I think this is a classic example of differing views of epistemology creating different heremeneutic approaches to the Bible. Those different approaches lead to different opinions, values, and actions which is where Dobson and Obama greatly differ.

I think the most direct and needed criticism that Dobson has for Obama is regarding Obama's appeal to broad groups of people. I believe that Dobson referred to this as the lowest common denominator of morality. Obama is looking for votes. . . his interpretation of the Bible, view of religous belief, and morality may not be derived from a political agenda, but he is using them to get votes. This happens all the time with politicians across the spetrum so it's not suprising and doesn't make Obama any different than most.

However, it is nieve I believe to say that the things he is saying about the Bible and religion are anything other than a well crafted plan to get "value voters" to join the left instead of being lock step with the right. After all, Dobson's comments were in response to Obama's attempts to meet with Dobson as Obama continues "reaching out" to conservatives. Obama initiated this conversation and I don't fault Dobson for acting on his beliefs and drawing a clear line of distinction in how they view the Bible and its teachings.

Whether I agree with it or not, it's simply Dobson being faithful to what he believes. I expect Obama to do the same (though after his backtracking on campaign financing I'm left wondering).

Just for clarification, I'm NOT saying that Obama is choosing to believe things for political gain. I am saying that he is gladly trumpeting what he believes for political gain, as do most politicians. This debate is about politics though, not really about the Bible or God from Obama's end.

Also, I know that you don't think that people like Dobson should use the Bible as THE source to govern our country. But aren't you advocating the same thing for Obama only using his interpretation of loving enemies and helping the poor in place of the things Dobson would emphasize? Isn't this still governing from the Bible using Obama's interpretations instead of Dobsons?

Finally, the issue of levitical law is clearly answered in scripture. Homosexuality and many other moral issues are addressed again in the New Testament, apart from levitical law, revealing that they continue to apply because they are reflections of God's character and created order. I think it's unfair to accuse Dobson of a double standard in this way. That misrepresents strongly what he and many Christians actually believe and creates a straw man. There are good explanations regarding the OT Levitical law and differences in the NT. To say that the Bible is the Bible and it's just picking and choosing is to ignore very compelling reasons for the differences.

Finally, there is a traditional understanding of the Bible. It is referred to in the NT as the apostles teaching. It was preserved in their letters and through oral tradition in the early church. THis includes what to do with the Levitical law as NT christians. Both you and Chris could also be accused of "the [Rachel or Chis] understanding of the Bible". That sort of criticism is not helpful. Anytime anyone says, thinks, or does something they are advocating their view of life and truth. Obama just wants to have Obamas view of the Bible in place of Dobson and Dobson is advocating his view instead of Obamas and we are discussing our views in place of others. We shouldn't paint Dobson as the bad guy because he advocates what he believes. We're all doing the same thing.

Very well written. Rather than try to rehash all of my thoughts I have included a link on the same topic. I think that we often mistakenly believe when two argue, we need to take one side or the other. I think they have both made some mistakes in this debate.

http://www.scottoverpeck.com/2008/06/obama-versus-dobson-epic-battle-between.html

"believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise"

(This is Barak Obama's problem in a nut shell. Compromise. The Bible is based on Absolutes. Obama says he believes in the Bible's inerrancy. He does not believe in it enough. With condoning the belief in compromise, though the separation of church and state is mandated, Obama is not a sold out Christian. If he were, he would not be taking the compromise).



Finally, any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion. (Faith is not proportional to compromise)

This goes for both sides.

"Even those who claim the Bible's inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages - the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ's divinity - are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life".

(This is an argument that only those who do not understand the core message of the Bible would make. Nothing in the Bible is to be modified to accomodate our desire for our pattern of life. You are either a Christian who is obedient to the life style God says would edify him. Or, you can not be a Christian of the type God invites into Heaven. This is what is refered to when Jesus says, "Not every one who says 'Lord'. 'Lord'. Will enter the Kingdome of Heaven").

"The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics."

(What politics? Does he mean the kind of politics that would cause a congregassion to lose it's tax exempt status?)

But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase "under God." I didn't. Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs - targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers - that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems.

(I do agree on his views here. However, there are too many Madelin Murray O'hares in the world to allow this. What Obama is speaking on are the ideals that have already been removed from society. The only way they will come back is if the Supreme Court can rule that the Constitution being "For the People" is represented by the majority in these issues.)

"No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack."

(People are free to do what they want. If homosexuals want to say or do certain things, the church can not stop it. However, when it comes to homosexuals living a lifestyle within the church, teaching the church that everything is permissable, then the homosexual agenda in the church should be put out on its ear.)

Barak Obama says he agrees with a more "Universal" approach to Government. I agree as well. However, the Universal approach to Government should not mean the church has to bend its theology. Churches should be able to teach that homosexuality is an abomination because the Bible says it is.
Churches ought to be able to say that partial birth abortion is wrong because it is.
The owners of restaraunts and other "public rest" and recreation esstablishments ought to not fear having a suit brought against them for not allowing a man (who says, "I feel like a woman") to enter a woman's rest room.
Bending absolutes to reflect a person's desire is called relative. Relative values are what get people locked up and innocent people hurt. So, in essence, relative values ought to be banned.

Obama Says that his mother did not have a faith "as in the way I [he] did". "Did". Then Obama goes on to say that he will see his mother in Heaven because there is more than one way to have a relationship with God. Bull. Our Bible, the very same one he says he believes in does not teach that. If it did, there would be no New Testament. Jesus being central to a person's salvation is the message of the New Testament. Jesus does not say, "well, if you find another way, go for it".
Obama is a joke for calling himself a Christian. He is just pandering to voters of all faiths. That is politics. He is obviously good at it. And you, you don't know what the Bible teaches either. You would not last half a second in a debate with James Dobson. Who do you think you are fooling in giving your opinion?

Good gracious Rachel! I just read your profile. Why would you say that every other Follower of Jesus Christ will spend the rest of their life figuring out what being a "follower of Jesus Christ means"? If you do not know when you die what that means, it is too late. Being a Christian requires the Law of the New Testament. The New Testament is repleat with this command and exhortation.
If you do not read my manuscript on my blog, at least read the seventh chapter.
http://deityquest.blogspot.com/

Dobson's had one and only one agenda for the past decade: political power.

His days of helping parents be good parents are long past. These days, he's all about the trying to consolidate a voting block and use it as a hammer in Washington.

Don't pick on Dobson. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

I am leary of Senator Obama's politics because I have studied his voting record and he is one of the most liberal senator's on the hill. 94.6% of the time he votes with his party and at least another 2% of the time he votes against both the majority of Dems and the GOP. Anyway, I think your post was well written. Thank you for your voice in the wilderness. Humm...(Think that might rile Mr. Leasure...oh well).

The few people I knew who still had some respect for Dobson seem to have lost that respect after this recent political bumbling. It was just so painfully apparent that Dobson's primary concern was not engaging a theological idea or discussing the Bible--rather, it was trying to support a political party at all costs. I certainly think Dobson has as much of a right to his interpretation of the Bible and how it applies to politics as anyone else. But his transparent partisan agenda was simply shameful for someone who is billing themselves as a religious leader. Frankly, I felt embarrassed for him. Again, he has a right to voice his own political views, but I expect Christian leaders of all persuasions to put honesty and integrity above political agendas.

Realiaing that one can not know someone else's true beliefs, I can not engage Mitch's insinuation that Obama is being less than genuine and simply trying to pull in as many voters as possible. On the other hand, he is running for president, so it's not an inconceivable suggestion. But anytime you have a political leader speaking about the Bible with greater clarity, nuance, and even-handedness than a religious leader, it really makes you wonder about that religious leader.

I think this whole exchange is more a reflection on Dobson and his rapidly diminishing role in politics than it does anything else.

-Matt