On June 28, 2006 Illinois Senator Barack Obama addressed the Call to Renewal’s “Building a Covenant for a New America” conference.  Call to Renewal publishes Sojourners, a magazine of the Christian left that provides sustenance for those committed to the Social Gospel movement, which began in the late 19th century under Walter Rauschenbusch.  Sojourners routinely publishes articles by members of Christianity’s liberal faction such as its founding editor-in-chief Jim Wallis, along with articles by Emergent Church leaders such as Brian McLaren.

Rauschenbusch was greatly influenced by the writings of Charles Sheldon, such as the classic work In His Steps, which gave rise to the modern maxim”What Would Jesus Do?”  While there is nothing inherently wrong with asking such a question, the Social Gospel movement has strayed from evangelical orthodoxy in its focus on social works to the exclusion of foundational Christian doctrines.  A balanced Christian view can be found in the Evangelical Manifesto of May 7, 2008.  See especially page 6:

http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/docs/Evangelical_Manifesto.pdf

It behooves Christian Evangelicals to read Senator Obama’s speech carefully. 

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/

About 2/3 of the way through the speech, in a paragraph that begins… “And even if we did have only Christians in our midst…” Senator Obama asks, “Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.”

If Senator Obama hadn’t presented this speech three months prior to the publication of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion I would have suggested he borrowed from Dawkins.  He presciently iterates the same misguided rhetoric the New Atheists have now brought into the mainstream.  In any case, his comments make it quite clear that he is among those “folks who haven’t been reading their bibles,” at least not beyond a superficial level.  Sadly, Call to Renewal’s Christian left failed to recognize the blatant error in Barack Obama’s remarks.  As Evangelicals, I suggest we share this speech with any Christian friends who find his candidacy compelling.

The new atheists are a tumescent bunch, unquestionably articulate, yet consummately misguided. Their incendiary rhetoric can’t help but stir the emotions of the majority of America’s religious. Yet why do they ultimately choose to target Christianity above all other religious systems, when radical Islam presents the clear and present danger?

They routinely build a straw man version of Christianity based not upon the Ten Commandments and the morality of the Christ, but rather upon Old Testament Levitical laws that have long since been abrogated. They cannot be so naïve as to believe that Christians condone the murder of back talking children. Yet they must presume their audience is just so naïve, since this is exactly the sort of rhetoric they routinely tout.

In the latest books by avowed atheists, such as Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, Christopher Hitchens’ God is Not Great and Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation, the crux of the problem lies undisturbed. It never seems to surface amongst the pestiferous rhetoric of the atheist leaders.

They call for a secular America that mimics the “least religious societies on earth,” such as Norway, Denmark, Belgium and most of Western Europe, believing that the “end of religion” is an achievable goal. Yet, Western Europe has undergone an unprecedented decline in population that threatens its very existence. Conversely, the Middle East and Africa saw the greatest population growth during the 1990s, in nations that are predominantly Islamic.

The new atheists applaud Western European openness toward matters of gender equality and abortion, yet both of these departures from traditional religious mores have contributed to the dwindling population problem. Sam Harris, in his Letter to a Christian Nation, submits that “seventy percent of the inmates of France’s jails are Muslim.” He obtusely observes that Western European Muslims are generally not atheists, implying that atheists are not part of the “problem.”

However, by not recognizing the real problem, and by diverting attention toward Christianity rather than Islam, neither are they part of the solution. France’s tolerance has permitted their Muslim population to exceed 10%. Their hospitality has already been reciprocated with Islamic car bombings and gang riots. In America, the Muslim population is generally estimated at less than 2% of the population.

The increase in Europe’s Muslim population, along with population decline among European nationals, is changing the demographic climate in the cradle of continental philosophy. Rather than a progressive transformation toward analytic scientism and a consummately secular society, Europe is slowly and methodically regressing by embracing the ancient Mesopotamian culture that has emigrated from the cradle of civilization.

The new atheists aren’t the only ones with an agenda. While Sam Harris wants to see “the end of faith,” Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to see the end of Israel and the United States. Saudi Arabian oil money is pouring into our nation’s colleges and universities, mosques and Islamic day schools, at an alarming rate. Saudi monies don’t fund new science labs, libraries or gymnasiums, but rather Middle Eastern Studies programs, many of which have become bastions of radical jihadist thought. There is one thing virtually all Muslims have the same opinion upon, radical or otherwise. They agree with Shari’a Law and the emergence of an Islamic caliphate that will rule the entire Middle East and, if possible, the entire globe.

President Bush entered Iraq with the goal of liberating the Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, much like President Roosevelt entered Europe to liberate that part of the world from the maniacal control of Adolf Hitler. Our presence in Iraq has two very reasonable purposes: to aid the Iraqis in stabilizing their nation and to keep an eye on their next door neighbor, who unabashedly considers us the “Great Satan.” The new atheists are diverting our attention from America’s real problem by blurring the distinct boundaries between monotheistic religions.

In my opinion, both presidential candidates have their problems.  But one has more problems than the other.  Here is a column I wrote for Townhall.com:  The Presidency is not an Entry-Level Position.