Related articles and links |  1 of 3

James Dobson is president of Focus on the Family.

Many Christians in America are engaged in a great debate today about moral issues and whether they should be working to promote their beliefs in the centers of power. Some have concluded that their countrymen no longer care about right and wrong, and that believers should throw up their hands and declare the culture war lost. We hear this talk everywhere—suggesting that conservatives quit trying to influence local and national governments.

This resurgence of isolationism is not new, but it is articulated again in a recent book entitled Blinded by Might: Can the Religious Right Save America? The authors, Cal Thomas and Pastor Ed Dobson (no relation), criticize those of us who believe it is our duty as Christians to voice our views in the public square. Cal has been my friend for years, and he has appeared on the Focus on the Family broadcast many times. He is a good man whom I respect. I'm not acquainted with Pastor Dobson, but I believe both of these men love the Lord and are sincere in what they write. Unfortunately, at least in my opinion, they are dead wrong in their perspectives about public policy. Furthermore, what they recommend for the Christian community would accelerate the decline of America if the ideas they espouse become widely accepted.

Let me respond to several of the themes articulated in Blinded by Might, the first being a perspective with which I agree. The authors made the case that the church should never be involved in politics. To "marry the pulpit" to a political party or candidate is to risk its widowhood in four years. Who can argue with this point? It is hardly a new concern. Indeed, it is patently illegal for churches and nonprofit organizations to be involved in campaigns and elections, and the IRS will revoke the tax-exempt status of organizations that violate the law. There has been only one church and one organization in recent memory that has suffered this fate, so it is appropriate that we ask: Why were the authors so emphatic about condemning activity that rarely occurs? The reason becomes clear from what they wrote next.

Cal and Ed expanded their definition of what is political to include the great moral issues of the day. Anything being debated in the public arena—even that which reflects clear biblical mandates—was deemed to be a distraction and an impediment to the church. It is an outrageous claim. According to the authors, the clergy and any organized expression of the laity should, by inference, avoid the sanctity of human life, the redefinition of marriage, pornography, gambling, safe-sex ideology, and the assault on religious liberty. As such, they provide convenient "cover" for pastors who don't want to take the heat, and for laymen who don't want to get involved.

The book jacket even tells us that individuals who have worked to defend morality in government have wasted their time. It reads, " … despite nearly twenty years of vigorous and sophisticated activism, [conservative Christians] have failed in [their] mission to end abortion, eliminate pornography, restore the shattered American family, and usher in a better world based on 'traditional values.' "

Admittedly, Christian activists have not won all the battles. Those of us who have fought for what we believe have faced formidable foes. Postmodernists and those who think God is irrelevant to policy still hold sway in the Congress, the judiciary, and executive branch, the professions, the entertainment industry, the news media, the universities, and most other centers of power. Thus, the profamily community has been extremely frustrated by many unsuccessful campaigns, especially by our inability to end the horrible procedure known as partial-birth abortion. But we have given our best to the effort.

next page... |  1 of 3

share this page

September 6 1999, Vol. 43, No. 10