I remember when Cal Thomas’ book *Blinded by Might* came out. I read the book, and gave it a hearty “APIB” (Amen, Preach It Brother). A good counterbalance to the hard-charging overly-optimistic political games D.C. Christians play.

Well, I also remember the monthly newsletter that Dobson issued regarding that book, soon after it was published. He just couldn’t find enough bad things to say about it, or Cal. Ripped it up one end and down the other. And he based his arguments off of… guess how many quotations from the book?

Five? Four? Three?

How about *one*. And guess which chapter that quote came from?

None. It came from *the dust jacket*.

Now, if I had turned in a paper in seminary critiquing someone or some book, and I only quoted it *once* (and that the just jacket!), they would have run me out of school on a rail - and have been perfectly justified in doing so. Needless to say, after that little incident I called FotF and had myself removed from their mailing list.

Well, mabye *now* Dobson will go back and re-read what Thomas was trying to tell him then. Or maybe not.

Ken Bolin

I will be glad to explain my position, and have had quite a bit to say about it in this essay: http://www.internetmonk.com/gayold.html

Please read everything I have to say on this issue before making any detailed conclusions about where I am on this issue.

This post was about the fact that I differ with Dobson on several key issues. If my positions differ with scripture, I am happy to be corrected. If the SBC had some confessional requirement on this subject, I would like to be aware of it.

1) Dobson apparently considers many homosexuals to be predators and recruiters. I do not.
2) Dobson sees homosexuality in America as primarily a political movement. I do not. Frankly, I think Dobson spends a lot of time creating walls between Christians and homosexuals that are not necessary. I know dozens of gay people and none of them are politcal activists. That there are political activist gays is a fact, but it is a distortion to speak as if every gay is out to overturn the values of a community. That is scapegoating and fearmongering.
3) Dobson never cares to explore the hatred and fear towards homosexuals in the Christian community. I have sat at the lunch table with many Christian staff at our school- including many from local churches- who described acts of hatred they believed should be perpetuated against all homosexuals. What does this have to do with Jesus, and why isn’t Dobson talking about it?
4) I am not the only Christian talking about Dobson’s obsession with acquiring clout by way of this issue. Read Dobson and Thomas, Blinded by Might. These are men from the Dobson and Falwell camps, with credibility.
5) My sexual sin is an affront to the glory of God. So is the sexual sin of homosexuals. So are pastors looking at porn and employees of ministries involved in affairs. It’s all an affront to God and it all tears down families. I give Dobson credit for speaking to all of these things, but he raises money off of our fear of homosexual sinners.
6) What do I mean by it “doesn’t concern me?” Well I sure as heck didn’t mean it wasn’t a sin. I’ve read the Bible, preached and taught the texts. But Romans 1 makes it clear that homosexuality is an EXAMPLE of human depravity and its consequences, not THE example. At the end of Romans 1 Paul includes everything from soup to nuts. The Ten Commandments flush me down the toilet every time. All of them.
7) It rather amazes me, especially after years in youth ministry, that most churches have sexually active teens, several or many marriages in trouble because on infidelity, but the pastor will preach on homosexual sin far more than on these other sins. Why is that?

I simply do not view homosexuality any differently than my own sin and I refuse to be manipulated by Dobson into scapegoating homosexuals as the cause of the downfall of the culture or a threat to my kids.

I am libertarian and Lutheran in my view of government, and I have no real issues with some kind of civil union. I voted against the proposed marriage amendment on libertarian grounds: it was an unnecessary intrusion of the government into the lives of its citizens. I am not ashamed of these stands, I know they are minority stands, I don’t recommend them to my church or my students, but there is nothing in my faith that tells me the civil government must give endorse the Christian faith or its exact view of marriage. I teach my children what God says about marriage as a union between a man and a woman in Christ, but I regularly tell them that God and Caesar aren’t on the same page. What do Christian marriage and the state’s view of marriage have in common anyway?

So in closing, I affirm all that scripture says about homosexuality, but I do not fear homosexuals or a conspiracy by homosexual activists to destroy our culture. I am not joining Dobson in his political views.

I agree the glory of God is central. God is most glorified in Jesus Christ, not in morality, and Christ lives to mediate between God and all kinds of sexual sinners. I think we glorify God in the Gospel more than in the law alone.

As I said, I welcome correction. Thanks for reading.

If you are going to get me fired, give me a few days notice
P.S. I also don’t really care for John Macarthur these days I’m in bad shape

To tell you the truth, here in Australia I have not read anything the guy has written or heard anything he’s said - so I’ve had to rely on other sources to inform me. This includes you and…er… MacArthur.

I actually find it amazing that NO ONE ever seems to bring up 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 in this whole argument. For me this is crucial. In 1 Cor 5 (as you know) Paul attacks the Corinthian church for allowing sexual immorality in their midst and essentially calls upon them to “not associate with sexually immoral people” (verse 9)

But then Paul does something incredibly amazing - he qualifies his statement of verse 9 in verses 10-13 to ensure that the Corinthians do not apply this teaching TO UNBELIEVERS. So when Paul says don’t associate with sexually immoral people, he’s actually talking about “those who bear the name of brother” who are sexually immoral. He argues very strongly that unbelievers who are sexually immoral should NOT be avoided.

What this gives us, essentially, is a precedent. How should we deal with unbelievers who are sexually immoral? We DO NOT JUDGE THEM verse 12 “For what have I to do with judging outsiders?”, and then in verse 13 “God judges those outside”.

Yes Homosexuality is wrong and, like all forms of sexual sin, is something that God hates. What are we to do about it? Well, if the sexually immoral are “outside” the church (ie unbelievers), then nothing. If they are “inside” the church (ie claiming to be believers), then we should come down upon them like 1000 kilograms of clay-based modular building material.

Any Christian who claims that we should enforce Christian ethics by legal means should read these verses.

How of course can they stop this lifestyle of sin? Well, they are slaves to sin, and this requires a miraculous work of God to heal them. They must become spiritually alive. And this can only happen when the gospel is proclaimed to them.

Dobson and others like him have lost confidence in the power of the Gospel to change people’s lives.

Re: MacArthur. What’s he done to annoy you? That should be the subject of a future article.

Macarthur may make it to the IM weekend file.

Romans 1: One should note that the specific unrighteousnesses in verses 24 – 31 are a result of not honoring God (vv. 21-23, 28). It is probably that Paul choose to expand on homosexually in vv. 26—27 because it was a culturally accepted practice and an integral part of pagan religion and worship. Therefore, Paul would have been concerned that homosexual practices would come to be accepted within the Church. (Isn’t this what is currently going on in America? Recently an Episcopal bishop(?) (a practicing homosexual) said that he would not perform any more heterosexual marriage ceremonies, including one for his son, until the Church allowed homosexual marriage ceremonies.) Regardless of Paul’s reason for emphasizing the unrighteousness of homosexual behavior, the fact is that he did and in doing so he made it the zenith (or is it the nadir) of human depravity which results from idolatry.

1 Corinthians 5: Paul, in v. 10, clarifies what he had written previously. Whether or not the Corinthians were actually avoiding associating all immoral people is not specifically stated. A case could be made for such an inference. Possibly Paul is clarifying his previous letter because of a question raised by the Corinthians. In any case, and in light of 2 Cor. 6:14, Paul clarification is directed specifically towards spreading the gospel (not in creating amiable social contracts) since Paul knows that there are yet unconverted elect among those immoral people outside the Church. Judging people outside the Church means to consider them as “unworthy” to hear the gospel because of their behavior. Not to judge does not mean that we are to be lackadaisical with regard to their behavior. In fact, such behavior is a manifestation of their rebellion toward God, regardless of how civilized they may appear outwardly. With respect to Paul’s summary of Chapter 5, vv. 12 & 13, the contrast is not between the Church’s duty and that of civil government (or Christians functioning within civil government), but between the Church’s duty and what God will do. I do not see how 1 Cor. 5 can be used to identify what a Christian (leader or laity) may or may not do with respect to that which God has ordained for civil government.

As a citizen of the US the fact that I am a Christian doesn’t remove my right to oppose (or affirm) any law for any reason or for no reason. For example, I would suppose that most atheists affirm laws against most forms of murder. Yet, they have no bases for this other than man’s opinion. Likewise, as a Christian, I affirm laws against murder, but my basis is God’s Word and not my opinion or that of other men. Nevertheless, both bases are valid (but not necessarily accepted) within our culture (legal system). Similarly, I can oppose (or affirm) state sanctioned homosexual marriages or civil unions for any reason or for no reason. If my position on this matter is based on God’s Word, to say that my position is not acceptable because it would impose my religious belief on those who hold contrary religious beliefs, is to say that we couldn’t have laws against murder because such laws would also impose my religious belief on those who hold contrary religious beliefs, even if they agreed with me as to the end result. The issue then, culturally speaking, is not about reasons for goals but achieving goals.

Within our system the means of achieving cultural goals is through representative constitutional republicanism. (Unfortunately, the judicial branch has subverted our system, but that is a matter for another day.) Accordingly, even though I am a Christian, my citizenship allows (and my Christianity requires) me to seek those goals which I think will lead to the best possible society. Within our system such seeking is a matter of amassing political power. If I base my goals on my religious beliefs and in publicizing such beliefs I gain sufficient support of like-minded citizens to achieve my goals, then I have functioned within the design of our system. Further, I have carried out my Christian duty to work for a justice society.

Our system is based on political arm-twisting. What politician don’t like about Christians doing it is that the quid pro quo most often doesn’t go beyond support in future elections. And such support can evaporate with one false step.

Now, as to a Christian leader claiming to speak for all Christians on a certain matter, I do not recall an incidence of this. Certainly there must have been some on the fringes who where not really leaders (that is, didn’t have a significant following) and who have made such claims, but no one has taken them seriously. I would be surprise if Dobson, Falwell or the like ever made such a claim. What I find is that Christians who oppose the goals or even the strategies of such men do so by inference. It is much easier to say that person doesn’t represent me than is to work for one believes in. Of course, if one is satisfied with the way things are and are progressing then I suppose disassociation with those who see things differently is sufficient.

One of the assumptions you have made is that only the God-ordained “Christian life” with all of its ethics and morals will lead to the best form of society. Atheists, you argue, oppose murder but do not realise that they base this upon Biblical principles.

Paul’s attitude to the government of the day is interesting. The Roman empire was a dictatorial, inherently racist, expansionistic, imperialistic, corrupt and thoroughly steeped in paganism. And yet Paul says that God allowed the Roman Empire to exist and that we should pay them taxes. In fact the only time in the New testament that the Roman Empire gets any flak is in Revelation when it begins to persecute the church.

God, in his great mercy, has allowed us to live in societes that provide us with order and prosperity. Europe is possibly one of the most secular and non-religious places in the world, and yet they are hardly suffering because of their opposition to God.

You say that “my citizenship allows (and my Christianity requires) me to seek those goals which I think will lead to the best possible society.” No. Our kingdom is not of this world. The best possible society can only come when people bow their knees to Christ and this can only occur when the Gospel is preached.

Christians who focus on supporting political goals that enforce Christian morals and ethics have lost their confidence in the Gospel, and have placed their confidence in human political systems.

Here is Australia we have a society which grants our citizens freedom and wealth and order. If you use the “Human Development Index” as a comparison, you find Australia has a better overall standard of living than the USA. And yet less that 5% of our people are truly Christians. That’s why I don’t go out protesting when there is a gay rights parade - I think it is better to preach the Gospel and let God do the work.

Where I depart entirely from Dobson. I want my kids to show respect to people, all people. I don’t want them to be DISrespectful towards people, PERIOD. I realize that it’s a fine line between respecting a person whose life choices I don’t agree with and respecting those life choices. I don’t want my kids to grow up believing that every choice about sexuality deserves respect. I DO want them to grow up believing that they need to show respect to every person, regardless of their life choices. It IS a fine line, but that’s okay. I’m The Mom and it’s my job to teach fine lines.

My question for Dr. Dobson would be this: do we want our children to treat people who make lifestyle choices different from our own with DISrespect? Is that REALLY what we want to be training our children up to?

I am with you 100% on not only Dobson but all of the other Christian “leaders” we have. You had an excellent post some time ago called: “None dare call it marketing” about Beth Moore and Lifeway. I thought of it immediately when reading your thoughts on Dobson.

I know in my denomination a man has to go through some pretty serious examination to be granted the authority to preach, but the Dobsons of the world seem to think they speak for all of God’s kingdom because they are syndicated on radio throughout the country.

Thanks for the great post and the great site!