Is Barack Obama a Christian?

Looks like Obama failed the religious test for public office. Oh, wait....

I tend toward Rod's position, in that, if I had to place a bet, I'd wager that Obama is not a Christian in any orthodox sense.

On the hand, deferring to Tim's recognition of the ambiguity of Obama's reply, it could be that Obama just wants to fudge his position, to keep it vague enough to minimize offense to his large atheist and heterodox "Christian" constituency by not unequivocally asserting any religious position so "divisive" as orthodox Christology.

That move would certainly be in keeping with the fudging Obama has done on just about every other question one can name.

My guess is that Obama -- like most politicians only more so -- has no fundamental, non-negotiable political let alone religious beliefs, other than a firm and rather grandiose sense of his entitlement to power over other people's lives.

I have been following and commenting on Joe's posts. I find them intellectually disappointing on several levels. One, suppose I took a single interview or post by Rod to prove he was or was not a Christian? That is not hiw things should work. How about this quote from his Pulliam and Olson interview.

"I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals."

Next, on the Nicene Creed (which we recite every week at my church), why not just ask the guy? Falsani never asked what he thought about the Nicene Creed, yet Carter goes on to speculate that Obama would not (maybe) support it. How does he know? Intellectually dishonest. I am disappointed that you would follow this logic also.

Steve

Trinity Church didn't seem to profess Christian charity or forgiveness in any sense of the word. It seemed more like cathartic grievence-mongering 101 with a smattering of liberation theology in there.

This is just academic to me, but I'm intrigued as to how people define "Christian". It seems odd to pick on the Nicene Creed, not defined until the Council of Nicaea, and not based straightforwardly on the Bible - surely that deinition only works for Christians who accept the conciliar principle of the church?

A lot of Evangelicals define all non-Evangelicals as non-Christian, and, less commonly, I have heard Catholics define Protestants as non-Christian. Lots of people say that Jehovah's Witnesses are non-Christian, presumably because they are non-trinitarian. It thus doesn't seem to help to ask a Christian for a definition.

I would sketch a definition as being someone who believes in God, adn that God's most important and final revelation was the historical Jesus, with at least some connection with the gospels. I guess this includes Obama, but excludes the Mormons.

A "wonderful teacher", a "historical figure", a "bridge between God and man" -- a workmanlike definition of a "prophet". Mohammedans would acclaim that definition.

BTW, I think it is somewhat disingenuous to play the conciliar card as a litmus test for "orthodoxy". Many calling themselves "Christian" dissent from one or another of the General Councils. Rod himself used to accept twenty one of them, but has now dialed it back to seven. An Egyptian colleague of mine is a devout Copt and leads an exemplary Christian life, but we do know that as a Monophysite, he is a mere heretic, don't we? (It was Chalcedon that either formulated or ratified the liturgical creed we call Nicene.)

And then there is this book by an Evangelical apologist:

http://biblicalthought.com/blog/is-eastern-orthodoxy-christian/

So unitarians aren't Christians either? (I actually expect the answer to this from some will be "yes", based on what has been written here).

Well, thanks to the Protestant Reformation, whether we Orthodox (or Catholic) like it or not, Christian is defined pretty much by the individual. It's like saying one is not a Republican or a Democrat because one doesn't follow all the planks in the party platform.

Friends,

Is the current President George W. Bush a born again?

Thanks you

I believe his statement in an interview with Christianity Today settles the issue for me.

www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html

---
You've talked about your experience walking down the aisle at Trinity United Church of Christ, and kneeling beneath the cross, having your sins redeemed, and submitting to God's will. Would you describe that as a conversion? Do you consider yourself born again?

I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals.
---

Now, unless one of you (Rod?) claim to be God and know otherwise, shall we begin speculating about the purity of your own faith?

For example, Rod, would a Christian use the words you have sometime used here, or be so flippant about the consumption of alcohol?

Which one of us here is fit to judge ANYONE else's standing before God? Obama said that he is a Christian, and made a wonderful statement of his faith. Those of you who wish to hold him to some standard other than that outlined in the Bible need to first look to your own hearts.

I find it interesting that so many here are judging Obama's faith by what he says. We have seen for the past eight years a President who claims what I think Rod would call an orthodox faith, yet he behaved in a very un-Christlike manner.

Those of you judging Obama, will you apply the same standards to Bush? Or does his political beliefs cover for any discrepancy his actions may have with your standard for salvation?

RJohnson rightly points out that it is not our task to determine the sincerity of Mr. Obama's Christianity, or indeed of anyone's Christianity except our own. (And maybe not even that: see St. Paul on this.)

I would not describe myself as a "devout Christian," but then again I am not a politician. I would say that I am making some attempts to follow Jesus, but that I find some of his teachings, particularly the ones about violence (which is not permitted, apparently) and forgiveness (which is apparently required) to be very difficult. Among many difficult teachings. I would certainly aspire to follow Jesus more closely than I usually do.

Bugg is right about the spam filter.

Not only can the Bad Spam Computers not decipher the little box, half the time I can't tell what it says either.

Copy all your posts before posting. It won't give them back if you muff the weird box.

I think those who are saying "look, Obama doesn't say Christ ISN'T divine" are missing the point here. One of the first things that orthodox Christians affirm is the divinity of Christ. That Obama doesn't do this seems a bit slippery.

I'm not going to say with certainty that Obama isn't a believer, but that this reluctance to say that Christ is the Son of God makes it difficult to affirm that he is. The Nicene Creed, while not Scripture, is a great summary of what Christianity is based on Scripture. As Rod said, words mean things, and just because somebody says they are a Christian doesn't mean that this is true. This shouldn't be used to smugly judge people, but to pray for people that they might yet experience the new birth.

"Obama is no theologian, but his bridge metaphor is not heterodox. See http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol5No1/HV5N1Russell.html for a discussion of St. Ephrem's notion of how Jesus bridges the gulf between Creator and the created world."

One can also look in the modern world to how this metaphor has been used to describe Christ. For decades Campus Crusade for Christ used this to successfully illustrate how Jesus provided a path to salvation for those who believed in him.

www.ccci.org/wij/index.aspx

Of course, I think we are about to enter the eternal discussion/dispute between those who adhere to a "sola scriptura" position and those who add to the Scripture with the traditions of man. Perhaps that is why Rod and others fail to understand Obama's simple confession of faith in Christ.

Ser Minich, I am a pagan. If I leave it at that, and abstain from including a host of details on this, that and the other thing, will you feel free to decide that I am a Satan worshipper simply because I have not denied it?

Of course, if you (general) decide I'm a Satan worshipper regardless of what I say or don't say, then the point is moot.

Judging is indeed what is going on. It's not enough for Obama to say "I am a Christian". He has to go into minute and petty detail about what sort of Christian he is, the "sort" being important only to other Christians.

"Let us keep that promise - that American promise - and in the words of scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess." The allusion is to Hebrews 10:23: "Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised if faithful." The context makes it clear that this is the church's hope in Christ, but here Obama idolatrously transposes that to the "American promise." This is a "new kind of politics?" Sounds like the same old sort of civil religion we've heard from the Religious Right for years--the same (idolatrous) civil religion of Americanism.

reference: JKSmith
http://forsclavigera.blogspot.com/search?q=obama

Thanks, Old Susan. I guess I was trying to engage Rod's and Aaron's argument on its own terms, but I have to say I agree with your take much more.

Rod, I would have to wonder what exactly is your point here? Most Presidents in recent memory have professed to some level of Christianity or another, but I doubt that any of them could share any insight into the Nicene Creed. I'm aware of its existence, and accept Christ's divinity. Is there some other point in the Creed that could call into question my faith? I could just as easily argue that if a citizen cannot debate the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, are they really American? If we start holding individuals to this level of scrutiny, then we all fail. In regards to President elect Obama’s public declaration of his Christianity, I hope he is telling the truth. It demeans him if he isn't, but at the spiritual level, it will always be between him and God if he professes to be something he is not.

Grrr. Hate it when an error page wipes out my name.

Yes, I am 'Your Name' above.

Wait a minute. Rod, your "none of these people are *proper* Catholics/Protestants/Christians/whatever" schtick is a bit wearing even when it has some basis in, well, anything. But what about that quote leads you to conclude that he is "denying" the Divinity?____The absolute best one of your commenters has come up with is the claim that some other people have used the metaphor Obama uses to illustrate something different from what he plainly enough means by it. That's the absolute best case. And even if we grant it, dubious as it is, so what? Metaphors are metaphors.____It's one of the most depressing aspects of this blog, the constant teacher-teacher-look-at-me-I-know-my-theology-and-they-don't yelping. It would be more excusable were there actually much more than a superficial grasp of theology on regular show. But in this case, it's just... made up.____Seriously, Rod. Do better.

In my first comment, I sort of blew off the ambiguity, but reading the interview more closely, I see that it wasn't really a matter of ignorance. He has a pretty good grasp of what differs between Protestant denominations, and his association with Catholics and Muslims makes ignorance of the Trinity pretty implausible. So, to his discredit, Obama is avoiding making a clear profession of his theology, but to his credit, he's not outright lying about it, which he could have easily gotten away with.

A tougher interviewer would have come out with a direct question, like "Do you subscribe to the Nicene Creed?" But I get the sense that Falsani didn't want to be that confrontational.

Sounds to me like Obama is a student of the Restoration Plea. Doesn't mean he is not a Christian.

Determining "Christian identity" is a fool's errand in the cultural landscape of post-modern protestantism.
Basically, the rule in that world is that you are a Christian if you say you are and, a la Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"
Everybody makes their own religion and as long as Jesus is around there somewhere they call it Christian.

Where does he deny the divinity of Christ?

To say that Christ is the bridge between God and humankind is quite in keeping with the function of Jesus' reconciliation with humankind and is an image as old as Augustine's influence from the Neoplatonic chain of being from Plotinus. What would you deem a good Christian response to this question? What if he said Jesus is his friend like the hymn? Equally heterodox?

This is a red herring because it infers a meaning from a statement that can have a rather orthodox interpretation if you actually know your theology be it Augustine, Kierkegaard, Athanasius, or Barth. All would be quite comfortable with the bride metaphor as an orthodox statement of the faith because they used that metaphor to explain the function of the divinity of Christ as the true human even as he was true God.

Here's a good joke that illustrates just how silly these kinds of arguments can get.
---

I was walking across a bridge one day and I saw a man standing on a ledge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

"Well, there's so much to live for."

"Like what?"

"Well, are you religious?" He said yes. I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

"Christian."

"Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

"Protestant."

"Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

"Baptist."

"Wow, me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1789 or Reformed Baptist Church of God, 1915?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."

I said, "Die, heretic scum!!" And pushed him off the bridge.

I propose that the question: "Is X a Christian?", assuming X professes to be a Christian (rather than a Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, etc.)is not a question a Christian should ask. It reveals a political/authoritarian (and therefore secular) agenda which is contrary to the teachings of our Lord.

Before I start to read the 64 comments here, I want to make it explicit again, for you who choose to ignore it, that neither I nor Joe Carter think Obama's theological position has much of anything to do with the kind of president he'll be. I would vote for an atheist I believed to be a man of integrity, wisdom and effectiveness than for an orthodox Christian whom I didn't trust. This is a theological question, not a political one, so don't muddle the lines here.

The question: "Is X a Christian" , when X has claimed to be a Christian (rather than a Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist, etc.) is unanswerable by any specific external or Biblical criteria. The question itself almost certainly feeds a political, rather than a spiritual agenda. As such it is not a question a Christian should ask.

RJohnson: good to see a fellow Emo Philips fan on here.

Again, I don't care if the US president is a Christian. I care about the importance of right belief.

Look, if I said, "I'm a Muslim," but denied core doctrines of Islam, it would be clear that whatever I am, and however kindly I treat my neighbors, I'm not a Muslim. The word and the concept it represents means something, except to those who see religious claims as having nothing to do with the real world, and instead only as statements about the interior disposition of the person making the statement.

What this discussion reveals is that many Americans simply don't take religion seriously, except as therapy.

Interesting words from a wise man:

"Christians who judge a candidate's fitness for the presidency based on his particular profession of faith should reflect on the quality of governance our devoutly evangelical president has provided over the last seven years. Martin Luther is supposed to have said that he would rather be governed by a wise Muslim than a foolish Christian. "

I wonder if the rush and bustle of recent weeks has caused him to forget these words?

www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/121607dnedidreher.1fe80e11.html

I'm concerned that Obama believed (or else he wouldn't have attended Trinity) that "black liberation theology" is christianity. It most certainly isn't. James Cone, blt proponent, says blacks must embrace a God who loves blacks but hates whites. If he doesn't hate whites, "then we must reject his love."

Again, I don't care if the US president is a Christian. I care about the importance of right belief. Look, if I said, "I'm a Muslim," but denied core doctrines of Islam, it would be clear that whatever I am, and however kindly I treat my neighbors, I'm not a Muslim. The word and the concept it represents means something, except to those who see religious claims as having nothing to do with the real world, and instead only as statements about the interior disposition of the person making the statement. What this discussion reveals is that many Americans simply don't take religion seriously, except as therapy.

So are Jews who don't intentionally and scrupulously keep all the commands of the Torah (or at least the ones that can be kept in the absence of the Temple) not Jews? Who defines who is a Jew and what a Jew believes and does? What are the core doctrines of Judaism which, if a person denies them, then however kindly and "Jewishly" they treat their neighbors, they are not a Jew?

I.e., what are the core doctrines of Christianity that, if a person denies them, then however kindly they treat their neighbors, they are not a Christian? I think the reason there are 60+ responses here is because many who are Christians do not agree with each other re: what constitute the core doctrines of Christianity which, if a person denies them, he or she is not a Christian. And who is the one here who can referee such a discussion and decree: These are the must-be-held core doctrines of Christianity which no person who wishes to call himself a Christian is allowed to deny?

Rod said: This is a theological question, not a political one, so don't muddle the lines here.

I say: It's certainly not a Christian one. Like RobC, I'm saddened that the question is asked. What does it do to further the cause of Christ? Will this become a weekly series where you and your ilk evaluate others proclaiming Christ? Will this evaluation include Democrats and Republicans? Independents?

People wonder why the world mocks Christians. Conversations like this one is one reason.

Be clear: They are not mocking Christ for it's highly unlikely that he'd be having this conversation about Obama In all likelihood, he'd be having it about the learned religious/theological types (sorry, Rod) who erroneosly equate knowing with being.

A thought: Let's stop calling religious conservatives the "Christian right" and call them the "Religious right." The latter term is more descriptive and better fits a lot of the discourse. Let's reserve "Christian" for individuals who live lives dedicated to Christ.

Jesus says...

By THIS the world will know that you are my disciples,
if you have love for one another.

Jesus says...

When you've fed the hunger,
given a drink to the thirsty,
welcomed the alien,
clothed the naked,
cared for the sick,
and visited those forgotten in the prisons,
you've done this for me.

May our praising and our walking be in sync with the One who is, was and always will be Love Embodied.

Peace, Duh-sciple

"I find it incredible that people would pick a snippet of a 4-year-old interview, and from those few words make a sweeping conclusion about Obama's religion."

Such is the hallmark of modern American Christianity as practiced by conservatives. It is unfortunate, but I've seen people who live a life of humble service and witness of the Gospel of Jesus suddenly cast out because a statement did not quite fit some group's preconceived notion of that Christianity should be.

It makes me wonder if Jesus would be considered a Christian if he were to walk among us today.

Rod, it's odd that you would say in a disparaging way that "Americans don't take religion seriously, except as therapy." You belong to a communion that, more than any other, has introduced to the world the deeply important image of the Church as a *hospital.* So one could argue that the most fundamental role of the Church re: fallen humanity is to *cure* them, and in a compassionate way.

Rod Dreher
November 17, 2008 1:28 PM
What this discussion reveals is that many Americans simply don't take religion seriously, except as therapy

Well - to put it bluntly - 'No kidding, Sherlock. What was your first clue?'.

"What this discussion reveals is that many Americans simply don't take religion seriously, except as therapy."

It does nothing of the sort. It reveals that a handful of Americans, yourself included, are so eager to show off their purportedly voluminous theological learning that they will seize on comments as heterodox *which are demonstrably nothing of the kind* in order to bolster their credentials, before shamelessly misrepresenting the position of those who call them on it.

Again, Rod, DO BETTER.

Obama may be Christian, but this software sure isn't! It cut of the end of my post--so here is the conclusion.

My point is that even in dealing with the Creed, there is, I think, a lot more "play", if you will, than is often thought. The Creed sets boundaries, but doesn't micromanage belief. I mean, for example, we can't say that God is only one person, or that there are three separate dieties; but there are a zillion interpretations of the Trinity between the two "out of bounds" ones given above.

I might tangentially point out that in regard to the remark of Obama's disbelieving in Hell, that first of all, it is never mentioned in the Nicene Creed ("He descended to Hell" is in the Apostle's Creed, but there it translates Hades, the realm of the dead, not the realm of punishment); second, one of Pope John Paul II's favorite theologians, Hans Urs von Balthasar, wrote the book Dare We Hope All Men Be Saved?, to which question von Balthasar gave the answer of "hopefully yes". Despite the attendent controversy, he was never condemned by the Pope or by the then-Cardinal Ratzinger.

I don't really think it is very helpful to debate, theologically, whether a person is "really" a Christian. The way most people will hear such arguments is either "Aha! So he was a Muslim after all!" or "Well, he's not a good Christian! He must be a bad man, unfit to be President!" No matter how you qualify it, this is how it's going to come across to everyone but theology geeks like many of us here. While it is interesting in an abstract sort of way, I'm not sure what it actually accomplishes, especially in light of the fact that, except for maybe Jimmy Carter (and you see what good it did him!), most of the last several Presidents seem to have been more or less MTD's, too.

Street corner exchange I'd like to hear:

Proselyte: "Have you found Jesus?"

Passerby: "No, but I know some people who are praying for His safe return."

That was me, above. This new comment software, not to put too fine a point on it, sucks.

Well, since Paul said that he performed the signs of an apostle among them; and that he did not come with persuasive words of human wisdom, but with demonstrations of the Spirit and of power so that the believers' faith would rest in the power of God and not in the wisdom of men; and that the kingdom of God does not consist of words, but of power... is it improper to question the apostolicity or claim to such of any church (big "C" or little "c") whose leaders claim apostolic succession but do not demonstrate the same signs and power amidst their congregations and when they evangelize?

Which is also to question their Christianity, isn't it?

Maybe there are far fewer Christians and far fewer apostolic churches than persons think. And maybe this wrangling about words and creeds and definitions needs to be replaced with demonstrations of power (and love, of course - 'cause if you can move mountains but have not love, etc., etc. - same Apostle, same Epistle).

"Who are you to say that this new software sucks? ;-)"

Rod, while there may be some discussion as to the nature of Obama's faith, I would venture to say that there is near unanimity on the statement that this comment software sucks.

Where you might find disagreement is to the level of suckage present in the software. But that is best left to programmers, who are experts at making perfectly good software suck.

"What this discussion reveals is that many Americans simply don't take religion seriously, except as therapy."

Uh, no. What it reveals is that some folks (including you, Rod) don't take religion seriously, except as a weapon to use against people with whom they disagree.

Mike

Maybe some people are more Christian than Barack Obama, but I defy you to say that is anyone more Irish than Barack Obama.

What about confirmation?

I'm fine with not calling McCain a Christian by that standard. The Apostles were clear, "repent and be baptized."

"That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of god physically speaking I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself"

Ergo, President Jefferson was not a Christian

President Jefferson was attacked in a blistering way as being an atheist while he was running for office for just those reasons. That's not news.

Wandering into this thread, esp. after 100 comments, is a fool's errand, but here I go.

RJohnson, McCain was baptized as an infant in an Episcopalian church. He was speaking of the need not to be (re)baptized as a Baptist. Arrgh.

Well, I've been off the board since the election and can't spend a lot of time on a reply. So instead, a couple of casual and/or snarky comments:

- Many years to Metropolitan Jonah! I've had the great pleasure to get to know him as well, Rod, and the OCA is blessed to have his leadership. Interesting times ahead, indeed.

- Rod is not a theologian, nor does he play one on TV, so I'd suggest everyone treat this post with the same amount of skepticism they bring to Rod's economic posts.

- As is so often the case, I find Rod's title to be needlessly antagonistic and am saddened by the implied lack of charity. The man seriously needs to work on more kindness in post titles, but we've gone around that question many times here over the years.

- If Rod means to ask this question from the perspective of a lay Orthodox Christian, which he states he is, then the strictly technically correct answer is obvious: Barack Obama is a Christian heretic, as are the vast majority of American Christians and posters on this board. But, that's a little hard to state so baldly in polite company. I suppose it's easier to just ask leading, leering questions that strike at one man's faith, rather than state clearly one's own beliefs. I doubt we'll ever see Rod post something as straightforwardly candid as: "My faith compels me to proclaim that the President, most of my countrymen, and most of my readers, are heretics. Let me tell you why."

- And I'm fine with that. Grandma always said "don't talk about religion in mixed company" for a reason. But if you're going to do so, I think the burden is on the writer to have the courage of his convictions.

- A proper reflection on this question requires prayerful, gentle conversation about not merely what it means to be a Christian, but what it means to be human. I'd suggest that if this is the conversation a writer hopes to start, he'd be better served by avoiding a needlessly snarky question about the President Elect as a way of kicking things off. This is much too close to "When did Barack Obama stop beating his wife" for my tastes.

- And yes, for all the reasons mentioned by wise posters on this thread, and more, there is nothing in the quote Rod pulls that is on its face incompatible with Christian orthodoxy, with a small or a large O.

Bless,
Doug

Oh, and just to drop it out there, I expect this conversation would benefit from drawing on the existing theological arguments over the concept of the "anonymous Christian", where Catholic writers in particular have done some interesting recent work.

(And no, I'm not a theologian, although I do occasionally play one on the Internets.)

Bless,
Doug

"Strangely I do not find the word "baptize" in this passage from Jesus. Maybe you can point it out to me."

It's not strange at all. You have to read the whole book, not just one snippet. Our Lord himself said to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."

Question for another thread: who have been our MOST Christian Presidents?

I have two submissions for the title:

First off, George W. Bush is a professed born-again Christian, as governor he declared "Jesus Day," and has talked often about how he has a personal relationship with Jesus.

Second off, Jimmy Carter, who taught Sunday School and often talked about praying several times a day and how Jesus was a major influence in his life.

So, are we hoping the Obama Presidency is more like George W. Bush's or Jimmy Carter's?

Neil

Neil, we can't do that one until we define "Christian," a task at which we here have so far utterly failed.

If as Doug suggests "Christian" really means "practicing Orthodox layman" I'd say, we haven't had any yet, so far as I can remember.

Software.

You know, banks use software to run those ATM machines that hand out cash. Not to mention the programs that run the whole banking system.

ATMs don't hand out 20's at random. And whatever you think of bankers, the software can add and subtract. My kid works for Microsoft, and much as I and everyone else hates Office, by and large the thing works, or we couldn't do business.

So, why, ask yourselves, is Beliefnet running this program which could be improved by your neighborhood 12 year old geek in his spare time?

Because they don't want to pay what it would take to get good professional programmers to fix this thing.

Mike: Uh, no. What it reveals is that some folks (including you, Rod) don't take religion seriously, except as a weapon to use against people with whom they disagree.

Is it too much to ask you to stick to what I'm actually arguing, instead of what you wish I were arguing? If my own father had expressed a vision of Christian doctrine like Obama's, I would doubt whether or not he was a Christian.

That's not to say I doubt whether he is a good man, or whether he is going to heaven (nobody but God can know that, ultimately). It is to pass judgment on the relative orthodoxy of his beliefs. To doubt the divinity of Jesus Christ is a deal-breaker. Period. The end.

What is so depressing is how unwilling to engage in critical thinking about religion so many people are -- as if to tell someone that their religion is incorrect for whatever reason is the same as telling them they're no good. If the first century church had to deal with the kind of epistemological nuttery that we have today, in our postmodern slough of despond, the church never would have survived.

Of course, it should also be said that this willingness to refuse to impose any orthodoxy only goes one way. Ask the traditionalist Anglicans. Remember Neuhaus' Law: "Wherever orthodoxy is optional, it sooner or late will be proscribed."

President elect Obama is, perhaps, a Christian in the United Church of Christ, his former denomination's, sense of the word and that sense is very fluid and open to individuals defining Christ and the parameters of their faith as they wish. Within that framework one could believe many things, except perhaps for orthodoxy, and be okay and his statements, in my opinion, seem to reflect this understanding.

He's a Christian, yes, but certainly not an orthodiox (small "o") one. But that's hardly a surprise. Even by a very expansive definition very few of our recent presidents have qualified. George W Bush spoke of Jesus as a "Great philosopher". Reagan hardly ever mentiond Jesus. Carter probably was orthodox (for a Protestant) but I wouldn't care to make any bets on Nixon's theological correctedness. Bush I or Clinton, well maybe.
As an Orthodox (big "O") Christian I tend to suspect most other American churches of heresy anyway, but I do recognize that in a country this religiously diverse our politicians must necessarily restrict themselves to the vacuous platitudes of American Civic Religion (where Jesus doesn't even exist). And since we have just elected Obama president not national bishop this whole line of speculation strikes me as a huge non sequitur.

"What is so depressing is how unwilling to engage in critical thinking about religion so many people are -- as if to tell someone that their religion is incorrect for whatever reason is the same as telling them they're no good."

No, but it is telling them, by definition, that their understanding of the Truth (and Truth is objective and inarguable, is it not) is therefore at least compromised and, depending on the degree of 'incorrectness', even corrupted, necessarily leading to the conclusion that someone holding incorrect beliefs ultimately is minimally suspect for and maximally incapable of proper moral decision making. The evidence for this is all over these posts and comment threads.

So I dunno. Hearing THAT would piss me off. It does, actually, which is one of the main reasons I'm not religious.

"Is it too much to ask you to stick to what I'm actually arguing, instead of what you wish I were arguing?"

Rod, the irony of that post is going to rip the fabric of the space-time continuum apart if you're not careful.

This kind of finger pointing has contributed to my leaving the church. Not my faith in GOD and Christ, but the building and other followers. Many have their beliefs so set in stone that you can dialogue 'til you are blue in the face, but nothing ever gets anywhere except circular discussions. They feel the need to'evangelize' us instead of furthering along their own evangelism. Let's see, isn't there something in the Bible about looking at the plank in your own eye b4 looking at the speck in another's eye? Maybe i am wrong.

This whole discussion is a good example of the wisdom of not taking theology seriously. Otherwise this is what you end up with!

I thought that a Christian is a follower of Christ, someone who trusts Christ to forgive their sins. A person who is drawn to the Son by the Father. Creeds and water baptism aside.

The life of a Christian then, is to be to be marked by the fruit of the spirit (love, joy, peace, patience...). There is a lot of talk about judging people and such, but Paul did write that we are to judge all things. This is not saying to judge people, but people will be known by their fruit and teaching false doctrine is a bad fruit. This was prevalent during the time of the first church and Paul publicly denounced such teachings and the teachers.

If Obama is speaking of a true faith in Christ that it appears he is, then he would be no less saved than any other believer. If he has merely had a Christian "experience" and still does not believe that Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father, then he may be deceived and still need a true conversion. I doubt that he is purposefully propagating a humanistic or new age approach to salvation, although some of his comments do have that sound to them.

Jesus said, (as recorded by Matthew), "Those who do the will of The Father are my brethren."

Christianity 101.

Old Susan: "Orthodox Christians think the rest of us aren't really Christians."

Susan, I think the distinction I tried to make in the previous post is important. The Orthodox Christian position is that the question of whether or not someone is a "Christian" is pretty minor. What matters is whether or not they are members of the Church, united in communion with the Body of Christ.

But even so, the dogmatic Orthodox response would be that plenty of other folks are Christians: heretical Christians. That's the distinction. Evangelicals are heretical Christians; Buddhists are Buddhists; pagans are pagans. Evangelicals are not pagans.

Of course, this is why Orthodox Christians have always have had a stormy relationship with various ecumenical movements, and some churches have withdrawn from bodies like the WCC.

Bless,
Doug

Old Susan: "Orthodox Christians think the rest of us aren't really Christians."

Doug Cramer (replying): Susan, I think the distinction I tried to make in the previous post is important. The Orthodox Christian position is that the question of whether or not someone is a "Christian" is pretty minor. What matters is whether or not they are members of the Church, united in communion with the Body of Christ.

Doug,

Confess that you have an agenda. Old Susan is correct. To you, the Body of Christ is the Orthodox Church. But that Church (indeed it is a "church" in the Roman Catholic construal) is a historical anomaly, a has-been as it were, a minority among the Christian denominations. It is doctrinally unsound, and unreliable, argumentative within itself, indeed, a church in spiritual schizophrenia, a church which, because of fear of conquest, and incompetent to suppress its own heretics, has signed statements of reunion with Rome, a church which has always, and everywhere, semper et ubique, been a puppet of the local tsar or basileus.

There is no scriptural legitimacy for the supremacy of Constantinople, the Second, nor of Moscow, the Third Rome. Any autocephaly granted by the Kremlin or its puppet the Moscow Patriarchate, to the OCA is fraudulent and non-canonical. Such autocephaly is not even recognised by the Oecumenical Patriarch (that dhimmi of the "secular" Ottoman Mohammedan state). The authority of the "Orthodox" church is a mere anachronistic political hegemony speciously raised to the level of dogmatic "orthodoxy".

The only Orthodoxy is Rome. The See of Peter. The "Orthodox", they themselves, have by their actions and their words, both ancient and modern, confirmed it.

You and Rod are schismatic, and are in scant position to judge the "heterodoxy" of Obama.

Public Defender: Does Christ play the central role in your faith?

Yes.

If yes, then you can fairly call yourself a "Christian." The rest of the discussion concerns only what kind of Christian you are and how good of a Christian you are.

I just hope Jesus did have an affair with Mary Magdalene. If He did, He's my kind of Guy. That's "how good of a Christian" I am.

Jeez. Quale stercus taurinum. Dan Brown, vicisti.

Obama: "Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he's also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher.____And he's also a wonderful teacher. I think it's important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history."______Dreher: "Unless Obama was being incredibly and uncharacteristically inarticulate, this is heterodox. You cannot be a Christian in any meaningful sense and deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. You just can't."____Me: Excuse me, but where in this quote does Obama deny the divinity of Jesus Christ? Actually, that "bridge between God and man" line strikes me as scarcely different from attempts to explain the humanity/deity of Jesus to be found in a lot of Christian devotional literature. If someone is to be accused of denying a proposition I'd like to see some evidence that he actually denies it--not that the accuser regards his formulation as doctrinally inadequate. I'm probably closer to you doctrinally than to Obama

I don't think Doug's 8:47 PM post can be improved on. Axios!

Just a couple of related points. Almost none of the Founding Fathers were even close to being orthodox Christians by any creedal or dogmatic criteria. Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin were well-known to be hostile to organized religion, and Washington, though a churchgoer, never took Communion, usually leaving at that point and sending the carriage back for Martha. Even later, the greatest President of the 19th Century, Lincoln, was well-known as a highly skeptical man in religious matters, never explicitly stated a clear belief in Christ's divinity, and was on record as being opposed to creeds and dogmas of any type. Given this, and Rod's admission that being a non-Christian does not make you a bad person or a poor choice for elective office, why does Obama's orthodoxy or lack thereof matter?

I know this was posted originally in the context of the fatuousness, muddle-headedness, and vacuity of much contemporary American Christianity. I actually agree with Rod on that point. Much Christianity has become Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. This is a real problem--if Christians don't know what they believe or have only an attenuated belief and praxis, how are they to make a difference to the world? "If the salt lose its savor, what good is it?"

On the other hand, what's so surprising about the tendency of a nation of MTD's to keep electing MTD's? Duh! I think it's fair to argue that every President since at least Eisenhower (and probably in the entire 20th Century) was an MTD (exceptions: Carter, who though his orthodoxy may be debatable, seem certainly to be deadly serious about his faith and no MTD; and Nixon, who doesn't seem, in private, to have had much religious belief) to one degree or another. Reagan certainly was, to the max. Thus, if we postulate Obama to be a fellow MTD, once again, I put forth a big so what? If we can't even make our faith clear and more than just a sappy muddle to the majority of our fellow citizens, what can we expect of our elected leaders? And how is that relevant, anyway, vis-a-vis their effectiveness or lack thereof?

As to Steve Sailer's post, I would first state that if Obama is dissembling, he's not alone. In the current cultural environment, it would be absolutely impossible for anyone who is not at least a professed Christian (and one of a fairly conventional denomination, at that--see Mitt Romney) to be elected President, period. A Jew might possibly manage, but that's about it. In the entire Congress there are, I think, two Muslims, one professed atheist, and one Buddhist. Pluralistic as we are, we don't seem to like to vote for non-Christians. In any case, if we could read minds, we'd likely find a vast horde of politicians at all leves whose faith was a matter of pure expedience. They lie because we expect them to.

More seriously, this seems like more of the same, tired "Obama-is-a-hypocritical-probably-really-Muslim-but-if-he-is-a-Christian-he's-not-a-real-one-leftist-Marxist-quasi-Black-Panther who's just pretending to be moderate and Christian to get power so he can stick it to whitey" spiel. I wish a lot of those who insinuate this would at least come out and say it. In any case, it seems to me un-Christian to make judgments about the sincerity of others' beliefs, as only God knows minds and hearts.

On the other hand, a la Colin Powell, what if his initial motivations weren't all pure or sincere? Jerry Falwell once said he first started going to church as a young man to meet girls. St. Ignatius Loyola, bedridden from a severe leg injury, began reading lives of the saints to have something to do (no books of his preferred genre, knightly derring-do, were available), and this led to his conversion. Martin Luther King, Jr. originally began study for ministry as a sort of continuation of the family business. George W. got "saved" after kicking the booze. Augustine...well, we know he had issues. We could go on ad nauseam, but I hope the picture is clear. I personally think it a bit scurrilous and inappropriate to call Obama's motives (or those of anyone else) as to joining a church into question for what seems to me to be no good reason; or, as seems likely, for political motivations. In any case, whatever motivations Obama may have had at first are not necessarily those he holds now. Unless one thinks he's more or less evil, as an awful lot of people seem to think.

To conclude, can we give a rest to trying to psychoanalyze politicians to try to divine their inner motives, trying to classify them as Christians or other, and trying to figure out their status before God? Can we rember that we are a secular and pluralistic society whose very constitution enshrines the lack of a religious test for office? Can we worry about things like, oh, the economy or Iraq or the environment? Please?!

If the Nicene Creed is your litmus test, then Mitt Romney is clearly not a Christian. The whole "we believe in one God" part poses difficulties.

The Nicene Creed was as much a political document as a spiritual/religious one. Hence, to make it the test of "orthodoxy" sets the one forced to confess it on a path of mixed messages.

I agree that the Nicene Creed was as much a political document as a test of faith. Constantine was using the Council as a way to unify a very diverse and disparate empire - he did not convert 9according to the legends) until shortly before his death. So using this as a standard for faith is silly.

Our denomination (the United Church of Christ) does not require or even request signing any faith statements, creeds, or other dogmatic proclamations. We prefer to that people find their path and work together on their journey of faith. As our current logo says, "God is still speaking", which is to say there is not a single definitive statement to which we all agree. It is far more fun comparing notes, borrowing ideas, and adapting our beliefs based on life experience and developmental struggles. That this is the denomination from which Obama comes should be no surprise.

You are not us for a reason, as we are not you. So let's enjoy each other's company rather than working so hard to find ways to stay apart.

I'm confused -- when did passing a Christian orthodoxy exam (administered by self-appointed inquisitioners) become a requirement for the Presidency of the United States?

Would Jefferson have passed such a test? How about Abraham Lincoln? How about Richard Nixon?

Some important points. Sorry if I reproduce someone else's work: I don't have time to read all the posts.

The question of whether someone is a "Christian" cannot be reduced to a judgment of his or her doctrinal orthodoxy. If so, we all fail, even the pope. Using a purely Evangelical ecclesiology, I do not see how the judgment of a person's or a community's Christianity can be anything other than an individual judgment. In a more robust EO or RC ecclesiology, such a judgment can only be made by the whole church acting together under the authority of her pastors (i.e. the bishops). So let's ask the bishops what they think of the UCC....

[dah dit dah dah dah dit dit....]

As far as I can tell, they say it's an "ecclesial community" and thus deserves the name "Christian" because of its orientation towards the Church. Good enough for me. President-Elect Obama is a Christian. QED.

Re. creeds and councils. If you believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding his church (not just individuals within the church) then a particular council or creed's political motivation makes no deciding difference to its orthodoxy. Be careful making that argument: you come off sounding like a teenager who thinks that since his parents don't want him stealing cars because they're concerned about their status in society (bad motivation), that therefore stealing cars is okay. That doesn't even work on a natural level without the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Old Susan,

You are partly right. Jesus did say, "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples: if you have love one for another." The problem is, as you point out, this is incredibly hard: especially when the ramifications lead to "resisting not the evil one" and forgiving "seventy-times-seven times".

Jesus calls us to have faith in him: this means that we give ourselves to him such that we live out his life: the non-violence, the forgiveness, the love, etc. But Christians believe that this sort of radical life is only truly possible if you have Jesus himself helping you. And the only way that Jesus would be the kind of man who, A. deserved that kind of dedication-of-my-entire-self to him and his life, and B. actually could give me here-and-now that sort of help, would be if he was God. No one else could make that kind of claim on me and my behavior or do what we need him to do.

So, Christians insist on his divinity because their beliefs and their behavior need all of a piece. They flow together.

Now, Christians rarely live up to those high ethical ideals. Thankfully, God does not ask us to forgive more than he does himself. But the point of insisting on the divinity of Christ is to protect even the possibility of the kind of love that Christians are supposed to bear to the world.

Rod, I've responded on my blog: http://blog.beliefnet.com/tonyjones/2008/11/yes-rod-barack-obama-is-a-chri.html

Tony

It is impossible to judge a person's whole belief system on the basis of one interview where, as a politician, he is carefully weighing his words. In other interviews he has said unequivocally that Jesus is his Lord and Savior which can be read no other way than as an orthodox reply. The skeptics, i.e. - those who are convinced Obama is unacceptable for other reasons - will say that in the second case he was merely repeating a Christian mantra, while the more nuanced response he gave to Falani was indicative of his core beliefs. But this is to move into exactly the kind of judgmental territory Jesus warned us about.

Here's the truth: Obama grew up an atheist or at best an agnostic. Through his work with the black churches in the south side of Chicago he came to the point of deep conviction in Jesus as the focus of God's saving activity in his life. Any attempt to judge him one way or the other as to what that means to him is, in my estimation, exactly the kind of sophistry that would make me question the faith of someone who engaged in that kind of judgmental attack. When Jesus said: "judge not lest ye be judged" this is what he had in mind - the sin of standing in God's place to pronounce judgments that only God can make.

If you don't like him for his political positions, fine. But be careful not to translate that into ultimate judgments on a person who has been baptized as a believing disciple of Jesus Christ.

A true Christian believes that Jesus is the Son of God. A true Christian believes the Jesus Christ is the Messiah. A true Christian believes that Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh (John 1:1, 1:14). A true Christian is obedient to the Word of God and God's commandments. Anything less is false.

Perhaps we should be asking whether we are fully following Christ in spirit and in truth? I know that I often fall far short of the glory f God and the high calling He has given us.

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? (Mt 7:3)

It might also be useful to remember that Obama's statements do not deny Christ's divinity or the truths embodied in the Apostle's or Nicene Creeds.

If you are interested in a Baha'i's take on the nature of Christ and his return, follow this link:

http://emmanuel9.blogspot.com/2008/04/biblical-case-for-bahaullah.html

Have you never read the New testment will Jesus came to free us from sin. God realized we as humans put more and more laws on something very simple Love Love and let me change you. We make it hard he made it easy...believe and love and I will guide you......

Has Crunchy Con lost his conservative roots? Don't you remember this: "God has BRIDGED the gulf which separates us from Him by sending His Son, Jesus Christ" from...THE FOUR SPIRITUAL LAWS OF CAMPUS CRUSADE FOR CHRIST ?!?!

Sorry it took a crazy progressive to point that out!

Carl
Crazy Christian Progressive

David:

Speaking simply of the Nicene Creed (with its Constantinople additions), not the Apostles' Creed (which wasn't written by the Apostles):

The "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" is referring to the "rebaptism" question, which has a history and context.

I would think the "one holy catholic and apostolic church" clause, as meant and understood by those who wrote it, would be more problematic for you than the other things.

The Nicene Creed nowhere uses the word "bodily" when speaking of the resurrection.

The Nicene Creed says nothing about a descent into Hell.

FWIW, for Orthodox Christians the Nicene Creed, not the Apostles' Creed, is the authoritative one. Also, AFAIK, the Apostles' Creed was not the result and declaration of an Ecumenical Church Council, and hence has no universal ecclesial authority.

From a historical standpoint, the Apostles and Nicene creeds were human agreements meant to clarify and streamline the Christian system. It is not surprising that they have since become litmus tests for evangelicals and other Orthodox Christians. By your definition, anyone who cannot or will not voice a simple assent to these creeds is not a Christian.

I am intrigued by your inclusion of the classic Rush Limbaugh trope "words mean things." The conservative distaste for nuance is often couched in these kinds of "obvious" pronouncements that belittle "touchy-feely" liberals. Of course words mean things, but following Jesus is about more that assent to a dogma or creed.

Jesus spent his career on earth bemoaning the literal-mindedness of the Pharisees, who lived to set rhetorical traps for others, traps that served to exclude. Jesus certainly announced himself to be the Standard of salvation, but he also introduced a number of discomfiting ambiguities to the game of "who is in and who is out." When his disciples complained of a renegade prophet going around healing i Jesus' name, Jesus refused to take the bait. He answered, "Whoever is not against us is for us." (Mark 9:38-41)

In the famous end-of-days parable in Matthew 25, the sheep who are invited to share in the kingdom of heaven appear to be surprised at their inclusion. By all appearances, they had fed and clothed the needy out of an inbuilt compassion, not knowing that they were serving Jesus in disguise. So much of the Christmas-time charity of American evangelicals plays out like a game of "Where's Jesus?" pulling back every homeless person's mask

If you want to question President-elect Obama's faith in private, that is your prerogative. A more New Testament approach might be to search your own heart every time you find yourself suspicious of others'.

Everyone needs to work out their own salvation. It may seem simplistic, but it seems to me that the simple interview you included should be enough for any believer.

Barack Obama was asked "Are you a Christian?"

He answered, "Yes."

What's depressing is the eagerness with which some people here (and yes, Rod, this includes you) take a few words that are barely a complete thought, much less a full presentation of his religious views, and torture out of them the conclusion that Obama is The Other.

I have a question........
We call Obama "President Elect Obama" (which is correct)
We call Clinton "Former President Clinton" (which is correct)
Carter is "Former President Carter" (again correct)
Even Reagan is still "Former President Reagan"
Why is it that alot of people and alot of media call President Bush "Mr. Bush" Why can't people show respect for him. Whether you like him or not, he is the President, and he deserves the respect of the title.

Mr. is the title that has been used for presidents going back to the early history of our nation. I don't think those you cite are using it at all as you assume - as though he doesn't deserve to be president. It just works in certain contexts and not in others.

No one is questioning that he is president. In fact, Mr. Obama has gone out of his way to let us know that we only have one president and that is at the moment President Bush (or Mr. Bush - no difference).

Don't try to find reasons for criticism which don't exist.

Jon:

I don't dispute Christ's bodily resurrection, but the context of my remarks was responding to David's post, no more and no less.

Recently there was a controversy in Evangelical circles between Murray J. Harris and Norman L. Geisler about what Harris believed about the resurrection. You can read about it in Harris's book From Grave to Glory: Resurrection in the New Testament, Including a Response to Norman L. Geisler, Zondervan Academic, 1990.

I think it's very telling that using the accounts of Christ's life as a framework for moral living is not the broader definition for being a Christian, it's devolved to adherence to a larger bureaucratic structure. I think Obamas statements were a clear and necessary message to his more secular supporters that while he carries faith he does not subscribe to the more magical elements of "orthodox" Christianity.

Personally, seeing the broad base of doctrine that exists I find the term orthodox christianity offensive to my sensibilities—an irrational exclusionary tribalism.

IS GEORGE BUSH A CHRISTIAN? IS DICK CHENEY A CHRISTIAN? IS JOHN MCAIN A CHRISTIAN? Good questions and how do we go about proving or disproving this? Do they follow Christs teachings of Peace, Love, Charity, Truthfulness, Honesty and aren't your actions, as Jesus said more telling than your words? So are these Men real Christians? Much like most out spoken self serving people they certainly TALK a good game! Nobody has more or less right to speak for God or Jesus, I think people who Judge in Jesus's name are not real Christians and people that point out our differences, which are always tiny compared to the common things are always the ENEMY of Love, and always have an agenda, please leave yours at home and write honestly. Stop planting stories to further your ignorant goals, thanks!

Interesting how Rod, being a self-described orthodox Catholic, has brought us back a few hundred years to the point where there was one Universal Church (The Holy Roman Church) and all others were heretics. ____Rod, hate to break it to you, but there is a movement that has been around for a few hundred years called "Protestantism", which grew out of Martin Luther and his feeling that the "universal church" had got it wrong. ____Since that time, many "protestant" sects have sprung up. The church in the Vatican has actually reached out to them in Ecumenical entreaties and refers to them as "our Christian brothers". ____Just thought I'd bring you up to speed.

Everyone has their own way of knowing and showing they love Jesus. My way is not your way but we share the same love for God. Obamas way is not my way but we share the same love for God. I believe God made it simple that way so children wouldn't need theology to be christian.

What value is there in determining whether some one is an orthodox Christian or not (President or otherwise)? I don't see Obama's answer outright denying the divinity of Christ. He says he was a wonderful teacher, a bridge between man and God, so on. He doesn't say, "But, let me be clear, I do not thing He was divine." However, semantics aside, I still don't get the point, if you will, of determining for yourselves whether any other person is a "true believer". Remember, Jesus didn't write the Nicene Creed Himself. The church has undergone many theological changes in docrtine in 2,000 years and at any given time, to any given group, any one of us might have been considered heterodox, if not heretics.
Didn't Jesus make it clear that the tares and the wheat grow together in the same field, and that God (angels) would separate them in the end? Why do we try so hard to label those "in" or "out" of our current definition for orthodox christianity? We should be more concerned with whether or not WE our true believers, and less about those around us. Another man's heart is not for you to judge.

President-Elect Obama may say "I am a Christian",but did he add in his comment, yes I believe in Jesus and the Holy Spirit? No, he did not. He is a born again Christian? No, I do not think so.

For all you "Christians" who think you have the goods on everyone else, I say beware! Better focus on the cleanliness of your own house and your own relationship to Christ. You have no right to judge this man for the path he takes to be with God. This is absolutely disgusting. How many people just follow the rules dictated to them by their religion and have never taken the time to read the bible and search deep in their hearts and pray and ask God what is right? Remember that men are all flawed, we are all sinners and that includes the ones who are at the pulpit every Sunday. Anyone who claims to have the goods on how to be with God is lying. Anyone who says they are still searching (as Obama does) is right on track. We will never be worthy of Christ's love, but he loves us anyway. Remember that and turn all your judgement inward.

Oh my my the judgemental ways are getting worse now we need to repent or go to hell. Lighten up man God loves us do you really think a god of love could really also be this great god who will smite you down on every move. More he is letting each of us find our path to him so maybe you should too.....Blessings all

I Love Kathy's Way!

God alone knows the minds and hearts of His children in this world, and when Jesus returns to this world, He will divide the sheep from the goats. It's not up to us to take on this role (isn't this what happened during the Spanish Inquisition???) If Obama claims that he is a Christian, then for purposes of life in this world, he is a Christian. The rest is in the hands of an all-powerful, all-loving God.

FALSANI: Who's Jesus to you?
(He laughs nervously)

OBAMA:
Right.

Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he's also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher.

And he's also a wonderful teacher. I think it's important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.

did he jsut say Jesus is a teacher in history?
or does the holy spirit not proclaim the truth

and another thing im pretty sure he would have to say he belives that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh and is the Son of God

Larry, I so agree with you. I've been saying the same thing since the election.
Pray the Rosary!

Obama’s thinking on this issue follows that of the Urantia Book. It is believed that Obama has a copy of the book, as does his sister in Hawaii.
Jesus - in the Urantia Book on the subject of a loving God and eternal damnation: (compares with Obama's)

"My father, it cannot be true÷the Father in heaven cannot so regard his erring children on earth. The heavenly Father cannot love his children less than you love me. And I well know, no matter what unwise thing I might do, you would never pour out wrath upon me nor vent anger against me. If you, my earthly father, possess such human reflections of the Divine, how much more must the heavenly Father be filled with goodness and overflowing with mercy. I refuse to believe that my Father in heaven loves me less than my father on earth."

http://urantiabook.org/newbook/papers/p125.htm
(about the 6th paragraph down - Paper 125:0.6)

I'm curious where you're getting the information that Obama denies the Trinity, because I don't see that in the interview, and the quote you gave also doesn't provide it. I don't see him affirming the Trinity, but that's not the same as denying it. He may well not believe in it, and it's surprising that he doesn't come close to it in his explanation of his view of Jesus if he indeed does believe it, but you're still putting words in his mouth by saying he denies it. There's no reason to think he affirms it, but I still think you overshoot to say he denies it.