Focus on the Theocon

Bene Diction was chiming in on James Dobson's latest broadside at McCain and leaves this P.S.

I don’t recall ever reading a Dobson criticism by Dr. Mark Byron, who is one of my daily blog reads. His typepad blog doesn’t have a search engine, a quick google found a sort of one from 2005.

Bene hasn't been reading things as closely as he should.

I haven't done a Ten Things I Hate About You post that Bene seems to be looking for, but I have been critical. Here's what Bene would have found if I had that internal search engine running.

May 2002-Dobson's in "a inter-evangelical food fight" with the head of Moody Broadcasting

Dobson, for all the good he does do, does have a stubborn streak, and it's showing here. It's not good for the two biggest players in Christian radio to be having a pissing match.

January 2004-Shooting down liberal dreams of a Dobson presidential run

If you think that his [President Bush's] record isn't strong enough on the moral issues of the day, may I offer up the Constitution Party and Reconstructionist-flavored Howard Phillips? Dobson voted for them in 1996 when Bob Dole got him POed. No thanks? I thought so; they're a bit too wingnut for me, too.

January 2005-Dobson looks to start a 527 fund

Dobson's not "a front for the White House," as one of Harry Reid's spokesmen intoned; he's a loose cannon who's in the process of getting some serious ammo.

May 2005- Family News in Focus is an ICBM silo in the Republican's "nuclear option."

On to another related rant. Our local Christian station has Focus on the Family's Family News in Focus broadcast on just after the 6AM news. Lately, it should be retitled GOP Leadership Forum, for the pieces are two-minute infomercials for the GOP's political platform. They've always been biased to the right, but had been more balanced and less overtly partisan in the past.

One big hobby-horse they've been riding is the nuclear/constitutional option issues; a few weeks back, they spent most of a week covering a pissing match between FOTF and Sen. Salazar on judicial nominees. Today, the piece plugged a Republican budget-reform bill.

Just like my beef with Robertson above, these Christian groups seem to becoming merely standard-issue conservative Republicans with a religious cloak. Most of the time, I'm going to agree with standard-issue conservative Republicans, but I don't like giving a Christian imprimatur to it, especially if it's on things like economics or immigration where there isn't a clear orthodox Biblical response.

_____

Another thing that bothers me is that a lot of the political theocons are rather dour and pessimistic. Robertson majors in snark and disdain for his foes and is hard to watch. Dobson is quickly heading in that direction, becoming more pessimistic and bitter as the years go by.

There's also a circle-the-wagons mentality that's not healthy. Instead of winning the world for Christ, we seem to be playing defense, fending off the advances of secularism. Last I checked, being against abortion and homosexuality aren't major cornerstones of the Christian faith, but it seems that way if you watch orthodox Christians in the news.

Of course, we won't get much press coverage for basic evangelism or ministry to the poor and hurting; ministries generally only get press if there's controversy or they step into politics.

We need to be reaching out to people with a God who loves them, a Jesus who died for them and a Holy Spirit that stands at the ready to transform their lives. We need something better than glum culture warriors. I don't mind a good fight for our culture, but we need more happy warriors.

April 2005-Broad commentary on the Church's PR in the media

For some reason, I'm remembering an old ad where a kid's parents were doing alternative financial planning by ambushing the Tooth Fairy. Poor TF looked like a leprechaun on a bender, and responded to the couple with a put-up-his-dukes bring-it-on stance.

The public persona of the evangelical church seems to be more like TF than Jesus, and that isn't good. Part of the problem is that it's the most combative folks that get the press; the gentle, thoughtful thinkers don't get quoted or invited on the TV shows. For instance Dobson (and Robinson and Falwell and Sekulow, for that matter) plays the role of the zealous Christian soldier all too well, thus the media love to cast him as the foil for the left; less combative figures aren't as much fun and get less coverage.

March 2007-Dobson and theocon company go after NAE official Richard Cizik for his anti-global-warming work. It's a "read the whole thing" piece, but here's my summation-

I'm loosely on the conservative side on the aisle on climate change/global warming; I'm a friendly skeptic who thinks a slow and steady move away from fossil fuels will be good in the long run, but a quick move away from them will do more harm than good overall. On that front, I'm more with Dobson than Cizik.

However, I find a faith that has room for the Ciziks one that better reflects the Gospel than the homogeneous conservatism that Dobson and company are shooting for. It shoos away folks with a collectivist bent on economics or a pacifist bent on foreign policy; that may well keep some sheep out of the Kingdom that God wants to reach.

I recall the old Audio Adrenaline song, Big House. To borrow from the chorus, our heavenly Father has a big, big house with lots and lots of room, room enough for people who are "too concerned" about climate change, as well as your standard-issue theocons.

November 2007-Calling Mike Huckabee a combination of Rick Warren and Dobson rather than the Jonah Goldberg-posited combo of Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson.

Who's your other daddy, Mike? Mr. Rudy's-my-man Rev-run Pat? NOT!

If we have to use a name that people who might link in from the Corner (if this got Jonah's attention) will recognize, let's go with James Dobson. Conservative first, Republican second. Give no quarter on the moral issues of the day, rather than sell your moral birthright out for a bowl of Homeland Security stew.

Warren isn't big on going to the mat on the hot-button theocon issues, but Dobson is.

Yesterday-I had "Conservative first, Republican second" down cold, as Dobson promises to sit out 2008 if McCain is the Republican nominee.

I'd rather have a 90% pro-life candidate who'd be open to appointing conservative judges than sit out and have Justice Tribe get confirmed after President Obama nominated him. 100% would be nice, but 90% beats the heck out of 2%.

Dr. Dobson can take his ball and play catch with Ann Coulter if he wants; he'll actually encourage moderates to vote for McCain and make it harder for Clinton or Obama to categorize McCain as a stooge of the fundamentalists.

OK, let's summarize the downside of Dobson:

• He's arrogant, has a perfectionistic streak and tends to boil things down into us-versus-them a bit too quickly. That tends to sell well on the radio, where a hard-core shtick draws a bigger crowd than a nuanced one.
  
• He also is a bit too wedded to the conservative wing of the GOP for my taste; even when I agree with him, he often brings too much of a theological imprimatur to secular political issues like judicial confirmations.
  

However, he is rather nuanced on child-rearing and psych issues; unlike many evangelicals who sneer at psychology as a hopelessly secular field that should be avoided, the Dr. in Dr. Dobson comes from a Ph.D. in psychology, not a theology degree. When he sticks to Focus' focus, he's largely on target.

He will bring a evangelical paradigm to his psychology, which won't please the liberals in the crowd; people looking for someone to defend extramarital sex and homosexual behavior won't be happy with him. Dobson was also a key help in getting Promise Keepers into national prominence, back when it was a much smaller entity headed by the football coach down the road in Boulder from FoTF HQ in Colorado Springs.

So, any criticism I have given is of an even-handed nature, critiquing someone I'm largely in agreement with rather than a broadside at an enemy ideological foe, which seems to be where Bene's distrust of the American religious right takes the writing at BDBO.

Comments

[Bene D]

Your are correct, I certainly have missed some of this.
Thank you.

"So, any criticism I have given is of an even-handed nature,
critiquing someone I'm largely in agreement with rather than a
broadside at an enemy..."

I heartily concur, you teach me a great deal.

The exporting of politicised US media based evangelicalism has not been good for Christianity in Canada, Australia, the UK, Asia...Need I go on?
We have our home growns, I think they also need to be in the light.

I have had the priviledge of interviewing mature Christians who walk our corridors of power in every party from the Hill to legislatures to city councils. I've seen their work building bridges that benefit all of us. Personalities and issues are distinguishable.

I have a deep distrust of extremism in the religious right.
I have a deep distrust of the extreme left.

Dominionism and reconstructionism, bedrock theology of Fotf is not biblical Mark.

As for 'enemy' I'm not touching it, polorizing is not productive.

What I do and will continue to do is link others to posts and people such as yourself. I'm glad you blog, we'd be intellectually, socially and spiritually poorer without you.