|
Barack Obama is a first-term senator from Illinois, with some experience in the Illinois state government and involvement in social work projects in Chicago. He is running for president of the United States. He has a remarkable ability to inspire and fire up his supporters with a passion, a devotion and an allegiance not seen since John F. Kennedy, who as a young senator from Massachusetts made his successful run for the presidency in 1960. The historian Robert Caro writes: “But you only have to look at crucial moments in the history of our time to see how crucial it was to have a leader who could inspire, who could rally a nation to a standard, who could infuse a country with confidence, to remind people of the justice of a cause.” Historically, a charismatic leader often emerges at a time of crisis or at a time of national yearning, when the nation seems to have lost its way. At this critical time in our nation’s history, how should we think about the Barack Obama phenomenon?
- First, Obama is clearly and intentionally using the language of religion and spirituality as the vital center of his rhetoric and oratory. He presents himself as a politician who can redeem this nation from its partisan politics and division. Redemptive language permeates his speeches—indeed, his entire campaign. His candidacy is billed as a “movement” and Obama is elevated as an agent of generational change. Kate Zernike writes: “Accounts of the campaign’s ‘Camp Obama’ sessions, to train volunteers, have a revivalist flavor. Volunteers are urged to avoid talking about policy to potential voters, and instead tell of how they ‘came’ to Obama.” James Wolcott compares the Obama campaign to a revival with “a salvational fervor” and “idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria.” From Obama’s standard stump speech, listen to his words:
“We are the hope of the future. [We can] remake this world as it should be.” Charles Krauthammer summarizes Obama with salvific language: [Believe in me and I shall redeem not just you but your country—nay, we can become] “a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, and make this time different than all the rest.”
Therefore, commentators are beginning to use phrases like “Obama worshippers,” and “the cult of Obama.” Time magazine’s Joe Klein writes: “There is something just a wee bit creepy about this mass messianism. The message is becoming dangerously self-reverential.” Krauthammer refers to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, who, after the Obama victory in Virginia, Maryland and D.C., said, “My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. . . [Obama] comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament.” My, what incredible hyperbole!!!!
- Second, what can we say about Obama’s faith? I read the relevant chapters in Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope. He reviews his spiritual journey in significant detail and, especially, his understanding of what it means to be a Christian. He criticizes “liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant.” He also argues, that “faith doesn’t mean that you don’t have doubts. Otherwise, it isn’t faith. . . . If we don’t sometimes feel hopeless, then we’re really insulating ourselves from the world around us.” He continues that when a gang member “shoots indiscriminately into a crowd . . . there’s a hole in that young man’s heart—a hole that the government alone cannot fix.” Regarding the teen pregnancy crisis, Obama contends that “faith and guidance [can] help fortify a young woman’s sense of self, a young man’s sense of responsibility and a sense of reverence that all young people should have for the act of sexual intimacy.” He concludes that “no matter how religious they may be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack. They don’t want faith used to belittle or to divide. They’re tired of hearing folks deliver more screed than sermon.” In July 2006, Obama spoke in Washington, D.C. on the relationship between religion and democracy: “Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. . . But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. . . At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policymaking on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.”
- Third, it is imperative as Christians that we think very carefully and very critically about the phenomenon of Barack Obama. Jesus taught that we have a dual loyalty: We are citizens of God’s kingdom and we are citizens of our own nation’s kingdom. We give to Caesar what belongs to him and to God what belongs to Him (see Matthew 22:21). Wisely, the United States has adopted the separation of church and state. Each has a specific stewardship responsibility before God. The state does not have the duty of the great Commission; the church does not establish courts to adjudicate or establish bodies to make public policy that promotes justice and thwarts evil. Mart De Haan writes: “As our own culture changes, I believe part of the answer requires followers of Christ to know how and when to speak a second language. We have a biblical responsibility to speak the language of our mission to anyone who is looking for spiritual answers. On the other hand, it is our constitutional responsibility as US citizens to speak the language of liberty and justice for all.” It is my opinion that Obama is bringing the language of religious zeal into his proposals to deal with political problems. He is confusing the “political voice” with the “prophetic voice.” A political voice rises and falls on the changing tides of public sentiment. A prophetic voice rests on the ultimate and eternal authority of God. A political voice seeks changes in social behavior by applying the external pressures of law-making and enforcement. A prophetic voice calls for change in individual hearts as the means of transforming culture. A political voice is associated with government. A prophetic voice comes from the church. Evangelicals must be critically aware of the difference and Barack Obama must as well. If we are not clear about this, we will buy into the lie of the political illusion, that the kingdom of Jesus Christ will come from government. It will not!! A presidential candidate is not a messianic figure who speaks the language of a prophet; he is a human being who must speak the language of political reality. Evangelicals have had to learn this lesson over the last two decades the hard way. The Democratic Party is about to learn that lesson in the early 21st century.
See Mart De Haan, “The Political Challenge” (November 2002), RBC Ministries; Jim Hoagland, Washington Post (2 July 2006); E.J. Dionne, Washington Post (30 June 2006); Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post (15 February 2008); and Kate Zernike, “The Charisma Mandate,” New York Times (17 February 2008).
Print
|
