More evidence that the Left- and the media- just don't get this "faith" thing
This fascinating piece of nonsense from USA Today by way of Real Clear Politics sounds a theme I predict we're going to hear a great deal during the current campaign.
We've already heard that the Democrats are planning to make a great to-do at their convention at Denver about "people of faith." "People of faith" will have their own caucuses and events and everything, just like a coalition or interest group composed of people who actually have something in common.
But people of faith- insofar as they are simply "people of faith"- lack anything of substance in common. The straightlaced, traditional Methodist (and there are far more of them than the UMC would like) is a person of faith. So is the sober, peace-loving Quaker. So are the pious Muslim and the other-worldly Buddhist. So are the neo-pagan Wiccan singing the praises of The Goddess, and the Rastafarian flying around the ceiling of the convention hall, high on ganja, occasionally mumbling prayers to Haile Selassie while loudly calling for the assassination of the Pope.
So is the Pope. So were Jim Jones, and David Koresh. So-though they would deny it vehemently- are not only the oh-so-orthodox Marxist, but the agnostic or even atheistic materialist of more benign political leanings- all of whose essential world view (the non-existence of the supernatural, and even its non-involvement in mundane affairs, being as impossible to disprove as any other negative) is as much a matter of faith as Barack Obama's modern, revisionist brand of Christianity, or my own traditional Lutheranism- neither of which have very much of substance in common at all.
Just what is "the language of faith," anyway? Is there really a common language the Methodist and the Rastie share that the rest of us do not? Can a Southern Baptist and a Hindu really communicate on a level unique to "people of faith?"
These questions apparently haven't occured to Daniel Gilgoff, who is utterly convinced that traditional Christians will be caused to regard Barack Obama more favorably because he will express beliefs and attitudes anathema to their own in language they are comfortable with. To be sure, being able to speak in something of a traditionally Christian framework and use traditionally Christian language will grant Obama an initial hearing in places most on the Left- and especially most as far to the Left as Obama- would find as alien as Mars.
But the point Gilgoff misses is the same point that the Democrats miss: that if speaking the same language as traditional Christian believers increases his ability to communicate with them, that in no way works to Obama's benefit. Speaking "the language of faith" isn't enough if- as is manifestly the case with Obama- what he has to saying that language is radically at variance with the basic affirmations of the faith of the people he is addressing.
Barack Obama is a man of faith- a faith I cannot help but believe is sincere. But it is a faith which, as his voting record makes clear, does not value unborn human life- or even the lives of would-be victims of abortion who are in fact accidentally born alive. The issue of abortion is only one of several issues of concern to those whose faith is traditional Christianity upon which his position- in whatever language it may be expressed- is even more violently in opposition to traditional Christian teaching than that of previous Democratic nominees who were not so comfortable with "the language of faith."
Obama's is a faith which holds a view of sexual relations between people of the same gender radically at variance with that of both Testaments, the feckless revisionism of so many mainline eisegetes these days to the contrary. It is certainly contrary to the teachings of Christianity historically. In fact, on issue after issue, the substance of Obama's faith- again, no doubt a sincere one- not only differs from that of a plurality of American "people of faith," but stands diametrically opposed to it.
Traditionally religious Americans are not idiots who will be beguiled into taking a favorable view of someone- or even into taking a second look at someone- simply because that person "speaks the language of faith." What the Democrats- and, to all appearances, Gilgoff- simply don't understand is that to most American believers of all stripes, what is said means more than the familiarity of the idiom in which it is said. And if anything, most traditional Christians will will be all the more apt to recognize apostasy when it's expressed in "the language of faith."
Faith- in practice, rather than merely in concept- must of necessity have actual substance. Barak Obama's faith certainly does. And the fact of the matter is that the substance of Obama's faith- and that of the liberal mainline generally- is inevitably going to be perceived by most traditional Christians as far more of a threat than the unease and even occasional ineptitude in which John McCain upholds the politicial implications of their faith.
We've already heard that the Democrats are planning to make a great to-do at their convention at Denver about "people of faith." "People of faith" will have their own caucuses and events and everything, just like a coalition or interest group composed of people who actually have something in common.
But people of faith- insofar as they are simply "people of faith"- lack anything of substance in common. The straightlaced, traditional Methodist (and there are far more of them than the UMC would like) is a person of faith. So is the sober, peace-loving Quaker. So are the pious Muslim and the other-worldly Buddhist. So are the neo-pagan Wiccan singing the praises of The Goddess, and the Rastafarian flying around the ceiling of the convention hall, high on ganja, occasionally mumbling prayers to Haile Selassie while loudly calling for the assassination of the Pope.
So is the Pope. So were Jim Jones, and David Koresh. So-though they would deny it vehemently- are not only the oh-so-orthodox Marxist, but the agnostic or even atheistic materialist of more benign political leanings- all of whose essential world view (the non-existence of the supernatural, and even its non-involvement in mundane affairs, being as impossible to disprove as any other negative) is as much a matter of faith as Barack Obama's modern, revisionist brand of Christianity, or my own traditional Lutheranism- neither of which have very much of substance in common at all.
Just what is "the language of faith," anyway? Is there really a common language the Methodist and the Rastie share that the rest of us do not? Can a Southern Baptist and a Hindu really communicate on a level unique to "people of faith?"
These questions apparently haven't occured to Daniel Gilgoff, who is utterly convinced that traditional Christians will be caused to regard Barack Obama more favorably because he will express beliefs and attitudes anathema to their own in language they are comfortable with. To be sure, being able to speak in something of a traditionally Christian framework and use traditionally Christian language will grant Obama an initial hearing in places most on the Left- and especially most as far to the Left as Obama- would find as alien as Mars.
But the point Gilgoff misses is the same point that the Democrats miss: that if speaking the same language as traditional Christian believers increases his ability to communicate with them, that in no way works to Obama's benefit. Speaking "the language of faith" isn't enough if- as is manifestly the case with Obama- what he has to saying that language is radically at variance with the basic affirmations of the faith of the people he is addressing.
Barack Obama is a man of faith- a faith I cannot help but believe is sincere. But it is a faith which, as his voting record makes clear, does not value unborn human life- or even the lives of would-be victims of abortion who are in fact accidentally born alive. The issue of abortion is only one of several issues of concern to those whose faith is traditional Christianity upon which his position- in whatever language it may be expressed- is even more violently in opposition to traditional Christian teaching than that of previous Democratic nominees who were not so comfortable with "the language of faith."
Obama's is a faith which holds a view of sexual relations between people of the same gender radically at variance with that of both Testaments, the feckless revisionism of so many mainline eisegetes these days to the contrary. It is certainly contrary to the teachings of Christianity historically. In fact, on issue after issue, the substance of Obama's faith- again, no doubt a sincere one- not only differs from that of a plurality of American "people of faith," but stands diametrically opposed to it.
Traditionally religious Americans are not idiots who will be beguiled into taking a favorable view of someone- or even into taking a second look at someone- simply because that person "speaks the language of faith." What the Democrats- and, to all appearances, Gilgoff- simply don't understand is that to most American believers of all stripes, what is said means more than the familiarity of the idiom in which it is said. And if anything, most traditional Christians will will be all the more apt to recognize apostasy when it's expressed in "the language of faith."
Faith- in practice, rather than merely in concept- must of necessity have actual substance. Barak Obama's faith certainly does. And the fact of the matter is that the substance of Obama's faith- and that of the liberal mainline generally- is inevitably going to be perceived by most traditional Christians as far more of a threat than the unease and even occasional ineptitude in which John McCain upholds the politicial implications of their faith.
Comments