Stephen Mansfield: Obama’s big-tent religion
Stephen Mansfield, author of several delightful and short biographies—George Whitefield, Winston Churchill, Booker T. Washington—along with spiritual biographies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, contributes the “On Religion” piece in today’s USA Today: “Obama’s faith fits our times,” with the subtitle, “His big-tent approach reflects his diverse spiritual journey. And he is perfectly in step with the country he now leads.”
Mansfield walks us through the religious biography of President Obama, noting how his mother “made sure he experienced every type of religious expression, from Jewish to Hindu and from native Hawaiian to Buddhist, to name but a few.” Mansfield explains Obama’s brief pre-adolescent Islamic practice, and his eventual landing at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
Mansfield argues that Obama’s faith is very parallel to the spiritual leanings of America where “the vast majority also believe that there might be many versions of the faith they embrace and that their faith might not be the only path to God. Indeed, Americans are less likely to believe that any single faith is the only path to God, and they are more likely to believe that there is truth in religions differing from their own than at any prior time in the nation’s history.”
Mansfield offers no word of censure to the “many paths” idea of religious plurality. He speaks of Obama’s hermeneutics without offering a word of critique as he plays the words of Jesus off the words of Paul: “Indeed, [Obama] feels free to lean to one Scripture verse over another, to approach gay rights, for example, from the loving words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount but not the bigotry of Paul in his letter to the Romans.”
But Mansfield offers no rebuttal to the idea that Paul and Jesus held contradictory ideas. Mansfield just throws it up there as an idea worthy of consideration and embrace.
Mansfield ends the piece with the “people get the leaders they deserve” line, acknowledging it as a timeworn maxim. But Mansfield isn’t using the maxim as a critique or a challenge to the people to be more, to think more, to reject pluralism, to embrace Christianity.
Mansfield seems to be arguing that religious pluralism is now simply a matter of fact, President Obama is in step with this fact, and, well—nothing else needs to be said.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top32 Comments to “Stephen Mansfield: Obama’s big-tent religion”
Mansfield is a nut.
Report comment to moderator
He is just following the error of Universalism– that all who believe in something are correct. There is that fallacy of “It does not matter what you belive, as long as you are sincere.” To that, one preacher friend said: Yes, but you can be sincerely wrong!
Report comment to moderator
I guess it depends on whether you believe God will damn you for making a mistake in your beliefs, in error and not malice, Peter.
I am still waiting for any sign that Monty plans to begin making intelligent comments or is content to just be a heckler.
Report comment to moderator
It is interesting to me how we, in today’s society, seem to “divine” morallity by popular opinion. If the majority of people think something is ok, then it must be. For instance, a recent poll showed that a now majority of Americans agree that abortion, in some forms, is wrong. Does that mean that it has suddenly switched from ok, to wrong? Historically we see many examples of culturally permissible practices and beliefs that either amuse us today or horrify us. The earth being flat, the sun revolving around the earth, or cannibles eating the flesh of other humans. Each was culturally permissible by the majority, but now? And it seems the church has caught into the act as well. Be careful what you preach from the pulpit, you might offend the popular opinion. Preach about divorce, living together before marriage, fornication, tithing, abortion, all to be avoided as unpopular. And yet was Jesus concerned about popularity? He sent away those unwilling to be devoted, he railed against the popular Pharisees, he even challanged his disciples if they wanted to leave. What matter to Jesus? Not popularity, but truth.
Report comment to moderator
Fortunately, it is the lot of extremists to be out of step with the mainstream. That’s what makes them extremists. If the (shall we call the “single-paths”?) single-paths are going to continue move away from the mainstream, they can expect to identify less-and-less with national leaders.
The periphery is an interesting place to inhabit. As less pejoratively referred to radicals have always known.
In this case, extremists can unblinkingly refer to the single-path as to think more, and ignore the obvious contradictions. It’s a weird state of mind where imagining less equates thinking more. And they can even use pluralism as a four-letter-word. But that won’t move the mainstream into their camp or stop positive connotations from going hand-in-hand with pluralism.
Interesting that Scott doesn’t bother to include a critique either. Is he admitting that the arguments have already been had and lost by the single-paths? All his post really say is, “We are extremists. If our leaders are out of touch with us, it is because we long ago lost touch with the majority of U.S. Americans.”
Report comment to moderator
Some of Mansfield’s past work I haven’t agreed with; however I wholeheartedly agree with this one. He nails American Founding civil religion.
Report comment to moderator
Steve,
I think he’s a teenager. The tone I’d recommend is challenging encouragement.
Report comment to moderator
Though I will note one major difference between the religious pluralism of today’s civil religion and that of the American Founding is that the old civil religion seemed more natural law and “virtue” oriented.
Report comment to moderator
#4 RANDY1964
Good post.
Quantity doesn’t validate something as true.
And Jesus himself gave the illustration of the “narrow way leading to life found by few” versus the “the wide way of destruction” found by many (Matt. 7:15).
Can billions of people by wrong? Frequently. And about a great any things.
Report comment to moderator
Having worked on one of Mansfield’s books (Ten Tortured Words, on the establishment clause), I have to say he isn’t a universalist and he’s a good scholar. I don’t know what this is all about, but those who think he’s on the fringe, he isn’t. Some publishers give me a copy of a book I’ve worked on, but since I’m unlikely to reread all but the best of those books, I rarely buy a book I’ve worked on if I don’t get it free. I bought this one.
Report comment to moderator
Mansfield wants to pick Jesus and not Paul? Fine.
Jesus said in the end times there will be those who say here is Christ or there is Christ — believe them not. Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the life and no man comes unto the Father but by me. That’s Jesus. And Jesus was no universalist.
It’s not about “making a mistake” in one’s beliefs. It is about an up or down, yes or no, about who Jesus is, and if he is the way, the truth and the life, no one else is.
All Christians who are Americans have to decide which takes precedence in their lives, Jesus or their country, and if those conflict, which prevails. I, for one, have always liked that hymn that says I’m but a stranger, heaven is my home.
Report comment to moderator
I’ll try to post again…technical difficulties perhaps.If this comes in twice, I apologize.
Anyway, good post, #4 RANDY1964.
Quantity doesn’t validate truth. And Jesus himself gave the illustration of “the narrow way leading to life found by few” versus “the wide way of destruction found by many.” (Matt.7:15)
Can billions of people be wrong? Frequently. And about a great many things.
Report comment to moderator
P.S. I don’t read the Wall Street Journal and thus know little about its editorial policy. I do know, however, that the danger of writing a short piece for print (newspaper or magazine) is that it will be edited in a way you disapprove, and you won’t see it again till after it’s in print. (I’ve had it happen to me, in milder ways, and one of my KJV-only brothers was horrified when a piece he wrote was published using the NIV!) Don’t write off Mansfield because of this one.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D (#9):
For the record, I am not arguing that Mansfield is a universalist or a poor scholar. I know he is neither. I have read a stack of his books and have required them as reading for junior high kids, who enjoyed them too.
But, I cannot imagine writing an op-ed piece where I stated “Obama’s thoughts” on Jesus and Paul as Mansfield did, and then just let those words hang there – unchallenged.
Report comment to moderator
Jefferson had a similar approach to Obama, just edit everything Paul said out as not divinely inspired. That was an easy way for him to get around Romans 13.
John Adams was a universalist too:
Where is to be found Theology more orthodox or Phylosophy more profound than in the Introduction to the Shast[r]a [a Hindu Treatise]? “God is one, creator of all, Universal Sphere, without beginning, without End. God Governs all the Creation by a General Providence, resulting from his eternal designs. — Search not the Essence and the nature of the Eternal, who is one; Your research will be vain and presumptuous. It is enough that, day by day, and night by night, You adore his Power, his Wisdom and his Goodness, in his Works.”
– John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, December 25, 1813.
And I see nothing from Washington or Madison that suggests they believed Jesus the only way to God, but were not as verbose about their heterodoxy as Jefferson and J. Adams were
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Scott. I was more concerned with clarifying for other posters who jumped to that conclusion and probably hadn’t read him. At the time I worked on Mansfield’s book (the only one I’ve read so far, BTW), another conservative poster on here told me with excitement that he was a former pastor of hers, and one she highly respected. And I do agree with you–but would love the opportunity to ask him, “What’s up with that? Did you write in haste, or were you edited badly, or have you changed your views?”
Report comment to moderator
3. Most of us Reformed Christians do not believe anyone will be damned for making a theological mistake. We believe the Bible that people will be judged according to what they have done, and the the judgment therefore is “guilty!” for all of us.
5. “Single-paths” have not left the main stream. We have simply watched far too passively as the main stream has carved out a different course, so that we are left like a stubborn boulder in an oxbow lake. But rivers change their courses constantly, and so do cultures.
Report comment to moderator
Little do we know.
Report comment to moderator
17,
Not meaning to veer off the discussion, but as a matter of common sense I don’t deserve to go to eternal punishment for stealing a candy bar. I deserve temporary punishment in proportion to the severity of the crime.
As Steve G. would note there is a different kind of universalism — not the many paths kind — but the kind that believes all men will eventually be saved through Christ’s universal (as opposed to limited) Atonement. Benjamin Rush believed in this kind of universalism and I think he still qualifies as a “Christian” because he believed in the work of Christ on the Cross.
I’ve come to conclude if Christianity is true, it’s this kind of Christianity and Hell is more like purgatory where folks repent by crying over the bad they’ve done. But crying can also be a purging feeling; you feel bad when you are crying, but better as the crying proceeds, like a way of release the negative emotions. Those who do the most evil do the most amount crying in the afterlife. That’s what my moral sense tells me.
Report comment to moderator
Scott,
I’m thinking of your last comment as a kind of reading comprehension failure aggravated by well… aggravation. I’m sure you’ll agree that the argument of Mansfield’s piece is choice C, “Obama’s religious views are representative of the times,” not choice D, “Obama has good or moral praiseworthy religious views,” nor the “All of the above,” selection E.
But if you’re not comfortable being on the fringes, and you just need make your case at every venture (and be annoyed when you’re case isn’t made at every venture), perhaps you should consider moderation as a strategy for more harmony while reading the op-eds. You could try, maybe, extending salvation to the Mormons and see how you feel tomorrow morning. I’m sure if you think about it, “thinking more” probably includes SOME examples of legitimate pluralism.
Report comment to moderator
I fully expect the fundamentalists and conservative Christians will have one of the patented Holy Fits over this. But that’s because they honestly (but foolishly) believe that they – and only they – possess the one true faith. And anyone who disagrees with them or who doesn’t believe exactly like they do is damned, including Obama.
In any event, to the main point, Obama is a reflection of what most Americans think when it comes to religious plurality. To quote from the article:
“I am rooted in the Christian tradition,” he has said. But “I believe 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.”
Obama is playing it straight down the middle, as he should given the religious pluralism in this country.
Report comment to moderator
I can recommend two of Mansfield’s books, Faith of The American Soldier, and The Character and Greatness of Winston Churchill.
He seems pretty accurate in his current assessment of Obama and the status of religion in America. The majority of people, including Obama, are making up their own religion in accordance with their own desires and whims. This is the essence of post-modern, relativistic thinking. It is moral and religious anarchy.
This type of thinking has absolutely nothing to do with authentic Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir is a nut.
#3 Steve G,,,,, heckle heckle heckle.
Steve, if you haven’t read any intelligent lines from me, then you need to go back to kintergarden.. And learn to read.
Report comment to moderator
“Not meaning to veer off the discussion, but as a matter of common sense I don’t deserve to go to eternal punishment for stealing a candy bar. I deserve temporary punishment in proportion to the severity of the crime.”
It is difficult to respond to someone who thinks like this. No wonder Paul wrote, when I was a child, I spake like a child. Some are still “spaking.”
Report comment to moderator
Was “kintergarden” on purpose? ‘Cause it’s kindergarten. It’s German.
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
I wonder why you find my thoughts childish. I find the notion of infinite punishment for not just finite sin, but the barest of finite sins to be utterly irrational.
I’m going for clarity and line drawing. I’m not even arguing my sins are only stealing a candy bar, but rather seeing if *anyone* can seriously defend the idea that one deserves eternal damnation for THAT.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe, no orthodox Christian believes that one goes to hell for stealing a candy bar. One goes to hell for indignant rejection of the God who loves you. Stealing a candy bar is a seemingly trivial symptom of the underlying hostility toward and rejection of God.
I am sure you know enough theology and enough Bible to realize it. You are not being intellectually honest in implying that Christians believe a single, inconsequential sin is the reason for eternal damnation.
A bit more sophistication, please!
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
It’s a nice thought that we won’t have eternal punishment.
But that is what the Bible states!
No where in the Bible does it even hint anything different.
Report comment to moderator
Is there any reason to think Obama’s spiritual rudder is any more driven by a sense of course than the one that guides his policies?
Lobbyists in government: against them, until time to make cabinet appointments
Missile defense funding: against it in the primaries, for it in the presidential debates, and now against it again.
Closing Guantanamo: Promised in the election, not so clear about it now.
Military tribunals: Once bad, now OK.
Iraq: We’ll be out in 18 months. OK, maybe not.
New government spending: we’ll pay for every dollar of it, or rather not.
Capital gains tax elimination for small businesses: promised, then quietly disappeared along with tax credits for adding new employees.
Bin Laden: Once our primary objective, not merely a symbolic matter, now not necessary to “meet our goal of protecting America.”
This is the short list.
Granted, many of these nuanced reversals likely represent having learned a thing or two about things on which he previously bloviated out of ignorance, but there’s something distinctly unhopeful, unchangy, and at the very least unsettling about someone who got it wrong on so may counts on his way to being elected. Is this being in step with the people he leads? Or something more akin to the notion that a spittle-wetted finger in the wind is as reliable an indicator as any about which way he’ll turn. The fact that a weather-vane is always true doesn’t obviate the need for a pilot to actually get you where you should be going.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle,
But I just don’t see the following as at all in line with reality:
“One goes to hell for indignant rejection of the God who loves you.”
If we are going to go there, we return to what Gudmundsson doesn’t properly deal with. According to evangelical premises, the overwhelming majority of folks who go to Hell go there for making theological errors. Atheists are extremely rare, few and far between. The overwhelming majority of folks are religious folks/God believers of one sort or another; they just make soul damning errors.
The way I understand evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity (the kind I oft-see defended here) Muslims qua Muslims, Mormons qua Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses qua Jehovahs Witnesses indeed, even Roman Catholics qua Roman Catholics, are not saved.
I see NO good reason to believe these folks consciously reject God. To the contrary, they just as honestly and devoutly believe their theological Truths about God as you believe in yours. If you are right about God and salvation, they go to Hell for theological errors, not consciously rejecting God.
If folks really went to Hell “for indignant rejection of the God who loves you,” they’d be in for no surprise in the afterlife. The term “indignant rejection” teaches this. Rather, if you are right, all of these folks who THOUGHT they accepted a God who loves them are in for a big surprise.
Or maybe you guys are.
Report comment to moderator
#29
Granted, many of these nuanced reversals likely represent having learned a thing or two about things on which he previously bloviated out of ignorance, but there’s something distinctly unhopeful, unchangy, and at the very least unsettling about someone who got it wrong on so may counts on his way to being elected.
Depends on whose ox is being gored.
If Obama suddenly began spouting slogans similar to ones promulgated here at worldmagblog, and suddenly started following policies such as you favor, everyone at worldmagblog would sing the praises of how open-minded he was and how wonderfully flexible he was, and how open to change he was.
If people agree with you, soon or later, you like them. If they don’t, you don’t like them. The type of argument in this thread is nothing more than He doesn’t agree with us, and he’s not even consistent in how he doesn’t agree with us.
Report comment to moderator
When I slight an infinite God, I commit an ifinite sin, deserving infinite punishment. And I find I do that inveterately. Do you know anyone who doesn’t?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!