I am subscribed to World Wide Religious News and not long ago an article appeared questioning whether Obama is a Christian. The discussion exemplified the usual confusion between what I call on my site the “Faithful” level of religion and the “Mystical” level.

An interview that Barack gave to the Chicago Sun Times in 2004 was published recently on BeliefNet and apparently two bloggers Joe Carter and Rod Dreher read in their comments evidence that Obama’s claim to be a Christian must be false.

There were two main issues, both of which highlight for me anyway (and this is what I am trying to share with my readers) the confusion that results from people not understanding the difference between two completely different levels of faith: what I I call the Faithful. level and mystical level.

In the first instance, Joe Dreher apparently claimed that Obama denied the Nicene Creed as he called Jesus “a bridge between God and man” rather than clearly saying that he is the Son of God. “Dreher wrote:” You cannot be a Christian in any meaningful sense and deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. You just can’t. “Well, looking at the matter from a purely Faithful level, this is literally true. Those on the Faithful level say that Jesus was (is?) The Son of God. And if you insist on taking the word ‘son’ literally, as they tend to do the Faithful, then that would mean that you are buying all the implications, including biological ones, that a father / son relationship entails. This would include the assumption that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was pregnant by some magical means or otherwise I had a very interesting night about nine months before the birth of Jesus.

Of course Obama says that Jesus is “a bridge between God and man” does not imply a specific biological relationship and will tend to upset Faithful level believers. But nothing in his statement denies the divinity of Jesus Christ. However, from what I have been able to gather, Obama’s comments come from a different level of belief that is not widely recognized in our society. Not that I consider it appropriate to judge someone for what they believe, but as some hope to “catch” poor Barack as guilty of some form of false faith, I am offering a different opinion. From what I have been able to gather, I believe that Obama is at the mystical level of faith (4). In short, this means that he belongs to a very diffuse group where, among many other characteristics, the metaphorical interpretation of religious concepts is common. So for a mystic, saying that Jesus is the “Son of God” is really no different from saying that he is a “bridge between God and man.” In fact, by using the word “god”, the Mystic may not even be referring to a separate literal being. It may be referring to an entity of which man is a part. Therefore, saying that Jesus is a bridge between God and man can be a way of saying that following Jesus’ example can bring us closer to the piece of divinity that must exist within each of our human souls, not denying divinity of Christ but uniting it. including it within something to which every human being has potential access. Which brings us to the next point.

The World Wide Religion News article I mentioned earlier states that blogger Joe Carter disagreed with Obama saying that he does not believe that people who have not embraced Jesus as their personal savior will automatically go to Hell. “I cannot imagine that my God would allow a Hindu child in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to be burned in some way for all eternity. That is simply not part of my religious makeup.” Well, if Obama is indeed a Christian on the mystical level, he would not choose to see himself as part of an elite group from which others are excluded.

Using a very loose generalization, we can say that those of the Faithful group tend to interpret concepts in an ethnocentric way: my religion, my political party, my country, my people. Therefore, they adopt a “triumphalist” form of religion, a term that I believe was coined by Father Thomas Keating. “Only my religion is correct.” Therefore, as you can see, Obama is not in the group of the Faithful.

A mystic, on the other hand, seeks to include more beings, perhaps even non-humans, in his circle of concern. Unlike being ethnocentric, a mystic is perhaps worldcentric or even cosmocentric. Never the triumphalist, a Mystic would not want to see any group of people excluded from the good things our existence has to offer. He may interpret “eternal salvation” differently than the Faithful person does, but a Mystic would not embrace a god or worldview that would allow “some Hindu child in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to get burned in some way. way for all eternity. “

Some proportion of the membership of almost all religions and all churches consists of people on the mystical level of faith. Less articulate and out of the public eye like Obama, they go unnoticed by the generally more vociferous Faithful. The question shouldn’t be so much “Is Obama a Christian?” He calls himself a Christian and that should be all that is required. Rather, my question is, “Can faithful-level Christians widen the doors of their clique to openly welcome someone whose faith includes all that theirs does, and more? Can they widen the windows of their hearts to allow a worldview and posture of faith that includes the exact beliefs you now hold but which, in the difference between literal and metaphorical semantics, includes a god who would not leave anyone out in the cold? “