A Simple Yes or No Would Suffice
Monday, February 12th, 2007In trying to do a little homework on our boy Obama I’ve run across tons of interesting material. None more interesting, recently, to me than this article from the Chicago Sun-Time’s Religion Writer Cathleen Falsani.
Sen. Obama was asked a simple question, “Are you an evangelical?” and his response was simply jaw dropping. While I can certainly understand, and even appreciate, some amount of transparency with public officials, his answer crossed the translucency line and dove over the edge into involuntary rambling.
Even more troubling than the Senator’s palaver was the cream he was using to fill the Twinkie, so to speak. It was some of the most substantive “fluff” I’ve seen in a while, and offers up some important ideas and criticisms about the man’s abilities as our next potential Commander-in-Chief. A few examples:
“Gosh, I’m not sure if labels are helpful here because the definition of an evangelical is so loose and subject to so many different interpretations.”
Actually the definition of evangelical is “Of, relating to, or in accordance with the Christian gospel, especially one of the four gospel books of the New Testament” according to the American Heritage Dictionary. Not a very “loose” definition to me. Of course, Sen. Obama knew what the questioner wanted to know of him, but was afraid to answer so he had to try and question the basis of the question.
“I came to Christianity through the black church tradition where the line between evangelical and non-evangelical is completely blurred. Nobody knows exactly what it means.”
This begs a few questions, and really should raise some eyebrows. What exactly does he mean by “black church”? Also, when he talks about the “black church tradition” being where the line between evangelical and non-evangelical is completely blurred — what is he referring to? Actually, this is one of the few statements he makes that rings true. I’ve often wondered why “black church”-goers tend to be liberals. There are definitive answers, but for the sake of brevity I’ll just say “agree” and move on. He continues:
“Does it mean you’re born-again in a classic sense, with all the accoutrements that go along with that, as it’s understood by some other tradition? I’m not sure.”
OF COURSE it means that. Come on. What “other tradition” are you talking about in Christianity??? Let’s not try to redefine what being a Christian means. You either accept the Bible as truth, or you don’t. You either rely on Jesus Christ to save you, or you don’t. You’re either “born again of the water and of the spirit” as Jesus said you must be before you see heaven, or you’re not. If you don’t, fine — your decision to make. But don’t try to redefine what you refuse to accept.
“There are aspects of Christian tradition that I’m comfortable with and aspects that I’m not. There are passages of the Bible that make perfect sense to me and others that I go, ‘Ya know, I’m not sure about that,’”
Unfortunately the Bible isn’t the local salad bar where you can pick and choose what you want to agree with. You either accept it as the infallible Word, wholesale fact, or you decry it as erroneous and questionable — wholesale bologna. The mindset this exposes is particularly troubling to me. It’s this kind of rationale that gives people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton the audacity to slap a “Rev.” in front of their name while directly contradicting the Word they pretend to preach with their politics.
While it’s reassuring to hear Sen. Obama giving honest answers, the answers themselves are not reassuring at all. In fact, they’re distressing. My fear is that the American people will remember the highlight reel speeches where he says firmly, “all of us together are going to roll up our sleeves and work,” or “every American deserves health care” while never taking the time to parse through the pages of text required to derive a “yes” or “no” from answers to simple questions like, “Are you an evangelical?”