A Letter to a Local “Christian Bookstore”

16. December 2008 by Seth.

My fiancée and I recently discovered a most curious book: The Faith of Barack Obama by Stephen Mansfield.  After stumbling upon it in Barnes & Noble, we took bets as to whether or not the nearby “Christian bookstore” would carry the book.

And, I lost the bet.  While it should not be surprising that a company which carries the “faith in faith” teachings of Meyer, Osteen, and Jakes would sell a book with a twisted message, I nevertheless thought that the conservative climate of Fort Wayne would discourage such a bookstore from including a book heralding the religious views of the President-Elect.

After speaking with the manager on duty, I penned the following letter to send to the corporate office:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I recently visited your Fort Wayne, Indiana location. I was very disappointed to find that you carry the book “The Faith of Barack Obama” by Stephen Mansfield. Having the title “Christian” in your company’s name, you have set yourself apart from other stores as an oasis in which a Believer may relax knowing that he is in a location of truth. Thus, it behooves you to be diligent in choosing which books to allow to be placed on your shelves.

I expressed my concern that you would sell this book to the manager on duty, Jill. She understood, yet informed me that all decisions regarding the products they sell come from the corporate office. Thus, I am writing you to urge you to stop selling this book. According to the desciption on your website, Mansfield’s basic premise in this book is the following: “If a man’s faith is sincere, then it is the most important thing about him.”

The issue for Christians is not simply to have sincere faith—but to have sincere faith properly placed in the right God. There are many today who bow to the god of materialism, others to themselves. All of these individuals may have sincere faith. Only those who place their faith in the true God will be saved. By allowing this book onto your shelves, you are portraying President-Elect Obama as a Christian leader, yet this man does not honor the basic Great Commission Jesus gave to the disciples before his ascension. He said, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I commanded you” (Matt 28:19-20a; NIV). Jesus condemned the shedding of innocent blood and in this commission told his disciples to teach all Believers to obey what he commanded. Obama does not honor this as he seeks to keep the daily shedding of innocent blood legal.

Over 3,000 children are killed every day in the institution of abortion in our country (see the Guttmacher Institute: www.guttmacher.org). These are whole, separate, unique, living human beings who are being violently ripped from their mothers’ wombs. Obama has dedicated his administration to preserving this destruction of life God has created. Indeed, he vowed to sign the Freedom of Choice Act as his first item of business as president. The FOCA would effectively end all restrictions on abortion, all pro-life legislation—including the ban on the barbaric partial-birth abortion practice—made in the nearly thirty-six years since Roe v Wade made killing babies the law of the land.

As an Illinois state senator, Obama squelched the Induced Infant Liability Act multiple times. This legislation would have given protection to children born alive from botched abortions. Yet Obama saw it fit to allow these viable human beings to lie abandoned upon tables until their hearts stopped beating. In chapter three of John’s first epistle, we are given a test of faith: “Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. This then is how we know that we belong to the truth,” (3:18-19a). Several verses earlier, John exhorts followers of Christ not to be like Cain “who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother” (3:12).

How is it loving in action and in truth to allow living children to lie abandoned on a table until they die?

Obama supports the killing of our baby brothers and sisters. Is this not a failing of the test the apostle John passed down to us?

By carrying this book touting him as a spiritual leader, you are endorsing his ideologies. You are effectively saying that one can indeed be a Christian and be in support of the killing of innocent children. This is in direct contrast to God’s Word. Killing children in their mothers’ wombs simply cannot be construed as an act of loving them.

As a youth minister, I am responsible for the ideas I place in the minds of the teenagers under my care. God expects diligence with the spheres of influence He has placed under our stewardship. You, therefore, are responsible for the ideas contained in the books you sell.

I cannot encourage teens and their families from my group to support your store so long as you sell books with ideas opposed to the truth.

I urge you to remove “The Faith of Barack Obama” from your shelves. It is wrong to endorse a man as a great Christian who unashamedly supports that which is opposed to God’s law. In his second epistle, the apostle John also warned his Christian audience about false teachers. He commanded that if anyone preaches a gospel which is not the true Gospel, he should not be given a platform to teach. Indeed, anyone who does give a platform to those preaching that which is false “shares in his wicked work” (2 John 11; NIV).

Obama’s actions are opposed to the Gospel of Christ.

Will we share in his wicked work?

Respectfully,

Seth A. Drayer

Youth Minister

Trinity Evangelical Church

Fort Wayne, Indiana

Posted in Politics, Abortion | Print | No Comments »

Pie Crust Faith?

16. September 2008 by Seth.

Last year, ChristianPost.com published details of a survey concerning belief in the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ. It was reported that nearly 100 percent of those who identified themselves as “born-again Christians” believed that Jesus actually came back to life following the crucifixion. More surprisingly, however, the study also concluded that 75 percent of Americans claiming not to be “born-again” also affirm the historical event of the resurrection (”Study . . . Resurrected”).

Audrey Barrick, Christian Post reporter, concluded:

Based on response from the study, the research center suggests Easter messages may not require a defense of the physical resurrection. Instead, the preachers may want to focus more on the meaning and redemptive power for the individual.This conclusion ought to give the thinking Believer pause. Indeed, if every individual who professes to believe in Christ’s resurrection knew why he held such conviction, then perhaps no further need would exist for a refresher course on the evidence. However, skepticism prompts me to believe this is not the case.

There is a vast difference between “belief” and “knowledge.”

Belief may be defined as the mental state of holding something to be true. In the words of Dr. J. P. Moreland, however, knowledge should be understood as belief in something true with good reasons.

In his lectures at Summit Ministries this Summer, Dr. Moreland explained the difference with the following anecdote. Suppose two men—one a scientist and the other an average Joe—were both to see “E=mc²” written on the wall of a bathroom stall. The average guy may believe that what is written on the wall is true, but he has no basis for doing so—no knowledge of why this is true. The scientist, however, not only believes that “E=mc²,” but he has reasons to do so. He has examined the evidence himself, has studied the actual theory in order to test it. The average guy makes a leap of blind faith, whereas the scientist makes a calculated decision to accept the premise as true.

It seems far more likely to me that the bulk of those who profess to believe in Christ’s resurrection are more like the average Joe. They’ve read “Christ has risen.” Perhaps they were raised in a family which repeated often this phrase. But, they either are not interested in or have not been given the opportunity to examine the evidence.

Why is it so important that one have not only belief in but also knowledge of the Resurrection? Belief based on a blind leap of faith is often like the “pie crust promises” of Mary Poppins: easily made, easily broken. If you proclaim that Christ is risen but only do so because you’ve been told this, then you are far more likely to cast this belief aside once you hear enough times that the Resurrection is merely a fairy tale—something that we do hear quite often in theologically liberal circles or the secular square.

Christians should examine the evidence to have true knowledge of the history that is the foundation of their religion.

Bound up with that history is the doctrine—the meaning of the historical facts. However, one should try to avoid leaping from ignorance to belief in doctrine without looking at the evidence. Considering the outrageous claim of the resurrection—in order to determine its truthfulness—is a step which should not be skipped.

As J. Gresham Machen writes in Christianity and Liberalism:

“Christ died”—that is history; “Christ died for our sins”—that is doctrine. Without these two elements, joined in an absolutely indissoluble union, there is no Christianity.The doctrine of “Christ died for our sins” means nothing if he did not actually do so. The history that “Christ died” is useless if there is not meaningful doctrine attached to it.

History and doctrine—these must go hand in hand in Christianity. I suspect that too many of those who believe in Christ’s resurrection simply proclaim the doctrine without understanding or having knowledge of the history.

Thus, perhaps there is a slight error in the conclusion of the study. While the assertion that preachers must emphasize the meaning and redemptive power of Christ’s sacrifice is good, this doctrine cannot exist independent of the historical event. And, we cannot assume that simply because a man believes in Christ’s resurrection he is familiar with the evidence.

We must not cast aside the evidence for the Resurrection and run ahead to its meaning in our witness to the world.

Rather, we ought to present the claim that this man named Christ rose from the dead, then give historical support—such as the evidence of the empty tomb, the eyewitness accounts, the significant change in the apostles and launch of the Church—and then, finally, explain the doctrine of this historical event—the meaning of Christ’s sacrifice and Resurrection.

If we skip the history and its evidence, then we may be left with merely a “pie crust faith”—”easily made, easily broken.”

Barrick, Audrey. “Study: Most Non-Born-Again Christians Still Believe Jesus Resurrection.” The Christian Post. 3 April 2007. http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070403/study-most-non-born-again-christians-still-believe-jesus-resurrected.htm

Posted in Theological Liberalism, Resurrection | Print | No Comments »

Coldplay’s Confusion Meets Paul’s Proclamation

14. July 2008 by Seth.

Today on their website, to celebrate the launch of their new tour, the popular British musical group Coldplay offered a free download of a track: “Death Will Never Conquer.” 

This track is not included on their latest album—Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends—but it does fit in with the record’s treatment of the themes of life and death, war and peace.  The lyrics, as best as I could transcribe them, are below:

If sweet death should ever conquer me,
let me know, boys, let me know.
If you hear him coming won’t you let me flee;
let me go, boys, let me go.

One day death is gonna conquer me;
I’ll be down where the waters flow.
I hope sweet Heaven is a place for me.
Let me know, boys, let me know.

If sweet death should ever conquer me,
take me down to some place below.
If you hear him coming won’t you set me free.
Let me go, boys, let me go.

If you hear him comin’ won’t you say for me
that i just don’t want to go.

The melody of this track plays like a light Sunday morning hymn, with an upbeat piano carrying lead singer Chris Martin’s vocals.  The lyrics, however, present a view of death which seems to be both cavalier and tepidly hopeful.

The title of the track seems confident that death will not conquer; yet the lyrics range from if death should conquer to the declaration that one day death will indeed conquer.  The upbeat vocals and melody either underscore this confusion with irony or simply present an attitude of “Who cares?”

According to SongFacts.com, Coldplay bassist Guy Berryman made the following commentary this month to Q Magazine concerning the new album: ”There’s this slightly anti-authoritarian viewpoint that’s crept into some of the lyrics and it’s some of the payoff between being surrounded by governments on one side, but also we’re human beings with emotions and we’re all going to die and the stupidity of what we have to put up with every day.” (http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=11520; emphasis added by me).

If this quote were to hint toward Berryman’s worldview, it would be one of “Enjoy the light while you may, for soon we all shall die.”

An attempt to marry this with the lyrics of “Death Will Never Conquer” creates an anthem which longs to be hopeful—with its plea from the narrator to his friends to help him overcome death—but which also in the end cannot avoid defeatism with its resignation to the claim that all humans will die.

Mere humans cannot conquer death, and in this the Coldplay track rings true.  However, the theme of hope running through the song (”I hope sweet Heaven is a place for me”) is at best tepid (and at worst a mockery). 

Tepid hope, however, in the end will also die.  A hope placed in oneself, in a government, or in humanity in general simply cannot overcome the existential problem this song lays out, namely that all men will die.

And yet Paul boldly proclaims in I Corinthians 15: “Where, O death, is your victory?  Where, O death, is your sting?” (vs 55)

From where does Paul gain the ability to make this proclamation?  As he himself notes, the sting of death is sin (15:56)—and, for long years of human history it appeared that because of our sin death would be the victor.  But, Paul reveals the reason for his declaration as he writes, “But thanks be to God!  He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (15:57) and all of this he hangs on Christ’s resurrection, for which he provides evidence earlier in the same chapter.

Coldplay is right in directing us toward the inescapable reality that death will claim our fallen bodies.  But, they fail to direct us toward the One who has conquered death.

It seems fitting that Coldplay would use imagery from the French Revolution and even wear clothing which hints of that era in France while promoting their new album, sound and message.  The French Revolution was a longing for freedom, but in its de-Christianization of the country the revolution created chaos without the proper system to contain that freedom.  Nevertheless, it was a movement which ran with the blood of men who wanted to throw off the tyrant that the monarch had become.

Similarly, men everywhere want to throw off the tyrant that death is.  But, without the proper worldview, all they can do is have some ethereal hope which in the end will fail and lead to chaos.

Posted in Art, Worldviews | Print | No Comments »

Responses to “A New Pro-Abortion Argument”

7. July 2008 by Seth.

There are many responses we could give to the “acquired rights” argument in favor of legalized abortion mentioned in the previous post.

For example, if the right to life were a right which is to be acquired, there must be some moment of grandeur when this great honor is bestowed upon the individual.  While it is true that one cannot legally drive until one has passed the test, there is indeed a moment at the BMV when one is handed the long-desired driver’s license.

Similarly, when a teenager turns 18, she may apply for voting privileges and then—and only then—will she receive the voting card in the mail declaring her entry into the society of the electorate.

This could be extrapolated to the consumption of alcohol, to the portion of our society bearing the title of Bachelor of Arts, to the entrance of one into an elite club.  Yes, there is a period of learning and testing followed by admittance into the club.

However, there is a fundamental difference between these events and that of personhood.  The former is an issue of qualification and of privileges being added to one’s nature.  The second is a question of one’s very essence.  For example, children are born all across the world.  They are all human beings.  But, only a portion of them hold the title of Americans.  There are qualifications which must be met for them to hold this privilege.  Yet, regardless of their nationality, all babies are by definition human beings.

There cannot be a magical moment when one is given the title of personhood because that would mean one would actually change one’s own character.  Yes, a boy will become a man as he grows and have new responsibilities and privileges due to this.  But, does that mean in his boyhood he was not a male?  To suggest such would be nonsense.  He is now a more mature male, but the definition of his nature has not changed.

We may have a range of persons who are more and less mature in this world.  But we do not have a range of persons and non-persons in the human race.

A man cannot change his own essence.

Furthermore, we can know objectively whether or not a person may drive.  Thus, we must also be able to know objectively whether or not a person has the right to life.  Can the “acquired rights” group provide evidence of an objective moment at which one is granted the right of personhood?

No, they cannot.  This would mean there would actually be humans walking around our globe who are not persons, who have not yet been granted this privilege.  Have you ever met a human being who is not a person?  What is that like?  How does the individual behave?

Every human being—from the smallest zygote to the most elderly man—is by his nature a person.

Some argue that this is a question of gained respect.  The fetus has not gained the respect of her common man in the same way a Senator has.  Thus, we cannot be expected to honor the plea to life of the fetus, whereas we are obligated to do so for the Senator.

Imagine a society built upon this system.  Personhood and the right to life would exist on a sliding scale.  You may be a person and have the right to live, but there will always be someone who has garnered more respect and therefore has more of a right to life than you.  Thus, there is always someone who would be justified in killing you by virtue of the fact that he has more of a right to life than you.  If he were in need of a heart transplant and you were the only one with a viable organ, he would not only be justified in killing you to take your heart for himself, he would be doing the morally upright thing—by honoring the right to life of which he has more than you.

If personhood and the right to life were to exist on a sliding scale, this would create a society of higher and lower classes of persons, the former feeding upon the lower.

If, however, personhood were something one either has or does not have, then there must be some objective way to determine whether or not one has it.  If one argues that this is an “acquired right” then he must also provide objective evidence of the great moment when one receives this right.  However, all efforts to do so will end in vain because personhood is not an added privilege, it is the definition of what a human being is.

The argument that the right to life is an “acquired right” may sound like a new argument.  However, it is indeed simply a different facet of the old debate to determine the personhood of the preborn child.

There is indeed an objective way to determine whether or not an individual is a person.  And, the test is quite simple.  If the individual is human—regardless of size, level of development, environment or degree of dependency—the individual is a person.

And, that person has the right to life.

Posted in Social, Abortion | Print | 1 Comment »

A New Pro-Abortion Argument?

30. June 2008 by Seth.

We have become quite familiar with many of the pro-abortion clichés being thrown around the discussion tables today.  For example, almost any abortion debate will include lines such as the following:

“Don’t tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body.”

“The fetus is not a person.”

“Don’t force your morality on me.”

“Who are you to judge?”

“The war kills, too.”

However, have you ever heard someone say that the preborn child does indeed deserve respect and yet in the same breath argue the child has not yet acquired the right to live?

Those who argue this view draw upon other examples of what it means to be a person in our society.  They note that the toddler cannot drive, vote or drink alcohol because they have not yet “acquired the rights” to do so.

Someone who holds to this view may also comment that we receive the amount of respect in the world that we deserve.  A man who has labored his entire life for the good of his fellow man may receive great respect, whereas the fetus who has done very little will not be remembered and honored if he is to die prematurely.

Is this a new argument?  Or is this merely a twist to the same old debate we’ve been hearing for some time?

What do you think?  How would you respond if faced with this argument?

Posted in Social, Abortion | Print | 1 Comment »

Holding Religiously onto Relativism

6. May 2008 by Seth.

Morality—that robust word which stirs men’s hearts with passion for goodness and virtue, that code which sharply distinguishes between Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa—has died in America, or so certain Americans would lead one to believe.

Moral relativism has for some time been tightening its grip upon our culture with its declarations of “That’s only true for you” and “Don’t force your morality upon me.”  Morality, therefore, in the wake of such notions was redefined as the beliefs of the individual rather than an objective code which exists regardless of man’s choice whether or not to follow it.

Often, however, when pressed to support their beliefs, most relativists will admit by their actions that they do not hold to such a worldview.  A man may tell you that you are free to form your own beliefs, but steal his wallet and watch his response carefully.

But, there are some who seem to break even this mold.

Last Sunday, I stepped into a conversation on morality with a young woman awaiting entrance into a political rally.  She began with the cliché claims of “Who are you to tell me what to do?” and “That’s just your belief.”

I continued the debate game by laying down my card of, “What if I believed it was okay for me to rape you?  Would that be wrong?”

Her response: “That’s up to you.”

Me: “You don’t think it’s wrong for me to rape you?”

Girl: “It’s your choice.”

Me: “Just so I understand this, let me rephrase it: if I rape you, you don’t think that’s wrong?”

Girl: “I can’t tell you it’s wrong.”

At this point, the conversation lost all meaning.  There was no common ground between us, no shared frame of reference with which we could have a meaningful sharing of ideas.  This young woman’s notion of the impossibility of absolutes was so fierce that even a “hot button” topic like rape would not stop her from clinging religiously to moral relativism.

While I do think that she would have revealed the moral code inside of her had I tried to steal her purse, I was shocked by her unwavering verbal support for relativism.

And, the theory I have formed is that youth like this young woman have been raised in a culture of consistent messages of relativism.  Whereas the middle aged men and women who deny moral absolutes grew up in an era which had not yet forgotten the evil made possible by the fallen nature of man seen in the likes of Hitler, Stalin—and therefore will see the futility of holding to their theory of relativism when faced with an issue such as rape—the children of today have long since been removed from any such thought of good and evil. 

In a stale culture without any heroes or villains, it is easy for one to believe the message that there is no right or wrong proclaimed from the theater screens and school classrooms.

Now, we know there are indeed heroes and villains scattered about the world today, but this can easily be lost on the children of this era who sometimes see no farther than their computer screens or hear nothing due to the constant barrage of tunes pumped into their minds by ipods.

Can we reach a generation which not only pays tentative lip-service to relativism but holds tightly to it even when pressed with the mention of a despicable act such as rape?

What other theories exist for why this generation’s love of relativism has become such a strong religious fervor?

Posted in Relativism, Worldviews | Print | No Comments »

The World Will Be Yours?

15. April 2008 by Seth.

Recently, I was reading the results of one of those “What Lord of the Rings Character Are You?” quizzes on a friend’s Facebook profile page (you know who you are), and it struck me as rather odd. 

You are: Frodo Baggins.  You’re the main character, the hero, the savior of the world. You’re also kind of short. But that’s the thing - you’ve never let your shortcoming get in the way of success. Be proud - one day the world will be yours.

Anyone who’s read The Lord of the Rings series would probably take to task more than one detail in this rather myopic bio of Frodo Baggins, the hobbit who traverses Middle Earth with the One Ring around his neck determined to see it destroyed in the fires of Mount Doom.

It was the last sentence, though, which I found to be most curious—curious and yet not surprising in Twenty-First Century America.

“Be proud - one day the world will be yours.”

It is probable that whoever wrote this description has never read Tolkien’s masterpiece.  Perhaps he’s only seen the movies once or twice—because, anyone who has an understanding of the purpose of Frodo’s mission must understand that not only is “to rule the world” not part of the game plan, but rather it is indeed a page out of the enemy’s playbook.

Indeed, why does Sauron in the great epic long so much to have the ring once again in his control?  Answer: to rule the world.

Why are men so easily corrupted by the seduction of the ring?  Answer: it promises untold power and dominion over Middle Earth.

If Frodo’s end goal had been that of pride and to own the world, he would merely have had to take the ring for himself and enjoy his short ride as lord of the ring—and lord of Middle Earth.

To confuse his efforts with a lust for pride and world domination is to rewrite the entire story.

The arrogance and thirst for power seen in this short bio should not be surprising, however.  Our individualist society seems to care almost exclusively for themselves.  We turn our backs upon those in need and instead want only to  “look out for numero uno.”

We are also a society of “positive thinking.”  Not only do we seek first our own satisfaction, but we seem to hold the notion that simply thinking about the end goal will somehow get us there.  “Be proud,” and then by some magic device suddenly your dream will come true—”the world will be yours.”

Frodo’s journey was not only one of self-sacrifice.  It was also a long, arduous journey, full of both moments of pride and mishaps of discouragement.  Equating this story with selfish ambition and “positive thinking” misses the point entirely.

Posted in Worldviews, General | Print | No Comments »

Abortion Kills Children = We Love the War?

31. March 2008 by Seth.

Recent events in the Hoosier state have given the Underground opportunities to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to stand up for the approximately 3,500 babies who die each day to the knife of inconvenience.

When former Pres. Bill Clinton was in town, the Underground lined the sidewalks of the Grand Wayne Center.  When Sen. Hillary Clinton arrived to push her campaign for the presidency, we were there again—holding signs, sharing truth with those who’d engage us.

Interestingly, though, one trend soon became the norm.  Our signs bore a simple message: Abortion Kills Children.  However, this was, curiously, the only message people did not draw from our signs.

Time and time again, the pro-abortion crowd judged us as war-aficionados and Bush-lovers.  They challenged our right to be present.  They accused us of forcing morality upon them.

They did everything they could think of—except challenge the simple message we wanted to share.

Indeed, those who actually chose to challenge our assertion that each abortion ends the life of a child were very few in number.  Instead, they ignored the letters on our signs and reworded our message to fit their own desired ends.

“Christians don’t judge,” one woman shouted to me.  I engaged her assertion out of respect.  However, in making this claim, not only was she judging me—and thereby contradicting herself because she told me she was a Christian—but she was also avoiding the simple, clear content of “Abortion Kills Children.”  Who were we judging with this message?  Did our signs read “Women Who Abort Are Murderers?”  No. 

I didn’t even have “Klopfer is a Murderer” on my sign—though it would have been tempting, and true.

This woman, like the others in the crowds we’ve met, clearly did not wish to engage the three simple words of our message.

“Bush murders, too!” others exclaimed.  Oddly, though, not a single one of our signs included the word “Bush.”

“More have died in the war than to abortion!” was also heard from the crowd.  Not only is this clearly false—we just recently were told in the media that we’ve reached 4,000 American deaths in the Iraqi war, which is barely more than the number of children killed each day in the abortion industry—but also, again, it has nothing to do with the simple message of “Abortion Kills Children.”

Others simply wrote us off with comments such as, “AKC stands for American Kennel Club.”

Still others spouted off baffling responses such as, “Well, at least they weren’t soldiers.”

Clearly, the effort to speak out against abortion has today been equated to a vote for Bush and an amen to the Iraqi war.

Nevermind the fact that in our midst was at least one woman who has lost relatives in the war.  Nevermind the fact that a polling of all of we prolife demonstrators would have yielded very different views upon the war.

Nevermind these details because, after all, what the crowd truly wanted to do, apparently, was to judge and force their morality upon us.

Ironic, isn’t it?

Posted in News, Social, Politics, Abortion | Print | 4 Comments »

Obama’s Bible: Part 2 (…or…la Bible d’Obama: Partie Deux)

24. March 2008 by Seth.

Some of you left some great comments concerning Sen. Obama’s methods of Biblical interpretation.  Let’s continue the evaluation.

Where is this reference in the Sermon on the Mount to which the Senator is referring?  Great question.  Answer: it’s anyone’s guess.  He did not make it clear, but simply invoked this lengthy passage by name.

Perhaps he was making a veiled reference to Matt. 5:38-48, the well-known section of turning the other cheek to one who has slapped you, of giving your coat when someone takes your shirt, etc.  Or, even more likely, perhaps he was appealing to the first portion of chapter 7—that of judging oneself before one’s brother.

However, for Sen. Obama to claim that these passages support homosexuality is an eisegetical travesty.  The teachings bundled in this section vary from that of Believers remaining fervent in their example as a “city on a hill” (5:13-16), of men and women being guilty of adultery even if they merely lust after another (5:27-28), of giving to the poor (6:1-4), etc.  To invoke this passage by name and declare it a great ally of homosexual conduct would be to ignore the teachings thereof entirely.  Anyone with a KJV, NIV, NASB—or, for that matter, even an NWT—can clearly see that these chapters teach principles of personal conduct, relationships, witness, and that they do not encourage sinful lifestyles.

There is no didactic (teaching) content in favor of homosexuality.  The reference found here to sexuality does nothing to broaden God’s command.  On the contrary, it makes morality in relation to sexuality much tighter.  Indeed, Jesus commands that mere lust is tantamount to fornication.

The Senator’s flippant attitude toward Romans must also be dealt with.  Not only is this passage not in the least obscure, we have no reason to assume that we can merely pick what we want from the Bible and dispose of the rest.  This smorgasbord attitude is that which has produced the neo-pagan, Buddhist-flavored, Christianity-sprinkled New-Agers which populate our country. 

To deny God’s Word, however, is to deny God.  One who chooses to discard commandments from the Father is choosing not to follow the Father.

Indeed, Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15; NASB).  He did not give us access to pick and choose which of those commandments we like.  If we are followers of God, it will naturally follow that we obey Him—and His Word.

Biblical texts may vary in the extent to which they may be easily applied to our lives.  It is quite simple, for example, to see how the Sermon on the Mount ought to guide how we direct our lives.  And, Romans 1:26-27, the “obscure” passage cited by Sen. Obama, can quite readily be applied to our lives in that we are not to engage in the sin it describes.  However, even passages which may not seem to directly apply to us cannot be thrown away.

The Bible is composed of a variety of types of literature—from didactic passages to narratives, from poetry to parables and proverbs, etc.  We must consciously determine which type of literature we are reading as we engage a Biblical text.  Passages which are not didactic in nature will naturally be less quickly applicable to daily life.  However, we cannot declare these unimportant and discard them.

After all, how would our understanding of the long-awaited redemption be cheapened without the epic struggles of the Old Testament, the promise made to Abraham?  How would our understanding of the human condition be affected had we not the poetry of the Psalms which convey the glory of God and the joy of following Him, as well as the despair of the moments during which one feels far from Him?  How could we appreciate the fulfillment of prophecy in Christ had we not access to those prophecies?  How would we properly understand the salvation described in the epistles if we did not have an historical account of the life of Jesus?

However, above all we must note that it is not a text’s usefulness which gains it entry into the canon.  It was placed there by the fathers of old who followed careful criteria, such as, concerning the New Testament, that of a text’s apostolic authority (its link to an apostle).

We cannot uphold only that which we find to be ”central” and discard the rest.  We must properly engage the texts by classifying them into their proper genre.

Yes, there are passages which are obscure, such as Paul’s quick reference to baptism of the dead (I Cor. 15:29).  Even these passages, though, must not be discarded.  Rather, these obscure texts must be interpreted by the more explicit portions of scripture.  We still need to grapple with and attempt to understand them—but we do so by understanding them within the context of the whole Bible, not by merely kicking them out of the canon.

Sen. Obama may need to enroll in Hermeneutics 101 if he wishes to paint himself a devoted Believer.

Posted in Biblical Interpretation, Politics | Print | 2 Comments »

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 »