Originally published by Communities @ Washington Times
SAN DIEGO, August 23, 2011—In a U.K. Guardian editorial (8-31-11) entitled, U.S. Economy: the Tea Party Is a Real Threat to America, grave concern was expressed because “presidential candidate and ultra-conservative congresswoman Michele Bachmann prays every day for guidance.”
Since then, Rick Perry’s entry into the GOP primary race has absorbed some of the spot light from Bachmann. Indeed, prior to throwing his hat into the ring, Perry made no bones about seeking the will of God as a candidate:
“I’m getting more and more comfortable every day that this is what I’ve been called to do” (Ethics Daily. Com 8-5-11).
Perry’s economic success as Governor of Texas and apparent ability to bridge fiscal and social conservatives is sending bellowing fear down the corridors of Liberal Land.
It’s probably no big surprise that Bill Maher warned our nation about Perry before he even entered the race, taking issue with a politician who would dare turn to God for direction: “But here on planet reality, may I point out that there is no such thing as spiritual solutions to national problems. If that’s where we are as a country, if our official government policy is “yee haw… Jesus take the wheel!” then we’re dead already” (Real Time With Bill Maher, 6-17-11).
With all due homage to the wit, wisdom, and historical mastery of sages like Bill Maher, liberal concerns are not only misplaced but inconsistently applied. It’s not as if the notion of a U.S. President turning to God for guidance is some kind of strange new phenomenon. Abraham Lincoln himself said, “Meanwhile we must work earnestly in the best light He gives us, trusting that so working still conduces to the great ends He ordains” ( Letter to Elizah P. Guerney, September 4, 1864).
And let us not forget that our current president, (a darling of the liberal media and liberal Hollywood) also claims to be a follower of Jesus.
True, the term Christian is feared less than the term “Evangelical.” Evangelical is simply one of many designations to describe people who take their Christian faith seriously. Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and other Evangelical politicians have nothing to apologize for. It is the teaching of the Bible that Christians follow Christ through a genuine experience and relationship with the Spirit of God:
“And this is how we know that He lives in us: We know it by the Spirit He gave us” (1 John 3:24).
If such a relationship is intended to guide our every day lives, why would that suddenly change when a person holds public office? Being guided by the Spirit of God does not translate into a disregard for our Constitution or an agenda to force fellow citizens into Christianity against their will. The very message of the Gospel is that God is offering people a choice. His Spirit is not going to lead governors or presidents contrary to His own message. In Rick Perry’s words, “God is wise enough not to be affiliated with any political party” (CNN, 8-12-11).
Meanwhile, it’s interesting that our main stream media is not concerned about President Obama’s Christianity, despite the fact that he was quite vocal about his faith while seeking election in 2008, even appearing on TV with Pastor Rick Warren. Does Obama get a pass on his religious beliefs because he’s Obama, or simply because he’s a liberal Democrat? Probably both reasons are sure bets, but there may also be a third: Obama has qualified his Christianity.
When President Obama says he is a Christian, we must carefully ask, “Exactly what does that mean?” After all, Christianity has been around for over two-thousand years. Many different kinds of denominations, movements, and cults have taken on the name, Christianity. In some of these organizations, the doctrine does not even remotely resemble the teachings of the Bible. And so, when Barack Obama ascribes to Christianity, I humbly ask, “What kind of Christianity?”
This has been a fair and obvious question for quite some time inasmuch as Obama attended Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years, a congregation whose pastor has made the news often with his inflammatory sermons. Actually, there is something else about Trinity United that is not discussed nearly as often as the rantings of Jeremiah Wright.
Trinity belongs to The World Council of Churches. The World Council of Churches is an ecumenical organization which includes (but is not limited to) the liberal movement within Christianity that has caused sub-denominations to proliferate in many mainline denominations. Permission to read the Bible “liberally” means different things for different pastors. Many liberal ministers downplay miracles, dismiss the need for salvation through Jesus alone, vehemently reject the notion of eternal punishment, and essentially adapt any current, left wing, Politically Correct ideology.
Others reject the Bible as being God’s literal word. No, they do not deny the Bible outright. Instead, they insist that the word of God must be “interpreted properly” according to human reason. Unfortunately, where religion is concerned, there is little agreement as to what is reasonable. Certainly some liberal pastors accept miracles because in their minds such events actually do make sense. But if something else seems irrational to them, the doctrine of hell, for instance, they will assert their “reasonable mind’ and reinterpret a difficult passage until it either no longer says what it actually says, or until it gets branded an “added teaching, falsely ascribed to Jesus.” In this vein, the famous Jesus Seminar made its name by pointing out which words “truly belong to Christ.”
Amidst such a variety of opinion, we should allow Obama to speak for himself about his own beliefs. Unfortunately, when he does this, his lack of dedication to Scripture becomes painfully apparent. During the 2008 election, while commenting on homosexuality, Obama said he preferred the Sermon on the Mount to “some obscure passage in Romans” (Hocking College, Speech, Nelsonville, Ohio, March, 2, 2008).
Undoubtedly, the Roman passage in mind was Paul’s discussion of homosexuality:
“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” (Rom 1:26-27).
I intend no disrespect for those experiencing same-sex attraction. Homosexuality is mentioned in this article only because that particular subject instigated Obama’s statements about Scripture. Any objective reading of the text must admit that Paul’s words are anything but obscure. They could not possibly be clearer, neither do they contradict the words of Jesus, since He confirmed the divine inspiration of the Jewish Holy Scriptures (referred to in those days as The Law and The Prophets) and insisted that the Israelites continue to honor God’s Law. That included the law about homosexuality (Lev 18:2). In fact, Jesus taught this devotion to the Law in the very Sermon on the Mount which Obama claims to accept (Matt 5:17-20).
Obama was not clear which part of the Sermon on the Mount he was contrasting to Paul, but it is safe to guess that he meant verses 7:1-2 which contain the famous phrase, “Judge not, lest you be judged.” This is the favorite Bible verse of many because they somehow think it grants them license to ignore all those other Bible verses, most notably, the ones which condemn sin.
Actually, Jesus was only telling people to refrain from judging another if they had not first judged themselves and their own sin:
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
See? We are allowed to remove the speck from our brother’s eye. It’s just that we have to remove our own log first.
When studied in context there is no disharmony between the Gospel of Matthew and the Book of Romans, but Obama’s idea was that Jesus’ words somehow trump Paul’s. This displays a complete ignorance of the Bible. It also reveals affinity for the liberal theology so rampant in the World Council of Churches.
Is Obama a real Christian in the Biblical sense of the term? Would Jesus view Obama as one of His true followers? Only God can see a man’s heart and only God knows how the man will fare on Judgment Day. But if this same man is our president, we are at least entitled to evaluate his consistency. Obama’s initiation into Christianity came from a church denomination and affiliation which allows many liberal ideas that are impossible to reconcile with Scripture, although many try. Obama’s stated beliefs about Scripture seem to follow suit.
Make no mistake: Republican candidates such as Bachmann and Perry are not the only ones claiming to be followers of Jesus. You may not believe in the Bible yourself. That is your choice and constitutional right. (Yes, I said that as an Evangelical Christian). But since we probably will not have a candidate in 2012 who does not espouse Christianity, voters will have to decide which politicians concern them more: those who pay attention to the entire Bible they claim to believe in, or the one who cherry picks verses, selectively deciding what God did nor did not say.
Share this on
