I remember an incident from my teenage years:
I was at a church youth camp where an uncle of mine, a respected foreign missionary, was a keynote speaker. My uncle was playing basketball with some of the young men and the game became quite competitive.
At one point, my uncle fouled another player. I, who knew little about basketball, could see this clearly. And it was plain that the other players shared this observation.
But not my uncle.
He said, “That wasn’t a foul”. And though their faces betrayed their incredulity, the other players didn’t argue. Because he was an authority figure, the game proceeded without a free throw. It wasn’t a foul.
I present this story to illustrate a point. Over time, people in positions of power or authority can come to think that they are not only right, but beyond challenge. Opinions become “true” because they say that they are.
I don’t think that my uncle was lying that day. Or cheating. But he was heavily biased against thinking that his walloping into the other player was outside of acceptable efforts to get the ball. And he was accustomed to having his opinion – whether in issues of faith or in daily whims – accepted as fact.
Of course what he said was true. After all, he had said it. And since he was a teller of truth, the things that he had to say were – by definition – true.
I think this attitude is pervasive among those who are anti/ex-gay activists. They may make the most ridiculous and obviously untrue claims but, because they are speaking “truth in love”, they feel no need to verify their claims nor any guilt when they are demonstrated to be false.
The most recent example of this is the column penned by Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, for Time magazine. Dobson publicly chastises Mary Cheney, the daughter of the Vice-President, because she is pregnant with a child that she will raise with her spouse Heather Poe.
Dobson states his opinions on traditional families and “God’s design” and “biblical truth”. And while I may disagree with him, Dobson is not at fault for telling his “truth” about such things.
However, Dobson did not stop there. Shielding himself with the mantle of “scientific findings”, he presented the writings, reputation, and authority of two psychologists, Dr. Carol Gilligan and Dr. Kyle Pruett, to add credence to his condemnation. It is not possible to read Dobson’s words without coming to the conclusion that the work of these accomplished researchers agrees with his point.
It does not.
Not only does the work not support Dobson’s argument, in one case it states the exact opposite. Both Gilligan and Pruett were so incensed that they wrote refutations of Dobson’s misuse of their work.
Now most of us would be horrified to find that we had misrepresented the work of another. We would be embarrassed and profuse with apology. However, Dr. Dobson is not. He has issued no retractions nor has he admitted that he has done anything wrong.
This is not the first time that Dobson and other anti-gay activists have misquoted or misused the research of others. He has been misrepresenting both Gilligan and Pruett for years. And perhaps the most blatant example is the misrepresentation of Dr. Spitzer’s kindly intended but poorly executed look into the successes of some ex-gays. Although Dr. Spitzer has publicly complained about the dishonest representation of his conclusions, this study continues to be trumpeted falsely on most every anti-gay and ex-gay website.
While I suspect that Dobson is fully aware that he repeatedly misrepresents the research of others, on some level I don’t think he views his statements as “untrue”. Dobson is convinced of the rightness of his position and therefore what he says, though technically inaccurate, is still “the truth”. Facts are just inconvenient details that can be ignored.
It has now been twenty-five years since I watched my uncle foul a young man on a dusty cement basketball court at youth camp. And I am certain that no one who played that day recalls the foul – or even that they played the game. But I have never forgotten that incident. It was the day that I lost a measure of respect for a man who used his authority to abuse another and to let his “truth” override objective facts.
So too has James Dobson used his authority to abuse Gilligan and Pruett and run roughshod over objective facts. And though he may not know it, there are those out there who – seeing this abuse – will remember this day as the day that they lost respect for Dr. James Dobson and Focus on the Family.
(hat tip to Wayne Besen for his work in securing the responses from Drs. Gilligan and Pruett)
I lost my respect for Dobson over ten years ago when he created the ADF to go after GLBT families (among other things), like mine.
That being said, Dobson is a Nazarene, and while I cannot generalize about every member of the denomination, it is known that it emphasizes a concept of practical holiness, whereby he well may believe that he cannot sin, following conversion. Others have detailed this tenet of the Nazarene sect.
Excellent story! The more I learn about Dr. Dobson and many of the “Megga-Church Evangelicals” the more I see a very close resemblance to my own Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has leaders (like James Dobson) who speak about issues regarding homosexuality using their authority and positions as evidence for their views on this issue. The difference is that the leaders in my Church have the calling of Apostle or Prophet and therefore the members of the LDS Church typically view their interpretations as being inspired and from God. Perhaps Evangelicals view James Dobson in a very similiar way. Authority and religion have an extremely powerful influence (both positive and negative) over the minds and hearts of people.
As a Gay Latter-day Saint and Christian I believe that the most important thing that any Christian needs to learn is that we will one day be held accountable to Christ for how we truly relied upon God directly as opposed to treating our leaders as though they are God. Trusting leaders on these crucial issues as though they are God is what I feel is relying upon the arm of the flesh instead of trusting in God directly.
When I served a mission for my Church during my early 20’s in California my companion and I spoke to a Catholic Priest and he said something to me that has resonated with me for the many years since that time. He said that much of Evangelical Christianity is a “babyfood religion” meaning that many people in these faith’s are often not self-thinkers who typically need to be told how to interpret the Bible. When Christians who have a gay or lesbian family member feel that something is not right regarding the typical interpretation that their Church leaders tell them they need to have faith in their own relationship with God.
Excellent post Timothy.
It should be obvious that something is wrong with Dobson’s “facts” because of his response to the complaints by the researchers whose work he distorted. Did he counter their argument, explain his interpretation or even apologize for having misused their work? No, he sent out a mass email to his supporters complaining of being “attacked” by gay groups and asking them all to email Time and say they liked the article.
What difference does it make how many people like the article if is isn’t true? The man is drunk with power at the very least.
Thanks to both Wayne Besen’s and Soulforce’s rapid response to Dobson’s opinion piece, Time Magazine has already agreed to publish a rebuttal by Jennifer Chrisler, the Executive Director of Family Pride.
https://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1569797,00.html
Thursday, Dec. 14, 2006
Two Mommies or Two Daddies Will Do Fine, Thanks
An advocate for gay families says James Dobson misuses science to discredit same-sex parenting
By JENNIFER CHRISLER
The strategies of religious and political extremists like James Dobson of Focus on the Family have become more nuanced of late. They have adjusted their language so that it is less vitriolic. They now utilize terms and approaches that often have a scientific-sounding overlay and are designed to appear more reasonable than those of their earlier efforts. They use the language of “concern” instead of the language of direct condemnation. They have had to make these adjustments because — as the lives of gay people and their families have gained visibility — the previous methods of attack lost their effectiveness. Nevertheless, the science they wield, if not unsound, is misconstrued. Responding to the news of the pregnancy of Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of the Vice President, Dobson, writing in a viewpoint in TIME magazine, put to work the time-worn tools of lies and distortion to make his argument that lesbian and gay parents are not able to provide environments for their children comparable in quality to those created by heterosexual parents.
These are the facts. According to the 2000 census, the vast majority — more than 75% — of American children, are being raised in families that differ in structure from two married, heterosexual parents and their biological children. We are a nation of blended and multi-generational families, adoptive and foster families, and families headed by single parents, divorced parents, unmarried parents, same-sex couples and more. Despite Dobson’s assertions to the contrary, there is no single “traditional” family structure in the United States.
Moreover, despite Dobson’s attempt to blame this reality on “no-fault divorce,” this is not a new development. Over time and across cultures, the definition of family and the arrangements in which children have been raised have varied tremendously. Dobson’s idea that the nuclear family is “supported by more than 5,000 years of human experience” and constitutes “the foundation on which the well-being of future generations depends” is simply not historically accurate.
Within his commentary, Dobson directly attributes some of the points of his argument to prominent psychologist and social researcher Dr. Carol Gilligan. However, when asked about his use of her research, Dr. Gilligan stated emphatically that its inclusion constitutes “a complete distortion of my work” and went on to say that there is nothing in her research that would support Dobson’s stated conclusions.
It is true that there is 30 years of research about families headed by lesbian and gay parents. However, Dobson claims that the resulting data shows that “children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father.” To say that Dobson is misinformed here would be inaccurate. He is simply lying. The people who are misinformed by these untruths are the readers of his material and those who publish his work without appropriately verifying his assertions. The fact is that research findings on these issues overwhelmingly testify to the success of gay families as nurturing environments for children’s growth and development.
In terms of specific examples, Dr. Nanette Gartrell, former Harvard Medical School faculty and current Associate Clinical Professor of Psychology at the University of California, San Francisco, has conducted research on lesbian-headed families since the early 1980s.
Gartrell’s findings have proven that “in social and psychological development, the children [of lesbian parents] were comparable to children raised in heterosexual families.” In addition, Dr. Charlotte Patterson, Professor of Psychology as the University of Virginia and respected family and child researcher, has determined that “there is no evidence that the development of children with lesbian or gay parents is compromised in any significant respect relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in otherwise comparable circumstances.”
In addition, professional organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers have all issued position statements supporting same-sex parents. The Child Welfare League of America says, “It should be recognized that sexual orientation and the capacity to nurture a child are separate issues.” The American Psychological Association goes even further: “Not a single study has found children to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psycho-social growth. Gay and lesbian parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide healthy and supportive environments for their children.”
The fundamental reality is that all parents, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, are linked in a very real way. We want our children to be safe, healthy and happy. When any of our families are politicized, it is an assault on our ability to protect ourselves, each other and our children. When people like Dobson profess “concern” for the welfare of children, while simultaneously attacking those very children’s parents and family structures, their insincerity becomes evident. If their paramount focus is truly the health and well-being of children, then we invite Dobson and his colleagues to join our fight to ensure that all loving families are recognized, respected, protected and celebrated.
Jennifer Chrisler is the Executive Director of Family Pride, the nation’s largest LGBT family advocacy group, and the mother of twin boys with her wife Cheryl Jacques. They reside in Washington, D.C.
**********
Soulforce Asks Time Magazine to Check Dobson’s Facts About Gay, Lesbian Families
AUSTIN, December 13, 2006 – Soulforce has launched an online petition asking the editors of Time magazine to check James Dobson’s facts about lesbian and gay parenting.
In this week’s TIME (December 18), James Dobson responds to the news of Mary Cheney’s pregnancy by once again invoking “30 years of social-science evidence” to support his claim that children do best “when raised by their married mother and father.”
In spite of Dobson’s reputation as a benevolent family therapist, his views on lesbian and gay parenting do not reflect the mainstream of American professional organizations concerned with researching and promoting children’s wellbeing, Soulforce says.
In a 2004 policy statement, the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy reported “no evidence that same-sex couples or family units vary significantly from heterosexual couples or family units in terms of aspirations, hopes and goals, or in outcomes for children.”
In response to Dobson’s editorial, Soulforce contacted Dr. Christopher R. Martell, President of the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues. According to Dr. Martell:
“Over and again the data show that a loving and safe home environment is important, not the gender of the parents. The mainstream research is so clear on this matter that the American Psychological Association’s resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children, which was adopted by the APA Council of Representatives in July, 2004, states: the APA supports the protection of parent-child relationships through the legalization of joint adoptions and second parent adoptions of children being reared by same-sex couples.”
The American Psychological Association, one of the world’s largest mental health organizations, would not have supported the protection of legalized adoption by gay and lesbian parents if the data had suggested that children were at risk in such households.
Time, Soulforce points out, has a history of excellent coverage of LGBT issues.
“In recent years, the magazine has been nominated multiple times for GLAAD media awards,” said Paige Schilt, the media director at Soulforce.
“We applaud Time’s past coverage. With this petition we are asking the editors to continue this tradition by checking Dobson’s facts on lesbian and gay parenthood.
“Soulforce and other organizations have repeatedly documented Dobson’s misleading statements about the research on LGBT families. In the interest of journalistic integrity, publications such as Time must contextualize his statements with evidence from credible, peer-reviewed research.”
The online petition can be found at http://www.soulforce.org/petition/2
Soulforce is a national civil rights and social justice organisation whose vision is freedom for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from religious and political oppression through the practice of relentless non-violent resistance.
Dobson is a Nazarene, and while I cannot generalize about every member of the denomination, it is known that it emphasizes a concept of practical holiness, whereby he well may believe that he cannot sin, following conversion. Others have detailed this tenet of the Nazarene sect.
SharonB –
I grew up in the Nazarene denomination and don’t quite agree with your assessment of their doctrinal emphasis. They do believe in two definate works of grace (the doctrine of holiness). The first work being salvation, the second being sanctification. There are several factions though with some believing that sanctification eradicates the sin nature. The doctrine has given rise to a whole schematic of renaming of “sin” – gossip might be labeled as sharing out of concern for one’s soul. But, no matter the faction in the doctrine, all believe that you can backslide, or sin (requiring one to start the whole process all over again). In Dobson’s case though, he wouldn’t believe it’s sin, not that he can’t sin, but because it’s his “interpretation” of the subject matter at hand (being an expert you know…LOL).
j.
I understand that the Bible is true, because when I believed it and received the complete new birth 31 years ago (as summarized in John 3:5, Acts 2:4, 38), the many changes God’s divine influence made in my life can only be explained by the Bible. Millions of people all over the world are receiving this same new birth experience, and we all have the same understanding.
But, rhetorically speaking, if the Bible is true, then all other religious, philosophical and psychological literature written before and after it, if they disagree with the Bible, they are untrue – lies.
For example, there is no such thing as a Christian homosexual!!! And God has ZERO TOLERANCE for homosexuality!!!
The proof of this is easy to see – if you have the honesty, humility and courage to look at it. Please take time to consider both the intro statement (1) and the conclusion statement (2).
(1) The New Testament was written by 8 or 9 original 1st century Christians AFTER they were born again, and were all written to other 1st century Christians AFTER they were born again. All of them had heard and believed the gospel of Jesus Christ (His death, burial and resurrection), had repented of their sins, were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins (forgiveness, washing away of the past), and received the gift of the Holy Ghost speaking in other tongues and the Spirit gave them utterance, and were by this new birth procedure “added to the church” (Acts 2:47). Water baptism in Jesus’ name is for remission, Holy Ghost baptism is for regeneration (Titus 2:11). In other words, none of the NT Scriptures were written to sinners telling them how to be saved, but were all written to the church telling us how live like Jesus, how to maintain our holiness and innocence (Eph 1:4, James 5:14, 1 John 1:9), and how to save sinners (Great Commission – Acts 1:8, Romans 10:8-17).
(2) The reason why I can say for sure that, there is no such thing as a Christian homosexual, and that God has ZERO TOLERANCE for homosexuality, is because during the 1st century, while the NT Scriptures were being written, when people began following Jesus guided by the preaching of God’s word, they walked away from all ungodly lusts and selfish worldly entertainments.
Proof of God’s extreme hatred for the vile lusts that lead people into homosexual and lesbian relationships (and all the other aspects of pagan worship mentioned in Romans 1), is demonstrated by: (a) how much God loves to save sinners (Luke 15:7) and how He enjoys entering into and cleaning contaminated hearts, and healing broken hearts with His Holy Spirit, and (b) when believers became Christians during the 1st century, they left homosexuality (1Cor 6:9-11), just like true believers are doing today.
The bottom line is this – if homosexuals or lesbians think they are Christians, just because they belong to a religion or go to a so-called church, they are on their way to hell. If this realization makes you feel uncomfortable, then think of how much better you would feel if you would cultivate honesty and courage, humility in your heart, and simply choose to believe the Bible, and let God deliver you and satisfy your soul with His abundant love, joy and peace. I’m a witness.
Take a breath, Chuck and learn to use paragraphs.
I don’t feel like reading run on rantings.
Chuck, this isn’t a religious forum for you to damn people to hellfire in. Thanks for playing the modern Pharisee, however.
And for the rest of us, well, the lady doth protest too much, methinks.
I find Charles comments quite in line with most conservative Christian thinking. Its this type of mentality that has polluted Christ’s real message of non-judgemental love and acceptance of all his children. Sadly, some of these Christians have come to a conclusion that they have the right to sit in judgement over all as if Christ has reliquished his seat at the right hand of the father to them. It was Christ that said, “If you want to avoid judgement, stop passing judgement”. (Matthew 7 v.1-5) No one has a right to judge anyone since there is no one worthy that can judge another man but Christ Jesus himself.
I really think that a class in logic should be required before granting a high school diploma.