David W. Swanson

Pastor and Author

more james dobson et al.

I’m sorry. I don’t want to continue posting this kind of stuff, but something compels my fingers to type…

Two articles today once again have me scratching my head about the actions of certain Christian leaders and spokespeople. From Michael Scherer of Time Magazine,

At a meeting Tuesday in Denver, about 100 conservative Christian leaders from around the country agreed to unite behind the candidacy of John McCain, a politician they have long distrusted, marking the latest in a string of movements that bode well for McCain’s general election prospects among the Republican base.

And in an article from The Nation Max Blumenthal writes about a June meeting Barack Obama had with “evangelical leaders”.

Franklin Graham, son of the evangelical icon Billy Graham and head of the international Christian aid organization Samaritan’s Purse, was seated next to Obama at the meeting. He peppered Obama with pointed questions, repeatedly demanding to know if the senator believed that “Jesus was the way to God or merely a way.” Graham, who once incited an international controversy by calling Islam a “very evil and wicked religion,” proceeded to inquire about the Muslim faith of Obama’s father, suggesting that Obama himself may be a Muslim.

What the…?!

The timing of the Christian right’s wave of attacks on Obama suggests movement-wide coordination. Dobson, Wildmon and Bauer are leading members of the Arlington Group, a weekly conference that brings together most of the major Christian-right outfits to devise political strategy. Their barrage against Obama was only an opening volley. As their campaign intensifies, the Arlington Group is likely to tighten its coordination, targeting the movement’s message on Obama’s character.

Let me say this: As a Christian I am family to the folks in these articles. As such I don’t want to question their motives. I want to believe that these political power plays are a result of these people’s sincere belief that this is the right thing to do.

Having said this, their actions make no sense to me. Evangelical leaders like Dobson, Bauer, and Graham seem to believe that God works primarily through politics and governments. As such, it becomes very important to get the right people elected, even when those “right” people were the “wrong” people just a few months ago.

And it’s this kind of thinking that makes no sense to me. I read these verses from Psalm 33 this morning as I began preparing for an upcoming sermon,

No king is saved by the size of his army; no warrior escapes by his great strength. A horse is a vain hope for deliverance; despite all its great strength it cannot save.

The Christian’s hope for redemption must lie in God alone and in his coming Kingdom. For our future to be placed with a politician or political party seems like a form of adultery, as though we are cheating on the God who holds all things in his hands. This doesn’t mean that we don’t involve ourselves in the things of our neighborhoods and country. But it does seem to mean that we do so as those allied only to our King.

Help me out here. Am I missing something? Am I misinterpreting the words and action of these evangelical leaders? Or, am I looking at this whole political engagement thing all wrong?

David Swanson

,
, ,

13 responses to “more james dobson et al.”

  1. Bob Avatar
    Bob

    Wah?

    First of all… I want to know how come you weren’t invited to the big pow-wow of “100 conservative Christian leaders”? I mean… come on… they are obviously not reading this blog.

    Second of all… (and I think I can safely say this is the first time I’ve ever inserted scripture into a blog and/or email)…

    “[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him…” Colossians 1

    Who is……..?

    Reply
  2. Catherine Avatar
    Catherine

    I don’t think you’re looking at it the wrong way…I think you’re looking at it a different way. In my mind, it all comes down to epistemology – how we know what we know (I wrote a great paper about this once, but the link no longer works so I can’t bore you). I think the people you describe do have good motives, though I couldn’t disagree with them more 99% of the time. I think that, years ago, they closed their epistemological box and said “We Know – and anything/anyone who says otherwise is wrong and dangerously, treateningly so.” They believe their formula and reductions are faithful to scripture and to God’s will, and truly believe that Republicans=family=values=God’s-best-hope-for America, and that Democrates=Godless Agenda. Not to mention a bajillion other things I heartely disagree with.

    I know, because I used to be one of them, and am currently related to several of them (not the famous ones).

    I think their hearts are, as much as any of ours are, in the right place. But I think they stopped accepting new information as anything other than attempts at deception a long, long time ago, and have become very dangerously stagnant themselves, like a pond that no longer lets in new water sources but continues to be the drinking source for many.

    Someday James Dobson and I will both stand before God, and God will say, boy, you didn’t agree on almost anything…and you both got it wrong. I’m so much more than either of you dreamed.

    So, while I am moved to anger and confusion constantly, I try to remember the plank in my own eye.

    Sorry for the sermon. 😦

    Reply
  3. Keith Avatar
    Keith

    Romans 13:1 “Everyone must subject themselves to governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.”

    Reply
  4. David Avatar
    David

    Bob– this blog always welcomes the well-placed and appropriate passage of Scripture. Perhaps I could have simply linked to the two articles in question and then written out the passage from Colossians that you quote. This passage gets at some of my confusion about these leaders’ language. It can feel to me that trust has been placed in rulers and governments rather than in the “firstborn over all creation.”

    Catherine– no apologies necessary for the sermon. I appreciate the humility with which you sermonize. This is something I can learn from and that often seems lacking on the part of those Evangelical leaders who seek to speak for many of us. Your thoughts on epistemology are important as well. A question for you: Is it possible for a productive conversation to take place between Christians on the role of politics in the Kingdom between those of different epistemological frameworks? I’d love to hear some thoughts on this.

    Keith– Thanks for the quote from Romans. This is a passage that receives much attention in conversations about the Christian’s responsibility to obey the government. These can be long conversations as there are many ways Christians in good conscience have interpreted the apostle’s words over the centuries. I’d be curious how you see Romans 13 impacting the particular issues of certain leaders attempting to get certain politicians elected. I admit that I don’t initially see the connection, but I often miss the obvious!

    Reply
  5. Keith Avatar
    Keith

    I had started to explain my point but deleted it since it was intuitive (to me). But you, like my wife, can’t read my mind. My point is the last part of the verse: “The authorities that exist have been established by God.”
    If it’s God’s will to have Mr. Obama in office, He will do so, despite the efforts of 100 Christian leaders. If He wants Mr. McCain, then Mr. McCain will be established by God.
    Not that we should sit on our hands and not vote and not support our candidate. Perhaps God is using the 100 to further His will. Perhaps not. God knows who He’s going to establish as the governing authority.
    As a slight aside, I wrestle with this verse when I think of Mugabe retaining power in Zimbabwe.
    Does my point make sense or am I off base with my understanding of that verse?

    Reply
  6. David Avatar
    David

    Now I’m tracking with you Keith. Thanks.

    Your point on how we think about this verse in light of the unbelievable injustices of so many of the world’s governments is well made. Certainly it doesn’t seem appropriate to sit on our hands while the innocent and marginalized are taken advantage of by their governments.

    Reply
  7. bg Avatar
    bg

    Hi Dave,
    re: Keith’s comments: I believe that God allows human activity outside of His will. (for example, it was not God’s will to have Hitler and Stalin in office. I’m not comparing either candidate to them, I’m just trying to make a point that not everything that God allows is God’s will).

    re: your comments: But God does not want us to be silent in the political process. He does want us to obey our leaders, while simultaneously being salt and light.

    Now that the primaries are over, it is only appropriate that folks line up behind the candidates that most closely represent their positions, even though the candidates that they originally supported are now gone. This is not hypocrisy. This is being as shrewd as serpents and harmless as lambs.

    If the 100 conservative Christian leaders were “attacking” the abortion issue and pro-choice leaders, rather than Obama, would your opinions regarding the legitimacy of their involvement/positions be the same? If so, good. At least you’re consistent. If not, where/how do you draw the line?

    Bob

    Reply
  8. David Avatar
    David

    bg, thanks for your comments.

    I’m curious about this sentence, “God does not want us to be silent about the political process.” I may agree with you, depending on what is meant by “political process.” My negative reaction to the news stories quoted above is not that these folks are engaging in the political process. Rather, I am bothered that it appears that loyalty to a party, politician, or political agenda seems to have trumped loyalty to the Kingdom of God. I use the word “seem” because I cannot know if this has actually happened. But what I hear from these leaders is that God’s will is for Christians to unite behind a certain candidate, in this case John McCain. I agree with Keith’s comment above, only God knows who God wants in this position.

    What happens if these Christian leaders’ chosen candidate is not elected? Is God less sovereign? Is the Kingdom of God going to be hindered because someone else sits in the Oval Office. The language I hear from these leaders makes me fear that faith has been placed primarily in American politics rather than in God’s coming Kingdom.

    I guess it’s clear that I believe the Christian’s efforts are best spent cultivating life within the Kingdom of God. Of course that Kingdom will at times intersect with our American politics. But we ought to be clear that our allegiance is to the Kingdom and that our hope lies only with the resurrected Christ.

    Reply
  9. Keith Avatar
    Keith

    bg – I’m not sure I agree with your comments about my comments. If Romans 13:1 says “The authorites that exist have been established by God” then those that exist have been established by God. I expect that would include McCain, Obama, Stalin and Hitler. Previous authorities that I believe were used by and established by God include King Herod, the Babylonians and Assyrians: none of whom were especially kind to the Jewish nation.
    I’m not so adamant about my point that I would stand at a pulpit or in front of a Sunday School class and preach this. Your point is well taken that not all that ocurrs is part of God’s will. My sin is not part of God’s will. Was Hitler’s? I accept your point that it’s not but I believe Hitler’s authority was established by God.

    Reply
  10. Laura Avatar
    Laura

    Re Bob’s comments, mostly: I think that there is a difference between attacking a position and attacking a candidate. It is one thing to debate and question the validity of a political position or plan, and to ask hard questions of a candidate (especially for a big goal-setting job like the presidency) and to try to understand how who they are will impact the kinds of laws and policies they will work for and which they will let fall aside. It is an entirely different one to insinuate negative-sounding things about a candidate’s character and leap to conclusions about how that insinuated characteristic will cause them to undo every good value in America. It is, by the same token, also an entirely different thing to insinuate positive things about a candidate’s character and leap to conclusions about how that characteristic will cause them to save the world. My biggest difficulty with political debate, most of the time, is that both sides seem to be engaged in the second or third kinds of conversation virtually to the exclusion of the first. And I have a particularly hard time with it when Christians make insinuations and jump to conclusions, especially Christian leaders in highly visible positions. It’s not honest or realistic, and it doesn’t help voters make a thoughtful decision about who to support, no matter who the hype is coming from. It would make me happier to see Christian leaders grouping together to support good quality analysis of the difficult questions before the candidates and truthful, realistic understanding of what the candidates intend to try to do about the various situations they will face. This would also make it a little less embarrassing when you have to switch loyalties because your first favorite is out of the race, which is, as you point out, a necessary byproduct of politics and a good idea. But when you spend your time analyzing the realistic possibilities and relative pros and cons, rather than demonizing or praising candidates to the skies, you aren’t in the situation where the guy you now openly support is the same guy that you said would take the country to hell in a handbasket…

    All that being said, I also don’t take the media’s account of any political undertaking at face value. “Peppering him with questions” in journalist-speak could be as simple as needing to ask a couple of times during the meal in order to get the real question across and answered, with the first time or two being misheard or not heard at all because someone else just asked for the salt. You know? (Or it could actually be an obnoxious harping on one point to the exclusion/confusion of other important issues. The problem is that you just can’t be sure.) It’s a natural tendency in trying to make a good story, with “characters” to read about, but I often wish that journalists were more careful and honest with their word choices and connotations.

    I agree with David that it is dangerous to put faith in politics rather than in what God is doing with His Kingdom throughout the world. For me, this means that I won’t judge a candidate based on political party. That would seem to say that the political party is the definition of what is good and wise, which I think is a really bad idea. And, as has been pointed out, it means that God’s work is going to be done either way, since He’s a lot bigger than the US President, whoever that is at any given moment. So my job in between figuring out who to vote for seems to be to live in reflection of the Kingdom values I was trying to look for in that candidate and to try to see them worked out in my sphere of influence, rather than obsessing over whether the guy in office is exactly who I hoped or feared he might be. (This isn’t the same thing as ignoring all the news, of course; it’s just a question of priorities and time spent.)

    Reply
  11. Laura Avatar
    Laura

    Wow, that was long. Sorry.

    Reply
  12. Chris Avatar
    Chris

    Back to the original question David raised, I have a question of my own:

    So if the ACLU, MoveOn.org, and other militant liberal groups are working overtime to get their candidates elected and create laws, institute policies, and appoint judges and bureaucrats that profoundly affect American society, should Christians in response wash their hands of politics as much as possible? The media loves to slander and criticize Christians involved in politics, but don’t gays, atheists, and other non- or anti-Christians do the same, if not more aggressively? Remember the adage that all it takes for evil to prosper is for the righteous to do nothing.

    However, I still cringe when high-profile Christian leaders sometimes become too politicized, make gaffes, or get sucked into the corruption and deception surrounding politics. The Church is now sometimes seen as more of a political force than the Gospel-preaching, people-healing, justice-loving, and good-doing community that Jesus called us to be.

    Yet, aren’t we called to be salt and light (Matt. 5:13-16)? Surely part of that mandate includes using our freedoms and civic duties to advance righteousness and justice in our own country. Justice, righteousness, and care for the poor and the environment all are important to God (see Amos). The dissonance for me is discerning what are the right issues to really push for and not confusing capitalism, small government, and low taxes with being explicitly “Christian” teachings (though I believe that they are far more just, wise, and effective than, say, socialism).

    It’s just important to remember we are Christians first and Americans second. And that we be wise as serpents (Matt. 10:16), using godly discernment so that we don’t fall prey to any politician who vomits up Christianized selling points.

    For a really engaging article on Jonathan Edward’s beliefs about the Christian’s responsibilities in the public square, check out http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/julyweb-only/7-2-25.0.html.

    Reply
  13. David Avatar
    David

    Chris- I get nervous when I hear language like “militant liberal groups”. Or, for that matter, “a vast, right-wing conspiracy”. I believe our best shot at reasonable political conversation in our country is to avoid broad generalizations and rather engage with specific ideas. I would extend these unhelpful generalizations to groups/categories as you seem to do with “gays and atheists”.

    I empathize with the dissonance you articulate about how to involve ourselves in the political process as Christians without confusing our political views with our Christianity. Perhaps the best way forward is to be constantly be reminded of what you write, we are allied first to Christ and citizens of our nation secondly.

    Thanks for the link to the CT article. Really good stuff.

    Reply

Leave a reply to David Cancel reply