Who’s the next Dobson?
The Washington Times yesterday ran a somewhat irritating piece in which evangelical leaders acknowledged that…well…there is no Evangelical Leader. No heir apparent, that is, to James Dobson’s mantle as leader of conservative Christians.
Mr. Dobson, 72, who resigned last week as board chairman of one of the country’s most influential evangelical organizations, is one of the last of a great generation of evangelical leaders.
Some have died: the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Moral Majority founder; theologian Carl F.H. Henry; Florida pastor D. James Kennedy; Campus Crusade for Christ founder Bill Bright; and Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer, who founded L’Abri Fellowship.
Others have either retired or have passed on the bulk of their duties, such as the Rev. Billy Graham, 90; televangelist Pat Robertson, 78; author and activist Tim LaHaye, 83; and Prison Fellowship founder Chuck Colson, 77.
To be sure, the major media played Dobson up as conservative Christians’ putative leader, though millions of actual Christians, and even Dobson himself, would disagree with such a monolithic idea. The reason the WT article is irritating isn’t the paper’s fault; it was the disturbing comments on what makes a conservative evangelical leader.
The Rutherford Institute’s John Whitehead said evangelicals lack a galvanizing issue:
“It used to be the pro-life movement,” he said, “but I am not sure there is an issue now. The issue evangelicals key on is the gay movement, but they have lost that issue. There is no cause for a leader to emerge in now.”
Hmmm…what about salvation, the poor, the widow, the hungry, the prisoners?
Rice University professor D. Michael Lindsay, author of Faith in the Halls of Power, a book on influential evangelicals, picked Family Research Council president Tony Perkins as the Dobson du jour:
“He is telegenic, he’s young, he has all the credentials for the conservative wing of American evangelicalism.”
Don’t get me wrong: I like Tony. It’s Lindsay’s shallow take on what makes a leader that chaps my hide, not only in terms of requisite qualities — why is young better? — but also the underlying idea that Christian conservatives will just sort of go, “Okay, that guy’s resume looks good. Everybody fall in!”
And another thing: Who says conservative evangelicals are looking for a Dobson successor in the first place?




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top98 Comments to “Who’s the next Dobson?”
I think Obama already anointed Rick Warren, The Mufti Of Mecca and the Reverend Wright to take over religious spirituality on earth for him since he is too busy now a days being messiah and all.
Report comment to moderator
I was always thought that Christ was the head of the Church. Her Bridegroom, her leader, and the Chief Shepherd. It is my humble opinion that Christians need to seek the Scripture’s guidance and obey the same as Christ commanded us. While I agreed with much of James Dobson’s views, I found that some of his method of communicating truth in a harsh manner. The Bible clearly commands us to teach the truth in love. Truth without Love is harshness and Love without truth is Heresy.
Report comment to moderator
Find a new leader? Sounds like finding a coach for a sports team. …and I like how “Christians” lost key issues such as, gays, abortion etc. No, we won! In Jesus we did what we could. This world lost, and it saddens me to know that we will eventually pay the consequences of these losses. Eteranal scope and perspective always seems fanatical and debased to those who view that the debate over moral issues is mere sport. …a matter of winning and losing not right and wrong
Report comment to moderator
Job B
Good points – we have Christ Jesus HE is our Savior – We are to follow HIM.
Report comment to moderator
rider500 – 4
I love what you said “In Jesus we did what we could.”
Report comment to moderator
Why does this guy say there are few conservative leaders? Why doesn’t he say there doesn’t appear to be any high profile conservative leaders? I think that would be more accurate. I’m sure we have plenty of conservative leaders, but the media just isn’t slobbering over them…
For some reason….
Report comment to moderator
I hope there is no successor. We’ve had enough trouble out of the movement.
Report comment to moderator
Lefties are voting for their next door neighbor, not that they know who it is, to lead their religion. He is the one who is changing the diapers on and feeding their kids, paying their mortgage and unemployment insurance for them.
Report comment to moderator
Tomorrow morning, there will be a story to the effect that Christians, conservatives, and Republicans are all the same and Rush Limbaugh is the new Dobson!
Report comment to moderator
I nominate John MacArthur. I am not an evangelical and have a BIG problem with fundamentalist notions of salvation (that you accept Jesus or are eternally damned). But IF that is true, then MacArthur is right that pastors and Christians need to spend almost ALL of their efforts at conversion and not fighting a political-cultural war.
Report comment to moderator
It would serve the purpose of all the liberals if Christian Believers never put their efforts into changing laws, etc, which are against our moral beliefs, or more importantly what the Bible says.
Dream on ……
Report comment to moderator
Didn’t Tony Perkins once buy David Duke’s mailing list?
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, I meant to say rented David Duke’s mailing list. He didn’t buy it. But back in 1996 he reportedly paid David Duke over $80,000 for the right to send mail to the people on Duke’s list.
Report comment to moderator
As far as the new evvie leader, I doubt if there will be one. The power of evangelical’s to affect politics peaked a long time ago, and is now nearly dead. Look at California. The place is overrun with illegal aliens, it’s facing an annual deficit of $42 billion (much of it due to illegals), 20% of the people in LA are on welfare, the infrastructure is shot, the state now has the lowest credit rating of all 50 states. IOW, the place is going to hell in a hand basket, and all Christians out there can seem to worry about is two men marrying each other.
Report comment to moderator
“It would serve the purpose of all the liberals if Christian Believers never put their efforts into changing laws, etc, which are against our moral beliefs, or more importantly what the Bible says.”
I nominate Victoria!
Report comment to moderator
Night Train
Can you prove what you posted in #13 and 14 – not using ‘blogs’ as your source?
Report comment to moderator
It would serve the purpose of all the liberals if Christian Believers never put their efforts into changing laws, etc, which are against our moral beliefs, or more importantly what the Bible says.
Dream on ……
Whosever purpose it would serve, the comment doesn’t apply to me because I am not a liberal but a libertarian. But ultimately, if evangelicals are right about salvation, it would serve CHRIST’S purpose because He said His Kingdom is not of this Earth, and was apparently concerned with saving souls not changing laws.
Report comment to moderator
The Wildmon’s (Son Tim and father Donald) are an amazing asset. Hard to believe no one has yet mentioned the American Family Association.
Report comment to moderator
Hmmm…what about salvation, the poor, the widow, the hungry, the prisoners?
What does any of that (except maybe personal “salvation”) have to do with evangelicalism? None of those people seem to matter to most evangelicals and evangelical leaders except as targets for prostletization (sp?) and scorekeeping.
I was really struck by the scene in the younger Pelosi’s movie showing the evangelical McCain campaign worker, who claimed she was doing “God’s work”, working the waiting line at her church’s soup kitchen, handing out McCain literature. She runs into a Black fellow who knows the score on the Republican attitude towards people of color and he challenges her.
I can assure you that any good feelings generated by this church’s charitable work were more than canceled out by her actions.
Imagine being hungry enough to have to accept free food, but at the cost of having to be told how to vote! Or which god to pray to.
Report comment to moderator
The fewer “high-profile” leaders with lots of connections and power, the less likely we are to fall into the temptation of leaving our Husband, Lover, Savior, King, and Judge for a lesser lover like politics, power, or influence.
Report comment to moderator
I think the whole premise is wrong. While Christians often liked Dobson and lent an ear when he spoke, we certainly didn’t “follow” him.
I never went looking for his opinions. If I ran across one, I’d read it and give it a second thought, but I never searched his opinions out.
As someone else said, our leader is Christ. We’ve never needed another. We don’t need one now.
If another Billy Graham or Dobson comes forward, it is because God wants one. That would be fine. But, if no one comes forward, that’s fine too.
Report comment to moderator
#11, “…then MacArthur is right that pastors and Christians need to spend almost ALL of their efforts at conversion and not fighting a political-cultural war.”
How conveniently nice for secular and/or homosexualist militants and activists who do spend much or most of their time fighting a political-cultural war. How nice would it be to have no opposition against your aggressive agenda!
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia…clueless about most Christians…as usual.
Report comment to moderator
Good scoop, NT-
In 2001, Perkins addressed the Council of Conservative Citizens (successor organization to the anti-integration White Citizens Council) – a known racist group with an agenda of white supremacy. [3]
The Nation claims that in 1996, Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,000 for use of his mailing list. At the time, Perkins was campaign manager for Louis E. “Woody” Jenkins, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Louisiana. The Federal Election Commission fined the Jenkins campaign $3,000 for attempting to hide the money paid to Duke.[4] The Family Research Council says Blumenthal’s claims about Perkins’ connection to David Duke are false; FRC adds that Duke’s “connection was not known to Mr. Perkins until 1999. Mr. Perkins profoundly opposes the racial views of Mr. Duke and was profoundly grieved to learn that Duke was a party to the company that had done work for the 1996 campaign.”[5]
Report comment to moderator
It’s too bad Ted Haggard was outed. He would have been perfect.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
Even more interesting is how the cultural war was just dismissed with “It used to be the pro-life movement,” he said, “but I am not sure there is an issue now. The issue evangelicals key on is the gay movement, but they have lost that issue. There is no cause for a leader to emerge in now.”
I think a lot of people would be surprised to hear that the war is “lost” and that there are no issues anymore.
I’m sure the gays would LOVE it if they thought they’d won. I’m sure the abortion clinics would be even happier.
But, I don’t believe we have lost. Things come, things go. History often bears out temporary “wins and loses” that are reversed as people become more enlightened.
We *may* lose on the gay issue (although we never really lose, as Victoria said). But, I am firmly convinced that — as technology improves — future people will look back on the abortion holocaust with loathing and will be very sorry for how their ancestors behaved toward the least among us.
Report comment to moderator
No evangelical leader?
Let’s define “leader:”
One whom the media selectively pays attention to in order to give a public profile to them so they can lambast him or her mercilessly.
If the media are not paying attention to an evangelical, he cannot by definition be considered a “leader.”
Report comment to moderator
Connections to David Duke are inexcusable, but connections to Jeremiah Wright are commendable.
It’s one of Christendom’s weaknesses that there is no real leadership. Denominationalism is a curse.
Report comment to moderator
Christians trust God to raise up whomever He sees fit on whatever terms He sees fit to accomplish His will and work on earth, as He sees fit, when He sees fit. Always have. Always will.
I am so grateful that when God called Dr. Dobson, he and his wife Shirley courageously answered and were willing to take tons of vicious abuse simply for standing up for decency. He even got criticized by people he never knew for how they presumed he treated his dog. Unbelievable.
And look what this innocent question at the top of this thread has already brought out in terms of perceived attacks on a suggested alternative to Dobson, like Perkins. Desperate and vicious haters seem to already be trying to tie him to the KKK somehow.
Being an “Evangelical leader” means being subjected to incredibly harmful and hateful treatment and relentless attacks, personally and professionally, from people you have never met or known.
How dare evangelicals have opinions, let alone influence!
Report comment to moderator
“Perkins. Desperate and vicious haters seem to already be trying to tie him to the KKK somehow.”
That’s not necessary. It’s common knowledge.
Report comment to moderator
TRS – 27
TRS, as the days grow shorter for our LORD’s return, it might be sooner than we think. The days are going to get a lot darker.
Today we see a great “falling away first” (verse 2) – not just in abortion, or the desire for same sex marriage – but in the decay of the entire morality of mankind. We must stand fast, praying for those who don’t know HIM.
Report comment to moderator
“Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.”
My hope is that Evangelicals stop seeing themselves as a political group following a charismatic priest-king and striving for “influence” as a demographic. We are called to be leaven, which disperses through the loaf and causes the entire thing to rise. What we’ve been is a clump of inactive yeast in the center of a hard flat crust.
So think, vote, and participate as your reason and conscience dictates best for the nation as a whole. Although you think homosexuality a sin, you should still ask yourself if this particular law would treat homosexuals with justice. Though all Bible-believing Christians can agree that homosexuality is a sin, I see no reason it should be “the Christian position” that the federal government punish homosexual behavior.
I’m not pushing a particular conclusion, just a process. Stop seeing this as “the Christian position” (that is to say, the Republican position) and that as “the secular/godless position.”
So, Joel Mark, if you have influence, let it be for the strength of your ideas and the clarity of your reason. Don’t covet influence as a religious political party. We aren’t called to that.
“My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”
Report comment to moderator
My hope is that Evangelicals stop seeing themselves as a political group following a charismatic priest-king and striving for “influence” as a demographic.
******Please tell me when we’ve seen ourselves that way. Our DETRACTORS claim it, but I don’t know of any evangelicals who feel that.
You’ve really been co-opted by the world, JJF.
Report comment to moderator
Though all Bible-believing Christians can agree that homosexuality is a sin, I see no reason it should be “the Christian position” that the federal government punish homosexual behavior.
******WHO (besides Fred Phelps) is asking the Federal government to “punish homosexual behavior.” Please, tell me! I would like to know, since I run in evangelical circles and have never even had this SUGGESTED as a solution.
I’m guessing 10% or less of the Evangelical population would even register this as an opinion???
Again, you’ve really been co-opted JJF. You must be reading the same blogs and drinking the same Kool-aid as Anlir.
Report comment to moderator
TRS – 36 – last paragraph, its true
Report comment to moderator
For millions of us, Dr. Dobson’s reduced power and influence is a welcome thing indeed. He spent his life making our lives as difficult as possible, both legally and socially. May no one ever rise to take his place if that’s how they’re gonna act.
Report comment to moderator
Ok.
Joel’s apparently believes evangelicals, as a group, are fully justified in wanting political influence.
You clearly see evangelicals as a political group fighting political battles.
Joel Mark clearly sees evangelicals as a demographic struggling for control against the “secular and/or homosexualist militants” in a political-cultural war. He specifically rejects the call to leave that political struggle and focus on salvation.
Victoria clearly sees that a primary goal of Christians is to change laws to reflect their moral beliefs. This is, by definition, a political goal that, of necessity, requires influence to achieve.
All of these comments and many, many more indicate your propensity to see a new Christendom in the American political right. Your goals are political — that laws reflect Christian morality — your methods are political — the wielding of influence and power.
Report comment to moderator
Right on, JJF! For millenia Satan has tried to tempt Christ’s Holy Bride, the Church, with political power to cause her to be unfaithful to her first love. We must honor Christ as our King first and foremost and seek a better way. The pagans all run around in their little cliques jostling for power and influence, and for too long in America conservative evangelicals have acted just like them. There’s got to be a better way.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir
Nothing has changed – Dobson nor anyone else is in charge, that’s where you’re wrong. We as Believers don’t rely on any one person to direct our vote. If anything, the last few months have brought many more together regarding the immoral laws in this country. It’s obvious Obama isn’t a leader, many aren’t following him any longer – the support he had on January 20th has weakened significantly.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t recall the media ever propping up Dobson so they could lambaste him. They more often portrayed him to be a kind of evangelical god-father, but in fairness he acted like one. It wasn’t the media that invented the narrative that if you cross Dobson all the evangelicals will vote against you. Dobson did that (with the help of all the evangelicals who voted exactly the way he told them too for so many years).
The article is more right than wrong. Evangelism means spreading the word, its implies politics and advocacy more than service, and our constitution doesn’t begrudge evangelicals freedom to advocate.
So who is going to be the next Dobson? Probably no one. Dobson was born in an era where communication technology supported hierarchy and his uniform influence declined was the Internet took off. The current state of IT and it’s affect on politics probably makes another Dobson impossible – and not called for.
It’s an era passed!
This tech shift probably has more to do with it than evangelicals “lacking an issue.” They have tons of issues, just not many that are in vogue right now. After all it’s hard to get people to prioritize social issues in the wake of an economic nightmare. All “culture warriors” are learning that.
Report comment to moderator
menliketreeswalking – 40
Trying to convince Believers to go back to their homes and churches, and leave laws and government to those who would destroy this country?
No we haven’t, your argument doesn’t hold water, but it does give the liberals hope that we might listen to you. Are you their spokesperson?
Report comment to moderator
I do recall that Dr. Dobson threatened the Republican party on something, and then threatened to take millions of followers and leave the Republican party if he didn’t get his way. He overplayed his hand and he’s been going downhill ever since.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir – 44
YOU POST: ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ “I do recall that Dr. Dobson threatened the Republican party on something, and then threatened to take millions of followers and leave the Republican party if he didn’t get his way.”
Vague, very vague with not an ounce of content, it’s that “something” which is missing….. where is it? PROVE it Anlir, start proving what you post – and again NOT USING BLOGS.
Report comment to moderator
23,
Oh yes Joel, what a wishy-washy figure on homosexuality I invoked as a person who should be the next evangelical leader.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02qmhLLc-rc
Report comment to moderator
Yes, for the moral relativists, there is no right and wrong–only winning and losing. They use the terminology of absolutes when they accuse Christians of having “lost our moral compasses,” etc., but these ideas have no real meaning in their minds. It’s all just a game for them, and they’ll use whatever words and tactics they think will help them “win.” They have no idea who’s really running the show.
Report comment to moderator
Our mandate is preach the gospel for the purpose of saving souls and redeeming the culture.
Report comment to moderator
Our mandate is preach the gospel for the purpose of saving souls and redeeming the culture. [Bold mine.]
Actually Ree, what you did was add something that is not biblical to something that is. What is in bold is not biblical. The Bible never speaks of “redeeming the culture.”
Report comment to moderator
Victoria:
No one is saying that. Believers can and should participate. But they should participate as wise citizens informed by their Christian faith, not as “The Christian Right” brought to heel whenever a politician with an R after his name says “homosexual agenda” or “abortion.”
The Christian Right has sought political power since Francis Schaeffer (against his better judgment and at the prodding of his impetuous son) crafted that entity in the 70’s. For 30 years, they were manipulated by a party whose elites mocked them in private. They reached the zenith of their power with the election and re-election of George W. Bush, a born-again evangelical with a dynamic conversion story but no evidence of aptitude for the job. The theory was — I remember this clearly — just get a Man of God in the Whitehouse, and everything will turn out alright.
Well it didn’t. You’ve been played for predictable fools. Your unequal yoking has led Christians to be supporters of right-wing causes that are not explicitly Christian, and are sometimes quite explicitly unChristian (e.g., torture, wars of aggression, usury).
Here’s one example. What in the Bible would make Christians become crusaders against illegal immigration? There’s nothing about that in the Bible, and quite a bit that argues for the kind treatment of aliens and outcasts.
So if the Bible itself says nothing directly about illegal immigration, why the broad support for it among evangelicals?
I argue that you’ve bought into a culture. Your political allegiances have tailored the information you are willing to hear and credit, thus making you fervent supporters of a policy that the most direct reading of Scripture seems to argue against. Your loyalty has been bought with perennial rhetoric about issues you care about (like abortion), and in the meantime you’ll support your party in all its other endeavors.
That’s the price of seeking power and influence. You have to whore yourself out to get it.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, among other incidents, Dr. Dobbie threatened to leave the Republican Party if it nominated Rudy Giulianai. I also believe he threatened to walk and take his followers with him if Bush didn’t nominate an anti-choice conservative for the Supreme Court.
So take that and stuff it in your bonnet Queen Victoria.
Report comment to moderator
What Anlir is talking about is common knowledge. Dobson said that if the Republicans nominated McCain, he would not endorse the Republican candidate. Though he said he was speaking personally and not as the head of his Christian media empire, he said it publicly, on the radio, to his Christian media empire. So take that for what it’s worth.
Whether Dobson’s was playing at kingmaking or just speaking off the cuff, he later retracted his remarks and endorsed John McCain.
For the same. Old. Reasons.
The Dems had fielded the most radical, the most socialist, the most anti-American, the most pro-babykilling candidate in forever (or at least since the last election) and if Christians didn’t rise up now and reclaim this nation for Christ by voting Republican, then the Devil and his minions would drag us all to hell.
Report comment to moderator
No one is saying that. Believers can and should participate. But they should participate as wise citizens informed by their Christian faith, not as “The Christian Right” brought to heel whenever a politician with an R after his name says “homosexual agenda” or “abortion.”
******THAT’S what I was disagreeing with you on, JJF. You did not point out any examples to me of Believers arguing to be part of a “Christian Right.” You showed me examples of Believers who want to be a part of the political process and have their opinions and beliefs heard.
The fact that most Believers who are Biblically informed want certain similar things does not mean that they have asked to be part of some sort of “Christian Right” political party or movement.
Ideas first. If that puts us into a block, well that is natural. Few Believers are wanting to be part of the block first and then come up with what they believe.
Report comment to moderator
JJF,
Not endorsing someone personally, and threatening to leave the Party and take “millions” with you are two widely different things. Your post doesn’t support Anlir’s at all.
Report comment to moderator
TRS – 54
Precisely, they are two different things -
Report comment to moderator
#39
In other words, JJF. You seem to imply that — should someone be a Believer — then he or she should back out of politics and no longer have any opinions nor fight to express those opinions.
Where does it say in the Bible that we can’t be good citizens? When we become Christians, are we then allowed no vote, no opinion, no political power as citizens of the U.S.?
And, should we choose NOT to be hypocrites, and allow our *belief system* and world view to actually INFLUENCE our voting choices and our political choices…you think that is WRONG????
Everyone else, no matter who they are, is influenced in their choices and voting habits and support by their world view. That’s human. To not be so would be to be a horrible hypocrite, and worse, probably mentally unbalanced.
Yet, you would ask Christians to do that?
Allowing Christian participation as citizens in no way proves your assertion that Christians are primarily interested in being “…a political group striving for “influence” as a demographic.”
I have NEVER gone to Dobson to ask him how to vote. The fact that I may vote similarly is because I am heavily influenced by a biblical world view. And, even if I had looked up his opinion on something, it would simply be ONE of many reasons why I might choose to vote however I do. It certainly wouldn’t be because he was my “leader” and I felt in any way obligated. It would be because I liked his opinion, and respected it and thought it was worth supporting. Or I wouldn’t.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, there are those who want us to forego our American right to vote. In that sense you are absolutely correct when you say “dream on.”
I agree with TRS. God will provide or not provide a new leader. It may just be that the unknown unseen pastors in the country will grow up good citizens without a national leader. That’s all we really need to have happen.
Report comment to moderator
NJL
GOD will lead us, we must follow HIM.
When I read or listen to people saying we are not to be involved in politics or work to change laws which are against the Word of God, it does not line up with Scripture – it is an excuse many have manufactured to sit back and lecture those who work tirelessly –
Paul appealed to Caesar.
This means that he took advantage of the law as a Roman citizen. He was under threat of being killed for preaching the gospel and he used the law to his advantage. Likewise, we Christians can also use the law to our advantage. We should be praying for our leaders, paying attention to what they do, to how they vote, and to what they say. When people who are supposed to rule over us act in an ungodly manner, we need to oppose the evil.
Jesus overturned the tables of the unrighteous, there was nothing quite and meek about those tables taking a roll - Paul went to the unbelievers, speaking directly to correct their thinking.
We should oppose EVIL just as Jesus and Paul did -
Report comment to moderator
Of course I’m not saying that. I think I was pretty clear.
Be a citizen. Don’t be a groupie.
Stay involved, vote, write letters to the editor, be your most charming and persuasive self on blogs, convince people that your ideas are in the best interests of the country.
But don’t claim to speak for a “Christian” politics. Don’t seek secular political to enforce Biblical morality on non-believers. Don’t seek a modern-day Christendom. It is not what we Christians are called to.
And the quest for it has made some very unfortunate bedfellows.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, your post at 58 says it all. There’s no reason we can’t be salt by voting.
Report comment to moderator
JJF
YOU WRITE: “But don’t claim to speak for a “Christian” politics.
Most Believers agree on most issues, so in essence, they are a group, they speak the same language, and agree on the issues –
YOU WRITE: “Don’t seek secular political to enforce Biblical morality on non-believers.”
If non-believers believe that which contradicts what the Bible says, I would have no other choice than to point out the difference, and why I believed the Bible. No one can force anyone to believe the Bible, but we are called to tell others what the Word of God says – it doesn’t matter whether its political or not.
Report comment to moderator
I have already posted this passage of Scripture, however I wish to make some important points – John 15:
11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
We can’t stand against the wiles of the devil if we honker down in our homes and churches doing nothing, saying zero, and letting the immorals run like wild dogs throughout our land. We must speak out.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Where do people think the wickedness lies? many times its right in our own city, state, school and government- We as Believers have just as much right to make our voices heard as any pagan.
The pagan’s have been howling to all Believers to get back in their homes, their churches, anywhere but not in the market place, not in the legislature, not in politics – in other words, “we the liberals and pagans will decide the laws, we will choose what your children will learn in public school, we will decide how much money to take from your bank accounts, and further more we will spend it whatever way we wish, even if it is the biggest SOCIALISTIC government the world has yet to witness.
OH NO, that’s not going to happen, we as Christians are not to behave like wimps and doormats.
Report comment to moderator
The theme throughout Scripture is of redeemed individuals leading to redeemed societies.
Report comment to moderator
The theme throughout Scripture is of redeemed individuals leading to redeemed societies.
Exactly. And that puts the horse before the cart. But it’s not the same as “redeeming a culture” by fighting a culture war which puts the cart before the horse.
Report comment to moderator
#34, JJF wrote, “My hope is that Evangelicals stop seeing themselves as a political group following a charismatic priest-king and striving for ‘influence’ as a demographic.”
Straw man argument. First of all, Evangelicals do not tend to think of themselves as a political group. We think of ourselves as Americans who have as much right as the next guy to participate in politics, but our faith always comes first.
Second, I don’t know of any or many evangelicals who follow any “priest-king” except Jesus.
Third, as for stiving for influence, pray tell, who doesn’t? For that matterm, who shouldn’t?
Report comment to moderator
JJF, your misuse and obvious misinterpretation of my quotes at #39 was disingenuous and flawed through and through.
Again, how nice if you can stigmatize all evangelical efforts to participate in politics with any measure of legitimate infulence and active concern so that non-evangelicals can assert their influence in society, politcs and culture with less opposition.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with #65.
Most Christians just don’t see themselves as “groupies.” The Left would like to characterize us as that. And, it is easier for the media of any sort to put us in a basket together, because we often think alike.
But, we are as a whole, I think, not the kind of people to listen more than respectfully to anyone like a Dobson, and we certainly don’t easily follow a “priest-King.” Well, Protestants, anyway. I know that Catholics follow the Pope, but even they are still pretty far away from following him “lock step.” (Much to the Pope’s disappointment, I’m sure.)
In other words, JJF, you’re lumping us and defining us as those who are enemies of Christ do. Yet, you claim to be a Christian. I posted that you’ve been “co-opted” by the other side, and I think this is true.
You’re young, right? And probably a product of a good Christian home mingled with a “good” public education?
Am I guessing right?
Report comment to moderator
Christians have been dreaming that Christ will come again for a couple of thousand years. It doesn’t seem very likely.
Christians believe (with no evidence but wishful thinking) that a) our lives do not end when we die and b) that life–which is not particularly fair or just–somehow gets balanced out with some system of rewards (Heaven) or punishment (Hell) in the end.
With a brilliant metaphorical leap, many Christians argue a) we are all “fallen” (so no one “deserves” to go to Heaven) but God has “sacrificed” his Son so every body who signs up to be Forgiven gets to go to Heaven. Not very believable to many of us, but it’s probably the most persuasive bit of religious salesmanship every promulgated.
OK, if you believe that, fine.
However, in Christianity’s 2,000 years on earth, Christians can keep themselves from messing with everybody else. If Christianity has a system for making the mortal world as beneficial and livable as possible, it hasn’t really done that well. It’s not the worst system humans have come up with (cruel, evil, and destructive little cockroaches that we are), but it’s not that wonderful either.
So, unprovable and unverifiable supernatural beliefs aside, what is the purpose of Christians on earth? While you wait generation after generation for the return of the imaginary Son of God, what are you trying to achieve?
Report comment to moderator
can’t keep themselves from messing with everybody else. [correcting typo]
The fairly awful “born again” President we finally just got rid of for example. If conservative Christianity had anything useful to offer modern life, he set it back quite a ways. As much as you deny it in public, I suspect quite a few people here in their heart realize it.
Report comment to moderator
Joel:
If you feel I’ve misinterpreted your remarks, please correct them for me. As I see it, your posts frequently reflect a belief that the Church has a duty to seek and wield political power. This is a belief I find grievously in error, not at all supported by Scripture, and contrary to Christ’s calling on the Church.
But — I’ll say this to tone down the level of acrimony in a debate where statements like that get tossed around — I don’t doubt this is an honest disagreement of principle. I don’t doubt your sincerity or bona fides as a Christian. I just think you’re seriously mistaken.
Report comment to moderator
Who’s the next Dobson?
A better question would be, “When will Jesus become the Evangelical leader”.
I like Dobson as a Christian, but he is misguided when he mixes Christianity and psychology and Christianity and politics, and so on.
The theme throughout Scripture is of redeemed individuals leading to redeemed societies.
Name one. The theme throughout scripture is that Jesus Christ will redeem individuals who then become citizens of his society, namely the kingdom of heaven. The Bible has very little to say about the kingdoms of this world.
Report comment to moderator
TRS:
We both apparently believe the other has been “co-opted” by some un-Christian influence, so I don’t see the benefit of going in to that.
I was raised in an evangelical home. I have been in many, many evangelical churches. In most I have attended, there is a strong group mentality and a near uniformity of political opinion.
No one would call Dobson a “priest-king,” but his ideas, and the ideas of men like him, were highly regarded in the exclusive sort of way priests and kings are heeded. Compare Dobson’s reputation in any given evangelical church to that of any other psychologist. Many — I’ll hazard “most” — evangelicals would scoff in derision at the idea of listening to what a godless egghead ivory tower elitist psychologist would have to say about anything. Ha!
Except Dobson. He’s a man of God, lots of good practical advice, common sense, and Biblical wisdom.
The “groupie” comment was an oversimplification. Rather, Evangelicalism is a highly insular group, an echo chamber that gives credence only to a very exclusive few. Thinkers outside this group are distrusted, even when they argue intelligently and rationally. Witness Jon Rowe’s treatment on this blog. The guy has clearly done his homework and knows what he’s talking about. Compare it to the treatment David Barton receives at his many evangelical speaking venues (I’ve been to two!). Is David Barton better respected because his knowledge runs deeper or his scholarship stronger? No. David Barton is one of the high priests. Jon Rowe is not.
Fox News is a high priesthood. CNN is not.
If Evangelicals are as independent as you say, why are they in such broad agreement on issues not addressed by Scripture? Wouldn’t you expect a collection of independent thinkers to come to a wider spectrum of opinion on issues like immigration, gun control, the justice of this or that particular war, or tax policy. Yet the great majority of Evangelicals hold right-wing viewpoints on those issues, even though those issues are nowhere addressed in Scripture. More surprising, even when the plainest reading of Scripture argues against the right-wing position.
It’s the echo chamber. The marriage of convenience. Rather than engaging in politics as individuals with individual interests, Evangelicals tend to engage as a bloc — as a demographic. They follow pastors’ veiled admonitions to “vote according to Biblical principles” and the “voter education cards” left on foyer tables by right-wing groups. They’ve hitched their wagon to the Republican party, and rather than admit that this doesn’t look like the right road, they cheerily say that wherever the Republicans want to pull us must be right, because they’re God’s party.
Report comment to moderator
If “evangelical leader” is someone of prominence that most evangelicals look up to, who influences our opinions, who sets an example of what an evangelical should be, the very first post nailed it, it’s obviously Rick Warren.
But there’s another person, even more prominent who sets a good example, strives for Christian values that we all hold, leads Christians in the culture wars, and is admired by most. And most evangelicals wouldn’t immediately think of him as their “leader”, but he really is without us realizing it: Pope Benedict
Report comment to moderator
JJF – 72
YOU WRITE:
“I was raised in an evangelical home. I have been in many, many evangelical churches. In most I have attended, there is a strong group mentality and a near uniformity of political opinion.”
Remember JJF, you can only speak for yourself, your memories don’t line up with mine, and I was raised in an Evangelical Church (my father was a pastor)
YOU WRITE:
“No one would call Dobson a “priest-king,” but his ideas, and the ideas of men like him, were highly regarded in the exclusive sort of way priests and kings are heeded. Compare Dobson’s reputation in any given evangelical church to that of any other psychologist. Many — I’ll hazard “most” — evangelicals would scoff in derision at the idea of listening to what a godless egghead ivory tower elitist psychologist would have to say about anything. Ha!
Dobson goes from “priest-king” to “psychologist” in one swoop, LOL ? So now Dobson’s an ‘“godless egghead ivory tower elitist psychologist “ – you speak this way about brothers in Christ? When did Dobson become a “godless egghead” ? Your accusations JJF are not not something a Believer would look upon a respectful
YOU WRITE:
“Except Dobson. He’s a man of God, lots of good practical advice, common sense, and Biblical wisdom.”
Really? – Do you change course this way often, or have you chosen this occasion for your debut?
Report comment to moderator
Lol Victoria. Your inability to understand plain English never ceases to amuse.
JJF wasn’t calling Dobson a “godless egghead ivory tower elitist pstchologist.” He is saying that most evangelicals would think that about most psychologists, but because Dobson holds such a position of respected influence among evangelicals, they do not think of him that way.
JJF even said exactly that, which you quote at the end of your post, having apparently forgotten what the word “except” means.
LOL, you are funny. And it’s even funnier because you think you are making real points.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
JJF,
So, you answered one of my questions. You WERE reared in an Evangelical home. Now, for the second. Did you attend school in a “good” public school?
You have the mind-set of someone who is “double-minded.” In other words, it is obvious to me that your parents tried to do the right thing, but that you were heavily influenced by something outside their control, and that is usually the public school for Christian children who later become adults who think as you do.
Report comment to moderator
JJF,
I’ve never heard of Barton before this blog.
I do not, nor have not, listened to Dobson. I read one of his books a LONG time ago. I occasionally have read other people quoting him.
I do not watch Fox news. I get my news from the Internet for the most part, and only occasionally check Fox’s web site. (I actually prefer CNN’s layout, but I don’t check it all that much either.)
I have often said that I don’t particularly care for the Republican party. It’s just that they are better than the alternative, which supports abortion blatantly, supports socialism (semi-blatantly), and which I think actually plays dirtier than the other parties (which is not to say the Republican party doesn’t play dirty! They are just less successful at it in my opinion.)
Yet, I guess I think in lockstep.
Have you considered that those who submit to Christ would likely start thinking alike on a lot of issues?
This would simply be because they are being conformed to the image of Christ…not because they are looking to any “priest/kings” or to any particular political party.
Report comment to moderator
Did I choose the wrong thing to give up for Lent?
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know, RPN. Have you been reading Victoria’s posts and responding?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, have you ever noticed how the anti-Christians are some of the most unhappy people on the planet?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, have you ever noticed how the anti-Christians are some of the most unhappy people on the planet?
ha! How do you arrive at that conclusion? Are you NJPsychiatrist now?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria at #76: And the inevitable post insisting that you DID get it, even though it’s pretty obvious you didn’t. You always do these after having your error pointed out.
Why can you never just admit, “You’re right, I misread it.” I do that. Most people do that, admit a small mistake when they make one. You seem to be unable to bring yourself to do so.
Report comment to moderator
Christians have a duty to live out our faith in the public square and not to keep it confined within the confines of our hearts and the four walls of the church. Are you proposing that Christians should just retreat from the culture and and leave it all to the unbelievers to run things as they see fit?
Report comment to moderator
Random Name,
As to your semi-serious question about what good the followers of Christ have done…. As you know, ultimately that isn’t the most important issue, because Christianity isn’t primarily a system of ethics; it’s a relationship with God, through Christ–having our sins forgiven, being adopted into His family, being made more like Him, and finally spending eternity with Him.
But to ask “what good Christianity has done,” you’d really be better off looking at a church that actually follows Christ than at any government. My church of about 100 (not to brag, but to give an example) cares for those in its midst who are sick (which currently is quite a few people–people recovering from surgery, a woman who is pregnant and quite sick, and more), reaches out to those in our community who are in need (financial need or other forms), is actively involved in prison ministry (with several ex-cons in attendance), is involved in overseas ministry (currently in Africa with orphans and in India with those who are in danger for their lives), and other individual outreaches (adoption and foster care by individual families, for instance).
Second, you could look at a government that is heavily influenced by Christian ideals, such as the American constitution, but you do have to remember that any government will be influenced by true Christians, professing Christians who aren’t truly Christians, and many who aren’t Christians–it is at best filtered Christian thought. Still, America in operation under Christian principles was more “functional” in most ways than nearly any other nation in the history of the world. We aren’t living in the best part of America’s history; I think we’re living in the days of its old age. So today it isn’t a nation operating by Christian principles at all, and it isn’t a robust healthy nation anymore (morally, financially, or in any other way). But compare a nation that truly honors Christian principles with any nation operating under another religious system or under atheism, and I think you’ll see a stark difference. (Atheists themselves are better off in a land with a Christianity-influenced government than in one with an atheistic government.)
Have you ever actually read the Bible, Random Name? Have you done so in recent years? That might actually be a good retirement project–to know what it is you’re so glibly rejecting, but which offers you life and hope and peace. Or, rather, who it is who makes such an offer.
Report comment to moderator
NJL –
YOU WRITE: “Victoria, have you ever noticed how the anti-Christians are some of the most unhappy people on the planet?”
All the time – they know there’s something wrong with their lives – they most likely know that the only way to get relief is through Christ Jesus, but they don’t want to give up whatever sin has infested their lives. If they ever experienced the peace through our Savior they wouldn’t waste a second, they would fall on their knee’s.
We can pray for them.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria #43,
If you think that I am a liberal for suggesting that the church’s primary mission and goal ought to be faithfulness & obedience to Christ and that the desperate pursuit of political power has been an idol and a stumbling block to His Bride… well, I don’t think it’s worth talking any more about it. I had a very long and interesting conversation with Peter Leavitt about this, and even though we very strongly disagreed we were able to argue somewhat reasonably because we actually made counter-arguments to one another and didn’t simply dismiss what the other person said because we disagreed with it. We made cogent arguments instead. I do not think that you and I can have the same sort of relatively useful discussion.
Report comment to moderator
TRS:
Christ has not expressed himself on immigration, or welfare, or gun control, or tax policy, so I don’t see how a process of conforming to him would lead to uniformity of political opinion in these matters.
Yet Evangelicals widely accept the right-wing position on all these. They accept the right-wing position even when the most direct reading of Christ’s words could easily lead a person to accept left-wing position (such as on welfare or immigration). I realize many Christians argue that the Christ’s comments on these issues are meant for individuals rather than governments, etc., and I won’t rabbit-trail to address those specific arguments here, but if there were no extra-Scriptural unifying force among Evangelicals, there would be a wider spectrum of political opinion on these issues.
The extra-Scriptural unifying force is Evangelicalism’s political alliance with the Republican party.
Report comment to moderator
#88 MenLikeTreesWalking – Many of us on this blog have come to this same realization. There’s. just. no. point. There is no exchange of ideas and respectful discussion — just a telling you why you’re wrong. Just wanted to let you know you’re in good company, fwiw.
Report comment to moderator
menliketreeswalking – 40 – 44 – 88
Your remark in post 40 ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ “The pagans all run around in their little cliques jostling for power and influence, and for too long in America conservative evangelicals have acted just like them.”
You like to group everyone together, which isn’t true, but you do it just the same. “conservative evangelicals have acted just like them.” comparing conservative Evangelicals with pagans – this is insulting, but yet when you’re called on it as I posted in #43 you come back with:
Post 88 : ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ “If you think that I am a liberal for suggesting that the church’s primary mission and goal ought to be faithfulness & obedience to Christ and that the desperate pursuit of political power has been an idol and a stumbling block to His Bride… ” well, I don’t think it’s worth talking any more about it.” You have now decided to confuse my reply to you.
What I wrote to you was:
If you don’t care to talk about it anymore, that certainly is your prerogative, but please don’t confuse what was written on my part part as your excuse.
Report comment to moderator
#89
JJF,
Christ and the Bible are supposed to influence us in ALL things. There is not a separate compartment where Christianity holds sway, while other views take precedence in other areas. ALL THINGS are held captive to Christ.
So, it makes sense that people who have given their lives to Christ would begin to be conformed to His image in ALL THINGS, whether or not they were specifically addressed in the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
So, it makes sense that people who have given their lives to Christ would begin to be conformed to His image in ALL THINGS, whether or not they were specifically addressed in the Bible.
So Christ wants immigrants to go back where they came from, to deny government aid programs and to carry his gun into church?
You’re doing a good job of ignoring JJF’s actual point. Maybe you could address it? How do you KNOW what “His image” is on matters where there is no recorded words of his to go by? How is it that conservative Christians somehow almost all reach the same answers on those matters, even when — as JJF rightly points out — the most direct reading of Scripture points the other way?
Report comment to moderator
How is it that conservative Christians somehow almost all reach the same answers on those matters, even when — as JJF rightly points out — the most direct reading of Scripture points the other way?
******One: I do not think Scripture often points the other way. I think good exegesis usually upholds the Conservative viewpoint better than it does the Liberal one.
Two: I used to BE you, Steve. But, as I turned my life over more and more to Christ, I started to be more and more Conservative. It just happened. As I became more conformed, my opinions changed. I didn’t listen to Limbaugh. They just changed.
Three: I don’t think Conservatives are right on every issue. I think we get backed into corners like everyone else…just as I’ve seen you be at times. In other words, we get so upset over the compromises, and the falsehoods, and the arguments of the “other side” that we become MORE to the Right than we’d otherwise be for fear of that “slippery slope” or just because we feel so pushed by the horrors of the other side.
Four: Please show me where the direct reading of Scripture argues for 1) no guns 2) unrestrained illegal immigration or 3) the *government* to take care of the sick, poor and needy.
Report comment to moderator
JJF ask a few questions in post #89
⇒ ⇒ ⇒ Christ has not expressed himself on immigration,
We aren’t taking immigration – the problem is with illegal immigration which is AGAINST the LAW
⇒ ⇒ ⇒ or welfare,
10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. 2 Thessalonians 3
⇒ ⇒ ⇒ or gun control,
It is against the law in most states to carry a gun without a permit.
⇒ ⇒ ⇒ or tax policy,
They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s. Matthew 22:21
⇒ ⇒ ⇒ so I don’t see how a process of conforming to him would lead to uniformity of political opinion in these matters.
If you can’t see it JJF you can’t help it.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria #91,
I will explain what I meant in my comment #40 because you dismissed it entirely, assumed that I wanted to “leave government to the people who would destroy this country” and called me a liberal when the biggest point that I wanted to make is that Christians need to worship and honor our King Jesus first.
I have “grouped everyone together” like you say because that’s how it is– Christians in America, regardless of their good intentions, have chased after political power and in many cases worshiped it more than Jesus in the last few decades. Look at how many mass mailings and e-mails you’ve gotten in the last few years warning you about how the liberals are going to ruin America and the only way to deal with it is to seize political power. Look at how conservative evangelicals pressed for Bush to be elected, only to be disappointed when he was hardly the turnaround we had wanted. Look at how various evangelical leaders– Haggard, Dobson, Falwell, etc.– courted political power and let themselves be used by political parties. We jostle for influence and power like all the other special interest groups, and we end up looking just like them. Being Christians in America today means more than just lining up for our turn to try to grasp political power like every other special interest group with our good intentions– it means forsaking the world’s ways and seeking to work primarily through preaching, teaching, evangelism, and discipleship with political activism way down the list. I think it’s still very good to participate and be active, but let’s face it– we look and act like the pagans when it comes to power, because we treat it exactly like they do.
In the future, if you want me to defend my argument, you should offer something more substantial than “No we haven’t” followed by name-calling.
Report comment to moderator
Endyblue #90,
I have certainly noticed this, and I try very hard only to specifically engage another person when I feel like it would be useful, or when I feel like I’ve got a decent argument worth defending and the time to defend it…
Report comment to moderator
menliketreeswalking
YOUR POST 40
“The pagans all run around in their little cliques jostling for power and influence, and for too long in America conservative evangelicals have acted just like them.”
My POST 43 No we haven’t, your argument doesn’t hold water, but it does give the liberals hope that we might listen to you. Are you their spokesperson?
YOUR POST #96
“In the future, if you want me to defend my argument, you should offer something more substantial than “No we haven’t” followed by name-calling.”
This is not clever MLTW – I have not called you names, it’s untruthful of you to accuse me. By your accusation, “conservative evangelicals have acted just like them.” The them being – “pagans” – I asked you if you were their spokesperson, that was a question, it was not “name-calling” – certainly you know the difference? – maybe you don’t.
YOUR POST #96
“I have “grouped everyone together” like you say because that’s how it is– Christians in America, regardless of their good intentions, have chased after political power and in many cases worshiped it more than Jesus in the last few decades.”
MLTW – you know the hearts of “Christians in America” ? You have stated you are still in college and you now claim to know their hearts, not to mention they have “in many cases worshiped it more than Jesus in the last few decades.”
YOUR POST #96:
” I think it’s still very good to participate and be active, but let’s face it– we look and act like the pagans when it comes to power, because we treat it exactly like they do.”
Speak for yourself MLTW, there are many who work tirelessly, who aren’t looking for power at all, what we as Believers do want is change in our laws regarding abortion, and we certainly do not want homosexual marriage to be legalized – we don’t want socialism to rule either – Be careful how you throw around the word pagans -
Below is the definition of a pagan
1. One who is not a Christian
2. One who has no religion.
3. A non-Christian.
4. A hedonist.
The use of words is important, using the correct word to define a point is one thing, to use a word such as “pagan/pagans” as the definition which doesn’t fit serves no purpose – it elevates no ones position to use such a word against Christian Believers -
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!