Comments  10

• Sarah Norman 1 Sep, 03:28 PM

  Carmen,
  So aptly written, as usual.
  
  If the leading Presbyterians were speaking plainly, what they would really be saying is "we wish that faith was not a political issue." In large part, it is this disassociation between or compartimentalization of the elements that make up our citizens that has caused our country to suffer an awful moral downfall. These days it is plausible to consider one's self "a good Christian" (for some particular reason) while engaging in questionable, if not sinful, behavior at the same time. We justify it by keeping it separate; the faith of such people amounts to no effect because it doesn't shape all parts of their being.
  With ya', sister!

• Bob 1 Sep, 06:09 PM

  My faith is better than your faith.

• Kevin Lightner 1 Sep, 09:02 PM

  I posted this comment in the PC(USA) discussion for this topic:
  The issue is not President Obama's faith. The issue is his honesty about his faith. His words do not match his actions. The people with whom he associates advocate Liberation Theology and Collective Salvation, and he has made statements in support of these views. The honesty and integrity of the man is at stake. If he believes these things, I ask that our president have the courage of his convictions and say so. Both words and actions have meaning and convey purpose. Unless we know his core set of beliefs, how are we trust the man to govern this nation? I will never relinquish my right to question the beliefs – religious or otherwise – of my leaders (both political and denominational).

• dan 2 Sep, 10:16 AM

  Really, Carmen, as usual you missed the point. Of course faith speaks to politics. It can do no other. But faith is not another political party. Chrsitian faith is not the only faith that speaks. Tha is the point you miss. Keeping faith separated from politics is about avoiding a theocracy, which you, and others, seem to earnestly desire. Before you vent, you should read the constitutio and US history and our own American church history.

• Bill Goodnight 2 Sep, 01:31 PM

  One's faith should always be formative of what is believed. However, when King spoke on the steps he was in the style of the Biblical prophets, seeking to trouble the powerful and empower the troubled. What happened this year was an effort to reduce faith to platitudes and virtues stripped of corporate ethics. It was an effort to make "right faith" a political issue rather than policy. Even pagan kings could be used by God to strike down leaders who had the "right faith" void of a responsibility for the poor and needy. The Bible is full of commands to stand up for the poor, no where does it say walk out of church because the pastor is preaching social justice. To argue about wheter it is better to listen to Glenn Beck because he is a Mormon or Barack Obama because he is a protestant is to make faith the issue. BUT, the issue is not faith, the real argument is not about faith, but what does it mean to be faithful. When we argue over faith the discussion is closed before it begins. When we argue over what it means to be faithful there is room for the Spirit of God to work and lives to be changed.

• a different dan 2 Sep, 05:50 PM

  Now if only the Layman would see that politics is a faith issue, then maybe we could make some progress toward reconciliation.

• Pat S. 2 Sep, 06:25 PM

  Bill, As usual we disagree. Carmen has hit the nail on the head, and you, my Brother, are way off course. Pat

• Jodie Gallo 3 Sep, 11:32 AM

  Carmen,
  
  Again, an awkward post. We can’t tell if you are coming or going. Only that you are against.
  
  The article you mentioned is obviously a political post motivated by faith. It concludes with the following clearly political statement of faith:
  
  “Therefore, we urge public officials, faith leaders, and the media to offer no further support or airtime to those who misrepresent and call into question the President’s Christian faith. And we join with the President in praying that God will continue to bless the United States of America.”
  
  The article’s main point is that trying to make Mr. Obama out as a non-Christian is a political ploy that lacks integrity of faith and violates America’s founding principle of freedom of religion.
  
  Mr. Obama happens to be a Christian who finds wisdom in the Scriptures, but it would be perfectly OK if he were Jewish, or Muslim or Buddhist or even nothing at all.
  
  It’s remaining thrust is nicely summarized in your own words that “we live in a land where freedom of religion means that people can freely exercise their faith without fear of government [or public, or media] retribution”.
  
  In other words, you seem to be in complete agreement with everything the article says. But you are still against it. Isn’t that awkward?
  
  
  

• Stew Cusick 3 Sep, 04:23 PM

  Carmen
  Thanks for keeping the focus on faith in Christ and the Holy Scriptures given to us for our benifit and correction. The need for our Theology to guide our actions individually and as the Church body seems to be largely ignored or resisted by calling it politics or fussing about an imagined threat of a theocracy. You are in good company speaking to the continual interplay of politics and faith. The wonderful examples you have listed both from Biblical times forward are powerful evidence. Also there is a wealth of evidence From Peter Lillback's book George Washington's SACRED FIRE showing that our nations first Comander in Chief and President was also inspired to (political?)action by his Biblically grounded Anglican tradition. We are in a long line of believers who understand that James 2: 14-26 speaks to us today.

• Greg Scandlen 4 Sep, 09:51 AM

  Jodie quotes the article in question -- "Therefore, we urge public officials, faith leaders, and the media to offer no further support or airtime to those who misrepresent and call into question the President’s Christian faith."
  
  It is Mr. Obama himself who has introduced his beliefs into the public dialogue. He has repeatedly said that individual salvation depends on collective salvation.
  
  Are we not allowed to question or challenge that view?