I have not blogged on political matters as yet. I don’t consider myself to be either far on the right or on the left, but I do have serious reservations about the wisdom of our President’s policies, and am particularly suspicious of any attempt to make the Christian faith serve the ends of partisan politics. Jarrod Cochran is a Christian whose cyber-acquaintance I have recently made, and who is the nephew of atheist philosopher Keith Parsons. He was kind enough to send me this exchange between himself and a Focus on the Family office representative. I do believe that FOTF has done some good work, but I think it tends to identify the Christian gospel with certain political positions which have to be distinguished from the central claims of Christianity.
Someone interested in the issue between religion and politics should begin my reading C. S. Lewis’s brilliant essay “Meditation on the Third Commandment,” from God in the Dock, where he warns about the dangers of attempting to form a “Christian Party.”
Dear Mr. Cochran,
Thank you for writing to Dr. Dobson (e-mail, April 24, 2005). He would have preferred to send a personal reply if circumstances had allowed. Unfortunately, with several thousand pieces of mail arriving at Focus headquarters every day, it’s rare that he is able to become directly involved with ministry-related correspondence. I’m sure you can understand why he has asked me to respond on his behalf. It’s a pleasure to serve you as his representative.
It was good of you to take a few moments to share your thoughts on a number of issues related to Dr. Dobson’s involvement in matters of public policy, including the “Justice Sunday” telecast (April 24), Focus on the Family’s position on the Senate filibuster against President Bush’s judicial candidates, the war in Iraq, and the recent “SpongeBob controversy.” Honest feedback like yours is always welcome here at Focus headquarters.
In response to the concerns you’ve raised, we want to make it very clear that the Doctor’s participation in “Justice Sunday” had nothing to do with any desire on his part to impose his own moral views or religious convictions on anyone else. Nor is he inferring that those who disagree with Focus on the Family’s stance are not true Christians or people of faith. Above all, he is not trying to say that God is a Republican or a Democrat or that true spirituality can be defined in terms of one’s political affiliations. Far from it! It’s all well and good to say that “God is above political affiliation,” but this does not excuse us as believers from our obligation to stand up for morality and righteousness in the public square. For Dr. Dobson, the issues you refer to as “political” are profoundly moral in nature. They lie at the heart of who he is what he feels called to do. In order to stay completely “out of politics” as you’ve exhorted him to do, he would have to abandon the preborn child, acquiesce to the distribution of condoms and the dispensation of immoral advice to teenagers in the public schools, close his eyes to child pornography and adult obscenity, ignore the confiscatory tax structure that weakens the family, and remain silent regarding the anti-family agenda of gay and lesbian activists. This he cannot and will not do. His conscience will not permit it.
With respect to your assertion that Dr. Dobson’s supportive attitude toward the war in Iraq is inconsistent with his strong pro-life principles, we’d like to suggest that killing within the context of warfare (and this includes the kind of killing that falls under the heading of so-called “collateral damage”) is something very different from the deliberate termination of the lives of innocent preborn babies. Something similar can be said with respect to the death penalty, which involves the execution by legitimate state authorities of criminals who have been duly convicted of capital crimes. This theme could be expanded at great length, of course; whether or not you would agree with the arguments we might advance depends to a great extent upon your interpretation of Scripture passages like Romans 13:1-4. In this connection, you need to understand that Dr. Dobson and Focus on the Family generally subscribe to the classic Augustinian “just war” theory. Applying the principles of that theory, the Doctor has concluded that the campaign in Iraq is a case where the biblical and theological justifications for the use of force are fairly obvious -- as a matter of fact, he sees it as a component element of the much larger War on Terror. Nothing of the kind can be said with respect to the murder of innocent infants.
As for your reminder that “being pro-life doesn’t end with abortion” and the concerns you’ve expressed regarding our attitude toward the homeless and poverty-stricken, there is a sense in which we can’t help feeling that you are oversimplifying a highly complicated subject. If it seems to you that we have not taken it upon ourselves to address economic issues as intensively as you might prefer, we would propose that there are a couple of very good reasons for this, neither of which have anything to do with lack of concern for the poor. The first centers around the technical complexity of the problem. When it comes to economics, everybody has a different idea about the best way to end poverty, put people to work, and fix the social problems that beset us. Some believe in federal “hand-outs” -- i.e., welfare programs -- while others claim that tax breaks for big corporations will eventually have a beneficial “trickle down” effect upon workers at the low end of the income scale. These are matters we do not feel competent to analyze. In the meantime, Focus on the Family has other priorities. In a world as complex and multifaceted as ours it is crucial to learn how to choose your political battles carefully. In our view, issues such as the defense of innocent preborn life and the defense of marriage, which involve clear-cut absolute moral and spiritual values, simply HAVE to take precedence over all other social and political concerns.
More could be said -- for example, with regard to your reference to the “SpongeBob” debate, the point of which seems to have eluded you (Dr. Dobson’s statements were NOT directed at SpongeBob himself, but at the We Are Family Foundation, an organization that USED SpongeBob in a song and music video to promote an agenda of “tolerance and diversity” that includes homosexual advocacy). But perhaps it would be best to close this message with the reflection that there is a huge difference between “judging” (an activity of which you feel our ministry is guilty) and taking a stand for our convictions in the midst of an increasingly ant-Christian social environment. As we see it, Christians have as much right as anyone else to inject their values into the political process and to fight for what they think is right. Our love for our country and for our fellow human beings will not allow us to do anything less.
We hope this reply has clarified our perspective for you, Mr. Cochran. Thanks again for caring enough to get in touch. God bless you.
Dear Brother Masters,
I greatly appreciated your well-written response to my letter. I can see that we have differing views on many things. Though I do not wish to start a debate with you or cause you to anger, I would like to touch on a few things in your reply back to me.
I understand your stance that "Justice Sunday" had nothing to do with aligning politics with religion. It is my prayer that it did not; unfortunately it is apparent that it was very much about meshing religion with politics - a view that is shared by many. I agree with you that even though God is above political affiliation, I believe we have an obligation to praise our leaders when they make a good decision and to speak out against all policies and agendas that is contrary to Scripture. But Brother Masters, that means speaking out against all issues that are unjust – not just focusing on only one or two. There are unjust actions that this administration has committed, (just like all administrations), but I have not heard Dr. Dobson speak out against these issues. Our president's intentional ignorance of the poor, the environment, and Bush's raising those who justify the torture of others to higher positions (Gonzales and Rumsfeld) is a complete disregard of God’s Word. Have you looked at this administration's proposed budget? I view this as a far more urgent matter to rally against than the filibustering of judges that will interpret the law in their own fashion (just like those who fill the seats now). I'm not suggesting that Dr. Dobson remove himself from the political arena. What I and others of like-mind are suggesting is that Dr. Dobson amends his error of appearing so blatantly partisan. Claiming that one political party is wrong while ignoring the immoralities in the other is exactly what Christ was speaking of when He shared with us to remove the plank from our own eye before pointing out the splinter in another's.
As for your responses to the war in Iraq and the just-war criteria of St. Augustine, I recommend that you perform a further reading of his criteria as well as Thomas Aquinas' criteria. I believe a careful examination would prove that our pre-emptive war with Iraq was and is unjust. I believe we have gravely missed the mark of the criteria by the following:
- Right Intention: force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose. The ultimate goal or intention of the use of force is to re-establish peace; specifically a peace that is preferable to the peace that would have prevailed had the war not been fought.
- Proportionality: the overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved; a nation cannot go to war without considering the effect of its action upon others and on the international community.
- Last Resort: force may be used only after all peaceful alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.
We were misled as a nation to the reasons we were going to war. This goes against the right intention criteria. There is still chaos and terrorism in Iraq even after Saddam's regime has been toppled; this is another strike against right intention criteria as well as the criteria of proportionality. This war was not a last resort. We did not wait for the inspectors to finish there job. We did not listen to the other less-drastic and destructive options that were on the table. This is in opposition to the last resort section of the just-war criteria. To claim this war is justifiable is to either bend the criteria given to us by St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas or to ignore it all together.
On another issue of this war, I do not believe that a pre-emptive strike – the idea of “getting them before they get us” – is an ideology that Christ approves of. Nowhere in His teachings do we find Jesus, the Prince of Peace, sharing with His followers to harm others before they can do harm to us. As a matter of fact, Christ tells us to turn the other cheek and to bless and pray for those who plot against you and do you harm. If we are to follow Christ, we have to attempt to follow all of His examples; we cannot pick and choose those that seem easier than the rest of His teachings.
Regarding your responses to the abortion issue, I completely agree that abortion is murder. But I will continue to stand behind my statement that the pro-life stance does not end with abortion. When abortion is the only topic of your pro-life stance, it is you who are over-simplifying the issue. There are those who die unjustly due to poverty, being wrongfully accused by our courts and those in other countries who are murdered for what they believe; yet by your statements in your response to me have made it seem that you believe that to follow Christ's command to care for the poor and vulnerable is too complicated an issue for one to become involved with. As you put it, there are "other priorities". That rationalization is inconsistent and incompatible with God's Word. According to our bible, God's views one life just as precious as another, be it an unborn baby or an impoverished person who received no help from Christians or their government. Do you realize that defending the poor and vulnerable is the second most dominant theme in the Old Testament after idolatry? And did you know that helping the poor and vulnerable surfaces in one of every sixteen verses in the New Testament? If this issue comes up in God’s Word as much as it does, how can any of us view this as too complicated an issue to become involved with? How can we as Christians believe that there are other priorities? We cannot get around this fact no matter what kind of rationalizations we make. There's no way to justify standing up for one of God’s stances and not for the others.
Referring to your reply that I do not understand the full issue of the We Are Family Foundation video. Let me assure that I understand the “Spongebob Debate”, as you called it, quite well. I can accept your statement that Dr. Dobson’s comments were not directed at a specific cartoon character. The problem I have is why does your organization have a problem with others teaching respect for another’s convictions? I do not believe that when we allow tolerance of others to be taught that we are endorsing their sin. I do believe that when God created mankind, He gave us all free will – the ability to choose good from evil. Many choose evil; we all stumble in sin every day. God never forced anyone to follow Him or His laws; He left that up to us. Jesus Christ never bullied anyone into His beliefs. He shared the truth that is found in following Him and He allowed those that did not want to listen to ignore Him. If we are called to be imitators of Christ and to follow His example, shouldn’t we respect another's right to have their own beliefs and views? We are called to preach/witness to the Gospel and live a life of Christian example - nothing more. The conversion of other's who hear our words is up to God and the individual that hears the truth we speak and the example we try to live out daily.
By the way, the We Are Family Foundation promoted respect of many other things besides homosexuality in that video. I and others believe that they were sharing with us that even if we do not agree with another’s opinion, belief, or lifestyle, we will respect their right to have it. I did not realize that it was wrong to respect and allow another to exercise their right as an American to believe what they want. Like I said we can disagree and share with them the truth that is in Christ, but it is still their right – not just as an American, but as a human being – to agree with what we say and act accordingly or to ignore our words and to continue in their current lifestlye.
You stated in your reply that we have to take a stand for our beliefs “in the midst of an increasingly anti-Chrsitian social environment”. I want to point out that we have a President who claims to be a Christian and was voted for a second term by many evangelicals who claim that he’s the “Christian President”, we have the majority in both the House and the Senate that listen intensely to conservative evangelicals, we have movies and television shows that deal with Christian issues (i.e. - “The Passion of the Christ”, "Joan of Arcadia”, “Kingdom of Heave”, etc.), and your organization’s leader, Dr. Dobson along with several others recently hosted a nationally televised event called “Justice Sunday” with the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist. In lieu of all this evidence, I am very curious as to what exactly you believe is so “anti-Christian” about this nation?
I believe what is truly anti-Christian in America is the “Christianity” that is portrayed by the many evangelicals who agree with pre-emptive wars, believe in protecting the baby in the womb while ignoring the needs and injustices of those who are already born, who believe that homosexuality is some “ultimate sin” surpassing all others, and who believe that being a good witness of the Gospel of Christ with our words and actions is not enough – that we must enforce our beliefs and values upon others.
I agree that we as Christians have every right to voice our values and beliefs in our politics and speak out for what we think is right. Where we stumble is when we attempt to force our values and beliefs upon others in the political arena and in our neighborhoods. When we cross that line, we do a disservice to our nation - the land of the free - and to God Himself.
Thank you again for replying to my message. I hope that this final letter I have written has further clarified my thoughts to you, brother Masters. Thank you again for caring enough about my thoughts to write me back. While we may disagree on many issues, we still can agree that we have the joy in worshipping a resurrected Savior. I can see that we both agree that a right to life and a right to freely express our religious beliefs is not a negotiable issue. I think the major difference between myself and your organization is that I believe that non-negotiable right to life continues after birth and that non-negotiable right to freedom of religion is given to all regardless of race, religion, or creed. Take care and God bless.
Your brother in Christ,
Jarrod Cochran
No comments:
Post a Comment