The James Dobson / Barack Obama Controversy: Adventures in Missing the Point
My apologies to Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo for ripping off the title of their book here, but it struck me as particularly appropriate regarding the great biblical studies debate between renowned theologians Barack Obama and James Dobson. Other heavyweights are throwing their hats in the ring.
Here's a round-by-round account of the bloodbath so far.
Round 1: Dobson sucker-punches Obama's theology.
Round 2: Jim Wallis delivers a left hook to Dobson's theology.
Round 3: Will Hall of the Southern Baptist Press steps in to protect Dobson.
Round 4: Obama strikes back at Dobson.
Round 5: Rev. Kirbyjohn Caldwell, an Obama supporter, creates a website called James Dobson Doesn't Speak for Me.
Round 6: Rabbi Brad Hirschfield steps in to separate the combatants, and teach them a lesson in civility, directing his scoldings more toward Dobson, but also to Obama.
As Scot McKnight mentioned in his post on the subject, the essence of the debate is that "Obama spoke about how to be religious and live out one’s faith in a pluralistic society and do so in a way that respects the views of others. Dobson essentially accused Obama of distorting the Bible and the Christian faith and how Christians ought to live in our society."
Well, that might be the essence of the debate, when framed in the most general (and generous) terms. But the actual, nitty-gritty, bottom line essence, the one which is being missed by both parties in equal and opposite measure, I believe, is...
Hmmm? How do I put this?
I guess it's Parable Time!!!! And many thanks to my good friend Jonathan Brink for this one:
Guy walks into a bar and sees three guys engaging a passionate conversation about something. Curious that he is, he walks up to them and asks, “What’s the ruckus?”
“We’re trying to figure out what kind of beer this is,” the first guy says, a little taken aback by the interruption, but immediately turning back to his two friends. “It’s amber color reveals the rich texture of an bass pale ale.”
“I would say it’s a porter,” the second man says. “I’ve had porters before and they look just like that. I’ve even made porter’s. I used to make them in my house.”
I know it’s a dark lager,” the third man says. “The rich color is closer to a darker amber color. The rich pigmentation from the darker malts does that to it.”
“No it’s not,” the first man said, his voice rising in temperament. “Dark lager is darker than that.”
“A bass pale ale doesn’t sit in the glass like that,” the third man said, exhausting his disgust as he pointed to the pint.
“What’s that supposed to mean,” the first man said, throwing out a guffaw in furious passion.
“What do you think?” the second man said, looking at the guy who was still watching the conversation. All attention was turned on him.
The guy looked at the beer, picked it up and drank it. Set it down on the bar and said, “It’s good.”
If you have ears, then hear.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
Don't you find it odd, Raffi, that there are so many people crying "foul" because something has offended their faith, yet according to the recent survey by Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life showed that many people don't have a clue what the tenets of their faith entail?
Good parable.
And BTW, I loved your Carlin tribute. (Heavy on the covet, Father.)
Thanks, Kat.
I hear you on the Pew Forum thing. I think it's just human nature, though, rather than something unique to people of faith. It's always easier to point a finger outward than to reflect inward. It's that whole plank-in-your-eye thing Jesus was talking about.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
Raffi - nice site and an interesting parable in regard to the issue at hand.
Religion just is. A large part of how we worship is based on where we happened to be born in this world. I agree with Kat that if you asked, most people would not have a clue what the basic tenets of their professed faith is.
I'll be back.
You write very well.