Obama’s Bible (…or…Practicing Hermeneutics with a Presidential Candidate)

10. March 2008 by Seth.

Jargon, grand visions, empty promises, even a little mud-slinging: these have become the norms of a presidential election year.

But, it is not every candidate who shares with us an insight into his own Biblical hermeneutic—the way in which he interprets God’s Word.  This, Senator Barack Obama did in a recent speech.

His comments: I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a 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. That’s my view. But we can have a respectful disagreement on that.

Sen. Obama’s political views are not shocking.  But, his appeal to Biblical texts in order to support these ideas is interesting indeed.

Let’s see what we might learn from Sen. Obama’s hermeneutic:

1.  The Sermon on the Mount is more “central” than other New Testament passages.  Assuming that by “central” he means important, relevant—for he certainly cannot be referring to physical location—according to the Senator, Biblical texts should be arranged on a hierarchy of usefulness.  We need not discuss or consider those texts near the bottom, for it is only the “central” passages which matter.

2.  Obscurity = Paul + Clear description of sin.  The passage to which Sen. Obama refers in Romans (1: 18-32, specifically verses 26-27) is by no means buried within the text.  Indeed, Paul has barely completed his preface and declared his longing to visit Rome when he launches into an account of God’s wrath against mankind because of his sin, including the lust of men toward other men.  This, the Senator argues, is obscure.

3. Disagreement dismisses the argument.  Senator Obama uses phrases like “That’s my view” and “for my faith,” concluding with “we can have a respectful disagreement on that,” almost as if to invoke the cliché “We agree to disagree.”  In doing so, he equates the homosexual debate with that of the Calvinist vs. the Arminian or the discussion among the schools of eschatological thought (that of the “end times”)—debates in which more than one side seems to hold at least some merit. 

Evaluation?

Is the passage in Romans “obscure?” 

Is the debate of homosexuality one in which we simply must “agree to disagree?” 

What of the Senator’s classification of Biblical texts?  Surely we need some framework for understanding the variety of texts we find in the Bible.  Is the above suggested method—that of dividing the “central” from the unimportant, along with a neglect of the latter—the best way for us to do so?  If not, what methods might we employ? 

I’ll reserve my thoughts for Part 2.  First, I’d like to hear your ideas.

Posted in Biblical Interpretation, Politics | Print | 5 Comments »