For the record, I think Jim is completely on track with his criticism of James Dobson. If you read the transcript of Senator Obama's speech from 2006, it is brillant, inspiring, and biblical. James Dobson's analysis and critique was superficial, pandering, and, frankly, just plain wrong.

Also, Al N, I don't appreciate or see any need for your abbreviating of Senator Obama as BH. It has no relevance to your points, except for the fact that it is exactly the kind of scare tactic that James Dobson is promoting. I would hope a true Christian would be able to give an argument sans fear tactics.

Posted by: K Ha | June 25, 2008 10:43 AM

"I'm not a reverend. I'm not a minister. I'm not a theologian. I'm not an evangelist. I'm a psychologist. I have a Ph.D. in child development."... Exactly, that's why he needs to back out of conversations like these. James Dobson does not speak for me.

And A|N, I am a little disturbed at how you define a "true Christian" as someone who "knows" whether or not they're going to heaven. Nowhere in the Bible does it prevent us from being brutally honest with doubts one may have throughout life about their salvation, driving them to say such things. If that is how you think I hope you don't pastor/counsel people in a church setting or otherwise because you would downright prevent people from being real with themselves, making them feel guilty about the deeper questions they may have. I don't know of anyone who has gone through live without being honest with their doubts.

And secondly, you treat that salvation for the afterlife is the end all, be all of our faith. Why don't you do what Obama said in this same speech and "read your Bible"! I salvation is a very important step, but it is just a step in our long walk with Jesus on this earth. Our salvation should drive us to expand God's Kingdom on this earth. But I'll let you read the Bible yourself so you can figure out how to do that.

James Dobson needs to just stick with what he knows best. Not sure what that is, but I guess he'll figure it out.

Posted by: Matt G. | June 25, 2008 11:11 AM

Dobson has been a fairly decent child psychologist in the past; I'm surprised that he doesn't recognize his own narcissism -- the assumption that things are true because he says them, and actions are valid because he thinks they are.

In what he says, there's a glaring omission of anything Jesus taught -- the Sermon on the Mount is just one example. My prayer is that people who have ceded authority to him can come to their own conclusions based on God's guidance; if so, we'll all be further down the road toward honest Christian testimony and the ability to let Jesus speak for himself rather than being boxed into a silent corner for Dobson's convenience and personal agenda.

Posted by: openeyes | June 25, 2008 11:23 AM

You can't legislate Christianty or Christian values in a religiously pluralistic society. It's wrong. The White House is not a house of worship. Politicians must seek the meet the needs of all Americans regardless of religious affiliation. I'm sorry but I don't get a discount at the gas station for being a Christian. I bet people of all faith have the same prayer when they pump gas, "God, I hope I can continue to afford this." The failing economy and increasing forclosures are impacting people of all faiths. We need political leaders like Sen. Obama who will seek to meet the needs of all Americans as we try to make life better for our families and honor God through how we meet the needs of those around us who are hurting.

Posted by: Rev. Tune | June 25, 2008 11:31 AM

B.H. Obama is NOT a "fellow Christian"! In his 2004 debate with Alan Keyes, he said, "If I had the opportunity to talk to Jesus Christ, I'd be asking something much more important than this senate race. I'd want to know whether I was going up or down, uh, there are all sorts of questions I think I'd be interested in. Uh, look, I'm very proud of my Christianity." (You can go to YouTube and search for "Keyes-Obama debate 2 (Christianity)" to hear this from BH's own lips).

Sorry, but a true Christian KNOWS the status of his/her salvation! (emphasis mine)

You ought to be sorry, Al N., for using such a pathetically shallow analysis of Obama's comment to Keyes to pronounce judgment on Obama's faith. Shame on you.

Do all Christians all the time know the status of their salvation? Is that your criterion for pronouncing upon others' faith? What about Paul's statement to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling"?

It seems to me that this comment from Obama, rather than casting doubt upon his faith, demonstrates that his faith has some depth and maturity to it.

Regarding Dobson, I think his comments about Obama, which I read in the news reports yesterday, indicate that he is increasingly grasping at straws and demonstrating his irrelevance. It is really quite sad to see his once vital and important ministry falling apart this way.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | June 25, 2008 11:56 AM

I do not consider myself a Christian,I do have my own beliefs in a Higher power,but I heard someone from this organization on the radio recently and wanted to sheck you out for myself.As someone who has loathed the way some so called Christians have hijacked the political process over the past few decades,I am not always willing to hear this side,but when someone of faith honestly and fairly assesses one of their own I take notice.I appreciate the honesty here,it is one thing I have found lacking with the majority of those I know who claim Christ,the almost unshakable ties to a Republican party which in my view does not represent the word of God has bothered me for some time,and is one of the reasons I have tended to detatch myself from the teachings of Jesus,While I agree with virtually all of the words of Christ,his followers as a rule have left a bad taste in my mouth.This article and the gentleman I heard on the radio the other day have made me reconsider my position.Obviously I was wrong that all persons considering themselves evangelicals are crazies or sheep.I have a newfound respect for those who claim Jesus simply because of this article,thank you for your honest assessment of this situation.
A quick word of advice,if you would like to bring people like me into the hads of God,forcing morality is not the way to do it,be more like the writer here and we are more apt to pay attention to what you say,some of us out here who believe,cannot or will not join what we see as a cult,and many who claim Christ appear to be blind followers much like those in Jonestown.I will reconsider now,should I continue to see honesty and not blind devotion to people such as Dr.Dobson.
I hope that this did not come off as condescending,that was not my intent whatsoever,I just wanted to share my perspective,and probably the perspective of a good percentage of us who do not claim the Christian faith,although we live up to its ideals the best we can.

Posted by: Bret M | June 25, 2008 11:59 AM

Thanks Mr. Wallis for not disappointing me.

BHO is the person of choice in your mind so you have to find someone that you can use to attack to make him look better. Kennedy and Fawell are dead so that leaves Dobson, Graham and a few others, and I don't think you have the stones to make Graham the scape-goat. I believe you would if you could because that would really bring your agenda to the forefront and give you the press you so desire.

Why not write about all of BHO's circle of friends that have a lot more impact on him and his decisions that he has made and will be making in the future. Rev. Wright - that is just the beginning - there are several others that BHO and you do not want to talk about.

Keep talking Mr. Wallis - you are fast becoming one of the greatests influences on people becoming conservative in the 21st century. I even listened to the Catholic Channel last week and you were used as an example for why some believe that more conservatives will be elected in the future.

NO - Dobson has never spoken for me on every topic, I can speek for myself and I am more than just a two issues conservative Christian unlike you want to believe we are.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | June 25, 2008 12:17 PM

I have long since been discouraged that the political "agenda" that has been shoved down our throats by "leaders" such as Dobson is that if you don't vote Republican, you cannot possibly be a Christian. I have had it so drilled into my head that as a Christian, I vote for two things and two things only: 1) against abortion and 2) for the family. These are not bad things to vote for, it's just not the ONLY things on the agenda plate, but that's what we have been led to believe. Christians for social justice are so few and far between, and when we reveal ourselves in our own churches, we are often shunned and judged harshly. I ask, what is wrong with looking at the world with eyes of compassion? What is wrong with helping the poor and abused in this world? What about feeding the hungry? What did Jesus say about the poor? Along comes Barak Obama and you know what? His call to come together sounds pretty good. I don't like voting for the party that helps corporations get richer, creates loopholes for speculators, or awards billion dollars no-bid contracts to their buddies. I want more accountability in government and as far as I'm concerned, Barak Obama will do that for me. I am not a "bad Christian" or "for abortion" or "for gay marriage" if I think a Democrat is going to do better for this nation as a whole than his Republican counterpart. Jim Wallis makes some seriously compelling arguments about living in a religiously plural society and that we can bring our beliefs to the table in public debate, but we don't get to "win" just because we are Christians. And Democrats aren't the devil just because they don't agree 100% with us.

Posted by: Lauren D | June 25, 2008 12:27 PM

Barack Obama's support of partial birth abortion is barbaric!!

Posted by: Linda | June 25, 2008 12:28 PM

Moderatelad,

Feel free to actually address the main point of the article anytime. The article isn't about your ridiculous conjectures regarding Wallis and his motivation (and seriously - what makes you at all qualified to judge his motivations by accusing him of simply trying to gain attention?). It is about whether or not Dobson misrepresented Obama's views in the speech he discussed on his radio program. Wallis (and plenty of other commenters elsewhere in the blogosphere, both conservative and liberal) has accurately demonstrated that Dobson has indeed misrepresented Obama's words.

Care to add to the discussion? Or are you content to continue hijacking the discussion with your ad hominem attacks against Wallis?

Posted by: Jake | June 25, 2008 12:33 PM

I'm not judging BH Obama.

Don't try to kid me, Al N. Your comments reek of judgmentalism.

Snippets? How can you analyze away "God d*mn America!" ... That's not Fox, that's Reverend Wright -- BH Obama's spiritual mentor.

Just as you cannot take Bible verses out of their contexts to make them mean whatever you want them to, neither can you take someone's sermon excerpts out of their contexts and do the same with them. Read the contexts and then tell me that he really said what Fox tried to make out that he said. I dare you. Here are a few of them:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-wright-transcripts-webmar29,0,705161.story

BUT, if you idolize this horrible man, you're welcome to continue believing that he's a committed Christian, he's post-racial, and he's a bipartisan uniter. But that doesn't make it true.

So I idolize him??? Not only can you know God's mind and tell us with assurance what Obama's spiritual destiny is, but you can read my mind, too? How amazing!!

D

Posted by: Don | June 25, 2008 12:53 PM

Yes, it is fear-mongering to call Obama "BH." If it isn't, why aren't conservatives calling McCain "JS?" They only use the initials BH to try to instill fear by constantly referring to Obama's middle name.

It's no surprise that Al N mentions another fear tactic of the religious right- to refer to any critcism by a church or political leader of our country as 'anti-American' or 'hate' of America. God forbid we examine ourselves and admit our faults with some humility, or even some anger. I am proud of this country for many reasons, but it doesn't mean I blindly support America on all issues. It is sad and arrogant to suggest that any criticism of this country/its history or policies makes one unpatriotic or worse, not a true Christian.

Posted by: Jen | June 25, 2008 12:58 PM

Thank you Thank you Thank you.

While I am not a Christian (I am Buddhist actually) I am so thankful to see a moderate Christian view. Too often all I hear is the view of the far right who seem to want to make this country a theocracy.

Again, thank you.

Posted by: Brant | June 25, 2008 1:02 PM

The Federalist Papers (James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton)

"Ambition , avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many more motives not more laudible than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support, as upon those who oppose the right side of a question."
-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers 1

" Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens equally the friends of PUBLIC and PRIVATE faith, and of public and personal liberty that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties...a majority having cooexistent passion or interest will carry into effect schemes of oppression if the impulse and opportunity be suffered to coincide -neither MORAL nor RELIGIOUS motives can be relied on as an adequate control." -Madison, The Federalist Papers 10

Enough said. You will have to give an account for everything you say in erred judgment about Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton OR George W Bush. Just because you think it's true - or you are arguing the "True" side, doesnt mean you ought to say it. Who owns the use of your tongue? Is it subject to the judgment of other men or of God? What does God want you to say and when?

Barack Obama may incur the judgement of God for his rulings on abortion, but he is earning a righteous man's reward in the use (And withholding) of his tongue! For shame Christian Leaders! Shame on ME too!

Posted by: SJ | June 25, 2008 1:16 PM

Thank you King of Kings and Lord
of Lords for the tide that is turning on
the universalists!

Posted by: Lauretta | June 25, 2008 1:29 PM

Thank you King of Kings and Lord of Lords for the tide that is turning on
the universalists!

Please explain. Who are these Universalists upon whom the tide is turning? And what tide?

Posted by: Don | June 25, 2008 1:57 PM

AlN: Specks and beams, specks and beams.
Thank you for reminding us of the need to keep the pedal to the medal for Sen Obama's election.
James Dobson made a million dollar "ministry" out of proof-texting the Bible and now he accosts Obama for daring to say that the Bible needs to be culturally understood and applied. Wow!
This whole episode is Dobson's response to Obama's invitation to sit down and talk. Maybe Dobson is unwittingly preparing Obama for dealing with petty dictators and religious fundamentalists.
BTW- does anyone know what Dobson was referring to re: Obama's fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution?

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | June 25, 2008 2:31 PM

Wallis writes, "We can agree or disagree on both biblical and political viewpoints, but our language should be respectful and civil, not attacking motives and beliefs."

But he starts off with ""But why should America care about how a child psychologist votes?"

And then goes on to say:

"The United States is not the Christian theocracy that people like James Dobson seem to think it should be."

"That new evangelical agenda is a deep threat to Dobson and the power wielded by the Religious Right for so long...Perhaps that is the real reason for Dobson's attack on Barack Obama."

Attacking "motives and beliefs" is done so frequently by Wallis (he once said that the conservative commenters here put our country above Christ). He doesn't even notice doing it, I guess.

Posted by: jesse | June 25, 2008 2:49 PM

Why does Wallis give Dobson any press on this site?

Because Dobson still speaks for a lot of evangelical Christians and misinterprets the Scriptures in the process. If more people would challenge him on his falsehoods he'd be out of business and Wallis would shut up.

I believe that we could be 'co-baligerants' on several issues.

Not as long as the conservatives continue to want to dictate which issues are to be addressed and how they are to be solved. That is the basic problem Wallis is addressing on this blog.

They say it is right for faith to inform left leaning-views on poverty and war, but to use your faith to affect your views on abortion is to violate the separation of church and state and wrongfully impose your beliefs on others.

Because that's what the conservatives always intended from the start -- to use faith as a pretense for the will to power. Even the abortion issue can be reduced to that.

Note: you would see even greater vitriol among abolitionists and civil rights leaders years ago. Would you fault them the same way?

Total nonsense. If Martin Luther King Jr. had taken that tack he would not be a household name today because the movement would have failed, and he preached that consistently.

Posted by: Rick | June 25, 2008 2:58 PM

"They say it is right for faith to inform left leaning-views on poverty and war, but to use your faith to affect your views on abortion is to violate the separation of church and state and wrongfully impose your beliefs on others."

How can anyone who claims to follow Christ, yet ignores what HE said to be the SECOND most important commandment- to love your neighbor, Ever be believed?

It is hypocrisy at its best since it has "fooled" many-- but in the end will not be over looked. I'm telling you the truth-- for those in the end, one is better off being deaf, dumb, and blind.

Elizabeth Daniele

Posted by: Elizabeth Daniele | June 25, 2008 3:05 PM

I find it disturbing the discussion is whether Obama’s views of religion and government are correct rather than Dobson’s egregious misrepresentation that Obama “criticized Dr. Dobson and biblical teaching” and “went so far as to equate Dr. Dobson with the far-Left Rev. Al Sharpton” in his keynote address to the 2006 Call to Renewal Conference.
Dr. Dobson’s name is mentioned only once in the speech. “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?” Clearly, Obama is using Dr. Dobson and Al Sharpton to represent POLAR OPPOSITE views, rather than equating them.
I would like to give Dr. Dobson the benefit of the doubt that perhaps he misunderstood Obama’s intention. However that would be unreasonable. Dr. Dobson is an intelligent, educated man who has worked in the political arena for years. It is perfectly valid for Dr. Dobson (or anyone else) to rip apart Obama’s views of the role of religion in politics. Examine his stance on abortion, gay rights, school prayer, welfare, race, taking the oath on the Qur’an and professing Christian faith, etc. It is irresponsible, negligent, and perhaps villainous to suggest that the speech in question had anything to do with Dr. Dobson let alone to state that it criticized him. It is deceptive to say that the speech equates Dobson and Sharpton when it actually uses them to represent polar opposite views.
But no one is talking about it. We accept it as par for the course in political rhetoric. It is perfectly acceptable to ‘bear false witness’ and that is disturbing.

Posted by: Michael | June 25, 2008 4:54 PM

"Total nonsense. If Martin Luther King Jr. had taken that tack he would not be a household name today because the movement would have failed, and he preached that consistently."
--I agree, but there were certainly other abolitionists and civil rights leaders with very heated rhetoric and aggressive methods. The truth is Wallis disagrees with Dobson both on rhetoric (though he employs similar rhetoric when criticizing Bush's faith and theology) and on policies, including abortion. If Wallis truly believed abortion was an unjust taking of innocent life, he would have even more heated rhetoric against Obama.

Posted by: jesse | June 25, 2008 5:30 PM

Sam Andress wrote:

As a follower of Jesus I find myself miffed by people like Jim Dobson. The issue in the Bible is not abortion. The Bible does not talk about abortion. The Bible talks about murder and it does so without qualification. God is the God of life. So how can Dobson be pro-war and call policies that create protection for the poor and marginalized liberal?

Because war is not murder. The state can engage in war for defense of territory and protection of legitimate interests. (What those are is a whole other matter.) Murder is a killing undertaken for purely private reasons.

If Dobson is the best thing going for the "family" then why is it that the evangelical church during the prominence and rise in rhetoric of Dobson, has found itself more divorced and withe more births out of wedlock?

For all his faults Dobson is only one of many prominent evangelicals. One could just as easily ask why Jim Wallis has failed to prevent divorces.

How does someone who has a PhD (I wonder where it is from) see a complex world in black and white? Also Dobson says he is not a theologian or biblical scholar then he should shut his mouth when he tries to criticize Obama's hermeneutic of Scripture.

Computers are complicated things, but all their operations are ultimately based on ones and zeros. Saying that there are clear deliniations -- between ones and zeros, black and white, right and wrong -- doesn't mean everything is simple.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | June 25, 2008 6:06 PM

Al N, I can't speak for whoever is taking down your posts, but you're saying some pretty outrageous stuff here. You're going beyond opinion right into slander.

Moderatelad, you may want to quit harping on Jim Wallis lest anyone think you're not so moderate.

Posted by: Paul | June 25, 2008 6:33 PM

Jim Wallis,

As a so-called "young progressive" (the term "evangelical" has already been mis-appropriated), I am overjoyed by your response to the divisive gospel of James Dobson and his multi-million dollar media empire.

Posted by: Quetzal | June 25, 2008 8:26 PM

In typical liberal mold, they can't tolerate someone exposing the truth about Barack H Obama.

I will echo Paul above (i.e., speaking slander, Al N, and say you are not exposing the "truth" about Obama. You are repeating lies that have already been exposed and discredited.

Here's just one example that you have given elements of here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

Finally, there is no requirement for me or anyone to support Obama's candidacy or plan to vote for him before being willing to denounce the evil and false rumors that have been spread about him. As a Christian presumably committed to truth, you should know that: remember the Eighth Commandment (or Ninth, depending on how one counts)? "Thou shalt not bear false witness."

Adiós a ti también

D

Posted by: Don | June 25, 2008 8:35 PM

Who cares what Dobson says? He's a relic on the way to becoming a fossil.

Posted by: Rev. Conrad Steinhoff | June 25, 2008 10:51 PM

It does seem that Dobson's reaction doesn't match Obama's comments. I do see how Dobson would be offended by basically being framed as the right's version of Al Sharpton.

Rev. Tune
Obama may be our first pro-abortion presidential candidate. His political maneuvering to prevent babies who survive an abortion to receive even basic care will be the big issue this summer. Not only because of the position he took, but the very slippery way he blocked the legislation.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | June 25, 2008 11:52 PM

Hi all,

I write from Africa.

When I heard of Dobson's criticism of Obama's 'theology' I immediately looked for the speech that Barrack Obama made at Call to Renewal in 2006.

It was - and is - a brilliant speech and I was moved beyond words at the man's 'grasp'.

I decided to email a few friends to ask them what might have irked Dobson so ... But, meanwhile, something just struck me, Obama gave his speech in 2006 - two years ago.

I may be mistaken but, it seems to me, the way some here are rushing to defend Dobson just confirms how divided American Christians are, not what is wrong with Obama's speech!

If G W Bush gave the same speech I am sure those vilifying Obama today would be calling it 'visionary, 'far-reaching', 'compassionate', 'Biblical', 'bold', 'articulate', 'healing', 'understanding', 'transcending', BRILLIANT.

But, of course, only Obama could give that speech.

One thing that Obama invites all Americans to do at the end of his speech is to share a prayer for people of all belief systems to live in harmony. Let me please quote him:

"It's a prayer I think I share with a lot of Americans. A hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all. It's a prayer worth praying, and a conversation worth having in this country in the months and years to come."

It has taken Dobson two years of reading and re-reading that speech before he could respond.

And he chooses to divide ...

Now, if you want to tell me that Dobson's interjection at this moment has got anything to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ I'll tell you: "pull the other one!"

But,

Let's all thank James Dobson for finally joining the new conversation.

He, and others, just might find that it has nothing to do with an American nationalistic religion, also known as 'Christianity', often interpreted to mean anything the likes of Dobson decide it should be!

It has nothing to do with hatred, in the name of Christ or anyone else.

'God bless America [and everyone else]', as 'Mays Gilliam' would say!

- Alu
Dar es Salaam

Posted by: Robert Alu | June 26, 2008 12:54 AM

Have any of you read Obama's speech? He says that "secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King--indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history--were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. To say that men and women should not inject their 'personal morality' into public policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."

Four paragraphs later, Obama contradicts his preceding statements in order to chastise the "Religious Right": "For one, they [the Relgious Right] need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy but the robustness of our religious practice. . . Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values."

He is a master of rhetoric!

Posted by: judithod | June 26, 2008 1:01 AM

Judithod,

He doesn't contradict himself. All the people he listed above actually put their faith into "universal values" and still kept the separation of church and state.

p

Posted by: Payshun | June 26, 2008 1:30 AM

If Obama’s testimony during his speech at the 2006 Call for Renewal, a poignant expression of Obama's journey to the foot of the cross and his deliberate act of accepting Christ as his Lord, does not employ the specific set of evangelical buzz words some people require, well, too bad. I really don't think their narrow judgment disqualifies this as a more-than-adequate confession of true faith in Christ, at least to me.

Obama is probably the most theologically articulate presidential candidate in modern history. (And therein lies the "threat" to folks - like Dobson - who have grown very accustomed to being considered "experts" in applying theology to public policy.)

It’s not about the extremely questionable goal of striving to apply the public admonitions and temple-oriented guidance of the Bible DIRECTLY into modern American society. (That’s how one ends up foreswearing shellfish and accommodating slavery.) It’s about elevating the level of Biblical Literacy throughout our society. It’s about heightening the capacity of our leaders to Think Biblically. That’s what truly matters in a pluralistic democracy. (Not to mention, that’s what would actually work!)

Christ-based values make the kind of difference in public life that accurately reflects the public ministry of Jesus when those values shape and inform public leaders in such a way that they are reflected in the kind of influence, courage, compassion, and leadership that allows Biblical values to bless a society, especially those at its socio-economic bottom.

Posted by: Mark Hilditch | June 26, 2008 2:06 AM

Posted by: Payshun | June 25, 2008 9:54 PM

'Mod asked why talk about Dobson at all?'

OK - Dobson's accessment is wrong in the eyes of Wallis and some - big deal.
Dobson is allow his opinion and there is still free speech.
Wallis attacking Dobson - 'he pushed me' attitude takes away from the message of Obama. (to save my fingers I normally type BHO but that inflames some here. My dad told me you can tell how big a person is by how small the things that PO them - whatever) Anyway. Keep attacking Dobson people - lampoon him, gut him and put him on a spit. The more you do the more you keep people from the true message. The more Wallis attacks Dobson the more he will solidify those that like Dobson but listen to others to totally dismiss Obama because of Wallis' retoric.
Wallis is an interesting person. For all the time that he talks about issues, people that he supports, items that are going on in the world. In his desire to cast the spot light on them, he fights them for the spot light. He is like your last lousey date where the person sits across the table from you and says, 'I have talked enough about me, let's talk about you. So - what do you think of me?'
This election is getting more interesting as time goes on. I can't wait for Mr. Ellis from MN to cause more problems for Obama - and he will.

To quote B. Davis from 'All About Eve'

Fasten your seat belts boys - it's going to be a bumpy ride!'

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | June 26, 2008 8:22 AM

Their point demonstrates a deep-seated misunderstanding of American political liberty, one that threatens liberty much more than anything Dobson does.

There is a bigger issue than liberty for us Christians -- justice. Obama and Wallis are about that; Dobson is not and never will be.

I can't wait for Mr. Ellis from MN to cause more problems for Obama - and he will.

In your dreams.

Posted by: Rick | June 26, 2008 8:53 AM

Sorry, Plumb Bob, but you completely missed the point. The problem with Dobson and others of his ilk, is not that he is formulating policy on religious terms: the problem is that he is casting his position as the ONLY moral position, the ONLY true biblical position. And you probably should know that religion is the most powerful of all belief systems, so when Dobson takes on the mantle of exclusivity in this matter it really creates a huge distortion that has nothing to do with what Jesus taught. This would already be a huge problem if he were a theologian or a minister: if you add to the mix the fact that he only is a child psychologist, his whole enterprise veers on fraudulent and criminal. Following Dobson on biblical morality as his millions of followers do is equal to following one's plumber or financial planner. And what about the other fact that the man is a moral failure himself, as shown by his uncritical support for the war? He is a shame to Christianity.
And please do not forget that almost all pain and suffering on this Earth have been caused by people or groups who claimed THEIR version of truth was the ONLY version and everybody else was wrong, so they had to be corrected by fire and by sword.

Posted by: ernie | June 26, 2008 9:12 AM

Dear Mr. Wallis,
The folloowing are you own words. I was unaware you were an expert in such matters. Also, is this what you mean by civil and respectful?

"I believe that Dick Cheney is a liar; that Donald Rumsfeld is also a liar; and that George W. Bush was, and is, clueless about how to be the president of the United States. And this isn’t about being partisan… I’ve heard plenty of my Republican friends and public figures call this administration an embarrassment to the best traditions of the Republican Party and an embarrassment to the democratic (small d) tradition of the United States. They have shamed our beloved nation in the world by this war and the shameful way they have fought it. Almost 4,000 young Americans are dead because of the lies of this administration, tens of thousands more wounded and maimed for life, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis also dead, and 400 billion dollars wasted—because of their lies, incompetence, and corruption.

But I don’t favor impeachment, as some have suggested. I would wait until after the election, when they are out of office, and then I would favor investigations of the top officials of the Bush administration on official deception, war crimes, and corruption charges. And if they are found guilty of these high crimes, I believe they should spend the rest of their lives in prison - after offering their repentance to every American family who has lost a son, daughter, father, mother, brother, or sister. Deliberately lying about going to war should not be forgiven."
Respectfully,
John R. Potter

Posted by: John R. Potter | June 26, 2008 9:17 AM

Although I agree with Jim Wallis stating that it was Dobson who distorted Obama's message, accusing Dobson as a Christian Theocrat doesn't help the discussion either. As much as I can't stand much of the political rhetoric that comes out of focus on the family and I often take a public stand against Dobson's narrow agenda for Christian evangelicals, labeling him Christian Theocrat doesn't help the discussion either. Dobson really only wants to go back to the 1950's when it comes to public morality. I think all of us would agree that the 1950's was not a Theocracy. Unfortunately we are assuming that all of the Religious Right conspiracy books that have come out about the Religious Right trying to make America a Theocracy, are somehow on the money. The fact is they do more damage and make it easier to demonize the opposition rather than have a genuine conversation. I long for a civil discourse between the left and right. I thought the left could model the high road. I guess I was wrong.

Posted by: Joel Shaffer | June 26, 2008 9:24 AM

Thanks Jim. Sincerely!

Jon said,

"Dobson himself rejects any credentials as a reverend, minister, theologian or evangelist, but claims qualifications as a Psychologist because of his Ph.D in Child Development. Having heard him to personally claim that he made a credible decision to accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior at the tender age of 3 I believe also seriously questions his fundamental qualifications as a Child Development Psychologist. Either he believes he was one of the most advanced, mature & precocious 3 year olds in history or he has almost no awareness of the overwhelming scope of parental/adult influence in 3 year olds re such thinking & behavior."

I JUST WANTED TO RE-POST THIS BECAUSE OF HOW ACCURATE IT IS. Dobson isn't an educated theologian and he's not even a good psychologist with nearly ALL of his peers disagreeing with his take on homosexuality.

The ego has more fully taken over James Dobson. This is the type of thing that led Martin Luther to believe that the "Antichrist" had taken over the office of the papacy.

James just wants some more attention and wants to believe that everyone cares what he thinks. When I get over my frustration with him, I see it as sad. Oh well, he's a big boy.

Posted by: Observer | June 26, 2008 10:03 AM

He's clearly NOT a uniter, he's not nonpartisan, he's not post-racial, and we can also seriously doubt he's a Christian.

Al -- You won't accept him unless he bows to your "popes," which he won't do.

I don't go to church however, I cannot imagine God could love and forgive the barbarism of sucking out the brain of a fully formed human being; that's just like Medea clubbing her children to death out of revenge.

You may want to read "What's So Amazing About Grace?" by Philip Yancey. He hit the nail on the head concerning things like that.

He has really done nothing of note throughout his career here in MN and do not expect much from him in DC.

Most of us don't live in Minnesota and thus don't give a hoot about what one Congressman from there does or doesn't do.

Posted by: Rick | June 26, 2008 10:30 AM

Jim Wallis,

I find your comments disappointing. Dobson's comments may be mistaken and as such it is a good idea for you to demonstrate why in a spirit of charity and reconciliation. Rather, you made unnecessary digs at his background, played up the guilt by association card, and made sinister allegations about his "true motives" (the theocracy canard). Such "language is simply inappropriate for [you] to use in an already divisive political campaign. We can agree or disagree on both biblical and political viewpoints, but our language should be respectful and civil, not attacking motives and beliefs." You failed here and as such owe Dobson an apology.

Posted by: anon2 | June 26, 2008 11:22 AM

Sitting here reading this thread, I'm wondering, if the "religious right" can't be compared to the Pharisees of Jesus' time.

I, for one, do not believe that morality can be legislated, nor should be regulated by one's government and that includes abortion rights, homosexuality, etc. No one seems to call for legislation when heterosexual ministers get caught in their sexual sin.

Thank you, Mr. Wallis for having the Christian guts to say that Dr. Dobson doesn't speak for you. I may not back Obama, and I may not back McCain (choices seem pretty poor this year) but I am not the judge of their Christianity.

I grew up in the fundamentalist, evangelical dogma and it didn't work for me, because I never understood God's grace, only Phariseeical legalistic, ritualistic following of man's idea of God's law. It wasn't until I stayed out of church and reread the Gospels that I began to understand God's grace and developed a personal relationship with God.

Thanks to 12-Step recovery programs that gave me permission to "rethink the God of my childhood."

In His service, Pastor Dave

Posted by: Dave Morgret | June 26, 2008 11:48 AM

"Four paragraphs later, Obama contradicts his preceding statements in order to chastise the "Religious Right": "For one, they [the Relgious Right] need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy but the robustness of our religious practice. . . Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific,
values."

And he is right. God doesn't force His will upon us- so unless one believes they are God's equal- how is it that we should? We know the difference between civil law and what should be left to God to judge. We love God's right to judge, when we have so many of our own sins we should be worrying about- including walking our talk. Our country is filled with diversity- even within one religion. In what state would we have whose version of church? And who gets to pick that- the wealthy, powerful, or most popular?

"Why is this relevant? First, because Jim Wallis accused Dobson of "attacking a fellow Christian". Looks to me like Dobson did nothing of the kind - but in fact it was Wallis who attacked a fellow Christian (Dobson)."

Perhaps Christ or His disciples should have kept their mouths shut, as well. Since we are sinners, if we could be "born again" in flesh- we'd be a revolving door (remember it's only twice).

"Christ-based values make the kind of difference in public life that accurately reflects the public ministry of Jesus when those values shape and inform public leaders in such a way that they are reflected in the kind of influence, courage, compassion, and leadership that allows Biblical values to bless a society, especially those at its socio-economic bottom." Amen.

Elizabeth Daniele

Posted by: Elizabeth Daniele | June 26, 2008 12:21 PM

Mod,

No one is saying he can't say what he believes but if he is going to talk at least get the facts straight. I don't understand what you are defending here. He said what he said now he gets critiqued for it. The freedom of speech goes both ways. It's like you want Wallis to shut up because you don't like what he is saying and you don't think he should critique Dobson. Life doesn't work that way.

Syn said:
I don't go to church however, I cannot imagine God could love and forgive the barbarism of sucking out the brain of a fully formed human being; that's just like Medea clubbing her children to death out of revenge.

Me:
Well maybe you need to read the bible a little bit more. He never held David to account for killing his ten thousand even though it was war time. He forgave David for committing adultery, killing a man, and stealing his wife. There are lots of stories of God forgiving really heinous things. Obama himself has not had an abortion so again it seems a little unfair to judge the man for a view that I don't agree with. I feel the same way about the Iraq war. I find the war to be wrong. But I would not condemn those that see it as part of our national security.

p

Posted by: Payshun | June 26, 2008 12:54 PM

Paul said:
"You, Dobson, Obama and I are all saved the same way... through the undeserved grace of Christ."
>> I couldn't agree more. BUT, that's only if we accept that grace, by being "born again" (John 3:3). I'm only saying that I'm not sure Barack H Obama (or McCain, by the way) has come to that step yet.

But the WORST reason to think Obama's a Christian is because "he says he is". Many KKK leaders also SAY they're Christians -- does that make them Christians?

Obama also claims to be a "uniter", "nonpartisan", and "post-racial". He's clearly none of those -- even though he's got millions of followers fooled.

Marian, no offense, but I'd rather quote what the Bible says about salvation, than Joan of Arc (God bless her!).

Posted by: Al N | June 26, 2008 1:51 PM

Posted by: Paul | June 26, 2008 12:46 PM

'...time you seek to preserve your fingers.'

Not true - there is HRC and GWB among others that I have used in the past. Only when I do the BHO do people get their undies in a bundle.

Posted by: JEM | June 26, 2008 1:51 PM

Yes - Mr Ellison endorsed Obama. But in his making a big deal about making Obama apoligize for the two women - that was only done to get Ellison in the press. Praise in public - correct in private. Ellison will be making a lot of hay with Obama running for office. He excells at that.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | June 26, 2008 2:04 PM

Correction:
If Nader can easily recognize how he is not running a campaign built off of race then surely you can too.

p

Posted by: Payshun | June 26, 2008 2:12 PM

Payshun said:
"Obama would not have millions of followers if they were so easily fooled. Give his supporters a little bit of credit. They/ we are not lemmings that worship him."
>> Sorry, Payshun, but you're wrong on this one. They ARE easily fooled, and they do worship him. (Explain the "Obama Girl" video and the audience members who are fainting at his speeches.)

As for post-racial, you should read his own words from his books about wanting subjugate his "whiteness" (for political reasons). How about his "typical white person" comment? If I called him a "typical black person", that would be considered racist, right? If I went to a church where blacks and other minorities were routinely put down and hated, wouldn't you doubt my openess to racial equality? Well, Obama went to a similar church for 20 years, and even called the main speaker of that intolerance his "spiritual mentor". In the exit polls after the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries, over 50% of DEMOCRATS said they think that Barack H Obama believes the same things as Reverand Wright. Do ANY of you doubt that Obama & Wright have the same views? I don't.

Posted by: Al N | June 26, 2008 2:27 PM

Do ANY of you doubt that Obama & Wright have the same views? I don't.

I doubt whether many of us who haven't sat in Rev. Wright's church Sunday after Sunday over the last twenty years really understand what Rev. Wright's views are, let alone to what extent Obama's views square with them. That's what I have been trying to get at with my comments that Wright's comments were taken out of their contexts.

How many preachers preach for only thirty seconds at a time? I doubt whether Rev. Wright preached for less than thirty minutes on most occasions. How much can you really know about what was said in a sermon by listening to a thirty-second episode, especially episodes that were lifted by individuals who had a political axe to grind?

At least you should read the expanded contexts from the Chicago Tribune that I linked above. The expanded context of the "chickens coming to roost" comment is quite revealing.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | June 26, 2008 2:44 PM

Obama is counting on us not to spot the contradictions in his speech, Payshun. They are artfully stated! In the two passages that I quoted from his speech, he (1) says take your faith and your religious language into the public sphere to make your arguments just as Douglass, Lincoln, etc. did, and (2) refers to the separation of church and state and admonishes the "religiously motivated" to cast their remarks into "universal, rather than religion-specific, values."

In the first set of remarks, he's applauding and endorsing the influence of religion and its language in politics. In the second set, which he specifically directs at the "Religious Right," he's saying that one should translate his/her religious beliefs into whatever appears most palatable to the majority. There's definitely a double-tongue at work, which is troubling since Obama claims to be representative of political change.

He has employed the same kind of double-talk to justify why he reneged on his pledge to accept public financing, which leads me to question his morality. Instead of simply admitting he's breaking his pledge because he's in a more lucrative position without participating in public financing, he's claiming that the "citizens have declared their independence from a broken system by supporting the first presidential campaign truly funded by the people." So what's he really saying? "Don't blame me. Not my fault! I'm untainted because I made a selfless decision on behalf of 'the citizens.'"

Obama's not the first politician to break a promise, but since he's promising "change," he should be the first to admit that he did break a promise. George Orwell spoke pointedly about the danger associated with duplicitous oratory: "The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns...instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink."

Posted by: judithod | June 26, 2008 3:02 PM

judithod, it looks like the charitable way to resolve the tension is to attribute to Obama the view that it's okay to bring religiously-motivated concerns into the public arena, but one needs to translate those concerns into argumentation and reasoning that is neutral with respect to religion. Abortion is the key example: you might be pro-life for religious reasons but then give secular pro-life arguments in the public arena.

And your "whatever appears most palatable to the majority" comment seems unfair. As any pro-lifer worth a damn will tell you, finding strong secular arguments against abortion needn't involve blind pandering to mass opinion.

Posted by: Dave2 | June 26, 2008 3:11 PM

Judithod,

McCain turned down public financing during the primary. I really don't really care about him breaking his promise about campaign finance reform. I wish he had been honest about it and said that I want more money and I am going to go with that.

But McCain has also changed his position on drilling off the coast of coastal states... Neither one of these candidates is exactly honest all the time. why don't you apply the same standards to McCain as you do to Obama?

p

Posted by: Payshun | June 26, 2008 3:35 PM

After reading this article and thread of comments I can only observe the following...

1. James Dobson believes he speaks for all conservative Christians - I don't believe he does. However, at this point many can't put a finger on why both Obama and McCain make them uneasy...it feels like a no-win election.

2. Barrack Obama may be a wonderful Christian, however he is still a politician who is relatively new (still waiting to hear legislation he has written, etc). The bottom line is that he will bring the good, the bad and the ugly into the White House with him. Just like abortion is not the only issue in play, any president will get caught up in the politial game in DC...how will he fare compared to McCain?

Though I felt this article had a clear agenda to be anti-conservative and blast a well-respected leader it really reinforces the fact that the church is as divided as the nation and I really don't hold out hope for a great change to take place come 2009. Bottom line - no one is perfect so I suggest we all pray for God's grace and listen to Him when it comes to voting in the election.

Just a thought.

Posted by: ladyrev | June 26, 2008 3:53 PM

George Mitrovich
San Diego

Jim Wallis, as usual is right. Here's my take on the matter, influenced by knowing Jimmy Dobson – he's always been "Jimmy" to me – for 54-years:

I've known Jimmy Dobson since we were college freshmen together in 1954. He's led a remarkable life, and his accomplishments greatly exceed mine.

But the Jimmy Dobson I knew as a member of the Church of the Nazarene is not the Fundamentalist he has become. The Nazarene Church is conservative, but not fundamentalist, but somewhere along life’s journey Jimmy became this obstinate, Biblical literalist.

In our relative youth I didn’t pay attention to his political leanings until election night in 1966 when Jimmy and my wife got into an argument in a Los Angeles coffee shop over Ronald Reagan’s defeat of Governor Pat Brown in California (and I lost my first job in politics). Our paths have occasionally crossed since then, but the political direction of his life and mine have varied greatly. He once told a mutual friend that he regretted I had become a liberal Kennedy Democrat. Well, I regret he became a Right Wing Republican Fundamentalist Christian.

His rant about Senator Obama’s Biblical views is ridiculous, and it has received more media attention than it deserves, because in this election, the election of ’08, Jimmy Dobson has become irrelevant. I would mark this little episode down as his last hurrah.

When the votes are counted election day in November and Senator Obama becomes President-elect Obama and the Democrats have won huge margins in the House and Senate, Jimmy Dobson would be well advised to go back to where he started his professional life, by focusing on the family – because no one will care anymore about his politics.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 3:59 PM

judithod:

All right, so here's a coherent position that seems to capture everything Obama said: it's okay to bring religiously-motivated concerns into the public arena, and it's also okay to use religious language and religious reasoning, provided that one is also willing to give secular reasoning and argumentation. Thus it's okay to give Scriptural arguments against abortion, so long as you're willing to give secular arguments as well. And the problem with those right-wingers he scolds is that they only give religious reasons and they're unwilling to give secular reasons.

Also, I'm not sure of the connection between this stuff and the stuff about separation of church and state. I haven't heard anything he said that connects the two, though I'd be interested, given that 'the separation of church and state' is a textbook gloss on the establishment clause.

Posted by: Dave2 | June 26, 2008 4:18 PM

Hello from Vancouver

Great discussion you've got here. Thought I'd add a note. Seems to me the problem comes back to the narrow minded interpretations of a particular book of scriptures as if there is only way way of looking at life that is correct and all others are wrong. As if God is so small. Look around. As diverse as nature so are we! There is absolutely no need for any arrogant intollerance between people of good faith, so why squabble over tired, old and tiny definitions of God, for example, when any definition of God is by definition far too small?

It's great that there are so many different approaches to life, so many worldviews that are worthy of appreciating. Diversity is delicious! And just within the Christian traditiion
itself there are so many valid perspectives that it's a real shame to simply crap on those whom you disagree with- "judge not lest ye be judged" and all that. Perhaps there are built in contradictions within each of us, and opposing views between, so that we'd be forced to think for ourselves as we work things out and not just grab onto an "answer" but to continually question.

Doubt is good. We need the discussion because we need each other and opposing sides can energize our growth. It's the lazy easy judgements of the small and narrow-minded that always cause the problems that wisdom must address. And we all have that voice, and many others, within...and must continually choose. And so when I hear a guy like Dr. Dobson spouting off I think it's great because I see the way that I don't want to be and hear the views to oppose. It makes the muddled a little more clear and that's why all voices need to be heard, whether you agree with them or not.

I don't need to be a "red letter Christian" to appreciate a voice like Sojourners. Thanks

Posted by: David Harris | June 26, 2008 4:37 PM

"So are you saying that only Arminians and Pelagians count as true Christians? That would be rich."
>> Sounds like something a highly-educated elitist would say! Not surprised you're supporting Obama.

For all of you who are saying Rev. Wright was taken out of context, give me a break! Yes, I have heard most of the "G-D America" sermon. It was broadcasted on CNN (on the Glenn Beck show). But there are some things that can't be "taken out of context", like G-D America! If my pastor suddenly started shouting "Kill all the !" -- I couldn't just pass it off as "taken out of context".

Payshun said:
"Well considering the fact that reverend Wright has done more to advance the cause of racial reconciliation and justice for the poor on his days off then you or I have done I would tend to give him the benefit of the doubt."
>> There goes your credibility, Payshun. You do more to advance racial reconciliation when you go to the restroom -- because at least then you're not HARMING racial relations, like Wright is doing!

"But he did say some inflammatory things and even said that it's possible for the American government to create the Aids virus to kill off Africa and black folks in general. Do I agree with that? No, but I would not be surprised if they did."
>> You "would not be surprised"! Wow! I now totally understand you better! Thanks. Did you also know that James Dobson is a space alien, planted here by evil beings from another planet?

Posted by: Al N | June 26, 2008 4:54 PM

Please people -- Obama's theology is far from air-tight, not that many people have an air-tight theology.

I find this all very amusing. Wallis bashing Dobson's language, when so many of Sojo's writers use sarcasm and offensive language regularly. Many of those posting comments still defend Wright, when Obama's distanced himself from him. And many defending Obama's form of Christianity.

I'm willing to bet my house that at the end of his Presidency (because I am quite sure he will be elected in the fall) we won't be nearly as sure of his Christianity.

I personally have a beef with Wallis's view about religious morality. I have no problem with someone from another faith standing up and saying, "This is wrong because my religion is against it, which makes it a morale issue to me." I wish we'd get a lot more of that. To me, it would give a lot more credibility to their arguements. Kind of like the bloggers here who say, 'what Dobson fights for isn't nearly as important as helping the poor.' Well dude, not to you, but to Dobson the ideaology may be more important than wealthy guilt or Green Peace or whatever is your hot button.

The problem is, when you have to run an entire nation for 4 years, your morales will conflict with each other from time to time. If stealing is wrong, is it more wrong than letting someone starve to death? And all of us will have opinions about the choices Obama makes, without ever wondering how long he struggled with the ethical delemna that he's caught up in. Just like Dobson clearly struggled with supporting McCain, when he hates Obama more.

Posted by: George | June 26, 2008 5:00 PM

I'd just like to offer up my thanks to Jim Wallis for making this statement / post. It's encouraging to see Christians holding one another accountable, as we are called to do in Scripture. We are supposed to judge those inside the church, as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 5.

It's nice to see someone with a leadership position and national platform finally standing up and saying that what Dobson said is WRONG. Dobson should go back to the transcript and review what Obama ACTUALLY said (not what he "thinks" he said), and then ask for forgiveness from Barack.

That would be the Christian thing for him to do.

Posted by: DAF | June 26, 2008 5:24 PM

Al N:

You write: "Sounds like something a highly-educated elitist would say! Not surprised you're supporting Obama."

1. That doesn't respond to my point. You claim that any true Christian has to know whether they're saved. But that's false, as a passing familiarity with Christianity would tell you. Don't talk about Christianity if you don't know anything about it.

2. I'm not supporting Obama. I'm just defending him against foolish attacks.

Posted by: Dave2 | June 26, 2008 5:27 PM

I applaud Jim Wallis' criticism of Dobson's comments about Obama's speech. Anyone who has listen to or read the original speech in its entirety can clearly see that Dobson has misrepresented Obama's ideas. Before noticing Wallis piece, I posted my own thoughts about Dobson's comments. www.wildernesspreacher.blogspot.com

Posted by: Drew Smith | June 26, 2008 5:32 PM

Who wants to be a part of Dobsons Christianity? Certainly not me. Thanks for pointing that out Wallis also on this issue.

Posted by: Daniel K | June 26, 2008 5:41 PM

I have been increasingly disillusioned by the insertion of religion into the political process. It is a mistake on the face of it to mix church and state, and the church usually ends up the worse for it. On top of that, it seems that those who are part of the (self-described) Christian and political right have moved more and more into making personal attacks on their opponents and distorting their positions in order to demonize them.

It is even worse when people claiming to be religious leaders publicly make outrageous and inflammatory statements. Jerry Falwell did this a lot, and Pat Robertson continues to do so. Dr. Dobson, while claiming not to be a religious leader, clearly functions as one to many people (including some of the posters above,) and should thus be more careful to be truthful and constructive in making public statements about political figures and issues.

I say this not just because I am an Obama supporter, which I am, but because I would like to see political discourse become again a means for people who disagree to speak civilly to each other about their disagreements. Senator Obama has proven that he is willing to do this. Many of his opponents, unfortunately, have not.

Posted by: Kevin Davey | June 26, 2008 5:48 PM

Jim, you attack Mr. Dobson for attacking Obama...which makes you just like him...and on and on it goes. After reading these posts, most of them scare the heck out of me. Is this the state of Christianity today??? Luke-warm, excuse making "believers," attacking each other???
No wonder the world does not want what we have and call us hypocrites.
"You shall know them by their fruit." I am sad to say I am having a hard time finding any here worth eating.
WE are in need of repentance. We need to get back to the basics. Perhaps we should start with the "Sermon on the Mount" which is indeed do-able, with God's grace.
Everyone has heard of GRACE right? It is God's gift to us to help us overcome our Adamic nature and be molded into the image of Christ...not a free ticket to do/say whatever we want

Read the book.
Jesus is Lord.

Posted by: Sherry Root | June 26, 2008 5:59 PM

It is apparent that Barack Obama is a bad man to many. Why? Because he is a "darky" attempting to step out of his place. He has already done this by obtaining an excellent education and being able to speak and think deeply and intelligently at the same time.

Will all of the haters spontaneously combust if Barack Obama succeeds and becomes the next president.

I hope he does succeed. There are a lot of racist nuts I would like to see self implode.

At last we will all be able to get on with the real issues facing us in the world, and stop using race as a cop-out.

Posted by: mrmissy | June 26, 2008 6:08 PM

"Liberal" Christianity does not care about sin any more. Dr. Dobson is "seriously extreme" only to people who do not believe the whole Bible any more. Dr. Dobson is a man of God.

Posted by: Michele | June 26, 2008 6:36 PM

It's always interesting to me when Christians express a more condemning spirit than Christ Himself expressed (because, at the end of the day, He was the only one who was really right).

And, it always concerns me when Christians on either side of any debate are demonstratively angry about how right they are.

Given the forum in which Senator Obama's comments were expressed, and the role of Sojourners, I think Mr. Wallace's comments are warranted... and turning the other cheek in political commentary isn't always the right answer. It is politics after all... :o)

Posted by: BWM | June 26, 2008 7:02 PM

At the end of the day, this isn't about whose side you are own, Barack's or James's. It is about the church of Jesus Christ not doing its job in the first place. At the end of the day, WHO IS James Dobson? Is he a minister of the gospel? Next, why would Barack compare using the Ond Testament versus the New Testament in governing people here in the U.S.? This is an indication to me that he doesn't really understand the complete death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and that is ok. Most Christians don't understand this. What I mean is the age old question, do I live by the whole Bible or by the sayings of Jesus? If the church was doing its job in the first place, we would not have Barack even thinking about governing using Leviticus becuase Jesus FULFILLED the law and the purpose of the LAW was not to save you, but to let you know how much we needed JESUS. So the next time you hear a presidential candidate say, should I govern by Leviticus or by the sayings of Jesus, you better ask him does he understand the reason Jesus came down here on EARTH. To Fulfill the law and to give us an opportunity to have a relationship with GOD without following any of the OLD Testament statutes, but simply loving GOD with all of our mind, heart and soul and treating our neighbor as ourselves.

Posted by: PBS watcher | June 26, 2008 7:28 PM

This is an excellent, thoughtful response to Dobson's chilling attacks and unchristian judgments. I would like to see Jim Wallis' article in the NYT and Washington Post and discussed on Meet the Press, etc. It deserves to be broadcast widely.

What is Dobson's biblical basis for playing God and judging the world?

Posted by: Donna Slepack | June 26, 2008 8:28 PM

I feel as though
I am stuck in a game show
spin the wheel
see how you feel
Christian or not
human or robot
If Jesus walked in front of us tomorrow
none of would know him I say with sorrow
the domino theory never happened
we should thank The Lord and count our blessings
it was because of neither side of the argument

Posted by: clarence Langford | June 26, 2008 8:41 PM

I'm very sorry to see Dr. Dobson lose his focus on family and children. He got out of his league a long time ago and it hasn't been a good thing for his listeners or for him. As Mr. Wallis said so well, there are many issues in this country that need the focus of spiritual people and of course I believe Christians especially. Like the poor, the disabled, single parent families, and on and on. It is time for my government to put energy into building our nation and its people and not tearing another nation apart with war.

Posted by: Lisa | June 26, 2008 9:05 PM

God IS love, IS love. GOD IS LOVE. So be kind, eat fruit and quit being so judgmental of each other. Arr! No one really knows what's going on...except for all the know-it-alls. Ain't it so obvious?

Posted by: David Harris | June 26, 2008 9:41 PM

Amen Jim!!!!! I just wrote to Focus on the Family yesterday trying to say this very thing (you were far more eloquent). Thanks for your honesty and for speaking up for the true gospel!

Posted by: Shannon | June 26, 2008 10:42 PM

James Dobson--with other "We are Right and EVERYONE who disagrees with US are wrong--ungodly--demonic--unAmerican--anti-christ, etc. and usually democrat or liberal" nee Republican propogandist--assume they (alone) speak for God! If someone does not agree with their agenda (see below: it is about money, sex and power!)they are dismissed with ridicule, out-of context quotations, malicious slander. The reason Dobson doesn't like McCain is because McCain does not roll over and play along for the Republican oligarchy who want to rule America as did George W. Bush, the puppet president. THE ISSUE FOR DOBSON/HANNITY/LIMBAUGH, etc. IS THREE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES WILL LIKELY BE APPOINTED DURING THE NEXT PRESIDENT'S TERM. What is ironic to me is that Dobson's "focus on the family" (sic)is also fruitcake theology. He mixes "his" Biblical rules of righteousness with his political agenda. He "cherry-picks" texts that say what he wants them to say. (I would love to have 18 minutes on FOF with my trusty KJV Bible. In fact I could just limit to the OT and have enough to fill 18 minutes of God's word for America. We could talk about the poor, the marginalized, immigration, real righteousness, war, etc. and save the words of Jesus and the NT for another day! His wife and fellow fund-raiser Shirley Dobson turned the national day of prayer (sic) into a political rally. She quoted Thomas Jefferson WHEN TJ would not even be allowed to appear on a FOF radio broadcast. Remember, he was a briliant philospher and statesman, but he was NOT a Christian, had a mulato concubine, sissored the NT with quotes he liked and ignored the rest. But JD did invite the adulterous, serial polgymist Newt Gingrich to parade his new-found righteousness because it was politically expedient--at the time he and Hannity hoped NG would be the REP presidential candidate. Poltics and religious convictions make stinky bed-fellows when the covers are pulled back. Why doesn't JD invite Dick Chaney on FOF for an enlightened discussion of being the parent of a lesbian in a committed relationship who hopes to have a child born into the relationship. Boy, that would be a family topic worth listening to.....Lots of room to talk about real love and grace and forgiveness, etc. I hope Dobson does keep the "focus" on Obama and the election. The young adults who have enthusiastically joined the "call for CHANGE" and maybe enough of the "fall into line-up at the voting booth Republicans" ARE tired of those in the "closet" like Chaney, etc. whose only interest is (their) money (KBR) sex--as the define it--and power! JV

Posted by: James Varner | June 26, 2008 11:06 PM

Thaks Jim for your honesty! I was shock to listen to Dr Dobson attack Obama in that way. He even continued the attacks the next day on Sean Hannity radio and siad he agreed with Rush Limbaugh that Obama is nothing without a teleprompter. it was so shocking to see a renown Christian leader behave that way. I do understand it was a cheap political shot. Obama has made inroads among evangelicals and Dobson is shock to see that it is happenning without him (Evangelical Icon as the media call him. I have been in the US for the past one year and am shock at how many of the Christian leaders have sold Christianity to the GOP so cheap. Given what is happenning in Iraq, the lies of the Bush administration and the Iraqis who die there. If these leaders really cared about humand life they will talk about Iraq, they will talk about the wrong politicians have done to people in other lands. God is not only the God of America! I read you article about Bill Bright, he was my hero in the faith and I even named my son after him. But I was very dissappointed a few weeks ago when I found that he signed a letter encouraging the president to attack Iran. I had come to see these leaders as beyond national boundaries, beyond politics. People who could speak to people from both camp about morality, but my dissappointment is so huge at what i am seeing here in America. I am an African Christian and missionary.

efiw@bornagain.com

Posted by: Efi | June 26, 2008 11:42 PM

Yes, I have heard most of the "G-D America" sermon. It was broadcasted on CNN (on the Glenn Beck show).

Then you would have understood what he actually said: "God damn America for thinking she's God." Any Christian knows that idolatry is a no-no.

Posted by: Rick | June 27, 2008 12:38 AM

Hey Al N,

If you are going to question my credibility like you did when you said:
There goes your credibility, Payshun. You do more to advance racial reconciliation when you go to the restroom -- because at least then you're not HARMING racial relations, like Wright is doing!

Then at least know who you are talking to and what integrity I have on the subject of reconciliation. Do you know who John Perkins is? You should look him up. Do you know who Brenda Saltair MacNeil is or Kevin Bleu or... I bring these names up because they were my teachers in college and they taught me everything I know about ethnic reconciliation.

I am black man that goes to white vineyard church. I am a liberal contemplative Christian going to a conservative evangelical church. Basically based off of my lifestyle I have more integrity on reconciliation and understanding different cultures than you do.

Please read this next paragraph carefully. It's for your benefit. Before you question the work I do in that ministry (which actually involves dealing with lingering issues of racism, homophobia, sexism, ageism, classism...) maybe you should ask questions. It will make you look less ignorant. You sound more and more like a right wing fanatic than someone interested in real dialog. I hope you are not a fanatic or else this conversation is a waste of time.

When I say that Reverend Wright has done a lot to advance calling people together I can back that up. White people go to his church, interns from different colleges do inner city missions at his church and they learn a lot. There is another story about how a black woman was not going to marry a white man because of his race and the baggage that comes with that. He talked her into it and they are still together today. So maybe you should read the whole sermon or pay attention to more than a sound bite before you use words that are too big for you.

You made a claim that he's racist. I proved he's not. You made a claim that I lack credibility when the truth is I have more credibility than you do. So in the future before you post something try coming in with an open mind.

Thanks.

p

Posted by: Payshun | June 27, 2008 2:38 AM

I've been to conferences and talks by Jim Wallis, Bill Hybels, and others, I've heard James Dobson on the radio for years and years.... I've been through 9 years of BSF, 2 years of CBS, have had an amazing home group Bible Study for 4 years and have attended Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Nazarene and Catholic churches everywhere from New York to Frankfurt to Madrid, to Rome to Australia and Los Angeles. I have read the Bible and studied it, taken course on it and discussed it.......

I have a prophetic word for all the Christian leaders and people out there today.
It is a word God gave me.

JESUS SAID WE WOULD BE KNOWN BY OUR LOVE!

Remember the song?

"They will know we are Christians by our Love,
by our Love
They will know that we are Christians
by our Love."

Especially LOVE for each other!

Love facilitates Unity.

This is why Christianity is falling apart in our world. Christian leaders can't even be in unity with each other much less the people.
The world is only growing. Unity will continue to become harder as our diverse population grows. Only sticking with the Bible as the Word of God will we be able to manage and even then, only for a time. The Bible is clear that the end times won't be good times for Christians. Only truly spirit-filled people will be able to attain that unity in love and it will be hard for them to have the faith, self-discipline and strength to keep it up. But it is certainly worth fighting for. Pray for it with all your might!
I pray Wallis and Dobson and everyone else would just all work on their strengths, and commend the other on their strengths. James Dobson does great work on the Family....Jim Wallis does wonderful work in Social Justice. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. We should stick with our strengths.
Dobson should be thrilled someone is working toward Social Justice, because it's not what Dobson wants to do. Wallis should be thankful that Dobson works on Family....because Wallis isn't interested in that. That would make so much more sense. And it would create a Unity in Christian leadership that people could admire and look up to and follow! Doesn't everyone know that God picks the leaders of Nations anyway. He gives us just what we deserve or need for the times we have gotten ourselves into.(Remember Constantine?) Dobson doesn't need to influence people on that and neither does Wallis. People should make up there own minds without being told by their spiritual leaders how to vote. Jesus didn't tell people how to vote. Jesus told people to:
LOVE GOD WITH EVERYTHING YOU'VE GOT AND LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF!
Jim W. and Jim D...who is your neighbor?
Jesus was compassionate as well as strongly anti sin.....can't we at least try to be like that?
We are supposed to try to be Christ-like, aren't we? Is it so hard to be both against sin and yet be compassionate about it...not judging, but loving?

I hope and pray this prophetic word will get to those who need to hear it.

God wants us to be loving, and in unity with our fellow and neighbor Christians. It was THE sign of being Christian in earlier days. Not many fit that image today.
If we could only work on that..and leave the rest alone.
Dobson and others in Christian leadership wonder why they are not getting the money they need for their ministries..I get at least 15-20 letters a week begging me for money, saying it isn't coming in like it was before...... I will only give to those leaders I believe are compassionate, loving and just to their neighbors. I look for leaders who don't promote themselves and put others down.

Maybe you are getting less money because you leaders are getting off track. Jim Dobson..do what you do best.....family stuff and be grateful for someone else working on Social Justice. Jim Wallis, do your best on Social Justice ,and be glad Dobson is taking care of families. Then I'm betting you, the funds will come rolling back in. Because then you will be doing what you are gifted at and also God's work.
And stop worrying so much about gay unions. God says it's not right clearly!... let HIM convict those gays who want to be Christ-like and are still in gay relationships. God can do it with the compassion we as humans don't seem to be able to muster up.

We already pronounce it wrong in churches and on radio all the time. We humans..who'd rather hang, lynch or drag gays behind cars to kill them. Why don't we do that with sex offenders and fornicators and adulterers then. Is their sin any less than the other? God said they were all the same....enough to get us that ticket to hell.
Even one sin. Even telling a lie!
Those gays who aren't Christians can hear the word and make their own decision. All we are to do is preach the Word, and believe me, it IS preached...worldwide! Just about anyone that wants to hear it, can hear it!
It won't ruin marriage and family(I promise you)
if we allow gays to decide their sex lives for themselves. Most of them know the Word of God...believe you me....some know it better than heterosexual Christians. Let them live in their sin till they figure it out. We allow divorced people to remarry and don't try to get them to obey the law that they can't do that?! Why not?
Family and Marriage will only disappear as we know them if Christian leadership doesn't get their act together and act lovingly and with unity.
God Bless America (if He still can!)
vicki

Posted by: vicki | June 27, 2008 7:22 AM

Thanks, Jim, for your insight. You are totally right. Dobson is a psychologist and he can't recognize his own narcissistic personality disorder. Sad. Poor man needs professional help. Here are my problems with Dobson and others of his ilk: (1) They presume to speak for Christians. They do not speak for anyone other than themselves. (2) They are self-righteous to an extreme degree, a trait Jesus condemned over and over. (3) They are filled with hatred for their fellow man rather than love as Jesus taught. (4) They obviously think Christ did not mean it when he said we are not to judge others.

So very, very sad that so many of my Christian brothers and sisters define their religion by abortion, homosexuality, and war. Christ had nothing to say about the first two and was not exactly fond of the last. Yes, I know what the Old Testament says about homosexuality, but it reads that God hates the practice, not the practioner. Dr. Dobson, do you love homosexuals? Do you love the woman who has an abortion, leaving it to someone else to cast the first stone? Do you remember what Jesus said about turning the other cheek and loving others as he loves us?

Posted by: Floyd Edwards | June 27, 2008 8:22 AM

Here continues the document from the Trinity website taken off last fall:

The Black Value System

These Black Ethics must be taught and exampled in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect the following concepts:

Commitment of God
"The God of our weary years" will give us the strength to give up prayerful passivism and become Black Christian Activist, soldiers for Black freedom and the dignity of all humankind.

Commitment to the Black Community
The highest level of achievement for any Black person must be a contribution of substance to the strength and continuity of the Black of the Black Community.

Commitment to the Black Family
The Black family circle must generate strength, stability, and love despite the uncertainty of externals, because these characteristics are required if the developing person is to withstand warping by our racist competitive society.

Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
We must forswear anti-intellectualism. Continued survival demands that each Black Person be developed to the utmost of his/her mental potential despite the inadequacies of the formal education process. "Real education" fosters understanding of ourselves as well as every aspect of our environment. Since the majority of Blacks have been denied such learning, Black Education must include elements that provide high school graduates with marketable skills, a trade or qualifications for apprenticeships, or proper preparation for college.

Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect

We must be a community of self-disciplined persons, if we are to actualize and utilize our own human resources instead of perpetually submitting to exploitation by others.

Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"

Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must keep the captive ignorant educationally, but trained sufficiently well to serve the system. Also, the captors must be able to identify the "talented tenth" of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor's control.

Those so identified as separated from the rest of the people by:

Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.

Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.

Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of "we" and "they" instead of "us."

So, while it is permissible tochase "middle-incomeness" withall our might, we must avoid the third separation method-the psychological entrapment of Black "middleclassness": If we avoid the snare, we will also diminish our "voluntary" contributions to methods A and B. And more importantly, Black people no longer will be deprived of their birthright, the leadership, resourcefulness, and example of their own talented persons.

The final part of "The Black Value System" from the Trinity website will be posted in my next post.

Posted by: contending | June 27, 2008 9:02 AM

Bravo, Jim ! You are correct as usual. Keep fighting the good fight. May God richly bless your ministry.
Peace -

Posted by: jill | June 27, 2008 10:18 AM

I agree with Jim Wallis on the issues he is raising. I personally am sick and tired of people, especially the so-called Religious Right, twisting and taking out of context the statements and optionions of persons in political races in an effort to tear them down or raise their own candidate up based solely on false information.

How many people during the '04 presidential race said that George W was "God's candidate"? As though God's will is solely dependent on our political process. And look how that turned out. Bush is a moron to put it mildly.

I watched the Sojourner's speech Barack gave not long after it was posted on the internet. It was this same speech that got me excited about this man and I can say that anyone with a reasonable amount of sense, and a rational mind not clouded by partisan politics, would be able to see in Barack a strong, intelligent, God-fearing man.

also, in repluy to the following post:

Posted by: Don | June 25, 2008 11:56 AM

B.H. Obama is NOT a "fellow Christian"! In his 2004 debate with Alan Keyes, he said, "If I had the opportunity to talk to Jesus Christ, I'd be asking something much more important than this senate race. I'd want to know whether I was going up or down, uh, there are all sorts of questions I think I'd be interested in. Uh, look, I'm very proud of my Christianity." (You can go to YouTube and search for "Keyes-Obama debate 2 (Christianity)" to hear this from BH's own lips).

Sorry, but a true Christian KNOWS the status of his/her salvation! (emphasis mine)

Posted by: Don | June 25, 2008 11:56 AM
(end post quote)
---

What Obama OBVIOUSLY means is that if he were to talk to Christ, face to face, he would have more important things to talk about than partisan politics or whether he would win a Senate race. To talk to Christ about their relationship would be much more important. How is it you can't see that?

Posted by: David T | June 27, 2008 11:37 AM

To Al N,

I think you are sadly mistaken if you think your belief has saved you. Of if your born again experience has saved you. Or if your baptism has saved you. Or if your knowledge of scripture has saved you. Christ alone has saved you.

I'm afraid, Al N, that the strength of your faith has become the idol that you worship. You hold your own born again experience on a pedestal.

Your challenge (and mine) is to give up your false trust in your beliefs, your experience, your baptism and your knowledge. You should be thankful for them, to be sure. You should rejoice in them. But remember it's easy for us to worship our own belief and to become too proud of our own born again experience and knowledge of scripture.

Forget trusting in the parts of your Christianity that come from you. The day will come when your belief is challenged, when your faith fails, your experience changes and your knowledge proves inadequate. At that time, you will be left to trust in nothing more than Christ Himself.

Posted by: Paul | June 27, 2008 11:49 AM

"And many defending Obama's form of Christianity. I'm willing to bet my house that at the end of his Presidency (because I am quite sure he will be elected in the fall) we won't be nearly as sure of his Christianity."

With all due respect, I'll take that bet on. Our local shelter could use another house. You have said it and I/they thank you.

Elizabeth Daniele

Posted by: Elizabeth Daniele | June 27, 2008 12:01 PM

MDN and Erik:

Thank you both, for the request and for further ideas.

My faith aids my ethical deliberations: yes, "...anything can become "moral" or "immoral."
An ethical approach to decision-making is more challenging than is a MORAL path: one must look beyond the herd, beyond contemporary customs.

MDN, I read these discussions very slowly, as I stumble over the concept 'moral.' Very seldom do I understand the writer to mean 'right,' 'good,' or 'appropriate.' My task would be easier if writers were comfortable in distinguishing between 'better' and 'customary.'

It is my perception that Dr. Dobson is an ethicist. His life experiences, education, introspection, and analysis inform his ethical consideration of contemporary issues. He seems secure in judging others' actions, basing his distinctions on sound, logical arguments, given his faith-based ethics.

Posted by: john | June 27, 2008 12:18 PM

I have great difficulty in seeing Dr. Dobson and Focus on the Family as ethical in light of the material I have quoted below. If you want the source, you can create a search using a few of the more unusual words in the text. I believe that this story was woefully underreported.

"I had this conversation with Focus on the Family, and I said I agree with you that family breakdown is a huge crisis, a serious crisis. And I don't think the Left talks about that enough. My neighborhood is eighty percent single parent families. You can't overcome poverty with that, with eighty percent single parent families. But how do we reweave the bonds of marriage, family, extended family, and community, to put our arms around the kids? And it's not just in poor neighborhoods. Kids are falling through the cracks of fractured family in all classes and neighborhoods. So I said to them, I want to rebuild family life and relationships, but explain to me how gay and lesbian people are the ones responsible for all that? which is what their fund-raising strategy suggests. And after about an hour and a half they conceded the point. They said, Okay ***, we concede that family breakdown is caused much more by heterosexual dysfunction than by homosexuals. But then they said, We can't vouch for our fundraising department, which says a lot, I think."

In my system of ethics, once you are so convinced of the 'rightness' of your on position that you believe that the ends justify the means, i.e., that you are justified in attacking others when you admit to yourself that your attack is perhaps misplaced, just because it brings in significant funds for program, you have lost your moral compass, you can no longer be confident that you are going in the right direction.

Posted by: baumgrenze | June 27, 2008 1:09 PM

"In my system of ethics, once you are so convinced of the 'rightness' of your on position that you believe that the ends justify the means, i.e., that you are justified in attacking others when you admit to yourself that your attack is perhaps misplaced, just because it brings in significant funds for program, you have lost your moral compass, you can no longer be confident that you are going in the right direction."

Perfect- thank you.

Elizabeth Daniele

Posted by: Elizabeth Daniele | June 27, 2008 1:28 PM

Dave2,
I also apologize for insulting you. I was SO anxious to reemphasize what an haughty, arrogant elitist that Barack H Obama is -- that I used that to insult you. I was right about Obama, but not in what I said about you.

To address your question: On second thought, YES, you are right! I truly can think of some people who have never had the classic born-again moment experience, but they are LIVING out all of the tenets of what being born-again means. Yes, those people are likely Christians. I stand corrected.

On the other hand, my point remains: Jim Wallis should NOT have called Barack H Obama a "fellow Christian", not when he (BHO) himself is unsure from moment to moment of his salvation status.

Want more evidence? In a 4/5/2004 speech, Obama said: "I’m rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are MANY PATHS to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people." Many paths?? In John 14:6, Jesus said there is only ONE path:
"I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME."

Further: "During a campaign stop in Greensboro, North Carolina, Senator Obama told the audience that he believes he “can have everlasting life” because Jesus Christ died for his sins. But he then told a questioner that he believes Jews and Muslims who live moral lives are just as much “children of God” as he is. The Illinois Democrat added that his late mother didn’t share his faith but was a kind and generous person, so he’s “sure she’s in heaven.”" (AP, 3/27/2008)

I guess all that's required for salvation is being "kind and generous". Dobson is looking better and better as a critic of Obama's theology, isn't he?

Posted by: Al N | June 27, 2008 1:39 PM

Al N,

I am going to make this simple.

You said:
I guess all that's required for salvation is being "kind and generous". Dobson is looking better and better as a critic of Obama's theology, isn't he?

Luke 10:25
25And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

26And He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?"

27And he answered, "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

28And He said to him, "You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE."

Nowhere in those verses did Jesus say that he was the only way. When he did say that he was talking to a bunch of Jews in a private or group setting. Samaritans and Romans never heard the message you preach now until others went out to them.

Adam all the way down to Malachi never heard the gospel that leads to salvation. Are you telling me that Adam or Ezekiel or Samuel are not in Heaven because they never heard or believed something different? I realize we have Christian tradition saying that Jesus went to Gehenna where they slept and liberated them but the truth is a little bit more complicated.

If the transfiguration stands that would mean that Elijah and Moses were alive with God before Jesus died. God will save and do whatever he wants whenever he wants. That's why liberal Christians and Fundamentalists disagree. The major outcome of that argument is that you all question his salvation while he doesn't question yours. Al N I am going to say this again. You are not fit to judge his heart. Besides that you are starting to sound really self righteous.

p

Posted by: Payshun | June 27, 2008 2:05 PM

Posted by: Don | June 27, 2008 1:21 PM

'...on Rev. Wright's "God D**n America"...'

As a conservative white male - a few months ago on this site I said something simular as the Rev Wright. I said that I was about ready to start praying that God would remove his blessing on the US and allow us to be a occupied nation. (damning us to being controled by an outside entity) Sorta like what Rev Wright was asking. I was so vilified by many on this site it was amazing. Now Rev Wright says more of less the samething and he is lauded for his take on the US.

The 'right' gets it wrong and the 'left' gets it!

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | June 27, 2008 2:59 PM

David:

No problem; you didn't need to apologize. I wasn't offended, I just didn't want someone else to come across your comment and think that I had actually written that.

I think your right about the shouting match. It's probably a good thing that this thread has been archived.

Don

Posted by: Don | June 27, 2008 6:46 PM

Ronald Reagan said when addressing issues during his campaign, “Here they go again.” So, Mr. Wallis, here you go again concerning Dr. James Dobson. Mr. Wallis, you have stated that you desire an open and honest debate on all issues. Is not this political season worth debating ideas? After all, a person values and beliefs are how one views the world, either through secular eyes or through religious eyes. So we are not allowed to question and comment on a candidate’s values and beliefs? This is what Dr. Dobson has done.

You have stated that Dr. Dobson’s language “is simply inappropriate for religious leaders to use in an already divisive political campaign.” I find that strange coming from you. Do you say that because no religious leaders should interject an opinion during any kind of political campaign, because they are religious? Then my question to you is: Why is it OK for you to inject your political/religious views during this “divisive” political year? (This is my opinion, not a charge or accusation.)

Your make broad statements and assumption regarding Dr. Dobson reasons for speaking out against Mr. Obama’s Biblical and constitutional statements. Your statements like: he is “insinuating himself into this presidential campaign…” So you are saying that in some indirect or covert way, he is trying to influence the outcome of this election? Isn’t that what debate is about? Isn’t that what an opinion is about? So, my next question to you Mr. Wallis is: Why do you “insinuate” yourself in this presidential campaign?

Mr. Wallis, you have made many statements regarding the conservative/religious/right people that are very inflammatory. If you don’t believe me, read your books. I understand that you are very passionate about the values you hold dear, and that is great! Yet, when someone who is just as passionate and combines that passion with sound ideas and thoughts regarding issues you do not agree with, then the Evangelical conservatives become disrespectable and not civil. That is like saying “Because I am the boss, so do what I say.” In other words, you have no sound counter argument to give.

Mr. Wallis, you have stated that the conservative Evangelicals only care about two issues – abortion and marriage. You view Dr. Dobson as one of these evangelical. Have you ever visited his web site? God has called him to the ministry concerning the family – and this includes abortion, marriage, poverty, AIDS, as well as others. These issues affect the family. His focus is on the family – read his web site. Just as you are focus on other issues does not mean you are forgetting the issues that Dr. Dobson believes are just as important.

On the issue of abortion, you state that you desire, “a serious commitment for a dramatic abortion reduction…” Again my question to you: Why do you desire to reduce the murder rate, and abortion is the willful murder of the unborn. What can I compare it to? I know. If Wilberforce believed he could not completely outlaw slavery, he then decides he would accept a reduction of slavery in the British Empire. What would be a reasonable number of slaves per ship? Per owner? What is an acceptable number? That is what you are saying regarding abortion. What would be an expectable number of abortions that will satisfied the American people? So, if all you want is a reduction of abortion, what happened to the “least of these” which is in red letters.

I have been trained in theology, and I have read Mr. Obama’s speech, and he does distort what the Bible says. I do not believe he has a grasp on the US Constitution as well. He is a danger to the values that the American people hold dear (an opinion not an accusation).

Posted by: Colen "pep"Poeppelmeyer | June 27, 2008 10:47 PM

May I suggest a quick search for the string "jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme." What follows should be obvious.

Posted by: baumgrenze | June 28, 2008 6:39 PM

Thank you so much for this honest take on Dr. James Dobson's. For years he has had so much to say about so many things-most of which is condemning and divisive. Yet, while many disagree with him, few have acknowledged that he is a child psychologist, not a political analyst or a theologian. It's about time. Thank you.

Posted by: karla | June 29, 2008 12:14 PM

Let me get this straight. Dobson shouldn't be inserting himself into "partisan politics". But YOU should.

That's really all I need to know. Thanks but no, thanks.

Posted by: Mister Snitch | June 29, 2008 9:22 PM

While I'm not accusing him of lying (because it's not an outright lie), but Jim Wallis' statement that "I haven't endorsed a candidate" is very, very disingenuous. Does anyone on this board have any doubts that Wallis not only adores Barack H Obama -- but that the two of them are personal friends? Was Wallis EVER said anything that it less-than-glowing about BH Obama? How many times has Jim showed up at one of Obama's speeches -- or vice versa, how many times has Obama shown up for one of Wallis' conferences? When he gets a chance to ask a question of Obama, has he ever thrown anything but a "fat softball" question? Does anyone have ANY doubts whom Jim Wallis is enthusiastically supporting in this election?

Come clean, Jim, admit your adoring devotion to Senator Obama! That way when you comment on him, his critics, or McCain -- we'll know why.

Posted by: Al N | June 30, 2008 11:56 AM

James Dobson needs to get over himself. It goes along with this single issue politics B.S. Focus On The Family is trying to feed people. James Dobson is just pissed off because he knows Obama is going to be our next president and isnt perfect (or lack of perfectionism) like George Dubya Bush.

Posted by: Tom | July 1, 2008 4:08 AM

Al N,

This last post was possibly your best, most reasoned post on this thread. You're right God has the right and the might to be pretty unforgiving of the great sins we do commit here. You're right that we can't push abortion and pornography and still expect God's good favor. As Jim Wallis would point out here, the same goes for anytime we neglect the wellbeing of our brothers and sisters. You're right that Rev. Wright went too far in seeming to ask God for punishment and damnation. He can certainly trust that we'd all be there if it weren't for the cross and the resurrection. I encourage you to also listen to Obama's soundbites of the times he says how much he loves Amaerica and how his story could only be possible in this great nation. His heart and mind are complex like yours and mine. He isn't perfect, but he is a man through whom God is working in the world.

I pray that you (and everyone posting here, including myself) will be blessed abundantly with humility and grace.

Posted by: Paul | July 1, 2008 12:59 PM

I don't think any one politician can be a uniter. Certainly none of them are nonpartisan. And I don't really think there's any such thing as post-racial. Any of those things would require every one of us to suddenly ditch our differences and prejudices, love each other unconditionally and see the real and absolute truth that transends all of our opinions and beliefs. (I think I just described a situation in which we all wind up in Heaven at the same time!)

I think we, the American people, have to make the best of our differences. For me, that's the message I get from Obama.

No, I don't think you and I know each other. I'm just one of your brothers in Christ, now logging out of this long and winding blog thread.

Posted by: Paul | July 1, 2008 6:04 PM