The Need to be Against
I got an email today pointing me to a blog post by a fellow Nazarene who is disgruntled with James Dobson. Now as a Nazarene I find many instances in which Dobson gets under my skin and I often find myself saying things like “we Nazarenes apologize for Dobson” when he goes on one of his rants which equate liberals with all that is wrong with the world and neo-conservatives with the eagerly awaited Kingdom of God. I tend to think that liberals (in the classic sense of the word) really do have a lot to do with what is wrong with this world but I can’t bring myself to attach the Kingdom of God to the Republican party like Dobson does (partly because of how liberal they are). So there are plenty of reasons to have one’s feathers ruffled at Dobson’s decrees from on high.
What I found interesting about the previously mentioned blog post was not that the author, Jeff Carr, had a beef with Dobson, it’s that Jeff was upset when Dobson didn’t criticize the right people in light of the Foley scandal. Even Dobson knew that as a highly visible conservative who has so attached himself to the Republican party he would have to make a statement about Foley’s actions. People were looking to Dobson from the left and the right to denounce the right people. When Dobson didn’t denounce all the right people Jeff Carr was upset. Why? Why do we look to leaders to condemn all the right people? Why does it reflect poorly on a Christian leader if they haven’t condemned widely or evenly enough?
What if Dobson didn’t say the obvious: that a congressman sexually harassing a teenage boy is wrong. Would we still know that it is wrong, or do we need Dobson to tell us that? What if Dobson acted like the Amish for a second and spoke of redemption for Mark Foley and a path of transformation out of his illicit life? That’s what I’d honestly like Christians to do in public more often. So far I’ve seen no redemptive words about Mark Foley from Dobson or anyone else for that matter. Dobson was very strong in his condemnation of Foley’s actions (as if saying nothing means you yourself are a child molester?!) but offered no words of redemption. And then some Christians pick apart Dobsons words as not condemning enough people or enough systems, etc. What if we put down condemnation for a while and picked up the mantle of redemption?
I know that I’ve been guilty of this in the past when it concerns President Bush. I’m not a fan of Bush, and I often judge public figures by their outspoken condemnation of his wars, etc. What if we spoke of redemption for President Bush, prayed for a transformation in his heart and actions instead of making sure that everyone we listen to condemns all the right people?
posted by Charlie at 11:36 AM
6 Comments:
That's a gracious post. I am chastised and challenged by what you say.
[What follows are my meandering thoughts, which grow weirdly sermonic. If you've already been to church this week, there's no need to continue reading ...]
I don't want to misunderstand OR be misunderstood, though, I will just say in general that redemption isn't just talking about fluffy love and smileys. Redemption is the path that is available after judgment. It is the mercy offered when punishment is deemed due. That's what I think both sides of the Christian spectrum miss: calling sin sin (or injustice injustice; or dishonesty dishonesty) is PART of acting mercifully. We don't have the option of either ignoring it or judging it. We call it wrong IN ORDER to make available a new, merciful, right way.
I of course only meant fluffy love and smileys though.
But seriously, of course you only speak of redemption because of the sinfulness of something. If there was nothing wrong with what Foley did I wouldn't be talking about redemption. It just seems unnecessary for someone like James Dobson to come out and clarify that sexually harassing a teenage boy is wrong. We all know that. And when that's all he has to say on the subject it becomes obvious that what he's saying is more about maintaining his own image as "pro-family" (whatever that means) than really saying anything to Foley.
ha ha. No, honestly, I'm grateful to ol' Jim. I wasn't sure what to think about sexually harrassing minors. Phew.
You WOULD be about fluffy love and smileys.
Okay, seriously, you're right. Well said.
Nice post Charlie. I appreciated Carr's post because I think we need more OT prophet types to point out the reticence of contemporary Christians (mostly on the right these days) to point out fault from within their own ranks. The majority of Christians in this country are seriously off track these days, and it's time more of us pointed that out emphatically. I think Carr, and the Sojo types in general, can tend to err a bit too much by buying into the contemporary American political mantra of two parties or else, but I think that's a different gripe. I agree it'd be nice to see Dobson and his ilk pray for redemption, forgiveness, transformation, etc., but I also think Dobson's use of this scandal to smear homosexulas even more is regrettable. And his reticence to criticize the Republican leadership, whom he claims to have delivered victory the last few election cycles, in light of their cover-up about obvious predatory actions against minor illustrates for me once again how his enamoration with political power has clouded his better judgment. What does family values mean anyway? Ugh.
I think Kara's reflection is the biblical approach that I'm most comfortable with.
Yet, I get so tired of calling the wrong wrong. Or, I guess I get tired of trying to get others to see the wrong that is wrong. Living the right seems to be a much more comfortable (philosophically) way to deal with evil. Such as praying and offering reconciliation with those who may be living out the sin in their lives. The truth is, its much easier to point fingers at wrong and often our motives convert from the biblical call to name evil to protecting ourselves from any naming coming our way. Its really hard to just live right and be redemptive in living and naming the evil by offering reconciliation and redemption.
I like what you both have to say.
ps. family values means whatever Dobson says it means. Duh.
Post a Comment
<< Home