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.

Rich Brother Rich Sister

I recently finished Rich Brother Rich Sister: Two Different Paths to God, Money and Happiness (New York: Vanguard, 2009), by Robert Kiyosaki and Emi Kiyosaki. I have to take it back to the library tomorrow, so I'd might as well write my review right now!

Robert and Emi are siblings. Robert is a big-time financial guru who wrote the bestseller Rich Dad Poor Dad, and Emi is a Buddhist nun who was ordained by the Dalai Lama.

The book was not entirely what I expected. From the back cover, I anticipated an account about how two different people helped one another to see the world in a new light. Robert would teach Emi the value of money, while Emi would teach Robert about spiritual values. Because I am drawn to religion rather than get-rich-quick schemes, I thought I'd enjoy Emi's sections more than Robert's.

But things didn't turn out as I expected, at least not entirely. For one, Robert says that the book was written so that Emi would have enough money for her cancer treatment. That's a noble goal, but I'd prefer for a book to be written as a result of a profound experience in which lessons are learned, and there's a felt need to communicate them to the outside world.

Second, Emi seemed to learn more from Robert than the other way around. Emi learned the value of money. She wanted to be a Buddhist nun living a simple life, but she realized that she needed money to cope in the United States, especially with our expensive health care system. Robert gave her tips on how to achieve financial independence.

And what did Robert learn from Emi? I'm not sure exactly. Robert and Emi became estranged from each other in their young adulthood because Robert served in Vietnam, whereas Emi marched in the peace movement. Robert eventually concluded that our involvement in the war had corrupt motivations, but he reached that conclusion through his own experience, not Emi's influence.

The same went for a lot of his spiritual insights. He didn't really get them from Emi, but from walking his own path of success and failure.

Third, I found myself enjoying Robert's sections more than Emi's. Robert writes in a light-hearted, conversational manner about the lessons he's learned along life's way. When he said that the religious people he knew were fine as wives or mothers, but became scary once they talked about religion, he pretty much had me hooked.

I also liked his story about how he became involved in self-help seminars. A girl he pursued invited him to them, and he reluctantly went, hoping she'd go out with him. When he failed to show a lot of interest, the girl told him that he needed that seminar more than anyone, since he was so needy. From that moment on, he tried to become a growing, spiritual, and successful person. He valued learning for learning's sake, not out of competition or stress to earn a degree, to the chagrin of his academically successful father. Robert is open about his past mistakes and failures, yet he affirms that they were necessary to help him learn and grow as a human being. That reminds me of something I heard today from AA's Daily Reflection: Nothing is wasted in God's economy.

Regarding Emi, I got to learn about the Dalai Lama, meditation, and the Buddhist system of karma, but I wasn't entirely clear about why she became a Buddhist. My impression is that it was something she kind of fell into. She talks about learning from her mistakes, since she admits that she wasn't exactly the best mother. But I wasn't entirely clear about how Buddhism shaped her life. That contrasts with a book I read a while back, Gabriel Cohen's Storms Can't Hurt the Sky: A Buddhist Path Through Divorce (see here), in which Cohen discusses how Buddhist insights helped him to cope with his hard divorce.

There were things that I liked about Emi's story, but they didn't have much to do with her Buddhism. She said that she'd always been a shy, socially-awkward person who was trying to escape from life, and I can understand where she's coming from there. She also related that she worked as a Buddhist chaplain in Colorado Springs, a predominantly evangelical city (not to mention the headquarters of Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family). She remarked that the area is quite friendly, as people greeted her when she passed them on the sidewalk, presumably in her Buddhist nun garb. Are friendly areas even real? Maybe!

Rich Brother Rich Sister has its flaws, since it sometimes reads as an infomercial, plus Robert comes across as a hero trying to rescue his sister. But it's still enjoyable because it's about people's experiences, insights, and growth.

Gay Man Challenges Gun Control

NPR has an excellent story today, NRA Seeks to Overturn Handgun Bans Beyond D.C. San Francisco has a ban on handguns in public housing, and that negatively affects a gay man, who owns a gun to protect himself from hate crimes. Allied with the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun groups, he is challenging the anti-gun law in court. And he has that new Supreme Court decision to back him up!

How are liberals going to react to this? They claim to care about the plight of homosexuals. Well, are they going to let them defend themselves from homophobic rednecks, or will they continue to cling to their anti-gun dogma, regardless of whom it hurts? Sure, many (but not all) libs want to take Dr. Dobson off the air in their alleged concern for homosexuals. How about letting them own a gun for self-protection?

Gun control hurts many people from the Democratic Party's own constituency. After the Civil War, Southern governments prohibited African-Americans from owning firearms. In the late 1960's, the ban on cheap Saturday Night Specials deprived blacks of cost-effective means for self-protection. It's refreshing to see that gun groups and a homosexual are allying on an important issue.

One More Thing on Dobson and Obama

Barack Obama said the following in his 2006 speech on religion and public policy:

"I am hopeful that we can bridge the gaps that exist and overcome the prejudices each of us bring to this debate. And I have faith that millions of believing Americans want that to happen. No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack. They don't want faith used to belittle or to divide. They're tired of hearing folks deliver more screed than sermon. Because in the end, that's not how they think about faith in their own lives."

As Dobson points out, Obama said this before all of the outcry about his (Obama's) own pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who actually does use religion as a means of attack. When conservatives do it, it's being mean. When liberals do it, it's standing up as a prophetic voice for social justice. Go figure!

Dobson and Obama

I want to weigh in today on Dr. James Dobson's criticism of Barack Obama. Dobson recently responded to a 2006 speech that Obama gave, which discussed the role of faith in politics. Obama said the following (see here for the complete speech):

"[G]iven the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers. And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount--a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.

"This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

Dobson and his guest, Tom Minnery, gave at least four responses to Obama's speech (click here to listen to their comments). First of all, Minnery pointed out that most Americans are Christians, according to the Pew Forum's research, meaning that America is not a Muslim nation or a Buddhist nation or a Hindu nation.

Second, Dobson denied that he wants to expel unbelievers or deprive them of their constitutional rights. He also took offense at being equated with Al Sharpton, whom Minnery called a racial bigot.

Third, Dobson argued that Obama is the one who doesn't understand the Bible. According to Dobson and Minnery, many Old Testament laws applied only to ancient Israel, whom God was trying to purify after he had delivered her from Egypt. That means they don't apply today. The implication is that God needed to run a tight ship in order to cleanse his people of paganism and hold them together as a godly nation. Consequently, God separated Israel from the nations through his dietary laws, and he mandated the death penalty for a child who defied God, embarrassed his family, and lived a drunken lifestyle. Dobson and Minnery also dispute Obama's pacifist interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, for they argue that Jesus and Paul acknowledge the existence of real evil in the world.

And, fourth, Dobson assumed that Obama was saying we should exclude religion from public policy debates, as we focus instead on the "lowest common denominator of morality." Dobson translates this to mean that, for Obama, a Christian cannot oppose partial-birth abortion on moral or religious grounds, but must conform his beliefs to the views of people from other religions (or no religion at all). Dobson sees that as anti-democratic.

I have some responses to Obama and Dobson:

First of all, Obama did not attack Dobson. He did not accuse Dobson of wanting to expel unbelievers or deprive them of their civil rights. His whole point was that, even if America were a Christian nation, there would still be difficulties if we attempted to teach Christianity in public schools, or use it as a guide for public policy. Would we embrace the approach of the Christian right, which James Dobson exemplifies? Or would we draw on the ideology of the Christian left, which Al Sharpton represents?

This dovetails into my second point: Obama is not for excluding religion from public policy. He clearly acknowledges the importance of faith in America's heritage, including its political activism (e.g., abolitionism, the Civil Rights movement). He explicitly states that "our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."

The problem is that people will get nowhere by hurling proof-texts at one another. I can say that the Bible is against abortion, but that won't convince someone who doesn't believe in the Bible. Plus, what would happen if proof-texting became the basis for public policy? Would Catholics be justified in banning birth control for all Americans, non-Catholics included? There's nothing wrong with having a religious motivation for our political positions, or with appealing to Christianity as a way to draw from our common national heritage. But we should also come up with secular arguments. That's what Obama is saying (even though he may question the "common national heritage" part).

And Dobson does this! When he argues for the Federal Marriage Amendment, for example, he doesn't just appeal to Leviticus. He also refers to the decline of marriage in countries that legitimate homosexual unions. He argues that forsaking the traditional definition of marriage can allow it to mean anything and everything. He explains how recognizing gay marriage can completely damage America's Social Security system. It is not reducing ourselves to the lowest common moral denominator to come up with secular arguments for our public policy positions. The religious right does this all of the time!

Third, Obama was pretty condescending when he said that Christians do not read their Bibles. Evangelicals have their ways of explaining (or explaining away) the difficult passages of Scripture. I may not find them convincing all of the time, but Obama shouldn't act as if they're unaware of the Bible's troubling aspects. And, in some sense, he acknowledges later in the speech that Christians do wrestle with them, for he states: "Even those who claim the Bible's inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages--the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ's divinity--are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life."

Fourth, I do feel that Obama contradicts himself, on some level. He argues that Christians should not have to leave their faith at the door when they enter politics, then he cites "problems" with bringing Christianity into the public square. He is for allowing "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance that students recite, yet he opposes teaching religion in public schools. Personally, I see nothing wrong with public schools acknowledging the importance of the Christian faith in America's heritage. Sure, non-Christians should not be forced to do so, but why should we have a nationwide ban on school prayer, especially when there are many areas of the country that are predominantly Christian?

Obama wrestles with some hard issues, and, in the process, he looks like he's talking on both sides of his mouth. Dobson takes Obama's speech more personally than he should, plus he quotes it rather selectively.

"I Feel So Clean!"

In Luke 3:19-20, we read, "But Herod the ruler, who had been rebuked by him because of Herodias, his brother's wife, and because of all the evil things that Herod had done, added to them all by shutting up John in prison" (NRSV).

The phrase that intrigues me is "added to them all." Believe it or not, it makes me appreciate God's forgiveness!

Imagine being in a place where you are so bad, that one more bad deed doesn't really matter. I mean, Herod was already a condemned man. He had done numerous evil things. Even if he hadn't put John in prison, he would've still been under God's condemnation. What's one more sin?

It's like an experience I had in the fourth grade. In those days, I wasn't exactly the best student in the world, and my teacher informed me in front of the entire class that she was giving me an F-plus on an assignment. And, to be honest, I really didn't care. I had already received a number of F's, so one more didn't exactly phase me. And, as far as I was concerned, being a straight-A student appeared unattainable. In my eyes, I was already bad, and I could not be good, so why even try?

But Herod didn't have to keep on adding on to his already bad record. He could have received a clean slate--through God's forgiveness.

I'm reminded of another character in Luke's Gospel. This woman was a notorious sinner, but she wasn't entirely like Herod. She was more of a sexual sinner, whereas Herod was an adulterer, a murderer, a tyrant, and a suppressor of God's word. But she had a long list of sins, and she loved Jesus more because she felt her need for forgiveness. Jesus told a parable to illustrate:

"A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he canceled the debts for both of them. Now which of them will love him more?...Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little" (Luke 7:41-42, 47).

When I was reading the parallel story in Matthew 26:6-13, I wondered how anyone could adore Jesus that much, especially since I have a hard time developing an emotionally euphoric approach to him. But Luke gives an answer: her large debt was erased. Jesus lifted a huge burden off of her shoulders. She could go through life feeling clean, with the knowledge that God held nothing against her. What freedom that entailed!

If only Herod had realized that he could've received a clean slate. He didn't have to continue being bad.

One problem in my Christian walk is that I don't exactly feel guilty. I look at my sins, and I see them as flaws that are characteristic of the entire human race. Consequently, I have a hard time beating myself up over them. I like this one paragraph from Chris Tilling's May 29, 2008 post on his blog, Chrisendom, entitled "The Gospel according to":

"In order to make people feel guilty, we invent ways of convincing people that they are sinners. We have to make a problem for them, for Jesus to be a real solution. But is that really what the gospel is about? And how do we try to make a problem for people? We try to argue that all are murderers, or all are like Hitler before God. But does this argument convince you? What does it say about God?"

I don't have a hard time agreeing that Hitler and Charles Manson are evil, since they've transgressed the boundaries of human decency. But saying that I'm evil just because I have lust, jealousy, and a failure to love every human being? I have difficulty doing that, since everyone has those kinds of issues.

And yet, do I feel clean? No, I feel defiled. And it's not only because I have a bad past. I can't really do anything about that now. Plus, unlike Herod, I don't exactly have literal murder and adultery on my record. But there are aspects of my personality now that do not satisfy me: selfishness, pride, hate, jealousy, anger, etc., etc.

But it's possible even for an upstanding human being to feel guilt about his life. In Dale Buss' Family Man: The Biography of Dr. James Dobson, we read about Joe Kubishta, the step-father of Jim Dobson's wife, Shirley. Joe was a decent guy. He was a World War II hero and a hard-worker. He married Anna Deere, "lifting her and her children, Shirley and John, from the economic ravages of divorce" (294). He was like a second father to Jim after his dad (Jim, Sr.) passed away in 1977.

Although Joe went to church with his family and fit into the evangelical sub-culture, "the Dobsons and Alma Kubishta never were entirely sure that he had grasped the concept of salvation, even after Dobson took him to lunch one day specifically to talk about it" (295). When Joe was in the final stage of leukemia, Dobson feared that he wouldn't go to heaven. Buss goes on:

"Dobson came to his bedside and confronted him" 'Joe, do you know for certain that you will be in heaven with us when you die?' Kubishta wept quietly but didn't respond. A few days later, Kubishta prayed what is known as the sinner's prayer--a simple acceptance of salvation--with his Baptist pastor, and he rejoiced to share the news with his stepdaughter and son-in-law.

"'Jim, I'm saved! I'm saved!' he said. Dobson recalls how the next day, the usually stoic Kubishta looked up through his tears and said, 'I feel so clean, Jim, so clean.' He died at about 1:30 in the morning on February 19, 2003. Dobson finally has no doubt that his adoptive father-in-law will be with his family in heaven" (295, emphasis mine).

Joe Kubishta was a good man, yet he felt unclean. Only when he accepted God's forgiveness did he feel certain that he was going to heaven.

We all sin and fall short of God's glory, and even good people can feel guilty and unsure about whether or not they'll enter God's kingdom. Personally, I have a hard time feeling guilty about much of my past, but I still hope that God doesn't hold it against me. I've also learned that sins I tend to minimize may have had a damaging impact on other people. That shouldn't make me go crazy, but it should encourage me to be responsible in how I act. I need atonement for my past sins, yet I also want to be cleansed of my current character flaws.

Is Dr. Dobson a Sinless Perfectionist?

Years ago, I visited the web site of Gil Moegerle, who worked for many years with Dr. James Dobson in Focus on the Family. Due to a variety of factors, Moegerle became embittered with Dr. Dobson, and he wrote a book with the subtle title, James Dobson's War on America.

One thing that Moegerle claimed on his web site was that Dobson is a sinless perfectionist. In Moegerle's eyes, that's why Dobson is so judgmental and self-righteous. It's part of his Nazarene heritage.

I first heard about the Nazarene doctrine of sinless perfection from a high school English teacher. She was a Baptist, and she and I disagreed on eternal security. One day, we were discussing salvation issues and comparing denominational notes, and she told me that the Nazarenes believe a Christian can arrive at a state of sinlessness. I had a math teacher who was a Nazarene, but I didn't ask him if that was true.

But what Moegerle was saying about Dobson did not sit well with my spirit. Dobson did not strike me as a person who considered himself sinless. In the 1990's, I heard him say about his wife, Shirley: "You know, the wonderful thing about marriage is that your spouse accepts you, while knowing about all of your flaws. That's the way Shirley is with me." In that statement, he admitted he had flaws. On a program about a couple that was doing good, Dr. Dobson said: "You know, we're saved by grace, and so you don't have to do any of this to earn God's favor. And yet it's wonderful when people like you choose to make an investment in the lives of others." He kind of sounded like a free gracer there--like a Zane Hodges and Charles Ryrie type, as opposed to a John MacArthur "Lordship salvation" advocate. And so he did not strike me as a sinless perfectionist.

Dale Buss' book, Family Man: The Biography of Dr. James Dobson, presents some of Dobson's religious beliefs--in his own words. Here are some quotes, and I've emboldened the parts that I want to stand out:

"[A] notion that has shaped much of Dobson's philosophy and life is...complex, and its complications come largely from the particulars of Nazarene theology. Because of its emphasis on individual free will, explains [H.B.] London (himself a former Nazarene pastor), his denomination believes in a 'theology of standing' in many ways: 'It means you can lose your salvation. You're constantly striving to measure up. [Our] definition of sin is that it's a willful transgression of God's law. And salvation isn't automatic as in the Calvinist viewpoint. As a result, not only is there guilt but also pressure to measure up.'

"Dobson stresses that salvation is a gift of God and can't be deserved by anyone. 'If we could have earned our salvation, we wouldn't have needed a Savior,' he says. Nevertheless, Dobson believes that the Christian's part of the 'contract' also calls for heartfelt repentance and right living after embracing salvation. The doctrine was strongly developed in the eighteenth century by John Wesley, the British founder of Methodism, and later further shaped by the Nazarenes. 'There is a call on our lives to be as clean as possible with the help of Jesus Christ,' Dobson says. 'We fall short; we sin. But we seek forgiveness for sin, and it's very much a part of our theology that we're obligated to live as holy a life as we can.'

"'I do believe someday I'll kneel before the Lord, and I want to hear him say, 'Well done, good and faithful servant!' What I do and how I live is important. In Matthew 7, Jesus said there will be those on [Judgment Day] who confess him but whom he never knew. Why? Because they didn't do--D-O--the work of his Father. It's an emphasis on attempting to walk the talk.'

"Dobson is hesitant to discuss this aspect of his beliefs in public because some people misinterpret his holiness doctrine as an assertion that, with enough effort, a person can lead a truly sinless life. Nobody, he affirms, can avoid sinning in the sense of having shortcomings, faults, and other flaws that display our mere humanity. 'But from the Wesleyan perspective, sin is a willful disobedience or defiance to a known law. When you refuse to do what God tells you, you know it and understand it. The apostle Paul writes that we have a conscience within us, so that none of us has an excuse. The concept of sanctification is that God gives humans the ability, through the Holy Spirit, to live without deliberately defying God.

"'Just look at Hebrews 10:26,' which promises God's vengeance on those who insist on sinning after learning the truth of the gospel, Dobson says. 'That's interpreted very differently from my Calvinist friends. But I don't believe you can disobey God deliberately, do all kinds of heinous things, and then just go sweeping into [God's] kingdom.

"The characterization that is made by people who don't misunderstand it is that Wesleyans think they're perfect or that they think they can live without any shortcomings. That's crazy. But I try real hard not to shake my fist in God's fist and defy him, and God gives me the encouragement and the strength through the Holy Spirit not to violate a known law. And that's very important to me.'

"It's clear, London says, that 'a large part of the pressure that [Dobson] puts on himself to be such a perfectionist and to achieve may come out of his theology, or at least out of the inward pressure that we Nazarenes put on ourselves to be loved and appreciated--to be the best at what we do.'

"This also helps explain the high expectations that Dobson places on others in work, in relationships, and in life. And if the heresy of fist-shaking at God sounds familiar to his fans, that's because Wesleyan theology also, as Dobson puts it, 'influences my approach to child rearing. I've talked about having a three-year-old son, and if you tell him to go open the door and he misunderstands it and he closes it instead, he'll never be aware that he's done the opposite of what you just asked him to do,' Dobson explains. 'But when he stomps his foot and says, 'I won't do it,' that's when he's most likely to face the consequences.'

"This worldview has influenced 'nearly everything about me,' Dobson says. 'My teaching all comes out of my theology'" (23-25).

According to Dobson, Christians can arrive at a state where they do not commit deliberate and willful sins, even though they may still have flaws. But what is a "willful sin," and what is a "flaw"? For example, are shyness and introversion "sins"? I know that God wants me to reach out to others and not be self-centered. But I have a lot of social anxiety, so I often don't follow that command. Am I deliberately sinning? I doubt that Dobson would think so, for he has stated that some people are just naturally quiet, and he has tried to teach us quiet types how to have a conversation. And, yet, aren't I violating a known law?

How about lust? I know that Jesus equates lust with adultery in Matthew 5:27-28. But I have it anyway, and I enjoy it. I don't understand how Jesus can command us not to have sexual desire (if that indeed is what he's doing), since it's such an integral part of the human condition. Of course, Dr. Dobson has a looser attitude on this than many evangelicals, for he says that parents shouldn't try to stop their kids from masturbating. In a book of his that I read many years ago, Dobson says that his dad told him not to worry about masturbation. "You can masturbate, and that won't hurt your Christian walk," he said. Dobson said that his dad was a conservative Nazarene, yet he was willing to make concessions to human nature. I can understand Dobson being real here, but how's that mesh with his view that Christians shouldn't deliberately sin?

There are some sins that I don't want to do, but I can't exactly shake them. I know that God equates hatred with murder (Matthew 5:22), for example, yet there are still people I hate. I don't want to see them dead, mind you, but I just have a lot of anger towards them. I would prefer to have inner peace, but I can't shake my ego, or my disappointment, or my sense of having been wronged, or my jealousy. At times, God's known will appears unattainable.

And there are times when Dobson appears more compassionate and pastoral than the above quotes seem to indicate. From the above quotes, you'd think that a Christian puts himself on dangerous ground whenever he deliberately opposes God. But, in When God Doesn't Make Sense, Dobson acknowledges that people may have legitimate reasons to be mad at God, for horrible things happen in life. But he says that we should bring ourselves to forgive God, which is not to say that God has done anything wrong. It just means that we should let go of our anger towards him. Here, Dobson recognizes that even Christians are human--with all of the imperfections that humanity entails. But how's he reconcile that with his belief that Christians should be perfect, in the sense of avoiding deliberate disobedience or bad attitudes about God?

I agree with Dobson that being a Christian should make a difference in one's life. The non-Lordship types act as if Christians are God's children even if they live in sin, whereas Dobson seems to think that deliberate sin can disqualify a Christian from salvation. I wonder if there can be a middle ground between the two positions, one that stresses the need for holiness while preserving a God of unconditional love.

Personally, I assume that God is patient with me. He wants me to be better than I am right now, but that doesn't mean that I have to stress out in an attempt to be morally sinless, all to preserve my salvation. In the words of the promises of Alcoholics Anonymous, "We seek spiritual progress, not spiritual perfection." I still think that the goal is some form of perfection, however, but that's the result of growth, not me deciding to do everything right at the present moment. And God is with me on this journey of growth.

Gideon, Dr. Dobson, and Darth Vader

Gideon's name means "hacker." And that's what Gideon did--he hacked at idolatry in Israel. Maybe he got that name after he tore down the altar of Baal (Judges 6:25-27). Or perhaps his name is a literary device, in that the author names him according to what he does in the story.

I'd like to think that Gideon's father had a sense of his son's destiny. It's kind of like this one scene in Dale Buss' Family Man: The Biography of Dr. James Dobson, in which James Dobson, Sr. predicted on his death bed in 1977 that his son would reach millions. And sure enough, his son did, for Focus on the Family has touched multitudes throughout the world, from all sorts of cultures.

There is one obvious difference between James Dobson, Sr. and Gideon's father, Joash: Jim, Sr. was a devout Nazarene preacher, whereas Joash was not exactly the most committed Yahwist. Joash may have believed in the God of Israel on some level, for, in a time of rampant Baalism, Gideon was familiar with God's activity at the Exodus (Judges 6:13). Gideon possibly heard the Exodus story from his father. But Joash owned a big altar that was specifically for Baal worship. Did he truly believe in Baalism, or was he just trying to fit in? He didn't display a zealous desire to kill Gideon after his son had torn down his altar, for he simply said that Baal would work it out. The townspeople cared more about Joash's altar than Joash did! Was Joash trying to save his son? Or did he actually feel that piety towards Baal meant letting Baal fight his own battles? I don't know. Maybe he wasn't sure what he believed.

Even if Joash had a sense that his son would do something big, Gideon didn't feel that way. When God promised to defeat the Midianites, Gideon responded in disbelief: "But sir, how can I deliver Israel? My clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my family" (Judges 6:15, NRSV). But Gideon's clan was not the weakest. His father had bulls and servants (Judges 6:25, 27), so his family was obviously quite well-off! In Judges 8, the Midianite kings say that Gideon and his brothers look like sons of a king (v 18). But, for some reason, Gideon viewed himself as insignificant.

Gideon was very timid and fearful, for he needed God's constant reassurance. He gave God test after test to make absolutely sure that God wanted him to fight the Midianites, and God was patient with him through his lack of faith. When Gideon was especially fearful about attacking the enemy, God allowed him to hear a Midianite's dream about his (Gideon's) impending victory (Judges 7:10-11). That gave Gideon confidence! God was compassionate to Gideon in the midst of his weaknesses.

The problems occurred after his victory, as Gideon struggled with certain temptations. Gideon displays a few contradictions in Judges 8. On the one hand, Gideon demonstrates humility and love. In vv 1-3, we see that Gideon could use the art of diplomacy when he needed to do so. When the Ephraimites were whining that Gideon hadn't invited them to the battle, Gideon put on an "aw shucks" demeanor and appealed to the tribe's vanity (Judges 8:1-3). Maybe he sincerely valued the Ephraimites' contribution to the war effort, for they had captured Oreb and Zeeb, the Midianite captains. Or perhaps he'd say anything to get the Ephraimites off his case and prevent a civil war. Either way, he valued Israelite unity, and he humbled himself to achieve it.

When he captured the Midianite kings, Zebah and Zalmunnah, he boldly confronted them about an atrocity at Tabor, in which they had slaughtered Gideon's brothers. Gideon tells them, "They were my brothers, the sons of my mother; as the LORD lives, if you had saved them alive, I would not kill you" (Judges 7:19). If not for their atrocity, Gideon would have shown mercy to the Midianite kings.

On the other hand, Gideon could be quite brutal and merciless. In Judges 8, when the people of Succoth and Penuel refuse to feed Gideon's exhausted army because he has not yet captured the Midianite kings, Gideon promises to trample their flesh on thorns and briers, which is a horribly painful way to die. And, after he catches the kings, that's exactly what he does. According to my trusty E-Sword commentaries, the people of Succoth and Penuel were afraid to support Gideon because they feared Midianite retaliation. They weren't sure Gideon would win! What would happen to them if they supported Gideon and he lost?

Sure, their character was flawed. It's better to stand with God than to base one's position on which way the winds happen to be blowing. Plus, maybe they should've known that God was on their side, especially after Gideon had beaten numerous Midianites with only 300 men. But they were timid! And Gideon was timid before he won those battles. He could've shown mercy to the people of Succoth and Penuel, for David didn't kill Nabal when he rudely refused to provide for his men (I Samuel 25). In the course of the story, Gideon grew from a timid man who lacked faith, into a bold and resolute leader. But he started to forget where he came from, and he didn't cut people slack when they had similar faults to what he once had.

At the end of the story, the Israelites offer to make Gideon king, but he politely refuses. At the same time, he requests that they give him gold from their plunder, which he uses to make an ephod. An ephod was an article of clothing that was used to seek God's will (I Samuel 23:9-12; 30:7-8), but it could also be a sign of civil power (I Chronicles 15:27). Either Gideon is setting up an alternative to God's appointed sanctuary (in Shechem), or he is claiming that he possesses authority as a leader. And, strangely enough, he names one of his sons "Abimelech," which means "My father, the king." But I thought you didn't want to be king, Gideon! As one preacher I heard commented, Gideon was starting to believe his own PR.

Gideon reminds me somewhat of Darth Vader. Anakin Skywalker had a special destiny, which he knew about from his childhood. But as he became more and more aware of his talents, he started to display a certain arrogance. Sure, he (like Gideon) had a sense of morality and justice. He was angry when Count Dooku had killed all those jedis, and his descent into the dark side came from an attempt to prevent his wife's death. But his vanity led him to become evil, and he soon destroyed anyone who got in his way.

Obviously, there are differences between Gideon and Darth Vader. Anakin Skywalker was always rather confident, even as a child. Gideon, however, was timid and had low self-esteem. And that may have led to Gideon's moral descent. He went through most of his life feeling like a nothing, and so when he finally became a something, he wanted to keep on feeling special. He liked the money and the power and the women that could come with success. (Some have argued that Bill Clinton fits this profile). He relished being God's right hand man, carrying out God's vengeance against anyone who would not support him. He still held on to some sense of morality, but it got to the point where his "morality" became all talk, as when he said that he didn't want to be king, but proceeded to set himself up on a pedestal anyway. And mercy was rapidly becoming a distant memory for him.

There are lessons here for many of us. I was thinking to myself today (on the way to church, no less), "Man, if I get into a position of power, and such-and-such a person comes to me for help, I'll tell him to go jump in a lake!" That's somewhat like Gideon: he was hurt by the people of Succoth and Penuel, and he chose to retaliate against them once he became a success. We should always remember where we came from, yet that should inspire us to show mercy to people, not hurt them back. God cut Gideon some slack when he was afraid, and Gideon should have done the same for Succoth and Penuel.

Dr. Dobson and the System

I've talked on this blog before about Doc Love, a dating guru whose advice has helped many. He has a dating technique called "The System," which is based on three C's: confidence, (self-) control, and challenge.

For Doc, women generally like men who are confident enough to approach them, who don't totally fall apart whenever they're rejected. A good sense of humor also helps, for Doc is clear that a man on the first date should be "light and funny." Self-control means that a man should wait a week after meeting a woman before he calls her, and it also includes being willing to say "no" to a woman every now and then (which women love). That leads to Doc's third C, "challenge," which is allowing women to do some of the chasing. A man needs to show a woman that he has a sense of self apart from her. He should definitely flirt, since that goes with "confidence," but there are also times when he should pull back. That can increase a woman's "interest level."

Doc's advice is not exactly what you see on movies and television, at least not most of the time. Sure, there was an episode of 7th Heaven (Season 1) in which Matt told one of his friends to act aloof around Mary, since "chicks dig that." Unfortunately, his friend didn't follow that advice but chose instead to fawn all over her, leading her interest level to drop lower than it already was.

But, overall, movies and shows tell men to fawn all over women. "You need to tell her how you feel, send flowers every day, remind her all of the time that she's beautiful." There's a place for all that, since such deeds can convey appreciation, which women (like everyone) desire. But, for Doc, they also don't want a man whom they can walk all over. And women like receiving gifts and compliments from men they like, for whom they already have a high interest level. Gifts and compliments do not necessarily increase a woman's interest level, as far as Doc is concerned.

Well, in the midst of all of these conflicting messages that are out there, guess who agrees with Doc Love (though perhaps by coincidence)? Another Doc--the Doc of the evangelical community--Dr. James Dobson!

That's how Jim Dobson got Shirley. Here's a quote from Dale Buss' Family Man: The Biography of Dr. James Dobson:

"[A] more unsettling...strand of their relationship was the perpetual cat-and-mouse game they played as each one tried to figure out how serious they should be and whether the other partner in the relationship felt the same way...This dating equivocation surfaced almost immediately. [B]y the end of their first summer of dating, Shirley told him that she wanted to resume dating a boyfriend from the previous spring. Dobson later recalled his response as a crucial early step in their relationship. 'I said that was a good idea, because there were some girls I wanted to date too,' he says. 'She said that she wanted to go with him and me too. And I said, 'No, go with him.' I set her free at that moment. If I'd said, 'You can't do that to me; maybe I love you!' the relationship would have been over, stone-cold dead--I know Shirley. But I was confident enough to do that. She never dated him again. She stayed with me'" (33).

This game of cat-and-mouse continued on and off until Dobson finally proposed. Buss explains:

"Dobson finally drew an end to the uncertainties by determining that he wasn't going to be a beggar in this relationship. One evening he pulled over the 1949 Mercury convertible he called Ol' Red and gave his beloved a moonlit speech. He was going somewhere in life, he told her, and he wanted her to come along. If she didn't, he would move on. Shirley opted in, and their relationship was forever defined" (33-34).

He wasn't going to be a beggar in the relationship. Doc Love couldn't have said it better!

Dobson's own experience inspired his book, Love Must Be Tough. I was listening to it a few weeks ago, and he said that the men who normally got the girl in his day were the ones who flirted, while maintaining some aloofness. Dobson also recounted that Shirley was a major heartbreaker in her younger years!

This puzzled me because Shirley was a Christian from her youth. Because of her troubled childhood, she learned to depend on her heavenly Father from a really early age. Would a Christian break mens' hearts?

That's when it hit me: so much of dating is a game. Sure, there are important aspects to it, like genuinely enjoying the company of another person. But a big part of dating is determining if this is the one you want to be with for the rest of your life. And many women are drawn to a man's strength (and I don't primarily mean his muscles!).

As I was thinking about this, my (and Bryan L's) favorite Bible passage entered my mind: "If you have raced with foot-runners and they have wearied you, how will you compete with horses? And if in a safe land you fall down, how will you fare in the thickets of the Jordan?" (Jeremiah 12:5, NRSV).

God is telling Jeremiah to stop complaining and toughen up, for things will soon get worse. Or they can get worse. And, believe it or not, this verse gives me comfort, probably more than the usual passages that Christians go to for reassurance ("I will never leave you nor forsake you"). I can whine about my current situation, or I can use it as an opportunity to become stronger. And I will need strength if I ever enter the dating game, for there is a lot of rejection out there!

Christians Can Be Jealous?

I'm still working my way through Dale Buss's Family Man: The Biography of Dr. James Dobson. The following quote is interesting:

"One of the early by-products of Dobson's fame...was that some friends had difficulty handling their pal's rather sudden and clearly inexorable success. Actually, that was commonly the case in Southern California in the seventies and eighties as Dobson's career and reputation flourished.

"'When we graduated from college and we were in one another's weddings and had our babies together and started out in life, we were all kind of at the same level financially and socially and in every way,' Shirley [Dobson, Jim's wife] says. 'But when things started happening to Jim, with Dare to Discipline and being on talk shows and the radio, the gap began widening a bit, and some of our friends had difficulty with that. I'm not sure if it was jealousy; I'm not sure what it was. I would tell them to tune in because Jim was on The Dinah Shore Show or something, and I could tell from their body language and demeanor that there was resentment there. Jim didn't see it, but I did. We found that it was easier for friends to be there in moments of pain, but in moments of exploding success, they can start resenting you. So we just started being very sensitive about that. If anyone wanted to know anything, we'd wait for them to ask us. Since then, many of our friends have gone on to be successful in their own ways, so that has gone away now'" (239-240, Emphasis mine).

I know all about jealousy, because I've felt it a lot in my life. I once had a friend who was meeting all these Republican big-shots (e.g., Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush, Armstrong Williams), speaking to Republican events, and appearing on TV, and I felt jealous. I am jealous of people with popularity and attractive women. Not to mention accomplishments. Recently, when I went to the library, I saw that someone with whom I'd graduated from Harvard Divinity School had written a book that got published. And this was a real-life book too, with her picture on the back flap of the cover! How many books have I written?

Jealousy is human, and the way that we often overcome it is by becoming successes in our own right. We do things that bring about our own money, friends, and recognition. We pat ourselves on the back when we see we have a talent that others can appreciate. We possess and project confidence when we have a reason to do so: accomplishments that other people acknowledge.

And, yet, evangelicalism often tells us that this is wrong. According to evangelicalism, we shouldn't feel jealousy towards people, nor should we seek our security or self-esteem in accomplishments and recognition. Rather, our feelings of self-worth should be grounded in God's unconditional love for us, and nothing more.

But Dobson's friends were most likely evangelical. After all, you know the old saying. "Birds of a feather flock together." And, yet, notwithstanding their faith in Christ, they could still be jealous. And the cure did not come from them looking to Jesus for their satisfaction. It came when they had achieved successes in their own right.

It is so easy for Christians to act like the world. Why? Is belief in Jesus really enough to satisfy our hunger for recognition? When we have a concrete accomplishment that others recognize as valuable, that tends to go a lot farther in boosting our self-esteem than trusting in a Sky Buddy, whom some believe in, and some do not.

Plus, how can God's unconditional love provide us with self-esteem? If God loves everyone, how's his love for me make me special? Part of me wants to be liked because of qualities that I have.

At the same time, I can understand evangelicalism's point: basing our self-worth on our accomplishments is not very reliable. There are people out there who are better than me at a whole lot of things. Can I only feel good about myself when I am the top dog? That can change really fast! Situations in general can change by the day. One reason that some paraplegics may feel worthless is that they based their self-esteem on certain abilities, which they lost.

I think it's important to lean on God's unconditional love, and yet I'd like a little elaboration on that. In my opinion, God does not just love me because he's God and he has to love everyone. Rather, God made me with certain qualities. I am his unique creation. He must have some purpose for my existence, for I am here, and God takes pride in the people and things he has made. He said "It is good" when he created the heavens, the earth, and all that is in them (Genesis 1). And the Psalmist says, "I am fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139:14). God not only loves me, as important as that may be. God also likes me. But that shouldn't lead me to self-worship, since he's the one who gave me my qualities in the first place.

Here's another issue: We know Christians can be jealous. But doesn't Paul say that envy is a work of the flesh that can bar a person from the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:21)? What do Christians do with that? What should they do with it?

I can understand that jealousy is not the best emotion to have, since it's best to be glad for people in their successes. But, seriously, it does exist. Even if I were to pretend that I'm genuinely happy for people, my jealousy would still be there. Working through it can be a process. I can't always just wish it away on the spot. Can't Paul give people some space to be human, without basing salvation on being perfect?

It's because of this that, if I were to approach Dobson's friends in their jealous days, they'd probably deny being jealous. I can picture it! Or, if I were to tell them of my jealousy, they'd give me a lecture on why envy is wrong. It just seems to me that Christians cannot be honest with one another, since there's so much pressure on them to be perfect.

But that's just my opinion.

Dr. Dobson and Authenticity

I'm reading Dale Buss's Family Man: The Biography of Dr. James Dobson. It is a touching book, for it narrates how Focus on the Family has helped numerous families throughout the world.

As I was reading it, however, I was thinking about authenticity. Here are a few parts that disturbed me:

1. The chapter "The Velvet Microphone" traces the origins of Dobson's radio program. Here are some excerpts:

"...Dobson works hard to make the honing of his delivery come across as unscripted. 'He said being natural means you're going to repeat, stumble around, sometimes rephrase things--not be perfect, like reading a script,' Gary Bender says. 'When he first started, he said, he had a terrible time trying to be natural, to be a communicator who didn't sound as if he was reading something. But he got to the point where he understood who he was, that he could do it, and do it in a special way'" (81).

"'Usually if [Dobson's] critiquing me,' [radio associate Paul] Maier says, 'he'll say the content was great, very educational--but where's the pathos, the heart, the emotion? Recently I was doing a show on foster care, and he complimented me on the show. But then he played the tape back and said, 'Right here,' when the woman said such and such, 'you could have said something empathetic like how hard that must have been for her.' He said, 'Make sure you go for the pathos. That's what makes good radio'" (82).

I don't know. That just disappoints me. Dobson has to work hard to be authentic? So all that warmth and empathy are part of an act? I remember this one episode of Focus on the Family in which a minister broke down crying as he recalled his dad's mistreatment of him as a child. Dobson then said in a solemn, compassionate manner, "Isn't that amazing? How these memories can impact someone after so many years?" Was that an act?

I don't want to imply that Dobson doesn't care about people. Of course he does. He works hard, day in and day out, to meet the specific needs of every family that contacts him. He takes his work very seriously. He's practically a perfectionist! But it bothers me when I read that someone is deliberately trying to sound authentic. It's almost like he's an actor.

But does anyone of us act differently in this regard? Those are what social skills are: trying to act in a way that puts people at ease, whether we feel happy and cheerful or not. I'm trying to learn such skills myself. In fact, I've said on James' Thoughts and Musings that I have to work extra hard to write in a conversational manner, since that is what reaches people. And that's probably what Dr. Dobson is doing: he wants to communicate his message to people to help them out, but he realizes that there is a specific way to do that effectively.

2. The chapter "The Political Animal" is about Dobson's involvement in the Republican Party. In 1996, he was initially excited about Phil Gramm's run for the Presidency. That was before he and other Christian conservatives actually met with Gramm. Dobson told Gramm the following:

"Senator, there are millions and millions of people out there, good family people, trying to raise their kids, trying to keep them moral, trying to teach them what they believe, who are very agitated and very concerned because they don't hear anybody echoing what they believe...If you would hone in on those people and speak their language and talk to their hearts and identify with the things they care about instead of just talking about taxes, the economy, and money...you will have millions of people following you" (161).

"I'm not a preacher and I can't do that," Phil Gramm replied. "I'm not running for preacher. I'm running for President. I just don't feel comfortable going around telling other people how to live their lives."

Dobson then told him, "Senator, you will never reach our people."

But at least Phil Gramm was authentic. What did Dobson want Gramm to do? Pretend like he was an evangelical to reach out to Christian conservatives? How's it help anyone--Christian conservatives included--for a candidate to act like someone he's not?

In virtually every Presidential election year (except when the nominee is a true believer, like Reagan or George W. Bush), Dobson threatens to form a third party if the G.O.P. doesn't include a strong anti-abortion plank in its platform. But what's such arm-twisting accomplish? If a candidate isn't firmly committed to the pro-life cause, putting words on a piece of paper won't do anything. Again, does making people inauthentic lead to genuine change?

I like Dr. Dobson, and I'm not saying these things to be hip among evangelical intellectuals--the types who try to act cool by criticizing Christian conservative leaders. I also believe that, in many respects, Dr. Dobson is authentic. He genuinely cares about families and the condition of our country. When he says something, you can be sure that he truly believes it. But public relations and politics involve a lot of inauthenticity, which is sometimes good, and sometimes bad.

At the Library

I'm at the public library right now, and I checked out four books:

1. David Jay Johnston, Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (And Stick You with the Bill) (New York: Portfolio, 2007). This book is endorsed by Ralph Nader, but its inside jacket convinced me that it's worth the read. Consider this:

"Johnston cuts through the official version of events and shows how, under the guise of deregulation, a whole new set of regulations quietly went into effect--regulations that thwart competition, depress wages, and reward misconduct...A lot of people appear to be getting free lunches--but of course there's no such thing as a free lunch, and someone (you, the taxpayer) is picking up the bill."

One puzzle Johnston addresses is something I have wondered about: "How we ended up with the most expensive yet inefficient health-care system in the world."

Well, I'm not sure if I'd call our health care system "inefficient," but I wonder to what extent government intervention is driving up its costs. Is government suppressing competition somehow, to the delight of certain powerful profiteers?

2. Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008). Bruce Bartlett was a domestic policy advisor in the Reagan Administration, and he wrote a book called Impostor, which depicts our beloved current President as a big government liberal. I was initially reluctant to check out Wrong on Race because I thought it stated the obvious: that southern Democrats throughout American history supported racism, in the forms of slavery and segregation. But there's more to this book than that. It also reveals dirt on some of liberalism's most prominent heroes: Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy. I'm sick of liberals thinking I'm a racist because I vote Republican. I'd like to shove some things in their faces, for a change (or at least come up with some effective comebacks).

3. John Marks, Reasons to Believe: One Man's Journey Among the Evangelicals and the Faith He Left Behind (New York: HarperCollins, 2008). While doing a story on the Left Behind series for 60 Minutes, John Marks was confronted by an evangelical couple with a couple of provocative questions: would he be left behind? If he were to die, would he go to heaven or hell? That motivated John to investigate the evangelical sub-culture. He was born again when he was sixteen, but he later abandoned the faith. Now, he's taking a fresh look at it.

I checked this book out because it reminded me somewhat of Carlene Cross's Fleeing Fundamentalism, a book that I loved. I enjoy books about people's search for values and meaning, wherever they may be heading in terms of their beliefs. In the case of John Marks, I wonder what it would be like for someone who had a bitter experience with conservative Christianity to revisit it after so many years. I've asked myself a similar question: should I participate in an evangelical small group after six years of not being in one? Would my experience be better? Would evangelicals look different to me because of any growth or change on my part? So I'm interested in Marks' perspective, as both a former participant and also a detached observer.

4. Dale Buss, Family Man: The Biography of Dr. James Dobson (Wheaton: Tyndale, 2005). I've often wondered if I'd get along with Dr. James Dobson. On his radio program, he conveys a sense of warmth, compassion, wisdom, and empathy to his guests and listeners. At the same time, he doesn't exactly strike me as the most open-minded person in the world--someone who looks at both sides of the issues. And, at one point, a former associate of Dobson's, Gil Alexander-Moegerle, said that the dogmatic, closed-minded Dobson is the real one behind closed doors. So I wanted to read a biography about what Dr. Dobson is like, from someone who interviews a lot of people, not just Moegerle. As you probably notice, the book was published by a Christian company, Tyndale House Publishers. And, in the back, there is an advertisement for a discussion guide, which strikes me as, well, so evangelical. But the author writes for the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, plus he was nominated for a Pulitzer in 1986 for his reporting on General Motors. So I expect a fairly well-balanced biography--one that may lean to the conservative side, even as it considers other perspectives.

These books may take me a while to finish, but I'll share any jewels that I find in my reading. Stay tuned!