Barack Obama...Christian?

It's a question a lot of people are asking. If his faith is truly Christian or not based on an interview he gave. The answer of course should be who cares? At least in regards to the office he has just been elected to. If you want to express concern over the state of his soul, well that's a different subject, unless you want to take him at his word which is basically all any of us can do. My first thought on the subject is to paraphrase Martin Luther, that he would rather be governed by a capable Muslim than an incompetent Christian.

Then I turn to two of my favorite voices calling out from the wild world wide web.

First, Ross Douthat:

If you're following the interesting debate over whether Barack Obama is a Christian, one thing to keep in mind is the extent to which heresy of various sorts pervades American Christianity at this point - and, moreover, the extent to which it cuts across confessional, cultural, and political lines. The Obama interview that provided the grist for this conversation does indeed suggest, as Larison puts it, that our President subscribes to some sort of semi-Arian conception of the nature of Christ, which isn't surprising at all given that he entered Christianity through the liberal-Protestant gate. But heresy of this and other stripes is hardly confined to liberal Protestants. Americans of all denominations are pretty murky about even the most important theological questions, and thus as likely to offer semi-Arian (or semi-Pelagian, or semi-Nestorian, or what-have-you) formulations out of ignorance as out of considered belief. And of course a distinctively American strand of heresy is integral to a large swathe of what we think of as "conservative" Christianity: You could call it Americanism or Moralistic Therapeutic Deism or something else entirely, but whatever label you choose it owes as much to Emerson, Hegel and Norman Vincent Peale as to Nicaea and Chalcedon, and its emanations and penumbras influence everything from the prosperity gospel to the foreign policy of George W. Bush.

Now it's true that if he had been asked about Christ's nature, Bush - or Ronald Reagan, to take another conservative President with an idiosyncratic religious sensibility - might have given a more Nicaean answer than Obama did in the interview in question. But then again maybe not! (And God only knows what John McCain, the most pagan Presidential contender we've had in some time, might have said.) Given the muddled way in which most Americans approach religion, and the pervasiveness of heterodoxy, I suppose I'm basically with Alan Jacobs: I think that figuring out exactly what sort of things Obama believes about God and Christ and everything else, and how those beliefs may affect his Presidency, is ultimately a more profitable pursuit than arguing about whether he should be allowed to call himself a Christian. Or put another way: I expect my Presidents to be heretics, but I think it matters a great deal what kind of heretics they are.

Second, Alan Jacobs:

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.

The more you think about how every Christian is pretty uneducated when it comes to multitude of arguments that have been held about the person of Jesus or some theological issue in the history of the church...the more you should fear applying religious tests to political figures or hoping for a theocracy. Who's God would we end up putting over the top of us all. Then you come back to realizing how amazing it was that the Founding Fathers designed a solution for precisely this problem: Govern to the best of humanity's understanding and live your personal lives piously. It works out the best way.