James Dobson Preaches a False Gospel

[Hazumu]

James Dobson Preaches a False Gospel

Miguel De La Torre
06-30-08

For this reason we must consistently test those who claim to speak for Christ or to be doing Christ's work in the public sphere. Christians must examine the trail of corpses littering the past eight years and ask themselves if Dobson and Bush's Christ has proved itself to be "like roaring lions seeking the disenfranchised to devour." If so, then for the sake of our own souls, we must not only reject this Christ but also unmask his followers for what they are and who they follow.

To be a Christian who follows the teaching of the Gospel is to wage war against the Christ offered to us by Dobson and Bush. For their Christ has legitimized and normalized the social, economic and physical genocide of the world's disenfranchised. To be a Christian is to wage this war against all the forces of Satan, who have traded the liberating message of the gospel for 40 pieces of silver, and all the power, recognition and privilege that silver can buy.

[NicholeW.]

Mr. de la Torre, imo makes a wonderful case that the shepherd, in the case of James Dobson, is a ravenous beast who wants blood, the more the better, as a "traditional understanding of the Bible." That in itself damns Dobson by the words of the Christ I was indoctrinated with as a child. "Whosoever harms one of these little ones ...."

Ironically, Dobson said, "I think [Obama] is deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," adding that Obama is "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."

Yet when we look at the Christ in which Dobson believes--a Christ of empire, capitalist triumphalism, militarism and consumerism--Dobson believes in a Christ that brings death: death to prisoners of war, death to the poor and disenfranchised, death to the undocumented crossing deserts. Such a Christ contradicts the Christ of the Gospel who assured his followers that he came to bring life, and life abundantly (Jn 10:10).

Throughout Christian history there have arisen self-proclaimed prophets and guardians of the public's morals. The early apostles foresaw this threat and provided guidance to the early church on how to test the spirits. The apostle Peter warned us that we can spot the Evil One because he brings death. "Your adversary the devil is prowling around like a roaring lion seeking someone to devour" (1 Pt 5:.

Nichole

[Chaunte]

This is the sort of thing Susan Stanton faced when "preachers" declaired that Jesus Himself would demand that she be fired.

[Suzy]

For the past eight years, James Dobson's brand of Christianity has been normative in the land. Dobson has preached a Christ acceptable to the present Bush administration. When George W. Bush and company get down on their knees, they pray to the same Christ to whom Dobson turns for guidance in making moral decisions.  Not surprisingly, Dobson has never--to the best of my knowledge--criticized Bush's policies, legislation or actions as being unchristian. And why should he? For both share a brotherhood in worshiping the same Christ.

Sheesh, I can't believe I'm doing this, but I think fair is fair, no matter who it is.

de la Torre is writing a very slanted article which seems to assume that Bush and Dobson are political allies.  They are not.  Why should he criticize?  Indeed, that is the question.  Focus on the Family is not a political organization, and to retain their 501c-3 status they cannot be political.  What you will see is that they do take stands on issues, rather than on parties.  You will see that they speak about such things as immigration, child abuse, domestic violence, substance abuse, pornography, adoption, family relationships, and many other issues that Dobson, as a conservative Christian psychologist feels are in line with his faith.  FWIW, he is not, and has never claimed to be an ordained minister.  The issues he speaks about are those that directly relate to his focus of families and faith.  A comment which sounds like moral relativism, like the one made by Obama, will be fair game to his agenda.  I have heard him criticize parts of every recent administration.  The next one, regardless of who wins, will be in the same boat.  He did not, as the article seems to portray, begin eight years ago.

Yet when we look at the Christ in which Dobson believes--a Christ of empire, capitalist triumphalism, militarism and consumerism--Dobson believes in a Christ that brings death: death to prisoners of war, death to the poor and disenfranchised, death to the undocumented crossing deserts. Such a Christ contradicts the Christ of the Gospel who assured his followers that he came to bring life, and life abundantly (Jn 10:10).

Well it would be easy to hate someone like that, wouldn't it?  The only problem is that de la Torre has his facts rather mixed up.  For all his faults, capitalist triumphalism, militarism and consumerism are words that no more describe James Dobson than Mother Theresa.  Despite his enormous book sales and popularity, he lives a very quiet and extremely modest lifestyle, giving away most of his proceeds.

Let me be very clear:  I do not agree with some of what James Dobson teaches.  Not by a longshot.  But I do believe in fairness.  And this article is pure guilt by association, putting words in his mouth on issues he has not spoken about.  And then, in the name of Christ, pronounces judgment on another's faith.  That seems to me, to be hypocritical in the extreme.

Everyone here loves to hate James Dobson, I know.  But I still think fair is fair.  And this article isn't.

Kristi

[NicholeW.]

OK, perhaps there is something to what you say, Kristi.

Here's a link to some quotes on topics by the man from Wikipedia. I'll continue to search some more. But, what I am reading there indicates to me that he does have decidedly political views. That he doesn't endorse one party or another is absolutely no different than what was done by Jerry Falwell and ordained ministers from their pulpits.

Not to make a public endorsement under the guise of Focus On the Family does not mean that he doesn't come fully-equipped with opinions and a willingness to press for adopting those ideas in public forums. That he doesn't say "Vote for Bush" is hardly the issue.

He does say that as a "private citizen I will not vote for John McCain." -- Ok. A private citizen. But, a private citizen with a large business of book sales, tv appearances and a national organization that is lauded from many pulpits. So, if he is a simple and decent man and just another private citizen, why does his decision on voting manage to be reportable across a range of media from Laura Ingraham to CNN?

Fairness is not the issue. He takes public stands, calls groups of people perverts, calls other groups (Muslims) inherently violent and expects? No response, no evaluation because his organization is a non-profit?

One may agree with him or not. That's not the issue. But, neither is fairness. When I not only have, but pursue, a job as arbitor of public morality, a latter-day Cato the Censor, then I need to expect that the public will take issue with why and how I arbitrate.

It is absolutely as fair as it is for James Dobson to seek and use public attention for his own ideas, that he claims are God's ideas. How does a human being know so surely and intimately the mind of any god? 

My love and respect to you, Kristi. But, I don't grant that to Mr. Dobson, nor will I feel at all convicted for making public judgement on a man who makes public judgements on others his life's work.

Love,

Nichole

[Suzy]

Nichole,

No offense taken, hon.  And of course, we do not actually disagree on many of the issues.  But I think Falwell went way further when he intentionally developed his political organization.   I am not sure how he kept his non-profit status.  But somehow he did.

If you wish to disagree with him, I have no problem with that.  Disagree on the issues, and be fair when you judge him as a person.

My response was about De La Torre's comment:

traded the liberating message of the gospel for 40 pieces of silver, and all the power, recognition and privilege that silver can buy.

This I consider to be quite unfair. 

FWIW, in my day I have met and interviewed both Dobson and Falwell.  While I have major disagreements with both of them on issues (and they know it), I don't have any problem saying that there are things about them both personally that are decent, and I do not believe either of them are in it just for the money.  That is as fair as I know how to be.  I hope one day others judge me with that kind of fairness.

I also hope that people will learn to really listen to one another.  What a novel concept.  Surprising things happen.  That seems to be a lost art today.

Kristi

[Maebh]

FWIW, in my day I have met and interviewed both Dobson and Falwell.  While I have major disagreements with both of them on issues (and they know it), I don't have any problem saying that there are things about them both personally that are decent, and I do not believe either of them are in it just for the money.  That is as fair as I know how to be.  I hope one day others judge me with that kind of fairness.

Did you ask them about their position regarding TGism?
What was their answer? How did you feel about it?
What do you think their reaction would be if you did? How would you fell about it?

I also hope that people will learn to really listen to one another.  What a novel concept.  Surprising things happen.  That seems to be a lost art today.
Kristi

LLL&R

Maebh