An Analysis Of “Blinded By Might: Can The Religious Right Save America”, Part 4

In the chapter “Prohibiting Evil”, Ed Dobson examines the relationship between law and morality. This is accomplished primarily through consideration of the temperance movement and Prohibition. In doing so, it is hoped a number of lessons will be learned that can be applied to contemporary Evangelical social involvement and activism. For it could be argued that the temperance movement serves as a preeminent case in American history regarding the implications of unintended consequences.

Given the amount of alcohol consumed in America during the 1800's, the morally concerned could not help but be moved by the social implications of such as manifested in the form of dysfunctional families, soaring rates of crime, and squandered economic productivity. It was believed in an era often characterized by an eschatological perspective best described as expectant postmillennialism that it was a Christian obligation to exert power and influence for the purposes of perfecting social institutions and elevating conditions for the greatest possible number. Composed primarily of an alliance of Protestant clergyman and reformist suffragettes motivated in large part by religious principles hoping to advance the plight of women, the Women's Christian Temperance Union and the Anti-Saloon League achieved their ultimate objective in the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which on the national level forbade the production, sale, and distribution of alcohol.

Dobson admits at first Prohibition was a success since for a brief period the consumption of alcohol did decrease. However, consumption eventually returned to previous levels thanks to an elicit want met as a result of a network of criminal bootleggers and law enforcement unwilling or too overwhelmed to enforce these statutes. This resulted in the need to repeal the amendment, it was argued, in order to preserve respect for the law in its totality without which the entire political system could potentially collapse. With the advance of assorted forms of socialism across Europe such as Bolshevism in Russia and Nazism in German, the potential of revolutionary upheaval was a viable possibility.

Dobson is correct that one cannot hope to transform a culture through law alone without corresponding changes also taking place in hearts and minds. However, Dobson's viewpoint is disturbingly deficient in the role law ought to play as a bulwark standing for what is right irrespective of popularity and to protect the innocent from those capable of imposing their viewpoint on the basis of accrued power or brute strength alone. Dobson argues that respect for the law is based on moral consensus with this also serving as the foundation of legislation as well.

Yet such a position differs little from pluralism or relativism. Endorsing Barack Obama for the presidency a few years later despite emphasizing throughout Blinded By Might his reticence as a member of the clergy to endorse one particular candidate over another, it is evident that Rev. Dobson cared profoundly for what he considered issues of civil rights or what some might refer to as racial justice. But utilizing Dobson's reasoning, one would possess little leg to stand on in decades past opposing laws that upheld racial segregation, a practice now deemed deplorable by most Americans. For at one time did not sufficient majorities within distinct cultural regions of this country have few moral qualms against the practice and in certain instances even upheld the notion as inherent to the divinely established social order? One might even make the case that the philosophical critical mass for such a monumental paradigm shift to take place was not reached until a definitive pronouncement was set down in law or at least judicial rulings. In certain instances, the decision had to be implemented by force in areas where such ethical conclusions were not initially embraced.

By Frederick Meekins

Christianity, Liberalism & Christ

Calvinism’s TULIP Not An Edifying Interpretative Flower But Rather A Noxious Doctrinal Weed

David Geisler: Not Every Doctrine Is Equal & Here’s Why

Do We Need Christian Public Intellectuals?

How The Church Loses Discernment: Why Theological Drift Happens Slowly

The Hearing Followers

How To Write & Preach Engaging Sermons

The Deceitful Manipulations Of Calvinism Exposed

Why CS Lewis Called A Garbage Apologist

An atheist perspective.

Interesting how he condemns C.S. Lewis as stupid for insinuating others are stupid.

This atheist still doesn’t provide much reason for adhering to any criteria if everything is all blind chance.

Have Geologists Discovered Proof Of The Crucifixion Earthquake?

An Analysis Of “Blinded By Might: Can The Religious Right Save America”, Part 3

In the chapter titled “Seduced By Power”, Cal Thomas reflects in depth upon his response to a question asked of him following a worship service by a woman concerned about pro-life activists threatening to withdraw from the Republic Party over weakening opposition to abortion. To the inquiry Thomas responded, “You can't apply the principles of a kingdom not of this world to a kingdom of this world. The purists want to apply the principles of a kingdom that knows no compromise to a kingdom that is all about compromise (49).” One of the foremost motivations since the earliest days of human history has been power (defined as control, authority, or influence over others) and the desire to obtain it. The problem that arises for any religiously motivated individual or organization that gets involved with politics is that eventually the decision will need to be made what will be of ultimate importance: the values initially prompting such civic activism or the influence achieved as a result of diligently advocating one's message. In most instances, it is institutional perpetuation that wins out.

In the spirit of bipartisanship, Thomas details how this temptation to retain favor with those in power has compromised ministers across the political and theological spectrums. For example, in terms of prominent Democrats, Thomas points out how Jesse Jackson over the course of his career went from advocating a strong pro-life position to one accepting abortion in order to cultivate the favor of Democratic leaders as well as the party's key constituencies. Even a Christian luminary as celebrated for his integrity as Bill Graham was not immune to this tendency of human nature. Thomas references a “Today Show” interview in which Graham was asked about then-President Bill Cliton's marital infidelities. Surprisingly, the evangelist famed for such impeccable standards that it is claimed Graham would not enter a room without it being inspected to determine if there was a woman in it other than his wife in order to avoid compromising his testimony essentially, though upholding the principle that a leader should strive to live above reproach, dismissed concerns regarding the allegations. Instead, Graham seemed to brush the allegations aside, dismissively replying, “...we're living in a whole different world today” with overwhelming pressure on someone women were so apparently drawn to unlike anything the world had ever seen (52).

Such an urge to compromise is also fraught with numerous policy implications as well. As an example, Thomas references the case of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (58-59). Not a month into his presidency, Ronald Reagan nominated the relatively unknown jurist. The Chief Executive called Falwell directly soliciting the minister for support essentially sight unseen despite early concerns regarding O'Connor's views pertaining to abortion. Even though Reagan assured that the Religious Right would not be let down by O'Connor's jurisprudence and judicial philosophy, the highest praise Falwell could articulate regarding Justice O'Connor was that “she broke the (all-male) tradition in a dignified way (59).” But as Thomas astutely observed, “What is the difference between a male pro-choice judge and a female pro-choice judge (59).”

With compromise so easy and some might contend necessary in order to remain politically viable, the centrality of one's values over time slips in terms of their preeminence. According to Thomas, this tendency is probably most evident in regards to fund raising. Whereas it could be fairly said that the mainstream media of the late twentieth century trended towards the left of the establishmentarian center, the conservative movement of which the Religious Right was a significant component excelled at direct mail solicitation appeals.

Thomas' criticism of direct mail fund raising are valid in asking just what percentage of the funds raised went to the addressed cause and would a donation make an actual difference. Often one might accomplish more by donating to a local charity rather than a national organization. Corollarily, many of the funds directed towards national campaigns and organizations actually instead go to cover overhead. For example, for years it seemed that a classified ad ran in the conservative newsweekly Human Events seeking potential direct mail copywriters promising six figure salaries for qualified experienced applicants.

Yet additional criticisms are invoked by Thomas that he himself fails to live up to. Of direct mail fundraising letters Thomas writes, “If you were to do a content analysis of the fund-raising letters of the Religious Right, you would discover that they are basically the same, regardless of the organization (54).” Thomas observes of the epistles soliciting funds, “First they identify an enemy ... liberals in general. Second, the enemies are accused of being out 'to get us' or destroy the country (54).” Thomas proceeds to lament how he wishes that these letters could be positive for a change and to renounce their demonization of liberal icons such as Norman Lear and Ted Kennedy.

It can be a challenge to discern how Thomas' own editorial output in terms of published columns and broadcast commentaries are appreciably different. For as in the case of conservative or Republican operatives more directly involved in politics than Thomas chastized by the renowned pundit, Thomas cannot overcome the tendency to cast verbal aspersions in the direction of those with whom the renowned pundit happens to disagree. Nor can he resist the temptation to craft his rhetoric in such a way as to placate the influential with whom Thomas desires to curry favor.

Interestingly, Thomas has not totally renounced his career in advocacy journalism in favor of missions outreach and monastic withdrawal from public life. At times, it could be argued that the partisan positions he takes are lacking in rigor of consistency. For example, in a commentary titled “Electing a President or a Pastor?”, Thomas reflected upon the reluctance of politically active Evangelicals to support Mitt Romney over that candidate's professed Mormonism in light of former Texas Governor Rick Perry suggesting that he was their only viable alternative since he shared the faith of these concerned voters. It was Thomas' contention that such should not be a campaign issue because Christian voters were electing a president and not a pastor. As such, it was policy rather than doctrine that mattered in such a context. Yet such was not a courtesy Thomas seemed willing to extend to Romney's fellow Mormon Glenn Beck. Thomas was notably eager to overlook Romney's shortcomings in terms of professed ultimate religious commitments for the sake of the broader conservative movement and even the nation in terms of elected office. Yet the columnist was quite explicit in his remarks how this aspect of Glenn Beck's own worldview imperiled the spiritual well being of American Christians unable to discern between the gold and the dross presented by Beck spanning a variety of media formats.

Thomas mused in remarks published 4/11/11, “Beck is not only a Mormon, he frequently drifts into universalism.” But if Romney's most basic beliefs differ little from Beck's in terms of both public figures holding membership in the exact same religious body and that these do not matter since he is a politician and not a pastor, why should not the same distinction apply to Beck who in terms of national persona serves in the role of a commentator not that different than Thomas? Thomas concluded the remarks regarding Beck by observing, “They come and they go in this business...and eventually flame out ... Put not your trust in princes and kings. That goes for show hosts, too.” Such a remark prompts one to stop and ponder is what really concerns Thomas actually his own loss of market share?

By Frederick Meekins

Biblical Discernment With Pop Culture