Obama: Sin is what doesn't match 'my values'

Sad, bu no surprise.

It is instructive to follow the link in this article and read the entire interview. I saved it for my files.

1. Political conservatism does not equal theological conservatism, whether among the rank and file or among leading politicians. For instance, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush were both mainline denominational adherents - to the extent that they actually attended church at all - with liberal theological views, and for the most part the same can be said of a great deal of Congress, the governors and the judiciary. There are precious few actual evangelicals - let alone fundamentalists - at high levels of politics, and the sharp knives and claws that came out for Harriet Miers (when she was nominated for Supreme Court) and Mike Huckabee (when he ran for president) from conservative Republicans reveals why. While they are more than happy to accept the votes of evangelicals, the folks in power are going to be Roman Catholics, mainline denominationals, and Mormons, and this is true of both parties. (John McCain, Newt Gingrich and others made a show of going from denominational to Southern Baptist but … come on. Really?) The only reason why these same things are not issues with a host of current and former GOP leaders is because these sorts of probing religious questions aren’t asked of them the way that they have been of Obama. As a result, their activities are nowhere near as closely monitored as the fellow that so many are convinced is a radical Marxist, radical secularist, radical Muslim (or some combination of the three) determined to subvert and overthrow this nation’s (allegedly) Christian institutions and traditions.

2. Evangelicals are becoming less theologically conservative anyway. More and more doctrines are now “negotiable” for evangelicals, including sola scriptura, sola fide, the Holy Trinity, eternal punishment, and one path to salvation (and by this I mean not merely absorbing liberal pluralism, but evangelicals who followed Billy Graham in embracing Roman Catholicism, and the rise of dual covenant theology/salvation after the return of Christ theories associated with some dispensationalists).

3. Building on the former, “sin is being out of alignment with my values” has been a position overtly embraced by many evangelicals for a long time. Insisting on clearly revealed Biblical teachings on doctrines and personal morality gets you called “legalist”, “Pharisee” etc. and commonly results in accusations that you are literally helping send people to hell for eternity by driving them away from church. Another example of how so many of us mostly go by “our values”: Hollywood has depicted and glorified fornication, violence, abuse of alcohol, blasphemous swearing and cursing, false religious and philosophical ideas etc. since the very beginning, and many evangelicals not only did not object but lined up to watch. But when they started promoting homosexuality and abortion? Now THAT crossed the line! Conservative Christians have been governing themselves according to their own tastes and preferences as opposed to scripture for quite awhile. The only difference is that the theological liberals are honest about it, and formulate doctrines and scriptural interpretations to justify it. But professing evangelical or fundamentalist orthodoxy on one hand while thinking and living like a mainline denominational on the other is not superior.

I remember reading and posting something about this back in 2008.

John Edwards also said in 2008 regarding his affair: “In 2006, I made a serious error in judgment and conducted myself in a way that was disloyal to my family and to my core beliefs.”