Article VI Blog

James Dobson's Thompson pronouncement is front and center for the second day in the world of religion and politics. In The Agora had a good rebuttal. And "The Wittenberg Door" Blog (for the uninitiated, "The Wittenberg Door" is a magazine that is to creedal Christians what "National Lampoon" is to society in general, although with a bit more respect) had to set aside their usual sarcasm for straight forward denunciation. But it does contain a classic line:

So, hmm. Who's left to back for president? Who can live up to Dobson's expectations?

Probably no one but Dobson himself.

Dobson's people have attempted to clarify, but in this blogger's opinion, they just make matters worse. You see, the point is religious affiliation should not be a matter of consequence when it comes to casting a vote. Dobson's statements and clarifications are pure identity politics - much as his earlier and very similar statements concerning Romney were.

Dobson, or anyone else, that is attempting to bring religious influence into politics, needs not to be talking about the religious labels of candidates - that's not how American politics works and that certainly is not the spirit of Article VI. Dobson's labeling, and bear in mind, the clarification preserves the labels, it just tries to clarify them, is the stuff of prejudice and bigotry.

Lowell: I'm afraid Dobson is sliding into self-parody. Several aspects of this story are fascinating:

1. Dobson now feels free, it seems, to pronounce whether or not a particular candidate is a Christian. I was especially fascinated by this comment in Dobson's defense, from Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger:

"We use that word—Christian—to refer to people who are evangelical Christians."

Isn't that a fairly narrow definition of "Christian," by any standard? It seems that in Dobson's lexicon, neither the Mormon Romney, the Catholic Giuliani nor the Episcopalian McCain are Christians. See what I mean by self-parody?

2. We now know that Fred Thompson is a member of the Church of Christ. On its face, that sounds pretty Christian to me. But as we have discussed here before, labels can be deceiving in this discussion. The Church of Christ subscribes to no creed but the Bible, and that alone probably results in its members' excommunication from "Christianity" as defined by the Dobsons of the world. (Irony note: Alexander Campbell, the founder of the Church of Christ, was an early, ardent, and persistent foe of Joseph Smith and the early Mormons in the U.S.)

3. Why is it that when Dobson decrees Thompson's a non-Christian, there is a great furor over whether he should make such a statement at all, but when Dobson says Evangelicals won't vote for Romney, the only result is a debate over whether his prediction is really true?

Lo makes a funny, but sadly, there are far to many who will miss the humor.

HEY! How come neither Lowell nor I are on the list?

Lowell: The Governor doesn't want to be outshone by our good looks.

The "On Faith" question this week concerns the media handling of religion. Chuck Colson said something very profound:

The difficulty when dealing with religion is that the subject is one that millions take to be deeply personal and sacred.

[…]

I’m convinced most of the difficulties arise from the media’s ignorance about Christian belief.

Because much of the press that is covering religion operates without religious conviction, religion gets reduced to labeled schools of thought instead of the deeply personal matter that it really is. But the real problem arises when so many of us that claim religious conviction, such as Dr Dobson above, fall into the press' habit of treating religion as a label. In the political world this only breeds division where cooperation should hold sway, and it reinforces the press's misunderstanding of us.

Then there is this Washington Times op-ed about stereotyping, its sneaky. Note something:

There's a strong argument that Mr. Romney's faith would not ultimately be a mortal wound, even among the Baptists, Methodists and Pentecostals in the South . . . .

While saying Romney can overcome Mormon stereotypes, Suzanne Fields reinforces the "intolerance stereotype" in both certain denominations and a region. Bit of a Catch-22 here don't you think? We cannot tolerate attacks on Romney's religion without encouraging them on our own.

Labels can be useful, but it is limited. Labels like Mormon, Baptist, Pentecostal are very useful in a seminary, where such things describe ecclesiastical unions bound in part by theological systems. But politics and elections have little or nothing to do with ecclesiastical unions or, at least directly, theological systems. In such circumstances the labels are more than stereotypical, they are prejudicial.

Lowell: Finally, reader Randy Zernzach submits the following thoughtful comment:

As a former Roman Catholic now LDS, I was once buried in anti-LDS polemic literature - and it was truly suffocating! As I follow this election, I see many of the "old plays" in a new game and with new players. I have learned at least this much–be careful criticizing the doctrines or founding miracles of another faith. Everyone who holds a faith dear has feet of clay. Every faith's "founding whoppers" can be targeted, its doctrines criticized by others. The clever argument you think today is invincible can be turned and directed at your faith in a blink.

Amen. And, we might add, the attack on another candidate's religion can be turned on your own candidate in a blink.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | No Comments yet » | Print this post | Email This Post