T
First, Ritter, I want to thank you for your excellent response. I really appreciate it when a colleague such as yourself can comment and even disagree with me without the personal insults that too often fly from both sides in a debate. God has surely blessed you.
I will agree with you that there are many extreme liberals who deny Christ's divinity. I would say they are not nearly so common as perhaps you are putting forward. Unitarians do, but they do not consider themselves Christian. I've met some UCCs and others who will lean towards that. I actually got fired from a Presbyterian church because my theology was too conservative, and in this case yes, this particular congregation (or at least the pastor thereof) was one of those "Jesus was just a really great guy and we should all try to emulate him" types. But I've been a liberal Christian for over 4 decades, all over the country, and I have to say there really are few people who consider themselves Christian but deny the divinity of Jesus. Most will be honest and admit they're not really Christian.
Well, true ... I couldn't say for sure without asking. But I am pretty confident that he DOES believe this, because it is what I believe, and what millions of other Christians believe. He is a member in good standing in the UCC, and that is what they teach, so it makes sense.
As I hinted before, there are people who belong to a denomination but don't adhere to its tenets. Presbyterians who deny Jesus' divinity, Catholics who think birth control is okay, Jews who eat bacon. So he might not follow the UCC teaching, but combining that with what he has said in public, it seems most likely that he does.
I'd like to see your source for this comment.
Thank you for agreeing! I, too, wish more Evangelicals recognized this.
AMEN! This is so well said, Ritter, thank you. I think when it comes down to it, this is what they were trying to get at, with the separation of church and state. Not to eliminate God from everywhere, but to make it so non-Christians were at the same table, working together with Christians. Christians in the late 1700s had no problem with it, we shouldn't either.
This is a concern for me. I see more name-calling against Obama than I have seen of any other president. Clinton was no more religious -- and in many ways far less -- than Obama, and although he was harshly criticized for many of his moral failings, I don't remember anyone complaining about his lack of Christian faith (or if they did, it was far less vocal than today's criticisms of Obama.) Same goes for Jimmy Carter, the last Democratic president before him. He was DEVOUTLY Christian, even Evangelical, and yet decidedly liberal (for his time).
Which makes me ask: what is different about Obama? Why are people so quick to accuse him of being non-Christian, sometimes of being Muslim, when they would never say such of Clinton, or Reagan (who was probably the least religious president in most of our lifetimes)? I would like to believe that we are no longer a racist country, but I really can't avoid going there, when I see such criticism that seems to be based on nothing but the color of his skin.
Amen! Again, thank you for your excellent comments.
Denying Christ's divinity is a hallmark of some wings of liberal theology (you can't really pin liberal theology down by its definition anyhow. It is also considered a form of blasphemy.
That could be so. He really may believe that his beliefs are supported by scripture and the Republican ones are not. Perhaps he thinks the question is irrelevant in the context of fundamental principles although culturally relevant. There is no real way to judge without asking the man himself.
As I hinted before, there are people who belong to a denomination but don't adhere to its tenets. Presbyterians who deny Jesus' divinity, Catholics who think birth control is okay, Jews who eat bacon. So he might not follow the UCC teaching, but combining that with what he has said in public, it seems most likely that he does.
According to Jeremiah Wright, the man had shown little personal interest in religion when he spoke with Obama, that is why I would bank on the latter judgment. If that is the case (and there is no way of knowing for sure matters of the heart being what they are), then he is a candidate.
Thank you for mentioning Thomas Jefferson. This something I wish more Evangelicals would point out. A good portion of our star founding fathers were not Christians.
All of this to say, if we are to read history accurately, Christians have cooperated with non-Christians in the operation of civil government since the founding era. To say otherwise would be dishonest and discredit the biblical principles that apply to all people.
There is little different about Barack Obama in these respects. If Christians want to take issue with that, they have decades of tradition to take issue with. Perhaps it is time they should.
Which makes me ask: what is different about Obama? Why are people so quick to accuse him of being non-Christian, sometimes of being Muslim, when they would never say such of Clinton, or Reagan (who was probably the least religious president in most of our lifetimes)? I would like to believe that we are no longer a racist country, but I really can't avoid going there, when I see such criticism that seems to be based on nothing but the color of his skin.
Never said it was easy.