Who made James Dobson Republican Pope, and why are so many candidates anxious to kiss his ring? Mitt Romney made the pilgrimage to Colorado Springs, and Newt Gingrich confessed his sins to Dobson. Now the Focus on the Family president has attempted to squash the popularity of actor/politician Fred Thompson. Of the potential presidential candidate, Dobson contends: "I don't think he's a Christian." Thompson retorted that he is indeed a Christian. The response of Dobson's spokesman only made matters worse: "We use that word--Christian--to refer to people who are evangelical Christians." Say what? (Does that invalidate the claim of America as a "Christian nation," since just seventy million Americans, by the Focus on the Family standard, are Christian?)

The "You are not a Christian"/"I am so a Christian" dialogue may have been the stupidest political exchange all year. Believing your brand the One True Faith is all well and good, but to take it a step further and schismatically denounce other Christians as non-believers is idiotic, untrue, and not a program for political victory. So, to alleviate future embarrassment, I petition Dr. Dobson to refer to those Christians who, to take a few examples, read every word of the Bible literally, broadcast their faith to strangers, and believe a born-again faith in Christ a one-way ticket to heaven as Super Christians. The rest of us, if he will indulge us so, might be renamed christians. When spoken, christian is no different from Christian, so controversies like the one Dr. Dobson and company just set off will be more difficult to spark. Embracing this less offensive lingo would be a really super, Super Christian even, thing to do, Dr. Dobson.

Evangelical Christians, such as James Dobson, have been, in my opinion, a force for good in American politics. But when evangelicals, or any group, starts to adopt the model of interest-group politics that other minority groups subscribe to, they not only marginalize themselves, they put the issues that initially motivated them on the backburner. Who cares if Fred Thompson is an evangelical Christian? Jimmy Carter was an evangelical? Was he a good president? Ronald Reagan wasn't an evangelical. He was a great president.

Another danger of obsessing over a candidate's religion is to validate the Left's bigotry against evangelical politicians. Who can forget the derision that rained upon George W. Bush when he dubbed Jesus Christ a thinker he identified with? With Dobson highlighting Romney's Mormonism, and Thompson's status outside the ranks of Super Christians, can he, without any hint of hypocrisy, complain the next time urban sophisticates deride a candidate that takes Christ seriously? A candidate's politics matter, not his religion.

Though identifying as an evangelical Christian usually provides an insight into one's politics, it is by no means a fool-proof indicator. Remember Harriet Miers? Dobson and other evangelical leaders urged the conservative movement to support her. We were supposed to forget that she donated to Al Gore, launched a feminist lecture series at SMU, and joined something called the Progressive Voters League while refusing to associate with the Federalist Society. All we needed to know was that she was a born-again Christian. Had we listened to Dobson, Falwell, and Robertson then, conservatives would have been guaranteed now, I am convinced, another vote affirming Roe on the court. Far from the sheep they are portrayed to be, many evangelicals rebelled against Dobson's advice on Miers.

That makes sense. What matters to most evangelicals I know is getting Roe v. Wade overturned, blocking attempts to erode marriage, and keeping the federal government out of school-board decisions on the Ten Commandments, prayer, and Bible reading in classrooms. Whether an evangelical Christian, a Catholic, a Jew, or a Mormon accomplishes this is irrelevant. One's actions in public life, rather than one's actions on Sunday, will provide instruction on what candidate might best achieve these goals.

I think the phrase 'evangelical Christian' is confused. Evangelical as opposed to what? Given Christ's command to "go and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:16-20; commonly called the 'great commission'), all Christians should be evangelical. So why is this used as a term of distinction?

'Super Christian' = Those who, "to take a few examples, read every word of the Bible literally, broadcast their faith to strangers, and believe a born-again faith in Christ a one-way ticket to heaven as Super Christians."

I am no fan of Dobson's, but it seems that your explanation of his definition of "Christian" has missed the mark. My cable package includes a channel on which Catholics profess their Catholicism. Presumably the people on the channel's various shows aren't acquainted with everyone who watches them on t.v. Is that fact objectionable?

Many Catholics, myself among them, hold that belief (and it's consequences) and baptism are sufficient conditions for salvation. Christ says as much (Mark 16:15-16). Is this a defining characteristic of being a "Dobsonian" Christian.

Ralph: I think the objection is not to the idea that faith (and its consequences) are in some sense salvific, but that they are in themselves salvific, and that they therefore amount to a ticket (for which one has paid).

This is largely a matter of style. And there is nothing wrong with stylistic differences among Christian spiritualities.

But sometimes there is something more than style at stake. A downplaying of the consequences (acts) of true faith is one not uncommon result. The presumption of one's salvation is another. Ironically, sometimes people treat the act of prefession of faith (being "born again" at a certain moment) as an act that earns them heaven -- thus the "faith alone" dictum turns (sometimes) into a semi-Pelagianism.

In the end, your point about "Evangelical" is right, though. All Christian communities are Christians, evangelicals, and born-agains. It is a mark of presumption, I think, in those Christians who can't see this.

Dan,

As you know, I am an evangelical. I agree with you 100%, as I explain in the trackback.

It has been positive good for evangelicals - and devout Catholics - to become more involved in politics these past few decades. I'm not convinced that it has been a good thing for the church, though. This doesn't have to be the case. But a living faith exercised through the body of Christ has too often been replaced with various forms of baptized statism. Both our politics and our churches have suffered as a result. So too have our communities, by necessary consequence.

Sincerely,
--Eric

Once again, another example of religion invading politics.

I am an atheist conservative and I am no different than any religious person on this planet (other than the fact that I do not believe that there is a god). Who cares whether a candidate is catholic, evangelical, buddhist, voodoo or atheist. What happened to believing in limited government, low taxes and civil liberties? Everything now-a-days has to be because "God" wants it and god-justified. Not because the best functioning economic system is one without government interference and the best functioning civil society is one in which the freedoms of the people are protected. Once again the cloud of religion and its ridiculous actors (Dobson, Robertson, Falwell) are screwing up a political race.

Dan:

Being a christian is not defined by any man who has received the righteousness of Christ by faith. Salvation by God is that gift by which we receive the life of Christ brought to us by the indwelling power of the Holy Sprit and graciously bestowed on us by the Father. It is not decided upon by James Dobson, Jerry Falwell or any church man. We receive each other as we acknowledge Christ as our Savior and Lord. We sin often, in fact, more than we could know but our hope is Christ and not sinning more but we avail ourselves of that grace. These pastors and christian leaders should stop trying to save America by some superficial morality butlet God rule in this present age of His current rule. It isn't that christians should be shut out of the political arena but it could lead us to a moral self-righteous group that could lead us away from the cross and the merit of Jesus Christ and His death, burial and resurrection. The will be all sorts of political christians in heaven and all sorts of political viewpoints in Hell.

Mega-Church!

This is a fine post, perhaps more of a smack-down than is warranted. But well written. We comment further over at Article VI Blog. Come visit!

Lowell

As a SuperChristian, I totally agree with you, Dan.

Incidentally, fundamentalism is hairier than even you make it out to be. Dobson is not a strict literalist, and has even made public statements that he takes the creation account in Genesis as figurative.

As I care for Thompson's soul, I would hope that at some time he would make peace with God. So it's cool that he's already a Christian. But my first reaction was--and my bible study group concurred--"Who cares". If he can keep the shift from capsizing on the port side, he can be our captain.