Here's an AP article I read the other day. I will quote excerpts to give some context to this blog. For the full article, please visit:
"http://ap.google.com/articleALeqM5gnLulDbwWGYGLiXlDW5hPiNMGMRQD91G3VJ80"

------------------------------------------------------------

"As Barack Obama broadens his outreach to evangelical voters, one of the movement's biggest names, James Dobson, accuses the likely Democratic presidential nominee of distorting the Bible and pushing a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution.

The criticism comes shortly after an Obama aide suggested a meeting at the organization's headquarters here, said Tom Minnery, senior vice president for government and public policy at Focus on the Family. The conservative Christian group provided The Associated Press with an advance copy of the pre-taped radio segment, which runs 18 minutes and highlights excerpts of a speech Obama gave in June 2006 to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal. Obama mentions Dobson in the speech.

"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?" Obama said. "Would we go with James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?" referring to the civil rights leader.

Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy — chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application." "Folks haven't been reading their Bibles," Obama said.

Dobson and Minnery accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus' teachings in the New Testament. "I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said. "... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."

Joshua DuBois, director of religious affairs for Obama's campaign, said in a statement that a full reading of Obama's speech shows he is committed to reaching out to people of faith and standing up for families. "Obama is proud to have the support of millions of Americans of faith and looks forward to working across religious lines to bring our country together," DuBois said.

Dobson reserved some of his harshest criticism for Obama's argument that the religiously motivated must frame debates over issues like abortion not just in their own religion's terms but in arguments accessible to all people. He said Obama, who supports abortion rights, is trying to govern by the "lowest common denominator of morality," labeling it "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."

"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?" Dobson said. "What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe."

------------------------------------------------------------

First let me say, this is an AP article summarizing comments made by Obama, and then subsequent reactions by Dobson. As it is a summary, these words could be taken out of context or misunderstood, I recognize this and so this blog is only in reference to the comments as I read them in this article. I don't get paid to do this yet, so I didn't collect the tapes of the original Obama speech or the Dobson radio program. That being said, I will begin.

There seems to be one main issue which Obama raised in these comments, namely:

"How are we as Christians supposed to live in America with regard to government and politics, recognizing that much of the country is not Christian, and even among those calling themselves Christians, there is wide divergence?"

The reason Obama is raising these questions seems to be clear, namely that it is NOT clear Biblically that there is an explicitly "right" way to approach government and the creation of laws inside a nation, Christian or otherwise! Saying that we as Christians ought to make laws "according to the Bible" sounds nice, but it is not at all clear to me what is meant by that.

The other issue that Obama raises is regarding how differences in opinion - such as whether or not abortion ought to be legal should be approached by Christians when arguing in a public format (of course, some non-Christians believe abortion should be illegal, and some Christians believe it should be legal). This is valid I believe, and is not recommending, as
Dobson has stated, that we must govern by the "lowest common denominator of morality", but is rather saying that there are wise and unwise ways of presenting an argument to someone.

In the case of a "pro-lifer" arguing against abortion to a "pro-choice" audience, it seems wise that the former ought to be able to understand what the beginning worldview of his audience is, and make some connection with it! If your only arguments against abortion hinge entirely on the belief for instance that God exists, you will not make connection with an audience who doesn't believe in a God. It would be wise to find common ground on which to argue politically. This doesn't mean you are giving up what you believe, it means you are being wise with your energy! I would say the biggest issues of contention between the pro-life and pro-choice positions on abortion are 1.) Whether or not the baby is a fully-valuable human being before it is born, and at what point does it become so...and 2.) How does the value of the unborn baby compare against the right of a woman to do what she wants with her body?

As harsh as this summary sounds (because I believe abortion IS murder, that life begins at some point I am not sure of and therefore it's best to play it safe (i.e., at conception)), it seems wise to confront the issue with someone who doesn't believe as I do with the above two points. The alternative might leave me simply yelling "murder!" at someone who doesn't believe an unborn baby is fully human, therefore there is no valuable connection between us! The alternative is saying that people who believe abortion should be legal are all bloodthirsty, who value the right to convenience over the life of a human being they are responsible for. I think there are some people who actually believe this, but probably far more misunderstand the actuality of abortion. I think what Obama is saying is that in situations like this, we who believe it's wrong would be wise to argue it in a way that CAN be argued by those who disagree.

Abortion is not an ideal topic, considering Obama's comments were aimed at Christians, not at pro-life advocates. Homosexual rights is a FAR more applicable situation, an issue in which Christians are hard-pressed in my opinion to find Biblical (or other) reasons why a non-Christian government presiding over a mainly non-Christian country ought to force non-Christians to adhere to Christian laws! But many Christians such as Dobson are far from lacking the energy to fight against equal rights for Homosexual marriages! (and since when did the American legal system decide what marriage really was?! Just a thought...) Someone has made the point to me: "the law against murder is in the Bible too!" And it is, but I believe the law as presented in the Bible is mainly to show people the impossibility of attaining righteousness, and subsequently to lead them to faith in Jesus Christ, the law in the Bible is not given as a rule for how all societies should form their laws!

Basically the question here is, would it be a good thing to merely transplant the law found in the Bible into United States law? Really? You remember that adulterers and homosexuals were stoned in the Old Testament law, right? Failure to think critically about this results in comments by Dobson in response to Obama, "he has a "confused theology"". Just a tip Dobson, if someone is quoting Scripture to make a point in an argument, and your response is devoid of any Scriptural reference whatsoever (and even fails to address the Scripture cited by your opponent!), but simply includes a smear (i.e., you have confused theology!)...well at the least it's a very weak argument, but at worst it confirms what Obama said! (Folks haven't been reading their Bibles...). This is disappointing to hear from Dobson, a leader in Evangelical Christianity.

I would hope to hear Dobson at least concur with Obama's simple points (uh, how WOULD Jesus run the defense department!!??), and recognize that there is validity to what he said. Instead, Dobson gets sidetracked by a reference Obama makes, comparing Dobson Christianity and Sharpton Christianity (the reason Obama referenced them together is because...get this...they are...WAAAAY DIFFERENT!! That was the point!! Not that Dobson is a white racist!! Ahh!!)

Dobson, you have as much right to argue that an unborn baby is a fully valuable human being as someone else has the right to argue that it's not. You have as much right to argue for Creationism being taught in public (uh...secular) schools as someone else has the right to argue that Evolution should be taught in public schools. You have as much right to have a document from the secular government "validating" your relationship with another person as "marriage" (with the subsequent benefits that brings) as someone else has that same right.

I really think labeling Obama's comments as a "fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution" really demands some better explanation from Dobson than ""What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe." In fact Dobson, I think it's pretty clear that's NOT what Obama is saying! Instead, it seems that Obama is recommending that Christians phrase their arguments in an effective way!! Not ignorantly!! That's different!

It seems pretty clear to me that Dobson views Obama as a completely phony Christian (I mean, he IS a democrat...), who is quoting some "popular" ideas when he talks about the sermon on the mount. Who in the above article is quoting Scripture to prove a point, and who is talking about "theology", "traditional understanding" and making all sorts of smears, from "Obama is "dragging Biblical understanding through the gutter"", to "Obama has a "fruitcake interpretation" of the constitution"?

Ok, here's a good suggestion Dobson, tell us what it means to have "appropriate" Biblical understanding of laws and government? I think the reason that's not included here is the same reason Obama asked the question, i.e. it's a really difficult question for Christians to answer!! There's NOT a simple answer to this, so why does Dobson talk as if there is?! I have tremendous respect for a political leader, who, while talking to Christians, asks these types of questions instead of simply "satisfying" them that he'll appoint good judges, keep homosexuals from having the same rights as heterosexuals, and do other "Christian" things...while avoiding asking the crucial question which should be asked in the first place!

Christians, now is the time, more than ever, to be VERY cautious how we live as Christians in society. There is a MINORITY of (professing) Christians in America, we ought to more than anything preach the gospel. The only real hope of change in the world is not top down through laws (and I'm not saying we shouldn't fight for good laws), but bottom up...person after person being changed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, so that they don't want to practice homosexuality or kill their babies! The world will know us by our love for one another, not by the intensity with which we oppose homosexuality in the public sphere! If we spent half the energy we do arguing politics actually praying for the country and preaching the gospel...who knows?

As it is, many people are pre-hardened against Christianity because of Christians who are condemning non-Christians...but it's not a loving application of the law which leads them to Jesus! We just want a cleaner society! Maybe the biggest reason is that we just don't want to hang out with homosexuals at all, and we certainly don't want our kids being exposed to non-Christian behavior. I mean, it's ok if our kids are exposed to non-Christians...so long as they are acting like Christians. Wait. That is jacked logic. But seriously, it's how many Christians think about the non-Christians in America. I think some Christians would be happy if it were simply made illegal for Homosexuals to have civil unions or marriage certificates. I mean, who cares what happens to them...so long as homosexuality doesn't become rampant...

So, we must think a lot.

To do this, dialogue is helpful, and I would appreciate any comments you have.

Zachary