At Sojourners’ presidential forum on faith, values, and poverty last week (catch a link to the full video of the event here and the transcript here) for the three “leading” democratic candidates, Barack Obama invoked Lincoln’s oft-quoted adage about “whether we are on God’s side.” Since Bush’s mixture of God and politics and his “you’re either with us or against us” policy, I have heard this quoted many times. But, of course, never with an accompanying citation. As with most “famous” quotations without citations, that probably means the source doesn’t say exactly that. Here’s what Obama said in response to Soledad O’Brien’s question, “Do you think that God takes sides in a war? For example, in the war on terror, is God on the side of U.S. troops, would you say?”:

Well, you know, I always remember Abraham Lincoln, when, during the Civil War, he said, “We shouldn’t be asking whose side God is on, but whether we’re on his side.” And I think that’s the question that all of us have to ask ourselves during any battle that’s taking place, whether it’s political or military, is, are we following his dictates? Are we advancing the causes of justice and freedom? Are we our brother’s keeper, our sister’s keeper? And that’s how I measure whether what we’re doing is right.

His interpretation of the Cain and Abel story is a little suspect and his masculine pronouns for God are questionable, but let me stay on task here. Jim Wallis also mentions Lincoln’s sentiments in the introduction of his book God’s Politics (xiv), in similar words, without citation. Searching for the reference, I found this personal note entitled “Meditation on the Divine Will,” which Lincoln wrote in September, 1862, mentioning a similar theme:

The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God’s purpose is something different from the purpose of either party — and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true — that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere great power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And, having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds.

These themes were later worked into his Second Inaugural Address of 1865, in which Lincoln states:

Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. . . . Fondly do we hope–fervently do we pray–that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether”

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan–to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

One problem in applying his quotation to our current situation is the fact that Lincoln was talking about two Christian “sides” at war with one another (“both read the same Bible . . .”). One could also question the motives of Lincoln: was this war really about slavery? In his personal note and elsewhere in the second inaugural address, Lincoln talks about saving and destroying “the Union.” What other reasons were there to preserve the Union? Relating it to today, the United States went to war with Iraq under the auspices that Saddam had “weapons of mass destruction.” After we discovered that he had none, the language was about bringing “freedom” and deposing a murderous dictator. I will leave the reasons and motivations for the American Civil War to American historians, but I think it’s fair to say that legitimate questions have been raised about it (and, of course, of our own Iraq War II).

Yes, it is quite profound that Lincoln would reveal his humility here, and admirable. But in the end, he decided essentially (without saying it): Well, yes, I do think that God is on our side here. He highlights a horrific moral problem to encourage the nation that this is the true cause of God. But the question is not whether slavery is wrong, whether Saddam did evil things, but whether we should use violence to answer that problem. Further, if the Civil War was about “saving the Union,” can we say that God is interested in violence for such a cause? You can hear my Anabaptism peeking out here, I know.

Why am I even raising these questions? First, I have not found that most people are even quoting an actual text (please help me out if there is a better basis for the quotation). I think that is worth correcting in itself. Second, I think that we should pause and think about why Lincoln was saying what he was saying before invoking “I like how Lincoln put it when he said . . .” I’m not claiming to have a corner on that market, but it’s good to raise questions nonetheless. Third, though this is not directly related to biblical studies, it does highlight interesting usage of biblical themes in public discourse. And finally, we should ask the same questions about biblical quotations as we should any “old big names” quoted by people who want to sound “authoritative.”