Barack Obama, in a speech given to the Call to Renewal's Building a Covenant for a New America conference, made a worthy attempt to open a dialogue between evangelical conservatives and liberals on the place of faith in the shaping of pubic policy. He did so with a brilliant blend of theology with a decidedly philosophical twist. In the speech entitled "Call to Renewal," Obama spent considerable time castigating a former opponent and right wing politician Alan Keyes who is a Roman Catholic with deep moral convictions on such issues as gay marriage and abortion. In their head to head campaign Keyes brought into question the validity of Obama's faith when he stated that "Jesus would not vote for Obama" because of Obama's pro-abortion and pro-homosexual politics. The theme of Obama's speech is clear and very personal as he traces his own "decision for Christ" when he walked the isle in a Chicago church. I have no reason to doubt Obama's commitment to Christ. It is actually refreshing to hear a politician voice his own commitment to Christ and not color it with the party line that says "My personal faith is between me and the Lord and must be kept distinct from public policy if elected to office." In fact, Obama takes on his own party for doing just that by saying,

"Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, 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. So 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."

Oh my. The liberals have come a long way baby. Back in the late 70's and early 80's this was precisely the language in the playbook of evangelical conservatives. Our mantra back then was that the church and its voice BELONGS in the public arena of policy debate. Very few pastors caught this vision back then for fear of mixing politics and religion. Obama rightly defends the black church for its historic involvement in and pursuit of true social change. Having lived in the black community while serving as a pastor in the inner city of Philadelphia for eight years I can truly affirm that preaching social change is non-negotiable. The evangelical must have a social conscience. Obama sites the plethora of scriptural themes such as poverty, oppression, and injustice and the need for the church to confront these matters as we express our own salvation. That is, we must engage the ills of society and we must do so as we put feet to our doctrine. On this matter, I could not agree more. Obama calls for greater dialogue between conservatives and "progressives" on the relationship between faith and public policy. Again, I could not agree more.

My problem with Obama is that there are some social matters where there can be no middle ground. For example, when a baby is aborted he or she is dead. They are not part dead or dying, they are dead. The baby is burned or scraped or sucked out of the womb in a blatant disregard for the value of human life. We cannot get any more basic than that. When politicians view gays as an oppressed minority I am cut to the quick. If I were black or Hispanic I would be offended when a lifestyle of choice is given equal minority status with being black or Hispanic. Sure we must dialogue, but to what end? How can we dialogue when the chasm is so great?

Over the years evangelicals have wrongly established certain public policies around wrong interpretations of scripture. But so have the liberals. For example, the Bible has nothing to say about the price of gasoline. Nor does it have anything to say about whether or not global warming is a serious threat (except that God is planning a genuine global fire one day). Yet, somehow we have forced a Christian ethic on these matters and many others that has no basis in the word of God. Both sides are guilty of forcing the Bible to day things it does not say. Obama is just as guilty and is blind to his own twisted hermeneutic. Consider what he says.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.

To lift out any text of scripture without building its context is a violation of basic principles of interpretation. In other words, he is guilty of the very thing he has so often criticized evangelicals of doing - lifting out scripture to suit their politics. The strong implication of Obama's speech is that the scriptures cannot be interpreted literally and are not without error. His posture is the same old black liberation theology of the 60's that holds to a low view of scripture. I will not take the time here to parse his words. Suffice it to say that slavery in the bible is not the same as the slavery that has forever marked American history. Nor, does Obama understand the function of a theocracy under which Israel functioned. Dietary and civil laws that governed Jewish society must be assessed in context and not used as a ploy to politicize the Bible. Obama just doesn't get it. How can we have an intelligent discussion on religious matters without some religious authority to appeal to? How can I as a Christian who believes there is but one way to heaven discuss with a Moslem the uniqueness of Jesus when they hold to the authority of the Koran and I hold to the authority of the Bible? Obama's answer seems to be that in a public forum there is equal truth in both. But there is not and therein lies the rub.

Obama does not believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of scripture while any evangelical worth his salt does. My black brothers who claim belief in inerrancy preach every Sunday the message of the Gospel and call people to repent of sin and trust in Christ and Christ alone for their salvation. But I am dismayed that many of them (not all) then turn around and lend public support to candidates who stand for principles that are clearly anti-family and anti-life, and thus anti-scriptural. Can you imagine what power would flow from the pulpits of America if we insisted that our political leaders fall in line with at least the core values of scripture? I believe the great divide between liberals and conservatives would close if three key commitments were made, a covenant of true change, by both our inner city and suburban preachers. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton must not be the spokesman for the black community. First, we must agree never to support a pro-abortion candidate. Second, we must never support an anti-family candidate. Third, we must never support any politician who would enslave the poor with an ongoing welfare system that rewards immorality and violates the core biblical value that a workman is worthy of his hire. If we could agree to start the debate there then the divide will begin to close. Let's try that on for size and see how far we get.

Every once in a while I will post a position paper on a current event or topic, similar to this. What do you think? Am I right on or dead wrong?

In His Grip,
PB