A Winner This Week One Way or Another

The leading contender for the worst theological statement of the week by a politician (a category that isn't all that hard to find nominees for) is Senator and presidential hopeful Barack H. Obama. He actually has two contenders in one speech made Sunday in Ohio according to this article or this one, but I'll only deal with one. In defending his view that same-sex unions should be a legal right regonized by the state from a Biblical basis, he "would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans." First of all - huh? (For those of you looking for profound intellectual discussions, that last statement may feel a little like shopping for an engagement ring in a bait-and-tackle shop. But sometimes people say such outlandish things that for a few seconds at least, the only response anyone can make is, "Huh?") Where exactly in the Sermon on the Mount did Jesus address same-sex unions? Was it the part where Jesus said that He didn't come to destroy the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill them and not one little part of a letter of them would pass away until heaven and earth disappear? No, that can't be it, because that would involve things like Leviticus 18:22 that explicitly forbid homosexuality. Was it where He went on to discuss those Old Testament ideas of forbidding murder and adultery and dealing with divorce and oaths? That can't be it either, because rather than declare how we've all moved beyond those Old Testament ways of thinking, Jesus taught that we need to practice these commands more thoroughly by subjecting our thoughts and not just our actions to the Lord and His commands. So if anything, Jesus was saying that passages like the one from Leviticus mentioned earlier should not just be obeyed in action but in our thought life as well. Oh, maybe it was the "don't judge" part. That's a favorite one, right? Except that to make that apply to homosexuality, which is expressly forbidden, wouldn't we also have to apply it to murder, adultery, and all those other expressly forbidden things? But if we do that, if we cannot judge any actions taken by others as wrong, we make Jesus contradict Himself, the Sermon on the Mount loses its power, and we have no basis for any law.

But second, in what way is a passage from one of Paul's most impressive letters "obscure?" It is likely that Obama was referring to Romans 1:26-27, and those two verses are neither mired in a problematical context nor worded in a convoluted manner. Paul's words are straightforward, condemning those, both male and female, who are practicing homosexuality.

So the two premises of Obama's argument, a "clear" teaching from Jesus and an "obscure" teaching from Paul, are without merit. But his real argument (if he had any premises to stand on) is that Jesus' teachings overrule Paul's. I have heard similar arguments by those who don't much care for what Paul had to say, but want to think of themselves as followers of Jesus. I've heard it stated this way: "I believe in the Word of God - those are the words in red." This is actually a full-blown denial of what the Word of God is. The Old Testament was written with the emphasis of "Thus saith the Lord." It is as if those are the first four words of the Old Testament, with a beginning quote mark before Genesis 1:1 and a closing quote mark after Malachi 4:6. And Jesus acknowledges that characterization in the Sermon on the Mount as I mentioned earlier. And the same Spirit that led the Old Testament writers is the same Spirit that led Paul and the other New Testament writers. Jesus came in a special way to Paul to have Paul represent Him to the Gentiles. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not divided. If Obama is following a Jesus that contradicts Paul, I know which Jesus that is not.

I don't know how Sen. Obama will fare on this Super Tuesday II, but he's the odds-on favorite to win my would-be contest this week.