Blinded by Might 9

I finished Blinded by Might: Why the Religious Right Can't Save America, by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson.  In my latest reading, Thomas was interviewing Jerry Falwell.

Two aspects of that interview that interested me were Jerry's retrospective insight that the Moral Majority was wrong to allow local chapters to have too much autonomy, for that allowed local spokespeople to say or do nutty things that made the Moral Majority look bad, and Jerry's lament that professors at evangelical universities are largely liberal when it comes to politics.

Regarding the local chapters, that stood out to me because some left-wing critics of the Moral Majority indeed did lambaste the entire movement because of what a couple of radicals said, when the Christian right may very well have some reasonable people.  The question, though, is this: if the Christian right triumphs, will its reasonable elements have a bigger say?  I'm rather skeptical.  What Jerry said about the local chapters also stood out to me because I used to think that, to be a conservative or an adherent to a political philosophy, I had to defend everything that prominent adherents to that philosophy said or did.  No I don't.  Even if people publicly do that in order to be team players or to save face, in private or in retrospect they are often quite honest about their mistakes.

Today, as a more left-leaning person, I don't feel compelled to defend everything that a Democrat or a liberal says or does. Granted, I realize that a Democrat or a liberal who is under attack for something has his or her own side of the story, the same way that a conservative or a Republican does, and so the attack may not represent the whole deal, or the accused may not be as bad as critics say.  But I don't feel that I have to be unrealistic for the sake of ideology.

Regarding evangelical universities, while I am not a big fan of intellectual snootiness, especially in the evangelical sphere, I do admire the evangelical professors who take their faith in a left-leaning direction, for why should faith in Christ have to entail a right-wing political perspective?

Blinded by Might 8: Authenticity

For my write-up today on Blinded by Might: Why the Religious Right Can't Save America, by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson, I'll talk some about Cal Thomas' interview with Tony Hall.  According to the wikipedia article about him, Hall was a Democratic congressman from Ohio, but he became pro-life during the 1980's on account of a born-again experience.

In Thomas' interview with him, Hall narrates that he was criticized by a number of Christian conservatives because----while he voted according to their views on such issues as abortion, homosexuality, and pornography----he did not vote according to right-wing standards when it came to issues like the budget, the Department of Education, and taxes.  Hall believes that concern for the poor is a biblical imperative, and he criticizes the evangelical right for judging the poor as lazy, when actually "Most of the poor today in the country are the working poor" (Hall's words on page 233).  In response to his critics, Hall said, "You know, I look to and fro for what Jesus said about capital gains and could not find it."  He denies the proposition that those who vote with the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition are the true Christians who deserve Christians' support, while others are non-Christians, and he notes that he knows of two politicians who voted the vast majority of the time with the Moral Majority, yet they were not exactly moral, according to evangelical standards: one was a homosexual, and another had an affair with a page.

I'd like to clarify something, in case I wasn't clear in the above paragraph: Hall is not saying that Christian conservatives are non-Christians.  Rather, he's disputing the notion that only those who vote with the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition are the true Christians, while those who deviate from that platform are not.  Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson distance themselves somewhat from that sort of attitude in Thomas' interviews with them.  But there have been times when Falwell has held that true Christians adopt certain political stances, as when he advertised an article that he wrote entitled "Why True Christian Women Do Not Participate in the Feminist Movement" (see here for interactions with that article).

Also, some of my readers will probably take issue with Hall's portrayal of homosexuality as immoral.  I think, though, that even those who disagree with Hall on this can see some value in what he says.  Politics can easily push people to be inauthentic, as people compromise for the sake of power.  I wonder if that homosexual politician who voted with the religious right felt any conflict in terms of his votes.  How could he support policies that stigmatized homosexuality, when he himself was a homosexual?  Was he fighting who he was?  Or did he make the political stances that he did out of a desire for power?

I think that one reason that I distanced myself from the religious right was that I desired authenticity in terms of my religion and spirituality.  I could vocally defend Christian conservative political stances against liberal detractors and act as if that's what made me a Christian.  Or I could pursue a more substantive approach: follow the path of service and love for God and my fellow human beings.  And part of this authenticity, for me, was being concerned about the plight of the poor----how government policies affect them, whether those policies make their lives harder, etc.

I'd like to now clarify: I'm not saying that the path of Christian conservatism is incompatible with the path of authentic Christianity.  There are Christian conservatives who love and serve God and others.  They, too, have a concern for the poor.  They give to charity, and they feel that left-wing economic policies hurt the poor whereas their own policies help them.  I'm just saying that, for me personally, following a Christian conservative path led me in a direction opposite to that of Christian values, such as humility, love, service, wholeness, etc.

That's not to say that, now that I'm more of a liberal, I lack the character defects that I had back when I was a conservative.  I can still find myself hating and demonizing the other side, or putting down people when I'm debating them, or seeking to save face.  But, nowadays, I hopefully have something other than a particular political stance to guide my life and my interests.  I have a political stance, yes, but I also have spirituality----or at least I pursue spirituality.

Blinded by Might 7

In my latest reading of Blinded by Might: Why the Religious Right Can't Save America, by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson, I started the section of the book entitled "The Interviews", in which Cal Thomas interviews prominent people on the Right and the Left about the role of religion in politics.  In my opinion, this will probably be the best part of the book----I certainly thought that my latest reading of it was excellent!  One reason that I like this section so far is that it goes beyond the usual platitudes that are thrown around in debates regarding this issue, as both sides talk through rather than to one another.  "You can't legislate morality."  "Yes you can, for the law bans murder, which is immoral!"  "The church should stay out of politics, and religion should not influence the government!"  "But Martin Luther King, Jr. was politically active as a minister, and that was a good thing!"  "There's a moral majority in this country that is upset by America's moral and spiritual downturn."

It's not that all of these platitudes lack merit.  I just wish that there were a way to arrive at some ground that took into consideration the merits of the various sides.  Yes, legislating morality can be futile, and it's especially troubling when a group seeks to legally force its moral vision on people who don't see things in the same way.  There are areas in which there are different ideas as to what is moral, and so why should one group be able to force its morality onto others?  On the other hand, "You can't legislate morality" is a problematic statement because the law itself is a codification of beliefs about what is moral and immoral----murder is immoral, theft is immoral, racial discrimination is immoral, etc.

Yes, there is a problem when religion influences government.  Religion, like certain areas of morality, is a matter of personal preference, and so it's problematic when it is legally forced on people who do not subscribe to it, especially when there is no solid proof that it is true (at least that's my opinion).  Moreover, as Thomas and Dobson argue, there are downsides to the church becoming obsessed with politics: demonization of the other, alienation of those the church is trying (or should be trying) to serve and to reach, etc.  And yet, there have been times when religion has influenced politics in positive ways, such as the civil rights movement.

I can't say that all of these issues were resolved in my latest reading.  Perhaps they won't be resolved in the rest of the book, either!  But it was refreshing to see a left-leaning former Senator and critic of the religious right, Mark Hatfield, affirm that legislation often reflects moral principles, or right-wing former Senator Bill Armstrong admit that Christian conservatives are not exactly the majority, or George McGovern say that the religious right, like the religious left, has the right to bring its religious beliefs into the public square.  And, when Cal Thomas asked George McGovern if there were any weaknesses to the religious left's approach, McGovern did not get defensive or act as if his own side was flawless while the other side was demonic.  Rather, McGovern attempted to provide a thoughtful reflection in response to Thomas' question.

Onto another subject, I really appreciated George McGovern's spiritual reflections in his interview.  McGovern relates that his father was a fundamentalist who believed that people had to be saved and sanctified, but McGovern himself believes that it's important simply to love other people, and he appeals to Matthew 25:31-46 to argue that Jesus will accept those who help the least of these, even if they did not entirely know what God was like or how to communicate with God.  Thomas then responds----in conservative evangelical fashion----that this is salvation by works, and that we need to believe in Jesus to get into heaven because our works are not good enough.  Thomas then appeals to McGovern's father and asks if McGovern confesses the Lord Jesus and believes that God raised him from the dead, which leads to salvation, according to Romans 10:9.  McGovern replies that he does.

Whether McGovern is interpreting Matthew 25:31-46 correctly, I do not know.  We're not told how much the sheep who helped the least of these knew about Jesus----only that they did not know that they were helping Jesus when they helped the least of these.  And yet, the criterion here is service, and faith is not mentioned.  But, on the other hand, what is commended is service to Jesus' brethren, who, in the New Testament, are often believers in Christ, and so even here there may be a Christian focus.  The point of Matthew 25:31-36 may be what Matthew 10:42 says: "And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward" (KJV).

I'd like to believe that God honors the good deeds of everyone, even non-Christians.  And yet, I recognize that I am flawed and far from perfect, and thus I feel that I need forgiveness.  Must a person have an instantaneous moment of salvation in order to be forgiven, however, or can one be forgiven as one continually treads the path of trying to live a good life, recognizing that he or she falls short?

Blinded by Might 6

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.)

Blinded by Might 5

In my latest reading of Blinded by Might: Why the Religious Right Can't Save America, by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson, there were a couple of points that caught my attention.  The first point actually contains a variety of points!

1.  Cal Thomas talked about the importance of the family.  To my surprise, he actually portrayed Jimmy Carter in a positive light, as when he referred to Carter's belief that the family was paramount, as well as mentioned a time when Carter visited the Department of Housing and Urban Development and told employees that he hoped they'd get married if they were living in sin, for he was serious about the stability of the family.  (Thomas was one who voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976 because Carter was a born-again Christian and was refreshing after the Watergate scandal, but Thomas became disillusioned with Carter during his Presidency.)

I thought that Thomas was a little extreme in what he was advising parents to do----to put their kids into Christian schools, and severely limit their children's exposure to TV, the Internet, music, etc., perhaps even dismissing those things from the home.  On some level, I can sympathize with Thomas' concerns, for I believe that the entertainment industry encourages attitudes towards sex that can result in ill effects: children lacking a stable home life, a dearth of commitment in relationships, etc.  However, I have problems with Christian parents putting their kids into a conservative Christian bubble.  Moreover, while Thomas acts as if public schools are bad and families are good (or such is my impression, and I'm open to correction on this), my opinion is that the family itself can negatively influence children, giving them attitudes that are racist or prejudiced or plain-old narrow-minded.  I wouldn't say that the state should raise kids----as if the state does things perfectly.  I just don't think that families are totally ideal as places for instruction, or that it's necessarily wrong for public schools to present an alternative viewpoint to what kids are learning at home.

I liked, however, what Thomas said to parents who chose to keep their children in public schools: don't storm "into the school with a list of demands", but be a "winsome presence at PTA and school board meetings," volunteer "to help with school activities", and develop "relationships with the school's leaders" (page 139).

For some reason, I was having a negative reaction while I was reading Thomas, for he appeared to be getting into a preachy mode, and I tend to be turned off by that.  But some of what he was saying was pretty convicting to me: that we should put effort into making society better rather than just relying on the government, that we should not be snobs but should be welcoming to everyone, like Christ was, etc.

2.  Dobson says that he does not really get into political issues in the pulpit, but he preaches through the Bible.  And yet, he acknowledges that preaching through the Bible can entail commenting on moral issues, such as the sanctity of life.  I'd say that preaching through the Bible is important, for that can encourage pastors to highlight the material that may be blind-spots to certain Christians.  For example, the Bible does talk about the sanctity of life, but it also has a lot about social justice for the poor.

Blinded by Might 4: Civil Disobedience

In my latest reading of Blinded by Might: Why the Religious Right Can't Save America, by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson, one chapter that I read was Ed Dobson's "Religion and Politics: What Does the Bible Really Say?"  In this chapter, Dobson argues that the Bible instructs people to respect, submit to, and pray for their government leaders, for "All political power comes from God", and the leaders are there "to maintain an ordered and structured society where good is promoted and evil is restrained" (page 111).  People are to pay their taxes, and they are to honor their leaders even when these leaders are immoral, like Nero was.

But Dobson acknowledges that there are rare occasions for civil disobedience, when Christians can (and perhaps even should) disobey laws.  When the Pharaoh instructed the midwives to kill all the Hebrew male babies in Exodus 1, God blessed the midwives after they had disobeyed the Pharaoh's orders.  When King Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 3 commanded Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to bow down to a golden statue, the three Hebrew young men were correct to disobey the king's order.  And when Jewish authorities forbade two apostles to teach in the name of Jesus, the apostles resolved to obey God rather than man (Acts 4-5).

Looks pretty simple, right?  That's how a number of preachers present situations when they attempt to promulgate what they consider to be the "biblical" position on issues.  But Dobson acknowledges that there are times when things get messy.  What about the anti-abortion group, Operation Rescue, for example?  Are they right to block access to abortion clinics, in violation of the law?  On page 119, Dobson says the following:

"But what about Operation Rescue?  The people who picket and block access and disregard the law of assembling are not being asked to do something wrong.  They are protesting the wrong of others and protecting the life of those who cannot speak for themselves.  I confess my ambivalence on this issue.  On the one hand, we could say that this civil disobedience lies outside the guidelines of Scripture.  That is, the disobedience would be in order only if the protesters themselves were being required to have abortions.  On the other hand, shouldn't someone be speaking up for the unborn, and if so, who should that be?  Who will give them a chance at life?"

I'd say that the issue of civil disobedience is more complex than even that.  So (according to the "biblical" standard) people can spread the Gospel, even if the authorities tell them that they can't?  Is that necessarily a wise policy to follow?  If I lived in a Communist country that banned evangelism, then I wouldn't go out onto the street corner and openly preach a sermon.  Why put myself into a situation in which I could land in jail?  I'd prefer more surreptitious methods of evangelism.  Maybe the apostles were correct to have a more open approach to spreading their faith----for that was a time when they were trying to get the word out, and God sometimes delivered people from prison, as occurred with Peter.  But I don't think it would be prudent to make that a blanket law for all time.

How about civil disobedience to protect a human life?  Dobson argues that, if I personally am told to kill someone (as were the two midwives in Egypt), then I am obligated to disobey that order.  But what if someone else is trying to kill a person?  Should I intervene?  Or what if my money is being taken by the government and is then used to kill people?  Right-wingers would say that this happens when tax dollars go to places that perform abortions, or that a similar situation exists when Catholic workplaces are required to have insurance policies that cover birth control that can function as abortifacients.  Left-wingers can point to our tax dollars being used for drones, which take the lives of innocent people.  Do people have an obligation to refrain from paying taxes that arguably pay for murder?

And should people always honor their government?  What about the Revolutionary War, or the conspiracy to kill Hitler?  Some, such as John MacArthur, hold that the American Revolution was a violation of Scripture (see here).  The government is supposed to insure that people are living peaceful lives.  But what if the government is an agent that obstructs peace and prosperity?

Things get messy whenever we try to find a middle ground between, on the one hand, obeying the government no matter what, and, on the other hand, not respecting authority at all.  Both extremes are horrible.  We don't want utter oppression, but we also don't desire an environment of lawlessness and chaos.  But at what point is disobedience justified?  I'd say that, if a government generally does a good job in keeping order, and if there is some hope that certain reforms can take place through the political process, then the government should be honored.  I'd say this about the U.S. system, and also many other governments throughout the world.  But, even if there is no political way to reform the system, perhaps the government should be honored even then.  After all, the apostles really could not change what the Roman empire did, at least not where they were at the time, and so disobeying a bunch of laws and pursuing revolution would probably not have been a wise course for them to take.  No system is perfect, but it's better than nothing at all, and so even imperfect systems should be honored.  But there may be occasions when a boiling-point is reached, when the government is so oppressive that it should be resisted.  In such cases, resistance should probably not take place hastily or lightly, but should occur after deep reflection.

I should also note that there is a difference between civil disobedience and attempting to overthrow the government.  Martin Luther King, Jr. disobeyed the law, but he was not in favor of getting rid of the southern authorities.  He was disobeying the law as a way of peaceful protest, to effect change within the system.  Henry David Thoreau, likewise, sought to balance civil disobedience with a respect for the authority structures: his point was that, yes, you can disobey a law if you deem it necessary, but you should honor the right of the authorities to then put you in jail.  

Blinded by Might 3: Can Legislation Work?

In my latest reading of Blinded by Might: Why the Religious Right Can't Save America, by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson, Dobson points to the ineffectiveness of Prohibition as an example of the limits of laws in making the United States a moral country.  Dobson then tells the story of an alcoholic named Bob who received Jesus Christ, got sober, made amends to people he harmed, and attended church and AA.  For Dobson (and, I presume, Thomas), the Gospel of Jesus Christ can transform people, whereas laws are limited, and so Christians should prioritize the Gospel over political activity in seeking to change America.

There is a part of me that sympathizes with this sort of argument, and there is a part of me that recoils from it.  Where I sympathize is that I believe that people can only change if they want to do so.  If they don't want to change, then laws may not make that much of a difference.  Dobson cites the example of Prohibition, which a lot of people disobeyed because they wanted their booze.  But, as Dobson (or perhaps it was Thomas) also contends, laws against abortion will not solve the problem of abortion because people will try to get around them.  What's needed is for people's minds and hearts to be changed.

Where I recoil from the argument is that it has often been used to promote a position that says that the government should not do anything to solve problems.  (UPDATE: I should make clear, though, that Thomas in the book favors legal restrictions on abortion.)  My high school history teacher quoted a statement by President Dwight Eisenhower that said that you cannot change people's minds and hearts with laws, and Ike was supposedly saying that in reference to civil rights legislation.  Granted, Ike's civil rights policy was not exactly total inactivity, for there were times when he took on Southern racism as President.  And, granted, laws by themselves were not enough to stop segregation, for the South held out for years against integrating their public schools.  But laws were necessary in that case----to establish that segregation was morally offensive, and also so that the federal government could have more authority to prosecute racial discrimination.

In addition, I've heard Christian conservatives say that Christians should not look to government to ameliorate poverty, for charity is the responsibility of the church, and, if the church wins more people to Christ through the Gospel, the poor would be helped.  I'm sorry, but I'm not that optimistic.  For one, it would be an extremely heavy task for the church to assume the responsibilities that the federal government assumes when it comes to the poor or the vulnerable----Medicaid and Medicare, low-income housing, low-income heating assistance, food stamps, etc.  I do not think that the church has the resources for that sort of task, and, what's more, I don't believe that it would have the will for it.  That brings me to my next point.  In my opinion, it's not necessarily the case that society would be better off if everyone became an evangelical Christian.  There are evangelicals who are jerks.  Some will then tell me that these evangelicals are not true Christians.  Well, let me tell you something: I'm not going to support putting federal programs for the poor on the shelf until conservative Christians finally get their acts together.

I'm not saying that Thomas and Dobson in this book are for the government doing nothing on civil rights or the poor.  Thomas questions that federal welfare programs have been successful in eliminating poverty, but, as far as I could see, he says nothing about abolishing them.  But Thomas and Dobson, at least in this book, seem to be overly optimistic about the U.S. becoming a better place if more people became evangelical Christians.  I tend to be skeptical, even though, like Thomas and Dobson, I believe that a change in mind and heart for the better (including within myself) is important.

Dobson leads me to ask a tough question, though: When should the government intervene?  Prohibition was trying to address a serious problem: people's lives being ruined through the abuse of alcohol.  Did this necessitate a governmental solution?  If my answer is that it did not, then why would I say that the government should have intervened to solve the ill of racial segregation and discrimination?  All I really can do is look at things on a case-by-case basis.  In the case of alcohol, the government banning it would not work, but the government could step in and seek to ameliorate some of the problems associated with it: ordering people into treatment if they drink and drive, abuse others while drunk, or neglect their work responsibilities.  Even here, government is not enough, for the person has to want to recover, and there need to be people around him (i.e., church, fellow recoverers) who are willing to assist him on the path to recovery.  In the case of racial discrimination, however, the government should prohibit that and exact clear penalties, which would be stringently enforced.  Granted, hearts and minds need to be changed, but we should not have waited for the hearts and minds to be changed before the government could step in and act.

What about abortion?  Here, I struggle.  I believe that the unborn child is a life, and that life should be protected.  But there are times when people have an unexpected pregnancy, and they may not be able to take care of a baby.  And then there are careless people who have sex, a pregnancy results, and they're not the sorts of people who would make good parents.  Laws against abortion will not make these issues go away.  But the government can work with parents and help them to have the resources for their child's well-being.  Adoption can be reformed.  Contraception can be encouraged.  Do I support banning abortion, though?  Well, I guess that I'm open to some restrictions, as long as a support system is in place once the child is born.  Unfortunately, the way that the U.S. political system is set up, the party that is pro-life on abortion tends to be the party that wants to chip away at the social safety net.

Blinded by Might 2: The Rigidity of Boundaries

In my latest reading of Blinded by Might: Why the Religious Right Can't Save America, by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson, I was thinking about flexibility and the rigidity of boundaries.

Cal Thomas said that a reason that it's hard to bring the values of the Kingdom of God into the political realm is that this world's kingdom is about compromise, whereas the Kingdom of God is not about compromise.  So you'd think that Cal Thomas is for rigid boundaries: right is right and wrong is wrong, and it's difficult to bring this mindset into an arena that requires compromise on right and wrong.

But there are other places in this book where the authors seem to imply that the boundaries don't have to be overly rigid.  Ed Dobson refers to the platform of the Moral Majority, and it emphatically denied that it wanted to take away the rights of homosexuals (but it also said that it opposes so-called "special rights", whatever that means), even though it regarded homosexuality as wrong.  Dobson also mentions a book that he wrote on politics in which, although he affirms that the church should be concerned about societal justice and righteousness, he acknowledges that issues are complex, that there are not always simple solutions, and that Christians can arrive at different political stances.

(UPDATE: Later in the book, Thomas criticizes Dr. James Dobson for being an uncompromising zealot, and Thomas says on page 128 that the "principled politician...sees compromise as a short-term tactic to reach the same long-term goal.")

Thomas criticizes the tendency of the religious right to demonize the other side.  He notes his own friendship with left-leaning TV producer and writer Norman Lear, and he tells a story about how Ted Kennedy visited Jerry Falwell's college, and people there treated him with kindness and respect.  In a later chapter, Dobson tells about his background as someone from Northern Ireland, and he appeals to the situation there as an example of how the marriage of politics and religion can have deadly consequences, as people identify Jesus Christ with their own political stance or agenda and thus demonize the other, and perhaps even marginalize the Gospel.  I doubt that Thomas and Dobson would see this talk about not demonizing the other as a promotion of compromise, for they'd probably regard kindness as one of the Kingdom principles that should not be compromised, but which can easily become compromised when Christians become obsessed with political involvement.  But, to me, what they say about kindness and reaching out to the other side appears to manifest a support for less-than-rigid boundaries, on some level.

The thing is, as Cal Thomas notes, political involvement not only encourages people to demonize their opponents, but it also may lead them to be overly nice when they need to be a prophetic voice for truth.  When Christians want to gain influence among the powerful, after all, there is a chance that they will fail to make bold stands for righteousness, or to call on leaders to repent when the leaders behave immorally.  In this case, Thomas seems to think that boundaries should be rigid and definable.

I myself am for a commitment to principles, but I'm also for taking half a loaf rather than none, staying to fight and speak for righteousness on another day, and trying to see where others are coming from rather than assuming that problems are simple and have simple solutions.  In terms of when I should do what, and how much I should do that, I guess it would depend on the situation.

Blinded by Might 1

I started the 1999 book, Blinded by Might: Why the Religious Right Can't Save America, by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson.  Cal Thomas is a conservative syndicated columnist, author, and TV personality.  And Dobson for a long time pastored Calvary Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan.  Thomas and Dobson were both prominent figures in Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority.  By 1999, however, they were disputing the notion that politics was enough to save America.

I'd like to use as my starting-point something that Cal Thomas says on page 30:

"The aphrodisiac of political power descended on Lynchburg, Virginia, with the impact of an asteroid.  Politics was a better means to noble ends than the hard and invisible efforts mandated by Scripture.  Who wanted to ride into the capital on the back of an ass when one could go first-class in a private jet and be picked up and driven around in a chauffeured limousine?  Who wanted the role of a servant when one could have the accolades given to leaders?  Who wanted the pain of Good Friday when one could have the acclaim of the masses on Palm Sunday?"

There are a number of things that I should say to balance that quote out.  First of all, Thomas and Dobson are not suggesting that Jerry Falwell did not care for such values as humble service.  Thomas narrates, for example, that Falwell was quite generous in helping the poor, and that Falwell gave scholarships to Liberty University to young people in the inner-cities in order to encourage them to do well in school.  Second, Thomas and Dobson emphatically deny that they are opposed to Christians being involved in political activity.  They just don't think that political activity is enough to save America.  After all, as one of them (I think it was Thomas) notes, Bill Clinton as President rolled back the anti-abortion policies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.  If we are relying on politics to turn America around, then we're not placing our faith in something that's overly reliable.

At the same time, the impression that I got in my latest reading was that Thomas and Dobson hold that Christians should prefer substance over flash.  When Ed Dobson was on Phil Donahue's show defending the right of the Boy Scouts to expel an Eagle Scout who was an atheist, yes, he had his moment of fame (though, as he notes, his wife soon brought him down to earth when she asked him to take the garbage to the dump!).  And, after Falwell took over PTL due to the disgrace of Jim Bakker, Dobson could have been on that network and become a famous Christian superstar.  But, ultimately, Dobson chose a path that many would characterize as rather low-key: he became the pastor of a church.

Thomas and Dobson wrote this book in 1999, and they say that the failure of Gary Bauer and Alan Keyes in the 2000 Presidential race is evidence that moral change will ultimately not take place through politics.  The thing is, though, that George W. Bush in 2000 won the Presidency, and from that point on we have seen policies that arguably advance the Christian conservative agenda.  Bush appointed conservative justices to the Supreme Court.  There are states that ban homosexual marriage, and there are states that limit abortion.

Where do Thomas and Dobson stand now?  Thomas is still a conservative columnist, and he has spoken favorably of a law that requires a pregnant woman to see her unborn child through an ultrasound before she has an abortion.  On some level, Thomas appears to acknowledge a role for public policy in encouraging morality.  At the same time, the Cal Thomas who questioned whether the religious right can save America has not disappeared.  In a beautiful column that he wrote after the death of Jerry Falwell, Thomas said that Falwell's true legacy was his university, and Thomas told the story of how Falwell provided a scholarship to an inner-city student.

Regarding Dobson, while Dobson appears to be a political conservative (at least on social issues) in Blinded By Might, he voted for Barack Obama in 2008 because he felt that Obama was closer to the teachings of Jesus (see here).  And, due to his Lou Gherig's disease, Dobson cannot speak and write as he once did, but he says in this beautiful video that he's learning that it's as important to influence one person as it is to influence thousands, and that each person has a purpose.  That's substance!

George McGovern

I just learned that George McGovern has passed on.  George McGovern ran for President against Richard Nixon in 1972. 

As I've said on this blog before, I used to be more of a right-wing Republican.  On account of that, I tended to associate McGovern with the smug, condescending, obnoxious, socialistic, soft-on communism, draft-dodging, unpatriotic, activist Left that emerged in the 1960's-1970's.  (Or so I characterized it.)

But there were a variety of things that changed my mind about McGovern, even when I was a conservative.  First, I was listening to McGovern on Sean Hannity's show, and McGovern came across to me as a nice and decent guy.  Second, McGovern came to Cincinnati (where I was living at the time) to speak about his service as a soldier in World War II, and it surprised me to learn that he was a veteran.  Third, I was watching a 1972 McGovern campaign ad, in which a working class guy was challenging McGovern on welfare and asking why the poor can't be put to work----like cleaning the streets.  McGovern responded that he agrees, and that his goal is for people to have jobs.  See here for the commercial----it's the fifth from the left in the "Democrat" column.  This commercial helped to shift my conception of the Left, for I had long regarded the Right as the ideology that wants for people to work, when, actually, the Left is for work, too!  And, fourth, I read Bill Kauffman's excellent book on anti-war conservatism, Ain't My America, which presented George McGovern as a person of faith and as one who sought to understand George Wallace supporters rather than looking down on them.  I read in another book, Grand New Party, that McGovern disdained bureaucracies, which resonated with me back when I was a conservative.  See here for my post on Ain't My America, and here for my post on Grand New Party.  

Recently, I watched the Wonder Years episode about George McGovern.  It was called "Politics as Usual."  On this episode, McGovern is a big stir.  Kevin's Mom notes that people at the college she attends are voting for McGovern, and she likes McGovern's stance on women.  Kevin's Dad, a conservative, actually seems to like McGovern at first, even though at the end of the day he probably voted for Nixon.  And Kevin's girlfriend, Winnie, has joined the McGovern campaign and signed Kevin up for it because she opposes the Vietnam War, for her brother was killed in it.  Kevin is jealous of the head McGovern campaign official in his area, for he feels that the guy has sights on Winnie.  When Winnie goes to a late-night campaign meeting, Kevin breaks into the Democratic headquarters, and there he meets Senator McGovern (or, actually, someone playing him)!  After McGovern loses badly, the campaign official tells Winnie that he didn't expect for McGovern to win anyway, and he speculates to another campaign worker that Kennedy may run in the next election.  Winnie is disappointed.  But Kevin can see where he's coming from----that the campaign official will come back and fight another day.  Kevin also reflects that the McGovern campaign was a time when young people got involved in the political process and tried to make a difference.  I think it's cool when people who ordinarily aren't involved in the political process become involved.  I think this when I consider the McGovern campaign, and also when I consider how a number of fundamentalist Christians first entered politics with the Goldwater campaign, the Moral Majority, and local educational controversies.  They learned that (to echo C.J. Cregg on The West Wing) the people who have a say are the ones who show up, and that, if they're discontent about society, they should get involved and try to make a difference.

I actually bought a book by McGovern not long ago.  It was called The Essential America, and it's about liberalism in the American tradition.  When looking for a McGovern book to read, I learned that McGovern had an alcoholic daughter who died, and he wrote a book entitled Terry: My Daughter's Life-and-Death Struggle with Alcoholism.  It was sad to learn that he had experienced that kind of pain.  More recently, I read Cal Thomas' interview with McGovern in the 1999 book, Blinded by Might: Why the Religious Right Can't Save America, in which McGovern thoughtfully reflects on the errors of the religious right and the religious left, the role of religion in politics, his own errors in the 1972 election (i.e., he let Nixon define him), and his personal faith.  My post on this will appear next month.  Stay tuned!

R.I.P., George McGovern.