I came across two stories within moments of each other yesterday. Both, ostensibly, deal with the same Barack Obama town hall event in Ohio. And that’s where the similarities end. Here’s the first paragraph (of three paragraphs!) from the Associated Press:
Democrat Barack Obama says he’s tired of questions about his religion. The Democratic presidential candidate told a town hall meeting Sunday in Nelsonvile, Ohio, in the state’s rural southeast, that he is a devout Christian who prays to Jesus every night. He told audience members they would feel right at home at his church in Chicago.
That, plus two additional sentences, was the entire story. The other story is from the Baptist Press, which is one of the more thorough denominational press outlets out there. I’ll give you just the first paragraph from the piece, written by Michael Foust:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama defended his belief in same-sex civil unions March 2 by referencing Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and then implicitly criticizing those who view Romans as a binding teaching on homosexuality.
The Baptist Press story goes on to quote Obama’s remarks and analyze them from their particular vantage point. But I couldn’t believe that was the first I heard of the remarks. A search shows that there was other coverage of the remarks, disproportionately from the gay and Christian press. But there were a few mainstream attempts.
The thing I found most interesting, however, was that these stories mentioned Obama’s remarks about the Sermon on the Mount more than they mentioned Obama’s views of Romans. And when they did mention the Sermon on the Mount, they either didn’t specify what portion of the sermon Obama thought dealt with same-sex civil unions or they speculated about Obama’s interpretation.
Here’s how the Baptist Press handled it:
The Sermon on the Mount is found in Matthew 5-7, the passage in Romans is found in chapter 1, verses 26-32.
The Los Angeles Times wrote:
That likely would be “Blessed are the merciful for they shall receive mercy” over “Men committed indecent acts with other men and received in themselves due penalty for their perversion.”
Obama’s mention of the Sermon on the Mount in justifying legal recognition of same-sex unions may have been a reference to the Golden Rule: “Do to others what you would have them do to you.” Or it may have been a reference to another famous line: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.”
Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic says CNS reporter Terry Jeffrey has it right:
Having heard Obama work the Sermon on the Mount into several riffs before, I think Jeffrey, who is apt to want to misread Obama, gets it pretty much right. Obama has Matthew 7:1-6 in mind — the discourse on judgementalism —
I have an idea. Rather than speculating, how about one of these fancy reporters ask Obama which specific portion of the Sermon on the Mount he was referencing! I didn’t go to journalism school, though, so maybe I’m wrong.
As you might imagine, with so much confusion about the Sermon on the Mount — much less the portion of Romans dealing with homosexual behavior — coverage of this story hasn’t been too great. Obama called that passage obscure. What did he mean by that? In what way does he see a conflict between the two passages? Obama also talked about abortion and how his support for legal abortion does not make him less of a Christian. Entire stories could be written about just that portion of his remarks.
The media love to write stories about Obama’s appeal to evangelicals but reporters didn’t bother to ask any substantive questions about how evangelicals feel about Obama’s exegesis.
The partisan and religious press did somewhat better.
The Baptist Press story quoted a theologian praising Obama for using Scripture to justify political positions but noted that it is a common evangelical belief that all Scripture is inspired by God and equally authoritative. The story also noted that Jesus does talk about marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Ambinder at The Atlantic noted that Obama was doing something that usually gets people in trouble:
Obama’s reference was casual, and in referencing scripture he’s committed the same (venial) sin that liberal religionists are always cataloguing as coming from conservatives: that they slip contextless biblical phrases into their political stump speeches and degrade the meaning of both.
If you’d like the full remarks, in context, CNS posted them here.
If Obama is going to use the Bible to justify his policy positions, we’re bound to see more coverage. Let’s hope future coverage does a better job of explaining things.
 | Posted at 1:50 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (15) |
March 4, 2008, at 2:58 am
[…] TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt I came across two stories within moments of each other yesterday. Both, ostensibly, deal with the same Barack Obama town hall event in Ohio. And that’s where the similarities end. Here’s the first paragraph (of three paragraphs!) from the Associated Press: Democrat Barack Obama says he’s tired of questions about his religion. The Democratic presidential candidate told a town hall meeting Sunday in Nelsonvile, Ohio, in the state’s rural southeast, that he is a devout Christian who prays to Jesu […]
March 4, 2008, at 8:58 am
[…] Faith, politics, and Obama. One view, a second, and another. Romans 1, obscure? Where’d that come from? […]
March 4, 2008, at 8:58 am
[…] Faith, politics, and Obama. One view, a second, and another. Romans, obscure? Where’d that come from? […]
March 4, 2008, at 10:18 am
It’s great these days that we have sources that print extended verbatim statements of the candidates, so we can judge what they’re saying in context.
Because the text of Obama’s remarks was available, I have to take issue with part of the lede of the Baptist Press story, which otherwise provided a useful analysis and gave more information than I’ve seen elsewhere re Obama’s views on gay marriage as it applies to the issue of federalism.
Here’s Foust’s lede:
There’s a danger is talking about someone “implicitly” doing anything, and I just don’t see where Obama’s implicit criticism is.
Here’s what Obama said:
I don’t see Obama being critical there of people who view Romans as a binding teaching on homosexuality. I see him disagreeing, and respectfully so. That’s not the same thing. If anything, he seems to be going out of the way to state his own viewpoint without criticizing the theological beliefs of others.
Mollie said:
I find it interesting that two of the trackbacks above picked up on that. I obviously can’t speak for Obama as to what he meant, but it is obscure in the sense that the verse doesn’t provide a straightforward teaching about homosexuality. I am not in any way suggesting that Paul would have endorsed or even “tolerated” homosexual behavior in the Church; what I am saying is that if you’re looking for a New Testament straightforward “thou shalt not” in terms of homosexuality, it’s simply not there. And that Romans passage isn’t an easy one to understand; homosexuality here seems to be treated as a consequence of condemned behavior rather than an evil in itself. Certainly, it’s a less clear teaching (and, by definition, more obscure) than something like the Golden Rule, which is about as clear (but difficult to live!) as can be.
Also, anyone who is educated, church-going Christian or not, has heard of (or should have!) the Golden Rule and other parts of the Sermon on the Mount. Not so for Romans 1:26-27, which is probably unknown to most people who haven’t taken an interest in gay issues or the writings of Paul. To say that the passage is more obscure than the Sermon on the Mount doesn’t seem to me to call for much explanation.
Mollie said:
I’m not sure that the kind of exegesis I got into briefly above is all that appropriate for a news story on a regular basis. And how much do we really want to be questioning our candidates over theological issues? I’m not sure what my answer is to that. But I thought that the extended excerpts of Obama’s remarks, letting him speak for himself, did a good job of explaining where he was coming from. Providing the candidate’s views relatively unfiltered is more helpful to me than some reporter’s interpretation of what the candidate said.
March 4, 2008, at 11:42 am
“gfe”, thanks for the pointer to the full transcript. It’s clear how all media, MSM and non-MSM, can take things out of context and subtly shade was someone has said. The corrective is the transcript.
As to how obscure that passage in Romans is, it’s instructive to take it in full context:
From the plain language: greed, envy, “debate?”, deceit, backbiting, pride and those disobedient to their parents are on the same footing as those with same-sex lust. How many times have we seen those verses given equal prominence? And even further, what does “God gave them up”/”God gave them over” mean? It sure sounds like all the things listed are God’s punishment. So while theologians might have a different explanation, I can easily see how a non-theologian like Obama (or me) could call those verses obscure.
And it’s quite reasonable, at least to me, to choose Jesus’ words over the words of another in the Bible if the two seem to be in conflict. Some will no doubt disagree with that lay perspective, but why is that an unreasonable position to hold?
I’d love to see followup questions to see if Obama’s reasoning matches mine. Who knows, maybe that will happen.
March 4, 2008, at 12:51 pm
In the sense that Paul is not Christ, the Romans passage is more “obscure.” But considering many Christians put Paul’s teachings on an equal level with Christ’s, the words cannot be ‘obscure.’ But that’s theology, not media critique, and is off-topic.
It’s obvious that his use of his Christian religion in speeches and statements is ‘working’ in that it’s making the press focus on his Christianity, to negate the false rumors that he’s some kind of Muslim, like his father was.
Now, at least, we know that he “prays to Jesus every night.”
March 4, 2008, at 1:14 pm
David Brody got a bit of explanation from Joshua DuBois:
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/332909.aspx
March 4, 2008, at 1:49 pm
Public Policy from the Sermon on the Mount
Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or sho…
March 4, 2008, at 1:56 pm
Providing a link to the full statement by Obama is very helpful. Thanks.
I have found that Ethics Daily is much more reliable on Baptist matters than is the SBC organ BaptistPress (which is seldom critical of any of the Baptist leaders—either of what they say or do.
There is much at agree with in what gfe (#4) and Jerry (#5) say. Even though Paul wrote earlier than any of our gospels, he presents a different gospel than Jesus is portrayed in any of the gospels as presenting. The statement of the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12), which I assume Obama was referring to, is much clearer, and much more universally recognized, than anything Paul wrote.
I don’t think Jerry gave us the “full context” for Paul’s remarks in Romans 1. He was writing to the church in Rome, and he makes a case for a natural law viewpoint that one might reasonably assume to be familiar there as a result of the Stoic and even Epicurean philosophies that had been influencial there for at least a century. That perspective had been clearly laid out in the well known ethical and political theories of Cicero in the 1st century B.C.E.
Jerry also did not point out that the Romans passage is apparently obscure enough that its discussion of idolatry is confused with being a discussion of homosexuality per se in many circles. Too, his invoking the distiction between “natural” and “unnatural” is often confused with a distinctio between “right” and “wrong” or “sinful” and “faithful”. Which makes it strange that Paul goes on to describe activity of God against nature (or what is natural) in the eleventh chapter of Romans—without any hint of disapproval at all. Obscure? Yes, I think so!
While it is unreasonable to expect journalists to be familiar with all of this, it would be reasonable to expect some follow up questions designed to fill in Obama’s (or whoever’s) perspective when it is somewhat vaguely alluded to—assuming that there was time and opportunity for follow-up questions.
March 4, 2008, at 4:59 pm
Romans 1 is not in any way obscure, unless Sen. Obama doesn’t read his Bible much. There may be a certain sense in which we privilege “dominical” sayings, like Matt. 7, but we need to realize that Romans was certainly written 20-50 years earlier than Matthew, and Paul was not an “inventor” of the faith, but an important, and our earliest, link in the tradition found in the NT. Perhaps James was written earlier, but that’s debatable. As far as “gfe’s” doubt of “straightforward condemnation of homosexuality, try I Timothy 1:10 and I Corinthians 6:9. but the whole idea of “homosexuality” in the NT is anachronistic, because this idea of sexual identity is modern, and the NT, as well as the old, focuses on actions, behaviors, when it comes to sexual questions. Obama actually seems to have a pretty nuanced and moderate line on this issue, and I would think it takes some principles to speak against gay marriage in a Democratic primary context. But the phrase bait and switch is creeping into my mind. And boy am I tired of folk who don’t understand how Christians interpret the OT quoting funky texts about eating shellfish, etc. Grow up, and learn something about the sources of law and disputed questions in the legal world. All law comes from some moral presupposition.
March 4, 2008, at 9:18 pm
“the Golden Rule… is much clearer, and much more universally recognized, than anything Paul wrote”
Clearer to who? Much more universally recognized by who? Mainline/liberal protestants perhaps, who are in distinct minority in this country, and agnostics/universalists. But not by the majority of self-identified Christians who hold (gasp!) all of the Bible as God’s Word. And Paul certainly did not preach a “different gospel”, just a perspective on the one and only Gospel that seems less palatable to those who conveniently want to pick and choose which parts they approve. But we digress.
I don’t doubt the sincerity of Obama’s faith, or even the sincerity of reporters who have the difficult task of covering his very intentionally nuanced approach to reconciling the Bible with his policy issues. I just believe he recognizes he’s in an ideal position in this election cycle:
1) maintaining socially/politically liberal views to stroke his own party, while
2) voicing enough Christian-speak (especially in churches, and/or to religious people) to minimize the religiously conservative from leaning Republican as in recent elections past, and even get some of them to vote for him despite significant disagreement on many traditionally core values.
Political pragmatism at its best (or worst). Smart.
March 5, 2008, at 12:18 am
Which I think is, in my mind, for my faith…what? Why can’t he just say I believe whatever he believes. What does more central than obscure really even mean in reference to that passage? To me, in my way of thinking, from my perspective he talks in gibberish. Why should a journalist have to guess or assume what Obama was talking about? Why can’t he just say it plain and simple so we all know? For me, in my opinion, for my beliefs, I do not think it was the best move for him to quote the Bible on that issue. I’m waiting to see what sermon he will quote in response to a question on abortion. But that’s just my two cents. That’s my opinion.
Why is Obama tired of questions about his religion? And if that’s the case, then he should not make vague Biblical references that leave people wondering what his point was because….that leads to more questions.
Just saying…in my view…Obama should just spit it out.
March 5, 2008, at 12:23 am
I wasn’t asking for a hermeneutics lesson for the Sermon on the Mount when I said “What does more central than obscure really even mean…”; I just do not think that using “central” and “obscure” makes any real point at all. ( Obvioulsy it doesn’t because nobody knows what he meant.)
March 5, 2008, at 12:41 pm
Just to come in late with my two cents: Obama does seem to have cherry-picked his Bible. He leans hard on Matthew, which says nothing about same-sex relations, the topic he brought up. And he thinks Romans 1 is obscure, although it directly addresses the topic. There should have been a religion reporter on hand, to call Obama on it.
March 6, 2008, at 6:23 pm
From the plain language: greed, envy, “debate?â€, deceit, backbiting, pride and those disobedient to their parents are on the same footing as those with same-sex lust. How many times have we seen those verses given equal prominence? As often as we have seen greed, envy, deceit, backbiting, pride, and disobedience being defended as normal, moral behavior.
But were you really looking for an answer to your question?