Third Way and Politics

Everybody becomes a Christian for 'expedient' reasons.

We grow up in the church and desperately value continuity and family and communal approval. And/or we think the faith is the best path to social change and social justice. And/or we have emotional or relational problems and need help right now. And/or we feel things are meaningless and have an intense 'jones' for inspiring meaning. And/or we value history and culture. And/or we want to succeed in life and realize intuitively that being a Christian helps a lot in the current US.

I'm sure Obama became a Christian for expedient reasons.

I'm guessing fundamentalists and evangelicals only accept becoming a believer to 'fill the god shaped void,' but, I mean, in real life, aren't all those reasons I mentioned above--along with others--the concrete stuff behind 'the void' for pretty much all of us?

Those without expediency should cast the first stone.

Obama appears to have embraced a social gospel while also embracing a personal relationship with Jesus. I'm speaking here in the very limited language that the 'liberal/conservative' dichotomy allows. But no doubt he comes out of a tradition that emphasizes the power of the gospel for social change and downplays emotional and dramatic and 'instantaneous' versions of personal conversion.

Question 3? No. I don't know many people--even among the fundamentalists 'true believers'--who believe being a devout Christian makes you a great president. I know the fact that 25-30% of the American population--most of them conservative Christians--believe Bush has done a good job probably led to this question.

Question 4? Of course. As far as I know, we've never had a 'great' American president who was a 'devout Christian' by current evangelical/fundamentalist standards. Carter and Bush are the only real candidates from the 'devout' standpoint. Whether they were 'great' presidents is something for others to decide.

Presidents that many people consider 'great' weren't 'devout' by almost any standard, and certainly not by current fundamentalist standards. Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR and Kennedy would never have been invited back to most Southern Baptist Sunday afternoon potlucks after making their views and committments known. Reagan rarely attended church at any point in his life and wasn't much of a family man. I don't say that to be petty, but only to point out that both Carter and Bush walked their evangelical/fundamentalist talk far better than conservative icon Reagan.

I believe Obama is sincere. Kyle's points are good in his comments on that.

I see such a mixture, in other words needed elements may not be strong in our evangelical circles along with unhelpful elements being present in them. This is why I may be turned off by some evangelical politicians (not all of them). And open to voting for one further removed from my faith tradition, yet having qualities about them which I think are good for leading in government work.

I find much I like in Obama and think that in some ways he's in the best tradition of leaders who have led this country- at least I certainly have that hope. And we must pray and speak the truth in love.

I have a lot of respect for Obama, and think his faith is genuine and more in line with what the Scriptures teach than the other candidates were (on most issues though not all).
However, I'm really tired of feeling like the president ought to share my faith, as Martin Luther said (more or less) "I'd rather be governed by a smart Turk than a dumb Christian.".
If the faith is shared, that matters, it means we share values and a worldview, but mostly I'm looking for good ideas and competence.

It seems that most of the commentators here have not responded to your first questions - "Were these your questions? Did you have others? (What were they?)" - so I'll give those a try first.

Numbers 1 & 2 were certainly questions that I considered, as they go to the candidate's credibility if they claim to be Christian. On the other hand, numbers 3 & 4 don't really come into the picture.

An additional question that I asked as it related to the candidates was this - "If the candidate has claimed Christianity, are the candidate's positions on the issues consistent with a Biblical understanding of the issues?" In other words, since I can't measure the "devoutness" of a person's faith (and it's arguably irrelevant to their ability to govern), I instead measure whether their actions are consistent with what God has revealed in His word.

With that said, here's how I answered your numbered questions as it concerns our President-elect:

1. Surprisingly, I don't think expediency plays much into this. Obama no doubt considers himself a genuine Christian. However, I sincerely doubt it (as we'll see in #2 below).

2. For 20 years, he attended a "church" that does not preach a Biblical gospel. For 20 years, his "pastor" was a man who preached a message utterly inconsistent with that of Scripture. (Just look at the church website's statement of faith.) Given his understanding of the "gospel", the question then is this - has Obama repented of his sin and placed his faith entirely in Jesus Christ? While I can't say with certainty one way or the other, I strongly suspect 'no'. In large part, this is based on the additional question I mentioned earlier...

3. No

4. Yes.

The additional question, though, as mentioned before is how a candidate's positions on the issues squares with the Bible. It's on this question that I have concerns about whether Obama is "a new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17), and thus truly of the faith. His position on issues that are clearly laid out in Scripture - including the social hot-button issues - show a lack of understanding of the Bible. His reference to Romans 1 as "an obscure passage" belies his lack of understanding of the gospel itself. His pass-the-buck approach to the question of when an unborn child should be given human rights (see the Civil Forum video clips) reveals that he is far more motivated by political expediency than by the righteousness of God.

I recognize this won't be a popular answer here at beliefnet, but that's alright with me...

As far as Obama goes...

1. Yes.
In his speaking and writing about his personal faith story... he seems genuine. In fact his faith seemed more real and less politically motivated than some of the others running this year.

2. Yes
Again, I've heard both... I think where some evangelicals got thrown off was that his conversion story was through the social justice aspects of the Gospel, but a profound personal transformation took place as well. For many evangelicals the journey is the opposite, personal encounter with Christ leads to a broader sense of social engagement... however, I've seen Obama's story happen more recently. Example: I have a friend that became a Christian through serving at a local homeless ministry. Her response to the Gospel became very real and personal, but only AFTER she saw the Gospel in action. We need to allow room for this journey and not just label it 'liberal.'

3. No.
In fact I am more and more weary of a 'religious test' for public office. It takes more than a strong faith... most of us have probably known people who passionately follow Christ, yet would not want them to be president! In that sense it's no different than any job... just because you're a Christian doesn't make you a good construction worker, doctor, or teacher, etc... there are other skills and personality traits involved.

4. Yes.
(see answer 3)

Answering the questions with respect to Obama:

1. Its always difficult to tell with politicians, but Obama seemed more sincere to me in various conversations on religion than the other key candidates this year (Clinton and McCain).

2. I disagree with the posters who suggest that Obama's version of Christianity emphasizes social gospel over personal conversion. I was surprised to read his talk from a couple of years ago at Sojourners regarding his conversion experience, which was in response to an alter call at Trinity (I didn't realize they have those at UCC churches). Yes, he and his church also understand the social aspects of the gospel, but that is a good thing. It shouldn't be an either/or thing -- the Bible emphasizes both, and if we focus on only one we are ourselves distorting it.

3. Being a devout Christian is far from adequate to make one a great president. I don't doubt that Bush is devout, but as a lifelong Republican (at least until this election), I view him as a terrible President.

4. I think a person can be an excellent president and not be devout. I don't really factor this issue much into my voting, given the experience with Bush.

1. Is the person genuinely a Christian or has the person become Christian for expedient reasons?

This can be more complicated than the question allows. I expect many people didn't "become" Christian for expedient reasons, but I'm sure they play up their faith background in the right settings, just as a Southerner will play up his/her Southernness or candidates will reference local connections they have to wherever they happen to be. For Obama, I think it's genuine.

2. What kind or version of Christianity does the candidate embrace? Does the candidate embrace both the personal and social gospel?

Obama's probably more toward the social gospel, but not to the exclusion of the personal.

3. Is being a devout Christian adequate to make one a great president?

Of course not.

4. Can one be a good president and not devout?

Sure. But I think an atheist (or anti-theist) president would have a hard time with some of the more ceremonial/head of state aspects of the job.

Another question I would tend to ask is how a candidate's faith has affected his/her life. How serious are they about it? This is applicable to non-Christian politicians as well. If they're of no faith, by what philosophy or outlook do they orient themselves to the world, and how does that affect their decisions?

Alan #8 wrote- "For 20 years, he attended a "church" that does not preach a Biblical gospel. For 20 years, his "pastor" was a man who preached a message utterly inconsistent with that of Scripture. (Just look at the church website's statement of faith.)"

I went to the United Church of Christ website, and here is what I found-

"The United Church of Christ embraces a theological heritage that affirms the Bible as the authoritative witness to the Word of God, the creeds of the ecumenical councils, and the confessions of the Reformation. The UCC has roots in the "covenantal" tradition—meaning there is no centralized authority or hierarchy that can impose any doctrine or form of worship on its members. Christ alone is Head of the church. We seek a balance between freedom of conscience and accountability to the apostolic faith. The UCC therefore receives the historic creeds and confessions of our ancestors as testimonies, but not tests of the faith."

BTW, One of my favorite presidents John Adams (and best first lady ever, Abigail) were Congregationalists (which changed their name to United Church of Christ.)
Doug