The Salty Peanut Gallery

Commenters have been tearing up the blogosphere in response to President Obama’s recent remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC. Addressing a gathering of lawmakers, dignitaries and world leaders, Obama announced Thursday the signing of an executive order creating the White House Office on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. This is meant to expand and redirect the faith-based office established by President George W. Bush. “The goal of this office will not be to favor one religious group of faith over another or even religious groups over secular groups,” he said. “It will simply be to work on behalf of those organizations that want to work on behalf of our communities and to do so without blurring the line that our founders wisely drew between church and state.” Here’s some of what he had to say:

I always love it when politicians use religion to bolster their political agenda. Obviously there are several things that are particularly troubling about the President’s remarks. The focus of the greatest attention was Obama’s obvious duplicity on the issue of life. He states, “There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being.” Frankly it’s astounding how he can even make this statement with a straight face given his clear pro-abortion stance, although apparently there’ve been plenty of other instances where he has made similar comments. The question we’re left asking ourselves is how can there be such a disconnect on this issue? Does President Obama seriously think that unborn life is NOT considered innocent life? Let’s recall for a moment his previous response to the question of when life begins, an issue raised during the presidential campaign. “Whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.” So his thinking seems to be that he is unwilling to consider unborn life as innocent life because he doesn’t feel qualified to make that determination? Excuse me for saying so, but if that is true, that’s some pretty twisted logic if you ask me.

Next is Obama’s message of ecumenicalism. I have to tell you, it goes against every fiber of my being to hear Obama suggest that “The Golden Rule” is not only a Christian tenet from God’s Word, but rather it is some sort of universal teaching that binds all religions together. While it may be true that similar teachings exist in other religious texts, one thing must be made perfectly clear. There is only one God of heaven who is the only author of truth and there is only one authoritative source for communicating God’s revealed truth. That is the divinely inspired Word of God which is the Holy Scriptures. Other religions may try to adopt certain biblical principles as their own. Satan is a master imitator. But when all is said and done, there’s only one path to righteousness, only one way to heaven, only one true message of salvation and that is the message of the gospel. To claim that all religions are somehow united is just plain wrong. “If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed,” Paul says (Galatians 1:9).

Obama goes on to explain how people of differing religious beliefs can attain this spirit of ecumenical cooperation. He urges his listeners to “allow God’s grace to enter into that space that lies between us.” Mr. President, sir, with all due respect, this too is completely contrary to scripture. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 6:14-15, “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?”

Yes, Mr. President, God’s grace does indeed bring unity, but not in the way that you might think. God’s grace unites us through the person of Jesus Christ. By placing our trust in Him we identify with the same Lord and we each share in the same Spirit that binds us together in one accord (Ephesians 4:4-6). But make no mistake. The only grace that the nonbeliever can ever hope to receive from God is His saving grace through faith. And this leads us to the next issue, which is the president’s conversion experience:

“It happened not because of indoctrination or a sudden revelation but because I spent month after month working with church folks who simply wanted to help neighbors who were down on their luck, no matter what they looked like or where they came from or who they prayed to. It was on those streets, in those neighborhoods that I first felt God’s spirit beckon me. It was there that I felt called to a higher purpose, His purpose.”

Here’s the biggest problem with Obama’s so called testimony. There is no indication of any understanding on his part of the message of the gospel. No mention of any need for a Savior. No acknowledgment that he ever believed or received Jesus Christ as God’s provision for his salvation. Mr. President, God’s purpose isn’t some lofty social agenda. As Paul explains, “You were called to the one hope that belongs to your call” (Ephesians 4:4). That “one hope” is the call to eternal life. Our purpose then is to be conformed to the image of Christ (Romans 8:28-29). Any service that we may render is in response to that calling and is as a result of that purpose done in a spiritual act of worship (Romans 12:1). Serving our fellowman, while noble, is only secondary to surrendering our lives to Christ and serving Him for His glory.

As I said, there’s a lot here that believers should find troubling. President Obama is not the Christian leader that he likes to portray himself to be. It appears that religion is little more than an implement in his political arsenal. Unfortunately for him, the more he talks about religion and Christianity, the more he reveals just how little he understands of what it truly means to be a follower of Christ.