Subscribe to Christianity Today
Subscribe to Christianity Today
October 13, 2008
Free E-mail Newsletters:
RSS Feed | More Feeds | RSS Help

Home > 2008 > June (Web-Only)Christianity Today, June (Web-Only), 2008  |   |  
Theology in the News
Reading the Bible with Obama
The presidential candidate crosses swords with Dr. Dobson over hermeneutics.



ADVERTISEMENT

John McCain's victory in the Republican presidential primary may have signaled the declining influence of Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, who vowed not to vote for the Arizona senator. Then again, Dobson just made front-page news by commenting on a speech delivered two years ago.

Oddly enough, it is the Democratic candidate's willingness to talk theology that keeps Dobson relevant in this election. Speaking in 2006 before the Call to Renewal conference, Sen. Barack Obama explained with some depth his views on the relationship between faith and public policy. The speech drew widespread praise as a long-awaited Democratic affirmation of religion's contributions to American society.

"Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King — indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history — were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause," Obama said. "To say that men and women should not inject their 'personal morality' into public policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."

Obama was not without his critics, however. A Christianity Today editorial, "God's Will in the Public Square," said Obama "gets it mostly right." The editorial expressed concern with one passage that Obama acknowledged "is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do." He said, "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

This approach is probably good politics. Indeed, one politician not commonly associated with Obama already practices this strategy. You won't hear from President George W. Bush direct appeals to United Methodist Church teachings to justify his opposition to same-sex marriage or abortion. Speaking in 2004 in support of a Federal Marriage Amendment, Bush said, "The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring — honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society."

Signing the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, Bush likewise declined to cite chapter and verse. "By acting to prevent this practice, the elected branches of our government have affirmed a basic standard of humanity, the duty of the strong to protect the weak," Bush said. "The wide agreement amongst men and women on this issue, regardless of political party, shows that bitterness in political debate can be overcome by compassion and the power of conscience."

Maybe there's another reason why Bush did not cite chapter and verse. What passage would he have chosen? Like many others, Bush could have quoted Psalm 139:13: "For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb." But is that what King David had in mind when he composed this poetry? Maybe Bush could have exegeted Exodus 21:22-23: "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life." It's possible that this verse proves that God regards children in the womb as fully human. Therefore, those who do them harm deserve the same penalty proscribed against murderers (Gen. 9:6). But if Bush had cited this verse, would that mean he supported the death penalty for abortionists? Speaking more broadly, would that mean he believed the American republic should conform to the law God handed down through Moses for Israel?





E-mail this pageWrite CTPrint this articlePost a comment





  


Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.


Click here for international orders2-for-1 Gifts!

[Reader Reviews]
Average User Rating: 

Displaying 1 - 3 of 99 comments.See all comments
Dee   Posted: June 30, 2008 2:56 PM
I am glad that Obama is being exposed for what he really is not... a Christian. He has a form of Godliness denying the power there of. If he is a Christian, he is a very ignorant one. He needs to shut-up until he trully reads the Word of God. I feel that he is like the Muslims, "it is o.k. to lie to the "infadels" to get what we want". He knows that he and the rest of the liberals hate us. He is trying to deceive us to win our votes. Hope that if he is truly saved that he would begin to show true trasnformation. Everyone that he is associated with believes that Jesus is not the only way to redemption. We should not be ignorant to the devil's devices.

Lisa   Posted: July 01, 2008 11:55 PM
I think everyone in America needs to listen to Obama's words and vote against him. The worst thing the Democratic party did was select this crazy man to represent them. He exploited black churches and used them to get votes. I hope and pray that blacks will stop looking at his color and listen to his words. He looks like us but this man is not about empowering blacks. It makes me mad to see Jesse Jackson and others promoting this Negroe to run for office. You don't vote for someone because he is your same race. Thats exactly what most of these people are doing. Please do not vote him and fear what would happen to this country if this man was in office. We are headed for self destruction under this man. When this country no longer supports Israel its over for America.

Anonymous   Posted: July 01, 2008 2:28 AM
http://rapidshare.com/files/121414159/The_Interview_With_God.swf

sponsors 








[Browse More Christianity Today]

Search





















Search by Name
Or use Advanced Search to search by program, region, cost, affiliation, enrollment, more!

Search by:





Books & Culture
Christianity Today
Church Law & Tax Report
Church Finance Today
Church Secretary Today
Ignite Your Faith
Leadership Journal
Men of Integrity
Outcomes
Today's Christian Woman
Your Church
ChristianityTodayLibrary.com
PreachingToday.com