I have three items for my write-up today on Blinded by Might: Why the Religious Right Can't Save America, by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson. By and large, in this post, I will be quoting from Ed Dobson's contribution to the book.
1. On page 166, Dobson says:
"Is
there ever a time when the church should get involved in the political
process? [H.M.] Kuitert argues yes. He states that 'in a situation in
which the gaining of power through political position is forbidden or
political parties do not exist,' the church should become the voice of
the ignored and oppressed. Kuitert cites the church in South Africa as
an example. The church became a voice for the blacks who had no voice
in the political system. The same would hold true for the black church
in America; it became the voice for a people who were, and to some
degree still are, an ignored people. The same can be said of the church
in Germany during the Nazi regime. The church had a moral obligation
to speak up for and defend the Jewish people who were deprived of choice
and freedom."
My impression is that Thomas and Dobson do
not particularly want for the church to be involved in politics or
political issues, but rather to focus on such things as the preaching
the Gospel and service. Yet, they are all for Christians
(Christians, as distinguished from the church as an institution) being
civic minded and voting, and Thomas expresses support for a
constitutional anti-abortion amendment. The passage above appears to be
an exception clause that says when the church as an institution would
be within its bounds to become involved in the political process.
It's
a tough issue. Couldn't someone come along and say that the church
should be involved in fighting abortion politically, since the
unborn----like the victims in Apartheid South Africa, Nazi Germany, and
the Jim Crow South----are vulnerable and limited in their ability to
counter those who oppress (or, in this case, murder) them? I suppose
so, but then we're back at the limits of legislation, which Thomas and
Dobson highlight: an anti-abortion law by itself will not stop all
abortions, which is why there needs to be a focus on changing hearts and
minds and helping those who are pregnant and vulnerable. In the United
States, there is hope of fighting abortion politically, but also people
can spread the Gospel and help pregnant women who need help, and so our
situation is not the same as what existed in (say) Nazi Germany, where
people could not openly help the vulnerable or fight Nazi policies.
2. On page 165, Dobson states:
"...The
Bible clearly teaches that life begins at conception; human life is a
gift from God and must be protected. But on many other issues there is
not a clear, unequivocal Christian position. Good Christians disagree
on such issues as the environment, nuclear weapons, gun control, capital
punishment, and support of the State of Israel."
Dobson's point
is that it's wrong to claim that there is a "Christian" position on
certain political issues, for that contaminates the definition of
"Christian", plus there is diversity within Christianity.
Personally,
I don't think that the Bible "clearly teaches that life begins at
conception." That is quite debatable. Exodus 21:22-23 can be
interpreted to mean that a man who kills a pregnant woman while fighting
with another man will be executed, whereas he will merely pay a fine if
he caused her a miscarriage. Actually, the Bible has a
clearer stance on capital punishment (it's often for it) than it does on
when life begins. But, even if the Bible "clearly teaches" something,
does that mean that we should follow it? God law for Old Testament
Israel was for it to execute people who engage in homosexual conduct
(Leviticus 20:13). I seriously doubt that Cal Thomas, Ed Dobson, or
even many on the religious right would support that sort of policy for
the U.S. That brings me to my third item.
3. It was interesting
to read what this book says about homosexuality. This book was written
in 1999, which was a little different from 2012, when criticism of
homosexuality is becoming more marginalized (though there are clear
exceptions to that, as when crowds of people bought Chick-Fil-A
sandwiches to defend its owner, who spoke out against gay marriage).
Dobson's
contribution is a mixture of reasonable insights and, well, stuff that
would be controversial in 2012. Dobson talks about how his church
refused to campaign against a local gay rights ordinance, and he
received a lot of hostile criticism from conservative Christians for
that. Dobson states on page 164: "Seeing the way other Christians treated me, I can only imagine how they would treat gay people."
On the ordinance itself, Dobson acknowledged that there was
discrimination against gays in the city where he lived, but he thought
that the gay rights ordinance was unnecessary because there were already
laws that could deal with that problem. I'm sure that there are many
homosexuals who would disagree with him on this, but I do appreciate
that Dobson is willing to be sympathetic to the plight of homosexuals.
On
pages 167-168, however, Dobson says that gays can be healed through the
power of the Gospel. He tells a story about a gay man who "left the
gay lifestyle and eventually married and had children." I'm not sure if
Dobson believes that the Gospel will necessarily make gay people
straight, for he says that "Gays can be delivered from practicing
homosexuality", which, in my opinion, is different from saying that all
gays can change their sexual orientation. Dobson's stance in
1999 would probably be more controversial today, when there are
critiques of (and even legal measures against) reparative therapy, even
Exodus International has backed away from it, and a number of
psychologists say that it's dangerous for gays to repress who they are.
On
page 203, in an interview by Cal Thomas of former U.S. Senator Bill
Armstrong, Armstrong says, "Does [God] care whether or not people are
forced to have their children associate with homosexuals? I think he
does care." I thought that statement was sad, especially because
Armstrong had good insights in this interview about history and the
relationship between politics and religion. And it would be more
controversial today, when the Southern Policy Law Center calls such
groups as the Family Research Council a hate group for suggesting that
children should be protected from homosexuals. (UPDATE: Armstrong may have meant that there are parents who don't want
their children to have homosexual role models. I find his statement
to be sad, in any case.)