The Democrats this year discovered that being a “Christian” has political advantages. Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have dipped into the religion well as frequently as possible during their campaigns. But Barack Obama may have fallen into the well with a statement he made earlier this week, citing the Sermon on the Mount as justification for legal rights for homosexual couples. Here’s the quote in full:
I will tell you that I don’t believe in gay marriage. But I do think people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with dignity and respect and that the state should not discriminate against them. So, I believe in civil unions that will allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in the hospital, or transfer property to each other. I don’t think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. 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.
The Senator from Illinois needs some basic tutoring in biblical exegesis. For one thing, where exactly in the Sermon on the Mount did Jesus advocate for civil unions for same-sex couples? Where in the Sermon on the Mount does Jesus detail the responsibilities of the STATE to its citizens? The Sermon on the Mount is Jesus’ spiritual instructions to his own followers (Matthew 5:1,2) not a treatise on citizenship. Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount applies to those who are related to one another spiritually through Him, not to those who share a common citizenship through a state. Only those who can truly call God “Our Father” have any interest at all in what Jesus is saying in the Sermon on the Mount.
Beyond that, what makes the Romans passage “obscure”? We can only assume that the Romans passage Senator Obama is referring to is Romans 1:26,27. The best exegesis of this passage I have ever read comes from John Piper and you can read it or listen to it in two parts: part one, part two. The Romans passage is the most definitive word from the Holy Spirit in all of Scripture on homosexual behavior. The only sense in which the passage could be described as “obscure” would be that it offends the sensibilities of liberals like Senator Obama who have a low view of Scripture and believe that because the passage offends them they can merely ignore it.
Barack Obama is another fine example of the new “Red Letter Christians” who ask “How would Jesus respond to homosexuals,” determining Jesus’ response not by what is clearly written in Scripture but rather by reading the “white space” between the red letters, reading into the text their own liberal orthodoxy. See my Townhall.com column for more on that.
I must confess, it is beyond my diminutive level of understanding how some can draw a conclusion, without the benefit of being there, hearing the briefings, and viewing what evidence was available.
I am dumbfounded at how inept all others are and yet, how wise WE have become!
I also wish, I had possessed the apparent insight that many have in these and other matters, so I may have been able to direct my wrong decisions in life, in a different direction.
c’est la vie
If the “real” reason we went into Iraq was not our national security, but for oil as you allege, Iggy, why is it that five years later oil prices have skyrocketed, along with he price Americans are paying for gasoline at the pump? Would not the primary objective of plundering another country for their natural resources, as you allege, be POLITICAL at home; to keep the American people happy with the price they pay for gas??
I can’t see why YOU can’t see the humanitarian and national security objectives for going into Iraq. My being a pastor helps me see both clearly.
Paul,
Do you feel the just war theory is a proper way to wage war? If so, and if our country followed it then there would have been NO question right now as to whether or not there were WMD’s. The US never exhausted all means before we waged war on Iraq and that is FACT, If Bush got “false intelligence” then shame on him for not getting more intelligence, the leader of the free world should be smarter than that.
I love it how the right wing still to this day call the MSM “liberal” talk about an old bit. Every news outlet was all over the war like some kind of reality TV. If the “liberal” MSM was really doing it’s job they would have asked more questions before we ever got entangled in this mess. Pixelmaster is right about the connection to Oil, we should be ashamed to plunder other nations for their resources. I still can’t figure out how you as a pastor can’t see the truth in these matters for what they are, sometimes facts are facts and require no “other side”, like the right wing always does.
One more thing. As Christians, I believe the best way for us to influence our society politically is to act in a non-partisanship manner. We must attack democrats when they are wrong and we must be willing to attack republicans when they are wrong. This will give Christians much more credibility and influence over both parties. We cannot be reliable supporters of only republicans because that hurts our influence over both parties. We must act in a non-partisan manner and work to influence all parties on all issues of concern to Christians. We cannot equate Christianity with Republicanism, which so many Christian leaders have done in the past two decades but instead we must stay above partisanship and the two-party system all together.
Paul,
I only wanted to point out that as Christians we should broaden our politics. We must continue to fight against abhorrent and detestable abortions that kill so many innocent children every year. I have tremendous respect for President Bush and the Republican party for working to rid this country of abortion. That work, unfortunately, is not completed. However, I also have tremendous respect for many democrats who work toward a cleaner environment, more affordable health care and an end to the death penalty and torture. Paul, to me these issues are moral issues as well. I am not a Republican or a Democrat because there is a danger when Christians become too close with one party or another because it clouds their judgment. Politically, Christians should not be working for either party but only for God, and to that end we CANNOT allow ourselves to demonize all democrats for being democrats or vote for any republican just because he/she is a republican. There is good and bad in both parties and for Christians we must have a willingness to broaden our politics to include not just abortion and gay rights but also to issues such as access to health care, war and peace, the death penalty, education, and poverty.
Thank you
Comon Paul, facts are facts. Bush cherry picked intelligence, used the fear of the nation from 911 to co-opt Congress into going along with this deception. They lied about Iraq, they are doing everything in their power to go to war with Iran. When will you wake up to the facts. It takes very little independent research to see this.
I mentioned Iraq and Iran, I saw on OneNewsNow(a rightwing “Christian” news site) that they are pumping up Hugo Chavez as a threat. HMMMMMM Iraq #1 in Oil reserves, Iran #2 and Venezuela #3 any link there. You somehow STILL believe the story Bush sold us??????
BTW some of the best news out there is on Free Speech TV call Democracy NOW. It is not corporate owned like all the other large Networks an speaks the truth, against right and left.
George D,
The demise of the so-called “Religious Right” has been touted so often by the secular Left and their co-conspirators in the main stream media it resembles the fable of the boy who cried wolf. The influence of religious conservatives is a strong as ever. If its day is done, why are people like E. J. Dionne still railing against it?
It also appears you have swallowed the lies of the MSM when it comes to why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. When President Bush received and acted on the intelligence provided him (and every member of Congress who voted to authorize the war), he didn’t deceive the American people and lie to get us into “an unjust war.” People who believe he did just absolutely refuse to face facts, choosing rather to drink MSM Kool-Aid. When will you people learn to think for yourselves?
George D,
Bravo, Bravo. Someone who doesn’t buy all the rightwing policies as “christian”. I agrees with you on post #6 and I hope #7 is true. The religios right has done a lot to destroy our faith in the eyes of the world.
Thanks for your comments.
Let me quote also E.J. Dione of the Washington Post in his brilliant commentary on the religious right in America:
“The era of the religious right is over. Americans have already reached a point of exhaustion with a religious style of politics that is dogmatic, partisan and ideological.
That style reflected a spirit far too certain of itself and far too insistent on the moral depravity of its political adversaries. It had the perverse effect of narrowing the range of issues on which religious traditions would speak out and thinning our moral discourse. Precisely because I believe in a strong public role for faith, I would insist that it is a great sellout of those traditions to assert that religion has much to say about abortion and same-sex marriage but little to teach us about war and peace, social justice and the environment.”
Very True Words!
I am a born-again Christian. Politically, I believe that as Christians we must work against abortion and gay marriage. These are not, however, the only moral issues in our society. I believe the war in iraq is a moral issue, not because it is a war (war is justified sometimes) but because of the deceit and lies that got America into that immoral war. Lack of access to health care in this country is a moral issue, as is the destruction of our precious environment. As Christians, we must be more willing to broaden our horizon and demand more from our politicians. Is it not morally wrong that we as a society cannot give millions of inner-city youth access to better education and therefore a chance at a better future? Is it not morally wrong that we as a society deny millions of the poorest and most poverty stricken people access to basic health care? These are moral issues, are they not?
Making vague allusions to the sermon on the mount is a ploy of those who want Jesus’ “endorsement” of their view but can’t find it legitimately. It is typically those who are biblically illiterate who claim to see this or that in the sermon on the mount (as often as not never having even read it). Rightly understood, the sermon on the mount is a difficult, demanding teaching. It is not beautiful… it is IMPOSSIBLE, and is meant to put us on our knees in desperate admission of our need of God’s grace.
‘The Tony Campolo’s of the world truly represent the love of Christ through action, not words.’
Except for the fact that the gospel is words… the Greek word euangellion that we get gospel from litterally means good news. Good news is spoken about, preached about, and examined theologically. There is no such thing as a gospel without words that can be justified from scripture. The problem is this whole liberal emergent movement really isn’t that unique, it isn’t that hard to get be rallied around the cause of AIDS or global poverty… And I hope we all are concerned about AIDS, and termites, and mosquitos however that is not the job of the church and it certainly isn’t the gospel! Tony Camolo has effectively trashed the gospel with his belief in “secret” Christians throughout the world, who are Christians but don’t even know it.
It is an abomination any way you slice it. “Doth not even nature itself”
teach us?
I find this no different than a fundementalist who equates not paying the tithe to what Adam and Eve did by eating the “forbidden” fruit. Yes, I heard a sermon that said this.
The Jesus I read in scripture would rebuke the right wing of his faith in a minute. The Tony Campolo’s of the world truly represent the love of Christ through action, not words.
In the Sermon on the Mount Liberals like to isolate the phrases “blessed are the peacemakers”, and “judge not lest ye be judged”. This pretty much explains their position… If you are a hippy who snaps into protest mode when any talk of war is brought up without investigating the facts you are a ‘christian’. If you do not ‘judge’ people for their moral and spiritual life, but rather judge only those conservative ‘fundementalists’, then that also qualifies as ‘christian’ behavior. Red letter Christianity is dumb, it has the most ridiculous pressupositions… No the red letters are not the words of Jesus, they are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John quoting Jesus… This doesn’t bother me because the Holy Spirit led them in remembering all Jesus taught them. If we accept that, then we can accept everything else they wrote in the canon as authoritative also.