I've been writing (too?) frequently on this topic (e.g., yesterday's post on an interview with Obama on religion, a prior post on Obama's National Prayer Breakfast confused statements on religion) but I'll try to articulate why I think this matters (still a work in progress), and then move on to other pressing (or not-so-pressing) issues.
Some say that it matters whether Obama is a Christian because, in fact, he's not just "not a Christian" but a Muslim, and that his indifference to ISIS, his willingness to help Iran get the bomb (or rather, his lack of willingness to stop them), his lack of support for victims of Islamic supremacist-motivated attacks, are all the result of his secret Muslim beliefs. They point to such things as the gesture Obama reportedly made, the "shahada" or a symbolic profession of faith, at a meeting of African leaders in August 2014.
But that's beside the point. Plenty of non-Muslim leftists make common cause with Muslims out of a belief that Muslims are victims of American imperialism. And before that, plenty of leftists, without being communists per se, were more than happy to believe communist regimes when they said they were peace-loving, that their preservation of the "right to have a job" was more important than fluff like the "right to free speech," and so on. And Obama's actions in the foreign policy arena can be judged and found wanting without regard to any Muslim sympathies.
In the same way, I'm not particularly interested in the "Obama doesn't love America" fight, though for what it's worth: Obama wants America to be transformed into a mythical European welfare state, and wants America to be as passive about world affairs as, historically, Western Europe has been, when the U.S. did all the heavy lifting. He wants to believe that somehow the stars will align and "history" will see to it that nothing too terribly bad will happen if you leave all other countries to their own devices. (In a way, that's part of his religion: that some metaphysical force will ensure that justice wins out. See my old blog post on the "arc of history.") At the same time, he is fairly "transnational" in that he doesn't believe we as Americans have any greater "right" to prosperity than anyone else, and, if he takes actions that benefit other countries at our expense, such as open borders (that is, boosting the income of those who come in, and family members back home, at the expense of Americans), it's all a part of smoothing out income inequality.
But as far as the "is Obama Christian" issue:
What religious doctrine Obama believes in ultimately has nothing to do with his position as the President. And plenty of the, for instance, Slate commenters who couldn't give a rat's ass about Christianity recognize this and go further to say, "of course he's not a Christian", but still gripe that Walker didn't fall in line and say, "Obama says he's a Christian, so he is," in the end take the position that "it's disrespectful to anyone, but especially to the president, to question their own personal profession of religious identity."
OK, that sentence is a bit of a mess.
Whether someone is a Christian depends on two things: what, in their heart, they believe, and what, definitionally, Christianity is.
Obama believes he is a Christian -- let's take him at his word and not get into the question of whether he's making claims for political gain.
But his definition of "Christian" is pretty flimsy, and seems to be more about "identifying with the Christian tradition and believing you should be a good person" than about Christian beliefs.
The Slate commenters, too, use this as their operating definition, by tossing around statements like: "Walker doesn't care about the poor, so he's not a Christian, either" or "no Republican can possibly be a Christian because they hate the poor."
But there has to be some connection between Christianity and core historical beliefs that Christians hold.
Yes, "you're a Christian if you say you are" is a shortcut to avoiding disputes such as born-agains claiming that you aren't a Christian unless you have had a born-again experience, or evangelicals disputing whether Mormons are Christians. But if you have to abandon any standards at all and open up the label Christian to anyone who claims an affinity with Jesus, even as a misunderstood social-justice reformer -- well, what's the point? I suppose, in a way, this is similar to the concept of the "big tent" Republican party -- if your tent is so big that you don't stand for anything any longer, you're pretty much lost any meaning to your endeavor except pursuit of power and/or membership numbers.
When it comes down to it, playing a "gotcha" with politicians and asking them to affirm Obama's Christianity is almost a demand that those politicians deny their own faith, by saying it doesn't matter whether Jesus is God or just a good preacher. To demand that "Christianity is in the eye of the beholder" says that Christianity is, in the end, nothing of any significance. And, as a Christian, I can't accept that.
Ironically, the same individuals who profess themselves to be shocked - shocked! - that people are questioning Obama's claims to be a Christian are the same ones who have unilaterally decided that Islamic terrorists are somehow not motivated by Islam, or that someone cannot possibly be a Christian unless they support homosexual marriage (or "controlling greenhouse gasses", or affirmative action, or abortion on demand, or any of a number of progressive political positions). Progressives keep talking about the need to have a national dialogue on political issues, but the "dialogue" seems to consist mostly of progressives telling opponents that they need to shut up (by force, if necessary).
ReplyDeleteIn the Middle Ages, it was Church dogma that men had one fewer ribs than women. This was because the Bible said God took Adam's rib and made Eve. Of course the book didn't say that every woman was made from men's ribs. Or that all men would share Adams configuration post Eve as opposed to his pre-Eveness. It was a fabrication of the Church heirarchy. But it was presented as the Word Of God and notable medical people of the time quoted it explicitly, even though they more than most, would be in a position to look at emaciated bodies and be able to confirm that a man had the same number of ribs as women. This was of course long before autopsies and vivisection was practiced as part of medical training)
ReplyDeleteSo why was this dogma enforced?
It served two purposes. 1) It proved the Power of the Church to be able to push a demonstrable lie. "Are you going to believe your Church or your lying eyes?" 2) It proved the submission of the Faithful to that Power.
I read recently (maybe Ace of Spades) that communist propaganda wasn't about trying to convince outsiders about the Glory of the Worker's Paradise or anything. It was about making their subjects openly deny the reality before their eyes and become personally complicit in the lie. The more they denied reality on demand, the easier it was to control their perception.
The Democratic Propaganda Media, by forcing their God-King's enemies (Republicans, not ISIS) to confess compliance with the dogma defined by them, make them complicit with that dogma, and serves to isolate unbelievers as "others". It establishes and demonstrates the Power of the Church of Leftist Media and weakens the heretics.
@way2opinionated: that sounds like the story of theologians debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
DeleteAfter chasing down the oldest reference to such an argument, the references look less like serious arguments and more like the satire of blow-hards with an axe to grind.
Not sure that this proves anything, but the "women have fewer ribs than men" tale has a similar ring to it.
About the distinction between "Christian is someone who is mostly a good person" and "Christian is someone who believes the Creed, and has repented and received God's grace."
DeleteI feel like I've met this discussion before.
In Colonial America, during the lead-up to the First Great Awakening, many churches were struggling about how to define membership.
Most churches had charters which required prospective members to profess some sort of personal experience in receiving God's grace. A "born-again experience". Many of the original settlers had such a story.
However, fewer of the grand-children and great-grand-children of the original settlers had such a story. But they wanted church membership.
A compromise was reached: some sort of half-way covenant. People who didn't live "notorious lifestyles" could become partial members of the church, even if they had no personal experience of repentance and receiving God's grace.
The Great Awakening ended this practice. Mostly because of the large number of people who repented of sinful attitudes, received God's grace, and gave glad testimony about entering into a new relationship with Jesus.
Tellingly, the mark of a Christian became "professes repentance, shows evidence of changed life and receiving God's grace". Instead of "doesn't live a lifestyle that is too far from our social norms."
(I may be over-simplifying the story...the history of the transition from fervent Puritan settlers to the half-way-covenant, and then to the Great Awakening, is a complex one.)