Roland Martin on Franklin Graham

At least Franklin Graham did not say that Obama is a Muslim. I’m on a Yahoo group of people who went to the same mission school in Ethiopia that I did. Many of the participants think that Obama is not only not a Christian but that he is covertly Muslim. IMO that is slander and unacceptable but the opinions are stated with great force and assurance.

Whether or not Obama is a Christian is something between God and himself and is not something that I can judge although IMO Obama should be given the benefit of the doubt.

When politicians make claims to be Christians one never knows if it is a heart statement or just political spin. The best indication is from people who knew them before they entered politics. Having been in a mainline Presbyterian church one observes that even some of the ministers give an ambiguous impression. Some/many are Christians but some few definitely appear not to be and it is ambiguous with a great many. About ten years ago there was talk about the RC church excommunicating some of the Cdn politicians who claimed membership. Clearly Steven Harper our prime minister is a Christian although he almost never talks about it in public.

I’m afraid that too many people believe that all if fair in love and politics. Witness the birthers. Just because I may not like Obama’s politics is no reason to cast aspersions on his Christianity.
Dave W

Opening up a can of worms here…

Franklin Graham’s and other Conservative Christians’ “doubts” on whether or not Obama is a Christian has NOTHING to do with theology or “doctrine”, but has everything to do with race and politics.

If Obama was a White Republican named Robert O’Reiley, no one in that camp would question whether or not he’s a Christian.

As long as folks like Trump, Gingrich,Hannity, Limbaugh are embraced as defendrs of Christianity and “moral values, no one can convince me otherwise.

How to talk about the faith of public leaders?

Why not oo it the way Jesus did, such as Matt 7: Many say Lord Lord but do not do the things that I say. Or Matthew 23: Woe to you hypocrites.

The suggestion that this is about race and politics is, quite frankly, absurd. You are looking into Graham’s heart while condemning him for presumably looking into Obama’s heart. I don’t consider Trump, Hannity, Limbaugh, or Gingrich to be defenders of Christian values.

I do not think there is any reasonable biblical argument to make that Obama is a Christian in the biblical sense. He was not affiliated with a Bible preaching church. His life does not demonstrate Christian ideals such as protecting the youngest and most helpless among us. He is given frequently to untruthfulness and to unkind treatment of those he disagrees with.

I have some disagreements with Franklin, but let’s praise him for standing up where his father failed. His father sent a conflicting message about the gospel too often. He should have never gotten into politics. To affirm the Christianity of Barack Obama would be to contradict what the Bible says about what it means to be a disciple, a Christian.

Rick, I would hope I am not judging, but discerning…

For example, I did not say that Trump, Gingrich,Hannity, Limbaugh were not Christians – thoh what they display in their personal lives, public language, lack of truthfulness, and apparent lack of Christian charity towards their perceived enemies does make me wonder how much they value actually OBEYING Christ.

I am curious tho, why it is as Conservative Christians do not question the faith of men like these, but continually not only question the faith of Obama, but continue to claim directly or indirectly, that he is a Muslim.

The same caveat in 1 Cor. 4 applies in this Franklin Graham scenario, as it does to those who either love calling Obama or Glenn Beck a fool and a liar.

“Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God…Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.”

1. Jesus was not shy about publicly rebuking community leaders

2. He only rebuked community leaders who shared his religious sect. He didn’t go around looking for Roman magistrates to condemn.

3. He specifically attacked them by noting where their actions were out of line with their faith tradition.

Based on those three points I would think that a true Chrisitan preacher should have the boldness to say “Woe unto you…” to political leaders who claim to be Christian but perform actions, or vote in a manner, that is inconsistent with their Christian walk. In fact, I would argue that some Christian preacher, and preferably the Christian church in unison, must do this in order to demonstrate to the world, and to other Christians who could be led astray, know that claiming to be a Christian is of little value when you are paying a prostitute (Vitter) sleeping with your employees (Ensign) possibly torturing prisoners (Bush) leaving your wife for your mistress (Trump, Gingrich, etc.) supporting the murder of innocent babies (Democratic party) even when they are days or weeks away from delivery (Obama) and even when they are delivered alive, refusing them medical treatment (Obama) being bad stewards of the environment (Republican party), etc.

We might think that the church picks on Obama too much, and maybe that is true, but the church has a responsibility to disassociate itself with people who claim to be Christians and discredit that claim with their actions. That might mean small rebukes or excommunication, but the church cannot stand by and let Jesus’ name be associated with the sins I listed above.

“Christian leaders” should be “Christians”. Teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (sometimes through discipline) is necessary for every individual, it is just sometimes more public with public figures and public sins.

Robin, I sort of agree with you (and I appreciate your even-handedness even if I disagree with some of your interpretations), but I think the solution is for leaders/candidates to keep their religious beliefs to themselves. We have put so much pressure on leaders (particularly presidents) to proclaim their faith that they are forced into situations where they are bound to offend someone by their supposed hypocrisy. I am not aware of any politicians, Christian or otherwise, who would have a platform consistent with Christianity based on the criteria you outlined. I would interested and gratified to know if I am wrong.

The above is not to imply that politicians are helpless victims when it comes to proclaiming their faith. Many politicians, particularly those towards the right or in places like the Bible Belt find it expedient to proclaim their faith in order to get the votes of the Christian community. In this case, I think it is appropriate for them to be called out if their votes don’t match their faith. My sense is that Obama was not as guilty of this; in fact, his association with Jeremiah Wright was more of a hinderance and a help. He only clearly expressed his faith after he was elected, probably more to put to rest rumors that he was a Muslim more than anything else.

There is no requirement for public office that one must make a profession of faith of any kind. But if anyone in public office makes a profession of faith, whether Christian or otherwise, there is nothing wrong or even “sly” about wondering what that profession consists of.

It is fair for Scot to “pushback” on how Graham’s words and actions measure up to his profession of faith and the Christian life. It is likewise fair for Graham, or anyone else, to “pushback” on how Obama’s words and actions measure up to his profession of faith and the Christian life.

Graham does accept Obama’s profession of faith, although he wonders at least a little about the nature of that faith. There is nothing political or racist in that. I don’t think he has done anything wrong by it.

I believe that Obama and many prominent political leaders are disingenuous about their faith, or lack thereof, and say what most benefits and least hurts them politically. I’m not sure a person who is a “real” Christian can reach the place where he or she could garner her or his party’s nomination for President, as there would be too many compromises and political deals made along the way, as well as the truth-shading and outright lying that’s required of those in such positions, than a “real” follower of Jesus Christ would be able or willing to make.

Quoting LT: “I do not think there is any reasonable biblical argument to make that Obama is a Christian in the biblical sense. He was not affiliated with a Bible preaching church” – that would be “Bible-preaching” as you interpret it, then? I was shocked to discover, once I got to know many very wonderful African-American believers, that they didn’t think my church was “Bible-preaching” because my pastor had nothing to say about the plight of the poor, oppressed and marginalized – as the Bible very clearly does.
“His life does not demonstrate Christian ideals such as protecting the youngest and most helpless among us.” I interpret this statement as being about the unborn – yes? Yet there are many more young and helpless than that among us and President Obama has said and done much more to protect them than I suspect any pundit on Fox News has – that’s pretty much what all that derided “community organizing” is about.
“He is given frequently to untruthfulness and to unkind treatment of those he disagrees with.” This is the statement that almost caused my hair to catch on fire. I don’t think you can say this without some footnotes. I am persuaded that in the political fray he is much less like this than everyone else – almost to a fault, to those who support him. I follow these things closely and have not found him “given FREQUENTLY to untruthfulness” – and certainly not in comparison with his opponents!
The problem here, ISTM, is that politics and governing are very much about compromising and giving different interest groups some of what they want. Some other interest group is sure to find evidence of a candidate/official violating a tenet of their platform if they look hard enough, and if they are prone to finding such a thing as evidence of disloyalty, then no one but the worst ideologue will meet their test.
Surely you recognize that there are those who truly and faithfully follow Jesus who come out on different sides of issues you care about? We need to call a truce over calling people unbelievers (and Muslims) when that happens.

AMEN, Ninure @#4.

Sue.

1. It’s not “Bible preaching as I interpret it,” but Bible preaching. The Bible is not hard to understand. Nor it is hard to see where Jeremiah Wright does not preach the Bible.

2. Yes, I was referring to abortion, and Obama’s “help” for those already born does nothing to offset his support for abortion. It is unconscionable that you reply with “yeah, but” when thousands of human beings are being murdered every day with his support. And claiming he does more than FoxNews pundits is bizarre. You could insert CNN, MSNBC, The Daily Kos, HuffPo, or anything else in there and it wouldn’t matter. He still supports the killing of the weakest and most helpless among us. It’s worse than the civil rights problems of the past. At least they had a chance to fight for themselves. Obama won’t even support giving these people a chance to fight for themselves.

3. As for his frequent untruthfulness and unkindness, it’s not really disputable. Even his supporters say this. In fact, his most ardent supporters are upset over it. He ran on a number of propositions that turned out not to be true. He says, “I will cut the budget” and then spends more in deficit spending than any president in history. That was untrue. He frequently is unkind to his opponents even though he says we need a different level of political discourse. These things are well documented in the media every day, even by media sympathetic to them.

You say, Surely you recognize that there are those who truly and faithfully follow Jesus who come out on different sides of issues you care about?

I don’t know any true and faithful follower of Jesus who supports abortion. It is impossible to follow Jesus and treat the little ones like that. Why is lying acceptable to a true and faithful follower of Jesus? It’s not.

I can give a great deal of latitude to differ on many political issues. But on abortion there is no room. It’s time Christians said so. We were way too late to the table on civil rights. Now we are almost 40 years late on abortion.

LT #26: “I don’t know any true and faithful follower of Jesus who supports abortion.”

Wow…where to begin…Depends on what you mean by “supports”. If you mean “thinks abortion is an unequivocally good thing that can and should be done at any time for any reason” then I am inclined to agree with you. If you mean “votes for candidates who support keeping abortion legal under some circumstances” then you have added a significant extra-biblical litmus test for salvation.

I don’t know of anybody who thinks abortion is unequivocally a good thing. However, there are many Christians who believe that the solution to the abortion problem lies more in preventing unwanted pregnancies, providing resources and options for pregnant women who need them, and reducing the stigma of unplanned pregnancy.

I’m not sure litmus tests for salvation (unless they are explicitly found in scripture) are ever appropriate, but unless and until there is a politician or party willing to tackle all aspects of this issue, Christians are left having to choose between two evils, making it especially inappropriate for abortion to be one of those tests.

There is a common perception that Obama never talked about his faith until recently when it was questioned. But that is just not true. He wrote about it in his first book, which he wrote soon after graduating from Harvard Law School and before even contemplating running for office. He has a widely heralded speech in 2006 to the Call To Renewal about faith in politics http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/us/politics/2006obamaspeech.html

He was my state rep and state senator and I met him in 1996 or 1997 for the first time. While Jeremiah Wright is controversial, most Chicago pastors would not question whether it is bible preaching church or not. No, it is not a conservative evangelical church, but it is ‘a real’ church.

Joe Canner: My comment (deleted apparently) was totally sarcastic/in jest. It was in response to the seemingly knee-jerk Pavlovian reaction and mantra by so many these days that if one dislikes or criticizes Obama, it must be because such a person is racist. Every criticism of Obama, whether his religion, his politics, his use of a teleprompter, etc., is seen as an opportunity to play the race card. An example of Godwin’s Law gone berserk.

“President Obama seemed to have a hoarse voice today.”

“YOU MUST BE A RACIST!!!!”

*sigh*

Adam #30, Thanks for the added historical background. I was overseas during that time and probably missed it. Did it seem to you like he was bringing up his faith to get votes or because it was genuinely important to him?

Eric #32, I figured as much; I was just using your post as an excuse to make an unrelated point.

Trinity (Wright’s church) is one of the larger churches on the southside and has always been very involved in social action. Most African American churches are very involved in social action, but one advantage that Trinity has is that it has always attracted a good number of fairly well off African Americans and had more resources than some other churches. Wright also strongly favored education and had his own earned doctorate (DMin, not PhD).

I am sure that in 2006 Obama was speaking of his faith to curry favor with the progressive evangelicals of the world and that is exactly who paid attention to that 2006 speech. But he has had too many explicitly Christian speeches (when it was not a dominate Democratic theme) for it to really have been primarily (or only) to win votes.

@Joe Canner #28 – There are many Christians who believe that the solution to the abortion problem lies more in preventing unwanted pregnancies, providing resources and options for pregnant women who need them, and reducing the stigma of unplanned pregnancy.

I hardly think this is controversial. Who doesn’t support this? The question is whether or not a Christian can support in any form the intentional and premeditated stamping out of the image of God in man. The Bible makes the defense of human life part of the definition of Christian (1 John 3:15). So the Bible does make this a litmus test for Christianity. Why should we hesitate?

@Fish #37 – I don’t know of any true and faithful follower of Jesus, as I would define it, who doesn’t support universal health care, medicare, or social security.

I think the key there is “as you define it.” We need to be working with biblical definitions. The Bible does not even address these issues. It puts the responsibility for retirement on the family, and in their absence or negligence, the church (1 Tim 5). It doesn’t address healthcare at all other than the anointing with oil/laying on of hands of the elders (James 5).

But having said that, I am all for universal health care and retirement safety. I think it is part of common care for the image of God in man. The question revolves around who should pay for it and who should run it.

I am opposed to the government being involved in it, primarily because we have seen just how bad the government is at this. We have medicare and social security already, and both are failing by even the most liberal standard: medicare can’t afford the health care costs, and social security cannot provide enough money to live on and the well is dry. The fact is that if every individual had all the money they had paid into social security and put it in a low risk investment, they would have a far better retirement than they have now. The ratio of payers to payees is unmanageable, and there is no foreseeable way to fix the problem.

So the issue is not whether everyone should have health care and retirement. The issue is who should pay for it and how.

The key thing is that the Bible does not make government run health care and retirement a part of Christianity. It does make the defense of human life a part of Christianity (1 John 3:15).

I have a number of friends who are sincere and devout followers of Christ and yet believe that a woman’s right to choose abortion trumps the right of an unborn child to be born. I disagree with their position; I think their theology on this matter is off (they do articulate a theology, btw, that being that the unborn are not persons); I believe abortion is sin and want my friends to change their minds. But I’m not prepared to state that they are not saved.

When it comes to the public square, I believe we can argue these issues – and challenge what we believe to be wrong-headed thinking and application of that thinking. But it seems to me that judging the heart and sincerity of a person’s position is something that requires Pauline-esque apostolic authority – which I’m not sure many of us possess.

>”Denying health care is no different than performing an abortion…”

?!

Think through the logic of this statement.

Ava @43, it is sad that such a highly intelligent person as yourself cannot see the difference between the aggressive dismembering of an infant and the inability of providing medicine (or some other treatment) for the poor. Naturally, the end result MIGHT be the same but it is not logical at all to put them on the same level.

It is not a choice between an “aggressive” action and an “inability to provide.”

We are more than enough able to provide decent care for all people. Many nations far less economically powerful than us do it.

We simply choose not to, and choosing to not provide health care is like choosing to perform an abortion.

Except for one thing: motive.

It is one thing for a teenager in poverty to choose to have an abortion because she doesn’t know how she will live with another mouth to feed.

It is another thing for an entire society to choose to base life-and-death health care on a person’s wealth because that is the mechanism which creates the most corporate profit.

LT: Once again, you persist in equating murder with support for candidates that vote to keep abortion legal. No one here is murdering any one. No one here thinks murdering is a good idea.

However, in the real world, when we choose who to vote for, we usually have to decide which issues are more important than others. Some candidates are anti-abortion. Others think we shouldn’t spend trillions of dollars killing Iraqis, Afghanis, and our own soldiers; torture terror suspects and deny them justice; pollute the environment; etc., etc. In addition, we also have to take into consideration the fact that politicians cannot answer all of our problems and see what we can do in each of these areas.

I readily admit that it’s not an easy decision and it is a decision that should not be made lightly. Accordingly, I think each person needs to before God and accountable to Him for this decision. Th notion that this decision can somehow be construed as component of salvation makes me very sad and seems to me to be just as much a “mockery of Christianity” as any stance we might take on an individual issue.

LT @49, given enough time and someone is going to call you Hitler, a Nazi, or a Pharisee. It’s what Eric back @32 was talking about with Godwin’s Law.

I’m afraid this thread is dying. People are talking past each other and I have work to do.

Thanks Joe.

A couple of summary points:

1. On the faith of elected officials, I don’t care. I think it is irrelevant. I want to know their policies. In reality, Christians should govern differently, but they don’t always do that. But I see no reason to talk about their faith. It is done for political pandering.

2. I disagree with the characterization of pro-choice people *wanting* women to have abortion. I doubt many of them do. The problem is that they do not protect those who are unable to protect themselves.

3. I don’t think abortion (or anything else short of attributing the works of the Spirit during Jesus’ earthly ministry to Satan) is the unpardonable sin. But it is a sin.

I’m not aware of a consensus that the government can’t run health care, especially considering every developed nation in the world has such a system, except for us. I strongly disagree with the current solution to health care, which I see as a corporate handout. If we wished to seek a truly biblical solution, we would abolish the satanic, mammon worshiping insurance companies and instead have a system run entirely by the government. Have not these recent economic crises revealed that corporations and private enterprise are just as corrupt as the government, and perhaps more driven by lust for mammon than a desire to do what is right? Can we honestly imagine Christ, who was a healer of the sick, asking for insurance before treating their ailments?

The problem with those who are against abortion, but don’t apply the same standards to the death penalty, health care based on wealth, law based on wealth, and war do a great disservice to our movement. It would be a lot harder for the pro-choice side to say that we are not truly pro-life if we applied this ethic universally to all life, and not simply the unborn. The concept of “innocent” life is a falsehood if not applied universally.