View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by Jonathan Kelly |
July 12th, 2006
S
enator Barack Obama’s errors in theological analysis are symptomatic of the Democratic Party’s misunderstanding of faith and its relevance to so many Americans.
In Greek mythology, the mortal Phaethon longed to drive the fiery chariot belonging to his father, the sun god. When his wish was finally granted, Phaethon found he could not control the powerful flaming wheels and horses. He created much damage on Earth and ultimately caused his own destruction.
Today’s Democrats are clumsily steering toward electoral destruction because they cannot discuss religion sincerely or competently. Like Phaethon, they bungle their task spectacularly. One of their leaders made a noble but flawed attempt to show religious voters that his party understands the importance of faith.
Senator Barack Obama, the freshman Democrat from Illinois, took it upon himself recently to exhort his party to acknowledge the centrality of religious faith in the lives of many Americans. In a speech to a liberal audience, Senator Obama called on the party to embrace religion and to interlock it with the egalitarian social objectives of American liberalism. The Senator declared that fealty to God means support to the disadvantaged, which means that liberal social programs carry out the divine will. In order to put this philosophy into action, Senator Obama urged his party to abandon its instinctive allergic reaction to displays of faith in the public square.
It is quite commendable for Senator Obama to take religious faith seriously since it inspires goodness towards human beings, something to which everyone should aspire. But when we look at parts of the Senator’s speech, we see that his theology is flawed. His evaluation of religious faith is healthy neither for religion nor for democratic society.
“Faith doesn’t mean that you don’t have doubts,” Obama said. “You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it.”
Well, the Senator is mistaken if he believes that religious people need to attend church because they are “first of this world.” An elemental part of Christian belief holds that human beings are, first and foremost, members of God’s kingdom rather than the earthly realm. To the Christian, life on Earth is to be spent redeeming oneself and serving humanity so that the heavenly kingdom may be glorified. But let’s grant that the Senator is correct that Christianity precludes an isolated life.
In an interview, Obama said, “By definition, faith admits doubt. Otherwise, it isn’t faith . . . If we don’t sometimes feel hopeless, then we’re really insulating ourselves from the world around us.”
Here, Senator Obama makes a very big error. Feelings of hopelessness are not at all tied to healthy religious faith — in fact, the opposite is true. Hopelessness puts one on the path to despair, the belief that God cannot or will not help you when you are in trouble, and despair is a serious wrong in Christianity. It poses a grave threat to strong faith.
Also, notwithstanding the Senator’s claims, hopelessness does not lead people to better connect with the world. On the contrary, people who feel hopeless are more likely to cut themselves off from their fellow men and wallow in self-pity. After all, if they believe that there is no hope for themselves, what is the use of helping others?
There were still more lapses in ecumenical judgment. Senator Obama declared, “No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack. They don’t want faith used to belittle and divide. They’re tired of hearing folks deliver more screed than sermon.”
The Senator evidently forgot one of the purposes of the Christian faith. While it is correct that belittling is not welcome, Senator Obama errs in the part where he suggests that something is wrong with division. Religion is supposed to divide — to divide those who accept the Word of God from those who choose not to accept it. If division was not a part of viable faith, it would be impossible to have a coherent church. A church requires standards of morality, and people must choose whether or not they will be part of that morality by accepting it or not. As it is written in Matthew 25: 32-33:
And he shall separate them one from another,
As a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats.
Senator Obama’s denunciation of division is ill-suited to democratic politics as well as religion. Like religion, democratic politics is supposed to divide people — to divide based on ideas. An ideal democratic republic will have political parties offering decidedly different agendas and forcing voters to choose which agendas they favor. Pious admonitions to abandon division and to please everyone may play well in the mainstream media, but they do not construct useful public discourse.
Why is it necessary to dwell on these seemingly little things in the Senator’s address? The reason is that the Senator’s errors in theological analysis are symptomatic of the Democratic Party’s misunderstanding of faith and its relevance to so many Americans. They also reflect the Democratic Party’s persistent tendency to water down religion in order to fit the politically correct formulations that are so fashionable among the party’s secularist liberal base. This blundering easily convinces many Americans that the Democrats do not understand religion’s role in their lives. They detect that the Democrats may merely want to use religious faith as a method for selling their collectivist plans for more government regulation of the people’s lives.
Senator Obama spoke of fulfilling religious doctrine by expanding the state’s role in redistributing wealth to equalize citizens economically. E.J. Dionne, columnist of the Washington Post, believes that this formula will carry the liberals to political success. But the liberals only reveal that they are clueless about faith when they treat it as another instrument for social engineering.
People of faith will know a charlatan when they see one. They have, after all, been trained to identify false prophets by their fruits and deeds.
JKelly2005@aol.com
Visit their website at:
Responses to "Tangled Theology"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Be careful in talking about division, and quoting the Bible out of context. The separation or division between sheep and goats is reserved for the Son of Man, who "sit[s] upon the throne of his glory," as stated in verse 31. The Church, or any other earthly institution, is not in any position to make those decisions. For the Lord said in Matthew 7:1, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged," and verse 2 gives warning for us all.
On a lighter note, I liked the rest of the column. And I agree that faith cannot and should not be watered down in order to fit in the box of someone's political ideaology.
Comment by Robert Croke | July 12, 2006
Yes the division part is not done well but the rest is fine. Division is done on the earth by the faith of the individual and not by the church or others.
I do hope that the Democrats keep up the talk about religion. If this gets people to start their own research then God bless them. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
Frank Baginski
Comment by Frank Baginski | July 12, 2006
Senator Obama's comments, above, will be accepted by many "christians" who only attend church services for their social, entertainment and neighborhood glorification. They do not really understand, the word of God, because they recieve their teaching from someone who's only in it for the above mentioned 'qualities'. We, Americans, must return to the ways of our grandparents as far as religion goes.
Comment by Benny D. Martin | July 12, 2006
Senator Barack Obama is a knucklehead.
Comment by Mike | July 12, 2006
Your column is a good one, and your point about the Democrats is well taken, although I'd say you beat it over the head a bit, and you charge the senator with some things he said correctly as though those things were against orthodox Christian doctrine. I'm probably not going to be the only person who points out these things to you today, but here goes:
1. The senator's point about attending church in the first place because you are "first of this world" is technically correct. Everyone who attends church is not a Christian. Those who are not are still "of the world". It is only after salvation that a person is "in the world, but not of the world."
2. The senator's remark about faith and doubt looks different to me than it does to you. I would say that most people come to investigate Christianity with plenty of doubts about it in their minds. Those doubts are later dispelled if they become Christians, but not if they don't. And I would submit that even Christians feel hopelessness now and again. Is such a thing what a Christian should do? Not if one trusts God, but none of us trust Him enough to make that one fly ALL the time. I can remember several times in my life when I felt that I was drowning in hopelessness, and I've been a Christian for nearly fifty years.
3. You are dead on when you say that religion is supposed to divide. That is the purpose of the gospel. It is the most offensive document ever penned by the hand of man. That's probably the big reason why organizations like the ACLU and Americans United for eparation of Church and State are so desperate to get scripture and all references to Christianity out of the public arena. They are offended at a level they have trouble articulating. In addition, the senator's use of Christianity as a way to get the poor on board the Democratic bandwagon is typical of those in his party - they never lose sight of the fact that no matter how good a person is at being a senator or congressman, his first duty is to get elected. Democrats will sacrifice anything to that end. They are like cats, who would sell their grandmother for a bite of chopped liver - in fact, this is an invidious comparison that maligns cats, who act out of instinct, while Democrats not only know what they are doing, they all reassure one another that everybody does it, and so it's okay. Aside from that, they're fine.
Comment by Hill DeWolfe | July 12, 2006
As a leftist I find the democrats religious pandering to be very superfisicial. I also agree with you that Obama is probably not the best theologian. And if you disagree with the specific applications of the theology by the dems, no problem. But I have to say that there are many theologians who would disagree with you that Christian theology is non-egalitarian and does not imply certian leftist critiques of U.S policy.
Comment by Johnny | July 12, 2006
Politicians are not theologians and vice versa.
Support Christians in government and oppose Christian governments . Remember the Christian government of England that persecuted our founding fathers for their religious beliefs.
Comment by Dale | July 12, 2006
"religious people need to attend church because they are “first of this world.”
Being raised in the Catholic church, we were told we need to attend church because it is required, it is our duty- I never heard the "first of the world" business.
Likewise we cannot be of God's Kingdom until we die and even then only if we are judged worthy to enter the kingdom. Otherwise we spend time in Limbo or an enternity in Hell.
Comment by dizney | July 12, 2006
Eight comments, and no one has called Mr. Kelly on his theology? He states: "To the Christian, life on Earth is to be spent redeeming oneself …" The whole point of Christianity is that sinful humans cannot redeem themselves, and so God sent the Redeemer.
As Hill DeWolfe noted, the Gospel divides, because to believe it one must believe oneself to be a lost and condemned sinner. Nobody likes hearing that, politicians least of all.
Perhaps that is why both Mr. Obama's and Mr. Kelly's discussions of religion and politics leave me queasy. As Jesus said, my kingdom is not of this world, so perhaps we should stop pretending that we can or should Christianize the political process. All that results is bad theology.
Comment by David | July 12, 2006
Good article and I appreciate the head on thrust of it.
And for some here trying to pick the article apart about either division or redemption, his use of those subjects were directed specifically towards certain comments by Obama.
I did not believe he was trying to teach the entire process of redemption,
just point out the believer has a part to play himself in gaining that redemption
provided to all of us through Jesus Christ.
The gospel is a divider of men and anyone using it for political gain is a charlatan
Comment by Larry | July 13, 2006
Picky, picky, picky. Only Americans are Christians, and then only CERTAIN Americans are Christians.
Yeah, sure.
Only (and all) Muslims are terrorists, and all Englishmen are repressed homoesexuals.
Get on with it.
Comment by alex | July 13, 2006
The Ten Commandments begin: "I am the Lord your God….you shall have no gods before me." God is to be worshiped. Every "god" understands this, whether it is the God of the universe or the Socialist/Marxist "god" of The State. That is why Hitler and Stalin did everything they could to eliminate religion. A "god" allows no competitor. These politicians see people of faith as a "whining special interest group" ripe for exploitation. They may well succeed.
Comment by Jim Franklin | July 13, 2006
Good article I thought. Jesus did tell us to help the poor and downtroden. But he did not tell us to use Ceasar to do it. Besides, if Ceasar forces help for the poor from those who are selfish, how is Jesus glorified? Are we not guilty of stealing what should be freely given?
Comment by Vic Coffey | July 13, 2006
I agree with most of your column, but I disagree with the following statement from it: "To the Christian, life on Earth is to be spent redeeming oneself…"
Human beings cannot do ANYTHING to redeem themselves. That is solely the work of God. All we can do is receive this free gift of redemption. Titus 3:5 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy he saved us…"
Comment by Todd Carswell | July 13, 2006
Mr. Obama is very smooth and very political, and has been at least since I observed him at Harvard Law School fifteen years ago.
His talents are in getting people to work together, although his political and religious beliefs are a bit of a cipher. He was able to manage the black hotheads and white student politicos masterfully.
I don't know that I would trust him as far as I could spit however. He is rather passionless and (as the writer recognizes) has learned the political and religious tropes of America just well enough to use them.
Listen carefully. You will hear carefully crafted verbal nuggets that, when placed against the rants of most black politicians, seem to reflect a very thoughtful and caring man. If he were white, however, his words would just be platitudinous. The universal acclamation his preaching has received is perhaps best explained by Dr. Johnson's classic aphorism.
Comment by William Smith | July 13, 2006
It sounds like Alex in comment #11 maybe some what of a self loathing Englishman repressing.
Comment by John Carrington | July 13, 2006
As a voter in the state of Illinois, we were continually told that Barak Obama would be a 'breath of fresh air' and that he would not be your 'typical Democrat.' However, all I see is the man blindly parroting the ideals of Liberalism and Elitism that has come to be the cornerstone of the Democratic Party. Obama has come to represent all that is foul about the Democratic party. To paraprase The Bard, "Something is rotten in Illinois."
Comment by Brian Schoenman | July 13, 2006
Regarding what you wrote in your article about Barak Obama’s speech: “An ideal democratic republic will have political parties offering decidedly different agendas and forcing voters to choose which agendas they favor. Pious admonitions to abandon division and to please everyone may play well in the mainstream media, but they do not construct useful public discourse.”
Please keep in mind that the United States were founded as a constitutional republic, not a democratic republic, and that partisan politics is an affront to constitutional liberty. After all, if all elected officials were concerned with their policies staying within the scope of constitutional authority, then there would be no division. We would be consistent with the law and it would eliminate the need to play politics.
Besides, democracy was described by Lord Byron as “the tyranny of the masses”, and our constitution and declaration of independence do not refer to democracy at all. In fact, the document in history that mentions it most is the communist manifesto, interestingly enough.
Other than that, I have to say that I am in full agreement with you about Mr. Obama’s faulty reasoning and his lack of scriptural understanding. And to those who disagree with the division part, let me quote Jesus Christ
"Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Mat. 10:34
Comment by Brett | July 13, 2006
Don't you know that Obama is the Messiah?
2 Peter 2:1-3
Comment by Ron Stelzleni | July 13, 2006
Look, we should support Christians in government and not a state sanctioned religion. However, whether I be a carpenter or a politician, my being must and will affect every decision I make. I am to help the poort stand to their feet and support themselves and work for whatever God chooses to bless them with. I do not want them dependent on myself or government. Sen. Obama forgets that central tenet of helping those less fortunate than ourselves.
Comment by Tom Williams | July 13, 2006
"feelings of hopelessness are not at all tied to healthy religious faith"? Oh, really?
In the garden before the cross Jesus said "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death."
Also he may want to look at the extensive writings about the
dark night of the soul.
Comment by Doug | July 13, 2006
Christians are a part of the Kingdom of God right now. Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is among us.
Unbelievers, too, are subjects of God- although, in Luther's phrase, subjects in a different "kingdom" of His, made up of believer and unbeliever alike. They can be appealed to in the context of that kingdom- the place where politics happens- on the basis of natural law, which St. Paul reminds us, is written on the human heart- and simple common sense.
One of Obama's biggest faults is his misapprehension that those who believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures or the infallibility of the Pope
need have any particular difficulty operating in the realm in which these are not universally recognized as authorities, but natural law and common sense can be used to make the same arguments in terms accessible to everybody. With all the problems Sen. Obama's theology has, he's right on target in making the point that one need not quote the Bible to advocate its ethics in the public arena. That's a point the Left needs to wake up to. But it's also a point a great many on the Right need to realize as well.
One final point: he's also right in making the argument that concern for the poor isn't quite the same thing as a willingness to engage in the admirable but wholly inadequate business of private charity. Churches, philanthropists, and charitable institutions have never had the resources to adequately address the legitimate needs of the poor and the disadvantaged, and a desire to encourage and engage in the praiseworthy endeavor of personal charity- admirable as it is- still falls short of being concerned, first and foremost, not with the condition of one's own soul, but with the hungry being fed, the naked clothed, and the victims of injustice vindicated.
Sometimes, I'm very much afraid, that means political action on their behalf- and intervention by the government.
Comment by Robert Waters | July 13, 2006
While I too would take issue with a couple of your theological conclusions, you are nonetheless right on the money in regard to Obama's, and by extension, the Democratic party's overall lack of religious acumen.
The Liberal ideology is in complete contrast to the ideals for which Christianity truly stands. Anyone who has bothered to honest read and study scripture can see this– Abortion; Leniency for convicted murderers; The desire to steal the livelihood of the poorest citizens via oppressive taxes… Jesus' teaching never condoned, nor implied approval of those particular planks in the Democratic platform. To hurt a child, it would be better that man had never been born… Jesus forgave the repentant thief, and rewarded him, but didn't choose to spare the man's life… Even Judas was clearly named a thief, who's only interest was in the fact that he carried the bag.
As to the commentor in the #1 position, the verse quoted is directed to the priests… the hypocrites. As Christians we are commanded to judge, for how else are we to have no fellowship with evil, unless we first judge whether a thing or a person is in fact 'Evil'. Upon deciding a person is in fact 'evil' it is then the Christians duty to pull that man from the fire.
But the Democratic Party sees nothing miraculous in the life of an unborn child, yet they ask those listening to give them power over us.
Someone above me used the word "charlatan"… I can think of much worse.
Great column, by the way.
Comment by ELAshley | July 13, 2006
10,000 difficulties do not equal one doubt
John Henry Cardinal Newman
Comment by Plato's Stepchild | July 14, 2006