Kurt: I see what you are saying, but if people are getting married so they can have sex (and I’m sure that’s true), then I wonder that the divorce rate isn’t even higher. I believe that the sexual appetite is overinflamed by our culture, so that by the time people reach marrying age, their libido has become a raging monster that they will do anything to satisfy. We are fed a steady diet of sex in all the ways that our culture communicates, (radio, TV, movies, magazines, pop tart boxes, etc).

Not that often do I recommend Dr. Macarthur as expressing my understanding of something, but this two message series on “The Christian In A Pagan Society” has some real value in this discussion. And if you read the intros, I will bet you dollars to donuts he was talking about Dobson and Falwell. I will wager that Macarthur sensed that these guys were wrong in the way they were seeking to make the church a political force.

Part 1
Part 2

The Intro to Part 1 is especially relevant. Yes….it has the ring of an extreme kind of fundamentalism and rejection of the social application of the Gospel, and I don’t want to affirm some kind of compartmentalized Gospel. (I think the Gospel has political implications.) But I do want to show that not everyone has affirmed the Dobson approach, and while Macarthur might be rejecting too much at times, I think the focus that the CHURCH is an alternative community is very sound.

How does the church change the culture? Politics? Or transformation of the indiviudual…and the alternative cultures that come out of the Gospel?

Read the following selection to see how he presents this. As I said, it isn’t my way of saying it, but it is a far cry from Dobson.

More »« Less

Bill: My take is that Phillip’s saying that people, if they are attracted to the opposite sex, will eventually find a way to satisfy their appetites, be they married or no. Married people don’t ‘behave’ any more than singles do. The point is that married people don’t have to. Humans in general are poor at behaving themselves.

It’s that whole, “But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion” thing.

Can we define “burn with passion” as anybody who has regular sexual desires? As in, 99.9% of us?

Phillip: The reason, I think, that there is a stigma attached to unmarried people is that so many unmarried people fall into the same pattern of behaviors and attitudes that are generally alleviated by marriage.

Can you elaborate on this? Are married people generally better behaved than singles?

No amount of falls will really undo us if we keep picking ourselves up each time. We shall, of course, be very muddy and tattered children by the time we reach home. But the bathrooms are all ready, the towels are put out, and the clean clothes are airing in the cupboard. The only fatal thing is to lose one’s temper and give it up. It is when we notice the dirt that God is most present in us: It is the very sign of His presence. [C. S. Lewis]

Bill: I know what you were advocating, but as I pointed out, voluntary chastity doesn’t seem to be on the rise from what I can see, so the effect of less marriage would be what I described. {:)}

Phillip: So no, I’m afraid I disagree. If there was widespread voluntary chastity, then sure, I might go along, but I think Paul was far from advocating sexual relationships without marriage.

Youch! Not what I’m suggesting at all. I’m talking about being single, and staying single. Celibate, if you like.

Bill: Off the top of my head, I’m not sure that Paul’s advice is often understood correctly.

So no, I’m afraid I disagree. If there was widespread voluntary chastity, then sure, I might go along, but I think Paul was far from advocating sexual relationships without marriage.

The reason, I think, that there is a stigma attached to unmarried people is that so many unmarried people fall into the same pattern of behaviors and attitudes that are generally alleviated by marriage. Of course, I’m not excusing that, since this statement is little different from “explaining” racial prejudice, except that one is voluntary (and the single men object!) and the other is not.

So yes, I think that too many people work too hard to fix single people up with “the perfect spouse,” but I don’t think that’s a real contributing factor to the divorce rate.

The blind leading the blind—that’s the problem! My wife and I have struggled to achieve the understanding of things we have today, and nobody taught us this. Not the pre-marital course we went through, not any book I can remember, nothing. They may have tried, but it didn’t “take.” We’re broken people living broken lives, and surprise! We have broken relationships, too. In current Western culture, the answer to a broken relationship is to end it, while Christ calls us to reconciliation. Perhaps if more churches preached the gospel instead of whatever it is they’re doing, there might be difference inside the church!

This has kinda been on my mind lately. Perhaps the reason 50% of marriages fail (Christian or not) is because there are twice as many people getting married as should get married. All the effort and energy addressed to this problem seems to be aimed at fixing troubled marriages, preventing the problems in marriage, guilting people into staying married, etc. Perhaps there should be a movement afoot to simply convince people that getting married is not a great idea (I think Jim said something to this effect a little while ago). Don’t read too much into this. I’m not talking about my own marriage.

There is a real stigma attached to unmarried people. We need to fix that. At the risk of stereotyping, married women are particularly guilty of this. See unattached male, start looking for mate for unattached male. Talk about how he “needs to find someone”, etc.

Any thoughts?

A commenter at IM offers this criticism and suggestion:

Now the issue is not James Dobson, Sponge Bob or the Tele Tubbies. The issue is the Glory of God. I find it hard to swallow that the issue of homosexuality means little to you…Living at OBI provides insulation against the reality and unrelenting efforts of homosexuals to push their agenda in every sphere of life. Perhaps we should work as hard to promote our world(view) as they do.

First, living at OBI doesn’t insulate me against anything. How many lesbian-leaning teenagers has the average pastor in Clay County counseled? How many hours answering questions about the Christian view of homosexuality does the average pastor do in a year? How many committed unbelievers who approve of homosexuality and say so are speaking up in Sunday School at the average church? How many churches have “expelled” people they love for unrepentant homosexuality? Insulated? If I want to be insulated I will go back to pizza and the gospel pony at the local churches I served as youth minister.

How is homosexuality- and Dobson’s response- related to the glory of God? I believe sexuality does reflect creation and fall, so God’s glory has been denied and suppressed, exactly as Romans 1 says. But I do not believe that God is glorified in Dobson’s quest to make Caesar behave according to Christian standards. One of my favorite verses is Ephesians 3:21 21 “To him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.” I’ve put my life in the church because the church glorifies God in the Gospel. Dobson sees the church as a political tool, and dictates the church’s agenda in the culture in a highly selective way. He wants the church to influence congress. Great. I want the church to preach and teach salvation by grace through faith by Christ alone.

In fact, on the subject of the “glory of God,” I am teaching John’s Gospel and you hear this: John 11:39-40 39 Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, “Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days.” 40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?” Resurrection. Not political action. I understand how the glory of God comes up in this conversation, but Dobson’s political agenda isn’t where scripture focuses the glory of God: the cross, the mediator, the gospel. I’m not compromising on homosexuality or the glory of God by not taking up Dobson’s agenda or buying into his paranoia about homosexuality in the culture. I read Romans 1, and I am down at the church doing the rest of the book.

Should Christians promote their worldview like homosexuals do? No. I don’t want schools making pledges to Christ. I don’t want Christians pressuring Hollywood to put them in sitcoms. I don’t want Congress to pass Christ-friendly laws. I don’t want the Christian faith made the law of the land. If I wanted to act like gay activists I would join Fred Phelps. I don’t want to imitate Dobson or gay activists. I want to do what Jesus commanded the church to do, the way Jesus commanded the church to do it.

Should I be more upset that gays are telling my children homosexuality is OK? Frankly, that is a minor problem compared to the fact that most of the preachers and churches in America don’t proclaim- or even understand- the Gospel. The fact that Joel Osteen is the most popular preacher in America is a crisis. The lack of the Gospel in the church….there’s a problem I can grieve about. Frankly, Christians who are upset at homosexuals more than the sin in their own lives and churches have issues that go to the heart of the Gospel itself. (I Corinthians 5:9-13, I Corinthians 6:9-11, Titus 2:11-15, Titus 3:3-11) Despite what he says, I think Dobson is throwing stones, and I am hanging with the guy that says “Neither do I (condemn you.) Go and sin no more” to me.

The ‘P’ word needs to get a fair shake in Christendom. Well, more precisely, pomo philosophy deserves to be heard out. The problem is, the ‘P’ word carries a boatload of baggage. There’s pomo churches, pomo art, pomo architecture, pomo literature, pomo fondue, pomo-everything. (OK, the fondue one I made up.) It’s a word that has powerful descriptive capacity, yet manages to induce a fog of confusion the instant its definition is sought. As Schaeffer taught, when new concepts take hold in society, you can be sure that it started with the artists and the philosophers. I’d like to offer my services as a friendly guide through the murky waters of postmodern philosophy (kind of like Gopher on The Love Boat [cue theme]). The interested Christian has 3.7 zillion books available on this subject which take the view that pomo and Christianity are locked in a Texas cage match confrontation to the death. You won’t get that view from me; I think pomo philosophy rocks. To give you an idea of what a like-minded creature would have to say, let me introduce you to someone with real credentials, James K. A. Smith.

Here are three brief, accessible articles he’s written, two of which are especially relevant to recent posts here in the tavern:

1. A critical review of Eldredge’s Wild at Heart co-authored with Mark Mulder. Here’s a choice quote to whet your appetite: “Eldredge’s argument, though couched as counter-cultural, actually sustains a flawed caricature that ultimately inhibits men from fully realizing who they are in Christ. Perhaps most perilously, Wild at Heart both implicitly and explicitly minimizes the consequences of sin and the fall. To argue that there are separate ‘secrets’ for men and women in finding spiritual contentment suggests a kind of ‘selfhelp’ strategy that ignores the deep reality—and necessity—of grace.”

2. A post on theooze entitled “The Economics of the Emerging Church” in which he expresses suspicion of the socio-economic structures and direction of the so-called “postmodern” church.

3. His remembrance of Jacques Derrida written for Books & Culture. In case you’re wondering, he was mourning, not celebrating.

If you’re interested in reading a bit more of what I think postmodern philosophy is up to, read on. Otherwise, pass Go, collect your $200, and may fortune shine upon you. More »« Less

Michael, a conversation with two wonderful elderly people today, co-members of our local CPC’s prayer team, convinced me that homosexuality is worse than all other sin. (a very old & wise jn) No matter how many times they agreed with me that sin is sin, that homosexuality is no worse than adultery or pornographic addiction, the words that came out of their mouths after their nods revealed their true thoughts.

I figured it out, Dr. Dobson’s kinda old, he simply can’t stomach a sin like homosexuality, it nauseates him. You and I are enough younger and have dealt with it enough in our career’s that it’s not as big a deal for us. It’s easy to continue to hate what you don’t have to deal with, attach a person to the sin and the story changes.

My response to a friend who says my Dobson post is too soft on homosexuality. You can read some other parts of the discussion at the post itself.

Short version: I am not as concerned with the sex lives of law abiding Americans as Dobson is. I preach the Gospel to all and shepherd Christians to be disciples. I am not PRIMARILY trying to amend the constitution or influence congress. Dobson has these reversed, imo.

If ever a picture was begging for a caption contest :-)

“Please God. Tell me I’ve got mama’s hair. Please.”

Long ago, my mentor Dr. Barkley Moore said that the toughest thing about working at our Christian school ministry would not be the kids, but the staff.

He was right. More »« Less

My cheating spell was short-lived. It lasted two weeks, until I realized that this new man wasn’t so wonderful, it was just that my old man wasn’t. My cheating didn’t happen because this other guy was so charming that I lost all sense of decency, it happened because I wasn’t happy in the relationship I was in. After repeated drinks with my favorite graduated frat boy, I decided I needed to end the affair and the relationship – a two-for-one deal – and explore the possibility of being single.

Interesting read.

I am looking for someone who can give me all grammatical rules for the differentiation and proper use of the words “frickin’” and “freakin’.” Lurkers are welcome.

I know this is the right place, btw. The BHT is freakin’ awesome these days.

S.M. Hutchens has written some good stuff on his visits to contemporary and megachurch worship services. Here’s another good one: Attractive Worship, and the resulting emails that are posted above it are good as well.

The main line of pastoral and hence theological apology I have heard for the kind of service that concentrates on what is generally attractive is that it is—generally attractive. It brings people in, worldly people, people from the streets and suburbs who might not otherwise come to church and hear the gospel. This virtue covers the multitude of sins that might be alleged against it. People are brought to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ through these services who might otherwise not be. Souls are rescued from the torments of hell. What sort of crabbed and wicked mind could oppose this?

Mine. Here is the point of the epigram above—that there is another side to all this. What of the people who likewise need Christ, but are horrified and embarrassed by the loud, crude, simplistic, and juvenile performances they meet at churches like this, and who, if Christ is to be met at them, will never meet him there, and are thus placed in danger of going to hell in the same handbasket that has just been used to transport heavenwards those graced with arrested development?

Kent: “It is finished.” The resurrection will be in 3 business days.

Barb has links to some N.T. Wright and Don Carson resources in this post, and wonders why Carson can’t hear what Wright is saying on justification.

snicker I made Phillip post guffaw

Michael: You linked to my favorite¹ columnist, how could I not respond? {:)} I managed to make it through the incredibly juvenile first few paragraphs, and notwithstanding a few stupid speed bumps along the way, she’s more or less largely correct—EXCEPT that she’s considering only one side of an equation.

Namely, she assumes that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, the hearts of the American people would remain as they are, while the laws would quickly keep the hard-hearted from killing babies. In fact, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, everything would be up for grabs again, and a lot of people who say nice things now, giving the impression that their hearts are in the right place, would rescind those nice things if they perceived new state laws as intrusive.

Consider: even by (in my view) wildly inflated estimates, the vast majority (90%) of this country has no intention of ever engaging in any homosexual act, let alone setting up house in a long-term homosexual relationship. And yet the hearts of the American people, if we use the same standard Her High-and-mightiness uses, seem to be against laws restricting what they perceive as a right of some sort—to “marriage,” to civil unions, to something. I’m included in that.

I believe that Roe v. Wade was one of the worst things to ever happen to the pro-abortion crowd. Yes, it made abortion legal, but it was done by fiat, and caused an uproar that has never died down. Similarly, I believe that ending Roe v. Wade and enacting state laws against abortion would be one of the worst things to ever happen to the anti-abortion crowd, at least in those states where they passed.

Of course, in the meantime, there would presumably be fewer abortions, which some people see as a good to which there can be no caveat. But it’s only one side of an equation, and it’s why I think that there is quite a lot of heart and mind changing yet to be done.

If enough hearts and minds are changed, the laws will be (1) unnecessary and (2) uncontroversial to change.

¹ Or least-favorite, to be slightly more accurate.

It’s good to be the king….of Motor City.

Peggy Noonan responds to those who were shocked that she didn’t like the Bush speech.

Christ at the end of the line over at the IM Underground.

Ann Coulter says the time for changing hearts on the subject of abortion is over. Do you agree?

Hmmm. The Caners are hot on the SBC and indy fundy circuit with their critiques of Islam. That they would write a book on the violent history of Christianity is surprising and welcome. I am very tired of this revisionist history of the Christian west that minimizes what was done in the name of Christ that contributes to our current complex world. Here’s an excerpt from the CT review:

Indeed, the saddest and most painful chapter in the book for evangelicals must be the one entitled “Magisterial Mayhem: When a State-run Church Leads to Blood in the Streets.” When I was a new Christian, I sloughed off the usual diatribes against Christianity that used the Inquisition and the Crusades as clubs with which to batter the reputation of the faith. After all, I reasoned, these admittedly dark deeds were carried out by Roman Catholics, who did not have much of the Spirit; they had so encrusted the Bible with man-made interpretations that it is no wonder they descended into barbarity.

But what can we say of the barbarity of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, who cracked down mercilessly on the radical Anabaptists and other dissenters after risking their own lives for religious liberty? Remember, the Reformers were men who recovered the primacy of Spirit-inspired Scripture for the church, yet, disturbingly, their more pure faith did not inoculate them from the virus of Christian jihad.

For the Caners, the issue is not any inherently violent core in Christianity, but the inherently dangerous mixing of church and state, combined with the inherent violence residing in the human heart. They say whenever the state and the church get married, it is not an equal partnership. Instead, the state uses the church to enhance its own power before eventually discarding the church as just another whore.

If you write for the Onion, you just gotta throw your hands up in the air. You can’t compete with this.

Says the senator sponsoring the legislation: “Who’s going to object to chickens fighting like humans do? Everybody wins.”

My sentiments exactly.

Christianity Today has an interesting post on megachurches, which I found via Amy Wellborn. It’s long, but the first six paragraphs, excerpted on Amy’s blog, make a nice appetizer.

At my (liberal) seminary this semester I am taking History of Christianity II, which covers the Reformation up until present day. Even though I have not yet taken part 1 of the course, I am very familiar with the idea that a lot of the church’s decisions over the years have been made by “white men in power.” Modern day feminist and liberation theologians, plus others of the general liberal variety, regard much of the history of Christianity, including the councils, what got approved as orthodoxy and disapproved as heresy, etc., with suspicion. Of course, the sordid parts of the history of the church are well known, so they don’t need to be mentioned here. Basically, though, the church through the centuries has been regarded as a white man’s power game.

I don’t think that’s so far-fetched when I see the very same type of bullying going on today. James Dobson is a white man in power. His power may not be “official” like the popes and emporers of the past, but it is real. He uses his power to set the agenda, which in this case is the “protection” of marriage (if gay people marry, does that affect in any way a heterosexual couple’s choice to marry? Just what is he “protecting” here, anyway?) Since the church is more fragmented than it was in the “old days” there, of course, will be those who resist Dobson and his tactics, but most of the evangelical world will follow him like dogs chase after a meat truck.

I wonder what Jesus would say if he were on earth today about gay marriage. Maybe nothing. His priorities might be the same as they were when he was here on earth—healing, caring for the poor, and hanging around with sinners, even “Adam and Steve.” Meanwhile, James Dobson, one of the evangelical “popes”, never mind that he’s a layman, neglects the things Jesus deemed important to use his power to influence church and state.

Jim, I like Tony Evans as well and I think his quote is dead on. One of my favorite lines was given by Evans. Preaching on racial reconciliation, he said, “We may have come to America on different ships, but we’re in the same boat now.”

I’ve got this book but haven’t got to it yet. Have you read it?

re: Pederson and the NRB, once again, Tony Evans perceptively hit one out of the park:

NRB is perceived as an arm of the Christian Right, and in fact, to a great extent this is more than a perception. Most African Americans believe NRB to be a politically right, Republican organization. Most feel unwelcome and marginalized by the politics of NRB.

Who is Tony Evans? Dobson considers him a “friend.” His messages have been broadcast on FotF several times. More importantly, it’s my perspective that Evans is consistently right when it comes to critiquing the “Evangelical sub-culture,” and he deserves to be heard from more often on these topics. Which shouldn’t take away from the fact that he’s also a great preacher.

In the comments on my post yesterday, Bruce wondered if I had a perspective on suffering. The answer is, yes, but when I try to express it in prose, it comes out bitter and destructive. I have found, however, that in poetry I can voice things more honestly at this point. The One You Came With is what I’ve come to at this point. At the risk of turning this into a 12-step meeting, I’ll just say that my current situation is a result of the continuation of the process that God has been doing all my life, reducing me to the point where I am acutely aware of my failings and my utter dependence on Him. I’m a prideful person, and deep within me there are places where I’d rather destroy myself than admit that I need a Saviour. Thanks for all your prayers and friendship.

Danny: Practically the entire media presence of the Evangelical sub-culture in America espouses the view that conservatism as a political philosophy is not only compatible with Christianity, but that it’s the only compatible viewpoint, and that its compatibility has its basis in the teachings of Scripture. I submit that asking whether one can actually hold to conservatism as a philosophy and be true enough to those teachings to consider oneself “Christian” in a meaningful sense.

In his book, Koyzis is arguing that all of the political philosophies that he discusses is incompatible with Christianity, because each ultimately is putting some aspect of creation into the place of Godat some point. Liberalism believes that individual sovereignty is the highest value; socialism believes that common ownership will initial the millennium; democracy is founded on belief in the false maxim, “Vox Populi Vox Dei;” Nationalism makes the state into God. Koyzis’ critique of conservatism – which I haven’t read at length yet – seems to be that conservatism holds that the source of the laws that govern human interaction is to be found not in God, but in an examination of the historical record – a kind of institutionalized cover for simply believing that some things are “right” because they are “the way we’ve always done it.” It seems to me, on a mere casual reflection, that to criticize that perspective is distinct from saying that there are many places where our culture loses its way because it has forgotten the lessons of history.

It may or may not be true that one of the main factors in why so many people have viewpoints that are at odds with the will of God with respect to many issues (like abortion, homosexuality, and so on) is that they are ignorant (willful or otherwise) of historic positions our culture (meaning the Founders, or whatever cultural icon you want to point in that role, really) has had on those issues, but it’s another thing entirely to hold that the ignorance of those positions, or acceptance of the arguments that allegedly refute them are ultimately the source of our rebellion against God and all the consequential fall-out from that. I submit that the first of these is a point at which Christians are free to agree or disagree with conservatism, but the second is incompatible. Properly understood, the Christian perspective is that our rebellion itself is the source of our falseness, and the disregard of the wisdom of our forefathers in these matters is not causative, but symptomatic of that. In other words, I believe that Christians can be conservative – and should be, in many cases – but I don’t accept that Christians can, should, or must be aligned with “conservatism” as an ideology.

I don’t think we’re far from each other on that point, but considering both the media perception of the alignment between the political right and the evangelical subculture, and the fact that the recognized leadership of that subculture persists in reinforcing that perception, the question I asked is, in my view, entirely proper and fair.

I don’t listen to Dobson. He is a bit of a demi-God to folks in our church and I tend to back off demi-Gods whether they deserve the title or not. Plus I just don’t listen to Christian radio so the opportunity never arises. The thing that troubles me is the statement:

We won’t support your plans for Social Security unless you go forward with the marriage amendment.

Since when do Christians pick and choose what they will support based on political expediency? The only reason to support or reject the president’s plans on SS are on the merits of the plan (of which I’m highly skeptical, but that’s a different topic). What if the SS plan is right? What if it is good? Will we not stand behind it because we don’t get something else we want more? The idea sickens me.

Michael, thank you for your extended post on Dobson. You have put into words what I wanted to say yesterday. The Spongebob issue is/was ridiculous whether true or not. Even if the charges are false, because of his tactics the story was at least plausible. And I certainly didn’t hear any one come to Dobson’s defense saying there’s no way he would say this.

But political extortion is another matter. Maybe our bar historians can help me out, but I can’t think of a time when the church came out on the winning end of a heavy alliance with government. Maybe he’s finding out that in politics, past commitments rarely matter and the issue is what can you do for me today. The final straw for me was about a year ago when I found out about Dobson’s role in the NRB controversy (which you linked to more recently). I’m trying to work on my cynicism and I would like to believe that all motives are pure. But coming from the land of Roy Moore, I can’t help but wonder how much is pure and how much is political grandstanding and maneuvering.

Thanks again for being able to express what those of us who can’t write are thinking.

For another of your favorites…

Here’s an example of Dobson throwing his influence around. When the president of the National Religious Broadcasters said things that get said on the BHT all the time, he’s out the door, and Dobson is the bouncer. As I said, it’s his perfect right to be political, but do I have to sign up to support him all the time?

I’d like any who care to comment, especially those who have participated in posting and commenting on this wide-ranging discussion on the phalanx of Politics, Christianity, Broadcast and Publishing Mass Media, and Social Action (Tommy, Michael, Kent, Danny, Alex, Tom, Jim, and interested Lurkers), to consider the following take. It’s not my own, but there’s a lot that I like about it intuitively. I wouldn’t even know how to defend this theologically, but let me run it out there for your consideration.

At the “After Worldview” conference this past September, one of my favorite plenary talks was by J. Richard Middleton. I thought I had taken notes, but I can’t find them now. So this will be a reconstruction from my very poor memory. JRM, if you somehow come across this, it is safe to assume that I wasn’t taking my meds that day. Sorry if I butcher your delightfully captivating paper.

How do we determine a biblically-based response to some societal ill or crisis? What is a biblical view of Social Security, welfare, environmental policy, or foreign policy? Or, for that matter, on matters that are explicitly treated in Scripture, like slavery, homosexuality, or divorce? Do we just pull out a concordance, list all the verses with the magic word, synthesize and reduce to an easily digestible “principle,” and proceed to “apply” it as consistently as we can? If all we need to do is discern what the Bible says on a given topic and distill it down to some essential teaching, why do Christians end up with so many different prescriptions, nay, even principles that oppose one another?

An example. We agree that the creation order did not envision divorce (Jesus points this out in Matthew 19). Adam fell and the human race with him. Sin makes divorce law necessary (Deuteronomy 24). Fast forward a few hundred years when our redemption draweth nigh. What does Jesus do? Does the Redeemer demand a restoration of the creation order? No. Think of it in terms of the points of a compass. Let East be the condition of original sinlessness. Let West be the condition after the Fall. Rather than demand that His kingdom immediately reverse course and march directly back to the East, Jesus maneuvers North. He does not merely reaffirm the law on divorce nor does he merely annihilate it. There’s a mountain in the way from West to East (sin) and the Gospel is going to redirect us in sometimes surprising directions around that mountain. Yes, we have our hearts turned toward the East, longing for the new creation, but sometimes (probably most of the time), living out the Gospel in this life, on the western side of the mountain, means that we may be taking some circuitous routes from time to time and they may not be the same routes or in the same direction at all times during human history.

First century Roman citizen owns a bondservant. He converts to Christianity. Does his new-found faith in the Cross entail that he free his slave? No. Nineteenth century South Carolina plantation owner owns 10 slaves. He converts. Is he supposed to free his slaves? A sizable number of his Christian brethren and countryman say so. What about today? Can a Christian own slaves? Of course not. Is this moral relativism? No. Is it arbitrary or selective application of Scripture? No. This is what it’s like for the redemptive power of the Gospel to actively work and insinuate itself in human history through the auspices of the Holy Spirit. Notice that the institution of slavery worsened over a millenium before it suddenly and dramatically improved, nearly disappearing forever. Getting back to our compass illustration, we actually went a good bit further West before we worked back toward the East. (Middleton did this whole exercise with divorce and some other examples that I can’t remember now. Hopefully they’ll be in his book.) So Jesus, Peter, Paul, and John, rather than imposing a Bataan death march due East, apply the Gospel with practical wisdom taking into account cultural, social, and historical realities (Jesus and Paul both reinterpret divorce law in the light of the kingdom of God). Sometimes this practical wisdom is subversive and counter-cultural (“You have heard it said…but I tell you…”) and gets the hackles up of the (self-proclaimed) defenders of the law. Sometimes it falls well short of East and the immediate restoration of the creation order, disappointing and frustrating to those who want the social problem to simply disappear.

What I do remember clearly was how Middleton ended his talk. He provocatively asked whether Christians are rightly discerning the proper response to same-sex unions or marriages and whether it might be appropriate to steer more North on this issue than is currently being recommended.

James Dobson. The fact that I even have to write about him annoys me. O’d like to make my commitment to ignoring Dobson consistent, but this Spongebob crisis won’t leave me alone. Apparently, I have to say what I think about the man who speaks for me, which I don’t like, and has been maligned in the New York Times, which doesn’t move me at all, considering Dobson’s constant involvement in the culture war.

He’s a psychologist, which interests me slightly less than what color underwear my neighbor wore today. He’s written a bunch of books on parenting and marriage, containing everything from common sense to what sounds to me like backporch speculation. He has the most listened to radio program in the Christian world, a program that is sortof about families, and sortof about cultural issues and definately about building up the mailing list. He’s used his success to build an evangelical empire and is trying to change the culture. It’s a great country. He’s free to do as he chooses. And so am I.

He’s a genuine Christian. A fervent evangelist. A kind, classy man. He’s generous and has a ton of integrity. He seems to be a good father and husband. His financial honesty is unquestioned. He’s the most famous Nazarene I know. He is very compassionate, and I appreciate that. He’s helped a lot of people be better parents and happier as families, and that is great. Really great. He’s a straight talker, and that’s appreciated by me. He cares. He’s made the world better. I’m sure I would like him if we met.

He is obviously more distressed about some cultural issues than I am. He is more distressed about homosexuality in general than I am. He is really distressed that gays might be teaching my kids or trying to promote their agenda in my community. I appreciate the concern, but I don’t see it quite the way he does. Which is fine. I thought. He’s concerned about marriage amendments. He wants all three branches of the government to hear his constituency and appreciate the fervor of their votes and values. I can live with civil unions, and I don’t care if my doctor is gay or if my kid’s teacher is gay. It doesn’t interest me. My view of the Jesus and the Gospel doesn’t lead me to these cultural battles. As a citizen, I have political views, but they aren’t identical to Dobson’s.

I have my beliefs as a Christian. I try to live them and I try to communicate them in word and deed. I believe he is a Christian as well. I appreciate and affirm his right to lobby, raise money, make noise, protest, write Karl Rove and send millions of letters out with the phone number to call to make your congressman pee his pants in fear. I don’t think it works, and I don’t think such political involvments define discipleship as he does.

He is far from perfect. He can be a bit of a bully. Lots of people inside evangelicalism have said it. Among his peers in broadcasting, he is thought of as a man who will lead his way or make you give in and do it his way. He’s not a mean person, but just a guy who is bigger and more aggressive than the other kids and plays harder than the other kids sometimes want to play. He takes the game pretty seriously. He wants to win. That’s fine. I am not on his team, though I sometimes applaud if he plays well. End of metaphor.

He’s not in my church. He doesn’t share my confession. He’s not elected by me. I haven’t endorsed him. I haven’t bought his books or sent him money. I don’t owe him anything. Whatever he purports to “do” for Christians like me, I never asked him to do because I don’t agree with him some of the time.

So is he getting a bad deal on Spongebob? Well, you know why that is? Because he spends his time- all the time- bashing away at liberals, gays, Hollywood, Democrats and so forth on the radio and in print. So when they sense a Teletubby moment, they aren’t going to miss it. OK, I’m sorry he got misquoted, but he’s not just a big boy….he’s about the biggest boy in the game and the other side is going to stick it to him whenever they can. (The metaphor returns.) Does anyone think liberals and Democrats might believe Dr. Dobson has distorted their statements a few times on his radio show? Uh….hello?

Dobson wants hardball. He got hardball. I have little sympathy for him, because he means no more to me than the a million other preachers and Christian “leaders” who I don’t listen to, don’t support, don’t promote and don’t really care about. He wants to be the man who can walk in the Oval Office with 10 million names and starts talking about “my constituency.” I am not interested in that approach to Christian influence in politics, but I have no problem with those who do.

Dobson has spent a career telling people what I must think, do and support in my personal and political life to be a Biblical Christian and a real American. He regularly says that the end of all that is good and true has arrived if we don’t win the next vote. I never signed up for this service and I don’t want it. If he got blindsided by the press, well that’s the way they play the game in the big city, doc. I thought he knew that. I am surprised at how many Christians don’t.

Now, I will get email and comments shocked that I could say anything negative about this wonderful warrior, etc. Let me say it again: He doesn’t represent me. He isn’t my guy. I am not into his agenda. I see things differently. I don’t have to be a fan or a supporter. He’s a public figure and therefore subject to the miniscule opinions of people like me. It’s irritating, I know, but it’s why I blog :-)

For a look at what I think happens when Dobson and company dominate the cultural view of evangelicals, read the IM essay “Why do they hate us?”