James Dobson and the Bible

I realize it's old news now, but a number of weeks ago, quite a few church members e-mailed me articles about James Dobson's criticism of Barack Obama over what Obama had to say about the use of the Bible in public and political discourse. At the time, I for whatever reason didn't blog about it--maybe because I find Dobson so utterly tiring, but I've come across some recent responses to Dobson that are worth sharing.

I rarely find much to agree with Dobson about, especially his interpretation of the Bible which is selective and usually slanted towards his own political agenda. My basic response is what I said in a sermon back in January--you can read it on the church web site. The sermon is titled "Is the Bible Really the Word of God?"

Before you look at Dobson's remarks or the responses to it, I would encourage you to read the particular speech in question that Dobson criticizes. It was a speech given back in 2006 at an event called Call to Renewal set up by Sojourners. I believe it is one of the most remarkable speeches given regarding the relationship between faith and politics ever given by an American political leader.

Perhaps the best response comes from Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners, who gives Dobson a nice drubbing.

Here's a good response to Dobson's claims about Obama's use of the Bible and regarding the Bible in general by Anthony Pin at Religion Dispatches. Pin makes a good point--the same one I make in my sermon--regarding each person offering his or her own interpretation whenever he or she reads scripture. The only problem with Pin's essay is that he makes the claim that there is no way to alleviate the tension that exists between different readings of scripture, so we should recognize the tension, acknowledge the ways scripture can be misused and make sure we read scripture with "a fundamental interest in healthy life options for all." I agree with him, but reading with "healthy life options for all" in mind is a particular form of interpretation--however admirable. The fact is that many, many people would argue that only some people deserve to have their interests taken into consideration. Muslims, heretics, people of a different political persuasion or just people that don't agree with the particular interpreter in question are often considered unworthy of basic rights or even life. My belief is that we have to do more than just acknowledge the many ways the Bible is interpreted; we must work in peaceful yet forceful ways against readings of scripture that demean others and justify violence against them.

An interesting site has been set up called "James Dobson Doesn't Speak for Me." I chose to sign on to the statement of the site--in an individual capacity, of course.

Grace and Peace,

Chase