The President seemed to falter a bit recently at an informal gathering when asked why he became a Christian. His response indicated that his decision was influenced by two important tenets of the Christian faith: “the golden rule”—do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and the crucifixion, the ultimate sacrifice Jesus made to cleanse us of our sins.
The problem with the first part of President Obama’s explanation about his choice of religions, the importance of the golden rule, is that this particular concept did not originate with, nor is it exclusive to, Christianity.
Every religion teaches that we should treat our fellow human beings the way we would hope to be treated. As a matter of fact, Gautama Buddha made this concept of human interaction a vital part of Buddhism when he introduced his new religion to the world in the 6th Century B.C.
And then we come to the President's second reason for becoming a Christian: his belief that Jesus died for our sins.
While the practice of offering blood sacrifices to influence the decisions of angry, jealous, and/or otherwise disturbed gods is as old as the human race, for those who may not be familiar with the crucifixion story, here is a synopsis:
At one point in the history of the world God became so upset with mankind that he considered resorting to genocide again, like during the days of Noah, to get a fresh start. But then He had a better idea. He would send His only son to act as a sacrificial offering. The son would absorb everybody’s sins and, at the conclusion of his humiliation, torture, and slaughter, on a day that is still recognized as a “Good Friday” among Christians, mankind would be redeemed.
For a man of Barack Obama’s intellectual capacity, I’m sure this story, even though it represents the foundation of his chosen faith, must be a source of confusion.
Could it be possible, for example, that God, the most intelligent being in the Universe would approve of, and actually be influenced by, the savage, primitive practice of human sacrifice?
And if the suffering of one individual can atone for the sins of others, how do you reconcile that feature of Christianity with the concept of personal responsibility?
In light of the intense scrutiny our President has endured regarding his religious beliefs, it might be wise for him to clarify his position by prefacing what he does believe in with what he doesn’t believe, and why.
For instance, he could explain why he didn’t become a Buddhist by saying that he believes in the existence of a Supreme Being instead of a Universal Oneness.
And he could say that he’s not Hindu because he believes in one God, not many gods.
Judaism, he might say, doesn’t suit him because of its portrayal of God as violent, vengeful, and jealous, prone to committing unbelievable atrocities if provoked.
As for the Muslim issue, a rational explanation for his choice could be that, whereas Islam defines human beings as servants of God, Christianity teaches us that we are God’s children. And so he could say that the possibility of becoming an heir to God’s Kingdom, as one of His children, was far more appealing than being relegated to the status of servant.
From there he could move smoothly into explaining why he loves and respects Jesus. He could start by pointing out how Jesus, the highest ranking Heavenly Representative to ever visit our world, volunteered to come to a hostile, barely civilized planet to live as one of us.
Next, he could inspire gratitude for Jesus’ dedicated efforts to establish, while feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and comforting the oppressed, the world’s first Service Ministry.
And he could dispel any doubts about his decision to follow Jesus’ teachings by praising him for transforming our understanding of God from blood-thirsty tyrant to Wise, Merciful, and Benevolent Father.
President Obama is much too smart to let himself be caught flatfooted again on the subject of his chosen religion.
I trust that the suggestions offered here will help him to more clearly define and express his beliefs.
Comments