Gay marriage, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Gospel according to Barack Obama.
During the course of an election year, one is used to coming across all sorts of surprises. Oftentimes it’s some sort of a vocal gaffe like, “I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” Sometimes it is a photo; say, of a candidate posing in the turret of a tank, or maybe in what looked for all the world like a powder blue bunny suit.
So far, the list of 2008 doozies is short, although the campaign season has thus far been excruciatingly long. There’s been the Barack Obama middle name controversy as well as a photo of him dressed as a Muslim tribal chief, and a few Hillary Clinton crying jags. But to me, the winner so far has got to be Barack Obama’s revelation that his support for same-sex unions is justified by the Sermon on the Mount.
Yes, that Sermon; the same gift of love given us by our Savior as a roadmap to the virtues which, if followed to the letter, can neutralize the Seven Deadly Sins and lead us through the narrow gate to life eternal. Senator Obama, in his Pauline attempt at being all things to all people, defended his support of legitimizing homosexuality by pronouncing the following in Ohio on Sunday:
If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. That's my view. But we can have a respectful disagreement on that.
Now, many politicians have tried to pilot their way through the stormy seas of Christian America by quoting the Bible or, in the case of some, merely carrying one. Who can forget erstwhile altar boy John Kerry’s embarrassing invocation of James 2:14: “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?" This from a man who’s a charter member of the “I’m personally against abortion, but . . .” club. By their fruits you shall know them, indeed.
Too many politicos will deny that public deeds must accompany their faith, and cower behind the imaginary wall between church and state. But Obama has taken this a step further; using faith as license. Now this is nothing new among relativists and their ilk, but for a major presidential candidate, and one who feels it necessary to proclaim his Christianity daily, it is truly remarkable.
Though Obama failed to specifically identify chapter and verse from the Sermon, it is assumed that he was referring to the warning to “judge not, lest ye be judged.” This, of course, was spoken in reference to the measure of mercy we will receive at the Final Judgment and accordingly admonishes us to temper our earthly judgments with mercy.
The “obscure passage in Romans” that Senator Obama referenced on Sunday is, by the way, a great example of one of the many that is mostly ignored by a great number of folks who find God’s commands impossible and inconvenient. It goes further than calling homosexuality a sin; it reveals that homosexual acts are in themselves the punishment for turning away from God:
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is forever praised. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
To suggest that the Sermon on the Mount’s admonition to avoid harsh judgments in this world contradicts God’s commandments concerning sins against Him, comes perilously close to blasphemy. Should this idea — that we are to make no moral judgments — reach its likely conclusion, the rule of law, as it was originally conceived in this country, would crumble in a few short years. Yet, the notion that public officials should divest themselves of faith in performance of their duties is growing.
A speech given by Obama in 2006, where he discusses the theological beating given him by Alan Keyes on the Illinois campaign trail in 2004, illustrates the point:
I answered with the typically liberal response in some debates – namely, that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can’t impose my religious views on another, that I was running to be the U.S. Senator of Illinois and not the Minister of Illinois . . .
Later on in that same address is the real kicker, and one that should give all Christians pause. In a single paragraph, Obama perfectly illustrates all that Jesus said concerning the differences between His followers, and those of ‘the World.’
At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It insists on the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.
mailbox@lisafab.com
http://www.lisafab.com
Read more articles by Lisa Fabrizio
The biggest problem I have with Obama's comments is not the fact that he is trying to use his theology to support his political ideology concerning gay marriage (aka civil unions). Although can you imagine what a verbal bashing Huckabee would take if he did this, and especially related to this topic? Liberals are simply disingenuous when they often espouse so-called “separation of church and state”. What they mean is separation of churches-with-conservative-theology and state. I do not mind that Obama expresses his theology, and that we are given a front-row view of how his theology effects his political ideology; for I do not believe that the constitution demands a separation of church and state in the sense that religious belief should have no voice in political debate.
My biggest problem with Obama's comments is that if his statements about the Sermon on the Mount, and the book of Romans are representative of his theology, then his theology is completely bogus, and borders on the heretical.
What does Obama's theology appear to be? Dealer's choice/feel-good theology: It is the favorite Biblical game of liberals (political and theological). Deal out what feels good; discard what contradicts the "flesh" (our human desires).
One of the current, sophisticated ways that liberals interact with truths they don't like is to marginalize any truth they oppose. This approach makes it much more difficult to pin them down when confronted concerning what they believe, and/or what they stand-for.
When I say, 'truths they don't like', I'm talking about those truths that they have to realize cannot safely be outright denied. Current mega example in the political realm is the marginalization of the success of the surge in Iraq. The liberals know that it is no longer believable to the majority of the American people that the surge is failing; so they marginalize the surge, argue that it wasn't
the main goal, argue that it isn't important by itself.
Obama is a master at marginalizing truth that is uncomfortable to liberals.
Another reason Obama is so extremely dangerous is that he is very practiced
at saying things that appear to be pertinent to the question at hand, although upon close examination his comments can often be seen to be illogical, drastically incomplete, or outright false.
In his quotes given above, he attempts to verbally contrast the thematic notion of "…more central" with his own personal characterization of another scripture, " …an obscure passage". By this mechanism he seeks to marginalize the message of Romans 1.
[Note: common definition of obscure is, "…unclear, indistinct, or blurred ".]
It is, or should be, a red flag to thoughtful readers and listeners when Obama mentions obscurity. He is a master of obscurity, and most of his political sermons are built on obscurity (unclear and indistinct).
"Change". "Hope". Change what? How? When? Hope in whom?
When Obama refers to the Sermon on the Mount thematically ("…more central), what is he talking about? Jesus' Sermon on the Mount can be found in Matthew 5:1-48.
While you could refer to the entire Sermon on the Mount as "instructions pertinent to righteousness", it is essential to specific verses (sub-themes) if you wish to be clear (i.e., not obscure).
Obama is not clear, and he is not just wrong, but wrongheaded ("obstinately perverse in judgment or opinion") on three counts.
First. Obama is hopelessly obscure, in a place where clarity is essential:
interpreting the Bible.
Second. Romans 1 is NOT obscure (unclear or indistinct) to most students of the Bible, amateur as well as professional. On the contrary, Romans 1 is extremely clear and well written which is one of the reasons why it is hated and/or marginalized by many people. In other words, the "problem" with Romans 1 is not that it is obscure, but that it is almost impossible to misunderstand–
if you can read and understand a written language.
Third. Romans 1 is, in fact, thematically related to Matthew 5.
I would challenge anyone to substantiate that Matthew 5:27-30 is in no way thematically related to Romans 1:24-32. I would also challenge anyone to substantiate that Romans 1:17,
"For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith."
or Matthew 5:20
"For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
are not BOTH related to the central, Biblical theme of Salvation.
A truthful, logical, Christian hermeneutic simply cannot function the way Obama would have it. The Christian concept of the Bible (God's Word) is that it is a TOTAL package, scripture DOES NOT contradict scripture, and no scripture can simply be tossed away as not very important "…more central than an obscure passage in Romans." - B. Obama [Note: Remember obscure means unclear, indistinct, or blurred].
We all know and accept that there are passages of scripture that are "more central" to the Christian confession of faith than others; however, the marginalization of certain scriptures does not accord with the Biblical guide for using scripture:
"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work." - 2 Tim 3:16-17
Comment by jrich | March 6, 2008
If Lisa Fabrizio believes that following virtue gets us into heaven she doesn't know any more about the gospel than Obama.
Comment by Trekker | March 7, 2008
The author and Jrich,
Excellent observations. Both go the the theme of how leftists go about their struggle with reality, picking from it whatever serves them while discarding the rest.
Jrich's comment regarding dealing the the reality of the troop surge reminded me of something I heard Amy Goodman say repeatedly in a recent broadcast of the Democracy Now program.
She introduced a guest and the topic by referring to the Iraq troop surge as the "so called" troop surge.
Such infantile efforts to deal with the reality of something that undercuts her political position are laughable and make for great entertainment, which is one of the reason I listen to the "journalist" Goodman.
As Mr. Jrich points out, the effectiveness of the troop surge has been clear and there simply is no arguing it. So what is left? I suppose if you are Goodman, to suggest that there either was no surge at all or that whatever took place was something other than a surge? I don't know, for sure what she meant, but I could imagine the throngs of her brain-dead, activist listeners who might repeat it every time they were confronted with reminders of the success of the surge.
"Success of the troop surge, you say?" "Are you talking about the 'so-called' troop surge?"
What is clear is that it is as desperate as Obama referring to an "obscure" passage in Romans that is anything but obscure.
Obama's favorite answer to all his own questions is "Yes we can." Fortunately, and increasingly, it is becoming the answer to the question of whether we can see through his rhetoric.
Comment by nick adams | March 7, 2008