Obama Fuzzes The Line, and a bit more…
The “Other Speech”. . .
Obama took to the podium yesterday to address the maelstrom surrounding himself and his former pastor Jeremiah Wright and race in general. You can read the speech here. There is some interesting reaction at RealClearPolitics and On Faith looks at the related and more general question. Amongst the reaction quote at RCP is Ben Smith of Politico:
A smart colleague notes that this speech is the polar opposite of this year’s other big speech on faith, in which Mitt Romney went to Texas to talk about Mormonism, but made just one reference to his Mormon faith.
Obama mentions Wright by name 14 times.
Smith is right, but this surface analysis misses the deeper and far more important issues. This deeper and meatier analysis is hinted at in this piece from Religion News Service:
When Sen. Barack Obama faced the cameras in Philadelphia on Tuesday (March 18), he was caught between his roles as politician and parishioner, forced to condemn his pastor’s words as he tried to advance his own campaign for president.
Experts on the black church say the controversial comments of Obama’s former Chicago pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, have put Obama in an awkward and uncomfortable position. At the same time, however, they have given him a chance to discuss race — including something about the black church — with white Americans.
“The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Rev. Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour of American life occurs on Sunday morning,” Obama said in his speech at the National Constitution Center.
But, with his typical insight, John Mark Reynolds cuts to the heart of the matter (quoting us in the process):
Obama’s Wonderful Speech: His Problem Should Be Political Not Religious or Racial
JMR is absolutely correct. Obama has some huge political problems here, but he should not have religious or racial ones. Sadly, I do not think Obama did anything to help himself on this front. Rather than untangle what within the black church has become a near Gordian knot of religion, race, and politics, he seeks to reinforce that mix without drawing any clear distinctions between them.
This takes us back to the Smith quote above - the deep contrast between Obama’s and Romney’s speech is that Romney endeavored to define the boundary between religion and politics, while Obama worked to fuzz it. This contrast marks the great divide between liberals and conservatives. The irony in this contrast is almost too good to be true. That it is the liberal that values the knot instead of seeks to jettison religion completely, is somehow sweet justice.
But I also think it is deeply reflective of how politics influences religion as much as vice-versa. With some notable exceptions, the black church is more political institution than spiritual one, as Obama himself seems to describe in his speech.
Which brings me to an interesting thing I have noted in all of this. Despite the fact that Jeremiah Wright’s church has HUGELY different values than the average conservative Evangelical church, and with its adherence to liberation theology, which is also radically different than traditional Evangelical theology, there is little coming from the Evangelical voices in all of this. There are exceptions to that observation, but the voices, particularly compared to what Romney had to withstand, and nearly quiescent. Some of that silence, of course, has to do with the fact that as a Democrat fight, not a conservative Republican one, but those voices claimed theology first, not party first, so I would expect them to be as loud about the errant theology here as they were about it there.
Wright’s theology does agree with the average Evangelical on what is generally considered “the essentials” (trinitarian, grace based salvation,…) while Mormons do differ in those “essentials.” However, when it comes to how votes are cast and policies are drafted, Wright’s thought will result in wildly variant results. This fact makes the silence somewhat mind-boggling.
Obama could have served himself and the nation much better by trying to clarify the line between religion and politics, but he failed in that effort. This fact alone limits greatly the value of Obama’s typically outstanding oratory. It is a shame.
Elsewhere…
The CSM looks at David Gushee looking at “the Evangelical Center.”
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Reading List | 3 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Recently:
- I Guess This is Adieu . . . for Now
- Short and To-The-Point
- Since Lowell Brought It Up…
- Dems, Religion, Missteps - Even Mistakes
- When You Interrupt Normal Blogging . . .
- A Romney/Biden Debate - Warm Up The Laugh Track
- An Open Letter to George H.W. Bush
- A Little More on the “Mormons Lie” and “Mormons Are Not Christians” Memes
- The Evangelical Break-up?
- Sitting on Pins and Needles…
3 Responses to “Obama Fuzzes The Line, and a bit more…”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
4thnephite on 19 Mar 2008 at 7:00 am #
All people are judged by the people we associate with, impression are noteworthy. The news is full of how many flip-flops he performed. This nation needs to go forward in a positive manner, less hate, more compassion and understanding. Obama, has made sure the divide between the children of God is wider than ever, I’m afraid Hillary smells blood in the water. What she is afraid of doing, he has done to himself.
CarlH on 19 Mar 2008 at 2:13 pm #
Ben Smith’s suggestion that “Romney went to Austin to talk about Mormonism” is a priceless example of projection of the most abject sort. That the media and certain pundits wanted Romney to talk about Mormonism (and assumed that he would cater to them by doing so) is a given, but to suggest that was the purpose of Romney’s speech, is to make clear that however much one might want to believe that “The Speech” changed the discussion now–let alone forever, that simply didn’t happen.
For now, I’ll just wait for Hillary to announce her “Gender in America” speech.
texan on 21 Mar 2008 at 8:39 am #
I know this blog is not about religious doctrine, but I feel that the above statement does not correctly describe the faith of Mormons, at least from the perspective of this Mormon. Mormons, in actuality, affirm that humans are saved by the grace of Christ, and that the grace of Christ, in fact, is the only saving power available to mortals. What we differ on is whether “faith alone” enables the grace or whether, indeed, it is even possible for faith to exist alone. Mormons reject the notion that living faith can exist in a vacuum, without being accompanied by works and, therefore, we reject the notion of faith-alone-based-salvation, while affirming reliance on the saving grace of Jesus Christ.
I was glad that John sees common ground between his church and that of Rev. Wright, though I would suggest that there is more common ground between Mormons and Evangelicals than might be inferred from John’s statement. I suspect that John would agree that there are many essentials that Evangelicals and Mormons actually do share in common (the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth of Christ, the sinless life of Christ, salvation coming through Christ alone, the resurrection of Christ, …).
I took the Southern Baptist Convention’s year 2000 statement of faith and broke it into 247 claims. Of those, I tallied up 225 claims that I can agree with. I compared that figure to a recent blog in which John commented that he agrees with 35% of what his own pastor says, noting that I, as a Mormon, agree with 91% of the SBC statement of faith. I’m sure the 35% figure was not intended to be a precise measure, and the divergences may just reflect the extent to which opinions or observations that go beyond the strict confines of doctrine may enter into his pastor’s sermons.
I’m not trying to say that there are not profound differences between Mormons and Batpists — there are — but I am suggesting that there is also a broad and expansive stretch of common ground. I think if we are able to acknowledge the common ground among religions — as John was willing to do with Rev. Wright’s church — we can have more meaningful conversations when we reach those points on which we do disagree and, at the same time, elevate the level of our political discourse when it does touch on religion.