Ok Look. Bottom line is EVERY U.S. President manipulates and uses religion to his benefit. We have seen this played out over the years time and time again but it is usually kissing up to the religious right, throwing in some Christianity for votes or to calm the storms of criticism, so why is it a surprise that this president would do the same? Same motives, different religions. The separation of Church and State is vital for the USA Church and frankly I am glad for once it is not Jesus name being knocked around half hardheartedly only to bring mockery from the press. We are the Church. Let's preach Jesus, and plant Churches, America never was and never will be a christian nation nor should it be. If we question whether or not we should have a "christian" nation than I would suggest some reading on the early Church first. P.S. Baptist were some of the strongest supporters of the separation of Church and State...what happened?

Brightstarblackhole does have a point in regards to politicians using religion to get political points (I really wish all Republican Evangelicals would truly understand this).

I have to say, though, that my concern with this is the (perhaps unintended) theological statement this makes: that all religions are equal. Obama claims to be a Christian (not questioning that, by the way). So, what will happen during any White House Christmas function? Will he state that he believes the primacy of Jesus, or will he leave it to interpretation (which is what I expect to occur)?

I'm not saying that he should "throw down the gauntlet", so to speak, but should he find a way to show what his beliefs really are?

"Find a way to show what his beliefs really are?" I'm sorry, I thought he was doing a very good job showing what his beliefs are. Though he will never admit it, he seems to follow 'syncretism'.

As his stump speeches revealed, he is about change. So, he changes his 'testimony' for each audience he addresses. And with the way he co-opts Scripture, I am surprised he hasn't referred to himself as 'All things to all men, so that by any means I might save some.'

@David

While it seems readily apparent that he is guilty of syncretism, I do want to point out that he is supposed to be the president of all people, not just Christians, and that he should show some measure of respect toward other faiths.

It is interesting when evangelical Christians accuse our current President of syncretism and question his beliefs. The same questions never seemed to surface under our previous President. The truth about White House observance of Diwali is that while President Obama is the first President to attend Diwali celebrations his is not the first White House to host the celebrations. President Bush's White House actually holds that privilege. Karl Rove attended the first celebration held in the Old Executive Office Building while President Bush was out of town. The next year President Bush was home, however, he did not attend because he was attending the White House hosting of the Muslim observance of Iftar. We did not hear the righteous calls of "times have changed" then or that the President follows syncretism. In fact, these same voices were quiet when President Bush stated that Christians and Muslims pray to the same "God". It seems our "research" needs to be better and our instant reactions more restrained. The world is watching to see if they can trust us in all matters of truth.

Ed,
I'm glad you mentioned this. It takes guts to mention this stuff every once and a while.

We should question as a point of theology his faith. Our culture is scared to do that anymore b/c of our pc culture. The president is a pluralist. So was Bush. Just check youtube and see.

For me, the question is how wimpy is the church going to be on matters of doctrine?

David,

I have spoken (on many occasions, believe it or not), on President Bush's comments on Islam when I talk about the research in my book Lost and Found. You can find the video on Vimeo. I discuss his view that Muslims and Christians pray to the same God-- a view that many unchurched younger adults would share.

Also, please take a deep breath before you comment on my "righteous calls that 'times have changed.'" It was President Obama who opened his toast at his first-ever state dinner by pointing out the "firsts" here. I am expressing my surprise that it was not covered.

That's news-- and the President is pointing out that times have changed.

Since the rest of your comments were geared toward others, I will let them be. ;-) But, I work hard to be respectful when speaking of the President, regardless of whether I agree or disagree.

Thanks,

Ed

Ed,
Thank you for your response to my post. I have now done my deep breathing and realize that my phrasing of "righteous calls" was too harsh. I did not mean to imply that you were disrespecting the President. I just feel that many today are very comfortable in doing so and I wrongly lumped you in with that group. Thank you for your thoughts and listening to the viewpoints of others. :)

Appreciate You,
David

All good, David. Thanks for coming on back.

Ed

Ed,

Thanks for helping to bring to our attention that this should be news. I agree. After seeing your initial tweet on this, I did some research on the days events with Obama and the Prime Minister of India.

Like you, I don't care who is in office, news is news, plane and simple. One can for sure say the visible actions of President Obama are ground breaking in many ways.

I don't think it is necessary to celebrate various non-christian holidays/events to acknowledge their rights as a faith group.

the president showing respect to people of other faiths is hardly breaking news. two random people being able to waltz into a state dinner at the white house simply because they had on the right clothes is much more disturbing. while i find the media to be very asinine at times, i certainly don't take issue with their non-coverage of president obama's opening remarks. i do take issue with the fact that every single thing this man does is picked apart to the point of insanity...mostly be people who call themselves christians. i am neither a democrat or a republican, just a christian who believes our president deserves respect and a fair chance to do his job with being judged at every move. thank you, media, for not jumping all over president obama's opening remarks!

This reminds me of the early church as they told the good news in a multi religion, multi god culture. While most people may not have believed in many gods, they "went along to get along" in order to increase their economic and political position where they lived. Some things never change; there is nothing new under the sun. God will continue to change people from the inside out, not the other way around.

On a somewhat different note, where is the discussion on Family Christian Store selling the Sarah Palin book and promoting it at the front door. Maybe we are becoming more syncretic because evangelicals have sold out their faith to politics. If we stood apart we would not be so easily lumped in with other faiths.

By the way, we definitely do live in a different time. I would also agree that the level of "concern" in evangelicalism seems to ramp up whenever there is a democrat in office. The reality is our culture is increasingly secular and we can either fight it with secondary arguments or spread the gospel and reach the "nation"(s) But i would imagine Ed, you agree with that. Thanks for the thoughtful post.

As one who works in Christian media & spends much of my time with those "within" my own enclave, it is so easy to forget the pluralistic world in which we live. This is the irony that often the ones of us talking the most about evangelism, the Kingdom of God in the now, or the best posture of Christians in a world apart from God, are ones who don't even have to slug it out day after day in these trenches. For this I repent. Could the nature of this line of questioning and pondering be more a manifestation of this isolation? I say that because I wonder if we might frame the entire observation & spiritual nature of Obama's engaging other faiths differently if say we lived in India or had to visit all these countries and engage them? Just wondering. The other is the need to observe from a posture of distance and critique which modernism has even caused us to do with our engagement of Scripture and worship. Is this entire engagement of critique from the position of inquiry really a call to action or one more reason to stay on the side lines and lob questions or doubts or even (on a bad day) my cynicism. This may seem a bit unrelated to the topic but as one person mentioned, it seems our views on Obama seem unduly lacking in love if not insight. I say that as a believer who voted for him while he was in office in Illinois. I found once he became President an entire different group of believers had opinions...oh well.

Ok, let me get this right. Are you saying we should practically not worry about truth when we have to engage other groups?

And I'm not sure this is that easy. The President is a pluralist. The lingering question that most don't want to answer is "can you be a pluralist and a Christian?"

Why don't we want to answer this? Because by his own statements President Bush (whom I love) is also a pluralist.

I really just dont understand the need nor the deep passion around what our presidents faith consists of? Is the fear that he will take us to a more pluralistic religious nation? The reality is we are there! I think he reflects what exists in our culture. Evangelicals propped up Bush so much they also promoted a pluralistic leader just as Alan noted. (of which there was little condemnation) It seems we want the elected leaders to lead the church.....seems off the mark to me. Jesus lead the church, leads the church and is quite capable. President Obama will be gone after 3-7 years and the next president will still be unable to preserve Christian values. Religious freedoms end result is a pluralistic society. I sense a tone of wanting religious freedom to be limited to Christianity. I for one do not want the leaders telling me what to worship, when to worship or anything. We need to be careful what we wish for.

What do you all think about the Manhattan Declaration? I have some concerns and am trying to sort it out.

Darrell,

My sentiments exactly. The president is our executive leader...period. We are a nation of many faiths. Christians fled to this country to escape religious persecution, and freedom of religion is paramount! I really don't believe anyone can actually be pluralistic in their heart. Deep down a person can only believe in one thing, and it's not mine or anyone else's place to judge the way another person believes.

I'm not so sure we are not "to judge the way another person believes." Isn't that the point of One God, One Way, One Lord, One Savior?

Are we to just let it go without any witness or challenge? I get what I think you're implying. And at some point we have to let others believe want they want to believe. BUT, to leave it unaddressed theologically, philosophically, seems a little ....

Jesus judged the belief system of the Pharisees. Didn't He?

I'm not talking about mean, uncompassionate judgement. But I am concerned about accepting pluralism as truth.

It is really not about judgement of others. Its spending too much time worrying about, leaders who are put in power by God himself (Romans 13), and their willingness to promote Christianity. The spiritual life of Barack Obama is important for his eternity. That is a concern I share. I am not either motivated nor disuaded by what the president promotes or doesnt.

Love ya Alan.!!!

My thoughts are more of a challenge to make sure we don't deposit our "opinion" or "judgement" as to the true state of Obama's perspective on faith (his own personal faith & its supposed Christian foundation), other faiths in light of the variety of religions existing in the world, & the posture a leader needs to take in regards to this phenomena. Is it possible that our engagment of this issue of speaking into, about, and to other faiths as a world leader is a much more tenuous and challenging task than our interpretation? I think the issue of pluralism (the fact that our government and many in the world do not endorse any one faith)may be a good thing in the long run. The tenacity of our story ( the Gospel) can & will be made menfist inproximity rather than dominance. When we ask our world leaders to over ride world concerns regarding pluarlism I think we take out of the challenge the very deep seated issues that form one's posture and engabgement perspective. That is my point. Do we understand the context into which a Christian leader must speak to the world? Do we pray for President Obama as much as we critique his supposed capitulation? This is not to say this dialgue is a judgement. I don't think it is. I am just asking this to those who may read this exchange.

I appreciated Bush for the leader he was... not for the Christian he was (or wasn't). People just don't seem to understand how much credibility they lose when they try and present all religions as equal, and act like they are a part of all religions. (Especially when they claim to be a Christian.) I have much more respect for someone who claims to just be a Muslim than someone who claims to be a believer in many faith systems. Apparently no one near Obama has shared this tid-bit of cultural nuance with him.

David,

I understand you position, points. The thing in general I get a check in my spirit with is that scripture does not bear out that God is on the side of a pluralistic theology. Apocalyptic doctrine would convey to us things get worse, not better. A pluralistic view, anti- Jesus is the only way, is what will come against Christians.

All good though.

Just because our culture and times have changed, doesn't mean that Christianity should change. Remember the advice listed in the Bible in ACTS by the disciples Acts 15:29 (King James Version)

29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Acts 15:29 (Amplified Bible)
29That you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from [tasting] blood and from [eating the meat of animals] that have been strangled and from sexual impurity. If you keep yourselves from these things, you will do well. Farewell [be strong]!
What I get out of this is that people of that time were eating meat that was offered to idol in the marketplace. They would buy the meat knowing that it had been offered to idols.
When you partake in a festival such as this and the observance was in honor of a another religion-YOU ARE EATING MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS. A true Christian will not do it and stay true to Jesus Christ.
Remember Daniel and the three Hebrew children would not eat the king's meat.
DANIEL 1:5-20.
5And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king.

6Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah:

7Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego.

8But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.

9Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs.

10And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king.

11Then said Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah,

12Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink.

13Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king's meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants.

14So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten days.

15And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat.

16Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they should drink; and gave them pulse.

17As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.

18Now at the end of the days that the king had said he should bring them in, then the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar.

19And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore stood they before the king.

20And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm.

Now don't you think the pressure was on these fellows in the king's house (White House).

I am giving our President a chance to govern. I respect him. But I do not think Obama or Bush was a Christian even though we want to try to make them one. We do live in a pluralistic society, but Jesus is not pluralistic-IT IS JESUS AND HIM ALONE in politics or out of politics. We are not to be Menpleasers.

Ephesians 6:6 (King James Version)

6Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;
Ephesians 6:6 (Amplified Bible)
6Not in the way of eye-service [as if they were watching you] and only to please men, but as servants (slaves) of Christ, doing the will of God heartily and with your whole soul;

I think it almost, if not impossible to serve in politics and remain a CHRISTIAN. Judging? By what the Bible says-not my opinion-But God's Word.

Thank you for reading