By Living Waters

It is highly unlikely that I’ll bother to comment much about Obama and the coordinated declarations of Christian faith and denunciations of biblical authority. Nevertheless, here’s a peek into the mind and heart of the man who would, to my thinking, make America an Obamanation. On March 3rd, 2008, he said the following.

I will tell you that I don’t believe in gay marriage, but I do think that 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 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.

Just what part of the Sermon on the Mount he was alluding to remains a mystery. The part about lust and adultery? Unlikely. The part about righteousness? Unlikely. Oh, he part about not judging? Perhaps. But then what is one to do with Jesus’s judgmental words regarding adultery and lust, not to mention his spicy confrontations with religious and political leaders?

I don’t know, but waving the magic wand of “the Sermon on the Mount” just doesn’t do it for me. I hold to the canon of Scripture. If Obama does too, then why pit Paul against Jesus? That wouldn’t be a position of faith but a position of opposition.

And then one wonders why Obama felt the need to swipe at Romans 1 as “obscure.” Surely Romans 1 isn’t any more obscure than is the Sermon on the Mount. This appears as a sort of hermeneutic of/by preference. Perhaps one could be forgiven for supposing that to Obama’s mind, any part of Scripture that diverges from his own ideology and socio-political agenda naturally would come off as “obscure.” That’s one way to muzzle the words of God.

Perhaps the more manly position would be a full frontal rejection of Romans rather than a back-sided obscurantism. Of course, that would make too easy a target for seeing Obama’s Christian faith as dodgy.

You and I both know that Obama and James Dobson have been sharing their divergent thoughts on biblical interpretation. I suppose that on this front my post reveals that I’d be more in line with Dobson’s remarks. If Obama learned his interpretation of Scripture from Jeremiah Wright, then perhaps we can more fully understand the squirrelly nature of his use of Scripture.

Do not be deceived, dear friends. What Obama promotes is nothing less than abominable.

Chesterton notes, “Science must not impose any philosophy, any more than the telephone must tell us what to say.” Unfortunately, so many ideologues claim that “Science says,” when what they supply are scientists’ projections of personal philosophy. Perhaps that is where the delusion resides. (Hint, hint. Wink, wink.)