I don't know when Obama made this speech. It showed up in my in-box with a request to hear and analyze. Here is my take on it:
First of all, let me just personally state that I do not believe that the bible was given to shape public policy. It was given to shape individual policy. The bible is a code of conduct for God's people. We live by it, because we love God and we want to live by his word and because we have the Holy Spirit who makes joyful obedience possible.
Christianity is not about establishing "Christian States" even though many of our laws are based on the bible. Christianity, by its definition, is voluntary and it is always loyal to a kingdom that is not of this world rather than setting up a particular kingdom in this world.
In fact, the more the State differs from the law of God, the better for Christianity. That is when the life devoted to Jesus shines the best. Non-Christian countries around the world are a case in point.
So I don't have a problem with Obama's position that the bible should not single-handedly shape public policy. I do however have a problem with his reasons why. His arguments are very poorly formed. They appeal to the biblically ignorant and insult the biblically intelligent. He appeals entirely to the Mosaic laws and with gentle mocking points out that we simply cannot live by those laws. He could have used the NT position and the life of the early church which lived under a regime mostly hostile to Christianity. The bottom line (if you don't want read any further) is that he makes the bible out to be outdated, irrelevant, confusing and those who would want to hold to it fanatical and dangerous.
First of all, in his speech Obama seems to imply that Christians do not agree on how to live by the bible. He asks: "Whose Christianity would we teach?" The options he gives are: Leviticus - where slavery is condoned and shell-fish are an abomination, Deuteronomy where stoning of children is condoned or Sermon on the Mount which is "radical" (although he does not say in what way). And then he encourages us to read our bibles, I suppose this is so that we could see how contradictory it is and how ridiculous it would be to try to live by it as a nation. I don't know who wrote this speech; Obama's examples are completely irrelevant to the topic. Does he not know that the ceremonial aspects of the law were temporary? Does he not know that Jesus fulfilled the law? Does he not know the difference between the Mosaic and the New Covenant? Does he not know how to interpret the Sermon on the Mount? He seems to think it has something to do with the Department of Defense and not our personal conduct!
Secondly, he argues that we cannot simply pass a law because the bible says so (using abortion as an example). Poor example - the bible does not speak to abortion directly...and I already agreed that we should not make public policy because the bible says so. But the reason he gives is that in a "pluralistic society we cannot hold to inerrancy of Scripture". Huh? What do these two things have to do with each other? Yes, without a doubt, the Scripture is without error. Does this mean we are going to force all people to live by it? Of course not! That is not Christianity!
Thirdly, Obama is making a point that religion belongs in the privacy of our homes and he uses the story of Abraham and Isaac as an example of how you can live by religious principles personally, but not as a nation. In this day and age, someone observing Abraham about to plunge the knife into Isaac would be calling child protection agencies because we do not hear the same voice of God. This story illustrates private devotion to God, so I fail to see how it supports the arguement, it seems to be undermining it. I am also not sure why Obama would imply that Isaac was a child. At this point in his life he was a young man and could have overpowered his father if he so wished. To use this account simply makes those who appeal to God's authority dangerous, in fact, that is the word he uses.
Bottom line as I see it: Obama has made clear that appeals to the bible will not hold as arguments in policy making. That's fine. There are many great reasons for limiting abortion (for example) that have nothing to do with the Christian argument of the value of human life. The problem is that those who hold biblical values have now been ranked lower than those who hold other values. Tim Keller in The Reason for God defines religion as any deeply held conviction by which we order our lives. Obama says that the Christian convictions must take a back seat to other deeply held convictions.
