Posted by
Michael Scotto on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 5:29:35 PM
I Was Hopeful for a Second, But AlasI am not quite sure what exactly
troubles James Dobson about Fred Thompson's profession of faith. Apparently it is Fred's lack of openly being a "person of faith." That is, he doesn't talk about a generic "faith".
I had hoped on first blush that Jimbo was troubled by the doctrines of Fred's chosen denomination (Church of Christ), but alas, doctrinal distinctions are just too complicated for Dobson. He'd prefer you just talk about a generic faith in Christ
no matter where you choose to affiliate. Even though affiliation doesn't tell us everything, it does give us a clue about some basic beliefs.
If I believe in the eternal deity of Christ, I wouldn't affiliate with the Mormons, for example.
From the US News article:
Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Thompson, took issue with Dobson's characterization of the former Tennessee senator. "Thompson is indeed a Christian," he said. "He was baptized into the Church of Christ."
The first sign of trouble is when someone doesn't run to Christ and the cross bur rather he runs to some "affiliation." As noted, Christianity is not defined by your affiliation, however, where you
choose to affiliate does tell us about what
doesn't bother you.
Confused? OK, let me give you an example. If I am asked if I love my wife and I answer by saying that I pay the utility bills, does that answer the question? Well, it gives evidence that I
may love my wife, but it hardly answers the question. Similarly, if you ask me if I am Pro-Life and I say that I am a Pro-Life member of NARAL, you might be puzzled.
Of course, analogies are given in the extreme to make a point.
More from the US News article:"Dobson didn't believe Thompson to be a member of a non-Christian faith..."
"[Dobson] has never known Thompson to be a committed Christian—someone who talks openly about his faith."In other words, Dobson doesn't understand what Evangelical Christianity teaches. The Church of Christ teaches the necessity of baptism in salvation and Christianity is not defined by generically talking about "faith." If Thompson's church is aligned with that doctrine, there should be greater concerns about his faith than his failure to tattoo the word "faith" on his forehead.
From an Evangelical viewpoint, if someone doesn't respond to a question about his faith with a statement of faith
in the finished work of Christ, that person's profession is suspect. Similarly, if one responds by stating that he is a member of a church that doesn't believe in the cross alone for justification (i.e. The Church of Christ) his "Evangelical" faith would be extremely suspect.
Unfortunately, Dobson doesn't understand either of those simple distinctions. After all, this is a man who fawned all over a Pope who belongs to an organization that currently condemns the Evangelical faith with scores of anathemas and a man who was concerned that Terry Schiavo's priest couldn't administer the "Eucharist" to her.
Dobson is not only willfully ignorant of Christianity, his ignorance is his primary defense. As
mentioned in a previous blog entry, Jim uses the "I'm not a Bible teacher" plenary indulgence card when it comes to his failure to defend the faith. But this self-appointed "Christian leader" has created his own definition of Christianity and asks politicians to bow before it.
Just when you think maybe,
just maybe, Dobson has figured out what the Evangelical "faith" truly entails, he disappoints again.
Well, Jim, you don't meet my criteria for an "Evangelical Christian."
As I've noted before, one doesn't have to be an Evangelical Christian to get my vote, but if we're talking about the Evangelical faith on any level, let's at least define it correctly.
You're an embarassment, Jim, and you speak only for yourself. As
others have said, I'd rather have a staunch Constitutional originalist who is not hostile to the faith than someone who plays the "faith" card (read: Mitt Romney), but has no core values (read: Mitt Romney).
UPDATE:
Hotair comments on the latest... it doesn't change anything for me.
UPDATE II : Paul Chesser
covers a similar trend dealing with the word "Evangelical" in the Washington Examiner. A good read, but oddly (and incorrectly) he states that the word "
never made distinctions on theological grounds...." Of course it did
. As even Princeton notes on its web site, Evangelicalism is related to "
believing in personal conversion and the inerrancy of the Bible..." The term historically is connected to fundamentalism. It is men like Rick warren and Jim Dobson who have watered down the distinctives.