Is Religious Certainty a “Wedge Issue”?

It’s par for the course that aspiring presidential candidates frame themselves as “Christians.” Throughout the recent campaign, President-elect Barack Obama repeatedly fended off charges that he was a Muslim. This interview provided a window into our new president’s “Christian” faith. But it also reveals the inherent difficulties politicians face in making absolutist religious claims.

The interview was conducted by Chicago Sun Times columnist Cathleen Falsani during Obama’s bid for U.S. Senate in Illinois in 2004. After learning that Obama responded to an altar call at Jeremiah Wright’s church, the reporter asks:

FALSANI:
So you got yourself born again?

OBAMA:
Yeah, although I don’t, I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I’m not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I’ve got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others.

I’m a big believer in tolerance. I think that religion at it’s best comes with a big dose of doubt. I’m suspicious of too much certainty in the pursuit of understanding just because I think people are limited in their understanding.

I think that, particularly as somebody who’s now in the public realm and is a student of what brings people together and what drives them apart, there’s an enormous amount of damage done around the world in the name of religion and certainty. (emphasis mine)

So is it possible for one to be a Christian and harbor “a suspicion of dogma”? Even more to the point, is it possible to be a Christian politician and not have a definitive dogma? While I’m sure there are many genuine believers who are ignorant of, uncertain about, even apprehensive toward, some biblical points of view, Christianity, by nature, is a series of well-defined dogmas. And it is precisely these dogmas that Obama seems to hedge on.

For instance, when asked about Christ:

OBAMA:
Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher.

And he’s also a wonderful teacher. I think it’s important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.

Is Christ an “historical figure,” a “wonderful teacher,” and a “means of us reaching something higher”? Absolutely! Christian dogma, however, does not afford such wiggle room. The Bible teaches Jesus is the one true God, the only means of salvation, the final sacrifice for our sins, uniquely risen from the grave, and soon to be Judge of the earth. In contrast, Obama’s position sounds generic, fickle, and dangerously secular.

But it’s just the beginning.

OBAMA:
…I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and prostelytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they’re going to hell.

FALSANI:
You don’t believe that?

OBAMA:
I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell…

Further inquiry reveals that President-elect Obama is “uncertain” about many core Christian beliefs. For instance, he believes sin is being “out of alignment with my values,” and does not “presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die.” For the studied believer, these answers must be disconcerting.

There are two things going on here. One is Barack Obama’s faith. Is he aligned with historic Christianity? The second is the nature of religion and politics. Can you espouse religious absolutes — the kind that Christianity claims and demands — and still represent Jews, Hindus, atheists and agnostics?

If this interview with our new President is any indication, it is not politically expedient to express religious certainty.

FALSANI:
Jack Ryan [Obama’s Republican opponent in the U.S. Senate race at the time] said talking about your faith is frought with peril for a public figure.

OBAMA:
Which is why you generally will not see me spending a lot of time talking about it on the stump.

Alongside my own deep personal faith, I am a follower, as well, of our civic religion. I am a big believer in the separation of church and state. I am a big believer in our constitutional structure. I mean, I’m a law professor at the University of Chicago teaching constitutional law. I am a great admirer of our founding charter, and its resolve to prevent theocracies from forming, and its resolve to prevent disruptive strains of fundamentalism from taking root in this country.

As I said before, in my own public policy, I’m very suspicious of religious certainty expressing itself in politics. (emphasis mine)

No doubt, Obama is right when he says that “there’s an enormous amount of damage done around the world in the name of religion and certainty.” But does this mean there’s no religious certainty? Are Buddha and Krishna and Jesus and Captain Kirk equally worth pledging allegiance to? If not, then how does one determine the truth claims of these individual messiahs? At some point, everyone believes in something, or someone, with a certain degree of certainty. Without certainty, nothing is worth believing. In fact, even the belief that nothing is certain, requires a degree of certainty!

Which makes the relationship between faith and politics even more tenuous.

For if I want to gain the support of Buddhists, Hare Krishnas , Mormons and Trekkies, musn’t I back away from absolutist claims? I mean, how can I expect someone to vote for me if I tell them they’re going to hell? Then again, shouldn’t our politicians be grounded in what they believe? I may not believe that the earth is flat, but knowing Congressman X does at least gives me a heads-up on his resolve. But it begs the question: Can a Christian politician be up front about what he really believes? Really?

Hmm.

Perhaps our President-in-waiting is correct: We should be “very suspicious of religious certainty expressing itself in politics”. If affirming the Resurrection of Christ creates a wedge, and I’m really serious about being elected, then yes, I should waffle on the Resurrection. But if I’m serious about following Christ, then affirming the Resurrection is a no-brainer… even if it loses me votes. So is it possible to have religious certainty without alienating someone?