Jun 24, 2008
Picking Apart Dobson’s Critique of Obama’s Theology While Sipping Wine
According to NPR, conservative religious leader James Dobson has critiqued Barack Obama’s take on theology as playing favorites with the text in order to advance his own agenda. He said on his popular radio show:
“I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology,”
Now let me first take a sip of wine… there, that’s better. I always enjoy blogging about conservatives with a little wine in the system. It’s good for the stomach Timothy!
Now that my tummy is settled, I’d like to dig into this statement that Obama is playing favorites with the Bible for his own purposes. I’d like to start by saying that theologically I’m probably closer to Dobson, as Obama is a theological liberal. I have a lot of respect for where liberals are coming from, learn from them, learn from their cousins the Neo-Orthodox, and think we should not dismiss them out of hand, but when it comes to my view of scripture and such, I’m probably closer to Dobson if you put a gun to my head. I know it’s fashionable for moderate bloggers to kick Dobson to the curb, so I’ll do my best to behave.
So Dobson’s flap concerns some statements Obama made about the Bible. Obama stated,
“Would we go with James Dobson’s (interpretation) or Al Sharpton’s?” Obama asked the cheering crowd, referring to the two widely different religious leaders. “Which passages of Scripture would guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus which says that slavery is OK but eating shell fish is an abomination… Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount — a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application?”
Does that sound like distortion, or an acknowledgement of complexity? Is Obama dumbing the issue down or raising more questions? Is he discrediting the Bible or asking us to look at it more closely?
Time for a big gulp of wine.
It’s a classic attack style in theology to reduce your opponents views to a self-serving interpretation. The implication being that you are the defender of the truth. I have to admit that conservatives love this. We snap up books about defending the truth and such from people who want to distort the clear, literal, easily interpreted truth of the Bible. Sadly enough it seems the truth is being distorted plenty when we think we have the only valid view.
So the irony here is that I agree with Dobson in the broadest of terms. He probably wouldn’t accept me where I’m at, but I’m cool with him even if I wouldn’t say things exactly as he says them. And that is the problem. The Evangelical hierarchy spend way too much time trying to determine who’s in and who’s out, rather than seeking truth, building truth, and learning from the truth in the views of others, even if we think our way is best at the end of the day.
Curiously a group of pastor’s started a site called James Dobson Doesn’t Speak for Me. They dig into some of the specific statements in depth.
At the end of the day I hope Evangelicals can keep some of their wonderful gains in theology and service, but drop this combative stance to other perspectives. We really don’t need to make more enemies. That doesn’t mean we wallow in a postmodern relativism, but simply learn how to listen and evaluate, even if we hold on to our views when the smoke clears.
And if you’re looking for some comic relief here, Dobson didn’t let us down. Dobson actually said that Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law and president of the Harvard Law Review, made a “fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.” Now it’s one thing to critique Obama’s theology, which Dobson is more than qualified to do provided he plays fair when presenting his opponent’s views, but does he really think he can take on Obama on the Constitution? I laughed out loud at that one.
That about does it for now, and it’s just as well–I’m thirsty again. I think there’s still enough wine left in the fridge for another glass. For more info see link, Obama’s faith, and yahoo.
“Does that sound like distortion, or an acknowledgement of complexity?”
It sounds like ignorance of old vs. new or a purposeful distortion of the renewed world in which we live now, namely the Kingdom of God. I am the first to jump on Dobson when he is out of line, but Obama’s masquerade of the Scripture is beyond offensive and ignorant. Putting the old against the new…after the old was fulfilled and ceased to essentially matter is simply put…idiotic. And then throw in some language about “slavery” and “the Bush justice department” and man…you end up with some big-bang election crap right there.
I think the broader point he’s making is that context matters and religion brings with it a certain level of complexity. Our humility in handling this complexity will help prevent unnecessary rifts. He’s also addressing the way we can have separation of church and state, while still allowing religion to guide us. Here’s the whole context of it:
“Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
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? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.
This brings me to my second point. 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.”
Here’s a chunk from a part of the speech following that:
“Even those who claim the Bible’s inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages – the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ’s divinity – are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.
The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.
But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation – context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase “under God.” I didn’t. Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs – targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers – that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems.”
[...] Jake Bouma on ReutersBob at the CornerEd Cyzewski [...]