So, I finally listened to the whole broadcast today (life interrupted blogging — I had to have surgery yesterday) and can finally respond more fully. I also got a chance to read the comments and noticed that we were pretty much in agreement with Obama and that Dobson blew it, except an occasional commenter like ZZ (sorry, ZZ) who thinks that Obama’s comments limit Christians articulating the reason for their position:
Another way to interpret Obama’s words would be: “You religious people haven’t yet given a totally atheistic argument for what you want, so sit down and shut up”. If we WERE to come up with totally secular reasons for everything, he’d probably say “Since there’s a secular argument for everything, why talk about God at all?”
Tetrius’ comment came the closest to my position (not surprising since he is Reformed 
The city of God and the city of man are separate kingdoms. God’s ordained human government to execute temporal justice, and we should vote for people for office who will uphold justice and keep government’s power within its proper sphere.
We have got to eschew the temptation to try to force the kingdom of God on a world dead in sin through the force of law. Law doesn’t regenerate hearts dead in sin! It can only serve to illustrate our sinfulness before a holy God and our helplessness, pointing us to Christ.
I wish Dobson, et al., would spend more time preaching Christ and Him crucified and less time manipulating an imaginary political chessboard.
One of the reasons I started Reformed Chicks was issues like this where a public Christian figure makes a statement that doesn’t reflect my views but is taken as if this is what the Christian right believe. Not everyone who is a conservative Christian holds to Dobson’s view of Christianity or politics. Dobson is not my spokesman and never will be. I’ll speak for myself, thank you very much. And I was annoyed that I couldn’t do so yesterday when it was more timely because of my surgery. I started writing a post but ran out of time before I had to leave for the hospital, so I did what I could and let you guys have first crack at commenting on the story for a change.
I can understand where ZZ is coming from but I don’t think that’s what Obama’s saying at all. I think what he’s saying is that since we live in a pluralistic society we have to be prepared to persuade those who don’t hold our views with other arguments, ones that make sense to them.
We have been abundantly clear on life issues. Who doesn’t know that we believe that abortion is wrong because we believe that life is sacred? Who hasn’t heard the term, “sanctity of human life?” We believe that man was created in the image of God and therefore our life has worth. But if we want to persuade society beyond our own people, then we have to couch the argument in secular language as well, not instead of but in addition to, that’s just common sense. Otherwise we are preaching to the choir and not generating larger support.
As I listened to Dobson I couldn’t help but wonder if he listened to the same speech that I listened to. Dobson distorts Obama’s position when he says this:
“Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?” he asked. “What he’s trying to say here is, unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe.
“What the senator is saying there, in essence, is that ‘I can’t seek to pass legislation, for example, that bans partial-birth abortion, because there are people in the culture who don’t see that as a moral issue,’ ” Dobson said. “And if I can’t get everyone to agree with me, than it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that I find offensive to the Scripture. Now, that is a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.”
Obama has never said that religion shouldn’t be part of the public debate. According to Jim Wallis:
Contrary to Dobson’s charge, Obama was very strong in defending the right and necessity of people of faith bringing their moral agenda to the public square, and was specifically critical of many on the left and in his own Democratic Party for being uncomfortable with religion in politics.
Obama said that religion is and has always been a fundamental and absolutely essential source of morality for the nation, but also said that “religion has no monopoly on morality,”
It was at Wallis’ event that Obama gave the speech that Dobson found so offensive.
And I know that Dobson had a problem with this:
And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.
But his response was another distortion of Obama’s position by claiming that Obama thinks he’s a religious authority and is distorting the Bible:
“I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology,” Dobson said, adding that Obama is “dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.”
Obama is clearly just using these as examples of how hard it is to use the Bible to set public policy. Making this a test of Obama’s biblical understanding is ludicrous.
Obama’s response to Dobson’s comments:
“Someone would be pretty hard pressed to make that argument,” he told reporters aboard his campaign plane. “It is a speech that affirms the role of faith not just in my life but in the life of the American people, that suggests that we make a mistake by trying to push faith out of the public square.”
“I do make the argument that it’s important for folks like myself, who think faith is important, that we try to translate some of our concerns into universal language so we can have open and vigorous debate rather than having religion divide us,” Obama said. “And I do suggest that the separation of church and state is important. But there’s no, no theological work being done in that speech in terms of the Bible.”
“I have no idea what he’s referring to. Anybody who’s read that speech will tell you that I extol the need for people with religious faith to express their views in the public square, and I don’t interpret the Bible in the ways he’s referring to,” Obama said.
“Either he didn’t read the speech or he’s just trying to score political points, and either way, I don’t think it’s a particularly useful way to talk about these issues”
Obama is right to try to move the discussion beyond religious terms since this is not a Christian nation, there is no such thing as a Christian nation and Christians more than anyone else should understand that fact because Christ told us his kingdom is not of this world:
ESV John 18:36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”
BTW, just an aside but Jesus doesn’t sound like much of a pacifist here, does he?
posted June 25, 2008 at 5:38 pm
It is probably a mistake for Obama to even engage Dobson. He should just laugh him off and have is subordinates use the line “Wasn’t he the fellow who got bent over Spongebob Squarepants?” whenever Dobson’s name is brought up in an interview.
James Dobson should be given all the respect that he deserves–none whatsoever.
posted June 25, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I see where you’re coming from Michelle, and I largely agree. But he’s talking out two sides of his mouth. On the one hand, he says religious convictions are a perfectly valid source for public policy proposals. But on the OTHER hand, he’s saying that in order to actually ARGUE for those proposals, we must find some secular argument that doesn’t require God.
One should be able to stand up in the public square and say “I propose this ordinance because I think that’s what God wants, and it’s a very bad idea to go against God’s will”. If anyone wants to disagree, fine. If there are not enough people who agree on that basis to pass a law, there will be no law.
But what should NOT happen is for someone to be shouted down with a bovine chorus of “That’s not a secular argument! You haven’t framed that in non-religious terms!” I think this suppression of dialog is the primary goal of Obama’s Democrat handlers.
I hope I’m wrong. I hope he’s actually encouraging people of faith to use more intelligent arguments than they normally do. But this is politics, and I think that’s a huge long shot.
posted June 25, 2008 at 7:31 pm
zz,
“God said so” is the same “Because I said so” cop out that parents use when our patience has been over taxed and our time expended. This doe snot work in a public forum, where the authority of God is not universally accepted or applied. What I hear Obama saying, and Michele reiterating is that it is fine to operate from a position of faith, but the proposals and legislation has to be appropriate to the secular forum. Using the smokescreen of faith statements only increases suspicion and diminishes confidence – which is why parents who over use “I said so” have less respect from their kids than ones who are able to make the time and their case.
As I have said before I think Dobson is saying these things to get media attention and justify his requests for financial support from a dwindling membership.
posted June 25, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Tetrius’ comment came the closest to my position (not surprising since he is Reformed
Happy anniversary, Tetrius.
http://psalm8410.blogspot.com/2008/06/thoughts-after-one-year-of-calvinism.html
posted June 25, 2008 at 8:47 pm
“One should be able to stand up in the public square and say “I propose this ordinance because I think that’s what God wants, and it’s a very bad idea to go against God’s will”. If anyone wants to disagree, fine. If there are not enough people who agree on that basis to pass a law, there will be no law.
But what should NOT happen is for someone to be shouted down with a bovine chorus of “That’s not a secular argument! You haven’t framed that in non-religious terms!” I think this suppression of dialog is the primary goal of Obama’s Democrat handlers.”
I don’t think that he’s saying that at all. I think that he wants people of faith to get involved in the dialog and I’ve heard him use the Sermon on the Mount for a couple of things he’s supported so I don’t think he wants to remove religion from public discourse. But I think he understands the current climate. Some can stand up and say that we should do this because it’s biblical but why should the Hindu agree to it? How about the Buddhist? Or the atheist? Do we just ignore them? One day we won’t be able to do so.
We need to learn to couch our arguments in different languages because we have to reach out to many different segments of the population to form a consensus. We aren’t going to be able to do it on our own because we are losing ground.
posted June 25, 2008 at 8:56 pm
“As I have said before I think Dobson is saying these things to get media attention and justify his requests for financial support from a dwindling membership.”
I don’t. I think he actually believes the things that he’s saying about Obama. That’s pretty clear from the passion in his voice and the way he spoke about the Bible. Dobson is a lot of things but a televangelist and doesn’t need to generate hype to get people to support him. They support him anyway because he talks about issues they care about.
posted June 25, 2008 at 10:53 pm
First off, Michele, let me say I hope you are recovering from your surgery well and that you’ll be 100% in no time. I often treat you harshly, but this time I did want to take the time to say a sincere “Get well soon” and know that you’re in my thoughts and prayers.
Now to the topic …
“Obama is right to try to move the discussion beyond religious terms since this is not a Christian nation”
Agreed on both the suggestion and the reason. I’ve been saying that ever since CNN first asked a potential Presidential candidate if he believed every word in the bible is true. In a country that ‘promises’ freedom of religion and that there shall be no religious test to hold public office, it was an unimaginably, staggeringly inappropriate question to be asking. Not that my objections made an iota of a difference. Much of the media, not just the ‘right’ wing part of it, insists on pursuing a religious debate or a debate couched in religious terms.
Be careful though, when you suggest, “We need to learn to couch our arguments in different languages”. Over on the God-o-rama blog, there’s a thread saying that Dobson and other religious conservatives can expect to be directly responded to in religious terms – something “new” (to the writer, anyway) this time around.
It ain’t “new” – religious progressives have always used ‘God talk’ – it’s just that the ‘right’ either refused to listen or our voices couldn’t be heard over the rantings of the Dobsons, the Falwells, the Swaggarts, the Perkins’s, the Reeds, the Robertsons, etc. etc. etc. (ad nauseam, imnsho).
If the right wants to “couch [their] arguments in different languages”, well, pretty much the only other language that isn’t “religious” is secular, and we all know how hard that will be for those who refuse to accept the truth you stated – the U.S. is not a Christian nation.
Not all Christians speak with the same voice on many issues.
This was a brave post on your part and you soared in my estimation because of it.
posted June 26, 2008 at 9:14 am
Michele,
Looks like we aren’t that different after all. We call it the Left and the Right hand kingdoms.
Thank you for posting this.
Dobbson unfortunatly wants to judge without being judged himself. He wants to use leviticus for things that support him, but not when they don’t. On one of the news programs he claimed to not be a theologian, but then blasted Obama for trying to be — except Obama was only saying there isn’t unanimous agreement.
I wish this didn’t happen in the Left hand Kingdom, but it does. I shake my head when anyone thinks leviticus is more important than the sermon on the mount. Both are important thats how we get the concepts of the law and the gospel.
posted June 26, 2008 at 9:23 am
“I think that he wants people of faith to get involved in the dialog”
Michelle, NOTHING in his history or voting record supports that. It’s in his speeches, and ONLY in his speeches. He’s a totally secularized academic who joined an inner city church for the street cred alone and then threw it under the bus when it became a liability. This speech reeks of something trotted out by the central speechwriting office to appease the religious kooks.
“and I’ve heard him use the Sermon on the Mount for a couple of things he’s supported”
YEAH! Things like gay marriage!
posted June 26, 2008 at 12:19 pm
What happened is that Dobson dealt himself out of the GOP with his unabashed criticism of McCain. Dobson’s not only aloof about the Bible and what Obama’s positions (see website below) are, he’s so self-absorbed that he doesn’t know when to shut up when it would be politically expedient.
A lot of folks that see legal grounds for abortion, unlike Dobson, would never opt to have one and frown on it. A lot of folks who have blown hot air against abortion would never consider adopting.
Since Dobson hasn’t started a massive adoption program or helped kids get out of foster care with his billion dollar morality gig; plus, he’s completely distorting Obama’s statements-I’m gonna put this web address back up:
http://www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com/
The problem with puritanical thought is not realizing that outlawing something doesn’t make it go away. Prohibition of alcohol was an abysmal failure.
The Old Testament actually prescribes abortion (see Numbers 5:11-29) in the case that a wife hasn’t been faithful. The reason that this is mentioned is that things like abortion, drugs, prostitution, etc. are part of the flawed human experience, and they’re even in the Bible.
We need to understand that this flawed experience is something we must acknowledge. Only after acknowledging our flawed experience and working with it can we bring God’s reality.
Legislating morality doesn’t work. The idea of it only works to fill Dobson’s wallet. We can work on ourselves, become a likeness of Christ, and shine Godly love. Yes we can!
In fact, many of the folks who’d disagree with the above part of the post would be the first to state that we are completely fallen. Being a New Ager – Lite, I’d prefer the notion that our earthly experience is more ambivalent and ambiguous.
And yes, I’d like to see heaven on earth in which no pregnancies end in termination and all kids are wanted.
Forcing women to have back alley abortions isn’t exactly compassionate. And the condemnation of single mothers has gotta end if conservative blow-hards wanna be taken seriously.
Most important, as far as abortion is concerned, unless there’s a massive adoption drive for minority babies, crack babies, AIDS babies, mentally impaired babies, etc., abortion will be a reality whether it’s outlawed or not. The legislative powers of the State don’t work towards complete enforcement.
And things like the death penalty have been pretty poor at stopping violent crime.
posted June 28, 2008 at 1:57 am
The classic Reformed position on the issue here is stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith, 19.4 that the judicial law expired with national Israel, except as “the general equity thereof may require.”
What is needed is that Dobson’s criticism of Obama need to be reworded to be more subtle and deal with Obama’s crafty word games better. For example, the excerpt from Obama provided by Dobson on the issue of discussing abortion and similar topics sounded as if Christians must translate their arguments into
secular arguments to present them. Obama did leave room for Christians to argue their morality but they had to have secular arguments. Dobson did over simplified Obama’s rather nuanced position but the essential thrust would come down to the fact that one cannot simply state abortion is wrong because God said it is wrong. One would go far in undermining the authority of scripture if scripture is not sufficient authority to speak truth in the public square.
Yes, one should always strive to communicate with nonbelievers but one can clearly and emphatically tell a pro-abortion politician that abortion is wrong because of statements in the Mosaic law about punishing those who harm a preborn child. And one would be misunderstanding the biblical view of the law stated in the WCF if they thought this violated the separation of church and state. For 19.4 the prooftexts in the PCA’s edition of the WCF cite I Cor 9:8-10 where Paul makes an argument that a particular principle is true because it is reflected in a Mosaic command.
Also, on the issue of Old Testament law vs the Sermon on the Mount, Obama distorts the classic biblical position tremendously. He assumes slavery is forbidden in principle (on what basis he does not say but I presume on the basis of comtemporary opinion) and then directly implies Old Testament law would be extremely difficult to apply today since it contains a slave code. Except for certain Theonomists, Obama is clearly attacking a straw man. Would Obama grant that an Old Testament precept is ever valid? He wants to obscure the the concept that the general equity of the OT still applies and that religious conservatives are perfectly right to apply it to homosexuality, abortion, incest, theft and other crimes committed today. My suspicion is he would want to throw doubt on scriptural commands against homosexuality and abortion by tainting them in his listeners minds with the fact they are intermixed with a slave code.
Reformed people should be spending their time defending WCF XXIII.2 from Obama’s rather offhand remark that the Sermon on the Mount requires the DOD be abolished. Obama also seems to imply that he finds Jesus’ command to abolish the Pentagon unfeasible, so he will uphold it only as some nice idea. Otherwise, he policy positions on fighting Al-Qaeda become unworkable since he does seek to pursue them and rightfully criticizes the Bush administration for not doing more to destroy Al-Qaeda. He will govern as XXIII.2 magistrate. For Jim Wallis’ crowd though he will talk in speeches as if he were a pacifist.
It is unfortunate Dobson, did not spend the time to more precisely identify Obama errors. His own somewhat dispensational response did not clearly delineate that the principles of OT laws are still binding in our day. But I would rather spend my time on criticizing Obama, who in a debate I saw talked about reaching out to evangelicals even though they would disagree with him on “choice”. It is as if Christian right disagrees with Democrats over what color cars we will be allowed to buy.
Some would say I am exaggerating Obama’s position and that he did not intend to give a lecture on the WCF and the law of God. But that is one of my main contentions with Obama’s campaign; he is willing to be sloppy with the Bible, leave room for the favorite sins the left wants to defend, and at the same time look religious and leave room for evangelicals to vote him and two more liberal Supreme Court justices to office.
posted June 28, 2008 at 2:46 pm
“First off, Michele, let me say I hope you are recovering from your surgery well and that you’ll be 100% in no time. I often treat you harshly, but this time I did want to take the time to say a sincere “Get well soon” and know that you’re in my thoughts and prayers.”
Thank you, I appreciate the sentiment and prayers. I’m doing pretty good, I’m just hopeful this is the last of the surgeries on this area of my body.
“If the right wants to “couch [their] arguments in different languages”, well, pretty much the only other language that isn’t “religious” is secular, and we all know how hard that will be for those who refuse to accept the truth you stated – the U.S. is not a Christian nation.”
I don’t think it’s hard at all. I believe that there is a very good case to be made to curtail abortions. Once Roe v. Wade has been overturned, I think we should be ready to articulate that position.
“Not all Christians speak with the same voice on many issues.
This was a brave post on your part and you soared in my estimation because of it.”
Thanks but I don’t think it was brave. It’s one that’s pretty near to my heart lately and I want to blog about it more and this gave me the chance to touch on it again.
posted June 28, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Yes, Michelle, I wish you God’s help as you recover from surgery.
In some ways Dobson never spoke for me either because I am single and he tends to make an idol of the family. Nevertheless, I would say that Dobson speaks from a Christian world view and Obama does not.
(I agree with ZZ.)
On Wednesday I saw the PBS documentary “Jesus in China.” Obama reminds me of one of the communist party hacks speaking in favor of freedom of religion.
posted June 28, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Tom, aren’t you a postmil? I find it funny that a postmil and a premil have the same view of the role of government, don’t you?