Religion in the Public Square . . .
“This brings us to a different point - the manner in which religious views should inform public debate and guide elected officials. Surely, secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square; Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. – indeed, the majority of great reformers in American History – not only were motivated by faith but repeatedly used religious language to argue their causes. 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.
“What our deliberative, pluralistic democracy does demand is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals must be subject to argument and amenable to reason. If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons and seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or invoke God’s will and expect that argument to carry the day. If I want others to listen to me, then I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
This quote (the whole thing) is from the chapter on Faith in The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama (PP 218-219).
Scott
March 28th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
The first quote displays why conservative evangelical Christians should be concerned about Obama becoming president. The second quote displays a postmodern dream that is actually impossible.
March 28th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Brian,
HUH!!
The way I formatted this may may not have made this clear. But it wasn’t two quotes. It was one quote. Two paragraphs right together in Obama’s book. Your comment confuses me and makes me assume that you didn’t realize that.
Did you assume the first quote was NOT by Barack Obama? It was.
As for the second quote, I want you to re-read it. It’s not post-modern, its just plain old “democratic”. Unless what you are saying is that propositions, laws and exhortations of the bible should simply be the law of the land without debate, which makes you a reconstructionist and not a believer in democracy.
Surely you’re not a reconstructionist?
Are you not?
Scott
March 28th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Hi Scott,
Sorry, that was not one of my more clear or expressive posts. In too much of a hurry, I guess. You are right that I didn’t realize they were two consecutive paragraphs, but I did realize they were both him speaking and I think I do understand them.
My comment on the first paragraph has nothing to do with seeing something wrong with what he actually said. (Btw, as far as personality I like Obama, and since I am a Christian I love him and hope the best for him.) I’m glad that he believes that religious views can and should inform public debate and guide elected officials. But since that is the case, that is precisely why a conservative evangelical christian could have cause for concern–Obama will be guided by his religious beliefs. And as far as I have read he believes in a social gospel.
Now with that said, there is not a candidate that seems to be driven by the true Gospel, so maybe its a moot point.
Regarding the second paragraph, I see what you are saying about it being democratic, but I think that for a democracy to work well as a form of government it does have to be grounded in core non-negotiable absolute truths. Obama said in the first paragraph that “our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo Christian Tradition.” It seems to me that there is an erosion of that core. As more different perspectives guide politicians, as Obama says, in injecting personal morality into political debates, it would seem that we could easily depart from those core values (as we have been doing for some time). Democracy just goes with whoever wins the day. And I think we could agree that some people’s personal morality can be quite frightening (This is not directed toward any particular person).
Regarding the second paragraph, what I am referring to is the statement “If I want others to listen to me, then I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.” Are there such principles? Without going into too much detail my evaluation of that statement is conditioned by my belief in the depravity of man, the nature of truth, presuppositionalism, etc. I think you know where I’m coming from there. And I’m reading his comments knowing the implications of their application in a society that tends toward postmodernism. To put it shortly, I’m not too optimistic about the future sucess of our democracy in accomplishing God’s ideas of justice, peace, righteousness, etc.
Regarding your questions, I am not a reconstructionist. I do not believe we have a mandate to impose any form of governmet on anyone. However, I do believe that all governments are appointed by God to practice according to Romans 13 and that they will be held accountable for how they do this.
But while I’m not a reconstructionist, I also really am only democratic because I live in a democratic country and as a Christian I want to submit to, love, and participate in the government that God has placed me under. I also want to encourage them toward righteousness.
But I am not a believer in democracy per se. A pure democracy is just mob rule. And a democratic republic is capable of atrocious things. I think that any form of government is only as “good” as those who run it.
Regarding your statement,”that propositions, laws and exhortations of the bible should simply be the law of the land without debate,” they will be one day under Christ’s rule, but it is not our duty to gain control and subjugate anyone. Our calling is to live peaceable Gospel lives under whatever government we find ourselves and seek to have an influence.
Hopefully, I’ve made some sense.
Love,
Brian
March 28th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
I’m with Brian. Obama believes in democracy at the expense of truth. He says as much when he claims that for some moral argument to “carry the day” it must be made “accessible” to everybody. He is living in a dream world which does not account for the state of man as revealed in… the Bible. Obama’s problem is that he isn’t audacious ENOUGH!
March 29th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Scott is quite aware that I think that he has “drunk the cool-aid” as it relates to Obama. I hope to have a post up in a day or two over at FatTriplets to illustrate that point. But I really do like both paragraphs from Obama. In a postmodern world, we have to work much harder to “make the case” for truth.
Brian, your comments are very sensible and balanced (although I would question your your interpretation of Rom 13). I recently made very similar arguments to a friend who, as it turns out, is deeply influenced by reconstructionist thinking. Interestingly, we both believed in strongly limited government, as did the founders. But I believe it on constitutional and pragmatic grounds. My friend believed that the idea of limited government was biblical. I drew an imaginary continuum on the table. On the far right is anarchy which is clearly unbiblical. On the far left is communism which is unbiblical too (based on the assumption of private property that is articulated in the commandments and assumed throughout scripture). The continuum in the middle runs all the way to very limited government at the right of the spectrum (what some have called the “night watchman” state) in which the role of government is strictly limited to the provision of public goods such as national defense. On the left is socialism, in which government owns or runs major segments of the economy. I believe that scripture is silent on the question of political philosophy and where on the continuum we should reside. Therefore we can have good fellowship with believers that hold to views anywhere on that spectrum. My friend disagreed. He believed that where you reside on that continuum is biblical. He also espoused the idea of a Christian Republic. He publishes a tract defending the idea. Its main points were silly and incredibly naive.
Glen, I am not sure what you are espousing. How does one “believe in democracy at the expense of truth”? Is there some alternative to democracy you are espousing in which “Truth will reign”. Would you want to live in such a society? What would be the consequences for an individual who did not hold to the truth? I for one, would defend, with all my might, the right of a person to believe and even preach falsehood. This is not a defense of falsehood but a defense of liberty. As Christians we can and should love the truth while appreciating and encouraging the benefits of pluralism and democracy. As I stated above, I do not see these as mutually exclusives ideas.
Steve
March 29th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Steve,
In posting this quotes I was trying to get across the point that even though Obama is a self-proclaimed “progressive” i.e. liberal, his ideas are very much within the mainstream of recognizing the important role that religion does and will play in our society. Yet also pointing out that within the context of our republic we are required to promote our ideas of morality, justice and law in non-religion-specific terms.
I honestly assumed that no christian other than a reconstructionist / theonomist (”our law should be God’s law” person) would be offended by those quotes. Thats why I posted them.
March 29th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Steve,
Excellent comment, btw. I agree with everything you said.
In the paragraph above the two I posted above, Obama writes:
“But let’s assume that we only had Christians within our borders. Whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of scripture would guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests that Slavery is alright and eating shellfish is an 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 so radical that its doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application?”
Scott
March 29th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Scott,
I don’t think anyone was offended by the paragraphs you posted. And thanks for posting them. It is easy to see though that whatever we post can illicit a lot of different visceral reactions–especially when dealing with politics.
Take your most recent paragraph post. You do not say what your intention is in posting it. It could be that you are responding to Steve to show that Obama agrees with him in defending the rights of all to believe what they want. And that is good. Or you may just be giving context for the previous post.
But in reading Obama’s statement there is an answer to the question. Every person and government should follow the Bible properly interperted in its whole context.
The Christianity taught in the schools should be biblical christianity. The passages that apply to public policy should be followed. Leviticus & Deuteronomy need to be understood in light of Christ and the NT. And the sermon on the mount probably doesn’t mean what he thinks it does. But certainly in ways it too should apply to foreign policy. He asks good questions, but what is his answer?
Truth may not win the day in a democracy.
Steve,
I agree with the Christian liberty political coni tinuum you presented. What did I say about Romans 13 that you think is improper interpretation?
Brian
March 29th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
@Steve - Perhaps I should have said that Obama believes in the “Democratic Party at the expense of truth”. Representative Democracy might well be the best government on earth (at least this fallen, unredeemed earth). So, I am not espoousing some other form of Government.
Obama says he is a Christian - I cannot but take him at his word on that. But he remains the most liberal Senator by just about any measurement (and not just that “single issue” that we are supposed to ignore).
Obama like the rest of the Democratic Party believes that government can & should “fix” the nation’s many problems. I think he honestly believes that he does have the answers. I am a little more pessimistic that ANY government this side of the New Heavens & New Earth will ever come close to that.
@Scott - Obama’s favorite verses seem to be the Sermon on the Mount - that section seems to be are all he mentions. I would agree with Brian’s paragraph above regarding “which Christianity…”
March 30th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Scott, since we spoke at church today, I went abck to Thabiti’s blog at Pure church, and I would love for you to interact with a post of Thabiti’s. As a black pastor, converted from Islam, Thabiti has a perspective that neither of us can really grok.
http://purechurch.blogspot.com/2008/03/obama-drama-rama.html
please read the meta dialog as well. and… as I said today, finish the “audacious” Obama book & I will read it next. (but be warned, I’m finally reading McCullough’s “John Adams” - its going to be hard to top)
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
@Brian,
You stated:
However, I do believe that all governments are appointed by God to practice according to Romans 13 and that they will be held accountable for how they do this.
What I disagree with is that you can interpret Romans 13 as providing a yardstick of accountability for governments. Coincidentally, how will God hold these governments accountable? Will the US government stand before the throne of judgment one day? Will He overthrow the democracy in the US and replace it with a Christian Theocracy. That would be judgment indeed!
Grace and Peace,
Steve