Obama is right, and Dobson is wrong
Barack Obama's famous speech on the relationship between politics and religion is in the news again. My response to that speech- which had huge weaknesses, as well as one major strength- is here.
At the time, I also blogged on the ridiculous reaction of Baptist theologian Albert Mohler to the speech. Now James Dobson- the guy who decided that Fred Thompson must not be a Christian because he doesn't make a public to-do about his faith, and said so publicly- has repeated many of the sillier criticisms of that Obama statement Dr. Mohler made back then.
Let me be clear about this: much of Obama's speech is disingenous. While it's true that some advocate the teaching of creationism in the public schools, nobody advocates teaching Christianity as such there. Anybody's Christianity. Neither does anyone advocate giving legislative force to the Sermon on the Mount. Christians as a group have been very clear on the distinction between the dietary laws of the Old Testament and the moral law for a very long time, and Obama's attempt to confuse that long-settled issue- while typical of liberal Protestantism (Obama is afflilated with the United Church of Christ, probably the most liberal American church body which can still reasonably be called Christian in any meaningful sense)- is a red herring. Yes, there was plenty of nonsense in that Obama statement.
The irony, though, is that both Mohler and Dobson attacked Obama's position at the point which is in fact its strength. The Bible is very clear on the point that God's Law is written on the human heart (see Romans 1 and 2). Human law is, from a theological point of view, merely an enactment of what God has decreed, filtered through the fog of our fallen intellect. Even pagan societies on remote, undiscovered islands (are there any of those anymore?) have laws in place which turn out, upon close examination, to be rough analogs of the Ten Commandments. It's hard to find a society in which blasphemy (however it may be defined), misuse of sacred time, disrespect to parents, murder, theft, lying about others, and trying to cheat others out of what belongs to them are not frowned upon!
The Law, in theological terms, is the common property of the human race- including that portion of the human race that thinks of it simply as the reasonable basis upon which human beings are able to live together, and does not acknowledge its divine origin. Luther called this God's "Kingdom of the Left Hand." All human beings- Christians or not- are God's subjects in this kingdom, whether they acknowledge it or not. God rules it by force and coercion. Its purpose is to protect the weak from the strong.
The Kingdom of the Right Hand- the place where God rules by grace, mercy and forgiveness- is found only in the Church. But that which has to do with grace and the forgiveness of sins- that which is uniquely Christian- has nothing to do with government. Christians who want to fulfill their responsibilities in the Kingdom of the Left Hand must therefore argue in favor of justice in terms appropriate to the Kingdom of the Left hand- on terms equally accessible to believer and non-believer alike. Indeed, to use religious arguments in the political discourse of a pluralistic society such as ours is self-defeating; it impresses only that minority that subscribes to the religion in whose terms the arguments are made!
Barack Obama is precisely right: the test of whether an argument of religious origin is properly advanced in the public square is whether it can be stated in terms accessible to all members of society, whether or not they share the religion of the person advancing it. And since the Law is written on the human heart and conscience, however blurred and obscured it may be by sin, it is the common property of the entire human race- including that portion of it which, by instinct, regards it merely as "what's right," rather than as God's Law.
Martin Luther correctly observed that the devil is constantly trying to brew the Two Kingdoms into one another. God created the Church to receive and administer the forgiveness of sins; He instituted the government to bear the sword- to keep the strong from the throats of the weak, and to limit the inherent tendency of human beings to abuse one another. When these two functions are confused, the Church loses sight of its mission, or else the State ends up interferring with the Church's performance of that mission.
Sadly, the Two Kingdoms is not exactly the strength of the "evangelical" Christianity which both Dr. Mohler and Dr. Dobson represent. Their objections to precisely the strong point of Barack Obama's very flawed statement on the relationship between religion and politics only serves to underscore that point.
HT: Drudge
At the time, I also blogged on the ridiculous reaction of Baptist theologian Albert Mohler to the speech. Now James Dobson- the guy who decided that Fred Thompson must not be a Christian because he doesn't make a public to-do about his faith, and said so publicly- has repeated many of the sillier criticisms of that Obama statement Dr. Mohler made back then.
Let me be clear about this: much of Obama's speech is disingenous. While it's true that some advocate the teaching of creationism in the public schools, nobody advocates teaching Christianity as such there. Anybody's Christianity. Neither does anyone advocate giving legislative force to the Sermon on the Mount. Christians as a group have been very clear on the distinction between the dietary laws of the Old Testament and the moral law for a very long time, and Obama's attempt to confuse that long-settled issue- while typical of liberal Protestantism (Obama is afflilated with the United Church of Christ, probably the most liberal American church body which can still reasonably be called Christian in any meaningful sense)- is a red herring. Yes, there was plenty of nonsense in that Obama statement.
The irony, though, is that both Mohler and Dobson attacked Obama's position at the point which is in fact its strength. The Bible is very clear on the point that God's Law is written on the human heart (see Romans 1 and 2). Human law is, from a theological point of view, merely an enactment of what God has decreed, filtered through the fog of our fallen intellect. Even pagan societies on remote, undiscovered islands (are there any of those anymore?) have laws in place which turn out, upon close examination, to be rough analogs of the Ten Commandments. It's hard to find a society in which blasphemy (however it may be defined), misuse of sacred time, disrespect to parents, murder, theft, lying about others, and trying to cheat others out of what belongs to them are not frowned upon!
The Law, in theological terms, is the common property of the human race- including that portion of the human race that thinks of it simply as the reasonable basis upon which human beings are able to live together, and does not acknowledge its divine origin. Luther called this God's "Kingdom of the Left Hand." All human beings- Christians or not- are God's subjects in this kingdom, whether they acknowledge it or not. God rules it by force and coercion. Its purpose is to protect the weak from the strong.
The Kingdom of the Right Hand- the place where God rules by grace, mercy and forgiveness- is found only in the Church. But that which has to do with grace and the forgiveness of sins- that which is uniquely Christian- has nothing to do with government. Christians who want to fulfill their responsibilities in the Kingdom of the Left Hand must therefore argue in favor of justice in terms appropriate to the Kingdom of the Left hand- on terms equally accessible to believer and non-believer alike. Indeed, to use religious arguments in the political discourse of a pluralistic society such as ours is self-defeating; it impresses only that minority that subscribes to the religion in whose terms the arguments are made!
Barack Obama is precisely right: the test of whether an argument of religious origin is properly advanced in the public square is whether it can be stated in terms accessible to all members of society, whether or not they share the religion of the person advancing it. And since the Law is written on the human heart and conscience, however blurred and obscured it may be by sin, it is the common property of the entire human race- including that portion of it which, by instinct, regards it merely as "what's right," rather than as God's Law.
Martin Luther correctly observed that the devil is constantly trying to brew the Two Kingdoms into one another. God created the Church to receive and administer the forgiveness of sins; He instituted the government to bear the sword- to keep the strong from the throats of the weak, and to limit the inherent tendency of human beings to abuse one another. When these two functions are confused, the Church loses sight of its mission, or else the State ends up interferring with the Church's performance of that mission.
Sadly, the Two Kingdoms is not exactly the strength of the "evangelical" Christianity which both Dr. Mohler and Dr. Dobson represent. Their objections to precisely the strong point of Barack Obama's very flawed statement on the relationship between religion and politics only serves to underscore that point.
HT: Drudge
Comments