U.S. News & World Report senior editor Dan Gilgoff received an interesting phone call yesterday. Focus on the Family founder James Dobson called him to chat about prospective presidential candidates, including former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson:
“Everyone knows he’s conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for,” Dobson said of Thompson. “[But] I don’t think he’s a Christian; at least that’s my impression,” Dobson added, saying that such an impression would make it difficult for Thompson to connect with the Republican Party’s conservative Christian base and win the GOP nomination.
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.”
In a follow-up phone conversation, Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger stood by Dobson’s claim. He said that, while Dobson didn’t believe Thompson to be a member of a non-Christian faith, Dobson nevertheless “has never known Thompson to be a committed Christian — someone who talks openly about his faith.”
“We use that word — Christian — to refer to people who are evangelical Christians,” Schneeberger added. “Dr. Dobson wasn’t expressing a personal opinion about his reaction to a Thompson candidacy; he was trying to ‘read the tea leaves’ about such a possibility.”
The follow-up conversation helps illuminate Dobson’s statement. I also think it’s worth highlighting that what we’re seeing here are classic distinctions in how various Protestants define Christian.
Whether they admit it or not, many Americans adopt a view similar to that held by Dobson: Christianity is mainly about behavior and feelings. Christians of all stripes — as well as folks who don’t define themselves as religious — tend to judge Christians’ fidelity to their faith (and adherents of other religions) by their actions. Many of them incorporate personal testimonies into the equation as a means of speaking to behavioral change or a change of feelings. I bet that many readers are nodding their head and saying, “And what’s the big deal about this?”
Well, this view is extremely different from that held by other believers, myself included. In my church body we don’t really speak of personal behaviors or statements — as Dobson seems to have done — to determine someone’s religious status. Instead we point to whether they’ve been baptized.
Now I’m aware that this is a very contentious issue and ours is not the place to debate which view is correct. And I’m fully aware I’m giving short shrift to the theological issues. I just think it’s interesting to see the two views so succinctly highlighted in a mainstream media article.
Look again. Dobson says he doesn’t get the “impression” that Thompson is Christian and that he hasn’t known him to be “committed” or talk “openly about his faith.” Thompson’s response? His spokesman points to his baptism. I think Gilgoff has written enough about evangelicals and other religious folks to see the difference and it’s good for other reporters to note the distinction as well.
I commend Gilgoff for calling back for clarification about the matter. I’m thinking we may get further clarification about whether Dobson and his kind think only evangelicals are Christian but it’s clear that Gilgoff knew he needed to get a better picture than the one unveiled in the first phone call.
And Gilgoff worked hard to point out that Dobson was talking about earthly prospects more than heavenly ones. Gilgoff says Dobson was referring to whether Thomspon’s religious views would help him in securing a nomination. I think it would have been easy for Gilgoff to turn this into a religious referendum. While he certainly led the story with the juicy parts, he provided good context, I think.
Here’s how he described the circumstances of the interview with Dobson:
Dobson’s phone call to U.S. News senior editor Dan Gilgoff Tuesday was unsolicited. It marked Gilgoff’s first discussion with Dobson in over two years, since the magazine’s political writer began work on The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America are Winning the Culture War, published this month by St. Martin’s Press. Dobson had agreed to answer only written questions for the book.
I’m not more interested in how this interview between reporter and source came about than I am about other interviews. I mean, I would love it if reporters routinely explained how they came across each person to interview in a story. “I called Jerry Falwell because I wanted spice up a boring story,” or “Rather than find out the views of actual proponents of initiative X, I went with people I already knew who I felt confident would return my phone call within a half hour,” or “I only interviewed people present at the press conference,” etc. Heck, I’m thinking such a rule should be required for all stories featuring Marshall Wittman, Larry Sabato and Norm Ornstein.
But why is Gilgoff writing about himself in the third person? It’s so Bob Dole! The disclosure is obviously necessary, but was this the only way to handle it? I also think it could have been a bit more clear. He calls himself both the senior editor and political writer for the magazine, for instance. But way to pitch your own book in your own story! I kid. Gilgoff is a talented reporter and writer, so I’m looking forward to hearing more about the book.
 | Posted at 5:56 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (37) |
March 28, 2007, at 6:16 pm
Mollie, your denomination (which is also mine) would suggest that a person affirm his or her own faith by reference to baptism, but I don’t think that Lutherans have ever considered that to be adequate for proving someone else’s faith. After all, if I tell you that I’m a believer in Jesus and I point to my baptism, then I am simultaneously saying that I was baptized (in the past) AND that I profess faith in Christ today. If Dobson is like my old high school classmates, he would point to the day he “asked Jesus into his heart” in addition to his current profession of faith.
Dobson’s problem here seems to be that he equates Christian faith with some level of public discourse about it. On that score, Newt Gingrich probably qualifies. But his example of faith is hardly inspiring. Dobson’s willingness to ally himself with Gingrich seems to be a measure of his pragmatism.
March 28, 2007, at 6:24 pm
Don, I don’t believe that you and I are in disagreement.
A word of caution. This is a site for remarking on media treatment of religious issues rather than the religious issues themselves.
I thought it was worth noting that we were seeing two different approaches to defining Christianity. I thought this was worth highlighting.
I was worried about doing so for fear people would want to get into a theological debate about which view is correct or whether I correctly explained the two views in my inadequate descriptions.
I concede I have not fully fleshed out either view. Far from it. But let’s avoid theological debate and instead look at how this reporter handled the story.
March 28, 2007, at 6:49 pm
Mollie,
Great pointing out the ghost here. But I was wondering - does this point back to the need to reporters to have some theological or religious training?
Do you think the story would have been better if Gilgoff knew the difference between Dobson’s pietistic and non-sacramental view and Thompson’s sacramental reference? It reminds of a time I had to officiate between my friend the Orthodox priest and my other friend the evangelical: the priest refused to admit that he ‘was’ (past tense) born-again.
Took me three hours (and St. Ignatius’ letter the Tralians) to help the evang. understand what the priest was saying.
T
March 28, 2007, at 8:58 pm
Tom,
You brought St Ignatius into it? Wow. Wonderful!
Mollie, nice nice piece. The thing I’m really curious about now is that “Evangelical America” is winning the culture war. Most of us feeling like we’re getting our tails kicked in right now. Maybe it’s GetReligion’s intention only to cover news stories in newpapers and magazines, but I’d love to see a review of that book in these very cyber-pages.
March 28, 2007, at 10:55 pm
But what did Dobson think about Gilgoff’s book?
Oh, and by the way, another newsweekly had some big Focus news this week, too. (Is that link spam? Sorry if it is.)
March 28, 2007, at 11:08 pm
Mollie,
Eighteen years ago, in my book All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes, I made the following observation:
“… Church leaders … need to ask to what extent the cultural sensibilities associated with the Church reflect the objective concerns of Christian truth and to what extent they reflect the subjective standards of the spirit of the age. Those Christians within the evangelical tradition have some special challenges, because of evangelicalism’s loose definition. Some historians and sociologists have identified evangelicalism as a community of orthodoxy, of concern for right belief. But there are so many doctrines on which self-proclaimed evangelicals disagree that one must ask whether or not contemporary evangelicalism is better defined as a community of orthopathos, of concern for right feeling. We disagree on the nature and extent of salvation, on the meaning of the sacraments, on the nature of revelation (both general and special), on the nature of church authority and structure, on the work of the Holy Spirit, and on eschatology. But when evangelicals gather, they tend to enjoy singing the same sorts of hymns, they tend to use similar means of expression for talking about their faith, and they tend to express very similar sentiments not only about their faith, but about other matters as well. In short, evangelicals seem to have more in common concerning the sentimental trappings associated with faith than they do in defining what the nature of that faith is. This is not just saying that they have all experienced the same faith, for I believe that many non-evangelicals have also experienced the same faith. But what distinguishes evangelicalism as a subculture or movement is a certain feeling about faith.
“If the movement known as evangelicalism promotes a culture of sentiment rather than a culture of reasoned reflection, it is not surprising that popular culture has been as dominant (if not quite as vulgar) within evangelical circles as in the society at large.”
I really expected to get blasted for this observation, but no one seems to have noticed it. Dobson’s remarks reminded me of this weird state of affairs.
March 28, 2007, at 11:43 pm
It might be better in general not to use the word “Christian” in a news story unless the term is defined by the person using it (as the referenced article does). The word means different things to different people. Some people, for example, would apply the label to almost anyone who uses it to describe him/herself, while others might say that to be a Christian a person has to pass some doctrinal test.
So if some Christian fundamentalist were to say that, for example, neither Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama is Christian, even though both strongly and publicly self-identify as such, it would be essential to know what that fundamentalist’s definition is.
March 28, 2007, at 11:51 pm
[…] It sounds like James Dobson isn’t too happy that Fred Thompson is thinking about running for president. Dobson called up reporter Dan Gilgoff at US News & World Report to proclaim that Thompson is not a Christian — and to heap praise on thrice-married serial adulterer Newt Gingrich. Maybe this is a doctrinal difference, but it sounds like pure arrogance to me. “Everyone knows he’s conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for,” Dobson said of Thompson. “[But] I don’t think he’s a Christian; at least that’s my impression,” Dobson added, saying that such an impression would make it difficult for Thompson to connect with the Republican Party’s conservative Christian base and win the GOP nomination. […]
March 29, 2007, at 12:32 am
The strange thing to me is that Thompson’s spokesman would point to his baptism in a Church of Christ as the evidence. I was baptized into the CofC and went to a CofC university, Abilene Christian. Few of it’s members would point to baptism (alone) to determine someone’s religious status. They would point to baptism followed by behavior. Perhaps if this were a religion beat story they’d be able to look at that a little deeper.
I think the theological/practical question of what factors we should use in determining someone else’s religious status deserves a forum, because I’m sure many of us have thoughts to share.
March 29, 2007, at 12:57 am
I loved the reference to Larry Sabato. It may be a little inside-the-Beltway for most, but certainly convenience explains a lot of the sources chosen by daily (or TV) reporters on deadline.
March 29, 2007, at 6:16 am
Another key development in all of this is Barna’s decision to create two different categories in his polls — “Bible believing” Christians and born-again Christians.
The former are defined by their belief in specific doctrines, a kind of generic Protestant creed.
The latter are defined only by their claim of an emotional experience in which faith in Jesus somehow affected their lives.
Doctrine vs. experience, along.
March 29, 2007, at 7:11 am
Larry Sabato is to political stories what Martin Marty has been to religion stories. There’s a section in the AP Stylebook requiring a quote from either man in any feature story on those topics.
March 29, 2007, at 7:18 am
I would think Schneeberger’s clarification,
“We use that word — Christian — to refer to people who are evangelical Christians,†is the real sticking point.
First because the term evangelical is itself so loose — does he mean the confessional evangelical, or something else, that broader constituency which Dobson has identified in his anti-global warming letter of a few weeks ago, as one that is conservative in politics and social views. “Evangelical” here, then is not even behavioral, it is political.
So Christian then becomes politically defined.
That in turn, brings up the theological claim which Schneeberger also made. By equating Christian with evangelical Christian, he has made a theological claim to the identity of the Church. And in doing so, FoF has raised itself up to be an arbiter of the Faith. Their coalition partners (conservatives in other religious traditions) are to be considered “evangelical Christians” not by belief but by alliance. And specifically an alliance with FoF.
As an aside, many in the secular community that is so often vilified by the conservative Right, hold a definition similar to that of Schneeberger’s. “Christians” and Evangelicals are understood to be one and the same. This is , of course, the seedbed for Wallis and others to grow their brand of politics; it is also a headache for churches doing outreach — hence the turn to a relatively apolitical stance , low barrier, removal of “churchianity” names from the mega- and now emergent-church segments.
March 29, 2007, at 7:44 am
Elmo,
Does the quote “he was baptized into the Church of Christ” refer to the actual denomination called the Church of Christ? I automatically assumed that the term referred to the Church of Christ in a creedal, “I believe in one holy Christian (or catholic) and apostolic church”. Perhaps I drew this conclusion because, like you, it would seem odd to me that a member of TCoC would use language such as this. Do you know if Thompson is a member of the denomination called the Church of Christ?
March 29, 2007, at 9:16 am
Hans,
Back when he was a U.S. Senator, the Congressional Record listed him as “Church of Christ (Stone-Campbell).” Whether his staffer actually understands the nuances of Church of Christ soteriology (which has a stronger view of baptism than many evangelical Protestant denominations) is, I suppose, a separate question.
March 29, 2007, at 9:39 am
Thanks, Ted.
March 29, 2007, at 9:58 am
I’m not convinced Dr. Dobson’s statements were as nuanced as people may think. I think he flat out stuck his foot in his mouth. It happens.
March 29, 2007, at 10:02 am
Great point by Harris above. I have been bashing the media for overloading terms such as “Evangelical”. If the Schneeberger quote is accurate, then I need to start bashing Focus on the Family for doing the same thing with the term “Christian”. Shame on them. Overloading and redefining terms to your own liking is a political tactic that has no place in a Christian organization.
March 29, 2007, at 10:44 am
I’m no fan of Dobson’s entry into politics; however, I think I’d have to hear him say that myself, because I can’t depend on the media to get it right. For instance, anyone who owns a Bible knows that you can take a sentence here or a sentence there and put them together in such a way that it doesn’t accurately reflect the message of Scripture. My Dad, God rest his soul, used to gave this example: “Judas went and hanged himself.” “Go thou and do likewise.” And if a writer uses elipses, pretty much I don’t believe any of it. I worked for a large denomination a few years ago and they were getting ready to send out teaching material to all church leaders that, apparently, would represent the inclusivity of the denomination. One of the first verses they used was Acts 16:31, “Believe … and you will be saved.” See what’s missing? Maybe that’s what happened with Dobson’s interview, maybe not. I hope not.
March 29, 2007, at 11:28 am
I am a minister in a Stone-Campbell congregation and I too find the quote calling on baptism as proof out of place with the general mood of the movement. I wouldn’t go as far as Dobson and his claims but i understand his perspective. Dobson, like many “born-again” Christians, would look to passages like Luke 6:43-45 and say you will know someone’s faith by the fruit that they bare.
The bigger media question is how to cover men like Dobson when it’s possible at least 60% of the people the writer alligns him with disagree with his actions or his motives. Because of the variety within evangelical circles and in larger Christian circles altogether, I am beginning to believe it is impossible to write a story on Christianity using any labels at all. Could it be that the media doesn’t “get religion” because our language doesn’t allow us to explain religion without offending the majority of those explained? It seems this is the continual argument here, be it evangelicals, main-liners, moslems or the like.
March 29, 2007, at 11:29 am
oh, and I love Allison’s point. Very important if the media chooses to quote scripture
March 29, 2007, at 12:27 pm
I think you have vastly oversimplified things. I very, very strongly doubt that anyone would claim an ideological atheist is a Christian “becuase he was baptized”, in the way that it would be claimed that he was Jeewish because his parents were.
And remember there are many evangelicals (or whatever) who insist that Catholics are ipso facto “not Christian” (along with other groups on their “cult” list), no matter what their “behavior” is. And the criterion for whether someone is a “real Christian” seems to be based more and more on a formulaic recitation of I-accept-Jesus-as-my-personal-savior. (“Say the sinner’s prayer and you will be saved.”)
March 29, 2007, at 12:33 pm
Forget about the “religion ghost” in the story. There’s an elephant in the room that we’re (mostly) ignoring: why did James Dobson call USN&WR and offer (what amounts to) an unsolicited opinion on the state of Fred Thompson’s soul?
Stated crudely: what is he up to? I agree wholeheartedly (as I nearly always do) with Ken that American evangelicalism is largely defined culturally rather than theologically. But what makes this story fascinating isn’t that FOTF defines “Christian” the way most people I work with do — it’s what it says about the various currents and struggles within American evangelicalism today.
March 29, 2007, at 1:28 pm
I’m a Roman Catholic. I go to Church regularly. The RC Church is the original Christian Church founded by Christ upon Peter, His Rock.
I have no problem considering people who belong to non Catholic churches as Christian, they could at least show the same respect. Dobson is an idiot and a false christian, (small “c” put on purpose) as is anyone who thinks that only evangelicals are Christians. But then again what else would one think of people who take those Biblical stories that are clearly metaphorical and allegorical as historical fact? What else would one expect from such uneducated and naive people?
Thompson is the only Republican who can win this thing hands down. Too bad he’s not running.
I pity the literalist evangelicals. I really do.
March 29, 2007, at 2:32 pm
Roberto: The call was unsolicited, but it’s not clear from the article that the remark about Thompson was unsolicited. But like you, I’m hugely curious about why Dobson called Gilgoff in the first place.
Now, all you religion writers out there: who wants to do the article comparing Church of Christ doctrines on soteriology and sanctification with those of the Church of the Nazarene (Dobson’s denomination)?
March 29, 2007, at 2:54 pm
That’s what makes this whole thing so interesting. The Church of Christ doctrine would be more of an actions based doctrine. I know many people from that group that would basically say “don’t tell me you’re a Christian, show me you’re a Christian.” The idea of defining a believer by “recitation of I-accept-Jesus-as-my-personal-savior” would not fit the COC movement. What Dobson is calling for is something I believe COC people would say is necessary for proof of faith. Because of the doctrinal differences, you can’t lump both groups under evangelical. But you still do. This is why I believe it is impossible to write about “evangelicalism”. As has been stated before, there are too many definitions.
March 29, 2007, at 4:00 pm
I went to a “Stone-Campbell” Church of Christ in the mid-80s. They are evangelical and baptize believers rather than infants, but believe that a believer’s baptism is the sealing event of salvation. My pastor at the time pointed to a verse in Mark 16:16(NIV) “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
That leaves a third path down the flowchart of folks who believe and has yet to be baptised (like many of my born-again Methodist and Presbyterian friends who never bothered with an adult baptism), but a CoC person will point to baptism as closing the deal of salvation.
That’s a different meaning from a mainline paedobaptismal attitude where one’s a member of the church from baptism on, with the family and church assuring that the child will come to faith with their help. That CoC quote assumes that Thompson had a saving faith sometime as an adult (or older child) old enough to confess a clear faith in Jesus as his Lord and Savior.
March 29, 2007, at 5:31 pm
Mark,
The CofC would only consider baptism as “closing the deal” if there was changed behavior afterward. Otherwise they would say, “you just ‘got wet’.”
Tom,
“Uneducated and naive”? If you think it’s naive to believe such things, fine. But calling someone like Dobson uneducated is just a flat-out lie. Since when is someone with a Ph.D. from USC uneducated?
March 29, 2007, at 7:47 pm
Ted Olsen made an important observation that Dobson is a member of the Church of the Nazarene. They teach “entire sanctification”; which means that Romans 7 is Paul speaking before he became a Christian, not describing the normal Christian life. So Nazarenes are focused on behavior and feelings; they look within themselves and not to the means of grace.
March 29, 2007, at 11:30 pm
[…] Anyway, Mollie at GetReligion opened a question in this post, but left no forum for discussing it, so here it is: Whether they admit it or not, many Americans adopt a view similar to that held by Dobson: Christianity is mainly about behavior and feelings. Christians of all stripes — as well as folks who don’t define themselves as religious — tend to judge Christians’ fidelity to their faith (and adherents of other religions) by their actions. Many of them incorporate personal testimonies into the equation as a means of speaking to behavioral change or a change of feelings. I bet that many readers are nodding their head and saying, “And what’s the big deal about this?†[…]
March 30, 2007, at 12:40 am
Elmo- fair enough. That might go to the “believe and are baptized” formula. Both have to be there, with some fruit to show a honest belief, to have it be more than “just got wet.”
March 30, 2007, at 11:34 am
I find the whole thing a bit disturbing. I think Goldwater was right when this whole Religious/Political party is a bad idea.
I am a member of the more Conservative Presbyterian Church in America not mainline. I am Pro-life, but I don’t believe in a religious litmus test. A couple of points to Mark as I don’t want to get too theological. However, Baptism (grk. Baptizdo and Baptisma) does not equal immersion only of adults. Not all Paedobaptists are mainline and they are not refusing to be baptized, but to be rebaptized ala anabaptist. Most believe the OT sacrament of Circumcision is replaced with Baptism ala. Gen 17/Acts 2 and Col. 1 and 2. Now having said that Christian theology distinctives do not belong in the public secular debate. Period. Apparently Dobson doesn’t get that.
But, this business of Thompson is not Christian is ridiculous. I don’t know and nor does Dobson. Christian != a bunch of catchphrases and other shallow nonsense. People need to stand up and tell Dobson that he does not represent us.
March 30, 2007, at 1:11 pm
U.S. News offers updates on a few threads of our conversation:
Dobson apparently doesn’t think that Gilgoff’s reporting of their conversation was all that great, though. Focus issued a press release stating, in part:
Actually, they were. Note the quoted phrase in Gilgoff’s story: “at least that’s my impression.” The press release continues:
U.S. News shrugs it off:
April 4, 2007, at 9:17 pm
Greg, Sorry, but many Democrats, including Kerry, Jesse Jackson and many many others (most recently Clinton and Obama) have used churches for political purposes and the media have - of course - not raised one eyebrow over it. Nor have any religious leaders on the Left.
No, Jesus isn’t a Republican, but she isn’t a socially liberal Democrat woman, either.
Religion shouldn’t be “hijacked” by anyone, frankly, and if the MSM would stop taking sides and report the truth when both sides attempt to do so, it may stop.
April 5, 2007, at 2:26 am
Somebody should tell Dobson that the Consititution prohibits all religious tests for office. If such tests are invalid for government service, then they’re certainly invalid for nomination to this nation’s highest executive office.
Moreover, Dobson’s comments reveal that, at heart, he wants the United States to be a kind of theocracy, where evangelical Christians hold the most important offices — and I’m saying this as a political conservative who is suspicious of the Left’s fear about an American “theocracy.” I’m sorry to burst Dobson’s utopian balloon, but adhering to evangelical theology is no guarantee of legal or ethical behavior in government.
What you all are forgetting is the most obvious point: Dobson’s pervasive, infernal arrogance. He believes he can define who is and is not a Christian. For him, a “Christian” is effectively somebody who has the “right” (read: his) opinions on the issues that matter most to “the family” (read: Dobson and his organization). Why does a man impugn Fred Thompson (whose personal life is apparently beyond reproach) yet unabashedly embrace Newt Gingrich — and claim to uphold “family values” at the same time? Simple. Power and the lust for more power — and Dobson is intoxicated with it. He obviously wants to be a Republican kingmaker.
The problem with most clerics — whether Christian or otherwise, whether liberal or conservative — is that they become infatuated with whielding political power and influence once they get a sniff of that intoxicating drug. As a Catholic, I say that has been (and remains) a problem within the Catholic Church to this day. Luther’s support for the German princes over the peasants in the Peasants’ Revolt also illustrates the problem, as does the way Cromwell ran England and Calvin ran Geneva.
The lust for political power is the antithesis of John 13, in which Christ told His disciples that, if they were to lead, they must serve. Unfortunately, the Dobsons, Falwells, Robertsons, Cecil Murrays, Cardinal Mahonys and National Council of Churches types would rather be served than truly serve. As a result, God’s name once again gets dragged through the mud.
April 5, 2007, at 6:24 pm
Joseph said:
Bearing in mind that I agree with almost every word you wrote after this paragraph, I’ll simply point out that anyone is will within thier rights to say “You shouldn’t vote for X because he’s not really a Christian” or “..because he is heretical in his views on…” or “…because he’s morally unfit for public service.”
The Constitution, as we know, simply restricts the role of government from imposing religious tests, not individuals from expressing their stern disapproval of a candidate or his religion (or lack thereof) in public statements.
…Even if they are utterly incorrect when making those statements, as Dobson was in this case.
April 6, 2007, at 9:02 pm
I stand corrected, Stephen A. Thanks.