This past Saturday, August 16, presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain were interviewed by Rick Warren, the very influential mega church pastor and best selling author, at an event entitled “A Civil Forum on the Presidency.”

CADC expressed concern before the forum that Obama would use the event to confuse evangelicals with very slippery answers. CADC was correct, although it was not as bad as expected. This article is intended to set the record straight. By any historical or biblical standards, Obama is not a Christian and his positions on marriage and abortion are not biblical.   

Warren is to be commended on the format of the forum. It did allow a good comparison of the candidate’s positions on a wide range of issues. In the two hour event, Warren asked the same questions of each candidate. Obama filled the first hour and Mc Cain followed, unaware of Obama’s answers.

The format did not allow for Warren to follow up or challenge Obama’s or McCain’s answers, he simply allowed each candidate to answer, or avoid answering, his questions.      

Obama’s Calculated Answers

To the uniformed listener, Obama’s answer to Warren’s most overtly theological question sounded as if he was a mainstream evangelical. But when you compare Obama’s answer to his other statements, the impression Obama made was misleading. Deceit by withholding pertinent information leaves a false impression.

Warren: What does it mean to you to trust in Christ and what does it mean on a daily basis?  I mean, what does that really look like?

Obama: As a starting point, it means I believe in that Jesus Christ died for my sins and that I am redeemed through him… and it means that those sins that I have on a fairly regular basis hopefully will be washed away.

Unfortunately, the question Warren asked him was perfectly suited for Obama to skirt the issue with his usual obfuscations. The impression given is that Obama is very much within the mainstream of evangelicalism. Obama knows that he is not, but he is very calculating in his answers in order to confuse the uninformed.

Evangelical Christianity asserts that Jesus Christ is the only Savior of the world. No one comes to the Father except through him. Obama does not believe this fundamental tenet. In fact, he is very careful not to affirm Christ as the only Savior of the world.   

The Gospel According to Obama

We can get a more complete picture of Obama’s theology by comparing his remarks in another context. Obama affirms, “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.”[1]

In one breath Obama associates himself with Christianity, then denies its very core. If there are many paths to God, then Christ came and died for nothing.

At a recent meeting of evangelical leaders, Rev. Eugene Rivers of Boston said, "When asked about whether he believed Jesus is the only way to salvation, 'Obama said, brilliantly, "Jesus is the only way for me. I'm not in a position to judge other people,"' Rivers recalled."[2]

In a cunning example of diabolical deceit, Obama negated Christ’s death for all by affirming Christ as the only way for him.  

Jesus is not one among many ways of salvation. He does not give us that option. As Lord and Savior of the world he will also judge the world in righteousness. Obama apparently believes in a false Christ who is only the savior of a portion of mankind.

Cathleen Falsani, the author of The God Factor: Inside the Spiritual Lives of Public People, interviewed Barack Obama about his faith March 27, 2004, a few days after he clinched the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate seat that he eventually won.

Asked, “Who’s Jesus to you?” Falsani reports that Obama laughed nervously. What follows is Obama’s unorthodox answer that reveals his true belief about Christ.

OBAMA: Right.  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.

Any Jew, Muslim, animist, Buddhist, or Hindu could say the same thing. “Jesus is an historical figure for me.” Just because you believe that Jesus was an actual historical person does not make you a Christian. If one believes Mohammed was an historical person, it does not make them a Muslim.

“[H]e’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith.”  Here again is an affirmation and a denial of Christ in the same sentence. Christ is not “a” bridge, he is the only bridge. He is not a bridge “in the Christian faith,” he is the only Savior of all mankind. 

Jesus “is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher.” Notice how studiously Obama avoids the central Christian doctrine. According to Obama, Jesus is not powerful because he is a mighty Savior that saves all who believe from eternal wrath.

Later on in the interview Obama expresses doubts that there is a heaven. So, what is the “something higher?” Apparently, he is only referring to matters of this world. This is true as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough to be a bona fide Christian confession.   

After interviewing Obama for an April 5^th, 2004 article in the Chicago Sun, Cathleen Falsani gives her impression of the exchange. “It's perhaps an unlikely theological position for someone who places his faith squarely at the feet of Jesus to take, saying essentially that all people of faith -- Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone -- know the same God. That depends, Obama says, on how a particular verse from the Gospel of John, where Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me," is heard. “[3]

Clearly Obama’s faith is not “squarely at the feet of Jesus,” otherwise Obama would not reject the very clear words of Christ. By any historical or biblical standard, Obama is not a Christian.

Obama’s slippery rhetoric appears well coached and polished and is intended to deceive. Obama’s true position is post-modern, not biblical. In Obama’s way of thinking, what is true for him may, or may not, be true for any one else. Christ may be the Savior for Obama, but not necessarily the Savior for others.

According to Jesus, he came to bear witness to the truth and personified truth itself. Postmodernism crumbles under the claims of Christ.

To deny Christ is the only Savior for all mankind is to misunderstand the essential doctrines of Christ’s atonement for sin. All mankind has a legal problem with the Judge of the universe. All have sinned repeatedly and egregiously against a Holy God who requires perfect justice. The penalty for sin is eternal death.  Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin. 

Christ died, once for all, the just for the unjust, so that all who believe on him might be saved by his death in their place. No other religion provides atonement for sin on God’s terms. Obama knows this, but he rejects the exclusive claims of Christ as the only Savior of the World. No one calling himself a Christian can deny this essential truth.

Obama is Pro-Abortion and Pro-Homosexual

Obama’s stated positions on core moral issues for Christians, marriage and abortion were also unbiblical. Warren asked “When should a baby should get human rights?” Obama refuses to answer the question.

Obama: Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade. … I am pro-choice. … I believe in Roe v. Wade and come to that conclusion not because I’m pro-abortion, but because … I don’t think women make these decisions casually.

So, if someone believes in the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court, which called a black man the property of his slave holder, and took the time to make a careful decision to enslave people, as long as it was not done casually, it must be allowed? I am sure Obama would object to that kind of reasoning, yet it is the same logic he applies to abortion.

Through the centuries, the historic position of the Christian church is that life begins at conception. The church has fought abortion as destructive to innocent human life created in God’s image. If there is any doubt about when life begins, like those Obama apparently has, the ethical Christian position is to give life the benefit of the doubt.

Warren asked Obama to define marriage.

OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian -- for me -- for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix. But –

WARREN: Would you support a Constitutional Amendment with that definition?

OBAMA: No, I would not.

WARREN: Why not?

OBAMA: Because historically -- because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It's been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, let's break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern that -- about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not -- that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view.

Obama says he defines marriage as a sacred union of a man and a woman, but then he goes on to advocate for homosexual sodomy as a matter of civil rights. Using fallacious arguments used by homosexual activists to try to engender sympathy, Obama affirms and then denies the institution of marriage.

While expressing support for the rights of states to define marriage, Obama has come out in opposition to the effort in California to amend the constitution to define marriage the very way he says he advocates[4] as a “union between one man and one woman.” This is another example of the duplicitous attempt by Obama to confuse evangelicals.