Name: James Dobson
Why you've heard of him: Dr. Dobson is one of the leading advocates of family issues within the evangelical community. His commentaries are heard by more than 200 million people every day, including a program translation carried on China National Radio in the People's Republic of China. He is heard on over 3000 radio stations and seen on 80 television stations daily in the U.S.
Position: Founder and chairman of Focus on the Family
Previous: Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Southern California School of Medicine (14 years); Served on the Attending Staff of Children's Hospital of Los Angeles in the Division of Child Development and Medical Genetics (17 years).
Education: Ph.D. from the University of Southern California (1967) in the field of child development
Area of expertise/interest: Child development; political policies related to family issues
Political leaning: Conservative
Books: Dare to Discipline, The New Hide or Seek; What Wives Wish Their Husbands Knew About Women ; The Strong-Willed Child; Preparing for Adolescence; Straight Talk to Men; Emotions: Can You Trust Them?; Love Must Be Tough; Parenting Isn't for Cowards; Love for a Lifetime; Children at Risk; When God Doesn't Make Sense; Life on the Edge; Home With a Heart; Coming Home; In the Arms of God; NightLight: A Devotional for Couples; Bringing Up Boys; and NightLight for Parents
Regular contributer to: The FOTF newsletter; his syndicated newspaper column
Served on the following government task forces:
White House Conference on Families (1980)
National Advisory Commission to the office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1982-84)
Citizens Advisory Panel for Tax Reform
United States Army's Family Initiative (1986-88)
Commission on Pornography (1985-86)
Attorney General's Advisory Board on Missing and Exploited Children (1987- ?)
Department of Health and Human Services Panel on Teen Pregnancy Prevention
Commission on Child and Family Welfare
National Gambling Impact Study Commission
Assessment: The fact that a child psychologist, rather than a theologian or preacher, is one of the most recognized leaders of evangelical thought speaks poorly of evangelical theology. Still, that is no fault of Dobson's, who appears to be a genuinely sincere advocate for Christian "family values." While his influence is hard to underestimate, his critics often dismiss him without really understanding his positions or his agenda. Dobson is a traditionalist, not a radical. His views on the family may appear outdated by modern secular standards but they represent a large "silent majority" that often feels that the culture is against them.
(This post is #4 in the "Know Your Evangelicals" series.)
1
Nice idea, Joe. I'm pretty sure the reason someone like Dobson is more widely known is that his message is relevant to todays problems. Very few of us don't have some issues related to family and, dare I say, some of our evangelical theologians miss the mark when it comes to rubber meets the road issues.
posted on 08.11.2004 8:19 AM2
his influence is hard to underestimate
I think you've misunderestimated him.
If his influence is hard to underestimate, that suggests that you can't say too little about him (i.e., that no matter how little you've said about him, it's still too much). If he is hard to overestimate, then you can't say too much about him (i.e., anything you say about him will still be too little).
I assume you meant the latter.
posted on 08.11.2004 9:21 AM3
Beware what you say concerning one of my favorite bretheren - James D.
posted on 08.11.2004 10:40 AM4
The fact that a child psychologist, rather than a theologian or preacher, is one of the most recognized leaders of evangelical thought speaks poorly of evangelical theology.I never thought of Dr. Dobson as a leader in evangelical thought, but just as you further describe him, a traditionalist, an expert in his field and a real thorn in the side to social liberals and anti-religionists (he drives homosexuals into a murderous froth). A couple of book titles suggest theological content, such as When God Doesn't Make Sense, and In the Arms of God, and maybe the devotional (but one doesn't need to be a theologian to write a devotional). The body of his work is in his field. Surely, he's merely a dilettante when it comes to theology.
Are you suggesting that Dobson is looked to as an "evangelical thinker" by default, because there are so few other prominent, influential evangelical voices? Or that his commentary on culture is looked to more ardently than it should be because of this vacuum? I can appreciate that argument. But I can't decide from your article if by "leader in evangelical thought" you mean men like Francis Schaffer, who focus on a more academic, purposeful theology (theology for theology's sake), or are including outspoken and notable Christain leaders in other fields as de facto "thinkers."
May Dobson's tribe increase.
posted on 08.11.2004 10:44 AM5
Interesting choice of words, since traditionalist should imply someone who appreciates states' rights. He said that he supports the FMA because he doesn't believe that having "50 marriage laws" is good for our country.
posted on 08.11.2004 11:26 AM6
It is surprising to see Dr. and Mrs. Schaeffer, Udo Middleman, Vishal Mangalwadi, Alan Plantinga, William Lane Clark, Os Guinness, CFH Henry, Machen, and so many others not listed. They are considerably more important as -evangelical- -thinkers-.
Dobson is popular and influential, but he is neither a theologian nor an exegete, and he has had the wool pulled over his eyes by the heresiarch whose theistic punctuated equillibrium theory robs the Cross of its power.
posted on 08.11.2004 12:06 PM7
Dobson once wrote:
***We are referred to as the "far right," as "extremists," "right-wing zealots," "fundamentalists," "fringe groups" and even "religious nuts." Note that no one is ever referred to by the press as the "far left," "extreme left" or "left-wing nuts." ***
http://www.uhuh.com/laws/dobson.htm
Evidently, Dobson has never seen the conservative pundits on Fox, not to mention the conservative guests on MacNeil Lehrer, This Week in Washington, or any other news "analysis" programming.
posted on 08.11.2004 12:24 PM8
Meanwhile, Frothing at the mouth, Winsome says:
...(he drives homosexuals into a murderous froth).
Sorry, but while I might find his religion-based prejudice offensive, I haven't had the need to strangle anyone in awhile. At least not this week.
I don't think you can discus Dobson without discussing the success of Focus on the Family and it's radio programs.
While people talk about the explosion of conservative radio in the early 90's, the fact is that Rush Limbaugh was probably playing catch-up to this guy.
On the radio his personality comes off as folksy and warm, when he isn't busy being outraged by something, (which is most of the time).
This helps him a lot in selling his ideas on marriage, child-rearing, etc. (Not to mention it helps selling his books.) Don't think for a second that he isn't aware of the power and methods of direct response marketing practices.
He couldn't convince me however that spanking children is ever a good thing.
Do not underestimate the veneer of respectability that being a doctor of psychology brings him.
People trust and respect doctors more than preachers when they are speaking authoritatively.
So he can promote a theology-based point of view on family and parenthood that may have no scientific basis, but that people accept because of his professional background.
Whereas if he actually presented some of those same ideas at a medical conference he would be laughed out of the convention hall. -Not because they are theology based, but because of the lack of any real objective evidence to back his claims up.
I've read his book "How to Raise Boys". It should be re-titled. "How to raise your boy as a Manly Man who would never, ever, turn out to be Gay."
I suppose I should thank him for the crop of "straight-acting" Manly Man gay guys this has produced.
Although they do come with funny ideas about how a relationship works. They seem to expect that one partner should act like a "wife", aka servant.
Well, even straight wives don't generally put up with those attitudes anymore.
-Was that Frothy and Murderous enough?
posted on 08.11.2004 12:26 PM9
Interesting. What do you suppose the odds are that a person who received a Ph.D. in psychology from USC in 1967 took LSD at some point?
I'd say damn near 100%.
Good for Dobson. That means that somewhere deep down he knows the deal.
posted on 08.11.2004 12:30 PM11
I just stumbled across this series you're doing today, and enjoy it. Any hints as to who you are planning to feature in the future?
posted on 08.11.2004 1:35 PM12
Evidently, Dobson has never seen the conservative pundits on Fox, not to mention the conservative guests on MacNeil Lehrer, This Week in Washington, or any other news "analysis" programming.
You prove Dobson's point but apparently lack the comprehension to see it. Pundits, and conservative guests are neither journalists nor members of the press. They are givers of opinions not the supposedly "unbiased" press corps of the mainstream media. Tool.
posted on 08.11.2004 1:55 PM13
Hedgy thinks he has a point when he writes
"Pundits, and conservative guests are neither journalists nor members of the press."
Really? Hmm. They are often introduced on those shows as journalists and writers.
"They are givers of opinions not the supposedly "unbiased" press corps of the mainstream media."
Hahaha. Sure. O'Reilly is very careful to repeat that all he is doing on his show is presenting his "opinions."
Is it just presenting one's opinion about A when one says "Only insane people believe that A is not a fact"? Because I'm thinking that if I don't know any better, and I have no reason to believe the person speaking is a liar, that the person speaking is telling me that A is a fact.
Summary of this post: the distinction you draw between "the press" and Fox News doesn't exist. I wish it did. But it doesn't.
posted on 08.11.2004 4:23 PM14
Winsome: I never thought of Dr. Dobson as a leader in evangelical thought,…
I probably should have modified that phrase by adding “popular evangelical thought.” I think many modern evangelicals are more concerned with issues of psychology and self-help than they are solid theology.
Are you suggesting that Dobson is looked to as an "evangelical thinker" by default, because there are so few other prominent, influential evangelical voices?
I would consider Dobson to be, for lack of a better term, a sort of “public intellectual.” Though he generally sticks to his own area of expertise, he does expand out into other areas such as theology and politics. I’m not criticizing his role for I believe it has a place. But I would certainly say that there are too few influential evangelical voices. I can’t even think of anyone who could be considered to play the equivalent of someone like Francis Schaeffer.
Puzzled: It is surprising to see Dr. and Mrs. Schaeffer, Udo Middleman, Vishal Mangalwadi, Alan Plantinga, William Lane Clark, Os Guinness, CFH Henry, Machen, and so many others not listed.
Schaeffer, Henry, and Machen were all from a different era. While they had a profound affect on many evangelicals today, they are not as well known outside of our subculture. I will, however, eventually get to each of them as well as William Lane Craig and Os Guiness. Plantinga is one of my favorite philosophers but I don’t know that he is an evangelical. And I have no idea who Udo Middleman, Vishal Mangalwadi are. If I’ve never heard of them I doubt many non-evangelicals are wondering about them.
They are considerably more important as -evangelical- -thinkers-.
For now I’m focusing on evangelicals whose names come up in the media. Later on I will focus on evangelicals who have shaped our sub-culture and our theology.
AO: Any hints as to who you are planning to feature in the future?
I’m not sure who is next in the on-deck circle but I’m open to suggestions.
posted on 08.11.2004 5:47 PM15
Gee, Patrick, one two-word phrase certainly can set you off...
"[M]urderous froth" was just being used as a metaphor for the extreme anger Dobson elicits from the homosexual community when he describes some of their more vile practices. He exposes their dirty laundry (another metaphor) to the public, and they hate that.
Must be a slow day if you're going to jump on that.
I thought my post rather boring. Never thought anyone would get stirred up by it. My point was about what constitutes an "evangelical thinker," since Joe left it a bit vague.
posted on 08.11.2004 5:51 PM16
Yo for the record....I hope you get some color up in here *wink*.
posted on 08.11.2004 5:54 PM17
JOE:
I certainly didn't want to put too fine a point on it, or criticize your writing. I agree with you completely. Thanks for the clarification.
posted on 08.11.2004 5:56 PM18
AO: Any hints as to who you are planning to feature in the future?
I’m not sure who is next in the on-deck circle but I’m open to suggestions.
The first guy that comes to mind is Hal Lindsey. No particular reason though.
posted on 08.11.2004 8:46 PM19
Can't abide listening to him, can't even consider him a role model of any sort as he is a brutal nasty man. I bought several of his books to see what they had to say. I had heard Focus on the Family on the radio and liked some of what I heard. I read the introduction to The Strong-Willed Child and nearly threw up. I think he thought this was some sort of parable but the story he told about a disobedient dachshund ended with him hitting the little wiener dog with a BELT. And that pretty much relegated him to the lower circles of hell as far as I will ever be concerned. What a )*(#&#.
posted on 08.11.2004 9:18 PM20
"Gee, Patrick, one two-word phrase certainly can set you off...
"[M]murderous froth" was just being used as a metaphor for the extreme anger Dodson elicits from the homosexual community when he describes some of their more vile practices."
Nope, it don't bother me at all.
I'm used to metaphor from you guys and gals, since you are always telling me that the prejudices in regard to Gay and Lesbian people are justified based on a metaphor called "The Bible".
I admit I do find it irritating when Dobson wraps up theology in pseudo-scientific terminology along with hysterical claims of impending Doom and presents it as fact. It's just plain dishonest. Makes Pop Psychology "Me, Me, It's all about Me" books look good in comparison.
posted on 08.11.2004 11:33 PM21
" I read the introduction to The Strong-Willed Child and nearly threw up. I think he thought this was some sort of parable but the story he told about a disobedient dachshund ended with him hitting the little wiener dog with a BELT."
Um, are you serious, Carol? That's completely bizarre. Whipping a dachsund?
posted on 08.12.2004 9:42 AM22
Summary of this post: the distinction you draw between "the press" and Fox News doesn't exist. I wish it did. But it doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>
Awwwwwwww, the poor defenseless little liberal stranglehold on the media has been broken by the viscious, evil conservatives. Poor, poor liberals. What are they going to do now that theirs is not the only "spin" in town? Are people in danger of learning about income redistribution and lower-class vote buying as de facto policy? What a shame. Boo-freakin'-hoo. Cry me a river.
posted on 08.13.2004 2:42 PM23
It is interesting that Dobson draws the largest set of responses, the most dispute and controversy.
posted on 08.17.2004 10:15 AM24
For those of us that don't have access to Dobson or his books, is this taking a belt to a Dachsund for real?
And if it was why?
25
I was reading the "profile on evangelicals" and followed this Dobson thread. I have several books by him, have listened to his radio show, and look at the family.org website regularly (just to show my "bias" here). I looked up the dachsund story on amazon.com in the "look inside this book" feature just to see if that might be in it, and it was! Yes, he talks about a "strong-willed" dachsund he had as a pet, and yes, the dog challenged his authority in this certain story (it was meant to be a funny story, by the way) when he took a "small belt" and struck the dog on the back end when he refused to get off of the fuzzy toilet seat cover in the winter, one day when he was cold. He acknowledges that some might think he is "humanizing" the actions of a dog by using this example. He goes on to say, "But this is not a book about the discipline of dogs; there is an important moral to my story whch is highly relevant to the world of children. Just as surely as a dog will occasionally challenge the authority of his leaders, a little child is inclined to do the same thing, only more so."
So there you go, since you asked. Please don't judge a book by the first anecdotal story without going on to read the assumptions and beliefs that support the point the author wants to make.
26
Jenna:
Am I understanding you correctly?
So he lightly smacked a strong willed dog with a belt? Because it wouldn't get off a fuzzy toilet seat. This was a purebreed dachsund?
That is acceptable to you?
That is humanizing a dog, and that is very wrong.
That is funny?
In the interest of fair disclosure...
I hit a dog once. I didn't know any better.
What I did was wrong.
27
Jenna: Sorry, long day, I wasn't very clear.
Permit me to rephrase a bit more respectfully.
I'd like to understand...
Dobson thinks that it is a funny story he is telling on himself...he hit a dachsund on the rear end with a small belt, knowing the dog was on a fuzzy toilet seat because it was cold?
Am I understanding what you said correctly?
Dogs are pack animals, and instinctual.
If you have to hit a dog, you have the problem not the dog.
How is that anywhere close to disciplining a child created in the image and likeness of God?
I'm sorry Jenna, I think that is just bad stewardship if I understand what you are saying.
28
Okay, Bene, I am going to do my best to answer your questions as well as I can. I would still ask you to read the book if you really want to "understand" because all I can do is tell you what I think Dr. Dobson would say in response to your questions. (Or do you you actually want to know what I myself believe?)
I hesitate to even go down this road because it's quite obvious that you and Dr. Dobson are operating out of two very different world views. Most evangelicals, believing that that the Bible can be literally interpreted (or is that fundamentalists?), do not think spanking is wrong, which you say you do. So that's one issue I see here.
Secondly, if you could read the story, you'd see that not only was Dobson's dog NOT a "pack animal", as you say, he actually called him a "member of the family", and joked that the dog wanted to actually be "head" of the family, implying his little doggy personality was stubborn and snobby (kind of like a cat, I would guess).
So, from those two positions, that he did love the dog, and that he doesn't believe spanking and love to be mutually exclusive, he could tell that story without sounding barbaric.
29
Do you think that if Dobson actually gave his dachsund a serious lashing with a belt that he would tell us?
posted on 08.20.2004 2:59 PM30
Jenna:
I was interested in what you had to say.
Dobson isn't well known where I come from, nor have I seen any of his books etc.
Thanks for clarifying.