SOME CONCERNS OVER DR. JAMES DOBSON'S JUNE '99 LETTER
Some of you who are aware that Cal Thomas was a recent guest on my radio program have asked what I thought about Dr. Dobson's June '99 letter in which he criticized the book, Blinded by Might: Can the Religious Right Save America? Before stating my various concerns, let me say a few things about Dr. Dobson and the ministry of Focus on the Family. First, I am deeply grateful for Dr. Dobson's courageous stands on a whole host of issues. I am thinking for instance about his role on the Meese Commission on Pornography. Second, my concerns should not cause one to assume that I disagree with all the strategies of Focus on the Family. Finally, my own varied experiences as an activist (e.g.-open-air preaching, blocking an abortion clinic) gives me greater sympathy for some of Dr. Dobson's frustrations with those he perceives to be settling for a less than courageous lifestyle. Now to my concerns...
James Dobson's three-page letter contains a hefty twenty endnotes, yet none are direct quotes from the book, Blinded By Might! Dr. Dobson simply alludes to the book, allusions which are unfortunately misrepresentations. For example, Dr. Dobson says, "According to the authors, clergy and any organized expression of the laity should, by inference, avoid issues such as the sanctity of human life, the redefinition of marriage, pornography, gambling, safe-sex ideology, and the assault on religious liberty. As such, they provide convenient 'cover' for pastors who don't want to take the heat, and for laymen who don't want to get involved." This is not what Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson (no relation to Dr. Dobson) are saying. What the authors question are the means we conservative Christians many times use, namely power tactics baptized by Christian rhetoric. The debate is not over whether we as Christians should address the great issues of the day; the debate is over how. I'm afraid that Dr. Dobson has seriously misunderstood this particular concern of Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson.
Second, Dr. Dobson does not seem to be able to separate the criticism of ideas from the criticism of people. In referring to why Americans are now more sympathetic to the pro-life position, James Dobson says, "But why do you suppose it is happening? The answer is because pro-lifers have refused to give up. They have poured their money, their time and their very lives into the battle. And I have to tell you that I deeply regret Cal Thomas' and Ed Dobson's disparagement of these precious people who are steadily winning the battle for the hearts and minds of their fellow countrymen" (emphasis added). The authors of Blinded by Might are not disparaging people; they are simply questioning some of the tactics which are being utilized.
Third, James Dobson criticizes Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson for not being in the U. S. Senate Gallery during the debate and subsequent vote on the ban of partial-birth abortions. Dr. Dobson says, "I was there on that day, but I didn't see Cal or Ed. And I wonder if Pastor Dobson mourned the tragedy of that vote in his sermon the following Sunday." To say the least, this is an uncharitable comment. Furthermore, Cal Thomas told me during our interview that he has raised millions of dollars for Crisis Pregnancy Centers and that his syndicated column reaches more people than Dobson does. Mr. Thomas is clearly one of the most outspoken journalists who consistently advocates the rights of the unborn. All this is to say that committed Christians do disagree on the best strategy for influencing a godless culture.
If Dr. Dobson's criticism of Thomas and Dobson was isolated I might not be as troubled as I am. Unfortunately, Dr. Dobson has publicly denounced other Christian leaders who don't agree with some of his strategies. In 1995, Christianity Today published an article by Dr. John Woodbridge entitled, "Culture War Casualties," in which he issued a clarion call for all Christians to exhibit grace and love toward those they disagree with. Dr. Woodbridge teaches at Trinity Seminary and was a great encouragement to my wife and me during our studies there. Dr. Woodbridge's article was met with this comment by Dr. Dobson,
"Let me conclude with a request of those who choose not to help fight the civil war of values. May I ask you to extend a little charity and grace to those of use who feel called to this cause? We are ordinary people trying to deal with incredibly powerful and dangerous institutions. We are often outgunned and undermanned. We don't have all the answers. We, like you, are simply trying to serve the Lord to the best of our ability, and sometimes we do it poorly. Sometimes in our zeal we may fail to show the love of Christ, which is central to everything we believe. You are justified in criticizing us when that occurs. But while you're there on the sidelines, I ask that you not make our task any more difficult than it already is. Please continue to pray for the people who are taking the heat in the arena of public debate. The world of the Christian activist can be a very lonely place. War is always tough on those who are called to fight it." ("Why I Use 'Fighting Words' A Response to John Woodbridge's 'Culture War Casualties,'" Christianity Today, June 19, 1995, p. 30).
Note well Dr. Dobson's logic: if you don't agree with his strategies then you are on the "sidelines." Since I am aware of some of the wonderful redemptive ministries Dr. Woodbridge is involved in, I am personally offended by James Dobson's remarks. Even assuming the battle imagery which Dobson frequently uses, isn't it the case that many strategies are typically employed in fighting a war?
Finally, Dr. Dobson's June '99 letter mentioned that he asked his "constituency" "...if Focus on the Family should continue to defend the unborn child, oppose the homosexual agenda, fight for lower taxes, promote pro-family initiatives in Congress, etc. More than 160,000 people responded, and of that number, 95 percent said, Yes! Continue to defend the family and the Judeo-Christian system of values. Another four percent said, Yes, continue what you are doing but perhaps you should emphasize it less. Only one percent wanted us to avoid public policy altogether. For the past seven years, we have followed that advice to the best of our ability."
This may not be as remarkable as Dobson suggests. It seems a decent bet that a disproportionate number of the people who receive the Focus on the Family newsletter would be sympathetic to their vision. By way of anecdote, I know people who have stopped getting their newsletter because of Dr. Dobson's heavy political involvement.
Instead, I think that Focus on the Family would be greatly helped by seeking the godly counsel of those who have some misgivings about their approach in the political realm. An unwillingness to listen to outside counsel is a real danger with large parachurch organizations. Dissenting opinions can be marginalized or not even sought. One may find himself in the unenviable position of being labeled a "critical spirit." Again, for Dr. Dobson to take his sympathetic constituency as a "green light" to continue with more of the same sorts of strategies is not prudent.
There is a potentially hopeful outcome to all of this. At the end of my interview with Cal Thomas he mentioned that Dr. Dobson had invited him up to Colorado Springs in order to talk through some of their differences. This is obviously a good item for prayer.
One final comment-read Blinded by Might. It's not a perfect book, but a very important one.