Quote:
Ergo, belief in the racist, Marxist philosophy of black liberation theology is not necessarily incompatible with being a Christian who has orthodox beliefs on most matters of Christian doctrine (e.g., the trinity, the resurrection, virgin birth, and so on).
Taking them at their word, there's more evidence of BO's "Christianity" in an historical orthodox sense than there is for George Washington and James Madison. I use them as examples because, I admit the evidence isn't conclusive. Whereas J. Adams, Jefferson and Franklin are on record explicitly announcing what it is they believe in (i.e., that they reject the Trinity and other orthodox doctrines) Madison and Washington are less clear.
Still, taking them all at their word, BO has given us more evidence of his belief in historic Christian doctrine than GW or JM did.
10 comments:
This makes Obama's form of Christianity more in-line with historic Christianity than Glenn Beck's
Yes it does.
ouch ... my first inference of the above quote was waaay off.
In case anyone else inferred that the quote indicates that Obama believes "in the racist, Marxist philosophy of black liberation theology", check out the link to Dave Kopel's post at Volokh. That's not what is asserted or implied.
The point is slave owners as well as those who adhere to racist, Marxist philosophy of black liberation theology can be sincere Christians.
"BHO" is a more charitable and sensible way to put the president's initials.
I did look at Jon's provided link the other day on my own. Two parts that jump out is an apparent belief in the resurrection and that
"We are thankful for the sacrifice He gave for the sins of humanity."
which seems to endorse the Atonement.
However, is Black Liberation Theology---as limned by James Hal Cone and endorsed by Obama's Rev. Wright Trinity Church heretical? It's very weird, IMO. Judge for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hal_Cone
Further, is any "liberation theology," black or otherwise, in harmony with the Founding's political theology? IMO, no.
Can "social justice" as progressive politics make a claim on the Bible? [Sure.] Can it call its opponents like Beck [and me, for the record] unChristian?
Well it does, but it's not doing anything different than Beck. Or as I see this latest culture war drams unfolding, me. We all have a right to argue our theology and reading of the Bible in the public square.
In the "proof" speech, President Obama calls Jesus "our Lord and Savior," but that's also language Founding era unitarians used. I'm not sure BHO ever acknowledged Jesus as the Second Person of the Trinity anywhere, except attending Rev. Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years.
Does it matter? Not to me. [And as a Mormon, not to Glenn Beck, since the LDS church isn't exactly orthodox Trinitarian.]
The question is whether the president embraces "black liberation theology," which is---IMO---in conflict with the political theology of the Founding.
Neither is it self-evident that the "social Gospel," also stated as "social justice" and even "economic justice" is in accord with the Bible, and even less likely it's in accord with the political theology of the American Founding.
Whether on the level of Christian theology or of the Founding political theology, Beck has hit a nerve here, bigtime, this much is clear.
Respectfully submitted, for the sake of clarity, with a few remarks clearly labeled "in my opinion."
Per Mr. Abbott, I reject both race-based chattel slavery and black liberation theology as sound Christian theology.
More importantly, I reject them as well---as did Lincoln and Douglass---as consistent with the American Founding theology too.
"Further, is any "liberation theology," black or otherwise, in harmony with the Founding's political theology? IMO, no."
Just hit on this under another post but it is clear that the answer is no. Black liberation theology is Marxist and they a whole different view on personal property than the Lockeans at the founding.
"This makes Obama's form of Christianity more in-line with historic Christianity than Glenn Beck's"
Not if we are talking about political theology. We are conflating ideas here and people are getting confused. We ride right over the Manegoldian Missing Link to the detriment of the truth.
Secondly, since both branches(The Paul and Palin) branches of the Tea Party both attend these rallies it is hard to label what Beck stands for. The Paul branch is very liberal on certain issues but private property is not one of them.
This is the rub when talking about Black Liberation Theology.
Jon's argument that Barack Obama has left more evidence for his supposed Christian belief than George Washington did is true ONLY IF you take SOME of Obama's comments and pointedly ignore others.
If you take Obama's writings, speeches, interviews into any kind of comprehensive account, you'll see that Obama is not an evangelical Christian in any kind of orthodox or biblical sense. That's based on his own statements.
Washington was a modernist thinker who kept the details of his faith close to the vest. Obama is, in many respects, opposite that on both counts.
...you'll see that Obama is not an evangelical Christian in any kind of orthodox or biblical sense.
But he is a Christian, right?
In fairness, Brian---Rev. Tubbs---one must follow Jon's provided link to
"So I wanted to join you for a brief moment today to continue the Easter celebration of our risen Savior..."
That is more than Washington ever expressed publicly.
The discovery, just three days later, that would forever alter our world -- that the Son of Man was not to be found in His tomb and that Jesus Christ had risen.
That too.
We are thankful for the sacrifice He gave for the sins of humanity.
That too. That's Atonement talk.
And so, brian, when you write
Jon's argument that Barack Obama has left more evidence for his supposed Christian belief than George Washington did is true ONLY IF you take SOME of Obama's comments and pointedly ignore others.
It seems provable that BHO has publicly affirmed the Resurrection and the Atonement, and equally provable that GWash never did. Jon's point stands, in my reading.
And should you want to get into what BHO statements we must "pointedly ignore" to still consider him [a] Christian, well I'm not sure you want to go there, and having read most of BHO's public record on religion, I'm not sure what evidence you might proffer.
I happen to disagree that "social Gospel" politics is required by the Bible, but neither would I argue that it's an invalid interpretation. This, I believe, is what American "pluralism" is all about. [And how it differs from the French laïcité, God bless America.]
Post a Comment