Spat between Obama and Dobson just the beginningPaul Shelby Lewis<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
When the shrapnel started flying between James Dobson and the Barak Obama campaign, somewhere, the Carpenters began striking a chord.  If Dobson is frustrated with Obama's interpretation of the Constitution, even more so with his interpretation of the Bible, in a few months he might have a coronary. 
Obama, like almost every liberal, sees the constitution as a document that evolves with the changing times.  Such methodology, while frustrating to conservatives, is certainly nothing new and the debate on proper interpretation of the founding documents will outlast every one of us.      
As a Bible man, however, far more likely to turn Dobson's blood pressure decidedly higher will be Obama's employment of Scripture.  And with the so-called evangelicals like Jim Wallis in his hip pocket, Obama's misuse of holy writ will reach epic proportions; as will that of his supporters. 
Over the past ten to fifteen years, there has been a steady increase of churches that claim the name Evangelical while also placing a heavy emphasis on the "social" gospel of Jesus Christ.  Yes, Christ came to offer eternal salvation (universal salvation?), but principally he came to alleviate the suffering of the poor, the sick, and the disenfranchised.  Jesus never said anything about abortion or homosexuality-the two pets of conservative evangelicals-but he preached constantly about the damaging effects of wealth, he fought the establishment, he spent most of his time with the dregs, and he reached out to the sick and the dying.
But, outside of the circle of theologians, few have taken notice of the movement; probably because there hasn't been any politician capable of fulfilling their mission.  Enter Barak Obama, who echoes their mantra without end.  In the next several months, listen very carefully to what he, and they, say.
He will, as they have, accuse conservative Christians of being single issue voters.  He will, as they have, accuse conservative Christians of being unsympathetic toward the poor.  He will, as they have, talk about a "consistent ethic of life," which would criminalize capital punishment, gut the military, and turn our country into a collectivist nation in order to "improve" the quality of life for the poor as well as the rich.  He will (and has), as they have, rip conservative Christians for denying the "fact" of global warming.  He will, as they have, praise the United Nations efforts to unify the world and will seek to make us subservient to it. 
How?  Exactly as the evangelical left has done.  He will point to the Sermon on the Mount, just as he did in his now well known 2006 speech, as the model of citizenship and government policy.  To do this (and this will particularly perturb Dobson) he will have to wipe the word "context" from his mind, just as the evangelical left has done.  He will quote Matthew 7:1 (ignoring it's actual meaning as so many do to make a point) as the reason we should not be critical of abortion advocates or the homosexual lobby, yet he will have no qualms with being critical of capital punishment advocates, just-war supporters, or family values men like Dobson.  Furthermore, in order to support this "consistent ethic of life," he will claim to be pro-life on a personal and religious level, but pro-choice as pertains to government policy; quite possibly the most cowardly statement to ever come out of a politicians mouth, though most Americans are too awed by this pseudo-compassion (or just too dumb) to pick up on the fact.  Finally, he will have to ignore that inconvenient truth that conservatives give 30% more to charity every year than liberals; if only those statistics counted liberal's giving of other people's money.
Most importantly, he will turn every verse in Scripture that teaches about individual responsibility into a dictum on government policy.  The Bible says that we should give to the poor; therefore, we ought to raise taxes on the rich in order to redistribute such wealth.  The Bible says that we should feed the needy; therefore, we ought to raise taxes to send money and aid to foreign governments.  The Bible says that we ought to seek to be at peace; therefore we should submit to the authority of the United Nations.  The Bible says that we are to care for the sick; therefore we must adopt universal health care akin to the stellar European system.  Can anyone say, "Non-Sequitur?"He will do all of these things with a new wave of evangelicals in his pocket who are equally satisfied with ignoring basic principles of Biblical interpretation as well as all things historical.  Marxism does not work, even if employed with a Biblical cloak; but damn-it if they don't try.  Here's hoping that someone sends a regular dosage of blood pressure medication to Dr. Do