith, I respected what they’re trying to achieve. And hopefully they came away feeling the same about me and my pledge was that this is a dialogue that will continue after I’m President of the Untied States.
Dobson is clearly spooked. If Obama weren’t on to something, why would Dobson respond?
For the last 20-30 years, America has lived through the extraordinary growth of an evangelical movement, which has created a wave that businesses, politicians & media stars have been able to ride. Far too often, people have portrayed this movment as monolithic – all of us are white folks, who live in suburbs, care only about success, eat at Chik-Fil-A, shop at Wal-Mart and vote Republican.
There is a fact that people need to catch up with – that portrayal is a myth, perpetuated to protect power & traffic in fear.
You can see that fact in the finding from the recent Pew Report that 57 percent of evangelical church attenders said they believe many religions can lead to eternal life, in conflict with traditional evangelical teaching. Nearly two-thirds of respondents favored more government help for the poor, even if it meant going deeper into debt. Most favor stricter laws to protect the environment, for example, an issue not typically associated with evangelical platforms or programs.
People invested in compliance to a certain scheme of beliefs & applications – people as diverse as Dobson or John Spong or Pope Benedict 16 – are struggling to hold on to their worldview, holding back the pluralism that threatens them so profoundly. This is a tension that has been simmering for a while – I suspect we will continue to see it play out in political, civic & church realms.
Bob #82-
You went too far. Don’t knock Chik-Fil-A.
All Mr. Obama is saying is that if you want to represent your values to the greater society you have to come up with something better than âmy interpretation of the Bible says soâ. Because that will be an unconvincing argument to the majority of people who do not accept your interpretation. You therefore have to argue from reason and âuniversalâ values.
But Miriam, we have a bigger context than this. We have two-thousand years of Western civilization and law to which the Bible has played a key role. Granted people have different interpretations, but that does not mean that the bulk of it is merely subjective – anymore than the U. S. Constitution is. Furthermore, what values are truly “universal”? Just as you can find a sliver of people who say the Bible supports slavery, you can find a tiny group that will deny any basic “universal” value. None of these exceptions are truly decisive, and thus the “argument from diversity” is ultimately shallow and misleading.
The Bible does have some key things to say about the dignity of man, the sanctity of life, and the nobility of justice and mercy. Principles from the Bible may be quite naturally applied to law, and absolutely should be. And of course, in public discussion with those who do not hold the Bible as an authority, we must appeal to things that they value to be persuasive. This entire argument is being done at the sound-bite level, and is terribly unproductive.
Dobson vs. Obama : Carver 319
[...] James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, has gotten himself into so hot water within evangelical political circles with his recent criticism of Barack Obama. Whether he is right or wrong in his attacks is not an avenue i am seeking to explore here, but rather to highlight the point Brady made in his last post: evangelicals are confused and divided. If there was one monolithic voice within evangelicalism one has to wonder if Dobson’s criticisms would even conjure a glance, but with the partisan divide, and subsequently the evangelical divide, conservative Christian leaders are going to have to be careful with the positions they take and the words they use.  Jim Wallis weighs in here, and Scott McKnight here. [...]
Dobson has often failed to represent accurately the views of those positions and people he opposes. It is, consciously or unconsciously, his frequent modus operandi.
His discussion of gender in Bible translations is one further recent example of this practice.
The fact that such a huge segment of evangelicalism looks to him as an authority on all things spiritual still boggles my mind. I attribute much of it to laziness; people are too lazy to do what Scot asked readers to do here – check out the info for themselves. People would rather have a figurehead or authority to do their discerning for them, and many have assigned that role to Dobson.
Excellent observations. I think (or hope) Dobson’s following is diminishing. This is sad to me, as his influence on my early days of faith was very positive.
Oyarsa @ 84, (good name, btw)
“And of course, in public discussion with those who do not hold the Bible as an authority, we must appeal to things that they value to be persuasive.”
That’s exactly what Obama is saying.
Scot, having a hard time figuring out which archived broadcast the obama segment is on- is it from the Knowing God’s Will 6/24 talk? Thanks!
dobson on obama « finding my soul
[...] Jesus Creed/Scot McKnight Finding Rhythm/Zach Lind [...]
#82,
Dobson is clearly spooked. If Obama werenât on to something, why would Dobson respond?
I’m reminded of an incident at Fuller about a year ago, whereby a professor mentioned something (almost in passing) about Dobson that the professor disagreed with in an article for the seminary newsletter (which doesn’t have a very wide circulation outside of the seminary community, although it can sometimes be found online), and Dobson caused a stink about it, claiming that the professor misrepresented him (I honestly don’t think the professor did misrepresent Dobson, but allow me to continue).
An invitation was extended to Dobson to more fully articulate his views in the newsletter. He declined to do so.
Based on that incident, I’m inclined to think that it’s more that Dobson simply doesn’t like being “called out” and has a rather defensive streak, rather than anything about being “spooked,” or Obama being “on to something,” per se.
Scot – Great post, and thanks again for creating the space for civil discourse! You are a great model for leadership. As you well know, it is the many small places where these important issues are discussed that will create the larger shift. Shalom, pam
While slightly off topic to the particulars of the Dobson/Obama issue, Richard Mouw has a new post up on his blog addressing CA’s same-sex marriage ruling that I think is relevant, in both what he says and how he says it, to what is being discussed here on the broader issues of plurality, faith and public discourse.
Bob said: Dobson is clearly spooked. If Obama werenât on to something, why would Dobson respond?
That’s a surprising thing to say. What would get your response more quickly — a negative true statement about you or a negative false one?
Sometimes you can honestly say someone “protests too much,” but merely defending your views is what the game is all about.
ChrisB – the Obama speech was 2 years ago, so it stretches creditability to think that Dobson was “defending his views”
James Dobson distorted someone’s position?
I’ll alert the media.
Woooo-eeeee! Even the Dallas Morning News had weighed in!
http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/06/dobson-v-obama-the-funfest-con.html
Hi Travis,
(good name, btw)
I’ve heard it’s to be chosen rather than great riches…
Thatâs exactly what Obama is saying.
The thing I object to is the assumed notion of the secular public square as the neutral benign ground where all can agree. For instance, the idea that God is not to be asked for his guidance before a session of congress is as offensive to believers as having that prayer is offensive to nonbelievers. There’s just no silver bullet here – only a tricky matter of human charity and conviction where we must weigh the real needs of the many against sensitivity to the minority.
I find it disturbing that people are discussing whether or not Obama’s views of religion and government are correct and not Dobson’s egregious misrepresentation that Obama “criticized Dr. Dobson and biblical teaching” and “went so far as to equate Dr. Dobson with the far-Left Rev. Al Sharpton” in his keynote address to the 2006 Call to Renewal Conference.
Dr. Dobson’s name is mentioned only once in the speech. “And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s?” Clearly, Obama is using Dr. Dobson and Al Sharpton to represent POLAR OPPOSITE views, rather than equating them.
I would like to give Dr. Dobson the benefit of the doubt that perhaps he misunderstood Obama’s intention. However that would be unreasonable. Dr. Dobson is an intelligent, educated man who has worked in the political arena for years.
Great post Scot! I appreciate the eloquence with which you express how I feel. I’d like to repost your thoughts on my blog, http://www.pneumaproject.org. Please let me know if that is a problem.
EDIT FOR ABOVE
Please let me know if that’s a problem.
I’d like to repost your thoughts, as your own of course, on my blog.
Oyarsa,
I think you’re right. And again, I think that’s what Obama is saying in this speech. I think you think you disagree with him when you are actually saying the same thing. Maybe I’m wrong, and I certainly don’t want to put words in either your mouth or Senator Obama’s. But it seems like you’re saying the same thing.
He talks, for instance, about the phrase “under God” in the pledge probably not being a big deal, and that school prayer groups shouldn’t alarm secular people.
He talks about the silliness of the idea that “you can’t legislate morality”. Of course you can, he says. That’s what our laws are.
But like you say, in the public square, arguments have to be understood by all. You and I can agree as Christians that we shouldn’t steal or kill because it’s God’s law, and we are to love others as ourselves, and live like Jesus, etc, but when we talk to people to whom the Bible means nothing, we have to frame our arguments also in terms of the common good, or the rights of individuals, and so forth. We can, and should, also talk about how our convictions result from our religious beliefs. It’s a good way to build a bridge to people who may be for things that God is for, and maybe even passionate about things God is passionate about more than we are, but who don’t connect that with Him. We can be good Christian witnesses, and good citizens of our democracy at the same time this way.
Michael,
Your post reminds me of the official in Casablanca. I’m shocked SHOCKED that people are discussing what interests them in a blog comment thread!
Hi Travis,
I suppose my deeper objection with Obama has to do with the pro-life issue. And this is what rubbed me wrong with the whole “fair minded words” part of the talk. I appreciate the desire to use fair-minded words – it’s better than angry polemics. But the brunt of the talk directed at liberals seemed to be “we can leverage religious language to get people to adopt our policies”. But what about leveraging religious insights to inform our policies (again, with the common good always in our mind)? The very thought that religion might have something to contribute in substance, rather than style, seemed the furthest thing from his consciousness.
The sanctity of life is grounded in religion, but it has universal human application and very much serves the common good. And this isn’t some minor point that Christians just quibble over rooted in some obscure verse. It runs through the entire Bible and nearly all Christians revere it. So why does he not engage it? It’s all well and good to talk less cruelly about us pro-lifers, but what about considering that we may have a point, and engaging us, rather then simply trying to couch what he already wants to do in more friendly language? Fair-minded words are great – but let’s look on to fair-minded thoughts and fair-minded actions!
Interesting discussion. As I read my way through the conclusions of nearly 100 posts, I couldn’t help but draw some of my own. Here goes:
1)Rightly or wrongly, Barack Obama is going to draw the ire of the vast majority of conservative Christians, due to his voting record and support for issues that are anathema to them, i.e. abortion, homosexuality, etc. I suspect that Dobson was looking for an opening to attack, and the subject of this thread was just that.
2)Dobson doesn’t always get it right. He is an icon in the conservative Christian movement, and his organization, Focus on the Family, has and continues to be an incredible and positive resource for families everywhere. However, Dobson is not afraid to wade into controversy, and even as one who shares probably 90% of his theological viewpoint due to a common ecclesial heritage, I must admit that he doesn’t always come down on the side I would. If you read the biography of his life, titled “Family Man,” you will see that he can be prone to overreaction. That doesn’t make him bad–it makes him human.
3)Again, rightly or wrongly, to be President of this country, every aspect of your life will be scrutinized, and closely. Every word, every comment, every association. It’s just the reality of political life today. While Dobson may have overreached, Obama is going to have to learn the skill of “pushback.” Frankly, I’m amazed that Dobson focused (no pun intended) on this issue, instead of areas that are far more well-documented and troubling for evangelicals, such as his long association with Jeremiah Wright, to say nothing of his voting record.
And just think–it’s only June!
Wonders for Oyarsa,
I hear your concern and I respect your POV. But I wonder if you have looked at the sanctity of life as anything beyond abortion. Is that simply a code word for opposing abortion ?
#98,
The thing I object to is the assumed notion of the secular public square as the neutral benign ground where all can agree
Where do people get this idea that Obama (or any similar thinker) thinks that “all can agree” in the secular public sphere? Obama specifically says otherwise (something in that very speech to the effect of “we may not agree”). Seeking consensus is by no means the same as seeking agreement.
Bob: I wonder if you have looked at the sanctity of life as anything beyond abortion.
Yes, there is more to valuing life an opposing abortion, but how can anyone claim to value all life and then turn a blind eye to killing the most helpless and innocent of all human beings?
I do not want to derail this thread…
But the blind eye we turn to violence, torture & poverty is just as significant as those who are killed in abortions.
#109. “But the blind eye we turn to violence, torture & poverty is just as significant as those who are killed in abortions.”
I think a moral distinction must be made between abortion, which is an affirmative action for the express purpose of killing, and poverty, which may have death as a result but not a necessary one.
Torture and violence have more compelling proximity to abortion.
I resist the notion that one may label himself “pro-life” simply because he supports, for example, social welfare programs. Seems internally inconsistent to me.
Oyarsa,
I am not shocked that people are discussing Obamaâs views of religion and government. I am disturbed that they are NOT DISCUSSING Dobsonâs egregious misrepresentation of Obama’s words.
It is perfectly valid for Dr. Dobson (or anyone else) to rip apart Obama’s views of the role of religion in politics. Examine his stance on abortion, gay rights, school prayer, welfare, race, taking the oath on the Qur’an and professing Christian faith, etc.
It is irresponsible, negligent, perhaps villainous to suggest that the speech in question had anything to do with Dr. Dobson let alone to state that it criticized him. It is deceptive to say that the speech equates Dobson and Sharpton when it actually uses them to represent polar opposite views.
But no one is talking about it. We accept it as par for the course in political rhetoric. It is perfectly acceptable to ‘bear false witness’. That I find disturbing.
Bob, I don’t think I turn a blind eye toward “violence, torture & poverty,” nor do, in case you were planning on bringing it up, conservatives. The only people I can find with a blind eye to anything is liberals on abortion.
#107. B-W, this reminded me of a podcast (Steve Brown 4/4/08) with Os Guinness that I was listening to just yesterday – largely focusing on his recent “Case for Civility” book. Interestingly, it touched on Obama as well.
First the Obama part…
-Obama appeals to that constituency who are just fed up with the dirty stuff – that’s why he appeals particularly to the younger generation – genuine hope and desire to transcend the divisiveness – that part of Obama’s campaign is admirable. (IMHO, it’s such a shame that Dobson, under the guise of standing up for the truth, chooses to feed the stereotype of mean-spirited divisiveness for these young people – just another reason for them to recoil from “christianity”, at least as marketed under the Dobson label.)
Second, the message from Os that grabbed me was something like this…
-an appeal to a common ground such as interfaith dialogue is mistaken – we can love people of different faiths, but we’ll never get down to unity.
-the deeper you go the more you get down to differences that make a difference – if people are faithful (muslim, christian, hindu, atheist) those differences will always remain.
-my vision of civility is not a great love-in, or the idea that we can reach a common ground where we can all agree, it’s rather creating a framework in which we’re first of all free to be different and then able to negotiate those differences persuasively and peacefully, not violently.
Os sees this framework not as a legal framework, but something he calls “habits of the heart” that need to be nurtured from the early school years on.
ChrisB @112, I agree with you on abortion. But for me, pro-life means being anti-abortion, anti-poverty, anti-death penalty, anti-euthanasia, and usually anti-war. There is no political figure or party who meets all those qualifications. Therefore I have to make an extremely hard decision about who, on balance, is more pro-life. I wouldn’t tell anyone else how to make that decision, but at this point, I’m leaning toward Obama.
Michael at 111, many of your words are thoughtful, but Obama did not take any oath on the Qur’an. That was Rep. Keith Ellison. You’ve been exposed to some lies, brother. Just a heads up.
Dianne P,
That’s my view too, and I think Os Guinness’ book, which we reviewed on this blog — and which didn’t get as much conversation as I would have hoped — is the way forward. I do think Obama’s approach seems to be one of reduction of differences more than Guinness’s. It seems to me that Dobson wanted to go in the direction charted by Guinness, but he simply didn’t do that.
Great insights Travis – along those lines:
Five to six times more people will die of AIDS, malnutrition and war in the world than die from abortion worldwide. A Christian who focuses solely on abortion as an ethical rubric is seriously misguided.
Perhaps Obama should have avoided the OT vs. NT conflict he set up (with its risks of sounding anti-Semitic) and limited his quandary to NT interpretation. Women (in positions of authority in church, home and civic sphere); slaves (subservient to the masters); war; the death penalty and Christians being subject to civil rulers are all issues that illustrate Sen. Obama’s point.
I do think that if we want to serve as models to the rest of the world of how to live with those with whom we passionately disagree, we need to seek to honestly wrestle with the best interpretation of Mr. Dobson’s views, and treat him with more charity than he has shown to the senator from Illinois.
Thank you for your comments on the situation raised by Tuesday’s broadcast of Focus on the Family. I listened to the broadcast, I read the entire transcript of Sen. Obama’s 2006 speech, and my conclusion is that much was taken out of context and used to promote a particular agenda.
I think Dobson is afraid of Change.
Obama offers real change and hope for Americans.
Dobson and othe Christian right don’t like that for the first time in many years Christains are thinking for themselves and choosing to vote democrat. As an independant I see Christians today wanting change. Please lets not try to politize the Bible for gain. Let not let people especially pastors, ministers, Christian figures guilt us into voting a certain way. God has give each of us a brain. Use it!
Preacherman,
I followed you right up to “Obama offers real…hope…” You just climbed in bed with the Republicans and the Democrats.
This is no time for followers of The Way to lose nerve.
Scot,
Wasn’t it Alan Hirsch who coined the question, “How do you wear your theology?” I think that is my main issue with Dr Dobson these days. Whatever his convictions, it is how he chooses to share them that is most troubling. He so often shares his conviction against someone. He very often sounds angry and incredulous. He uses battle language A LOT.
I’ve sometimes wondered if he and the folks at Focus radio have simply learned a so called Christian way of being shock jocks.
I’m shocked. And it makes me appreciate all the more the public Christians who speak with strong conviction AND with an irenic spirit.
Steve
Dobson V. Obama: The Battle Begins « Man of Depravity
[...] Scot McKnight (undecided) has also shared his thoughts and took part in a great conversation at Jesus Creed. [...]
Ever since I started reading faith/religion stuff on the web, I’ve been looking for a conservative thinker who can represent his/her viewpoint with logic, etc, rather than name calling, straw man arguments, or distortion of the other viewpoints. In following so many of the commentaries about Dobson/Obama, I’ve once again run into the same problem. The so called liberals want to stick to the argument as presented. The so called conservatives resort to arguments that are really off topic or illogical or name calling.
For one thing, if Dobson wanted to stick to Bible teaching, he would talk about these issues privately with Obama. It is obviously meant as a political ploy because the response comes two years after Obama’s speech. It employs name calling. It doesn’t stick to the facts of the speech.
I started listening to Dobson in 1977 and read some of his books. It was obvious even back then, when he stuck to more family centered topics, that he often over generalized and opined about topics out of his educational background. Don’t we all? But we don’t pretend to know what we are talking about so much that we broadcast it on the airwaves.
BTW, I HAVE, at times, contacted Focus on the Family, to express my opinion, but I have received sanguine return letters or emails that change the topic.
And if a person wants to be consistently pro-life, I would suggest that more people look to the Roman Catholic teachings about life, anti-war, justice and helping the poor. I’m not a Catholic. But they seem the most consistent group to me. Waging war isn’t very pro-life.
jonathan stegall » Blog Archive » Links for June 25th
[...] Jesus Creed » Dobson on Obama Scot McKnight looks at Dobson’s comments on Obama. There is great wisdom here. (tags: obama culture theology bible politics) [...]
Randy #120,
I think Preacherman is just saying the fact, whatever we as Christians make of it.
And I don’t think all of the change Obama offers is bad, either.
I agree that misrepresentation has occurred here with Dobson regarding Obama’s words. Regardless of where we stand on our views of either Dobson or Obama, the fact of the matter is that this kind of thing happens all too often! I am not a sold-out fan of either man…while both stand for causes I agree with and those I don’t, misrepresentation benefits no one, neither them nor the public. It causes more confusion and turmoil for starters. The truth would be better…hmm…what a novel thought!
Obama, Dobson and theology – oh my « Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should…or does it?
[...] Obama, Dobson and theology – oh my I haven’t time to dissect the two sides in the Barack Obama / James Dobson ’smackdown’ (as my current professor would say) this week. I’m in an intensive summer course and have just gotten a smattering of soundbites about Dobson’s critique of Obama’s speech at the “Call to Renewall” from 2006. Fortunately, there are immensely smarter and more popular bloggers out there like Scot McKnight to host quality, lively discussions about it all. So head on over…………………. [...]
Ted,
Ultimately there’s not a nickel’s worth of difference between Obama and McCain, speaking of facts.
Xns need not get excited about the “real change and hope” either offers.
I will vote for Obama. As I mentioned earlier, I don’t think Dobson was fair towards Obama. On the other hand, my vote for him is a frustrated but hopeful vote. I am somewhere between Dobson doesn’t speak for me, and the sentiments of Dave C (105) and the Wonders of Oyarsa in 104.
One of the things this reveals is how challenging it is for us all to be fair and to be civil when we hold such core beliefs passionately in our hearts and minds. It was an opportunity for Dobson to advance political friendship while still maintain passionate disagreement with Obama. We need Christians (Republicans, Democrats, and others) who can model civic friendship and responsibility with passionate beliefs.
I checked out the sight Dobson Doesn’t Speak For Me… I appreciate what the people had to say. Though I don’t think either one of them speak for me. I can only speak for myself. I pay only as much head as I need to either Obama or Dobson. Sorry if that makes me sound like a cynic. Quite frankly I am tired of people making proclamations or promises that i know they won’t keep. 17+ years of New Jersey politics will do that to a guy. We do have the highest taxes and insurance after all. Besides, Dobsy’s power has fallen a lot over the past few years. Ultimately, none of this stuff will matter.
A more gracious response may be best for both Senator Obama and Dr. Dobson. Dr. Dobson has, it seems to me, too closely aligned himself with the “conservative right”, which confused and conjoined True Faith with a modernist, political social agenda that went well beyond either Testament of scripture, thus compromising its credibility. His ministry, so greatly needed, to build up family values (regardless of denominational affiliation or faith) has now been permanently “attached” to a laundry list of people, ideas, and positions that marginalize his original, core mission.
Senator Obama, in my opinion, finds himself drawn into the “systematic theology” black hole: he hasn’t studied religion or theology, but is walking into a “field of debate” that is, contrary to the love of Jesus, overwhelming driven by a “take no prisoners” approach to dialogue.
May I express a hearts desire to see Psychologists stick to family dynamics and issues, and Politicians/Policy Wonks stick to fixing the economy, seeking global and national peace, health care, employment, environmental protections and stewardship, and clean energy. Let the Church and Body of Jesus focus on true religion: care for widows and orphans in need.
Is it possible to be against abortion but pro-choice, at least in the sense of being against the criminalization of it? It is not obvious, scientifically, that the single celled fertilized egg is equivalent to a fully formed human being that is made up of trillions of cells. Nor is it obvious that the Bible supports this notion (see Ex. 21:22-24). It seems to me that: a) to assert this equivalence theologically is to do more eisegesis than exegesis; b) to make abortion the final, trumping determinant in any political discussion including issues such as justice and peace is to value the fetus over the child or the adult; and c) to assert, tacitly or explicitly, that anyone who is against criminalization of abortion is therefore “for” abortion is to “Dobsonize” their position. It is what is done when one merely wishes to prevail in politics, but not what is done when one actually seeks the truth.
Danny (#15)–Obama’s speech at Sojourner’s has (mysteriously?) disappeared. Republican dirty trick? Or somebody covering tracks? Or coincidence?
There are a lot of strange claims circulating, including that Obama is the antichrist. I’ve offered both a serious response and a tongue-in-cheek satire on my blog.
roger,
the speech is on obama’s campaign site
http://www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_renewal_keynote_address.php
and his senate site as well
Ron (#130),
Anyway, how would you fit Psalm 139 into your point (a)? With respect to (c), it is a crime because it is taking the life of an innocent life and in my mind, how can you be against the criminalization of abortion yet be against abortion at the same time? I’m not a Dobson follower, but I do know that abortion is taking a life from an innocent baby whether someone chooses to do so under legal or illegal situations. In my mind, leglizing it makes it at least appear to be “OK” and condoning. With respect to (b), yes, out of order…I am truly torn about the whole issue of abortion and other “life” issues regarding the war, poverty, and such. I feel I will have to decide to vote for one at the expense of the other. Personally, I don’t think the abortion issue is the “final trumping determinant”, but it sure weighs heavily for me due to personal experience. All the yuckiness involving “pro-life” issues makes voting tough for those who take these issues seriously. I am a post-abortive woman who can testify first-hand about the awful effects abortion has on women. Mine was 12 1/2 years ago and although I have received healing from God through a post-Abortive Bible study and therapy, I still am reminded of this terrible act every holiday including Mother’s Day and when I think my baby might have been born, everytime I see a baby, every Sanctity of Life Sunday, and anytime the subject of abortion comes up to be quite honest! So…pretty much on a daily basis! Anyway, as I stated in the beginning, I’m commenting from my gut, but I wanted to let you know how one issue such as abortion can make it extremely difficult for people to vote, especially pro-entire-lifespan Christians who want what is best for all, unborn and born alike. I hope to work against being a “single-issue” voter, but it’s tough when deep, personal experiences are involved. I would imagine this to be true of others who have had experience with other issues that are “on the table” politically.
I think we may be getting off the topic of this post, but I will weigh-in on your comments anyway. I am speaking from my gut, not from a theological perspective…I barely even know what eisegesis and exegesis mean!
Ron, we think it is killing innocent human beings. I would hope you don’t think too highly of the French soldiers who made space for the genocide to go on a good deal longer in some sections of Rwanda, even though they didn’t do the killing or personally “approve” of it. The only conscionable position for you that I can see is to somehow argue that it’s not killing innocent human beings. But to say you don’t “personally” support killing innocent human beings, but don’t want the government to intervene, is incomprehensible to me.
Ted,
You are right at what I was trying to stress.
There is no need to comment. The short clip says it all. If you still don’t get it God help us.
I’m so glad to see this focused discussion taking place. There are so many claims being made about Obama, from him being a Hindu to him being the antichrist. Thanks, Scot, for getting such a respectful, focused discussion going on a specific topic, with a focus on not misrepresenting!
Oops…Ron at #133 now…I think it moved??? Maybe I’m just too tired!
Randy #125
Besides being untrue (no differences), I think cynicism is hurtful to our democracy. Both Obama and McCain are good men, and if someone can’t find good, even inspiring qualities in both of them, I think their moral compass is broken. I lived for 20 years in Colorado Springs, so I’m not surprised by Dobson. I agree with others that he’s defensive probably because he’s loosing much of his following.
And Chris B.
It pains me to see some of your comments. I think there are better ways in our democracy (where 2/3rds of the women and well over half the men think women should have the right to choose) to create a culture where sanctity of life is valued. It involves the things Bob Carlton touched on. From my studies, it seems pretty clear that to reduce the abortion rate in our world the following three things are of greatest importance: reduce poverty, empower women, create a reverence for life culture. All three require thoughtful approaches. Demonizing those who disagree with you is not helpful and quite possibly counterproductive.
Doug
Continuing the off-topic thread…quick comment
“From my studies, it seems pretty clear that to reduce the abortion rate in our world the following three things are of greatest importance: reduce poverty, empower women, create a reverence for life culture”
Thanks, Doug, Ron, Bob and others…This is the tension many of us feel in the pro-life political debate. Prior to the war in Iraq, the Federal Bureau of Prisons was the fastest growing federal agency. We’ve been told that we a higher % of our population incarcerated than any country at any time in the history of the world. We are definitely against abortion, but don’t see the criminalization of it as the top priority of our politicians, because it doesn’t show the greatest opportunity to decrease the numbers. Do we want to use our time, energy, and resources ramping up the court/prison systems or focused on what Doug mentions above.
I heard parts of the interview on POTUS radio. I agree it was misdirection on Dobson’s part. Unformtunate.
Must add, that I don’t personally know the truth about the incarceration statistic, but I keep hearing it. I find it hard to believe, but even if we’re close it is a critical systemic problem.
Look, we can break Dobson’s political theology down like this: he is against any notion of American identity being seen as “pluralistic”; America is a Christian nation which is under threat from cultural relativists and those hostile to consrvative Christianity,in which he probably sees Obama as a real threat, a wolf in sheeps clothing–one who professes Christianity but is subverting America’s Judeo-Christian heritage.
The problem is that Dobson’s political theology is as much in cultural captivity as he opines that Obama’s is. For Dobson, American political and cultural identity is tied to the cultural hegemony of Christianity in America. (In fact, the loss of cultural hegemony and th attempts to “regain” American for Christ is the backdrop for the ambivalent and often failed engagement in politics. They want the Bible, Jesus and the Faith to support their vision for a type of Constantinian political-cultural synergy, while the NT context does not require this. Paul cared more about the the authenticity and faithfulness of of his communities.
Where Obama is right is his insistence that the context for this the type of thing Dobson wants to do is the ecclesia (where Dobson has every right to question him on his views on the Bible,etc.); but in the polis where, citizenship is not based on religion or creed, the discourse has to be broadened, not scrubbed of its religious terminology but attempts to bridge gaps to come to some consensus of understanding has to occur.
Below is a link to the blog of Richard Mouw,the president of my alma mater,Fuller Seminary,who has weighed in on the California same-sex marriage decision.His response,although thoroughly “conservative and traditional,” reflects the concerns of Obama in terms of differentiaing how one is to articulate this in the public square in a pluralist society.
http://www.netbloghost.com/mouw/
Nicely balanced perspective. It takes a brave Christian to say he does not know who he will vote for in the presidential election.
You are right that the issues accuracy and civil discourse, these should be the bed rock of Christian interactions.
Thank you.
like a fire » Christians are Annoying Part 2
[...] So I have just caught up on a little bit of controversy surrounding Obama. I knew that he was going to push many people’s comfort level in the religion/state topic, but I should have seen this coming. Apparently James Dobson has taken it on himself to fight the good fight against Obama and has taken one of his speeches to point out why Obama is not the candidate for Christians. You can read about it here, see Obama’s speech here, and here about it from Scott McKnight here. [...]
Kim (#137) – Thank you for sharing your story.
Kim (137) & Wonders (138): My point was that it is presumptive to say that the unborn fetus from the moment of conception onward is an “innocent human being”. That is, it is an idea we bring to the Bible, and not an idea that springs inexorably from it. The position of the Bible on this point is, at the very least, ambiguous (which is why I cited the Exodus passage, which as far as I know is the one that comes closest to suggesting how the people of the OT viewed the unborn baby).
Kim, on being against abortion & its criminalization: We view many things as objectionable that we do not criminalize. To require that I agree to criminalization of abortion if I choose to be “against” it is similar to saying that if I don’t want my children to smoke marijuana or use drugs (which I most emphatically do not), I must be in favor of throwing them or other children in jail if they do (which I also am not in favor of). Another example: Generally we as a people are “against” war, but reserve the option of saying that it is necessary in some cases.
In all these examples, including abortion, to demand/require an “either/or” of two choices is to set up a false dichotomy, which may do more harm than good. Suppose for a moment that reducing abortions is our highest good. At least some people who have studied the issue say that better education and improved economic status are more significant factors in reducing the incidence of abortion than is religious belief. In that case, then, voting for a candidate solely on the basis of his/her avowed opposition to abortion could be counterproductive, especially if that candidate’s other positions result in the worsening of education and society’s economic well being.
Kim, With respect to Psalm 139, I think it is most straightforwardly read as a hymn about/to God, celebrating his/her sovereignty, omnipresence, graciousness, etc. I would say that to read it (e.g. v. 13-15) as equating the unborn child, especially from the moment of conception, to a fully formed adult is an example of “eisegesis” — a term which I “barely” understand myself.
More Dobson v. Obama
[...] Scott McKnight’s blog, Jesus Creed, is always good… his post on the issue is here. [...]
Ron,
Thank you for your thoughtful and kind approach to explaining your earlier comment. While I may not fully agree with you, mainly due to my own painful, personal experiences as I stated earlier, I do appreciate the productive and non-threatening dialogue. May we both gain more understanding from each other on this matter. Blessings!
Chris #108
I am somewhat surprised by your strong stance on abortion, giving your views on election and etenral torment. After all, isn’t God sovereign and does anything happen which is not God’s will? Hasn’t God already decided which of those fetuses he would have elected to save and which he hasn’t? If children in other parts of world have not heard God’s word and therefore are condemned to eternal torment because God had already decided he wasn’t going to elect them, then won’t the majority of these fetuses just be heading to eternal torment anyway? I mean, it’s true that we might have deprived them of the blink of an eye of happiness they might have had on this mortal coil, but what we did is nothing to what God has in store for them. As for those who God had already elected to save, God will have found a way to get the Gospel to them and we have just hastened them to bliss.
Kim #137,
This is even further off-topic, but I have a question for you if you are interested in answering it. I really hope this is not out of line to ask. If it is, I am glad for Scot to delete it.
You mentioned Mother’s Day. I have preached a number of Mother’s Day messages. I am always worried about the ladies who either are not moms, have lost kids, are post-abortive, etc. On the one hand, I want to create a bright and cheery mood for the holiday, but on the other, I just hate the thought of those who might experience pain on this holiday, perhaps more pain than joy, being sidelined and/or feeling left out.
So here’s the question: have there been any Mother’s Day messages or experiences that were particularly good or bad at handling this? Any suggestions you would make to someone preparing to preach such a message?
I thought Mr. Dobson said he wasn’t voting this year. If he’s not going to vote, can he spare us his commentary on the candidates. He’s increasingly coming off as bitter and desperate. Maybe he sees the writing on the wall that with either candidate, he’s got no juice.
Mariam (157),
Isn’t that a poor straw-man caricature of Calvinists? That belief in God’s election and hell should pacify one’s commitment to justice and response of obedience? This just reaffirms my belief that both sides, the Calvinists and Armenians or the Calvinists and Open Theists, prefer to talk past each other and demonize each other rather than have a real, in-depth conversation.
Oops, I meant Mariam (155)
I agree with Zach Lind.
The fear of being eclipsed seems to be coming to the fore. Dobson and the old guard Right are an embarrassment and have only made my job harder in ministry to the very people they constantly alienate.
I agree with Zach Lind.
The fear of being eclipsed seems to be coming to the fore. Dobson and the old guard Right are an embarrassment and have only made my job harder in ministry to the very people they constantly alienate.
I hope it is a straw-man. I am not trying to demonize Chris. I think the Calvinist stance on election and eternal torment is inconsistent with a pro-life stance. But you are correct that I may be talking past him, because I don’t really understand his beliefs. So I have stated his beliefs as I see them and I truly want him to tell me that I am wrong about what he believes and explain how I am wrong. I am responding to other things he has said on this blog and on his where he argues that we shouldn’t concern ourself with whether or not the “heathen” in Africa have heard the gospel because if God had already chosen them to be saved he would have sent somebody to give them the gospel. To me this notion that we shouldn’t concern ourselves with the eternal torment of most of humankind is inconsistent with a grave concern for the momentary pain experienced by some fetuses when they are aborted. However I have hope that if Chris has such compassion for the unborn (and I believe he truly does), that he also extends that compassion a little to the poor (he argues that liberals are being unbiblical when they try and get the government to take care of the poor) and those who are suffering and dying in many places who have not heard or understood the gospel. To quote Chris:
Either way, we donât need to spend a lot of energy worrying about those poor folks in the far corners of the world. “The Lord knows those who are His.â
And what would be even more wonderful, from my point of view, is if he could come to believe in a God who has not condemned the majority of humankind, including aborted fetuses to eternal torment, before they were even born. However if I have misrepresented Calvinists, and in particular Chris’, beliefs I would be very glad to hear that I am wrong and this is not what he (or you) believe.
MatthewS,
I too look forward to Kim’s answer. While we’re waiting, I’d like to offer my ideas, for whatever they’re worth to you. I come at the Mother’s Day issue from a different angle: I suffered with infertility for a time. In addition, I am adopted, and was aware I was from the time I began to ask my parents questions about where babies come from…
After a lifetime (52 years) of hearing a sermon nearly every Sunday, my preference is actually that the point of sermon not be about whatever cultural holiday is going on, not Mother’s/Father’s day, Independence/Veterans/Memorial Day, or anything else. It’s fine if a preacher wants to refer to those to help make a point, but sermons are most helpful for me when they are about understanding Jesus and what “the Christ event” means and why we come to him and how we follow him and how the Meaning permeates and comes out through our lives. I like the idea of having lectionaries, for this reason and others.
However, it’s a tradition in many churches to have Mother’s Day (or whatever) messages. So here are some things I’d hope you’d consider. It’s fine to want to create a cheery mood, but I would wonder, first of all, why you feel you need to do that- not saying it’s necessarily wrong, just wondering… Secondly, everyone’s relationship with their parents is laden with ambiguity, even if the relationships have been good overall, because parents aren’t perfect. Thirdly, I think God values honesty very highly.
In light of those three things, if you must preach a “Mother’s Day message”, I think it’s very appropriate to acknowledge:
-the ambiguity present even in good relationships, which carries some degree of sorrow;
-that some people have had terrible relationships with, or been abused/abandoned by, their mothers and still sorrow over that; (I never felt abandoned by my birth mother, but many adoptive children do. And in a former church I knew a man whose mother tried to abort him… he had forgiven her, but he still had the story to tell…)
-and that some women have wanted to be mothers, but for whatever reasons (no need to state specifics) have been unable to do so, and still sorrow over that.
I once spoke about this to a young pastor, and every time after that conversation that he preached on Mother’s Day he spent a few moments in acknowledgment of those things, then went on to the rest of his sermon. He later told me that others in the (mostly elderly) congregation told him they appreciated him doing that.
And in case you encounter people who think that such a tack is disobeying the commandment to honor parents, I once did a study on the word “honor” as used in the ten commandments and in Paul. In Hebrew, the root of the word is “to lay a burden upon” and can be either positive or negative. Therefore, I think God “gives us room” in that definition to tell the truth. In Greek it has no negative connotation; how to reconcile that? I think that we can only truly honor our parents as we tell the truth and live in forgiveness of them, which is the deepest it can be on *this* side of the cross. (A dear friend of mine was sold into child pornography by her father; she was able in Jesus’ love to get to the place where she could say from her heart that except for that (!) he was a pretty good dad.)
See, I think there’s enough pretense and superficiality outside the church doors. I understand that for some folks it’s a coping mechanism. I’d hope that in church, in communion with one another, pretense would be deconstructed, as gently as is necessary. Life is beautiful and hard, shot through with joy and sorrow both. The reality is that blood is NOT thicker than water, and that we over-idealize family relationships. Can’t we Christians, who claim to know Truth in the person of Jesus, and are constituted into a new family because of God’s love through Jesus by the Spirit, tell the truth about that too?
I understand crafting a good sermon takes work, and that most preachers are very conscientious about it. I appreciate your sensitivity and your question. I hope Kim responds.
Dana
For the sake of avoiding redundancy, I concur with Denny Burk and Wonders for Oyarsa.
As one who as been trained in law, theology, and philosophy (and I beg my fellow Christ followers not to take this as pride, but merely stating my credentials–ascribe to them whatever weight you wish), my opinion is that Mr. Dobson was not intent on misrepresenting Mr. Obama. Rather, he was voicing his anger over the improper and out-of-context use of Scripture. Even liberal theologians have recognized that, in general, forming a political argument on the basis of Levitcal law is misguided. Many from both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of this.
Some minor points: Mr. Dobson does not (to my knowledge) have a degree in theology. Granted. However, neither does Mr. Obama. Further, I would argue that Mr. Dobson does have a more accurate hermeneutic and more skill in exegesis than does Mr. Obama, given simply their jobs, their ages, and their associates.
What saddens me the most is reading the comments that focus on the advocate rather than the issue. Many are full of subtle personal attacks, and others outright sarcasm and hostility. I thank the Lord for those–on both sides of the issue–who have remained civil and charitable.
To all my brothers and sisters in Christ, I ask: by what did our Lord say the world will recognize us? By our love. Both Mr. Dobson an Mr. Obama claim to be followers of Christ. Both men are loved by Christ. We may disagree with the positions of one or the other. But as those who are called to be imitators of Christ, growing in conformity to His image, we must also love both men. I would pray that the Holy Spirit, not what I’ve written, would give you discernment as to what degree your thoughts, actions, and words honor our Saviour.
To the extent that my words above do not, I beg your forgiveness. Grace and peace to you all.
The position of the Bible on this point is, at the very least, ambiguous (which is why I cited the Exodus passage, which as far as I know is the one that comes closest to suggesting how the people of the OT viewed the unborn baby).
Only insofar as one can say that scripture is ambiguous about slavery (which one would be very wrong to do). The death of an unborn child in this way under the mosaic law is treated as the death of a slave – a loss to be sure, but not quite the same as a murder of an adult, because the person was in a situation where they were not free – and thus the wrong is toward the one whose charge they were under. In no way is the humanity of the unborn child ever questioned, any more than the Bible would suggest a slave isn’t human. Furthermore, the very idea that you would want to destroy the life of a child of your own is foreign to the mindset of the OT – children are an unambiguous blessing. No, the Bible speaks of the unborn as fully human, though not fully formed and free – and thus Job can speak of wishing he had been like those unborn, Rachel can hear of two nations struggling in her womb, and John the Baptist can jump for joy when still unborn when encountering the unborn Christ.
And what would be even more wonderful, from my point of view, is if he could come to believe in a God who has not condemned the majority of humankind, including aborted fetuses to eternal torment, before they were even born. However if I have misrepresented Calvinists, and in particular Chrisâ, beliefs I would be very glad to hear that I am wrong and this is not what he (or you) believe.
Miriam,
It is my understanding that there are many Calvinists with a far less repugnant and blasphemous view of God and the world.
Why I love blogging « P-3: Pursuing Passion and Purpose
[...] Recently, Scot McKnight of the Jesus Creed blog posted an editorial on the Obama/Dobson debate. I read Jesus Creed on occasion as it’s one of the blogs my friend, Bethany, links. But MarkO’s blog also linked it today and I was very interested in the topic. I’m sure Scot’s blog is one I will be visiting much more now. [...]
all relevant links can be found here:
http://www.duregger.net/james-dobson-doesnt-speak-for-me/
Internet Goodies from the Obama-Dobson Spat | Homebrewed Christianity
[...] Dobson gets feisty with Obama’s interpretation of scripture and lost of people blogged on it and I would have but some many of these were good! [...]
Miriam,
I checked out Chris B’s blog because it sounded horrifying, until I saw the context. The phrase he uses before should explain that he is not just content on no one doing nothing. He states, “If youâre feeling called to go to Africa, you may be the one who will be sent to the next Naaman or Cornelius. If youâre not feeling called to Africa, you may be the one who is sent to the family across the street.” Even earlier, he spoke of Muslims being drawn to Christ through dreams. I got the impression that he was demonstrating God’s active participation in getting his message out in which we are called to join, rather than taking a “survival of the fittest” and ultra-deterministic stand which you seemed to indicate.
I also checked out his site about the poor. Just because he doesn’t believe the government should shoulder the responsibility to help the poor doesn’t mean he lacks compassion (although it may not be realistic to depend solely on individual, family, and churches) Personally, I am a realist and have seen just as many churches do a lousy job helping the poor as I’ve seen in the government. Therefore, until the church stops spending the majority of its resources on quirky Christmas musicals, bricks and mortar, and professional staffing for everything, and begin to harness their people and financial resources towards reducing poverty, I believe the government is needed to be a safety net. By the way, I will attempt to address your question concerning election at a later time. I run an inner-city ministry and I am needed right now.
Dana,
Thank you for being vulnerable and sharing your insight.
Joel, Wonders,
OK. I’ll calm down. I read Chris’ comment in #58 and got mad, then I went to his blog, already mad and got madder, but maybe I was reading something into it that wasn’t there, based on what I thought he believed. And I shouldn’t be talking about him in the 3rd person. Chris, if you don’t believe that God has elected the majority of mankind for eternal punishment, I humbly apologize. In fact, I apologize, even if you do because I shouldn’t have got mad. But if you do think that we don’t have to care about people who have not heard the gospel because if God was going to save them he would have sent somebody I think you are wrong about God and that such a belief is inconsistent with your compassion for the unborn and I hope you change your mind.
MatthewS (#156), Thank you for asking me to share my thoughts on addressing Mother’s Day…I wanted to let you know that I do plan on responding (am not ignoring) and it may be much later tonight before I can truly give it the time it needs as today has been crazy (and still will be for a few more hours!). I do most certainly appreciate your sensitivity and concern in the matter as a pastor!
Mariam,
I can’t tell you how much I usually enjoy your posts here. If I’m overwhelmed by long lists of comments, and I see your name, I always stop to read. How surprising to me to see you so upset. I’m wondering what about Chris B’s current posts are so upsetting – as opposed to his usual stuff. We kind of know Chris B here, and I don’t understand Calvinists either, but you are usually one of the more tolerant (and I mean that in a truly good, Os Guinness, kind of way) voices here.
I think your second point about Chris B (Hey Chris – don’t mean to speak so rudely of you in the 3rd person either, but I felt more compelled to respond to Mariam than to you today) is more spot on regarding the issue of inconsistency. If we’re NOT called to ask the govt to care for the poor, then why are we called to ask the govt to imprison women who choose abortion? Or to ban homosexual marriages?
I sure don’t know how this got onto the abortion discussion, but since we’re so off track, I’m happy to throw my 2 cents into the abortion discussion here, I think that abortion is vile and an “acceptable” bad choice under only the most horrible of scenarios (child-mother, result of rape, etc) – and even then, I struggle with that. OTOH, I don’t think that throwing women into prison solves anything. Kim, I don’t know where you stand on this, and I so appreciate your raw honesty here, but I honestly don’t see how throwing you in jail would have contributed to anything. My bottom line is, if God created pregnancy so that He entrusted that baby to the direct and singular care of the pregnant woman for the first 9 months of life, than any choices that she makes are between her and God, hopefully to be influenced for the good by those of us who can love and cherish her. She has to answer to God for what she does or does not do to protect and birth that child. I think we would be far more productive in the long run to foster a culture of acceptance and support in this country for every pregnancy – for every child. That includes health care, nutrition, day care, loving and compassionate moral support. Why did women initially even attempt to abort their babies? Because they were in positions where they would be condemned, judged, left without resources, or even killed. When we change that, then we free women to choose life.
Grace and Peace,
Thanks Dianne,
I’m honoured that you think I have something worthwhile to contribute and even more embarrassed that I threw a wobbly.
Calvinism does push my buttons at times, although as WOnders pointed out, not all Calvinists think the same way and probably Chris doesn’t either and I have slandered him. My problem is with a belief that we somehow inherit evil from Adam, that God knows and has foredained who he will save and who will suffer eternal torment and that there is no hope for the majority of mankind because God has already decided that they are not elect. If you truly believe this, why would abortions even matter? I find this a blasphemous view of God; my upset is with how God is viewed. And probably Chris doesn’t believe this at all, and I have put 2+2 together and come up with 7.
As to abortion:
I am a liberal mostly, but I do not turn a blind eye to abortion, nor do any but the most strident pro-choicers I know. What they see is a difficult issue without simple answers. Abortion grieves me and I think it is wrong, although I stop short of demanding that it be criminalized. Abortion used as birth control or for convenience makes me angry. However, I also have a hard time condoning the notion that women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth, regardless of their circumstances and the circumstances of conception. I am all in favour of exhorting women to make a better choice than abortion and providing the means and support to make the choice to carry a pregnancy to term a more probable one. But to force that choice on someone, especially someone who is already vulnerable in some way, to me smacks of slavery. I think the best way to reduce abortion is to tackle poverty, provide sex education and attack a consumerist mindset that gives greater priority to things than people – in fact I completely agree with you about the most productive way to reduce abortions.
Here are two cases (from real life)
A young girl â 12 years old – is repeatedly raped. The trauma of this experience eventually causes severe psychosis. She believes there is something evil inside her. In her later teens, she is released from a mental hospital and sent to a womenâs shelter, largely inhabited by drug addicts and prostitutes. With no medical supervision, she abuses psychotropic medications and is in a state of dissociative psychosis. In this state she is once again beaten up and raped by a pimp who hangs around the âsafeâ house. A couple of months later, somewhat less ill, she finds herself pregnant and very sick with an STD. She isnât really sure how it happened. However, she is once again convinced that something evil is growing inside her. She begins starving herself and self-harming including trying to âcut it outâ. Doctors ask her parents for permission to perform an abortion because they believe if they donât the girlâs life will be forfeit. Should she be tied down and forced endure the pregnancy until the fetus is viable and the doctors can perform a C-section? Her parents do not believe in abortion but neither can they bear to see their daughter suffer any further.
Case 2:
A woman carries a pregnancy near-term and goes into premature labour. The woman is tiny and the child is very big and gets stuck. She is giving birth at home because they live a distance from a hospital. It is too late for a C-section and in any case, there are no facilities. The attending doctor is not able to turn the baby or draw it through the birth canal. The doctor turns to the husband and says: “Itâs it either her or the baby. Choose.”
Yes there are certainly abortions performed that shouldn’t be, but there are times, even with late abortions that the choice is a terrible one, but the lesser of two evils.
I believe it is YOU who don’t understand. Obama is basically saying that the Bible is whatever you want it to be, and not important. Dobson is saying that we CAN determine what the Bible is saying to us, that the Intelligence that brought the Bible into existance holds us responsible to understand and live by the Bible. So it is VERY important, and in a free political system each person has the right to fight to get the laws, etc in effect that he thinks are best. Obama will be a disaster for America on a lot of fronts.
I, too, do not know for whom I will vote–perhaps it will be for none of the above. But I am certain that Dr. Dobson does not represent me, himself, nor our Lord very well these days. I fell the same kind of embarrassment with Dobson that I used to feel when Falwell would say remarkable things. Not a good feeling.
I’ve finally posted about this diatribe from our good friend Dr. Dobson.
James Dobson v. Barack Obama
Dobson very definitely does NOT represent me. Or Christ. The Christ I know is one with love, not hate, in his heart. and he tells us to be the same way. Obama does that; Dobson does not. It bothers me that so many Christians apparently think Jesus did not mean it when he said we are not to judge others. So sad that so many people who profess to know Christ devote their lives to throwing rocks at others. Self-righteousness, Jesus taught, is a very bad thing. I am not “judging” them. I mourn for them; they are missing out on the incredible experience of loving others as we love ourselves.
Diane, loved your post:
My bottom line is, if God created pregnancy so that He entrusted that baby to the direct and singular care of the pregnant woman for the first 9 months of life, than any choices that she makes are between her and God, hopefully to be influenced for the good by those of us who can love and cherish her. She has to answer to God for what she does or does not do to protect and birth that child. I think we would be far more productive in the long run to foster a culture of acceptance and support in this country for every pregnancy – for every child. That includes health care, nutrition, day care, loving and compassionate moral support. Why did women initially even attempt to abort their babies? Because they were in positions where they would be condemned, judged, left without resources, or even killed. When we change that, then we free women to choose life.
I have nothing to add to this long conversation and would have emailed you, but this was the only way to let you know that I found your articulation of these issues beautiful and Christian. And as a long-term pro-lifer (even an Operation Rescue participant), I have slowly come to the same position.
Dobson, who I cherished for ten years, who I listened to with affection and love, whose teachings nurtured me and my family, no longer speaks for me. And that breaks my heart. I believe he is out of touch with this moment – his positions calcifying, his anxieties multiplying. He’s become shrill.
Obama speaks into and for the current spiritual climate. That must be terrifying to the old guard, of which Dobson is a part.
MatthewS (#156),
Sorryâ¦posting later than I thought I would! After much reflection, I believe that Dana gave the best advice on how to deliver a sensitive message on Mother’s Day. Because of the nature of abortion, I will always be sensitive to such days as I mentioned earlier. That will never go away on this side of heaven.
I think I have been most upset on Mother’s Day, in particular, when a pastor would devote the entire message to mothers and motherhood. It would feel rather torturous and like I wish I could have left or something. I would also feel upset when the pastor would even just acknowledge mothers, ignoring the painful aspects of the day.
I think whether the pastor preaches an entire message on Mother’s Day or simply spends a moment acknowledging mothers, he/she should also acknowledge the more difficult parts of the day like Dana had mentioned. To me, that kind of sensitivity speaks volumes to affirm and truly empathize with those who struggle with that day for whatever reason. I believe that also shows the pastor’s sensitivity and willingness to extend care and compassionâempathy and affirmation are absolutely HUGELY important in my opinion. My former pastor (heâs still there, I had to move) did address the harder parts of Motherâs Day, and I did feel affirmed and felt he understood that this day isnât the most pleasant for everyone in the congregation. No, acknowledging it doesnât erase the âyuckinessâ of the various difficult situations people deal with, but I believe it definitely shows that the pastor is reflecting Christ and is not out of touch with the realities of life in a fallen world.
I know Iâve not really said anymore than what Dana so beautifully stated, but perhaps my âAmen!â to her comments will encourage you and will guide you as you prepare for future Motherâs Days as a pastor. Again, thank you for asking, and thank you for your sensitivity in the matter.
Awesome, Kim and Dana. You have given me, and others, a gift. I’m just a seminary part-timer but have given several such sermons; will surely do more in the future. I have had to make guesses about what people were thinking but never had a good chance to actually ask. I really appreciate it a lot. Thank you.
I would never dispute that Dr. Dobson misunderstood the intent of Mr. Obama, but what frightens me is his (Obama’s) glibness at “quoting” Scripture. To me, as a born-again Christian of many years, this is a classic example of someone pulling passages out of the Bible and twisting them to suit his (Obama’s) purposes. Yes, I get what he was trying to say, and I agree, but I agree only if I accept his misunderstood (or at least, manipulated) quotations as an accurate portrayal of Christianity, which they are not. And I can’t blast Dr. Dobson for not “getting it,” because he (like all of us) tends to see the world through his own set of filters.
But, more to the point, Mr. Obama truly concerns me. Manipulations of this kind seem all too easy for politicians, and he continually strikes me as a true master of manipulation. Thus, there’s absolutely no chance I would ever support him for any sort of political office. Read Revelation, and then see if what you hear doesn’t sound frighteningly familiar…
Mariam,
I don’t think you threw a wobbly – not at all – I was just curious where this all was coming from. Calvinists make many of us crazy – thus the wild success of the “pesky Calvinist” blog. However, at the end of the day, it really doesn’t much matter what Chris B (sorry Chris), you, or I, or even – SCOT – thinks about God. God is who s/he is – inscrutable. What each of us THINKS isn’t close to being as important as what God IS.
When I get confused about the whole Calvinist thing, I stop and ponder that God gave each of us minds so that we might know him better. A friend used to say that since we are created in the image of God, then our minds must be created in his image as well (ok, that might be a scary thought – but honestly, the whole thing is pretty scary). The incomprehensible gamut of the glorious differences that he created in us somehow help us all to come to know him as we come together in community (ie, the church, or the blog). I think that I know him better when I read Chris B (so sorry to be using you in this way Chris – I guess I’m using you as the Calvinist archetype – if you are offended by this my friend, I retract the whole thing), and you Mariam, and Scot, and everyone else here.
Iron does sharpen iron – at least I pray that is what is happening. But back to my point, at the end of the day, the important thing is the relationship between God and me – prayerfully all this just draws me further, deeper into God’s story. Which is exactly where I want to be going.
SteveH,
I agree with your statement “…what frightens me is his (Obamaâs) glibness at âquotingâ Scripture. To me, as a born-again Christian of many years, this is a classic example of someone pulling passages out of the Bible and twisting them to suit his (Obamaâs) purposes.”
According to the CBS news webcite, Obama asked “which Biblical passage should guide public policy – chapters like Leviticus – which suggests slavery is ok…” My question: Why is it okay for Obama to keep the pot stirred by bringing up the slavery issue. This only moves people in the wrong direction–backwards. This keeps people down, feeling oppressed. Like Rev. Wright type of preaching, it keeps racism going. It’s not the white society that has to say anything. If racism is made an issue, it is done so by the non-whites. Yet we are told that racism will be not brought up…the Obama backers will be watching and listening for “code words”. They need to listen to the words of their “messiah”. Obamians need to get their hearts and minds out of the “cotton fields” that they continue to live in and get a real life. Also, all you “college smarties, career students, who think you know it all, who believe every word your college profs tell you” you need to get out in the real world, pay taxes, support a family, hold down a real job, support your country and military, and oh, hey try reading the Bible. Please keep in mind that this is all said in sisterly love, with no hatred, malice, or racial remarks intended.
Dobson is missing the point. Dobson hates being equated to Sharpton, and he has allowed his being offended to get in the way of understanding what Obama is saying. Dobson’s argument against Obama’s linking of Sharpton with Dobson is that Dobson is not a reverend or a theologian but instead a psychologist. This may be true, but it does not keep Dobson from bestowing theological judgments against people or ideas that he opposes and pastoral blessing on those that he deems to be properly Christian. Obamaâs point that Sharpton represents the Christian left while Dobson the Christian right is an appropriate observation. Obama is simply stating that America has to be careful not to favor one set of religious views over another, even the religious views within Christianity.
Can you be a Christian and a Democrat? « On Living
[...] Tagged Barack Obama, Democrat, James Dobson, US Election James Dobson of Focus on the Family thinks not, and he tries to push his point by misrepresenting Obama’s views and comments on lots of things. Scott McKnight does a good job of detangling some of Dobsons misrepresentations, as does St Benedict. At one point Dobson claims this (quoted on his website): He went so far as to equate Dr. James Dobson with the far-Left Rev. Al Sharpton [...]
John Armstrong on his blog “Act 3″ recently wrote a post that asks the question, “Does Political Partisanship Help or Hurt the Mission of the Church?” I thought it was insightful, and much in keeping with many of the sentiment here. In the comment section of his post I said the following, which I believe is apropos here.
*******
In my imagination I have often revisited the moment when Jesus is standing before Pilate declaring that his Kingdom is not of this world. An implication that I see in this statement is that we cannot understand the political ramifications of the Gospel by resorting to the categories that this world offers. Jesus’ Kingdom cannot be captured or expressed via the platform of the Republicans or the Democrats for the Gospel transcends them regarding the hope it offers and the expectations it places upon humanity. Consequently, it also provides an indictment on both of these parties, or any party, or political ideology.
Can a Xian be a Republican? Certainly. Can a Xian be a Democrat? Certainly. But, in both instances they need to be critical members of those parties, they need to hold their affiliation loosely, and pragmatically, as when Paul utilized his Roman citizenship in service of the Gospel.
As Jesus said, new wine requires new wine skins, and so, as we seek to live out our faith in political terms, we need to draw upon new categories to sort our political experience, options, and courses of action. We also need to realize that we will never nail down how the Gospel transfers into political commitments, for it is transcendent and thereby most essentially it calls us to be ever self-critical and self-reforming.
Are we going to praise Jesus or the Republican party and where do we draw the line between the two ?????
Wow! This is certainly a hot topic.
What bugged me the most about Dobson’s attack on Obama was that he played the whole “You don’t take the Bible as seriously as I doâ card on a guy who, in my opinion, takes it more seriously than most folks on the religious right.
Obama respects the Bible enough to acknowledge that:
1) multiple interpretations of the Bible exist
2) there are many ways to apply the teachings of the Bible to public life
3) no one denomination or spokesperson has a monopoly on how to accurately interpret the Bible and apply it to public life
4) because we live in a pluralistic society, we must learn to raise the level of public discourse so that we not only appeal to our specific religious tradition, but to a common sense of morality and justice.
I think perhaps Obama has a more realistic approach to the Bible than Dobson. The Bible is not a manual for how to run a country. The Bible is a beautifully diverse collection of stories, poetry, history, and letters. It is full of both timeless truths and cultural assumptions. Applying its teaching to public life isnât as easy as Dobson makes it out to be.
Dobson accused Obama of âdeliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology.â What does Dobson mean by âthe traditional understanding of the Bibleâ? He means âthe James Dobson understanding of the Bible.”
Dobson has every right to his interpretation, but I think he is wrong to claim that only those who interpret the Bible in this way take it seriously and that everyone else has a distorted view. People who take the Bible seriously use it to start conversations, not end them.
Regretfully you seem to have devoted your message to an examination of what you perceive to be distortions by Dr. Dobson. I see little, if any, examination of what Mr. Obama has said. One thing I will call into question is Mr. Obama’s position on leading in what he describes as a pluralistic society He asks, whose christianity do we follow, that of Reverend Sharpton, or that of Dr. Dobson. I would suggest that we may need to concern ourselves to understand the basis for that question. First, we should follow neither, nor any other religious leader, pastor, political leader, etc. We should be followers of Jesus. Second, an examination should be made of those that want to be the leader of this country. Mr. Obama claims to be a Christian, yet an examination of his core beliefs, confirmed by his voting record, should give pause for great concern. Each person should examine Mr. Obama’s core beliefs in accordance with their own personal examination of the sciptures. As brothers and sisters in Christ we are to hold each other accountable in the faith.
Ron,
Thanks for reading and commenting. Our post was dedicated to one topic: whether or not Dobson represented the words and intent of Obama fairly, which I did not think happened. It was not a post about the merits or demerits of Obama’s political theories. We are doing our best to keep this from being a for Obama vs. an against Obama discussion. Unfortunately, I have had to delete more comments than usual and all of them have been nasty language directed at Obama.
Dr. McKnight, is not your stance on this issue antithetical to your vocation? Are you concerned with the confusion this would cause to students who are interested in making a stand for Christ in our culture?
I apologize if my previous comment was too offensive, I made the effort to make sure that it was not disrespectful.
Sincerely,
Michael
Michael,
We go by first names here, so feel free to address me as “Scot.” But I’m not sure what you mean, so let me speculate.
First, if it has to do with Dobson misrepresentation … no, I think it is important to be able to summarize what someone else thinks — in their terms and to the point of their being satisfied with the summary.
Second, if you think it is because I have somehow defended Obama, which I don’t think was my point, then I would say this is another good form of education: what did Obama say? what did he mean? why did he summarize the options as Sharpton and Dobson — and in that audience? why did he speak of the difficulty of having to choose parts of the Bible when applying the Bible? All very good stuff from this educator’s point of view.
Am I close to what you are asking?
Scot,
For now I will accept your education lesson to look deeper into what is being said by Obama, or other, in future matters.
Being both young and having quite a journey in education ahead of me, I tend to be full of a passion to see the Word of God triumphant in these skirmishes. I am proud to see men of faith, such as Dobson, make that stand, regardless of the controversy, when a person such as Obama feels that he is qualified to speak about the Christian God and takes the liberty also to speak of Christ.
Michael
Dobson’s Increasing Marginalization – Stems from His Own Words : The Edge of the Inside
[...] Last week I listened to the now (in)famous radio broadcast of James Dobson taking after Senator Obama. I read a number of references to this interview and most expressed the sentiment they wanted people to know Dobson does not speak for them as Evangelicals nor as Christians. Scot McKnight offers some of the same kind of observations and questions I would have. He did it better here. [...]
Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council defended Dobson on Anderson Cooper 360. He stated in the blog before the show:
“Dobson said, ‘What [Obama is] trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe.’ Obamaâs statement reflects the Democratic Partyâs pre-2008 position, which is that you must check your faith at the gate of the public arena. Now that Democrats appear to have gotten religion, Sen. Obama is saying that while he is a Christian, he doesnât think that faith or the Bible should have any role in shaping public policy. Thereâs either a disconnect between Sen. Obamaâs faith and the policy positions he holds, or his theology is off.”
Anderson Cooper then played for Perkins an actual clip of Obama’s speech (which Dobson was criticizing) where Obama says, “What I am suggesting is that secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. So to say that men and women should not inject their ‘personal morality’ into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of our morality, much of which is grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”
Anderson Cooper: “That doesn’t sound like they are saying there is no role for religion in the public square.”
Rev. Sharpton (who was also on the CNN panel with Perkins): “I don’t understand why we are reading things [into Obama's speech] that clearly [were not] said in his speech.”
It amazes me how Perkins and Dobson deliberately distorted Obama’s comment, and when confronted by Anderson Cooper (who Perkins later in the show said he had concern for his eternal destiny) Perkins would not admit they had lied on Obama. Shamelessly.
There is a disconnect between what Obama said and Dobson’s problem with it. Dobson’s position is clearly ideology, not theology.
ashelby (#197),
You may be referring to the wrong text of Senator Obama’s speech. Here is an exact excerpt from the transcript of his message:
“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those
with no faith at all.”
Don’t you think this is the part of the speech to which Dr. Dobson is referring? And even if not, don’t you personally have some issue with this. If you believe something to be right, why would you take a position that “Oh well, because I am unable to express myself within the bounds that I have set for myself, then I must not continue to pursue the right.”
Michael (#193),
You make an excellent point. This post intends to limit discussion to an assessment of the fairness of Dr. Dobson’s challenge to Senator Obama’s speech. Well obviously you are going to find a lot of people accepting this challenge. In fact I could agree that some of the conclusions that Dr. Dobson made might not be entirely fair. However, this approach limits discussion of the broader picture. What are the rights of a Christian to participate in open discourse in the public square?
I think some of these outspoken evangelicals don’t know how to take a Democrat that is out-spoken about his faith. Unfortunately those who use fear, manipulation and distortion are those who get talk radio shows. Well reasoned, careful and considerate thought doesn’t make the airwaves. At least we can find blogs like this that help us to think through these issues in a reasonable way. I’m not sure who i will vote for yet either. Hoping the debates will help.
201, Ron: Christians have every right to participate in open discourse in the public square. Obama is not denying that – in fact he has encouraged the left and right, faithful, atheists and agnostics to take their hands away from their ears and listen to what Christians have to say. What he is saying, however, is that if you want to convince someone of your point of view, you need to learn to translate your speech into something they can understand. It is as if you were in a room with people who spoke a variety of languages as their mother tongue but all used English to communicate with each other. However you insisted on speaking only in Navajo – even though you speak English quite well. You demand that everyone speak Navajo or you are being persecuted. Nobody else speaks Navajo. The point isn’t that you shouldn’t be allowed to speak Navajo. The point is that unless you speak the common language no one will understand what you saying and you won’t be able to achieve your goals. In the political sphere reason, common sense, and evidence are the common language. Referring to the Bible, or the Koran, or whatever authority you hold to be the language of God is not going to convince someone who doesn’t share your opinion of that authority, or even someone who holds to a different interpretation. Almost all biblical morality and law can be universalized and translated into the Golden Rule, reason and common sense. Yes, even abortion and homosexuality. I have always found abortion wrong – even when I was an atheist. My reason was based on the sanctity of human life and the slippery slope that ensues when we take it upon ourselves to decides that some lives are more valuable than others. Where then do we draw the line? Right now I sit on the fence, but I could be convinced.
I actually don’t have a problem with homosexuality but I can somewhat buy into the argument that gay marriage is, again, part of a slippery slope that will change the definition of marriage that we have accepted for centuries and we haven’t thought through all the ramifications of what that means. Do you see what I mean? I’m a liberal. I don’t believe in the inerrancy of scripture in the same way you do, but I am open to reasonable arguments for your point of view. I am eager to see how the essentials of your/our faith can be articulated into universal truths. If our faith contain the truth, it shouldn’t be so hard to reveal that truth to others. So speak to me. But let’s use a common language.
Numbers keep changing. Now it’s Ron 199. Oh well, you know who you are.
Mariam,
Thank you for your reasoned and polite response. And yes, I do know who I am. “smile”
I really do appreciate what you are saying, but you may have missed part of a point that I am making.
1) Senator Obama has identified himself as a Christian
2) He has actually voted on bills that are in support of abortion
3) He makes a speech that says (I’ll paraphrase here because I have provided the full text in an earlier post) “… while I may be opposed to abortion, if I want to convince others I must put my argument in a language they can understand…”
My point is, that if he is a Christian, and as such through all his backgrounds (family, friends, associates, and faith) arrived at the conclusion that something is “right”, then he should not be able to excuse himself from pursuing that “right” just because he considers himself inadequate to articulate the “right” in a form (language) that fits some definition that he has decided to which he must conform. See my point?
Notice that I have a difficult time articulating my point. Run on sentences and poor grammatical structure. Yet I can’t relief myself of responsibility to pursue what I belief to be right just because I have limitations in my ability to communicate.
Thanks again for your considerate response.
Ron, Yes now I see your point. You are arguing that if he truly believes something is right, the fact that he is not able to convince others that he is right, doesn’t absolve him from doing what he believes is right. I’m with you to a point, BUT, politicians do not just represent their own beliefs, we elect them to do what we think is right, not necessarily what they think is right. For example, if a politician decided that what he believed was right was that women shouldn’t be allowed to go to school because God didn’t like it, I would say “You may think that, but you’re not entitled to impose that on me, just because YOU think it is right”. In some sense it would be more honest to say, “these are the things I believe and I am going to pursue these goals regardless of what you want. If you don’t like it, don’t vote for me.” I agree with you, that would be quite refreshing. But I don’t if any politician is THAT honest. If they were, I don’t know if they would ever be elected:) Thanks for clarifying your point.
Mariam,
Good discussion. But a couple follow up comments.
1) If a candidate does not clearly (and unequivocally) state his views, beliefs, positions, etc, then how are the voters to know how to cast their vote?
2) How could you vote for someone, and only after they get into office tell them what you want them to do? I can understand maybe on current funding questions, or other matters that come up after election, but what about long debated matters?
And you said the following:
In some sense it would be more honest to say, âthese are the things I believe and I am going to pursue these goals regardless of what you want. If you donât like it, donât vote for me.â I agree with you, that would be quite refreshing. But I donât if any politician is THAT honest. If they were, I donât know if they would ever be elected:)
On this I can totally understand your point, and that is exactly why so many people become cynical when it comes to politics. Might also explain why so many people don’t vote. I have never missed an opportunity to vote, but must admit that I sometimes get so frustrated that I strongly consider not voting as my only valid option.
The Dark Glass » Blog Archive » Jesus Stands Before Pilate
[...] Jesus Creed: Dobson on Obama [...]
» James Dobson’s Attack On Obama: When Major Evangelical Figures Act Like They Speak for You and I, but They Don’t.
[...] Several key people weigh in, one of them being Scott McKnight over at Jesus Creed (205 comments and counting). [...]
Obama/Dobson Debate « Grace Rules Weblog
[...] Obama/Dobson Debate The Dobson/Obama debate spurred a lot of âdiscussionâ last week. (Scot McKnight had a hearty discussion going on over at Jesus Creed.) I was personally disappointed in Dobsonâs remarks. Not that I thought Obamaâs speech was above reproach. I thought some of the language he chose to use was inciting, even though I thought he made a good point about the way Christians should consider engaging a pluralistic society. But, Dobson disappointed me greatly. I thought he went out of his way to misrepresent what Obama said (obviously Obama was not âequatingâ Dobson with Sharpton â he was contrasting the two) and I can only think of two reasons Dobson might do this: 1) He is just playing politics and/or 2) He is so wrapped up in his opposition of Obama that he cannot hear what Obama is saying. Neither one of those reasons are attractive. I think Dobson would have done better not to comment on the speech at all. However, if he must, then he would do better to present his point of view in a way that allowed him to state what the obvious intent of Obamaâs speech was and to talk about his own perspective on the issue. I donât say any of this in defense of Obama. I probably will not vote for him. I bring this up because I am grieved over the way someone who has built their public identity around the fact that they are a Christian speaks about others, the way he twists what others say to promote his own agenda, the way he trys to influence others by misrepresenting his opposition. I expect this kind of thing from a person who builds their public identity around being a politician, but I donât want someone like Dobson âplaying politicsâ with me. I want Dobson to demonstrate more respect for others even if he disagrees with them. I want him to give others the benefit of the doubt rather than thinking the worse about them. I want him to engage not attack, connect not polarize, incite discussion not hate. I donât mean to indicate that Dobson is the only public Christian personality who does this, but he is the one who did it last week. [...]
Brian McLaren weighs in on the Dobson vs. Obama debacle « the tension is here…
[...] Scot McKnight weighed in on this as well. It’s a lot more concise than McLaren’s, however, he does come to some of the same conclusions. For those people who have a tough time hearing from McLaren, maybe this other take on it would be beneficial to check out? Just a thought… Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)A European Christian’s perspectiveâ¦Obama Says Dobson “Making Stuff Up”Dobson Accuses Obama Of “Distorting” BibleObama's Barack in Chicago [...]
It seems to me that Dobson seems to rail on Obama for many things taken out of context. But what troubled me about Dobson and Minner was the “don’t give a hoot” about family comment Dobson made.
Dobson makes it clear that no political candidate advocates for the family. I find that hard to digest on general principle. We all come from family, and so we all have a vested interest in family issues.
But I decided to go to Obama’s website and listen to his speeches from 2006 to present. It is very clear that he is challenging the minority as well as the majority to get involved with family.
He has said on more than one occasion to turn off the video games and get the homework done. He wasn’t speaking to the kids. He challenged minorities that it isn’t wrong to be expected to learn how to “conjugate verbs”. He advocates giving to the poor what they need to succeed. He makes no apology for advocating for equal rights. He should, he is more of a minority than most minorities. That alone doesn’t qualify him to be in the White House any more than being a POW does. . .
Is Obama for abortion, or is he willing to let a woman choose? I strongly support the pro life stance. I am unashamidly pro-life. However, I am troubled at the generalization that was presented by Dr. Dobson. Here is the rub, if I am honest with myself am I willing to go to the abortion clinic and tell a young woman I will adopt your baby, or I will support you financially, spiritually and most important socially if you choose to keep this child. I want too, but my actions fall short of my intentions.
I think Jesus might have been down at the local abortion clinic not to picket, be self-righteous (even though He is) giving the woman a ride home, some food, money or whatever else she might need. Community.
With that said, Dr. Dobson is only human! He is a tireless advocate for the family, so I expect him to be very polarized on family issues. What I didn’t expect was his seemingly harsh remarks that appeared to be taken out of context. . .
Maybe I assumed that Dr. Dobson had a pipeline of inside information on these candidates that I don’t have. Maybe I am just at the point of maturity to do my own research. Either way, it seems on this point we each had the same information available to us, but I do not see the conclusion Dr. Dobson does.
Ron & Miriam,
Thanks for the polite discourse on a subject that I have seen many fight and die over. Here are observations from my perspectuve though:
A person’s vote on the issue of abortion is not always a reflection of their spirituality one way or another. One can be Christian, yet vote pro-choice.
Let me explain by saying that as a rule most people are disquieted, dissapointed, and disturbed by abortion. Obama does not have to like abortion or be “for” it in order to vote for a law that gives women the right to do it. Nor does this make him less Christian or somehow disqualify him from A life of follwing Jesus.
Let me go on to say that his opinion on the abortion issue in my opinion is mostly irrelevant. This is not about his character, but merely his interpretation of how secular law should be applied in a world that is not altogether religious.
He is a constitutional attorney by trade, and you have to realize that as such he will view the issues in light of the fact that not everyone agrees with him on them.
In fact it makes sense that as a constitutional lawyer he would respond to these issues with fairness and universal application in mind — not from strictly a religious perspective.
This is not to say that as a follower of Christ his faith is irrelevant. I believe that his faith will inform the passion in which he pursues less controversial issues like poverty, healthcare, racial reconciliation, etc.
Again, this is my opinion, having read two of his novels and tsking into consideration my own views of faith in a pluralistic society.