Politics, beliefs inseparable mix

At the height of fervor over an acronym, WWJD, evangelical leftist Tony Campolo asked a pointed question: “Is Jesus a Republican or a Democrat?” An ally of Campolo’s, Jim Wallis was perhaps more direct in musings over Marxism and the recently familiar topic of liberation theology. Mingling politics and religion is the sort of alchemy that shatters marrow, but people such as Campolo and Wallis are undeterred.
James Dobson and Barack Obama, at odds over the Bible, are in this group. A longtime leader of the evangelical right, Dobson pilloried the Democratic presidential candidate in a radio broadcast Tuesday over references to Old Testament law and Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. Dobson accuses Obama of deliberately distorting the Bible and positing a “fruitcake interpretation” of the Constitution.
Obama offended on tape delay, asking in a speech two years ago, “Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?”
Of special irritation to Dobson, Obama added: “If we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s?”
The remarks were uttered before Call to Renewal, a liberal Christian group founded by Wallis. Obama’s point, his backers explain, is that the Bible is an insufficient guide for public policy, particularly given the ostensible contrasts between Old and New Testament doctrine.
In fact, the dichotomy Obama implies is a false one. Mainstream Protestant and Catholic exegeses describe the biblical account as composed of two unfolding dramas, the Old Testament a prophetic one pointing to the New Testament revelation of Christ. Obama’s real intent, in the mind of Dobson, is to associate conservative stances such as opposition to abortion as anachronistic in the fashion of ancient biblical law.
“Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?” Dobson said.
For the casual observer, the clash appears to be one of mere theologies, Dobson’s a fundamentalist version favored by the right and Obama’s a liberation version favored by the left. This is true, but Wallis perhaps best demonstrates that sifting theological wheat from the political chaff can be a tall order.
A civil rights activist and Vietnam war protester, Wallis has been a leading voice among evangelicals calling for wealth redistribution under the guise of social justice. Raised in a Plymouth Brethren family, Wallis has been an occasional champion of liberation theology, a branch of which is espoused by Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Wallis contemplated the confluence of theology and public policy in a 1979 essay: “As more Christians become influenced by liberation theology, finding themselves increasingly rejecting the values and institutions of capitalism, they will also be drawn to the Marxist analysis and praxis that is so central to the movement.”
We will not venture a guess on Christ’s hypothetical political affiliations. Biblical accounts reveal him to have been dismissive of councils of men. It seems reasonable to suppose he would regard political parties similarly. We also acknowledge our unfitness for judging the Christian authenticity of men such as Dobson and Obama and their accompanying beliefs.
But Wallis shows us theology and politics are not easily separated, no matter how volatile the mix. While America is readily acquainted with Dobson’s beliefs on these subjects, the need to know more about Obama’s is growing.