Focus on the (Straight, White, Heterosexual, Christian, Patriarchal) Family

On the death of James Dobson and the roots and fruits of his philosophy

Aug 28, 2025

Public Theology is based on the work of Zach W. Lambert, Pastor of Restore, an inclusive church in Austin, Texas. He and his wife, Amy Lambert, contribute to and moderate this account. Zach’s first book, Better Ways to Read the Bible, is now available wherever books are sold.

All of the content available at Public Theology is for those who identify as Christian, as well as those who might be interested in learning about a more inclusive, kind, thoughtful Christianity. To receive new posts and support the work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

We’re glad you’re here.

James Dobson is dead.

The reactions have ranged from praising him as a hero of the faith to metaphorically dancing on his grave.

I’ve never read a James Dobson book and I don’t intend to, but I know the mark his words have left on the bodies of children for decades, both literally and figuratively. I know the tremendous influence he has had within conservative politics, much of which is coming to its full fruition now in the work of Project 2025, the repeal of civil liberties, and the continued rise of racist and eugenic rhetoric and policies. Thank God, truly, that Dobson will never see the pot of gold at the end of his supremacist rainbow. It’s an insufficient punishment for the pain he has caused, but it’s something. We all, however, are here living in the fulfillment of decades of Dobson’s influence.

I was raised in the 90s and early 2000s in the Southern Baptist Church. I was breathing the bought air James Dobson was pumping into my SBC Fellowship Hall and beyond. Children were, ultimately, to be seen and not heard, to be obedient to the men in charge (many of whom were idiots, if I’m being honest), and to put the emotional needs of adults over their own.

As I’ve read various responses to his death, a recurring theme has emerged: James Dobson hated children. He described them as “mischievous little rascals whose greatest pleasure seems to be in upsetting their guardians.”1 Unfortunately, this is only one of many odd motives he ascribed to children during his lifetime.

I’m embarrassed to admit that I was shocked to learn that Dr. James Dobson received his Doctorate in Psychology from the University of Southern California. Without putting much thought into it, I had always assumed that Dobson was a pastor. (It says something that I am more shocked by a doctor who views children this way than a pastor.)

James and Shirley Dobson via godreports.com. I don’t recommend this website :)

But he was reputably and impressively trained. Dobson served as an Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Southern California School of Medicine and served on the staff of Children’s Hospital in Los Angeles in the Division of Child Development and Medical Genetics. The lore goes that Dobson became disturbed by the parenting methods of the 60s. Say what you will about Dr. Spock’s methods, but it’s strange that a Christian man would be so disgusted by calls for parents to attune to their children’s needs that he formed his own brand of child psychology in which parents were centered and children were vilified.

You might be asking yourself, as I was: How could a Christian man with extensive medical training and expertise, whose entire job was to study and care for children, push such a harsh ideology of the very population he served?

The answer: Paul Popenoe.

Paul Popenoe, an atheist who penned a book titled Sterilization for Human Betterment, was a eugenicist who peddled the idea that we should “encourage the reproduction of superior persons and discourage that of inferiors.”2 His ideas and mentorship inspired Dobson to develop the agenda which eventually grew into Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, Family Policy Councils, the Family Policy Alliance, and Love Won Out (an ex-gay program that promoted conversion therapy and was eventually overtaken by Exodus International).

Popenoe praised Hitler’s aim for a racially pure society, and it was Popenoe’s Sterilization for Human Betterment which largely influenced eugenic policy in the Third Reich. This is who Dobson learned from and sought to emulate. This was the kind of society Dobson truly wanted.

Krispin and D.L. Mayfield have dedicated an entire chapter of their publication, Strongwilled, to Popenoe’s influence on Dobson. Referencing Popenoe and the eugenics movement at large:

There must be an encouragement of “sound parenthood,” and Hitler wanted to make it easier for “fit” White German women to enter earlier into marriage and have larger families as a form of advancing the master race. Indeed, the Nazi party—which came into power partly on the platform that they would solve the issue of high unemployment—discouraged married women from a career, and instead to focus on their main role: staying home, having children, and indoctrinating those children into the perfect citizens of a fascist eugenicist state. Popenoe, who wanted to see Hitler’s philosophy implemented in the US, writes about Hitler’s focus on the (white, German family): “While he points clearly to the need for financial reforms, such as the family wage, he seems to lay the greatest stress on educational changes and reforms in public opinion, that will promote earlier marriage and larger families among the fit.”
Krispin and D.L. Mayfield

Why fight gay marriage and LGBTQ+ equality?

Because it undermines the idea that we need patriarchal families with men as providers for and protectors of their weaker willed wives. If marriages work outside of the prescriptive heteronormative Evangelical structure, the whole thing could come tumbling down. So what did/do they do? Paint homosexuality as the most vile of sins, vilify non-straight people as groomers and perverts, and push the narrative that everyone outside of that paradigm is dangerous and disgusting. You can even see this narrative pushed against singleness (the phrase “childless cat lady” comes to mind), which is ironic as Paul says that singleness is a gift.3

Why push for purity in young girls, abstinence only “sex education,” early marriage, large families, and complementarianism while fighting against feminism and education?

To keep women barefoot, pregnant, quiet, submissive, and without an escape plan. Dobson was quoted as saying the following in his book Dare to Discipline:

“The natural sex appeal of girls serves as their primary source of bargaining power in the game of life. In exchange for feminine affection and love, a man accepts a girl as his lifetime responsibility-supplying her needs and caring for her welfare. This sexual aspect of the marital agreement can hardly be denied.”

I don’t think I need to say anything else to show you how Dobson felt about women (or girls) after that horrific and disgusting quote. And somehow, sadly, these ideals continue to pulse through popular culture today in tradwife culture, conservative social media influencers, Evangelical churches, podcasts, and other media.

Why advocate for breaking the wills of children through corporal punishment and emotional abuse?

To train up a generation (or two! or three!) of compliant citizens who will continue the eugenics movement under the guise of conservative Christianity. (Have you watched the second season of Shiny Happy People? If not, and you think you can stomach it, you should.) And if some of those kids turn away from it in their youth or adulthood? Cut them off. Hide behind the theology of election– they probably were condemned to hell anyway. You’ve still got a gaggle of kids who may buy in, and that’s why you had them all, right? The rest be damned, it’s no skin off your back.

But I have to wonder– if two out of three children are “strong willed” (as Dobson suggests in his book, The Strong Willed Child) and in need of punishment to make them more obedient, is it really the kids who are the problem? If children are made in God’s image, how can they be so detestable? In Dobson’s description, God sounds a lot more like Miss Trunchbull from Roald Dahl’s Matilda than the Jesus I find in scripture.

Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these”.4 His disciples rebuked the parents who brought their children to Jesus, but Jesus welcomed them with open arms. The same story in Mark’s gospel ends by saying “And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.”5

Jesus didn’t emphasize children’s “sin natures,” talk about their evil wishes against their parents, or advocate for their abuse. People brought their children to Jesus for healing and blessing, not to make them more obedient and easier to control.

In The Strong Willed Child, Dobson labeled one out of three kids “compliant.” I’m guessing that some of this is natural demeanor, and some of it is learned: if you watch your sibling get in trouble and you have a strong sense of self preservation, you’re probably not going to try the same thing.

Unfortunately, like a hammer looking for a nail, parents who believe that their children’s most primal attempts to have their needs met (i.e. crying) will find a strong will no matter where they look. And Dobson didn’t just push for the punishment of unacceptable actions, he also proposed the limitation of children’s responses to the punishments they received.

“When asked ‘How long do you think a child should be allowed to cry after being punished? Is there a limit?’ Dobson responded:
‘Yes, I believe there should be a limit. As long as the tears represent a genuine release of emotion, they should be permitted to fall. But crying quickly changes from inner sobbing to an expression of protest... Real crying usually lasts two minutes or less but may continue for five. After that point, the child is merely complaining, and the change can be recognized in the tone and intensity of his voice. I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears.’”6

Dobson emphasizes the importance of parents starting corporal punishment when children are young to enforce themselves as the authority in the relationship.

I have read dozens of stories in recent days of Dobson’s methods being wielded against children who were acting in developmentally appropriate ways. One woman wrote of being spanked repeatedly until she tried to escape the punishment by holding her breath; she passed out and, upon waking, was spanked again for her willful disobedience.

Another person wrote of banging their forehead against their crib and screaming, then being punished for it, only to later be diagnosed with a double ear infection. In the most extreme circumstances, children were severely abused or worse.

When my oldest son was around two years old, I began swatting his hand when he didn’t listen. I never felt great about it, but I was a young mom dealing with significant postpartum anxiety, sleep deprivation, and little support. I didn’t know what else to do, and I just needed him to listen to me. One day, as I knelt on the floor of his room, replacing his diaper on a changing mat, he said something (that I can’t remember) and I swatted his hand a little too hard. He fixed his eyes on me, angry tears burning his cheeks, and sternly said, “Don’t HIT me!” Something in me broke and I knew I could never hit him again.

While I hadn’t read a word of Dobson’s teachings, it was what I knew: if your kid is not complying, you make them comply. Simple, right? But it wasn’t for me, and it isn’t for a lot of people. When things are complex, we, as humans, look for ways to simplify them. It’s hard to wade through the emotions of parenting, to give our kids a safe space to process their emotions– to develop naturally and normally, at their own pace and in their own way– while also trying to make sure that our bills get paid and the dishes get done and we all generally survive. We have to make a living and keep everything running, so what gives? Our children’s spirits. We break their wills because it’s the variable we can control.

And it pays larger dividends. If Dobson can convince us to control our children, to suppress our wives, to discredit people because of their IQ or their country of origin or their sexual orientation, he and his remain in control.

Dobson’s actual belief system? People as objects: objects that either propped him up or threatened his kingdom. Shut the children up by physical force. Lock young girls into marriage and make them believe that a) their greatest worth– their only worth!-- to God was as a womb and sexual relief for their husbands, and b) that divorce is the ultimate sin. Make “the gays” un-gay through conversion therapy or force them into celibacy to remain in Christian community. Send the brown people back to wherever they’re from. Sterilize whoever we can get our hands on.

Whether Dobson believed it or not, he surely wasn’t promoting the Christianity of Jesus. The Jesus that I follow calls me to care for the least of these. Who needs a voice and protection more than children? Dobson knew it and benefited from their vulnerability.

I don’t believe in hell anymore, and even if I did, I wouldn’t wish that Dobson was there. My faith affirms a loving God who wants good for all people, even those who take advantage of the voiceless for their own gain. I don’t always like it, but I’m not in charge.

As Lura Groen wrote following the death of Pat Robertson (as quoted by Zach last week), Dobson, upon his death, “is being surprised by Love. I do not know if discovering the vastness of God's love is hell for him, or heaven. Perhaps a little of both. That's above my pay grade. But Divine Love has him now.”

Like Lura, I can leave everyone else to God, including James Dobson. I can call out injustice and keep moving forward with my own stuff. That, for me, means supporting my own kids and pushing for the better treatment of anyone and everyone who has been harmed by the ideology of supremacy.

Jesus saw everyone as valuable without distinction or category. I pray that I can do the same.

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?