And Then There Was One

Focus on the Family announced today that founder James Dobson is officially stepping down as chair of the organization. It’s a move that’s long been in the works–six years ago, Dobson resigned his position as president and CEO of Focus, and internally the organization has been paving the way for current CEO Jim Daly to take full control. But today’s announcement is significant, not least because it leaves Chuck Colson as the remaining member of the quintet that launched the Religious Right to still hold a position of organizational authority. 

The Religious Right is very much still around–but the era in which it dominated political and cultural discussions has come to an end. Both Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy died in 2007, and that same year Pat Robertson resigned as chief executive of the Christian Broadcasting Network, although he continues to host “The 700 Club.” Like Robertson, the 72-year-old Dobson will retain his platform as host of his Focus on the Family radio program, leaving the public impression that the two are still very much involved as political players. 

But in reality, Dobson’s departure was a necessary step taken to ensure Focus on the Family’s survival, which has been shaky for the last few years. For an organization that prides itself on being able to mobilize vast numbers of supporters and listeners, Focus’ reach can sometimes be embarrassingly limited. When Dobson criticized Obama’s faith during the campaign last summer, some Obama-supporting clergy started a petition called “James Dobson Doesn’t Speak For Me” and gathered more than 10,000 signatures in a few days. Focus responded by blasting an email request to its mailing list asking individuals to register their support on the Anti-Dobson site. Fewer than 900 people did so.

The ministry has been in financial trouble as well lately, as Rita Healy reported last year for TIME:

[I]n 1994 Dobson’s monthly newsletter had a circulation of 2.4 million copies. Today, that circulation is about 1.1 million. Also, in the 1990s, Dobson was drawing audiences of 15,000 or more to his speeches; but in the lead-up to the 2006 mid-term election, only about 1,000 people heard his anti-abortion speech at the 2,500-seat Mt. Rushmore National Monument amphitheatre. Daly explains that the event was a last-minute invitation and that Dobson rarely accepts speaking engagements.

According to news accounts and audited financial reports posted online for potential donors, the organization’s staffing is down (30 layoffs last September). Total donations and number of donors are down as well. Focus orders and resells copies of Dobson’s tapes and books, which are the evangelist’s personal business; but those purchases have declined from $678,000 in 2004 to $269,000 in 2006. His last book was published in 2001; another is not anticipated until 2009. The whole Dobson family, including wife Shirley, daughter Danae and son Ryan, produce books and tapes, but revenue from all Dobson-family materials are down, from $781,000 in 2004 to $307,000 in 2006.

The situation got even worse last fall, when Focus was forced to lay off another 200 employees. One of the reasons for the organization’s troubles has been its failure to effectively appeal to the next generation of Christians. The original James Dobson supporters are not being replaced by younger families. One reason Dobson was initially so effective at generating support for political issues and candidates was because of the respect and trust he had built over decades of work primarily focused on dispensing parenting advice. I was surprised when I first heard Dobson’s name come up in political contexts in the 1990s because like many evangelicals I knew him only from the relatively anodyne Focus on the Family inserts that appeared in my church bulletins.

Today’s young Christians, however, know Dobson best as a divisive, controversial political figure. And they haven’t been lining up behind him. That’s one reason for the move announced today, says D. Michael Lindsay, a sociologist at Rice University who has written extensively about evangelical elites. “In some ways, this frees [Dobson] to be even more dramatic in his comments,” Lindsay told me, “but at the same time it takes him completely out of the organization. It’s a real investiture of power in Jim Daly.” The 48-year-old Daly has young children and is very well-liked within Focus, where Dobson’s more strident personality has alienated some staff in recent years. “Now is the time to let Daly emerge as the new voice of Focus,” says Lindsay. It is the only chance the once-formidable religious institution has of staying afloat. But it may be hard to achieve so long as James Dobson’s microphone stays on.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Obama to Submit His Budget to Congress on Monday

    President Barack Obama is pressing for investments in infrastructure while relying on familiar tax increases on the wealthy and corporations to claim progress on the federal deficit in his upcoming budget.

    Romney: I Was A 'Severely Conservative' GovernorHuffPost Politics

    Robert F. Bukaty / AP

    With Saturday Victories, Romney Retakes Control of the GOP Narrative

    Mitt Romney, the perpetually questioned front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, had a rough week. Three embarrassing losses to Rick Santorum in Tuesday’s non-binding contests led to questions about Romney’s conservative bona fides just in time for GOP activists, gathering at their annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, to collectively grumble about it. But in two narrow, largely symbolic victories on Saturday, Romney reclaimed the headlines. Never mind the details. He was winning again.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    Well it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

  • Cliff

    The situation got even worse last fall, when Focus was forced to lay off another 200 employees. One of the reasons for the organization’s troubles has been its failure to effectively appeal to the next generation of Christians.
    .
    Oh Amy, you’ve warmed my cold black liberal heart.

  • queencersei

    Could it be that the flock has tired of following shepherds who coldly use them for political or monetary gain but then fail to deliver on empty promises?

  • mccainfluffer

    Good riddance to the hatemonger!

  • dfh

    But on the up side Amy thinks James Dobson is ‘scary smart’.

  • stuartzechman

    The Religious Right is very much still around–but the era in which it dominated political and cultural discussions has come to an end.
    .
    When did the Religious Right ever dominate political and cultural discussions, except in the Village?
    .
    And who decided that this “dominance” has come to an end?
    .
    You’re treating this episode as if it were some natural phenomenon like the summer becoming fall, un-associated with real people and decisions, Amy Sullivan.
    .
    Somehow, all by itself, Meet The Press had David Brody of Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network as a regular round-table participant. Somehow, independent of anybody’s deliberate intentions, Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman never gets a seat at that Sunday morning “discussion”.
    .
    Today’s young Christians, however, know Dobson best as a divisive, controversial political figure. And they haven’t been lining up behind him.
    .
    How do you know this, Amy Sullivan?
    .
    Is this just wishful thinking on your part, or do you have polling data to back up your claims about what these fine young people think and believe?

  • hellslittlestangel

    Is it because he’s too much of a nasty, hatemongering bigot or not enough of a nasty, hatemongering bigot?

    Sheesh. That’s actually a legitimate question.

  • eagleflieswiththedove

    Hi, Amy. This is just to say that I enjoy your pieces along these lines–I’m at Yale Divinity School thinking about how evangelical culture relates to the rest of the country. (Apparently I’m more sympathetic than your other commenters.) I’ve just added your book to my Amazon cart and look forward to reading it.

  • Friar Tuck

    I find it interesting – and revealing on a number of levels – that AS discusses Dobson and Focus as a social and political phenomenon rather than a religious one. The weakness of Focus on the Family is and always has been its willingess to ignore Christ whenever Christ is in opposition to its social agenda.
    .
    [T]he relatively anodyne Focus on the Family inserts that appeared in my church bulletins in the early nineties were already male-dominated, white-centric house codes whose purpose was to shield children from all exposure to other cultures and religions and, above all, to reinforce the authority of the father over the mother and “the church” above all else.
    .
    Add in a whiff of the profit motive, and the rest is, as they say, history.
    .
    I don’t find Focus’s inability to recruit young evangelicals puzzling at all. The only thing it offers is a chance to “move up” in a power structure that is visibly rotten and shamefully irrelevant to feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and healing the sick.
    .
    It’s worthwhile for Christians to reflect, from time to time, that the Son of the One True God died on the cross as punishment for opposing the ruling class, not in bed of a heart attack from eating too much rich food in a an overheated palace.

  • kwleslie

    Speaking as one of those “young Christians” who don’t line up behind Dobson: What drove a lot of us away was having parents who read his books and did all sorts of loveless authoritarian stuff to us. If you’re gonna raise kids—and if you’re gonna be a Christian, for that matter—you need to do it with some degree of compassion. We didn’t see it in our parents, and we rarely see it in Dobson. There’s too much “This is bad” and not enough “Let me help.”

  • darcygrant

    I agree with what kwleslie wrote. Dobson’s parenting advice, with its focus on physical discipline of children (hitting them with belts, etc.) is an outdated, barbaric form of disciplining children that is seen by sane, well-informed members of today’s society as a form of child abuse. Dobson’s “Focus on the Family” would be better named “Focus on Punishment.” For years, Dobson thought he could punish politicians (and control their behaviors and words) by influencing his base of supporters against politicians who did not do (or say) what Dobson wanted. In this year’s election, McCain over-estimated Dobson’s political power and made the fatal mistake of trying to please the “I Heart Dobson, Huckabee, and Palin” crowd by choosing Palin as his running-mate. Clearly, Dobson and Dobson-ites do not have the political clout and influence they may have had at one time. As long as the Republican party continues to align themselves with Dobson’s brand of “tough love” (which is not really love at all), they will continue to lose elections and political power. Republicans can rant and rave all they wish, but until Republicans wake up and boldly denounce the hate-mongering, punishing brand of Christianity that Dobson stands for and realize that such views are becoming increasingly irrelevant and intolerable in our society, they will continue to lose elections and political power. Dobson stepping down as chair of Focus on the Family is an encouraging sign of the times. I predict that the comprehensive folding of organizations like Focus on the Family won’t be far behind.

    that has nothing to do with “tough love” or with “love” at all. In fact, most young parents today understand that the form of punishment Dobson advocated in his parenting books is actually a form of abuse. Dobson’s focus on punishment in general that many, if not most, young parents now view as child abuse.

  • newfloridian

    The Religious Right seeded their own failures by marching lock step hand in hand with leaders who tortured, lied, spewed message of hate, preyed on the weak, corrupted our financial systems and served their one true God, the all mighty dollar bill. Those of the faith have started comparing actions and deeds to their religious teachings and found those leaders lacking in humanity. The era of the super churches and radical rightwing religious movements is nearing an end and it did not take the second coming to do it.

  • pierogielunaire

    I suspect that what happened to Dobson, Falwell, Roberts, et al was simply that they became addicted to the influence that they wielded within the Republican party. In the stridency of Dobson’s public statements throughout the last election cycle (especially the despicable Letter from 2012) I could hear one thing most prominently: rage at the prospect that his influence was coming to an end. It was as sad, pathetic, and anti-Christ as anything I could imagine.

  • stuartzechman

    There’s too much “This is bad” and not enough “Let me help.”
    .
    Well said.
    .
    As a Christian, I have to also remark that it’s not just Dobson’s politics that are wrong –his theology’s really wrong, too.
    .
    It seems his kind want to set up a tribe with its own list of Levitican proscriptions as the basis for membership.
    .
    Paul’s letter to the Romans (I know, I’m back to that again) is the clearest expression of how idiotic –how regressive, how anti-Christian– that “bible-based” hucksterism is.
    .
    The whole point is for us to be given the gift of grace through Christ’s blood without regard to which version of the law our culture compels us to follow. We’re not supposed to care about whether or not somebody’s circumcised, nor whether somebody has different rules for fornication than we do. We’re all Christians because of the grace of God, not some “focus” on adherence to old testament family structures. Why don’t these people get it? Why aren’t they reading Paul’s scriptures properly?
    .
    What kind of church teaches this stuff?
    .
    And, by the way, I’ve never found James Dobson’s stuff littering my church’s pews…

  • jcapan

    Ah hell, I end my self-imposed ban from Amy’s posts. Only to engage with my colleagues, not to validate the work of Godhead. When did Rosen write that Stu? Excellent. And even more apropos to Joe’s recent fo-po(sts). Anyway, I always knew I was a deviant–as for this connotation, I can be proud:
    ~
    “In the sphere of deviance we find ‘political actors and views which journalists and the political mainstream of society reject as unworthy of being heard.’ As in the sphere of consensus, neutrality isn’t the watchword here; journalists maintain order by either keeping the deviant out of the news entirely or identifying it within the news frame as unacceptable, radical, or just plain impossible. The press ‘plays the role of exposing, condemning, or excluding from the public agenda’ the deviant view, says Hallin. It ‘marks out and defends the limits of acceptable political conduct.’”

  • Paul-no not that one

    If there was money to be made and political relevance to be had in cooking then Dobson would have had a cooking show. Religion was his means not his end.

  • lawnjockeypresident

    Could the reason be that young Christians turn away from the likes of Dobson and his teachings is that they are bombarded by a anti Christianity press?

  • jcapan

    Ah, Pinto: “Religion was his means not his end.”
    ~
    I think a slight tweak and we could apply the same analysis to must of our leadership in Washington.

  • darcygrant

    lawnjockey–It’s more likely that young Christians turn away from the likes of Dobson and his teachings because many young Christians today actually do see a problem with beating children. Also, many young Christians today really do believe that it’s okay to THINK for themselves. Ding, ding, ding! Stuart–”we’re all Christians because of the grace of God.” Hmmmm….and God doesn’t extend this grace to everyone because….? Oh yes, we can’t all be chosen for the “special” class, can we? I think the last thing people need to do is to pay attention to the writings of Paul, the very guy who wrote in Romans 9 that God has every right to create some people as objects of his wrath. Let me guess, are you one of those religious types who can use phrases like “elect infants” and “reprobate infants” with a straight face? Dobson’s fundamentalist version of Christianity is disgusting. However, equally disgusting–if not downright perverse–is the belief that a “loving God” creates some people as objects of his wrath.

  • darcygrant

    Paul–Religion is always the means and not the end.

  • Friar Tuck

    Darcy

    Read all of Romans 9. The point that Paul is trying to get across is that Israel still qualifies as the chosen people even though they behaved like the Dobson crowd. Paul’s talking about a “what if” hypothetical to support his argument.
    .
    Taking verses out of context will lead you into a hole just as deep as the fundies have dug for themselves. Grace is for everybody, period, no asterisks.

  • g_crush

    .
    lawnjockeypresident: Could the reason be that young Christians turn away from the likes of Dobson and his teachings is that they are bombarded by a anti Christianity press?
    .
    No.
    .
    Nice handle you’ve chosen, by-the-way. Your friends at the Klan rallies must think it’s just hilarious.

  • sacredh

    Focus on the Family isn’t appealing to the next generation of christians. Can this be the proof that “No Child Left Behind” might actually be working? Are today’s young christians smarter than their parents? Or unlike their parents, might they truly be taking christianity as the gospel?

  • pseudonymous in NC

    Is your application on their desk, Amy?

  • whazarook

    While visiting Taiwan weeks ago, I attended a Baptist Church service and found Mr. Dobson’s Chinese translated essay in the church brochure. It advocated active condemning of unfaithful partner in a marriage, rather than the Love conquers all mantra. Yes, J.D. still has audiences at far reach of the earth.

    I was a young evangelical Christian once, and J.D./Focus on Family was well entrenched in my church’s theological pathos. I since outgrew the “evangelical” part of the 2-word denomination, and found Mr. Dobson’s single minded political activism in Christ’s name offensive. Funny FOF now serves as the Scarlet Letter rather than the shining beacon on my own parenthood.

  • Cliff

    Could the reason be that young Christians turn away from the likes of Dobson and his teachings is that they are bombarded by a anti Christianity press?
    .
    Ha! Ha! Ha! Some folks love to play at being martyrs.

  • poqvausa

    Marriage is an institution that predates governments. It predates the major organized religions in the world today. It is not something bestowed by governments, but rather is only to be recognized by them. It provides the fundamental building block of every stable society. Ideally it provides children with two people in this wide world who care more for them than for life itself. That is the type of agape love taught in the Bible, that cares more for the one who is loved than for oneself. That is the love shown by Christ when he gave his life on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins, in order to remove the barrier for fellowship with God. The greatest commandment is to love God, and the second greatest is to love your neighbor as yourself. The new commandment is to love one another as Jesus loves us. Greater love hath no man that this, that he lay down his life for his friend. Any takers? Parents don’t own children, but rather they have a privilege and a responsibility in raising children. If children don’t see God’s love at work in and through their parents, then the parents have fallen short in that regard. Can anyone forgive them that fault? The ultimate goal of parenting should be to lead children to experience and understand God’s love for them. Yet there are those who attack these principles. Biblical principles are like salt. They are a preservative in a society tending toward decay.

  • butdavy

    Reading some of the comments here, I can see a very narrow view of who Dobson is. Although I respect Dr. Dobson, I’m not a huge fan of Dobson’s on some levels, but the strawman reflected on him as someone who advocates beating children and parenting as authoritarian is a narrow minded viewpoint of Dobson and reflect a limited knowledge of his writings. Dobson delves into psycho-analysis too much and atually follows alot of secular writings that are out there. There are natural ebbs and flow and the people are fickle. They like the latest trends or are looking for the next big thing. Dobson isn’t trendy, but sadly bashing him is.

  • darcygrant

    Friar Tuck–Like other posters here, I’m not a Christian. However, I was, at one time, a young evangelical Christian who thought highly of Dobson. The Bible clearly does teach the abominable doctrine of predestination. I did not take Paul’s comments in Romans 9 out of context. If Paul was not speaking of predestination in that passage, he would not have anticipated the objection to the very ugly doctrine he was teaching. This is why he wrote, “Why then does he (God) still find fault?” after writing “It is not of man that willeth but of God who shows mercy.” If he had not been talking about saving faith in Christ being a gift of God rather than an act of the will, the question “why then does he still find fault” wouldn’t make any sense. Neither would his comments that follow, claiming that the answer to the objection is simply this: “Who are you a pot, to question the potter.” One big problem with viewing the Bible as the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God is that it turns you into a liar. In order to make it all fit, you have to become more dishonest and hard-hearted than the most dishonest, hard-hearted politician in America. You don’t like the doctrine of predestination, understandably so. Therefore, you have to rewrite the passages in the Bible that teach predestination to make them say what you want them to say. The Calvinist, on the other hand, has to rewrite the passages that contradict their favorite doctrine (predestination) to make it fit what they want those passages to say. I think there are a lot of many wonderful Christians in the world. However, I also think that you cannot be a Christian who believes that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God and maintain any sort of intellectual dishonesty. You also cannot be a a Christian who believes that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God and prevent at least a small part of yourself from turning into the sort of hateful monster the Bible portrays as an all-loving God. Personally, I think more and more Americans are beginning to see the problem with reconciling a “God of love” with the kind of God portrayed in that book. I submit that worshipping an angry, hateful God (which you have to do if you believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God) turns a person, at least in part, into an angry, hateful man. This forum probably is not the place to continue a debate of this sort. However, if you would like to debate/discuss the issue further, you (or anyone else) can email me at darcygrant@comcast.net.

  • darcygrant

    oops…substitute “intellectual integrity” for “intellectual dishonesty.” :P

  • formerlyjames

    I wonder if there is any correlation between the diminished popularity of the Focus Family cult and that of what their advocates and devotees have displayed over the last 8 years. We have seen hypocracy at unimaginable levels. When the gap between what people say and what they do is so vast, it seems imbecelic to even wonder or discuss further what it is all about.

  • darcygrant

    butdavy–people like what is trendy? Hmmmm…that may be so, but surely you are not suggesting that whipping children and/or small dogs as a form of discipline is a “trend” that will, at some point, come into favor once more? If that is how you like to reason, then would you also say that racial segregation is a “trend” that is simply out of favor right now? I’m sure you can see my point . . .

    If a writer advocates any form of child abuse, racial segregation, etc., etc., then the insertion of any sort of psycho-analysis before or after the offensive material does not in any way lessen the offense for which the writer is being criticized. And as far as Dobson’s “psycho-analysis,” I seem to remember him advising, in one of his early books, parents to use an object when whipping/spanking/paddling their children rather than to use their hand because the child is supposed to associate the parents’ hands with “loving acts.” So much for his skills in psychoanalysis.

  • darcygrant

    poqvausa–you talk a lot about “love”—but the Bible version of “love” is a “loving God” who will eternally torment people who fail to believe he exists. I don’t know about you, but my definition of love includes doing what is in the best interest of the beloved. I also assume that an all-loving God would love all people. If God loves all people, he will do what is in the best interest of all people. And eternal punishment (since it could not result in a person being reformed or changed for the better) would obviously not be in anyone’s best interest. Christians like you talk about “love” and yet, if we look at what you mean when you use the word “love,” it’s really very frightening. I certainly would not suggest that parents attempt to “love” their children in the same way the God of the Bible “loves” the people he created. That would be the kind of “love” that all people—children and adults—could do without.

  • darcygrant

    formerlyjames—I think that there are a number of evangelical Christians who are slowly beginning to realize that the hypocrisy of their behaviors and their teachings are becoming more and more transparent and are resulting in more and more public criticism and dismissal of their claims regarding the nature of God and love. However, just like many of today’s Republicans are seemingly very slow to accept the fact that the American people are sick and tired of their hypocrisy and failures, so, too, are many evangelical Christians. Eventually, both groups will get it, and hopefully, they will begin to change both their behaviors and their theology. In the meantime, I’m set to watch yet another hilarious battle for the Presidency in 2012 in which the Republican parade their “best and brightest” to the general delight of those who enjoy watching a good comedy unfold.

  • formerlyjames

    Sorry for being too sleepy to read all of the thread, but I can guess what the discussion is about. As an athiest, I tune into religious programing for good laughs. “Spare the rod and spoil the child” is an accepted fact amongst the devout bible readers.
    .
    Reminds me of a joke about a quaker whose cow repeatedly kicked him during milking. One day he told the cow that if it continued, he would surely sell it to a baptist who would surely beat it severely for such behavior. It was told to me by a religious person, and I didn’t reveal my thought that it didn’t really matter the denomination. They are all terribly destructive.

  • formerlyjames

    darcygrant, thanks for your thoughts. I still dismiss all religion as destructive. If there were more religious people like you, maybe I wouldn’t think that way. You know that you are in a slim minority amongst your flock. Best to you.

  • darcygrant

    formerlyjames—thanks for your kind words. But I’m not religious–I’m agnostic with atheistic leanings. ;)

  • PoqVaUSA

    darcygrant – The great torment that people who reject God are subjected to is separation from God for eternity, and being condemned to spend that eternity with others of the same ilk. And God does not will that fate upon anyone. People DO have free choice. We were not made as robots. The fact that God can see the past and the future all in a single glance, and knows the end from the beginning does not mean that we lack freedom of choice. He is not bound by time, and he already sees the choices that we make and will make. Why did Christ have to die on the cross? Why could the cup not be taken away? Because God is just and cannot contradict His own nature. Without the price being paid, all humanity would be separated from God for our willful and rebellious nature. But the cross was not an after thought, once God ‘figured out what a terrible mistake he made in creating people’. The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. It only took a while for the actual event to unfold.

  • darcygrant

    PoqVal: I can see that you drank ALL of the Kool-Aid they gave you at the Bible revival, didn’t you? ;)

    Seriously, though–as I stated–the Bible contradicts itself on the issue of predestination as it does on so many other issues. You did a nice job of trying to summarize your beliefs, but you left out the all-important question of how is it that eternal torment/punishment is an act of love? And why would God separate himself from people who didn’t believe he existed? I am a parent, and I know that if my child failed to believe that I existed, I would blame myself and not my child. Face it, your theology is baseless, silly, and irrelevant for today’s society. Just as Dobson stepped down as chairman of Focus on the Family, the evangelicals should step down as knowledgeable individuals regarding God, life, and love.

  • PoqVaUSA

    darcygrant – The real challenge in declaring the Bible to be “inerrant” is that those who do also seem to feel that they have the ‘inerrant’ interpretation to go along with it. Did Paul really have a thorn in his side? Then why didn’t he pull it out? It disallows any use of allegory. Immediately you get into trouble when you try to reconcile differing eyewitness account of the same actual event, as in the case of the resurrection. People who refer to original text as ‘inerrant’, 100%, seem to be afraid that to allow any deviation from that point of view would be to allow the entire edifice to come crumbling down. Any text of human language will have it’s limitations, and alternate interpretations. I happen to believe that Biblical truth and Biblical principles are well enough established in the Bible to stand the test of time, and events, and cultures, and fads. Actually, I never said that separation from God was an act of love. Rather I said that it was an act of justice on His part, and personal choice on our part. The only requirement that he leaves to us is putting aside our rebellious nature and choosing to follow Him of our own free will.

  • newfloridian

    Congratulations Amy you’ve achieved a thoughtful discourse on religion, thus corrupting Swamplander’s minds (just kidding on the last of this sentence). Anyway I believe today you have achieved acceptance on Swampland.

    It’s about time people no longer are cowards when discussing religion.

  • valcruz3chief

    I dont think many of you have actually listened to Dr Dobsons Radio shows (to include Amy Sullivan). Just by reading this article (comments), you can see how opinions can fog reality. I actually stumbled upon Dr Dobson while doing a college paper on corporal punishment about 7 years ago (Yes, I used it as one of many parental tools for the tool box). Reading some of his books were very thought provoking on raising kids and later reading on spouce communication(Love must be tough). At any rate, my marriage/kid relationships were not very good (workohaulic Dad) So I tuned into his radio show… his shows were RIGHT ON THE MARK! His shows helped me face my lackluster relationship with my spouse/kids… and his shows gave me faith based principles to reconnect. Well, I’m still married after 27 years and two of three of my kiddos are college grads (we have a fantastic connection now). The last one is attending…. So as a dad and parent, take the time to go beyond opinion and see for yourself. (www.focusonthefamily.com) THANK YOU Dr Dobson, for providing this once confused dad, the Moral Family Compass his family needed! You might not agree with every topic, but I would give him high 90s. This Hispanic American and 29 year Air Force chief will continue to support Dobson/Daily Team on Focus on the Family!

  • 53_3

    As far as I’m concerned, good riddance and I hope he meets Pat Robertson in hell later.
    .
    valcruz has extrapolated good advice on errant personal issues to the propagandization of the evangelistic church. Bad, bad move, and a clear failure to see beyond one’s own personal experience.
    .
    I’ve noted that many of these right wing evangelicals take their own personal experiences, make them a template, then apply them to the rest of the people in this country. Of course, the fact that they are some of the worst violators of the Ten Commandmants is put on ‘relentlessly ignore’.
    .
    Go take one listen to the 700 club “news”. You’ll see for yourself…

  • 53_3

    PoqVaUSA:
    .
    What did god say about the Republican platform 2000 years ago, eh?
    .
    Riddle me that

  • curtis48

    OR, maybe, Dobson now 72 years old, wants to slow down a bit…..I think this all is a bit over analyzed here!

  • sacredh

    53_3: Every time I see an ice cube, I wonder what Pat Robertson would do for one now.

  • darcygrant

    Notice the evangelical stance on justice—God is just, so he MUST punish sin with eternal damnation. That’s right, friends–for every sin, even if the “sin” is a child stealing a cookie from a cookie jar, someone has to pay. But wait! When evangelicals speak of “justice” the person who has to pay isn’t necessarily the one who committed the “crime!” As long as someone pays (anyone!) God’s thirst for “justice” is satisfied. And another evangelical “theory” on justice—all crimes, that’s rights—ALL crimes (including rape and theft of a pencil) are equal and should be equally punished. This is the sort of “justice” that makes sense to the mind of the evangelical. This is the sort of “justice” that makes sense to people like James Dobson and and evanglical politictians such as Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin. No, PoqVa, people like me are not rejecting God, if in fact God exists. However, we are rejecting (and will continue to reject in the voting booth) the twisted view of “justice”—along with a exclusionary theology and politics–offered up by evangelicals.

  • 53_3

    sacredh:
    I read that article, about Dobson’s attack, and I’m now wondering if there’s a trend going on. I don’t know if it was you who posted that link to WaPo’s loss of revenue, but it sure seems to me that now that all of these orgainizations are out of the loop, they are starting to shrivel like raisins.
    .
    I wonder what FOX and News, Inc revenues are looking like.
    .
    I hoping there is a developement I can like in all of this…

  • 53_3

    They put their own sins on ‘relentlessly ignore’ every morning when the 700 club news airs.
    .
    Isn’t lying a sin? And if lying is a sin, what kind of sin is propagandizing?

  • darcygrant

    It’s also important to note that evangelicals like PoqVa admit that the act of eternal damnation is NOT an act of love. Think about it–the “all loving God” that evangelicals try to sell behaves toward much of humankind, in the end, in an unloving manner. Why? Because his sense of “justice”–the kind of “justice” that says “sin” must be punished–however the sinner himself does not have to be punished if there is an acceptable subsitute that can be punished instead–is more important to God than love. This immature and almost laughable view of God is so wrong for our society. It is a view of “love” that says: Love me, worship me, obey me or I’ll punish you and punish you severely. Love me, worship me, obey me or I’ll stop speaking to you. Love me, worship me, obey me or I’ll take my marbles and go home. Someone needs to help the evangelicals understand that this is an unbelievably self-serving and immature view of love. Love and respect are earned not commanded with threats of punishment. Dobson obviously believed (or believes) that love and respect could be gained through punishment, and his theology in this regard became evident in his politics. In the end, however, it backfired on him. America is growing up and the childish view of love and politics peddled by the Dobsons of the world is slowly but surely being set aside for a view of reality and human interaction that will result in positive changes for our country and better lives for all of our citizens.

  • sacredh

    53_3: I didn’t post the link but I also read it. Regarding the loss of revenue, I think there’s a direct correlation between the loss of their political power, loss of membership and funds drying up. As long as their people were running things they had access to the bully pulpit. That’s gone now. They have a shrinking base that’s quickly losing appeal to the younger generation. The tanking economy isn’t helping their efforts either. It’s one thing to send your extra cash to these organizations when times are good, but it’s a whole different story when you have to consider that these outfits are no longer in a position to further your agenda and the money you might give them might be needed to put food on your own table later. The conservative eveangelicals had a nice run mixing politics with their religious beliefs, but that’s not working anymore. It’s hard to write a check when you think you’re money isn’t going to accomplish anything.

  • http://proclaimingsoftly.blogspot.com/ PS

    I have listened to Dobson. He did (past tense) have some good things to say about family. His ideas about punishment would lead some people to less violence toward children. Some people. His theory was that if a person was too permissive, didn’t discipline at all, then the parent would snap and whollop the child, so the consistent discipline was better. Yes, he did talk about a belt, ie that is how he was punished.

    However, when he got promoting home schooling was better than public school (over generalizing) and got more political, I could no longer support his views.

    I wrote to him (his organization), asking why not more on stewardship of our money and give to the poor, as is so clear in the Bible? I got a canned letter back which stated all sorts of Bible verses supporting how it is OK to be rich. Hmmmm, justifying making all the money off of all those books, wouldn’t you say?

  • 53_3

    sacredh:
    Yeah, I’m thinking that the racist cartoon was an attempt to get WaPo back out in front of the reading public. I’m thinking these are acts of desparation in the face of change that refuses to flow in a different direction or even change course.
    .
    After some 40 years, it is gratifying to see that these people are now getting marginalized like they should have been after the bombing of the ERM building (referring to the whole admixture that was the GOP). They certainly put on sheeps’ clothing after that event (I remember it well), but their souls changed not in the least. They should have been driven to extinction then, but at least it’s happening now, in the post-extinction world following the election.
    .
    I lust for the day Rush Limbaugh tosses it in…

  • 53_3

    I think that in reality, Dobson has conflated ideology with theocracy, and became a politician more than a man of God, anyway. Politics is very dirty water to swim in, and Dobson is twice a sinner for perverting God’s word as well as doing it for personal gain (among other sins: perverting God’s word with racist intent).
    .
    Like I’ve said, the sooner these guys get to hell, the sooner I will sleep soundly at night…

  • 53_3

    PS:
    .
    That thought occurred to me, too. I wonder how these guys can sleep at night knowing they had not only completely forsaken the poor and the infirm, but joined forces with the very people who have made a career out of generating hatred and contempt for them.

  • Paul-no not that one

    “I lust for the day Rush Limbaugh tosses it in…”
    .
    Paul F Tompkins last night “It’s 2009 and Rush is still around? Art Bell had the decency to reduce his radio presence”

  • darcygrant

    The reason they can sleep at night is because pledging allegiance to the ugly and barbaric version of God they believe in requires a hardening of the conscience. A “perfectly loving” God who is also wrathful, vindictive, punishing, and violent appeals to the evangelical Christian because it is familiar. If perfection can behave in such a reprehensible manner, then they can feel good about being perfectly loving people who are, like the perfect God they believe in, wrathful, vindictive, punishing, and violent.

  • iamaccountant

    darcygrant – you say at one time you were a young, evangelical Christian, but now you’re not. Yet you’ve spent considerable time discrediting Christianity for the doctrine of predestination. You fail to see that you have dis-proven that very doctrine by your own words. You’ve exercised freewill without having been aware that you’ve done so.

  • 53_3

    Paul F Tompkins last night “It’s 2009 and Rush is still around? Art Bell had the decency to reduce his radio presence”
    .
    He’s alive and kicking, sad to say, frothing at the mouth in a desperate, yet very white*, sort of way.
    .
    *Not my son’s sort of “white”, but indeed my dad’s sort of “white”!

  • darcygrant

    imaccountant: it has nothing to do with freewill. It has to do with reason. I do not believe that we can “choose” our beliefs. If you think we can, then I challenge you, right now, to choose to believe that elves exist–just for a few minutes. No matter how much you may want to believe that elves exist, I doubt that you could simply choose to believe that they do. What I have said is that there are parts of the Bible that do teach the doctrine of predestination, and because of this, there are many Christians (including large denominations such as Lutherans) who believe that the Bible teaches that faith is a gift from God and is not something you can simply choose to have. I have also stated that other passages in the Bible seem to contradict the doctrine of predestination. I believe that Christians have to choose their theology based on their personal preferences. Kinder Christians tend to reject the doctrine of predestination because they don’t want to believe that a loving God would fail to give the “gift” of faith to some and not to others. Other Christians, who have a need to believe that they are very, very special to God, choose to use the Bible to justify their favorite doctrine of predestination. My point was that you cannot be an evangelical Christian and maintain any degree of intellectual integrity. You can try (and most Christians don’t even bother to try), but you will fail.

  • http://www.hulagate.org hulagate

    “…a divisive, controversial political figure…”

    ___

    According to lib mantra, God IS Gay.

    [Actually, according to lib mantra, EVERYTHING is gay.]

    Run with that in 2010, and 2012, please.

  • http://www.hulagate.org hulagate

    “Liberal” evangelicals?

    ISn’t that sort of like a cafeteria Catholic?

    What the Time DOLT that wrote this limp post supposes, like most of the lib loons, IS that conservatives lack the faith to see through their Universalized Church Of NOW crapola that the tenured types la-dee-da through as though it was a quick trip to 57 State Flavors, instead of an article of personal conviction.

    Being gay — what all the reform movements boil down to, or some coddling tolerance thereof — may not be a killer sin (outside the AIDS infected) — but it is not a valid basis for a theology.

    Next!

  • sacredh

    I’m an atheist but my wife is a beliver who doesn’t attend church. Her previous husband is a minister. Her brother is a minister. Her uncle is a minister. All of them quote Dobson, Falwell and Robertson like they were prophets. Her mother attends a church where half the members think Obama is the anti-christ because “all the signs are there”. Her church just got a new member they think is a young guy. He’s in his early 50′s. The average age of the congregations has to be somewhere in the late 60′s or early 70′s. They’re stuck in the past and will soon be a part of it. They don’t see their message as being the reason they can’t attract young people, they blame everyone but themselves.

  • iamaccountant

    darcygrant – you just did it again. You wrote ” I do not believe we can “choose” our beliefs”. How can you “believe” that we cannot choose our “beliefs”? Or should you have stated “I have “reasoned” that we cannot “choose” our beliefs? If you meant the latter, on what basis is your reason based? Did you subject your theory to the scientific method and prove that belief is non-existent? I’m not mocking you, because it’s obvious you are very intelligent and passionate about what you have written. I’m replying to your comments just to get you to reconsider of what great worth you are to God. Allow me to ask a favor of you. Jesus said “I have come to seek and to save that which is lost”. Ask him to prove that to you. And please ask in a sincere manner even though you may have done so before. If you do find he is who he says he is, then I will have another ally against those sadly misled Calvinists. If they are right, then I will take a Sharpie and line through these verses: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever “believes” in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” I didn’t cite the verses, because I “believe” you already know where to find them. Christianity is a relationship with Jesus, it’s not a religion.

  • darcygrant

    imaccountant—you have no idea how many times I asked–no begged– God, if he existed, to show himself to me. And yet, so far, he has failed to do so. You asked about my reasoning regarding my belief that we do not choose our beliefs–my reasoning is based on the fact that you cannot choose to believe in elves. Or can you?

  • darcygrant

    imaccountant–I don’t know if you realize it, but you are actually the one who is contradicting yourself. In asking me to pray (sincerely) that God would do something to reveal himself to me–you have revealed within yourself a belief that God must somehow do something that will allow me to “see” him. I appreciate the fact that you reject the ugly and perverse doctrine of predestination, a doctrine that leads otherwise sane individuals to utter such preposterous phrases as “reprobate infants.” However, I have found that even Christians who, on the surface, reject Calvinistic teachings very often, if not always, upon closer inspection reveal an adherance to such teachings, at least at an unconsious level. How many times, for example, have you heard a fellow Christian (or you, yourself) thank God for “changing your heart” and allowing you, through his grace, to come to a saving knowledge of Christ? Most Christians I know (and these are not Calvinistic Christians) do, very much, express a certain amount of gratitude to God for the graces he extended in allowing them to become a Christian in the first place. These Christians do not, in any way, take credit for their own salvation, nor do they take credit for dredging up within themselves the faith in Christ that they believe is required in order for them to be saved. Once again, then, I must emphasize my point that in order to be an evangelical Christian, one must learn to live with a sort of cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty that an increasingly large number of people–including myself–are finding intolerable.

  • http://proclaimingsoftly.blogspot.com/ PS

    darcygrant: I agree about the cognitive dissonance. In fact, I’ve been on the lookout for conservative Christian bloggers who seem to have a coherent reasoning as well as belief system. They must be out there somewhere…??? I do take exception to your statement earlier that Lutherans believe in predestination. I even looked up on the Lutheran denominational website to check out my remembrance of this. We don’t. Luther and Calvin differed in belief. And also, the phrases you mentioned that some Christians use in prayer aren’t used in the circle of Christian friends I know of. I do doubt that any form of human argument and belief could stand the full inspection of an impassioned logic-meister. I think that we often choose our own theology to fit personal circumstances, such as they are. My gripe with certain evangelical christians isn’t that they believe the Bible to be inerrant, but that they believe their own interpretation to be inerrant [as another poster put it]. That to me is arrogance or hubris. Or the Ancients might have said that they are thinking they are as wise as God and can know his mind and reasoning.

  • darcygrant

    Hi PS–great post. Thanks. As far as conservative Christian bloggers having a coherent reasoning and belief system—I haven’t seen it either, and I don’t believe it’s possible. About Lutherans–it may depend on the type of Lutheran that you are. I agree with you that Lutherans do not consider themselves to be Calvinists. However, I think that the difference between the two is minimal and is mostly linguistic. Missouri-Synod Lutherans do believe that faith is a gift and in that sense, they do, certainly, adhere to the doctrine of predestination. Let me quote something for you from the Missouri-Synod website regarding the question of choice:

    http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2645

    Q. Is it accurate to say that Lutherans believe that we are first given the ability to believe in Christ as Lord and Savior through the Holy Spirit and then it is our choice and responsibility to choose to believe in Christ, or am I off here?

    A. Lutherans consistently and deliberately avoid using language of human “choice” when speaking of conversion, since we believe that faith is a gift of God created by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel, not a matter of human “choice” or “decision.” From a human perspective, of course–especially in the case of adults or older children–conversion may at times appear to involve certain (mental and emotional) aspects of “choosing,” but spiritually speaking faith is not a “choice” we make but a free gift of God’s grace created by the power of the Holy Spirit working through the means of grace. Ultimately, therefore, conversion is a miracle and mystery that we confess in accordance with what the Scriptures teach and in which we rejoice, but which we do not claim fully to understand or attempt to explain in ways that “make sense” to human reason (e.g., the question why some who hear the Gospel believe and others do not).

    End of quote. One difference between Lutherans and Calvinists is that Lutherans (at least Missouri Synod Lutherans) believe that it is not God’s will that any should perish. Even so, they clearly do believe that God does not give the “gift of faith” to all people. I think it is especially interesting to note hey openly admit that they do not even try to reconcile the logical problem resulting from a belief in a loving God who desires all people to be saved but who does not give to all people the ability to do what he requires to be saved. This would be no different than punishing a dog because he has a tail, but as Paul says, “who are you a pot, to question the potter.” Apparently, in addition to the “gift” of faith, God also gives the faithful the ability to live with cognitive dissonance and a lack of intellectual integrity. The only thing is–this doesn’t seem like much of a “gift” to me. On the contrary, it seems like the same kind of “gift” that would allow a person to see nothing wrong with the behavior of Hitler toward the Jews. That’s the kind of “gift” I think Americans—particularly thinking, caring Americans—can do without. As I’ve been saying all along–America has shown that it is growing up. And as we grow up, it’s time for us to put away these childish ideas about the “gift” of faith in an angry, vindictive, punishing God.

  • iamaccountant

    darcygrant – I want to thank you for for taking the time to correspond with me in a respectful manner that is often absent in these type of forums. This will be my last post. Trust me – there is no hint of the Calvinist doctrine, conscious or otherwise, in my belief system. Ive previously researched the original Greek for the meanings of the words “world” and “whoever” in John 3:16. Their meanings leave no doubt that Jesus was referring to anyone and everyone that lives or has lived on the earth. With respect to your references to faith and grace, Eph. 2:8 states “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God…”. So the Christians you referred to are correct not to take credit for grace, faith or salvation. But who are the recipients of this grace? Titus 2:11 tells us: “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men”. You spoke of the times you’ve begged God to reveal himself to you, but so far he has not. Well, he brought a complete stranger into your life today. Perhaps now he has answered you. Why do suppose of all the people that have posted to this site, you’re the only one to whom I’ve taken time to respond? Take care.

  • darcygrant

    imaccount–I appreciate your calm demeanor. However, I must point out several problems with your reasoning. I understand that you have some Bible verses that you believe soundly contradict the doctrine of predestination. And as I have pointed out, I agree with you that there are many verses that contradict that doctrine. On the other hand, as I have been saying all along, there are a number of passages which also clearly teach the doctrine of predestination. That’s the problem. The Bible contradicts itself on this issue as it does on so many other issues.
    The implication of your post is that I should believe God exists because a stranger, such as yourself, took the time to respond to a few of my posts in an online discussion forum. Using that same reasoning, I would have to believe that if a Muslim responded to my posts today, I would then have to assume that Allah exists. I’m sure you see the problem with this kind of reasoning.
    Another problem with your obvious belief that God actually brought you into my life (for ten minutes) in order to demonstrate to me that he exists is that, in spite of your good nature, you have utterly failed to address the majority of points I’ve raised. Surely, if God wanted to bring someone into my life to prove himself to me, he would surely choose someone who was (1) willing to do more than simply write two posts to me and (2) who was not only good-natured but was also someone who was capable of responding to the points I’ve made. To suggest that you devoting twenty minutes to providing poor (if well-intended) answers to the points I’ve raised is evidence of the existence of your God is, once again, exactly the kind of childish and anti-intellectual reasoning that our country needs to grow out of.

  • darcygrant

    Notice that imaccountant wrote: “So the Christians you referred to are correct not to take credit for grace, faith or salvation.”

    On the one hand, Christians like imaccountant want to claim that people choose whether or not to have faith and that those who have faith do so because THEY have chosen (and not because God has given them the gift of faith.) And yet, on the other hand, he wants to say that faith is a gift from God. Notice how he/she wants to have it both ways? Where is the intellectual integrity in this? And then to make it worse, he suggests that just the fact that he spoke to me today–nevermind that he presented his beliefs in a completely contradictory manner–but just the fact that he threw a few crumbs my way even if the crumbs were moldy and tasteless) is supposed to demonstrate to me that God exists and that he loves me. Holy cow. There’s something unbelievably egotistical about this.

  • http://proclaimingsoftly.blogspot.com/ PS

    I don’t know enough about the doctrine of predestination to argue the specifics, but I think it has to do with who is chosen, which is different than saying that faith is a gift. It isn’t just semantics. But evangelicals aren’t Calvinists. They seem to believe that a person does something to bring about his salvation, which a Lutheran would disagree with vehemently. I’m not LCMS, but they do have a good q&a on their website.

    Lutherans differ from many other Christians in that they believe that there are truths that are in tension with each other, that we are, for example, to be in the world, but apart from the world, to believe that there both the glory of salvation and the cross, that we are both sinners and saved. So yes, we do believe that there are seemingly “opposing” beliefs that we can hold at the same time. Perhaps that might be because God’s logic or reasoning is different than ours.

    You state that it is egotistical for the other writer to think or imply that when he takes his time to write to you that isn’t a sign of God working among people. But I’d say that it is egotistical for a person to expect a big sign from God, rather than a small sign. Who are you to expect a big explosion rather than a glimmer to spark your interest? The Jewish believers of Jesus’ time missed the Messiah because they were looking for an earthly King, perhaps fully formed rather than an infant. They were hoping for an earthly revolution rather than a spiritual revolution.

    Many Christians believe that they are the hands and feet of Christ on earth. And while any good person might do a good deed for you, or even an evil person might do a good deed for you, it might also be that God is in that moment. I’m not saying that God pulls the puppet string to control somebody to do something for you, but that there might be a motivating factor that goes beyond selfishness.

    If you were formerly in a church with a simplistic belief system that implied that if you questioned anything then the whole house of cards would fall apart, I can see why you question various things. I’d suggest that you just beware of doctrines that seem to state that they KNOW God’s mind completely. I don’t think God is that simplistic or small.

  • darcygrant

    PS–yes, the doctrine of predestination has to do with who is chosen. But chosen for what? My understanding is that it has to do with who is chosen to receive salvation. i.e. who is chosen to be given the “gift of faith.” In this sense, I maintain my stance that many, if not most, Lutherans do in fact adhere to the doctrie of predestination. I understand that you believe God’s reasoning or logic is different than yours. However, when someone says that God desires that all people be saved–yet, he only gives what is required to be saved to certain people–then I think it is fair to question how it is that God wants a certain thing but does not do what it would take to get what he wants. Imagine a mother who stated the following: “It is my deepest desire that all of my children grow up to be healthy and strong.” And yet, this mother deliberately fails to feed three of her six children so that those three children eventually starve to death. In this case, I think that any court of law–and any reasonably sane person–would be correct to conclude that when the mother said that it was her deepest desire that all of her children grow up to be healthy and strong, she didn’t mean what she said. If she did mean it, then she would have fed the children. You said that you don’t know God’s mind completely. I can buy that. However, in the case of a woman who deliberately starved her children to death, we wouldn’t have to know the woman’s mind completely to conclude that when she said that it was her deepest desire that all of her children grow up to be healthy and strong, she lied. The same is true for the God you believe in. If he desires that all people have faith in him and that all people receive salvation–and if faith is, in fact, a gift–then God would give all people the gift of faith. Clearly, however, he does not do that, and for that reason, I think it is reasonable to conclude that he does not deisre all people to receive salvation. And if God doesn’t mean what he allegedly says, then the Christian house of cards collapses pretty quickly–or at least, it does for people who really do value reason and who really do value the truth.

  • darcygrant

    And I would add that at least according to the Missouri Synod website, Lutherans don’t place much value on reasoning. In my opinion, this also means that they don’t place much value on knowing what is true.

  • http://proclaimingsoftly.blogspot.com/ PS

    Well I have issues with the way the LCMS lives out their understanding of many things, but this is not the place to get into that. Without reading what they actually said, I might say that perhaps they mean that human wisdom and understanding and reason are fallible.

    I looked up the Wikipedia article on predestination which is pretty long and complex. I didn’t have time to read it all and I don’t know if theologians would say it is correct and complete. But it looks like neither my old understanding of predestination nor the way you’ve expressed your understanding of it is accurate. Again, this is not the place to debate that, especially with our incomplete understanding of it.

    There is something about faith which causes a person to realize that all this isn’t so hard; that we aren’t saved by our understanding or doctrine. If we are to believe that God desires that all can be saved, then that applies to those who don’t have the brains to understand it. In fact, it defies human logic, so none will ever understand it. I don’t see that as a simplistic understanding but the most complex understanding which is at the same time simple. If you were raised that you had to generate faith and believe a certain way and you saw things with your own eyes that contradicted what you were taught, then your faith seemed to evaporate. But if you don’t have to work so hard to have faith, then the hard become easy because it is already done for you.

  • markh0

    Darcy, you have obviously studied, read and thought about this alot, and it still bothers you. I ask you to consider the phrase you keep repeating and have based your rational logic upon: “a loving God”. Is that a matter of how you define loving?
    If God created this world, everyone and everything in it, can do as he wills and can make anything live or die (including you), why would he be bound by our definitions of right and wrong and what is love? Didn’t he create it? Who are we to say we don’t like what we think his definition is?
    Is this like Jonah’s anger because God relented from punishing the Ninevites and caused the bush to die? Did Jonah really cause the Ninevites to repent or the bush to grow? Does Jonah have a right to be angry?

  • darcygrant

    P.S. wrote: “But if you don’t have to work so hard to have faith, then the hard become easy because it is already done for you.”

    I appreciate the effort you are making in attempting to express your beliefs. However, the sentence quoted makes no sense. What exactly is it that is already done for you? I’m not terribly concerned about the correct definition of predestination. This is not rocket science. The point I’ve been making is that many if not most Lutherans (and many evangelical Christians as well, as I demonstrated with accountant) clearly do view faith as a gift. If saving (or saving faith in Christ) is a gift from God, then those who do not have faith do not have it because God did not give it to them. If an individual does not have something that God failed to give them, then the person should not be punished. Punishing a person who fails to have faith (when God himself failed to give that person faith) would be like punishing a blind man when he failed to see.

  • darcygrant

    Mark wrote: If God created this world, everyone and everything in it, can do as he wills and can make anything live or die (including you), why would he be bound by our definitions of right and wrong and what is love? Mark, what you seem to be saying is that “might makes right.” Is that really what you believe? When humans use the word “love,” we have a common understanding of what that word means. This common understanding includes things like kindness and concern for the welfare of the beloved. With that in mind, I do not think that we can say that a God who behaves in the manner described in the Bible is a God who is loving–at least he is not loving in any manner that is consistent with the human understanding of love. What many Christians do, however, is to say that God “is loving.” However, when they use the word “loving” to describe God, they oftentimes do not mean “loving” in a way that is commonly understood by human beings. The same can be said for words such as “just.” When Christians speak of God’s “justice,” they often refer to a form of “justice” that has nothing to do with the commonly understood meaning of the word. Since this is the case, perhaps Christians should begin describing God as “blech” and “plfeff.” No one will know what is meant by those words, which is exactly what happens when Christians use words such as “loving” and “just” and then go on to say that words such as “loving” and “just” do not mean–when applied to God–what humans mean when they use that word. The use of nonsense words to describe a nonsensical, immature view of God–which is the view of God held by evangelical Christians–would be perfectly fitting, and such a practice would also support the argument you are attempting to make.

  • darcygrant

    Mark–if you choose to give life to a child and you then choose to beat and abuse the child, does the child have any right to be angry about it? After all, you gave life to the child (you had the ability to do it, and you did it) and you also have the ability to end the child’s life, should you so desire. In that case, if your child grows up and refers to you as unloving–simply because you beat and abused him–isn’t he being, according to your reasoning, a bit arrogant? How dare your child–who is, in a sense, your creation–label you as being unloving? You, as the child’s mother or father can define love in any way you see fit. Surely you see the problem with your line of reasoning.

  • darcygrant

    And Mark, here’s another thing to think about. What if God created men and women, and then he told men to freely rape any women or female children that they desired. And let’s say furthermore that God says this is loving behavior. Using your reasoning, we will then have to say that raping women and female children is loving behavior. We as God’s creation would have no right to complain or to say that such behavior is not loving. Very dangerous reasoning, Mark, and as I’ve been saying all along, it is the kind of reasoning that citizens of our country need to grow out of so that we can instead focus on being sensitized to the needs of others and so that we can work together to find a way to improve the quality of life for as many people as we possibly can. Your way of thinking (and Dobson’s way of thinking) is not going to accomplish that. It’s time to grow up and move on. Dobson stepping down as chairman of Focus on the Family is a good step in the right direction, but it’s not enough.

  • markh0

    Darcy, the calm discussion that PS mentioned disappeared.
    - Dobson’s expressions are not equal to God’s. Any follower’s or detractor’s thoughts or behaviors are not God’s.
    - Our bearing a child is not creation, it is procreation.
    - Child abuse is not loving. Physical or mental abuse is one end of a spectrum where the other end is abuse by abdicating our responsibility as a parent. Whether that is physical abandonment or lack of any discipline. If someone claims it is done out of love does not make it loving or appropriate. Neither does the approval of the child or someone else (either at the time or years later) determine whether it was loving. And, no, none of us will be perfect.
    - Years ago everyone was subject to earthly rulers with the power of life and death. Many rulers were subject to other rulers. Might did not make them right. Now we have the idea that we should each decide for ourselves what is right. In essence we are making ourselves our own rulers and gods. And when we “grow out” of our old reasoning we will have a perfect world. Somehow we will have expunged greed, avarice and every immorality from humans. We won’t need a god, we will have fixed his mistakes.
    - There are all sorts of injustices and cruelties in this world. This is the question why God allows this. The bible says it is to show his glory. He does not need anyone to justify him against any of our standards.

  • darcygrant

    Thanks for your input, Mark. Rather than continue to post comments here, I’ve decided to begin a blog instead. Anyone who would like to continue discussing topics brought up is free to comment on my blog, and I will respond to you there. Interesting discussion! Thank you. http://conversationswithchristians.wordpress.com

  • http://proclaimingsoftly.blogspot.com/ PS

    I’m glad to move this discussion elsewhere, as Swampland isn’t the best place for it. And I’m having major problems getting Swampland to open up. I’ll check the blog and try to read it tomorrow.

  • PoqVaUSA

    “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;” Ephesians 2:8

    Certainly salvation is a gift, for all those who choose to accept it. It is not something that we can earn, or deserve. We don’t receive the gift from God as a result of belief in God. Even the demons believe, and shudder. We become saved, or born again, by accepting Christ as Lord and Savior. It is an act of surrender and submission. What does Jesus say? If you love me, you will obey my commandments. And what is the new commandment that he gives? To love others as He loves us. For those who choose to follow Jesus, it’s very simple. We enter the state of salvation as little children, without arrogance, and learn more as we go. For those who question whether God even exists, it is a total mystery and will remain so. Why is God considered to be unloving for not forcing people to go to heaven who obviously are choosing not to go there, that is, choose not to follow Him and go to where He Is?

  • http://mymediafeed.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/an-icon-rises-james-dobson-moves-from-focus-on-the-family-into-politics/ An Icon Rises: James Dobson moves from Focus on the Family into politics « MyMediaFeed

    [...] become a more vocal force on public policy issues. His ties with Focus on the Family, many suggest, prevented him from being the divisive and controversial political figure that he sometimes tried to … because it threatened support for the [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus