on being a Christian
Is Barack Obama a Christian? Rod has all the links to the various participants in the controversy. My view is this: the President-elect claims to be a Christian, and I take him — I think I have to take him — at his word. Could he be lying? Could he be self-deceived? Could he have a limited or erroneous understanding of what Christianity is? Yes to all three. But then, the same doubts could be directed at anyone who claims to be a Christian, including me.
We’re not mind-readers, and the attempt to discover just how much fit there is between someone’s profession of faith and the state of his heart and mind is a mug’s game. In the eighteenth century Jonathan Edwards nearly drove himself and his congregation nuts by his determination to withhold Communion from people unless he could be absolutely sure that they were truly and deeply believers. The problem with this approach was neatly summed by a century earlier by the great Richard Baxter — coiner of the phrase “mere Christianity” — who took the opposite view from Edwards. If congregants do “by word of mouth say, that they believe with a saving Faith, these words are but signs of their minds; and whether counterfeit or not, the Church cannot tell.” Even if they manifest good works and pious utterances, they could be doing so for reasons unconnected to faith — the desire for social approval in a Christian community, for instance.
So when people say “I am a Christian” I accept them at their word, just as I hope that they accept me at my word when I make the same claim.
But the conversation doesn't have to end there, does it? It seems to me that, having taken President-elect Obama at his word when he claims the Christian faith, we can then go on to discuss what he thinks Christianity is, who he thinks who Jesus is, what obligations he believes a Christian takes on by virtue of being a Christian, and so on. And as that conversation proceeds we might say to him that we think his understanding of Christianity sadly limited, or the place of Christ in his theology to be insufficient and wrong-headed, or whatever. (Those are the kinds of things I would probably say to the President-elect if we were having such a conversation.) And he might point out to us flaws in our own theologies — we’d have to be prepared for that, wouldn't we? The debate might go on a while. But I think the conversation will be healthier and more productive if no one starts it by denying the other the status of Christian.
UPDATE: Several commentators on this post seem not to have noticed that it has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. The person whose claim to Christian faith prompted the post happens to be a political figure, but that is utterly irrelevant to the post. Just thought I should point that out.
Alan,
I agree with the gist of your post—if Obama claims to be a Christian, I will take him at his word that he believes himself to be a Christian. (Though he has been dishonest in the past—for example, his promise to run a publicly funded campaign.)
I think your second point is what’s really important. If Obama really is a Christian, it is a strange form of Christianity he practices—one that involves going to a church for many years whose pastor is none other than Jeremiah Wright. Not to mention opposing a bill that would protect the victims of botched abortion for fear that the bill would put “abortion rights” at risk. I find those two things in particular very troubling.
While I disagree with him on stuff like social security and health care, I think that’s something Christians can have an honest disagreement about.
— Jay · Nov 17, 06:59 PM · #
As a moderate Democrat who has voted Republican when called for, I have been horrified by the political trends of the last decade, which has all but wiped out such as breed as “moderate Republicans” in my neck of the woods.
All during the past year long election cycle, I tried to read a swath of intelligent conservative opinion, including this site, as well as those on the other side, trying to find an ethical and balanced approach to making up my mind on issues.
I had to stop around the last two months because of the sheer hysteria and weirdness that seemed to have overtaken even the quondam moderate right sites. This week seemed a good time to start again.
I guess not.
“Is Barack Obama a Christian? Rod has all the links to the various participants in the controversy.”
Really? Really now? This is what the thinking conservatives are doing with their time? Debating whether the next President of the United States is entitled to call himself a Christian?
And the members of the Bush administration, after the events of the last eight years, presumably are.
Wow.
— lordnelson100 · Nov 17, 07:00 PM · #
lordnelson,
Did you even read the whole post? It had nothing to do with whether or not Obama is “entitled” to call himself a Christian.
For what it’s worth, the honest questioning goes both ways. McCain calls himself a Christian, but he strikes me as being a good bit less devout about it than Obama. I think he’s more likely a nominal Christian or even an agnostic. But, again, that’s not for me to decide.
To be honest, I don’t really care what the religion of my president is (fundamentalist Islam excluded) as long as their policies are sound. I’d vote for a small government conservative who was an atheist over a devout Baptist with no concept of fiscal responsibility.
— Jay · Nov 17, 07:16 PM · #
Lordnelson100 —
I think it’s neat that you have decided to begin reading conservative opinions on the internet again. Now, you should begin reading conservative opinions with your eyes open. Had you done so in this case, you would have understood Alan’s point, which was something like the following:
“…When people say ‘I am a Christian,’ I accept them at their word just as I hope that they accept me at my word when I make the same claim.”
Wow.
— Bill · Nov 17, 07:33 PM · #
if a presidents religion is not important as I hear a lot of conservatives in this discussion say, then why is this a discussion at all? To me, it is so wrong on so many levels, and—since this is the conversation of the day—speaks strongly to what is wrong with a big chunk of the conservative movement. The culture war is based on outing heritics, wheather they are of the social, political, or religious kind. This is a stupid, typical class of human activity. We have seen the damage over the centuries of this type of mindset. If you really want to reform the conservative movement, this urge is a really good place to start, in my opinion
— cw · Nov 17, 07:55 PM · #
Alan,
I think you might be missing the point of Rod’s post. He doesn’t question the sincerity of Obama’s faith. His concern is with what he takes to be a necessary condition for one’s beliefs to count as Christian – accepting the divinity of Christ. I think it makes sense to say that there must be some set of beliefs without which it wouldn’t really be meaningful to call someone ‘Christian’ – and the same goes for other labels like ‘Muslim’, ‘Marxist’, etc. The difficult question is where the dividing line should be drawn in each case. Rod thinks that anyone who denies the divinity of Christ doesn’t count as Christian (even if he sincerely believes that he is one). Maybe this is wrong as a criterion. But if someone were to openly deny every article of the Nicene Creed and then proceed to call herself a Christian, it wouldn’t be terribly controversial to claim that she wasn’t really a Christian. What do you think?
Incidentally, I don’t think that the quotation Rod provides shows that Obama doesn’t believe that Jesus is God. Obama calls Jesus a historical figure, a bridge between God and man, and a wonderful teacher. Surely none of these is incompatible with also holding that Jesus is Divine. Without an explicit statement on this question from Obama, we just don’t know what he thinks.
— Dave · Nov 17, 07:56 PM · #
Dave, why would you think I am “missing the point of Rod’s post,” when I didn’t comment on Rod’s post? Hey — are you reading my mind?
— Alan Jacobs · Nov 17, 08:11 PM · #
As far as I can tell, the thing to which lordnelson is objecting — and, I’m with him on this — is not the sentiment that Mr. Jacobs is expressing above but the existence of the Dreher post linking through arguments pro and con. Where my instinct, like lordnelson’s, is something on the order of, jeez, Dreher, get a life. He’s teasing out a theological statement from an Obama statement and it’s just not clear to me that what Obama said really denies Christ’s divinity, and yet it’s apparently crystal clear to Dreher. (I suppose there’s a tradition that might take a “bridge between man and God” to be someone like say Achilles or Odysseus, who Jesus rather clearly is not under any normal Christian theology — but it would be entertaining to hear someone try to flesh out an argument that, that’s what Obama’s saying.) Weird, and the oddness of that is so striking that Dave up there gets arrested by it and misses the fact that Jacobs isn’t expressing agreement with Dreher (although if the basis for Jacobs’ “we think … the place of Christ in his theology to be insufficient and wrong-headed“ is predicated on the Dreher reasoning — and after all that’s all we’re given up there — then something tangent to what Dave says might be appropriate). So, I’m with lordnelson on this point. But maybe I’m misreading him, in which case, hell, we can all play that game.
— Sanjay · Nov 17, 08:43 PM · #
As far as I can tell, the thing to which lordnelson is objecting — and, I’m with him on this — is not the sentiment that Mr. Jacobs is expressing above but the existence of the Dreher post. . . .
Yeah, Sanjay, that’s what I thought too.
— Alan Jacobs · Nov 17, 08:45 PM · #
Leaving aside any specifics related to Obama, aren’t there certain beliefs which one must hold in order to be a Christian, simply by definition?
If there are, and if someone makes clear that he doesn’t hold those core beliefs but nevertheless tells you he is a Christian – do you have to take him at his word? To me that’s like someone saying “I deny that Allah is the only God and I further deny that Muhammad was Allah’s prophet. But I’m a Muslim.” Um, I’m sorry but if that’s what you believe (and don’t believe) then no you aren’t.
That’s where I think Dave was going. It reminds me of C.S. Lewis’s discussion of the use of the word “gentleman” in the English language at the beginning of Mere Christianity.
— Karl · Nov 17, 08:49 PM · #
Great post, especially the historical context. It’s always illuminating to hear from somebody who actually knows something about a topic.
OK, I’m over my pay grade here (to coin a phrase), but isn’t it pracitcally impossible to ever pin down whether someone who claims to hold Christian beliefs really holds them, since we will inevitably be debating words that can never have precise deifnition. What does it mean to say that Jesus is “divine”. Well, what does divine mean? We would define this using other words and so on, but we are trying to express something that is inexpressible. While this objection can be raised in principle, and of course has been by many great philosphers, for defining words like “tree” or “up”, it seems like it is different in kind for notions of divinty. Once a concept can be comprehended by a finite mind, it no longer is an object of worship.
— Jim Manzi · Nov 17, 09:04 PM · #
It’s great that you take him at his word, but I don’t think a conversation needs to be had about the nature of his faith. Just having that conversation feels kind of partisan. Would we feel the need to verify the Christianity of George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan? Even if we did, would the story get as much traction? I doubt it. It’s clear that the story lines about Obama’s faith feed those who do so for unscrupulous reasons.
— CN · Nov 17, 09:16 PM · #
To those who are exercised that Dreher would even ask such a question: I would agree that it would be a boorish and unnecessary to discuss the quality of Obama’s Christian theology as a precondition for his presidency. And so would Rod.
In other words, the extent to which Romney or Obama is a Christian does not inform Dreher’s judgment of their political qualities. But as a writer interested in religion, he will have such discussions in a non-political context.
Hyperventilating that this is a case of the Right “outing heretics” is either dishonest or carelessly hyperbolic.
— Blar · Nov 17, 09:27 PM · #
Here’s what I think is the sad truth: Obama sounds like a educated liberal Presbyterian in that 2004 interview. Bush sounded like your not-really-so-smart exurban Bible study leader when he talked about God.
To those of us who are in the modern American church, Bush sounds like “one of us”, while Obama (especially in that 2004 interview) sounds like a Martian talking to a fungo. This is obviously incredibly wrong from a moral and theological point of view, but the emotional core of my and some other’s reaction. Carter’s point is merely the substantive reasoning behind the belief.
— Klug · Nov 17, 09:37 PM · #
I take your point, Alan. But I wonder: hypothetically, let’s say I completely reject the Nicene Creed and any theology more ambitious than Einstein’s. Instead, I base my claim to Christianity on a fascination with Jesus of Nazareth (and my fascination with the fascination with Jesus of Nazareth). Further, let’s say I agree with Nietzsche that Jesus’s gift to mankind was not his sacrifice on the cross, but, rather, the examples and practices of his life — i.e., I believe in “Jesus” as an eventually-practical destination, as the normative phase toward which we must evolve to survive long-term, even if we never quite reach it. Accordingly, I marvel not only that the key exists, but that it has been with us for 2000 years, recorded and now globally disseminated.
Let’s say I believe that, which means you now know the reasons behind my claim to Christianhood. You no longer have to take my word for it. Can I be a Christian?
(And mark me down with Sanjay and Lordnelson: Dreher’s post makes me itch. I just want to know what Alan thinks about definitions, boundaries, and acceptable permutations vs outright heresy.)
As to Jim’s question, we don’t really reason in those terms, we perceive in those terms. The conceptual support-structure for a word like “divine” is pre-rational, ineffable and innate. Which means that — yes! — Jim is right! We can never be sure how another person perceives the quality “divine.”
— JA · Nov 17, 09:44 PM · #
I meant to say:
“We don’t really reason into those terms, we perceive into those terms.”
Mi dispiace.
— JA · Nov 17, 09:47 PM · #
“It seems to me that, having taken President-elect Obama at his word when he claims the Christian faith, we can then go on to discuss what he thinks Christianity is, who he thinks who Jesus is, what obligations he believes a Christian takes on by virtue of being a Christian, and so on. And as that conversation proceeds we might say to him that we think his understanding of Christianity sadly limited, or the place of Christ in his theology to be insufficient and wrong-headed, or whatever. (Those are the kinds of things I would probably say to the President-elect if we were having such a conversation.) And he might point out to us flaws in our own theologies — we’d have to be prepared for that, wouldn’t we?”
Prolonged public debate about the religious orthodoxy of the beliefs of a sitting president. Sounds like a fantastic idea.
“The debate might go on a while.”
Similar discussions have taken thirty years .
— alkali · Nov 17, 09:50 PM · #
This is all part of our country’s alarming regression to the 18th century. First we start torturing people again, next we argue about whether the king is really a crypto-Catholic, er, I mean, crypto-Muslim.
— Michael Straight · Nov 17, 09:52 PM · #
JA: It all depends on what the statement “I am a Christian” means. Some people mean simply to say that Jesus is their model and example. Some people mean to associate themselves with a moral tradition. Some people mean to claim that they have a personal relationship with Jesus which means that when they die they will go to heaven, as opposed to people who do not have said personal relationship with Jesus and therefore will go to Hell when they die. It is precisely because people use the phrase “I am a Christian” in such dramatically different ways that I don’t see the value in giving such a claim the thumbs-up or thumbs-down.
Now, if someone describes their beliefs to me along the lines you describe — the “Einsteinian minimum,” let’s call it — and says “But I’m still a Christian,” I would probably reply, “Okay, that’s cool, as long as you understand that what you believe can’t reasonably be called Christianity, not without the word being stretched so far out of shape as to be useless.” And then we could go on to talk about whether that matters, and if so, how. But that would be a long conversation, necessarily.
And Jim, I would say that we can have an adequate understanding of what it means to say that Jesus is divine — that he is of the same ousia as the Father, that the cosmos was created through him, that he can forgive sins — without claiming to have an exhaustive understanding of what divinity is in itself. Some concepts can be partially but usefully grasped while remaining ultimately mysterious. Think of string theory’s invocations of multiple dimensions, for example.
There is obviously a lot more to all these questions than I can get into in a blog comment.
— Alan Jacobs · Nov 17, 11:25 PM · #
I saw Lizzie Proctor speaking with the devil.
— southpaw · Nov 17, 11:26 PM · #
Alan, thanks. Great post and discussion, btw.
— JA · Nov 18, 12:08 AM · #
“Hyperventilating that this is a case of the Right “outing heretics” is either dishonest or carelessly hyperbolic.”
Yeah, becasue the right hasn’t cynically built a franchise on it’s unique ability to define “real americans.” So then to compare a discussion by conservatives about what constitutes a “real christian” is obviously hyperbole.
— cw · Nov 18, 01:45 AM · #
For anyone interested in the actual facts, the place to start is with Obama’s autobiography. Most of pages 274-295 of “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance” are devoted to how Obama chose Rev. Wright’s church after he was warned that he needed to join a church to further his community organizing and political ambitions in Chicago. A close reading shows that Obama’s motivations, beyond the purely opportunistic, were not theological or even vaguely spiritual, but instead were motivated by feelings of race solidarity.
— Steve Sailer · Nov 18, 02:04 AM · #
Even if you’re right, Steve, that doesn’t bother me. I became a Christian in college because a very attractive young women wouldn’t go out with me unless I was a Christian. I got religion in a hurry. So I have a world of sympathy for other people who have impure motives. Those of you whose motives are pure may feel differently, of course.
— Alan Jacobs · Nov 18, 02:34 AM · #
Right, cw, because Rod Dreher of all people is part of the militant, omnipresent right wing noise machine.
— Blar · Nov 18, 04:08 AM · #
I’m generally weary of this subject for the simple reason that it reeks of exclusiveness. “Is he a Christian? Can he call himself a Christian?” What we really mean is, “Is he like me?” or “Is he part of my club?” Are certain theological admissions necessary for inclusion in the “Christian” faith? Yes. But in a history where Protestants have split into hundreds of denominations over a couple hundred years, it should be clear that there are some differences of opinion in faith. Should faith be an issue? Maybe. I’m nervous about anyone with fundamentalist tendencies in religion (i.e. Fundamentalist Islam or Conservative Evangelicism) whose policies would be informed by such beliefs. I’m much more inclined towards a moderate approach in faith-informed policy, specifically because a President represents a country diverse in Religion.
Secondly, why are we even having this debate? Honestly? Who is in a position to make these judgments? Alan, you make the point that people should ask the same of you, but really, why should they? Who has such understanding to make such a claim?
To quote our President Elect,
“I’m a big believer in tolerance. I think that religion at it’s best comes with a big dose of doubt. I’m suspicious of too much certainty in the pursuit of understanding just because I think people are limited in their understanding.”
It’s just one more excuse to create controversy.
— Josh · Nov 18, 06:14 AM · #
Again, Josh, Dreher isn’t talking about “faith-informed policy;” he is talking about academic theology. I get that there are people who use religion as a political cudgel, but Rod Dreher clearly isn’t one of them. He specifically clarifies that he isn’t, and even if you take his disclaimer in bad faith, you still have to contend with years of his writing and his general reputation. If the term “political moderate” means anything, Rod Dreher embodies it.
Your argument, shared by others, seems to be that because Dreher is talking about things that are discussed by the wacky fringe of the Right, his discussion is also fringe and therefore illegitimate. It’s the worse kind of ad hominem guilt by association, like saying that all proponents of welfare reform are racists, or all people sympathetic to Palestine are anti-Semites. In this case, it is particularly ironic since it takes the posture of being “anti-Fundamentalist,” yet is as quick to delegitimatize any thought that seems unorthodox as any other Fundamentalist.
Call it a “Fundamentalism of doubt.”
— Blar · Nov 18, 02:35 PM · #
<i>It seems to me that, having taken President-elect Obama at his word when he claims the Christian faith, we can then go on to discuss what he thinks Christianity is, who he thinks who Jesus is, what obligations he believes a Christian takes on by virtue of being a Christian, and so on.</i>
Or we can recall that it’s none of our business to do so.
— Mike · Nov 18, 05:58 PM · #
Or we can recall that it’s none of our business to do so.
Mike, I was imagining having a conversation with someone. A conversation implies willingness on both sides, now doesn’t it? I was imagining a conversation, not expressing a desire to being Obama to Gitmo where I could subject him to enhanced interrogation techniques.
Those of you who think religious belief so overwhelmingly and numinously private that it can’t even be spoken of are just way too pious for me.
— Alan Jacobs · Nov 18, 06:28 PM · #
Alan,
Since you don’t appear to have read Obama’s autobiography, I would suggest you read the 140 pages that take place after he listens to Jeremiah Wright’s sermon about how “white folks greed runs a world in need” and see if you can find the slightest reference to Christianity or anything spiritual.
I realize that on the campaign trail, Obama spent a lot of money claiming he was a Christian, but independent evidence for that is sparse.
The strongest argument to be made for his Christianity would be be by direct analogy to the claims of being Christian of various apartheid-era South African prime ministers who were active participants in the Dutch Reformed Church that was the backbone of the pre-Mandela South African state. Rev. Wright’s church offered the same kind of Old Testament Chosen People theology as was so popular among Afrikaaners.
— Steve Sailer · Nov 18, 08:46 PM · #
Okay granted, we are discussing this subject in terms of academic theology. I suppose my worries are more in the vein that many people of faith (a generalization I know) simply don’t think in academic terms and would rather use the question of “Is he a Christian?” as a tool of division than a tool of discussion (and I’m thinking specifically of the Creationism/Inerrancy crowd.)
Would anyone disagree?
— Josh · Nov 18, 09:31 PM · #
Theologically, we know an enormous amount about the theology of the pastor Obama carefully picked out in the 1980s: according to Jeremiah Wright, it’s black liberation theology, a black version of the liberation theology made famous by the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Jeremiah Wright has explained over and over again that he is a follower of James H. Cone. And Cone’s writings show a lack of interest in all that New Testament turn-the-other-cheek and an intense interest in all that Old Testament smite-thy-foe stuff.
— Steve Sailer · Nov 18, 09:54 PM · #
True Christianity involves selling all of your possession, and living a life of simplicity in devotion to the poor and the suffering, as Jesus outlined to the rich young man.
Since there are few of us who live this kind of life(only few in history have achieved it), it hardly seems fair to put Obama through an Inquisition of sorts. True Christianity is freakin’ hard to practice, that’s the whole purpose of the church is to give a pathway to those on various stages of the journey.
“You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it. You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away – because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey.” -Obama on religion
— Bert · Nov 18, 10:15 PM · #
If questions about Obama’s religion aren’t relevant to politics, why is this even being discussed? How are Obama’s personal religious views anyone’s business? To me this smells like a continuation of the “He’s not really American” and “He’s a secret Muslim” whispering campaigns.
As an atheist, I am heartily sick of the constant insertion of religious questions into public affairs. I do not accept that Christians have a special moral virtue that I am lacking. I do not accept that Christians have some God-given privilege to more political power than the rest of us. I do not accept that churchman have a right of review over government decisions.
Religion has flourished peacefully in this country only because of the separation of church and state. The more we weaken the separation, the closer we are to established churches, civil disabilities for unfavored denominations and religious civil war.
This “controversy,” as you call it, is un-American and disgraceful.
— Jerry · Nov 18, 11:41 PM · #
Steve, actually, I have read Dreams of My Father, I’m just not interested in the issues you raise here, and I don’t think they’re relevant to my post.
— Alan Jacobs · Nov 19, 12:14 AM · #
Obama gives the impression in his books, sppeches and bearing of someone with genuine compassion and empathy to suffering
that , to me, makes him more Christian than most politicians
whether this seeing both sides, built into his DNA, will make him a good president is another matter –
— peter · Nov 19, 12:48 AM · #
http://emmanuel9.blogspot.com/2008/04/biblical-case-for-bahaullah.html
If anybody is interested on a Baha’is view on the nature and reture of Christ, follow the URL.
— Jason Snyder · Nov 19, 05:21 AM · #
Now that we’ve seen that this subject is an invitation for people like Sailer to bash both blacks and Jews, can we switch to something more productive? I thought Pujols was by far the best choice for MVP.
— Mike · Nov 19, 05:50 AM · #
If doctrinal acceptance of the Nicene Creed is required to be called a Christian, what sort of answers we’ll get if we apply the same question to former presidents, the founding fathers and other prominent figures of America’s past? Many would not pass Rod Dreher’s test. For instance, Unitarians would not qualify and the same with most Quakers. Back then both Unitarian and Quakers were more influential in American society than they are now. How about Deists? Many figures of the American past considered themselves Christians in a rather loose way without professing believe in specific doctrines or belonging to a denomination.
——-
Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Emerson, Thoreau, Lincoln, Grant, Wendell Holmes, Taft, etc.
— Kolya · Nov 19, 11:37 PM · #
Dear Alan:
So, then, why don’t you quote for us some passages from the President-Elect’s 460 page autobiography supporting your theory?
— Steve Sailer · Nov 20, 03:47 AM · #
What theory is that, Steve?
— Alan Jacobs · Nov 20, 04:42 AM · #
That you can have a meaningful discussion of Obama’s theological leanings without mentioning forbidden phrases like “black liberation theology” and “race.”
Obama explained at great length in Dreams from My Father that his religion is a religion of race.
— Steve Sailer · Nov 20, 10:01 PM · #
Steve, where did you get the idea that I am even concerned with “Obama’s theological leanings,” much less that I have a “theory” on that topic? My post described how I respond, and how I think it’s healthiest to respond, when people claim to be Christians. I have never said a word about “Obama’s theological leanings.” But when (if) I get myself a theory on that subject, I’ll let you know.
— Alan Jacobs · Nov 20, 10:20 PM · #
Great. Now Christianity Today is linking to your blog post to legitimize these ongoing attempts to drag Obama before the Inquisition.
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2008/11/can_obama_call.html
— Michael Straight · Nov 20, 10:50 PM · #
Those of you who think religious belief so overwhelmingly and numinously private that it can’t even be spoken of are just way too pious for me.
Yay, Alan, both for the article and for the above. (I’m not being sarcastic.)
— The Reticulator · Nov 25, 08:58 AM · #