Is the President a Muslim, is he a Christian or is he something else altogether. A careful search reveals what seems to be the truth. While no one can say what is in another man’s heart, we can look at a tree and investigate the fruit.
Note: This is long, but worth reading. Just over a year ago I set out to investigate just what Barack Obama believes, if anything. Below are the results. This is important information for every evangelical. Before President Obama was elected I wrote several critical articles concerning his friendships and associations (such as birthing his political career in the home of unrepentant domestic terrorists and lauding of praise on PLO Attorney Rashid Khalid). It was the first and only time in my life I was called a racist. I was stunned! Dr. King’s admonition was to look past the color of one’s skin to character. But when I did that I was admonished precisely because of the color of his skin. (Hypocritically, when white liberals publish articles against Allen West or Clarence Thomas, no one blinks an eye.) About a year ago several prominent ministers, including T.D Jakes, wrote an open letter defending the Christian faith of President Obama. This was in response to a poll that claimed one in five Americans believe the President is a Muslim.
In part, it read, “We believe that questioning, and especially misrepresenting, the faith of a confessing believer goes too far.” Well certainly misrepresenting ones faith is wrong, but questioning? Paul would certainly disagree. He instructed the Corinthians to dis-fellowship a professing believer because of his sinful behavior. Yeshua taught us that we don’t judge a tree by its public, politically expedient confession, but by its fruit. John the Prophet urged those repenting to show fruit (Luke 3:8) and not rely on a confession (“We have Abraham as our father”).
Often crime bosses claim affection for Jesus. Should we refrain from judging them, too? How about the so-called Christians of the Crusades, who killed tens of thousands of Jews and Muslims? Should we take them at their word that they were true Christians? After all, they held huge banners with crosses.
Again, contrary to the opinion of the respected leaders who signed the document, weare to judge a tree by its fruit—or by its actions, associations, or words as well as its history. When a public figure expresses faith for the purpose of getting votes, we should definitely inspect their confession, theology, and moral behavior—be it President Obama or John McCain.
One thing I learned growing up in the south is that you can call yourself a Christian, believe you are a Christian and not be a Christian. Just about everyone with whom I grew up, except for my Jewish friends, called themselves Christian, and I came to find out later that hardly any of them actually were.
So what does President Obama believe?
He is not Muslim
I don’t think there is any evidence that the president believes in Islam as a faith. His father was born into a Muslim family but became a confirmed atheist before Barack was born. His mother, who oversaw his education, was also an atheist. His parents divorced after two years and his father, after attending Harvard, returned to Kenya, only visiting his son once after that. In other words, he could not have raised his son as a Muslim because he didn’t raise him.
For long portions of his childhood his mother was working in Indonesia while he lived with his grandparents in Hawaii. It is true that he spent time in a Muslim school as well as a Catholic one in Indonesia, but his primary influences were in Hawaii.
In the president’s memoir, Dreams of my Father, he points to Frank Marshall Davis as a mentor during his teenage years. Davis has been publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (Obama’s Communist Mentor, Cliff Kincaid, www.aim.org) and actually authored a pornographic novel, which many believe to be autobiographical. Here is a glimpse into his psyche—“The genuine Communists I knew as well as others so labeled had one principle in common: to use any and every means to abolish racism.” (Popular fronts: Chicago and African-American cultural politics, 1935-46, By Bill Mullen) Davis’ views were much closer to Black Liberation Theology (see below) than Islam. And President Obama’s young adult life portrays a man who is more concerned with social justice than jihad.
Quoting Arabic phrases in Cairo (during his infamous ‘can’t we all just get along’ speech) was merely a humanistic effort to bridge the gap between the US and the Arab world. Of course it was troubling that he gave his first interview as president—not to ABC, NBC or CBS, but to Al-Arabiya, who claims to be the leading news channel of the Arab world. This speaks more to his naive belief that a little friendship can overcome the deep-seated demonic hatred in the Arab world against the US and Israel, than to the idea that he himself is a Muslim. The president seems to believe that the root of terrorism is not Islamic fundamentalism, but rather Western aggression and he wants to portray himself as the first US president who gets it.
He is not Christian
Can you believe in premeditative killing of a child inside its mother’s womb and be a true Christian? Can you believe that homosexuality is a valid lifestyle choice and be born again? Where in his adult life can the fruit, the passion to live for Yeshua, or a witness to the lost be seen? Is there any outward evangelical evidence in his life besides his confession?
But Ron, he attended Church for 20 years. And what did they preach at that church? Jesus the Messiah, who died for your sins, who conquered death, hell and the grave, and through Him you can have eternal life? Or Jesus, the Martin Luther King, Gandhi and Susan B Anthony all rolled up into one, of His day, who set us an example of standing against social injustice and inequality; an example that we must follow? (Just so no one misunderstands me, I have the greatest respect for all three of those historical figures who stood up for the rights of the downtrodden. My point is that Yeshua’s mission was much greater.)
It would seem the latter from his interview in Christianity Today. This interview, in which President Obama speaks of his faith, was arranged for political purposes to dispel rumors that he is a Muslim. He says as if repeating a text (and again, I don’t know what is in his heart, but dear friends—this is politics—very little is unscripted), “I believe in the redemptive death of Jesus Christ. I believe that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life.”
But then he takes a radical and quite revealing turn: “But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful.” (Christianity Today, Q&A with Barack Obama, Interview by Sarah Pulliam and Ted Olsen, January 23, 2008)
Following Yeshua’s example of good works is MORE IMPORTANT than his redemptive work on the cross according to the President. And the last little bit where he speaks of prioritizing the weak over the strong is a page right out of the Black Liberation Theology playbook. It would be one thing to say, “My born again experience moves me to follow the example of Yeshua,” as it should, but it is another thing entirely to say that following His example is more important than being born again.
As I said before, that interview was set up for political purposes with the goal of convincing people that he was a Christian. However, a few years earlier, then State Senator Obama gave another interview on his religion, where it could not be clearer that he is not an evangelical.
“So, I’m rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.”
He was asked, “Do you pray often?” His response, “Uh, yeah, I guess I do.”
Furthermore, he takes issues with the doctrine of hell. He doesn’t believe “my God” would send anyone to hell. Any sane believer would have some struggle to understand the doctrine of hell, but we believe the word of God.
“If I live my life as well as I can, [I believe] that I will be rewarded. I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.”
Not sure if there is a heaven, but if so, the way to get there is through being good.This is not evangelical doctrine. He goes on to define sin, not as breaking God’s law, but, “[B]eing out of alignment with my values.”
His spiritual role models? Ghandi, Dr. King and President Lincoln.
And if you read the whole interview it becomes clear that his church involvement stemmed from his desire to be a community organizer—not from any religious passion.
Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson both go by the title reverend, but in my entire adult life I can’t remember either of them preaching a gospel message. The reason is their definition of Christianity is very different from what we see in the Bible. And this is the type of religion Rev. Jeremiah Wright espoused and Barack Obama listened to for twenty years.
Liberation theology is the theology or ideology that teaches the gospel is the means by which one is liberated from physical oppression and social injustice such as slavery, racism and poverty. In addition to drawing from the gospel narratives, it points to the Exodus story as the classic example of freedom from oppression. It does not, however, emphasize the actual purpose of Yeshua’s coming—which was to redeem mankind from sin and judgment through His death and resurrection. It preaches physical freedom from oppression, not through someone else’s sacrifice, but through standing up for yourself, as Moses did to Pharaoh, civil disobedience and other methods, including overthrowing governments. Hence, you don’t see Revs. Jackson or Sharpton preaching a message that points people to the cross.
Perceived social injustices demanded a moral response in Latin America in the 1950’s and 60’s. Liberation Theology was created as that response. Later James Hal Cone took these principles and applied them to Black America, creating Black Liberation Theology.
Now, just to be clear here, no one is disputing the horrible ordeal that African Americans have had to endure from the time they were kidnapped and sold in slavery to present time. Racism still exists and it is disgusting. No one is arguing against that. This article is meant merely to explain what Black Liberation Theology is – the theology of Jeremiah Wright, President Obama’s pastor for twenty years.
Theology or Philosophy
One problem with Black Liberation Theology is that it really isn’t theology at all. Theology in its purest form is the study (ology) of God (Theo), and Black Liberation Theology is not about God, but about the oppressed people it seeks to free. It only calls itself a theology because it uses the Bible as a proof text for its beliefs of overcoming oppression and social injustice.
The problem isn’t the message. As a Jewish man and a believer in Yeshua, I hate all forms of oppression, whether it is Blacks in South Africa or Jews in ancient Egypt. No man is inherently better than another. However, Black Liberation Theology places a white collar around it and calls it a religion.
Now we have people calling themselves Reverend who are anything but. Jesse Jackson, who not only once called New York City Hymietown (slur against Jews), but also recently fathered a child out of wedlock, still has as much clout as ever among his constituents. If Rev. Jackson condemns someone as racist, it makes headlines (whether it’s true or not). No one cares about his adultery because despite his misuse of the word Reverend, no one looks at him in that way. He is an activist.
It would appear that he doesn’t spend his days preparing gospel messages, discipling young believers, raising up elders, or seeking God in prayer and fasting—the work of a genuine pastor. And as far as I know, he does not head a church. In other words, Liberation Theology is not biblical Christianity.
The Dark side of Liberation Theology
In its most terrifying form, Liberation Theology can be used to promote Marxism and was used to take over churches in Africa and Central America. “They use ‘Christian’ terminology to promote violence to overthrow governments and populations. It especially became popular in Nicaragua in the 1980’s with the pro-Sandinista dictatorship. It used Marxist strategies to be an impetus for the people to rebel where violent revolution was used. In some churches Jesus was represented as a Sandinista soldier identifying with the oppressed.” (The Oppression of Black Liberation Theology, Come Let Us Reason Ministries)
BLT presents Yeshua as a poor black man under the oppression of whites. However, “[t]he notion of ‘blackness’ is not merely a reference to skin color, but rather is a symbol of oppression that can be applied to all persons of color who have a history of oppression.” (Marxist roots of Black Liberation Theology, Anthony B. Bradley) This is used in prisons as well as churches, in African countries as well as the rebel-filled mountains of South America to promote Marxist-style revolutions.
LIBERATION THEOLOGY NOT GOOD FOR ISRAEL
What is worse, others in the movement are openly anti-Semitic. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, famous for his “God D&$!# America” sermon, who aligns himself with the Jew-hating Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, is given a platform to blast Israel by Black Liberation Theology.
You see, in Liberation Theology, Israel is no longer Israel. Black Liberation Theology sees African Americans as the new Israel. It doesn’t teach, as replacement theology does, that they replace Israel, but rather that Israel was an example to all oppressed peoples and in their case that would mean that white America is Egypt.
In the case of Israel, it is even more bizarre. Israel becomes Egypt and the Palestinians become Israel. Pharaoh is no longer a pagan polytheistic Egyptian, but he would be Benjamin Netanyahu. Even worse, Moses is replaced by—you guessed it—Yasser Arafat. And of course Arafat is not a terrorist who died with nearly one billion dollars that he stole from his people, but a loving freedom fighter on a divine mission against Israel the oppressor.
This explains why President Obama treated Prime Minister Netanyahu with such disdain on his first visit to the White House.
For a head of government to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of. Yet that is how Benjamin Netanyahu was treated by President Obama on Tuesday night, according to Israeli reports on a trip viewed in Jerusalem as a humiliation. (The London Times, March 26, 2010, Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama ‘dumped him for dinner,’ Giles Whittell, Washington, and James Hider, Jerusalem.)It had been ingrained in him for twenty years from his former pastor and good friend, Rev. Wright that Israel is the enemy oppressor. Obama relates with oil rich Arab nations in a seemin