But Obama’s Not a Theologian
Part of the reason that I blog is for the interaction and exchange of ideas. Part of the way I work through issues is dialogue, and blogging is a great avenue for that. This means that there will be times when I write things people disagree with. This is not necessarily a bad thing. We’re not all going to agree about everything. That’s part of what makes life so interesting.
I recently received some criticism on a fairly recent post about Barack Obama’s comments about the “Right” hijacking faith and bringing us away from a time when faith simply united everyone. The thrust of that post was that in complaining about how faith has been politicized, Obama does exactly that, except he doesn’t understand biblical faith. Yes, we are to be meek (Colossians 3:12, etc.) and loving (John 13:34, etc.) but the Truth divides (Luke 12:49-53, etc.). Jesus Himself said that no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6) and Acts 4:12 reminds us that salvation is found in no other name. Biblical faith ultimately brings division along with unity and in order to argue that it ought to just “bring us together,” we must downplay those elements which make “the word of the cross folly to those who are perishing” (1 Corinthians 1:18). In response, this criticism came over at Jake’s blog:
The truth is that I don’t really want my politicisns to be theologians. I want them to be politicians with a vision for better politics.
I’ve been thinking a lot about this line of thinking, partly because it makes so little sense to me. I’m not trying to be funny, rude or sarcastic, but it seems to be that if our politicians are going to talk about faith, we would want them to have a sense of what they’re talking about. I understand the idea that we don’t necessarily want to require our politicians to have taken systematic theology courses, but I would think that if someone is going to talk about faith, they need to have some idea what they’re talking about before they talk.
When Howard Dean told reporters that Job was his favorite book of the New Testament, were we simply supposed to shrug it off because he’s not a theologian? Of course not. The idea that politicians can use the language of faith without the content of faith simply makes no sense. Obama has been intentional, even before announcing his candidacy in talking about faith and trying to reach the “Christian” voters. The problem is that his words often come across as empty. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for him to at least understand the content of topics he himself is pursuing.
In a sense, everyone is a theologian. We all have views about God. True, some may not study the doctrine of God or the Bible regularly, but everyone is a theologian when theology is understood to be simply the study of God. We all have an opinion. The question becomes whether or not we are good theologians. If politicians are going to involve faith in their campaigns, then I simply ask that they are able to hold an educated discussion and understand the words they’re using. If not, then don’t talk about faith.
The truth is that faith with any substance divides as much if not more than it brings together. Unless your faith says that everyone is right, then your faith says that someone is wrong. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, recently released a statement claiming that Orthodox churches are “defective” and that “other Christian denominations are not true churches.”
I’m very interested in your feedback. Am I misunderstanding Obama’s statements? Am I expecting too much? What do you think?
- Read Obama’s books
- Read about the Pope’s recent statements
- Read Active Faith: How Christians Are Changing the Face of American Politics by Ralph Reed
- Read Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know - And Doesn’t by Stephen Prothero
July 11th, 2007 at 8:33 am
On what are you basing the asuumption that Obama doesn’t understand faith?
July 11th, 2007 at 9:35 am
I don’t think you’re expecting too much. If you say something about me, I expect you to get it right, as far as that is possible using the information available to you. You would expect the same from me. Should God expect less? God will not be misrepresented, and there is no excuse for it considering the vast store of information he has made readily available to us.
I really think it’s odd that these people get the “but he’s not a theologian” defense. Suppose they were making a scientific point, let’s say concerning the environment, based on the assumption that the earth is flat. Would anyone say, “…but he’s not a scientist”? We expect, quite reasonably, that they get their facts straight or keep their mouths shut.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Here, here! I know you’d agree that this is not limited to Obama. Just look at President Bush’s assertion that the Muslim god is the “same God” as the Christian God. They all seem to be more interested in platitudes than sound biblical theology.
You linked a post of mine a while back on this same topic, “Comfortable with the Jesus Who Wins Elections”
If Obama wants to talk theology, maybe he should start by explaining the extent of his cohesion with his church’s bizarre Afro-centric version of Christianity. Imagine a white Republican candidate who was affiliated with a church that proclaims,
Also, he should clarify his view on biblical authority. His denomination, the United Church of Christ, has endorsed homosexual behavior for decades.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Emily, that was the thrust of the previous piece. Obama’s assumption that faith is primarily something that brings us together is naïve at best and misleading at worst.
Faith with any content, by its very nature, excludes those who hold different positions. Surely the Pope’s recent statement that anything outside the Roman Catholic Church is not a “true church” helps us visualize this reality? Your own position of “truth restored” means that somewhere along the line, the rest of us got it wrong. Faith with any content cannot said simply to bring people together.
Obama is putting forward an understanding of faith that, while nice, isn’t accurate in the way faith actually functions.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Sorry, I missed your earlier post.
I disagree that everyone has to believe the exact same doctrine in order for faith to be a unifying factor. I do believe that truth has been restored, but I don’t dismiss your faith or the Pope’s faith as being Different and therefore illegitimate or irrelevant to me.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:20 am
I think a head-sized grain of salt is in order when taking any politician’s expression of religion at face value. Bill Clinton was a Baptist, after all. Need I say more?
My point is that we ARE expecting too much if we think politicians are wagging their ‘faith’ around for any reason other than it might get some votes. Thats their primary concern. And ‘faith’ doesn’t have the same meaning to them that it does to Christians, but Christians buy into it just the same.
Oh well.
Josh
July 12th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Emily, I’m trying to understand what you mean by this. Are you implying that as long as we all have some sort of faith, not matter what the theology or doctrine, that means we are unified? If so, I would disagree. There must be a core, non-negotiable doctrinal position on the essentials to be included in the body of Christ. What we do with the non-essentials is, ostensibly, ours to choose within the wise boundaries of Christian freedom.
If for example, the Pope/Roman Catholic church says, you are only justified by faith plus works, sacraments, penance, etc., but the Bible assures our justification by faith alone, then someone is doctrinally incorrect. And we cannot both be unified when we are in contradiction over something as core a belief as that.
I think Brent’s point was that we only have Obama’s words to evaluate him by, and his words seem to belie either an ignorance of what faith in Christ is or to indicate him taking a stance that could possibly be construed as outside of faith in Christ — but yet using the faith buzzwords to gain political ground [Brent, feel free to correct if necessary]
July 13th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Like I said before, I think it’s pretty clear, if you listen to Obama talk to typical Protestant circles about faith that he has absolutely no common language.
I definately understand what Shack was saying about not wanting politicians to be theologians, though. And I do tend to agree with him: I want my politicians to be focused on politics, not theology. If I wanted a theologian for president, I’d go look for one.
That said, I don’t think that excuses Obama putting on a Buddy Jesus face for religious types.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
(after hitting ’submit’, I realized I had more to say,…oops)
I think the heart of this issue, at least for me, isn’t an issue of theological correctness or not. It’s an issue of honesty: whether or not Obama is being honest about faith or putting on a show.
Whether or not Jesus came to divide or heal is certainly a theological issue. But let’s be honest and admit that there are good arguments for both sides. This topic, to me, isn’t about that discussion, though: it’s about Obama.
That’s where the meat is at, because putting on a show would say a lot to me about his character, that he’s willing to use faith as a political tool, rather than just being honest about where he is spiritually.
For that matter, I would be a lot more likely to vote for him if he came out and said something like, “I’m a Christian, but I’m not sure I believe Jesus is the only way to heaven,” than if he continues spewing misstated Christian platitudes, simply because doing so would indicate a lot more honesty, which is something a campaign based on a different sort of politics needs.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Below is an excerpt from a recent blog post of mine. I agree, if Obama is going to run on his faith, in other words, if he is bringing his faith into his political stance, then he should be prepared to issues some very clear theological statements to defend his political choices. Invoking Christian phrases for votes only is deception.
“When Barack Obama waxed pious, repeatedly invoking the biblical phrase, ‘I am my brother’s keeper,’ as he discussed his concern for poverty, Christians informed about Obama’s voting record probably wondered how the senator squares that injunction with, say, his staunch opposition to legislation protecting newborn babies who survive abortions from being left to die.” (Bauer)
Faith, in words only, rings shallow and untrue. As James says, “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?” (James 2:14) Dealing with poverty is important, but so is infanticide, the murder of innocent children. People will never understand the value of a government handout if they do not understand the value that God has placed on life! And anyone that is so casual about killing the image bearers of God must, I think, re-evaluate their faith (Devotional, Luke 1:15), otherwise one might think the words are for votes only.
Why do actions matter?
July 19th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
[...] But Obama’s Not a Theologian via Colossians Three Sixteen by Brent. Part of the reason that I blog is for the interaction and exchange of ideas. Part of the way I work through issues is dialogue, and blogging is a great avenue for that. This means that there will be times when I write things people disagree with. This is not necessarily a bad thing. We’re not all going to agree about everything. That’s part of what makes life so interesting. I recently received some criticism on a fairly recent post about… [...]