Proto-Protestantism: On the Death of James Dobson (1936-2025)

28 August 2025

On the Death of James Dobson (1936-2025)

A friend recently wrote to me asking if I had heard about the death of James Dobson. I told him I heard it break over the news while I was at work, and I trembled. I was reminded of the same thing happening to me back in 2007 when Jerry Falwell died. Once again, I thought of Matthew 7 and 2 Timothy 3 - and the theme of deceiving and being deceived.

When you look at the present disaster that is Evangelicalism, Dobson is one of the chief architects. He was no stalwart but a destroyer, a poisoner who infected the Church with all manner of syncretistic filth. His theology was aberrant, his intuitions and ethics from the sewer. Sure, he knew sodomy was wrong (so do a lot of pagans) but that was about it. Otherwise he was a promoter of idolatry, mammon, murder, feminism, psychology, and compromise.
Apart from maybe a second-tier figure like Chuck Swindoll (b.1934), I believe Dobson was actually the last of that generation of leaders involved in the Evangelical resurgence of the 70's and 80's... when the movement consolidated their political and cultural efforts under the aegis of the GOP. Like every one of them he lived by the consequentialist creed - the end justifies the means. When Paul asks shall we do evil that good may come? Dobson and his ilk answered in the affirmative and now the vast numbers they deceived are reaping the consequences of that aberrant philosophy. I think of those pictures of Evangelical leaders (like Dobson and D James Kennedy) at the White House with Bush - all giddy because they had 'arrived'. Of course I also remember hearing about staffers in the Reagan and Bush White Houses speaking of men like these (and Dobson specifically) and just rolling their eyes. They didn't understand how anything worked. They were placated because they were useful idiots that could steer a huge voting bloc. Do you think it's any less the case with Donald Trump?
Some of the last things I remember about Dobson - in recent years as he began to fade from the scene - was his public call for assassination, his attempt to revivify Sarah Palin's falling star, and his avid and even rabid promotion of Trump. The fact that he was forced out of his own organization (Focus on the Family) was (I'm sure) a bitter pill and upon hearing of his death, I also thought of Jim Daly (the architect and beneficiary of his outing) who probably breathed a sigh of relief - he won't have to look over his shoulder any more. The organisation put out a public line that Dobson wanted to step back from the work. But given that he immediately started a new radio programme more or less exactly the same indicates that was not the case at all. Insiders said he and Daly clashed over the direction of the 'ministry' and the board more or less asked him to step down.
I'm also reminded of Francis Schaeffer's 'The Great Evangelical Disaster' published in 1984, the year of his death. In it he lamented the state of the movement and its fatal compromise - a great irony as he had (as much as anyone else) since the 1960's laboured to bring about that very state of affairs and the Right-wing ecumenical movement which emerged a decade later. Both Schaeffer and Dobson re-wrote history and promoted myths about America, the West, and so-called Christendom (which Dobson was unable to pronounce). Both of these men missed some of the basic New Testament messages regarding money, ethics, power, and the world and (from my perspective) walked right into Satan's trap and were used by him - 2 Corinthians 11.13-15.

I've always been frustrated by Dobson's place in the cultural narrative. The secular world views him as a hardline fundamentalist often citing his 1970 'Dare to Discipline' which controversially advocated spanking (a corrective to a generation that had revered the failed parenting methods of Dr. Spock). Today's parenting 'experts' view such advice as child abuse.

But from my standpoint given Dobson's compromise and embrace of self-esteem psychology, I cannot view him as some kind of hardline disciplinarian. A case in point - I remember years ago reading his advice column - a single mother with a 2-year old (or thereabouts) was struggling with church because the congregation where she attended provided no nursery services and she was unable to control her child. Dobson was baffled and put off by this state of affairs and the (as he saw it) derelict leadership which insisted that children be trained to sit through the service. Dobson was clear - he thought it was absurd to expect a child that age to be able to sit through a service and the woman would either have to find a new church or hire a babysitter.

All I can say is - wow. That's some advice. In fact the episode is in many respects an epitome of Dobson's thought. I always disagreed with him even when he was (sometimes) kind of right. It didn't matter because his reasoning, justification, and means of getting there were completely wrong. In this case, his bad theology and ecclesiology as well as his lax parenting style was on full display.

Toddlers can sit through church services if they have parents that know what they're doing. We never (not even once) put any of our kids into a nursery from the day they were born. And they were quiet and behaved. The primary reason for this is because of family worship - they learned at home and so Sunday morning was a breeze.

The suggestion that she leave the church over this issue is simply bad advice and represents a rather impoverished ecclesiology. The idea that you hire a baby sitter in order to attend church is reprehensible and I'm reminded of other failed parents I know that have to get a babysitter in order to eat out or even to go grocery shopping. It's a clear sign that you are on a bad path.

Dobson was one of the leaders who sold out for power and allowed what I call the Accommodationist Triad to become givens within the Evangelical community. Feminism, Divorce, and Psychology became normative in American culture during the 1970's and by the 1990's the Evangelical movement capitulated on each of these points.
Dobson wanted to strengthen the family but by embracing these concepts and continuing to avidly promote Capitalism - he actually worked to undermine the family. Capitalism worked in tandem with feminism to push mothers into the workforce. Its materialist values also fed into this and then everyone found themselves trapped - needing two incomes to survive. Those who refused did so because they had relatively high paying jobs - or they suffered the consequences and had to embrace lower class status as a result. Needless to say there are (today) very few who are willing to take that path. There were a lot more of us back in the 1980's and 1990's but as the Evangelical movement worships money and power - there's nothing more disgraceful than to be poor and as a result their movement embraced these values. And as a consequence dysfunctional families have led to the growth of and reliance upon psychology (which is poison) as well as divorce. The Evangelical Church in order to stay relevant and keep their numbers up simply kept moving the goalposts and continues to do so to this day. Dobson played a critical role in all these downgrades and compromises.

Finally, apart from the myths of Christian America and the other nonsense peddled by Dobson, he was rabid member of a group of Evangelicals and Right-wingers I call the Churchill Cult.

The modern American Right is defined by a narrative connected to World War II. By their deeply flawed reckoning, the United States defeated the Nazis and Imperial Japan and 'saved the world' - which left the threat of Communism and the set-up for the Cold War, which was 'won' by Reagan, Thatcher, and John Paul II.

Since they are not fans of Franklin Roosevelt, their revisionist (and fictitious) narrative turns to Winston Churchill as the conservative and moral representative of the West and Christian Civilisation. Churchill never hesitated about Hitler - marking him from the beginning as trouble and a force for evil. Churchill also advocated an invasion of the Soviet Union in 1945 - utilizing what was left of the Wehrmacht in a plan (Operation Unthinkable) that never came to fruition. Churchill is (to this group) the sentinel, the leader par excellence who with the Americans saved the world and created the post-war Anglo-American order - which shortly thereafter became the Atlanticist-American order. He was the stalwart that 'knew the times' and which way the wind was blowing and made all the tough moral choices.

They contrast this with the appeasement diplomacy of Neville Chamberlain at Munich, and the failures to stand up to Hitler in the Rhineland - which actually took place under Chamberlain's Tory predecessor, Stanley Baldwin.

Roosevelt is falsely associated with the spirit of isolationism and the Right continues to put forth narratives suggesting that Roosevelt's 'meddling' in the economy with his various New Deal programmes prolonged The Great Depression and weakened America's character and resolve - thus justifying the McCarthy campaign of the early 1950's as a righteous revenge campaign, an attempt to expose subversives and traitors. It was a kind of back-door attempt to indict the legacy of FDR and to undermine Truman. It has clearly inspired Trumpism and its use of the Justice Department as well as it campaigns to expel anyone who might be considered 'woke'.

The problems with this narrative are numerous to say the least, beginning with some of its assumptions - points I treat extensively in the linked article. The bottom line is Churchill is not the foresighted stalwart nor defender of Christianity they make him out to be, nor do their larger historical narratives regarding the war and post-war period stand. As yet, men like Dobson laid an ideological foundation on these myths. For Dobson, this myth became dominant as he saw himself as a Churchill-like figure for both America and the American Church. Even a cursory examination exposes the absurdity of his narrative.

The Churchill myth also rests on the narrative surrounding Munich - a reference to the Agreement of 1938, itself a response to the crisis over the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. Neville Chamberlain cut a last hour deal and allowed Hitler's annexation with the promise that he would stop and there would be no further expansion. As such, Chamberlain's 'Peace in our Time' seems foolish in light of subsequent events. The agreement did not engender peace as Hitler continued to expand, using pretense to overtake the whole of Czechoslovakia and to divide it up in the interests of Nazi rule - including the formation of puppet regime in Slovakia.

And yet the realities of the situation are often lost. As some historians have noted, there was little Britain or France could have done at that point in time. A line was drawn and once it was crossed the nations that would become the Allies knew they were committed to war. In fact some historians will also point out the foolishness and futility of the Polish guarantees which were unrealistic and never actually fulfilled. But when Hitler invaded in September 1939, Britain and France were committed to war - even though they weren't ready as the period of Phoney War indicates. The Churchill side argues that had Britain and France stood up to Hitler in 1936 and 1938, he would have backed down - but this is speculation. While it's probably true in 1936, the same cannot be said for 1938 and the Czechoslovak Crisis. The argument that Germany would have been defeated in 1938 is pure conjecture but one heavily promoted by the Churchill Cult.

The American Right appeals to Munich every time an attempt is made to stop war or turn to negotiation instead of bombing. They cry 'Appeasement' as a means of shouting down any resistance or the suggestion of an alternative. It's a disingenuous manipulation of history.

But speaking of a Munich-inspired moment and appeasement, the great irony is that Evangelical leaders (and specifically Dobson) appeased the world (and its prince) and cut a Faustian bargain with the Republican Party back in the 1980's, and then did so on a much larger scale in 2016 when they endorsed Donald Trump. They repudiated their own ethical imperatives and indictments of Bill Clinton. All their talk of character and integrity went out the window because if they simply bowed to Trump, he would give them what they want. Or they think so. Little do they release that historical hindsight will reveal they were the Evangelical Neville Chamberlains that sold out to buy peace and stability - they appeased the world and the fleshly (and idolatrous) sword and coin motivations of the American Right to avoid having to take up the cross. Instead they turned to Egypt for help and already they are reaping a rotten harvest as all manner of evil is surfacing within the Church. I speak of far-Right extremism, revisionist Nazi historiography, outright racism, and other vile ideologies.

They'll look back in a generation and realize this so called Christian resurgence was little more than a flash in the pan - and for the few endowed with a modicum of wisdom, the understanding that all their efforts and all their claimed victories in the end brought only chaos and destruction.