Obama misses the real “Reason for the Season”
By Andrew Schwartz | Monday, December 12th, 2011 | Culture, PoliticsCross-posted at The American Thinker:
President Obama, perhaps feeling pressure from Gov. Rick Perry, felt it prudent recently to speak about the “Reason for the Season” at the “Christmas in Washington” event in Washington, DC, on Sunday.
Speculation about the sincerity of President Obama’s professed Christian faith has followed him since his campaign for the Presidency began. This speech did nothing to assuage those speculations. If anything, it has for me intensified my skepticism.
Here’s why:
“This is the season to celebrate the story of how, more than two thousand years ago, a child was born to two faithful travelers who could find rest only in a stable, among cattle and sheep. He was no ordinary child. He was the manifestation of God’s love. And every year we celebrate His birth because the story of Jesus Christ changed the world. For me, and for millions of Americans, His story has filled our hearts and inspired our lives. It [the “story”] moves us to love one another; to help and serve those less fortunate; to forgive; to draw close to our families; to be grateful for all that has been given to us; to keep faith; and to hold on to an enduring hope in humanity.” –Barack Obama, Dec 11, 2011 [emphasis mine].
For Obama, it appears, it is not Christ that we celebrate at Christmas. It is merely the story of Christ. Four times Obama denied the actual accomplishments of God by reducing His glory to a potential subject of Oprah’s Book Club. He has deftly left himself free from actually being accused of proclaiming the Gospel by invoking, as Christians might invoke Zeus or Achilles, merely “the story” of Jesus.
Christians do not celebrate a “story” at Christmas, just as atheists and theists alike do not celebrate the story of their own respective birth on the appointed day. No, we celebrate the actual birth of Christ—the infinite grace of the omnipotent God, who, despite the total depravity of mankind and mankind’s complete inability to redeem himself, sent a perfect incarnation of His nature to dwell among those who perpetually and insistently defy His laws, and to offer this incarnation as a freely-given sacrifice to propitiate our moral criminality, sufficient for all but efficient for those whom He regenerates. That the infinitely sovereign and good God was pleased to demonstrate His boundless grace to an otherwise unredeemable people by sending a perfect sacrifice and intercessor for our transgressions is truly something to celebrate.
Christians do not believe that it was “the story” of Christ that changed the world. It was the actual presence of Christ—His birth, His ministry, His death, and His resurrection—that changed the world. Nor is it “the story” of Christ that fills the Christian heart and inspires his life. It is the actual forgiveness of our sins, and His constant intercession, which allows the absolutely abhorrent to commune with the Supreme and Ultimate Authority of the universe, that inspires worship.
It is “HE,” not “IT” that moves us “to love one another; to help and serve those less fortunate; to forgive.” These works—without the understanding of a superterrestrial and metaphysical sovereign grace—are inherently rooted in avarice, are as filthy rags, and may only at best be called “ostensibly altruistic.” Only with the example of One who had nothing to gain and everything to lose (for all power and glory was His already) by being “made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death,” would actually by the grace of God “taste death for every man,” giving mankind the capacity for a different motive other than selfishness.
(The remainder of Obama’s list—“to draw close to our families; to be grateful for all that has been given to us; to keep faith; and to hold on to an enduring hope in humanity”—does not require Christ as an agent. People naturally and selfishly draw close to those who may offer them protection and comfort; they are naturally and selfishly grateful for gifts, lest they never be given anything again; they naturally keep faith, though it is unwisely placed in themselves or others, not God; and they naturally and foolishly have an enduring hope for humanity despite the preponderance of evidence for the depravity of man, while “we repeatedly enlarge our instrumentalities without ever improving our purpose.”)
The existence of Christ is indisputable, even for the secular. The accomplishments of Christ by the grace of God, for the Christian, are the basis of our Faith. To reduce the former to a mere “story” is ignorance; to reduce the latter thus seems evidence of an unregenerate soul.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Andrew Schwartz is a historian from Old Dominion University, where, despite his conservative arguments in liberal academia, he graduated Summa Cum Laude. His focus as a historian is on Colonial and Revolutionary American political, legal and intellectual history. His focus on politics is rational conservatism. He can also be found at AmericanThinker.com.
Comments
25 Responses to "Obama misses the real “Reason for the Season”"
It is not surprising that he doesn’t understand Christmas, since he must of been asleep while attending church, as he did not ever hear his pastor say anything radical and un-American.
Of course it’s a story. It’s a story that’s been told so many times, that nobody knows its origin.
Who was there to witness the birth in the stable? Who saw the Magi and their gifts? Surely the inn that was full, could have found a room for the woman in the last days of pregnancy, don’t you think?
It’s a beautiful story, but it is a story. Jesus was a man who walked among his peers and did good deeds. I don’t believe he ever held a job, but he managed somehow through the goodness of his fellow men.
I don’t understand the fixation on religion in American politics.
Why should it matter if President Obama is a Christian? What if he’s a Muslim; would that make him any less fit to be President? If anything, I would think it best for a president to be areligious because he speaks for a multitude of faiths and beliefs.
Also, I would argue that it’s not ‘ignorance’ to question the accomplishments of Christ, as they can’t be proven; however, it is ignorant to doubt the existence of the man whom we know of as Jesus Christ.
We know that Jesus was a man, but everything else that’s attributed to him is as QRow suggests, it’s a story. It could be true, but it will never be proven.
This is what I don’t understand about religion; we have had thousands upon thousands of religions during our short time as human beings and each one says they’re right, but as time passes each of these “I’m right” religions is eventually replaced by another one.
Why are we any different than the Romans or the Greeks or those that believed in Zoroastrianism? How can we say that any of our religions are different than those that came before?
I digress…
I think all of us should be happy to be alive and be thankful for what we have due to our hard work, not from deus ex machina (Godly intervention). And yes, I know that deus ex machina is a literary device, but it does apply to this argument.
It is no man’s place to question another’s faith. The President professes to be a Christian. That is good enough for me and it should be good enough for all. It is not ours to judge.
@TC
“I would think it best for a president to be areligious because he speaks for a multitude of faiths and beliefs.”
No, then he would speak for atheism
“This is what I don’t understand about religion; we have had thousands upon thousands of religions during our short time as human beings and each one says they’re right, but as time passes each of these “I’m right” religions is eventually replaced by another one.”
People have been worshipping Yahweh since the beginning of time
The Christmas “story” is more than just a story. Many scholars conclude that the Gospels were written reasonably close to the time of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. It is highly likely that witnesses to the events of the Gospels were alive at the time in which the Gospel accounts were being written and disseminated. Yet there is no evidence of widespread criticism from contemorary sources of the accounts described in the Gospels, including the birth account.
On the contrary, many third party sources even if inadvertently, often affirm the events described in the Gospels…I recommend Josh McDowell as a source to help investigate this. For instance, the third party descriptions of King Herod (namely his paranoid persona) fit with the Biblical account of what happened in the Christmas “story.”
@Andrew
You are right…quite often we become so engrossed in the “story” that we forget the true substance of our faith. Only God Himself should be absolutized in regards to our devotion.
@QRow: The historiography of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, as well as the merits of St. Luke as an historian is an interesting topic. See Joel B. Green and Michael McKeever, “Luke-Acts and New Testament Historiography” (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994) for an interesting discussion and bibliography of that subject, as well as Notre Dame professor of theology Gregory Sterling, “Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts, and Apologetic Historiography” (New York: E.J. Brill, 1992). It mightn’t be, however, the wisest thing to boldly assert that “nobody knows its origin.”
@TC, “Should it matter?” That is a question for the individual to answer. But one has no more place to tell another “it SHOULD matter” for the President to be a Christian, than one does to tell another “it SHOULDN’T matter.” To assert the former imposes a positive declaration of priorities upon another individual; to assert the latter denies to another individual the possibility of determining his own priorities. Should it matter? To me, yes. But I make no such claim that it SHOULD matter to anyone else, as I have no right to impose my priorities on another, only to attempt to persuade.
(Also, I’m pretty sure I ascribed the quality of ignorance to those who question the existence of Christ. I apologize if I was unclear in that.)
I don’t want to get too deep into the “proving/disproving” argument, but we cannot prove that Julius Caesar existed either. We simply have a lot of evidence for his existence that cannot at this point be disproven.
@Brian. You are right. His profession is not mine to judge, which is why I was quite careful in my wording. I make no claim that he is not a Christian, only that he has offered evidence to me that seems to contradict that profession.
If he is a Christian, then I only hope this would serve to remind him that it is Christ, not His story, that we worship.
Again, he says he is a Christian. I take that at face value, and feel no need to question if that’s is true or not – not even so far as to be skeptical, which you said in your second paragraph.
While he may be a Christian, many of those who work for him – including, possibly, the actual person who wrote this speech, since it wasn’t the President himself who wrote it – are not. And whether or not you are a Christian, the point being made here is that the story is a good one and worthy of remembering and celebrating, even for those who don’t believe Jesus was the Christ.
That is a message that even non-Christians can take, and that’s how I take it. He is the President, not the Pope. His job is to represent all his constituents and this speech is merely an attempt to do that. Cut the man some slack. And don’t question his faith. That’s not for us to judge.
@ Steven
“No, then he would speak for atheism”
I apologize for my slightly nebulous statement. I meant ‘areligious’ not to mean bereft of religion, I meant it as being removed from your own religion, that is to make a decision that isn’t wholly based upon your personal beliefs; in other words, being objective.
“People have been worshipping Yahweh since the beginning of time”
I believe that can’t be proven, either that or we have differing opinions on what ‘the beginning of time’ is. However, that is an entirely new topic unto itself which I’d rather not delve into at this time.
And I will look into Josh Mcdowell’s accounts as you suggested. Thanks.
@Andrew
When I made my ‘should it matter’ comment, I didn’t think of in regards to validation of choices; I meant it to express that religion shouldn’t be a qualification for president, thus creating a bias for or against a particular candidate.
I’d like to think that the qualifications of a president shouldn’t differ from those in any other job: you cannot reject a person based on their relationship status, religion, age, color, veteran status, etc… So the president shouldn’t be any different. And when his religion comes into question, you’re saying it’s OK to discriminate against the president, but no one else.
It may be a very important job, but it’s still a job.
Also, if we don’t know what the president believes, we have to judge (vote) them based on their other qualifications. However, you could say that religion speaks for one’s character, but it doesn’t: look at Ted Haggard.
I do agree with you that a particular candidate’s religion may sway some to vote a certain way, but it in no way can determine whether or not the person can do the job.
My only comment is that he always manages to appear insincere in any pronouncement that doesn’t involve Islam or wealth redistribution.
Thank you for that powerful positive statement of the reality of the Person of Christ. To your detractors, convinced that there is no evidence that Jesus existed, or exists, the scripture Philippians 2:10,11 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things in earth, and things under the earth;, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father–will apply to them as well as those who love His appearing. Good for you for getting such a response from so many!
@TC – Actually, we do discriminate against the President on the basis of age. No one can be elected to that office unless he is 35… We also discriminate based on national origin for that office…
But seriously, I know what you mean. I just don’t accept the premise that all forms of discrimination are inherently evil. “Discrimination” is a word that has gained infamous connotations, but it is nonetheless something we all do in our daily lives.
And for you to say that the president “shouldn’t be any different,” is an attempt to deny one the right to determine his own priorities, and you are therefore “discriminating” against him based on a preference to vote according to perceptions. (If you hadn’t noticed, I am very critical of the word “should,” as it is so often misused.)
@Brian, I reject that questioning the faith of another and judging it are equiponderant.
Your imperative “don’t question his faith. That’s not for us to judge.” is indeed a judgment against me that I have, by pointing out contradictions or inconsistencies, or for the unconscionable crime of failing to accept blindly the persuading words of a public candidate who can never be disinterested in altering the perceptions of the people, already presumed the authority of a judge and have therefore condemned him beyond pardon or redemption.
Yeah, he did miss the reason for the season.
Santa is the reason for the season.
Otherwise we’d celebrate Christmas in the summer when Christ was likely born.
Except that there’s really no Biblical justification of celebrating Christmas at all.
The Bible is rather specific about what Jesus said to do in rememberance of him. Gifts, nativity scenes and, in fact, crosses, don’t have anything to do with it.
We celebrate Christmas when and how we do because early Christians adapted to the Roman religious calendar, which had Saturnalia in December. A number of nothern European pagan faiths also celebrated the beginning and ending of the year.
@Andrew Yes, you are very adamant about ‘should’; I believe you wrote a piece about its connotations, if I’m not mistaken.
I’m glad that you see my point, even though I didn’t eloquently elaborate it.
In an interview with Chicago Sun Times religion reporter, Cathleen Falsani, she asked Barack Obama to describe his Christian faith. He openly stated that there are many paths to God. According to Obama, it’s a blooming, 8 lane highway to heaven! Look it up! Now, as a Christian, I have to disagree with and make a judgement about BHO’s faith. I believe I am wise enough and knowledgeable enough to know N.T. Truth from heresy. This is what Jesus said in John 14:6: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me.” He didn’t say “I am merely one of the various, useful PC stories among the many and sundry nuances on the numerous paths to God. Or whatever! Deck your halls with obama’s vows of folly, I’ll deck mine with God’s holy word and the spoken scriptural promises of His Son Jesus Christ. Thanks for utilizing your Christian faith, your intelligence and your courage in writing this article Mr. Schwartz!
The admonishments from some in this thread against judging the veracity of Obama’s faith is quite acceptable in our truth-is-relative culture but it is quite unacceptable for the thinking Christian. The same Jesus tells us to to “watch out for false prophets” and says “by their fruits you will recognize them.” (Matthew 7:15-20) The apostle Paul tells us “But even if we or an angle from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” (Galatians 1:8).
Obama cannot understand Christ’s true ministry of redemption because he believes that true redemption lies in big government. He adheres to a false gospel in Black Liberation Theology which targets and punishes perceived enemies. It does not liberate but enslaves. I will stand up and say Obama is most certainly not a Christian but the latest wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Steven Osborne,
If you like Josh McDowell’s books you make also like Ultimate Proof of Creation by Dr. Jason Lisle. Check out this web site: http://www.answersingenesis.org.
Sorry, meant to say may instead of make.
You have to be joking. The author of this column has taken what Obama has said completely out of context. Just because he says “story” so often, does not mean that he is implying that it is the “story” we celebrate and not the All Mighty Savior. Would your rather him say happy holidays instead of Merry Christmas. This president actually acknowledged the fact of a King greater than him, publicly, and often. I am a believer in Christ, and I love Him more than I do this country, or the world. But believe that I am not being deceived. I know the real enemy, and it is not the government like so many claim. The real enemy are the Sunday morning Christians, who claim to be Christians, claim to live for Christ and in His ways, who go to church every Sunday, but continue to post up hate speech, or endorse it. I pray that this world will become more loving and accepting of Christ and that eyes will REALLY be opened. God Bless everyone!
I don’t recall calling anyone an enemy; but calling other Christians the enemy seems kind of like hate speech to me…
Andrew, I think it is right to question Obama’s beliefs. If he held to Biblical principles he would be defending marriage as between one man and one woman (Defense of Marriage Act). Also, he would be protecting the lives of the unborn. He would have attended the National Day of Prayer breakfast. Jesus warned us about those who appear as sheep but inside are wolves. He commands us to be discerning. It is correct to engage in discussion about the President’s beliefs. As a man thinks within himself so he is Proverbs 23:7. You’re right about the use of the word story. It seems there are those who believe the Bible is a fairy tale. Please check out the web site I referenced: answersingenesis.org. I think you may like it.
http://www.answersingenesis.org
I’m having typing troubles today : )
You kept it civil. And, for that I applaud you. Preaching to the flock is fine. Claiming ownership of “the season”, and demanding that everybody celebrate it your way, that’s over the top.
Not sure what The President has to do with it, though. I’d second the idea that a nonreligious president might be a benefit. My guess is that most recent ones have have been. If you are running for president though, getting your picture taken coming out of church, is as important as getting your picture taken eating ribs at the state fair (and about as meaning full). You just have to think back to Ronald Reagan mentioning “the garden of eden”, and then correcting himself, saying “the story of….”).
Whether any particular president is an atheist, a theist, a deist, or whatever wont have much effect on a presidency, I don’t think. But, it might spare the rest of us from the spouting of meaningless (but inflamatory) political rhetoric.
Thanks for not claiming you own the “season”.
My 2 cents.
Andrew, who are you – who is anyone – to question the President’s faith? That’s not something any of us can answer. We can’t look into the man’s heart. Again, whether or not he is truly a Christian is something that’s only between him and God and is honestly none of our business.
Obama is not a prophet, nor does he claim to be one. He isn’t trying to rule as a Christian monarch, nor does he claim he is entitled to the job through divine right. So however deep his faith is doesn’t matter.
Again, you’re ignoring the fact that while he may have read this speech, he certainly didn’t write it.
I’m really tired of seeing my fellow Christians stray down this path. There is no reason to attack the President about his faith. That’s between him and God. Not us.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.