Progression of Faith

Evolving in Monkey Town

2010-06-25T16:09:00.013-05:00

I fell for Rachel Held Evans' personal story right from the beginning. I've never met Rachel, but her story felt much like my own. I couldn't put this book down. Luckily, I had a long plane trip scheduled last week and this book was the perfect travel companion.

This is a delightful book about a girl who grew up as part of the Evangelical sub-culture in the small town made famous for being home of the Scopes Monkey trial. It's well-written, playful, open, and honest. Anyone who has lived in, around, or simply crossed paths with southern-fried Evangelical Christianity will find something to like about this book. The author is not harsh or judgmental about her self-described roots in fundamentalism, but she's willing to risk opening up her experiences for a good honest examination. It's a refreshing story about how the author made her way out of that kind of religion and into something exciting and full of life.

"What makes a person a fundamentalist is not what beliefs they hold, but how they hold them, and I was holding onto mine with a death grip, partly because I was convicted, but mostly because I was afraid. I was afraid of being wrong. I was afraid of not having all the answers. But mostly I was afraid of change."

Rachel let go of some long held beliefs and that caused a few problems along the way. I enjoyed reading about the interesting people she's met, the tension she wrestled with along the way, and her willingness to leave a few things unsettled. Resting in uncertainty can seem like a difficult place to be, but it's actually very liberating. In my opinion, it feels much more honest and much less suffocating.

"I'm no longer ready to give an answer about everything. Sometimes I'm not ready because I feel that an answer does not do justice to the seriousness or complexity of the question. Sometimes I'm not ready to give an answer because I honestly don't know what the best one is. Sometimes I'm not ready to given an answer because I can tell that the person asking doesn't really want one anyway."

Putting Away Childish Things

2010-05-25T20:10:00.000-05:00

I just finished Marcus Borg's new novel, "Putting Away Childish Things: A Tale of Modern Faith". I've read many of Marcus Borg's books and he is one of my favorite authors, but this is his first novel. I wasn't sure what to think when I ordered the book. Could a world renown biblical scholar really write an entertaining work of fiction? The answer is absolutely YES! I was hooked by the end of the first chapter. If you've read any of Brian McLaren's series, "A New Kind of Christian", then I think you'll really love this book too.

Borg calls this book a "teaching novel". It's much more than a good story. He wants to make some important points and he's created the perfect set of characters to illustrate his points. The characters are charming. The main character, Kate, is a religious studies professor struggling to sort through the modern day divisions in Christianity. Kate gets hit from all sides as she deals with accusations of being too Secular, and just as many people seem to think she's too Christian. I really like Kate, but she can't seem to be boxed in by anyone. It's hard not to see that Marcus Borg has written a bit of himself into his characters. Not only do we get a glimpse of the world from Kate's perspective, we get to visit her class and hear a few lessons from the perspective of several different students. I've heard Marcus Borg speak a few times and I recognized his own message in Kate's classroom.

In addition to the lessons, the real treasures of the book are the well developed engaging characters, each with their own perspective and their own set of questions. I'm not sure if Marcus Borg will continue writing fiction, but I'd certainly keep reading. He's a gifted writer and I found myself enthralled by this beautiful story.

Justice for sale

2010-02-22T09:40:00.004-05:00

"How would you feel if you were in court and knew that the opposing lawyer had contributed money to the judge's campaign fund? This is not an improbable hypothetical question, but could be a commonplace occurrence in the 21 states where judges must raise money to campaign for their seats — often from people with business before the court." Bill Moyers - PBS

Watch the entire investigation online...

The Hopeful Skeptic

2010-01-03T13:27:00.011-05:00

Nick Fiedler is the co-creator and co-host of the popular Nick & Josh Podcast, and I've been a fan of the show for several years. In his new book, "The Hopeful Skeptic: Revisiting Christianity From the Outside", Nick shares a remarkably honest struggle with his faith, which may have emerged too far from the center to still be considered an insider. Although, the word "struggle" might not be the best choice of words. Nick seems to be surprisingly at ease with the tension of being both a person of hope and skepticism. I'm encouraged by his ability to embrace these two labels. I can relate to them both.

People tend to write books after they have everything figured out, or at least when they've lived long enough to think that they do. It's refreshing to read a book by someone willing to share their ideas at the beginning of their journey, when they admit they don't have many concrete answers. Nick writes with the wisdom of someone who's had a few changes in perspective, and that is rare in a young writer. I wonder how much better most theological books might be if, like Nick, the author wrote assuming they'd probably change their mind in a few years. There might be fewer emphatic declarations, and less harsh criticisms of others. Nick's ability to hold on to his ideas loosely may be the best part of this delightful book. In a chapter titled "Flip-Flopper", he expresses this concept using a reference from one of my favorite movies.

In the movie Dogma, Rufus, supposedly the thirteenth (and only black) disciple suggests that "ideas" are preferable to "beliefs". His argument is that you can change an idea, and people won't kill or die for an idea the way they will for something labeled a belief. Hearing Rufus elaborate on that aspect of religion and theology was one of the most spiritually enlightening events of my life. Because we are all flip-floppers, so why not just label our beliefs "ideas"? That would make it easier for us to hold onto them in a way that would allow us to change them if we get new information at a later time, and gives us plenty of space to have "new" ideas. (pg.67)

It takes great courage to keep one foot in the culture of faith and the other dipping in the murky waters of skepticism. You can loose friends that way. I know first hand how how difficult it can be. I'm not sure how well this book will be accepted by either Christians or skeptics, but it feels comfortable to me. I've always enjoyed a bit of dissonance in my music, and I never liked movies with heroes who are too perfect, villains who are a little too easy to hate, and plots that tie up all the loose ends so I don't have to use my imagination. I loved this book and I guess I'm a hopeful skeptic also, but I'm not rushing out to get the tattoo.

It's Really All About God

2009-12-06T09:22:00.007-05:00

It has been a joy to read Samir Selmanovic's wonderful new book, "It's Really All About God: Reflections of a Muslim Atheist Jewish Christian". If your idea of a good time is being told what you want to hear, then don't read this book. However, if you like to be challenged, and if you enjoy thinking outside the box, then this book will be a treasure.

Too often, progressive pleas for multi-cultural inter-faith dialogue just fall flat on their face. They can seem like a watered down version of political correctness. Samir is asking us for something much more substantive. Instead of simply exploring other faith traditions as a way toward shallow tolerance, Samir is suggesting that we learn to experience "the other" as a way to learn about ourself.

To say "God is a mystery", is too often used as a self-serving conversation stopper, effectively avoiding the task of addressing questions we don't yet know how to answer. We can keep our images of God safely unchallenged and protected from conclusions that might force us to concede the presence of God in people with whom we disagree. These questions, if entertained, might demand that we change our theologies, liturgies, and practices. The bondage of certainty can supplant the freedom of faith and make it impossible for us to say, "We don't know," "We apologize," "We want to change," and "what can we do to make things right?" - pg 11

One of my favorite chapters is called "The Blessings of Atheism". In this chapter, Samir shares the interesting story of his TWO weddings. Having been raised as an Atheist, his family was not happy about the idea of a Church wedding. His wife's Christian family was not particular excited about the idea of a wedding with what they considered to be the "twin evils of the world: alcohol and dancing". The result was back to back weddings (literally one day after the other). Surprisingly, Samir doesn't seem to be bitter about all of this. The experiences of Samir's life have given him a wonderful perspective that allows him to see the good in these different views of the world.

Atheism does not have to be the end of the mystical; it can be the beginning.

Religion does not have to be the opium of the people; it can be the poetry of the people.

Both faith and doubt are opposites of certainty and therefore part of the same whole that refuses to see all but the obvious. To end either of them would be to end imagination.

Faith imagines. And so does doubt.

We both have both.

And we are better together. - pg. 198

Samir Selmanovic on his new book

2009-11-30T10:00:00.005-05:00

I'll be reviewing this book soon. Please check out Samir's website for more information.

Problems in the Script

2009-11-03T09:54:00.002-05:00

Proper Confidence

2009-10-04T10:22:00.009-05:00

A friend asked me to read Leslie Newbigin's "Proper Confidence". Reading this quote on the first page lured me in...

"The words liberal and fundamentalist are used today not so much to identify oneself as to label the enemy." pg. 1

That’s a wonderful observation!

Newbigin shines a critical light on the influence of Descartes in modern theology. I'm no fan of the dualism of Descartes that has plagued modernity, and it is Newbigin's criticism of Descartes that led me to engage with this book. However, I think Newbigin dislikes Descartes for all the wrong reasons. In addition, I'm not sure Newbigin wants to fully admit how much he draws from Descartes’ influence, namely substance dualism.

Newbigin begins with a description of dualism that has roots as far back as Plato, but was contextualized and cemented into modern thinking by Descartes. So far so good, but here's where his analysis derails. I think he is correct to critique the modern application of this dualism into what has become the “faith v. science divide”. However, for Newbigin, the problem is that science infringed on his own unquestionable presuppositions of faith. This book contains some confusion around the terms "science" and "modernity". They are not the same things. Modernity is a particular reaction to science. I'm on board with a critique of modernity, but not of science itself. He cries, "foul" by suggesting science has over stepped its boundaries, but he doesn't seem to realize that by declaring a boundary for science, he's adopted the same dualism that he hoped to overcome. This is precisely the mistake of Descartes and his followers, to divide the world into the realm of spiritual and the realm of science so that the ancient traditions could survive and even appear to be on equal footing as we move forward. Unfortunately, this turned out to be a more destructive blow for religion. By relegating religious language to some unknowable spiritual realm of alternate substances (dualistic embodied souls or “ghosts in the machine”), modern theologians struck a blow against that which they sought to save. Our way past modernity is not to call a truce in the modern battle by dividing the territory and going separate ways. I suggest that our best path is to move past the underlying dualism that created the war, even if it appears to give ground in the process.

Further clouding his argument, Newbigin uses the term "liberal" instead of "atheist" or "secular" to represent one far end of the spectrum. In my view, liberal theology is already a kind of middle ground position or "third way", and he may be skewing the readers perspective by reframing the boundaries to help his own view seem more centered or neutral.

In chapter 4, "Knowing God", I did appreciate Newbigin's concerns about an over reaching certainty that has plagued both sides of the modern coin (secularism and fundamentalism). Knowing is merely a feeling that we know. Placing too much confidence in our feeling of knowing is not helpful. The liberal and traditional theological camps are not on equal footing when it comes to claims about “knowing”. Newbigin overlooks some important difference between the two approaches. Though a completely objective “God’s eye view” may be unattainable, it is naive to suggest the two approaches are both equally subjective. He further illustrates this point by making the classic false dichotomy of modernist theology...

"The only possible responses to the claims the bible makes are belief or unbelief." pg 55

Newbigin falls victim to the modern presupposition that in order for the Bible to have any value, it must be read the same way we read a history book or science text book. He assumes the point of the bible is to believe its stories are facts or reject them as fiction. This view of the bible is precisely what fed fundamentalism and lured science into a war that it never intended to wage. I think there is a better way to move past that divide.

Newbigin tips his hat to Descartes by dividing up the playing field of human knowledge into the separate fields of observation and revelation. He goes to great length to point out the limits of human observation in order to leave space for revelation. But again, that simply serves to cement dualism rather than seeking to move beyond it. He seems perfectly happy dividing the field as long as we play nice and don't get in each other's way. That is a cordial move, but it is not truly a rejection of Cartesian dualism.

My biggest disappointment about this book is that it wasted such a great title. I love the term "Proper Confidence", but this book wasn't the critique on modernity's quest for confidence that I had hoped it would be. I do give Newbigin credit for identifying some key problems with the legacy of Descartes. I appreciate his suggestions for a softening of biblical literalism, and maybe his approach is a good first step. I think he asked some good questions and highlighted many important areas for inquiry. I agree with him that we should hope for a proper confidence in our intellectual discourse and that moving beyond the modern false dichotomy of "science or religion" is possible. I just don't think the way to do that is to use apologetic arguments to try and put science in its “place”. That approach may continue to isolate religion in an ever shrinking place of its own. I’m not willing to accept that result.

Sick for Profit

2009-08-12T07:48:00.000-05:00

End Wall Street Run Health Care

2009-08-02T10:56:00.004-05:00

Until a year ago, Wendell Potter was an executive at Cigna, the 3rd largest health insurance company. He risked his reputation by blowing the whistle on his industry and sharing the insider secrets used by insurance companies to deny care and spread fear based propaganda about the "horrors of government run health care" for the last 20 years. In a recent interview on PBS, he shares the detailed playbook of the political movement to block health care reform and preserve the insurance company's stranglehold on the lucrative American health care industry.

"The industry and its backers are using fear tactics, as they did in 1994, to tar a transparent and accountable, publicly accountable health care option as, quote, "government-run health care." What we have today, Mr. Chairman, is Wall Street-run health care that has proven itself an untrustworthy partner to its customers, to the doctors and hospitals who deliver care and to the state and federal governments that attempt to regulate it." - Wendell Potter

Everyone intersted in the public debate about health care should watch the whole interview online.

Silence on the Blogging Front...

2009-08-01T15:23:00.006-05:00

Lately, I've been too preoccupied to blog and I'm not sure that will change anytime soon. After many years attempting to adopt a child, my wife and I finally have our little girl at home. I was beginning to doubt our decision to adopt instead of having children naturally, but the wait is finally over. Even though the paper work isn't finalized, we are enjoying our new challenge. Her name is Katie. She's an adorable 8 month old. She's had a rough start to life, but we are doing everything we can to turn that around.

"Doubt" - a Postmodern Epistemology

2009-07-04T08:10:00.007-05:00

Brilliant movie! The best description I can think of is that it is a postmodern exploration of our sources for knowledge. The movie forces the viewer to ask questions about how we can "know" what it is we feel we "know". How do we come to "feel" certain? Is faith possible without doubt? Is doubt an act of faith? Is a search for truth a journey into the destruction of faith?

All of the performances are wonderful and each character helps us visualize a different foundation for epistemology. For some, our certainty remains in question until we acquire a particular level of evidence. For others, a declaration from some source of authority helps us claim to "know" with certainty. At times, we just can't locate the reasons why we feel so certain. These characters help us see that any search for truth is not a linear path from doubt to faith to certainty; it's more of a constant interplay between all three. In the end, the movie explores the risks we take when we attempt to locate truth, a search which demands a willful sacrifice of our certainty, a deconstruction of our faith, and a full embrace of our darkest doubts.

A few of my favorite lines from the movie...

"You just want things to be resolved so you can have simplicity back" - Sister Aloysius

"Doubt can be a bond as powerful and sustaining as certainty" - Father Flynn

"It is unsettling to look at people with suspicion. I feel less close to God" - Sister James

"When you take a step to address wrongdoing, you are taking a step away from God" - Sister Aloysius

Julia Sweeney on God

2009-07-03T16:50:00.000-05:00

The Happiness Myth

2009-06-21T10:03:00.005-05:00

I finally finished “The Happiness Myth - Why what we think is right is wrong” by Jennifer Michael Hecht. Hecht is a wonderful writer. I read most of the book from a beach chair in Aruba while sipping more than my fair share of cocktails, a combination that created more than a few ironic moments. I found it to be a helpful and enriching addition to my vacation. The only bad thing I can say about this book is that it’s a bit crowded with information. Had a less engaging writer written it, it might have risked boredom, but Hecht creates lovely prose to keep the reader engaged throughout.

The book takes us on a journey through history as we examine the shifts in cultural ideas about what makes people happy; such as, our ideas about drugs, money, religion, shopping, eating, exercise, celebrations, and sex. I’ve often pondered the notion that our measures of happiness may not always line up with what actually makes us happy. Hecht suggests the reason is that there are three main types of happiness - a good day, euphoria, and a good life. Often those things are in opposition and anyone looking for happiness will need to keep all three in balance or their quest may be doomed to fail. Understanding those categories of happiness might help us make better decisions. We might be willing to sacrifice a few good days in order to achieve a moment or two of brief euphoria; at other times, we may make the mistake of chasing euphoric moments at the expense of a happy life.

The mark of a good book is that it has the power to change the reader in some way. In order to create change, it has to first make us skeptical about the way things are. Hecht is a notorious skeptic, and this book is a wonderful adventure in the healthiest and happiest form of doubt.

Five Writers Who Changed Me

2009-06-18T07:36:00.002-05:00

One of my favorite bloggers, Dr. James McGrath, tagged me in a meme that is working its way around the internet. The rules are, “name the five books (or scholars) that had the most immediate and lasting influence on how you read the Bible. Note that these need not be your five favorite books, or even the five with which you most strongly agree. Instead, I want to know what five books have permanently changed the way you think.”

Here is my list:

1) The first time I picked up Marcus Borg’s book, “Reading the Bible Again For the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously But Not Literally”, I couldn’t get past the first 2 chapters. I thought I’d burn in hell if I kept reading it, so I put it back on the shelf. A year later, I returned to it and I not only fell in love with Marcus Borg’s writing, I also fell in love with the Bible. The difference in my perspective between the first time I picked up the book and the response I had a year later is the work of the second author on my list…

2) Brian McLaren and his trilogy “A New Kind of Christian” gave me permission to think, question, and reexamine my view of scripture. It seems silly that I would need “permission”, but I found this book at just the right time in my life. I wasn’t sure about progressive theology, yet I knew deep down that I was conflicted about the simplistic faith I was publicly professing. Even though I couldn’t buy in wholeheartedly to that Evangelical faith of my childhood, I didn’t realize I could question it without throwing away my life. In many ways, I’ve moved “past” Mclaren’s theology. He’s a trendy author who keeps one foot in the superficial pop culture of Evangelicalism. That’s not something I share with him any more, but McLaren provided an instrumental step in my growth and I’ll always thank him for that important push out of the nest. I’ll never forget his engaging characters and moving stories.

3) John Shelby Spong is famous for writing books that draw attention by being overly dramatic and extremely critical. I remember seeing the bright red book jacket on “The Sins of Scripture” and thinking he was just out to piss people off. I was wrong. The book that really won me over was “Resurrection: Myth or Reality”. In that work, Bishop Spong opens up the world of the Jewish Midrash and makes a strong case for how the New Testament authors followed this tradition in crafting the Gospels and generating the subsequent legends of Jesus. That theory assembled the key pieces of the way I now read and appreciate the gospel narratives.

4) “Jesus and Nonviolence” by Walter Wink is a small book, barely more than a pamphlet, but it packs a big punch. It is also a great book for small group discussions. You can read it in one sitting and unpack it for days. After reading this exegesis of Jesus’ teachings, I’ve never read the parables of Jesus the same way again.

5) When I first heard Walter Brueggemann speak, I avoided the Old Testament like a plague. I was certain that the prophets were antiquity’s version of a modern 1-900 psychic hotline. Brueggeman shattered that notion, and his book “The Prophetic Imagination” changed the way I approach the Old Testament. The prophets are now my favorite books in the Bible and “The Prophetic Imagination” may be the best book I’ve ever read.

Looking Forward or Looking Back?

2009-06-16T10:42:00.002-05:00

HT: Tripp Fuller

The Sacredness of Questioning Everything

2009-05-24T19:27:00.004-05:00

They say you can't judge a book by its cover, but the title of David Dark's latest book, "The Sacredness of Questioning Everything", was just too alluring for me to pass up. Can a title get any better than that? The rest of the book is living up to the catchy title. I highly recommend this book for its unique combination of theological inquiry, political satire, and provocative cultural humor. How many books can you think of that link quotes from Augustine to Jon Stewart, Aquinas to Stephen Colbert, and a Muslim imam to South Park?

I probably wouldn't agree with all of David Dark's answers, but I love his questions. If I have to pick between answers and questions, I'll take good questions every time. If there's a skeptical side to your personality, or if you get frustrated when answers just seem to easy to be true, then you'll like this book too. If you enjoy a good theology discussion and Comedy Central is on your favorite channel list, then this book is likely to become one of your all time favorites. Here are a few of my favorite lines...

“This is how religions work. Devastating criticism of religion is always part of religion. The religiously faithful aren’t just permitted to critique and complain and reform; they’re bound to do as much by religion. Without it, there is no faithfulness.

Of course, when religion won’t tolerate questions, objections, or differences of opinion and all it can do is threaten excommunication, violence, and hellfire, it has an unfortunate habit of producing some of the most hateful people to ever walk the earth.”

"To be conned, after all, is human. To confess to having been conned is an act of awareness. To believe ourselves impervious to cons is to be in denial, to be dangerous, to perhaps have an especially telegenic personality, and in our day, to be uniquely electable to public office."

"If we’re more opposed, for instance, to what we take to be bad language and nude scenes and films about gay people than we are to people being blown up, starved to death, deprived of life-saving medicine, or tortured, our offendedness is out of whack. We have yet to understand the nature of real perversion. We aren’t as deeply acquainted with our religion as we might think."

HT: Zondervan publishing (thanks for sending me a copy of this book to review)

The Orthodox Heretic

2009-05-17T09:19:00.004-05:00

Peter Rollins' latest book, "The Orthodox Heretic And Other Impossible Tales", is a treat. Rollins has written 33 short parables along with commentaries on each story. In his usual fashion, his stories leave the listener a bit unsettled. That's what good parables do. These stories not only make you question the easy answers, they make you wonder if you're even asking the right questions.

I've been thinking a lot about parables lately. I had one of the most bizarre conversations of my life, as a friend tried to insist that a parable is a lie if it "didn't really happen". Of course, he missed the whole purpose of telling a parable. Few people would take that absurd approach by interpreting a parable literally, but it does highlight one of the problems with modernity. During the last couple of centuries, mankind has come to understand some amazing things about the universe. Modern knowledge has been a huge benefit to society, but it had a peculiar side effect. The more we "know" about our world, the less we lean on telling stories to translate meaning. We can become slaves to the quest for certainty as we preference facts and devalue stories. Good parables don't simply communicate facts about some historical person or event, they take us on a hypothetical journey and leave us unsatisfied with simplistic answers.

Jesus, Interrupted

2009-05-13T19:26:00.004-05:00

Bart Ehrman’s latest book, “Jesus, Interrupted”, may be his best. Ehrman has written several controversial books over the years, but this book does more than sport a controversial title. It dives deeper into the author’s own experience and provides a behind the scenes glimpse into the world of literary criticism. By sharing his own journey, he opened up the world of literary criticism to a wider audience, and he dispelled several of the myths surrounding the discipline. Like his earlier best seller, “Misquoting Jesus”, this latest book includes the healthy doses of biblical criticism that we’ve come to expect from Ehrman. However, this time he went beyond his usual examples of discrepancies between the thousands of early manuscripts. This book continues by investigating the impact of this historical critical method on the big picture. Keeping the talk about discrepancies and errors to one chapter, he had space to dive deeper into topics about early Christianity, the authorship of the New Testament books, the canonization process, and the impact of biblical criticism on theology. One question provides the underlying theme of the book, “why has this information been common knowledge in seminaries around the world for two centuries, yet, so many mainstream Christians today are completely unaware?”

“Scholars of the Bible have made significant progress in understanding the Bible over the past two hundred years, building on archaeological discoveries, advances in our knowledge of the ancient Hebrew and Greek languages in which the books of Scripture were originally written, and deep and penetrating historical, literary, and textual analyses.
…
Yet such views of the Bible are virtually unknown among the population at large. In no small measure this is because those of us who spend our professional lives studying the Bible have not done a good job communicating this knowledge to the general public and because many pastors who learned this material in seminary have, for a variety of reasons, no shared it with their parishioners.”

I enjoyed reading a bit more of Bart Ehrman’s personal story because I think we’ve had similar adventures in faith. I can relate to his early years in a fundamentalist church, his brief period of disenchantment, and his current religious status as something less than “certain”. We don’t exactly agree eye to eye, but mostly, I relate to his infatuation with the Bible. In this book, Ehrman shatters the myth that biblical criticism is an attempt to belittle the bible. His dedication to the Bible comes through. In fact, he concludes with a chapter that makes the case for religious faith entitled “Is Faith Possible?”

My favorite chapter is a discussion of the historical Jesus and a description of the nature of historical studies in general. In this chapter, titled “Liar, Lunatic, or Lord”, Ehrman dismantles the short sighted logic of the famous and often quoted C.S. Lewis argument. Thanks to a more robust understanding of our ancient texts, we now have a fourth option that Lewis was not willing to include. It turns out this forth option, “Legend”, is the most probable answer.

I need to give a big thanks to TheOoze Viral Blogger network for hooking me up with a copy of this book to review.

The Debate Over God's Existence

2009-05-11T19:03:00.000-05:00

A great post by Michal Dowd...

"This is not theological rocket science. Theists are right when they insist that God is real and faith (trust) is transformative. Atheists are right when they insist God is imaginary and supernatural claims are fiction. If we do not understand how both of these can be true, we don't understand the evolved nature of the human brain and the metaphorical nature of human language. Arguing whether it was God or evolution that created everything is like debating whether it was Gaia or plate tectonics that created Mount Everest. Such silly and largely unnecessary confusion will remain the norm until we distinguish and value both metaphorical and descriptive language. In the meantime, I'm grateful to Richard Dawkins and the other "new atheists" for bringing this debate front and center. Perhaps in the coming decades we can finally move beyond the mistaken notion that science gives us a meaningless universe and religion is primarily concerned with unnatural (supernatural) entities." - Michael Dowd

...read the entire article at The Evolutionary Times

What is Progressive Faith?

2009-05-04T20:00:00.002-05:00

HT: James McGrath

Tax Day Irony

2009-04-15T21:31:00.005-05:00

While Fox News viewers protested fictitious tax increases today, President Obama is working to simplify our monstrous tax code, and providing tax CUTS for more Americans that ever in the history of our nation. For Fox News and their "tea baggers", the facts don't really matter. April 15th was simply an opportunity to misguide and abuse more hard working citizens. Luckily, the tea baggers, too out of touch with society to realize the dual meanings of that term, fell flat on their face. They seem intent on turning conservatism (something I once identified with) into little more than tricking the working class and religious fanatics into protesting on behalf of corporate greed and tax cuts for millionaires.

Easter - The End of Barbaric Sacrifices

2009-04-12T09:34:00.005-05:00

Traditional Christianity has tried to interpret the stories about Jesus' death and resurrection as a final sacrifice to appease the God who demands blood as payment for sins. I can't buy that interpretation. That barbaric theology tried to fit Jesus into the already established Pagan and Jewish forms of animal sacrifice. Instead, I suspect this creative narrative about the end of Jesus' life is meant to offer a final damning critique of the entire system of violent sacrifice. The story exposes the horrors of power obtained through violence. It ends the need for a scapegoat and subverts the controlling powers in the Temple, who held people hostage through their "pay to play" requirements. I love the imagery of the veil in the Temple being torn. That scene frames the entire story as a challenge to power and authority. It suggests that the writers of this narrative no longer acknowledged the oppressive power of the elite ruling class to broker access to community, arbitrate debt payments, and pronounce judgment. The various Easter morning stories suggest that those who are made to be scapegoats are now vindicated and that these people will no longer comply with the vicious cycle of killing and revenge.

Here are a few quotes from Walter Wink's book "The Powers That Be" found in chapter 3 - Breaking the Spiral of Violence.

"Scripture rehabilitates persecuted sufferers. God is revealed, not as demanding sacrifice, but as taking the part of the sacrificed. From Genesis to Revelation, the victims cry for justice and deliverance from the world of violence, where they are made scapegoats. In the cross these cries find vindication."
...
"Once Christianity became the religion of the empire, notes theologian J. Denny weaver, its success was linked to the success of the empire and preservation of the empire became the decisive criterion for ethical behavior. The church no longer saw the demonic as lodged in the empire, but in the empire's enemies. Because society was now regarded as Christian, atonement became a highly individual transaction between the believer and God. The idea that the work of Christ involves the radical critique of society was largely abandoned."
...
"But rebirth is not a private, inward event only. For it also includes the necessity of dying to whatever in our social surroundings has shaped us inauthentically. We must die to such things as racism, false patriotism, greed, and homophobia. We must, in short, die to the Domination System in order to live authentically."

Good Friday?

2009-04-10T07:54:00.002-05:00

Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman

2009-04-07T08:21:00.003-05:00

I'm anxiously waiting for my copy of Bart Ehrman's new book "Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them)". Ehrman's publisher, Harper Collins, has been kind enough to send out a few copies to bloggers for review. I'll be posting a review later this month. Here's the author talking about his new book...

Thanks to Mike Morrell at theOoze.com for hooking me up!

Karen Armstrong on Compassion

2009-03-29T22:03:00.000-05:00

If you missed Billy Moyers' interview with Karen Armstrong last week, you can watch the whole video online. I loved it!

BILL MOYERS: You ask the question, "What would it mean to interpret the whole of the Bible as a commentary on the Golden Rule?"

KAREN ARMSTRONG: Yes.

BILL MOYERS: What's your answer to that question?

KAREN ARMSTRONG: Well, this is one of the things that really intrigued me when I was researching this book. How frequently the early rabbis, for example, in the Talmudic period, shortly after the death of Jesus, insisted that to any interpretation of scripture that read hatred or contempt for any single human being was illegitimate.

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

St. Augustine said that scripture teaches nothing but charity. And if you come to a passage like the one you just read, that seems to preach hatred, you've got to give it an allegorical or metaphorical interpretation. And make it speak of charity.

BILL MOYERS: But of course, what some people do is to read for their own purposes what--

KAREN ARMSTRONG: Exactly.

BILL MOYERS: --they call allegorical. And then, read literally what they want to apply in their--

KAREN ARMSTRONG: And of course, you have to understand that this tendency to read scripture in a literal manner is very recent.

BILL MOYERS: Right.

KAREN ARMSTRONG: Nobody, for example, ever thought of interpreting the first chapter of Genesis as a literal account of the origins of life, until the modern period. It's our scientific mindset that makes us want to sort of read these texts for accurate information.

What Is God?

2009-03-23T21:15:00.000-05:00

Here's a great question asked by Ester Brady Crawford and answered by two of my favorite authors.

HT: FaintStarLite.com

Emergence 101

2009-03-07T14:42:00.001-05:00

Dr. Philip Clayton on Emergence Theory and its relationship with theology:

Clayton's analysis of Emergence theory is particularly exciting. However I'm not sure it actually negates reductionism. Emergence must start by accepting the basic observations that lower level parts initiate (start, push, provide the building blocks for) the higher level emerging actions. Yet, it also adds the idea that higher order phenomenon can effect the lower level parts. When translated to theology, we are still left with a negation of supernatural theism, right? Doesn't Emergence negate the idea that we depend on a higher level "first cause" that necessarily existed before all other lower levels?

Clayton suggests that an atheist, like Richard Dawkins, might have problems with emergence. I don't see how. I imagine it might cause Dawkins to modify a few terms to accommodate newer science, but Dawkins' central theme still holds; there is no evidence or need for a "personal god". Emergence still appears to be a completely naturalistic position. It doesn't need an unnatural causation, does it?

A Call to the Emerging Church

2009-03-06T07:39:00.000-05:00

In this short video clip, Philip Clayton gives a great description of emergence theory. He goes on to challenge Tony Jones concerning our use of emergence theory in reshaping Christian theology.

Watch Tony's response...

Both of them use particularly theistic language, but I think emergence theory can help bridge the divide and bring peace to the conflict between theism, atheism, and agnosticism (or any other metaphysical view). I'll be posting more on this later.

Budgeting for Hope

2009-02-27T07:34:00.003-05:00

The former administration was concerned with hiding the costs of the war and disguising our deficits. First, they removed the war costs from the federal budget reports, and second, they banned photos of our soldiers who were killed in action. The result was a nation who didn't see and feel the cost of the Bush mistakes. I'm glad to know that president Obama is ending those tactics. Finally, there's no more cooking the books at the White House! By recognizing the real costs and owning up to the responsibility to pay our bills (i.e. tax increases), we may be on the road toward removing the red ink from Washington.

The 2010 budget accounts for all the war costs and makes the reduction of our huge deficit a priority. Here's a few highlights from the new president's budget discussions:

"We have already identified $2 trillion in deficit reductions that will help us cut our deficit in half by the end of my first term."

"We've targeted almost $50 billion in savings by cracking down on over payments of benefits and tax loopholes."

"[We've] inherited a trillion-dollar deficit that will take a long time for us to close"

"While we must add to our deficits in the short term to provide immediate relief to families and get our economy moving, it is only by restoring fiscal discipline over the long run that we can produce sustained growth and shared prosperity."

"In the end, a budget is more than simply numbers on a page. It is a measure of how well we are living up to our obligations to ourselves and one another. It is a test for our commitment to making America what it was always meant to be -- a place where all things are possible for all people."- President Obama

Philip Clayton on Reforming and Transforming Theology

2009-02-26T07:24:00.000-05:00

Anti-Christ or Hitler

2009-02-25T21:47:00.002-05:00

This is too funny!!!

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Unusual Suspect

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Funny Political News
Joke of the Day

Obama Shines, Republicans Falter

2009-02-25T21:12:00.004-05:00

I'm still amazed at how well President Obama moved our nation forward last night. I'm also in shock at how the Republican response was so out of touch with reality. When he came on the scene a couple of years ago, my initial reaction to Bobby Jindal was positive. I thought he might help bring the Republican party back to respect. He struck out last night and embarrassed his party and our nation. I was once a Republican, but I'm embarrassed by their rhetoric. I'm embarrassed that he thought the value of Obama was simply his race. I'm disgusted that Republicans still push deregulation of markets and privatization of government services. I agree with the sentiment expressed by the MSNBC crew who responded with candor to Gov. Jindal's response.

Right America: Feeling Wronged

2009-02-16T20:32:00.006-05:00

HBO debuted its new documentary tonight. If you missed it, do your best to see it in the coming days. Filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi followed the McCain/Palin team during the campaign and interviewed their supporters. The result is an eye opening documentary capturing the real experience of living in a red state during the last election year.

Organized Righteousness

2009-02-15T06:39:00.003-05:00

Organized righteousness is one of my favorite terms used by Walter Rauschenbusch in his classic book, “A Theology For The Social Gospel” written in 1917. In an era of desperate times that may not be so distinct from our current era of war, banker malpractice, and CEO compensation scandals, Rauschenbusch sought to rescue the term righteousness from the clutches of Calvinism and the its fixation on individualistic piety over social responsibility. Unfortunately, that fixation has been rekindled in 21st century America and once again, it neuters the ability of religion to speak prophetically into our current set of problems, allowing the most prominent religious figures of our day to side with the forces of greed. Theology matters. Our era will be known as a time when questionable theology allowed our religious leaders to side with the war machine, greedy bankers, and slogans like “drill baby, drill”. How can that happen? They've lost the meaning of righteousness as making things right, restoring justice. Theology matters.

Sin is essentially selfishness. That definition is more in harmony with the social gospel than with any individualistic type of religion. The sinful mind, then, is the unsocial and anti-social mind. To find the climax of sin we must not linger over a man who swears, or sneers at religion, or denies the mystery of the trinity, but put our hands on social groups who have turned the patrimony of a nation into the private property of a small class, or have left the peasant laborers cowed, degraded, demoralized, and without rights in the land. When we find such in history, or in present-day life, we shall know we have struck real rebellion against God on the higher levels of sin.

It follows that a clear realization of the nature of sin depends on a clear vision of the Kingdom of God. We can not properly feel and know the reign of organized wrong now prevailing unless we constantly see it over against the reign of organized righteousness. Where the religious conception of the Kingdom of God is wanting, men will be untrained and unfit to see or to estimate the social manifestations of sin.

This proposition gives a solemn and terrible importance to the fact that doctrinal theology has failed to cherish and conserve for humanity the doctrine of the Kingdom of God. Christ died for it. Theology has allowed it to lead a decrepit, bed-ridden and senile existence in that museum of antiquities which we call eschatology. Having lost its vision of organized righteousness, theology necessarily lost its comprehension of organized sin, and therewith its right and power to act as a teacher of mankind on that subject. It saw private sin, and it set men to wrestling with their private doubts or sexual emotions by ascetic methods. But if sin is selfishness, how did that meet the case?

It would be unfair to blame theology for the fact that our race is still submerged under despotic government, under war and militarism, under landlordism, and under predatory industry and finance. But we can justly blame it for the fact that the Christian church even now has hardly any realization that these things are large-scale sins. We can blame it in part for the fact that when a Christian minister in our country speaks of these sins he is charged with forgetting the simple gospel of sin and salvation, and is in danger of losing his position. This comes of shelving the doctrine of the Kingdom of God, or juggling feeble substitutes into its place. Theology has not been a faithful steward of the trust entrusted to it. The social gospel is its accusing conscience.

This is the chief significance of the social gospel for the doctrine of sin: it revives the vision of the Kingdom of God. When men see the actual world over against the religious ideal, they become conscious of its constitutional defects and wrongs. Those who do their thinking in the light of the Kingdom of God make less of heresy and private sins. They reserve their shudders for men who keep the liquor and vice trade alive against powerful lobbies to defeat tenement or factory legislation, or turn factory inspection into sham; for nations that are willing to set the world at war in order to win or protect colonial areas of trade or usurious profit from loans to weaker peoples; and for private interest which are willing to push a peaceful nation into war because the stock exchange has a panic at the rumor of peace. These seem the unforgivable sins, the great demonstrations of rebellious selfishness, wherever the social gospel has revived the faith of the Kingdom of God. (“A Theology For The Social Gospel”, p. 50)

The 200th Birthday of Charles Darwin

2009-02-12T10:16:00.005-05:00

Happy Darwin Day!

Breaking News!

2009-02-12T09:08:00.000-05:00

Everything In God

2009-02-10T21:58:00.002-05:00

As part of the Transforming Theology project, I just received the book "In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific World" edited by Philip Clayton and Arthur Peacocke. The book is a series of essays from a wide variety of theologians. I'm excited about this project, and I'm particularly excited about this book.

One of the main reasons for my enthusiasm is that I've not yet formed a strong opinion of the term Panentheistic. I've never really used the word to describe myself, although many of my favorite authors and theologians use this term freely. I'm not really sure about it. This should be a fun learning and growing experience. In addition to reviewing the material, I will also try to articulate my personal reactions. I hope I'll change and the changes will be apparent in my posts. There is a part of me that wants to use this label. To be honest, I actually just want to find any label that fits. I suspect that a large part of the attraction to religion is the sense of belonging. Having a label can be comforting, at least until it becomes too limiting. The fact that this term is already so flexible and appears to be evolving eases my initial concern that it would eventually become another ideological prison.

At its core, Panentheism (not pantheism) states that all things are in God, yet all things do not exhaust the definition of God. In other words, we are all in God, but there is still a "more". Reading the introduction and opening chapter of this book has given me a clue why I'm so unsure about this concept. There has not been a single definitive understanding of Panentheism. I had no idea it was such a broad range of possibilities and has such a large list of adherents. In fact, you could, and I think a couple of the essays do, make the argument that Panentheism upholds an orthodox trinitarian view of God. On the other end of the spectrum, it sounds much more naturalistic and supportive of modern science.

I'm not sure which part of that definition bothers me the most. I'm not happy about "everything in God" or the idea of a "more". It should be noted that the editors of this book make the case that Panentheism is a type of Theism. It is not less than Theism, but it is a more defined and nuanced description of Theism. I'm a long way from sold on the term, but I'm curious to hear these brilliant thinkers work through the subject.

How does this term strike you?

Transforming Theology

2009-02-09T20:40:00.001-05:00

Tripp Fuller, one of the creative minds behind Homebrewed Christianity, has invited me to participate in the Transforming Theology Project originating out of Claremont School of Theology and making its way around the blogosphere. Tripp has already sent me a book to read and I'll be writing about my engagement with the books and other bloggers over the next couple of months.

Here are Tripp Fuller and Tony Jones talking about the project...

Karen Armstrong on Scripture

2009-02-07T08:35:00.000-05:00

Enjoy this wonderful interview with Karen Armstong. It's about 32 minutes long, but it's worth a listen.

Denial of the Resurrection

2009-01-31T15:14:00.009-05:00

Peter Rollins has made a challenging statement on his blog entitled, “My Confession: I deny the Resurrection”. The title is provacative, but I think everyone will enjoy the message. Here’s a taste:

I deny the resurrection of Christ every time I do not serve at the feet of the oppressed, each day that I turn my back on the poor; I deny the resurrection of Christ when I close my ears to the cries of the downtrodden and lend my support to an unjust and corrupt system.

However there are moments when I affirm that resurrection, few and far between as they are. I affirm it when I stand up for those who are forced to live on their knees, when I speak for those who have had their tongues torn out, when I cry for those who have no more tears left to shed. – Peter Rollins

I don’t personally think the story of Jesus’ resurrection has much (if any) historical merit. I agree with Marcus Borg who famously said about the empty tomb, “If I had to bet a dollar or my life, then I’d bet that the tomb was either not empty or there was no tomb.” The brilliance of Peter Rollins’ statement is that it dismantles all arguments on all sides of the divisive debate about the literal physical nature of the resurrection. What I hear in Peter’s claim is that acceptance of the resurrection story does not mean claiming intellectual certainty or even a remote hope that it literally happened. Faith is not what modern people often mean when they use the word “belief” as a type of intellectual confidence. Faith is not a measurement of our ability to claim certainty about improvable things. Faith is an affirmation through living.

I hope to affirm that the resurrected Christ lives and breathes today because we are his body that now takes up his cause. I agree with Saint Paul who hinges Christian faith on the resurrection of Christ back into the world. I agree that without Jesus’ message and values becoming real flesh and blood action in the world through us, then our simplistic truth claims and systematic beliefs become meaningless.

Many of my friends can somehow see this bigger picture of faith without discarding the more superstitious views most of us learned as children. For me, I just couldn’t get here from there. The superstitions often stop many people from ever looking for deeper meanings. I am so glad that Peter Rollins challenges the old debates and asks us to move past our disagreements that divide us. I don't think he is suggesting that those debates shouldn't happen, but I’m glad he’s offered this challenge to focus together on the bigger meaning of resurrection.

Hope On A Tightrope

2009-01-31T11:00:00.003-05:00

I couldn't write a review of Cornel West that would do him justice, so I'll just leave you with a few of my favorite quotes from his latest book, "Hope on a tightrope".

The book also comes with a wonderful audio recording of Dr. West in dialog with Tavis Smiley.

“Real hope is grounded in a particularly messy struggle and it can be betrayed by naïve projections of a better future that ignore the necessity of doing the real work. So what we are talking about is hope on a tightrope.”

“It takes courage to interrogate yourself. It takes courage to look in the mirror and see past your reflection to who you really are when you take off the mask, when you’re not performing the same old routines and social roles. It takes courage to ask – how did I become so well-adjusted to injustice?”

"I’m a Christian, so I have Jesus in the temple. I have a martyr against the marketeers."

“We need to see the world from the bottom up – through the lens of the cross, but America is so cross-averse.”

“Democracies are predicated not simply on Socratic energy, the critical engagement, and examination of dogmas, but also on trying to shape a person’s character in such a way that whether one is Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, secular, agnostic, or atheistic, you must have compassion for something bigger than your own egocentric predicament. You must be able to make connections across difficult boundaries. In a real democracy, it’s hard to remain tribalistic or regionalistic in any narrow way.”

"The vocation of the intellectual is to turn easy answers into critical questions and to put those critical questions to people with power."

"I am no way optimistic, but I remain a prisoner of hope."

The Brain Science Podcast

2009-01-28T07:26:00.002-05:00

I recently discovered Dr. Ginger Campbell's brain science podcast. Her most recent episode was a review of a book by Nancey Murphy and Warren S. Brown (professors at Fuller Theological Seminary). The book "Did My Neurons Make Me Do It?", is an interesting analysis of the latest brain science and a philosophical discussion of freewill, moral responsibility, and emergence theory. I've written about Nancey Murphy's work before so I couldn't resist this podcast. I'm hooked! The podcast can a bit heady (how's that for a nice pun?), but Dr. Campbell does a great job of clearly unpacking terms like reductionism, dualism, physicalism, materialism, monism, and emergence theory.

Enjoy!

On Being Certain

2009-01-26T19:29:00.004-05:00

If you are curious about how our brains work and the theological implications of the latest discoveries in neuroscience, then you will enjoy this podcast interview with Dr. Robert Burton the author of “On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You’re Not”. The author is interviewed by Dr. Ginger Campbell. She runs the BrainSciencePodcast.com and helps make this a very accessible interview despite the complex topic.

Dr. Burton’s assertion is that neuroscience is showing how what we call “knowing” is actually more of a feeling rather than a rational unemotional thought. When we say we know something, we are feeling that we know it in the same way we have other feelings and emotions (love, anger, pain, sadness, etc.). Our ability to know is never perfect, and frequently mistaken. This brings up interesting implications for Epistemology (The study of how we know what we know).

“Thoughts require sensory information (including circuits that tell us when we are thinking a thought). We “know” the nature and quality of our thoughts via feelings not reason. Feelings such as certainty, conviction, rightness, wrongness, clarity, and faith arise out of involuntary mental sensory systems that are integral and inseparable from the thoughts they qualify. The findings of neuroscience challenge our notions of reason and objectivity"

“Certainty is not a biologically justifiable state of mind. There is no such thing as an isolated circuit in the brain that can engage in thought free from involuntary or undetectable influences. We cannot do objective thought.” - Dr. Robert Burton

This is important information for our theological discussions because the myth of an autonomous rational mind is as misguided as the myth of a totally disembodied thinking soul. We are holistic beings of integrated bodies and brains. In other words, we only know how to know things by interpreting them through our senses and our relative perspectives. This is precisely why our own narratives play such large roles in individual positions.

If you would like more information, Dr. Campbell has a detailed review of this book in another podcast episode. I’m fast becoming hooked on her Brain Science Podcast as I work my way though 2 years worth of archived episodes.

Faithful Doubt

2009-01-25T12:00:00.002-05:00

I've been in podcast heaven this week. Krista Tippet's Speaking of Faith podcast is a treasure. She recently spoke with author, poet, and doubter, Jennifer Michael Hecht about the history of doubt. I appreciate Jennifer's ability to rescue the tradition of skepticism from the anger of today's new atheists. Lately, I've come to see faith and doubt as complimentary ingredients in our cocktail of thought. When was the last time you enjoyed a glass of lemon juice or a spoon full of sugar? We may disagree about the perfect recipe for lemonade and some of us may opt for more experimentation over more traditional mixtures, but most of us will agree that the bitter-sweet sum of these ingredients is much better than its parts.

My Favorite Podcast

2009-01-24T22:31:00.006-05:00

Tripp Fuller and Chad Crawford, have risen to the top of the emergent podcasting world. If you haven't already visited the HomebrewedChristianity.com podcast, then do it now. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Just go to the site now and get some tasty home brewed podcast goodness. Start off by listening to a great show with contemplative prayer guru Richard Rohr.

Why are you still reading this? Only a fool would keep reading my stupid blog. Get the hell out of here!

Holding Government Accountable

2009-01-22T22:14:00.004-05:00

Since appointing William Lynn, a lobbyist for Raytheon, to the no. 2 position at the pentagon, Obama signed a much tougher ethics measure for executive branch appointments as his first executive order. Watchdog groups are asking for Obama to retract this earlier appointment that would clearly violate one of his first acts as president. I hope Obama can fix this or provide some kind of valid explanation. This appointment is being held up for further evaluation right now. I don't think it is enough to grandfather in this earlier appointment. I guess a lobbyist free Washington would be impossible at this point in history so it may take a few election cycles to flush them all out, but I really hope Obama's new executive order will squash this appointment.

Is this another valid case of not wanting to change too much too fast? Or is it the reality that keeping Robert Gates means living with his input in defense appointments?

Waltham, Mass.-based Raytheon, with 2007 sales of $21.3 billion, specializes in worldwide defense and homeland security-related markets.

[EDITED 1/24/09:]

According the Chicago Tribune, Robert Gates was responsible for this appointment (though the Obama Team approved it). Obama's executive order could create the first conflict with this holdover from the Bush administration.

...Gates pushed hard for Lynn's appointment and favored him over other officials suggested by the Obama transition team. At a news conference Thursday, Gates said he was impressed with Lynn and argued he should get the job despite the lobbying ban.

"I asked that an exception be made because I felt that he could play the role of the deputy in a better manner than anybody else that I saw," Gates said. - Julian E. Barnes - the Chicago Tribune
full article...

The Big Picture

2009-01-21T17:00:00.002-05:00

The inauguration is over. Thanks to Boston.com for giving us this breath taking big picture recap of this great event. The world is hopeful again.

End of an Error - Start of an Era

2009-01-20T07:27:00.001-05:00

Not only is this a monumental day for race relations in America, but I hope that it is the end of a political mindset. This country has been held in the grip of lies, propaganda, and political spin that caused the majority of Americans to distrust and loath ourselves. Thanks to the lingering effects of cold war propaganda, we lost the notion of "we the people". We've had a case of patriotic amnesia. For nearly 40 years we've been told "no we can't" when it comes our forefather's dreams of self-government. The neo-conservative mindset told us we are evil and we cannot govern. They told us we must turn our nation over to a few powerful business leaders who "know better". They told us that business interests would care for us while taking only a small fee for the service. They told us that in order to be safe, we must preemptively attack and kill "evil" in the name of "good". They sold us on the modern version of Pax Romana that created a false sense of peace through violent displays of power.

It is the way we read and interpret our history that determines our path forward. I have hope that today an old error is over. Today we begin a new era that believes our nation became great through patriotism and justice rather than greed and violence.

January Adventure 2009

2009-01-19T18:51:00.004-05:00

This is a big week. I was lucky enough to start the week with five hundred (I'm guessing) progressive Christians at the January Adventure in Emerging Christianity at St. Simons Island, Ga. This retreat has become an tradition for me. It was the forth year I've attended and I've made many friends. This annual retreat is a progressive oasis in the desert of the bible-belt.

The speakers and topics this year were...

Marcus Borg - "Paul for the Rest of Us: A Radical Apostle for an Emerging Future."

Diana Butler Bass - "Tradition for the Rest of Us: Exploring the Past for an Emerging Future"

Yep, you read that right. The conference was about two of my least favorite things: st. Paul and church tradition. It wasn't as bad as that might sound. Marcus Borg, my favorite author, gave us a sneak preview of his yet to be released book on reclaiming Paul and Diana Butler Bass made a great case for the importance of remembering our history in order to create a progressive future. I enjoyed them both. Mostly I enjoyed being with a group of like minded progressive people. I love diversity, but sometimes you need to feel like you are in a safe place where you don't have to defend your views.

If anyone is interested, the speakers next year will be John Dominic Crossan and Paul Rauschenbusch. The dates and details will be available in a couple of months at januaryadventure.org.

WTF?

2009-01-15T20:16:00.003-05:00

"murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time" - G.W. Bush 1/15/2009

Yep, he actually said that. I'm floored by what Bush said in his farewell address tonight. How could he say this with a straight face as he defends his own doctrine of using war to spread his ideals? I guess his excuse is that his ideals are not really "ideals". Can somebody explain this?

Goodbye George. You don't have to go home, but just go.

Jesus in CGI – Incarnation and Cinematography

2009-01-10T12:21:00.005-05:00

CGI (computer generated imagery) has changed the way movies are made. Many people agree that the use of CGI as extravagant eye candy has decreased the overall quality of movies. I have seen it used well occasionally. Some of my favorite CGI scenes are the dinosaurs in “Jurassic Park” and the grand battlefield scenes in “The Gladiator”. Those scenes are beautiful and they make perfect use of CGI to help the author’s imagination come to life in a believable way. It doesn’t always work so well. The story line of the Matrix is one of my all time favorites and it’s a wonderful movie, but the CGI eventually becomes a distraction for me (even more so in the two horrible sequels). When the CGI effects steal the show, the overall value of the movie is diminished as the movie eventually becomes less real and more difficult to believe.

So what does CGI have to do with the theology of God becoming man? Our language about the incarnation of God into the world as the living Christ can bring the story to life or it can make the whole story look silly and unbelievable. The history of human theological endeavor contains a variety of hits and misses. Most of the misses might be blamed on too many philosophical special effects. We can find the first traces of this phenomenon by watching the story of Jesus develop over the decades between its earliest versions and the final full blow CGI presentation in the gospel of John. I’ve recently come to grips with John’s symbolic portrait of Jesus, but for many fundamentalists, the special effects have become the entire focus of their theology. Current flavors of fundamentalism rely heavily on a kind of CGI interpretation of God that fills in the gaps where human actors could not possibly succeed. By fixating on the imagery, the underlying plot is lost.

This brings us to an ironic twist. The idea of God becoming incarnate in Jesus was originally a beautiful attempt to show God as something more real, more human, and more in our reach. But like a cheesy summer block buster, Christianity may have allowed our thirst for action and larger than life cinematography to spoil the plot. I’m not suggesting that we take a Jeffersonian response that butchers the script and removes all the symbolic scenes, but if we continue to craft Jesus with heavy doses of CGI, we may undo what the plot of incarnation means to accomplish – show God as something we can access, relate to, and believe in.

Contrast those CGI movies with a movie like M. Night Shyamalan’s “Unbreakable”. Here we have the presentation of a comic book character (something outside of our experience and understanding) in a more down to earth package. This movie seeks to realize the unreal. The story suggests that a superhero might be more plausible than we first thought rather than using CGI to help us visualize something less plausible. This movie still coaxes our belief, but not by suggesting that we suspend our inclinations of reality. The result is a more authentic connection to the subject and a more believable story.

Modernity has left us feeling tired from the fight between secularists debunking the mythic CGI scenes in the Christian story and fundamentalists trying to blur lines with apologetic theological cinematography. Both sides of that battle have chosen a naive approach to studying myths. The postmodern response to this problem is to embrace the story without trying to defend its historicity. Postmodern responses transcend the modern era bible wars by seeking to make the values of Jesus more realistic now rather than insisting that the facts were real then. The result might mean fewer Christians waiting around to have our mistakes corrected in post-production and more Christians accurately portraying the values of Jesus in each scene of our lives.

Poking Fun at Fruity Computers

2009-01-06T09:07:00.005-05:00

I've been in the technology industry for 20 years and I have to admit that I don't like Apple. They represent the worst aspects of American consumerism focused on Madison Avenue glitz that markets cool over substance. Here is the latest parody of this over hyped brand that has become the Tommy Hilfiger of technology.

Apple Introduces Revolutionary New Laptop With No Keyboard

Christ and Cosmology

2009-01-03T10:29:00.006-05:00

Traditional understandings of the supernatural events surrounding Jesus’ resurrection, ascension, and second coming (parousia) have faced many challenges by the development of cosmology. Just as the dualism of Plato and Descartes shaped incarnation and atonement, ancient and medieval cosmology has impacted the way Christians developed thoughts about Jesus’ survival and return. Attempts by the church to limit the development of cosmology have left very deep scars in the academic community. Copernicus and Galileo were not exactly awarded sainthood by the church. In chapter 4 of “Christology and Science”, LeRon Shults attempts to rethink this aspect of theology by humbly working with science rather than fighting it.

These cosmological developments challenge several aspects of traditional formulations in Christian eschatology, perhaps even more deeply than the rejection of empyrean sphere and elemental astrology by Newtonian mechanics. Here we have issues that go far beyond simply giving up the tiered hierarchical cosmos presupposed in some expressions of Jesus’ ascension. The idea that Christ will “return” from a place in the cosmos at a particular point on a timeline, simultaneous to all observers, is itself rendered problematic in light of relativity theory.

This clearly undercuts the whole enterprise of trying to determine the date for such an event on an (absolute) “time-line,” but it also opens up a whole range of new possibilities for Christian eschatology. The main point at this stage in the argument is that we must engage the cosmological assumptions of our own context, just as Origen and Thomas (and others) engaged theirs. Undoubtedly our current understandings of space and time will seem equally inadequate to future generations, but this should not keep us from embracing the ongoing theological task of reforming Christology.

We can no longer imagine Jesus going “up” into heaven or literally coming back “down” on a cloud. The Christian tradition has tried to uphold the intuition that the resurrection, ascension, and coming of Jesus are in some sense “bodily”. At the same time the tradition has wanted to affirm (with Paul) that Jesus became a life giving spirit (1 Cor. 15:45). Again, the dualism of material and immaterial substances led theologians to some dicey conclusions. Fundamentalists continue to marginalize Christianity by setting it against science and suggesting that being Christian actually means adopting ancient or medieval superstitions (their "world view"). We do have other options. Some current day Christians accept science but don’t have any problems using religious metaphors that seem silly in the face of our present understanding of the world. Other people of faith abandoned the language completely (maybe even the term “Christian”). Bishop John Shelby Spong famously said, “Christianity must change or die”. To be honest, I’m not sure which option is better, but I’m not ready to give up yet. I’m still holding hope that Christianity can survive after the end of Cartesian dualism.

The latest scientific discoveries do present new metaphors for discussing what it might mean to transform our way of being and incarnating divine values. The very notion of matter itself has been refigured as a result of late modern developments in physical cosmology. Today even particle physics is not really about actual “particles”, but rather about relationships within a shared energy field. Matter is no longer center stage in the discussion and it has been replaced by concepts such as organization, complexity and information. Take for example the property of “wetness”, which is not a property of individual water molecules, but emerges when they are organized appropriately in sufficient quantities. Similarly, as chemical reactions in inorganic materials increase beyond the threshold of complexity they power what we have come to call “living metabolism”. It is the collective emergent properties of these materials that we call life. These new scientific understandings give us rich metaphorical language to describe the coming of Christ as a web of interrelated parts that bring about the emergence of a greater whole. The cosmology of the 21st century may well bring even more ways for us to imagine what the New Testament authors described as “the kingdom of God” and “the body of Christ”.

Atonement and Cultural Anthropology

2008-12-31T13:58:00.007-05:00

In Chapter 3 of “Christology and Science”, Leron Shults works with the interdisciplinary study of theology (specifically atonement theories) and the study of social structures. Our theories about atonement answer the deepest concerns of abandonment and isolation and reflect on how particular cultures understood reconciliation of individuals with their larger communities. The particular rules for atonement have closely followed the social structures surrounding each theologian. Anslem lived in a world of Knights and castles, where honor provided a kind of social glue and the codes of chivalry were the key to maintaining a well-ordered society. Teutonic law required that serfs obey their lords on whose land they were allowed to live. Those who dishonored their lords by breaking a law had to provide a satisfaction to the injured party or be punished accordingly. Anslem formed an atonement theory to fit that world. Calvin’s penal substitution model of atonement continued this line of thinking but wrapped it in a 16th century Genevan jurisprudence. Late modern Christianity has again wrapped this theory in a more familiar metaphor of a modern court of law.

However well we master social rules, however many goods we acquire, our deep longing for loving and just relations with others never seems to be satiated. We are still haunted by the fear of being banished from or suffocated by the social structures of our communities, and so we live in this ambiguous tension that is moral desiring.
…
The doctrine of atonement is about a way in which divine justice is manifested in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in such a way that we are now invited to participate within the reign of divine peace precisely by sharing in the loving agency of God that overcomes sin and death. p. 65

Atonement theories developed long before modern science questioned Plato’s theories about substance and form. There is no uniquely human “stuff” out of which we are formed. There is no “human” atomic element. Before we learned this, our early Christian theologians had deeply embedded platonic dualism into the theories of atonement. Most agreed that the human “stuff” had been corrupted at the fall of Adam and Eve, and through Christ, the very substance of humanity had been healed. Some drew from Aristotle’s understanding of the perfect human form and through Christ this form (a definition or meta-human) was corrected. Either way, theologians have mostly accepted these out dated metaphysics and the focus of atonement has primarily been shifted to debates about who receives this atonement and exactly what we can do (or not do) in order to be atoned.

All of these theories hang on the mistakes of substance dualism and a literal interpretation of “The Fall”. Those theories focus squarely on the categories of “us and them” and miss the core of what it means to follow Christ as a means toward reconciliation. The irony is hard to miss. The doctrine of at-one-ment lost focus on reconciliation and union. It became to mean the violent exclusion (and in some theories the endless torture) of the other. Even worse is it’s fixation on individual salvation that results from our modern western individualism. We’ve lost the core message of atonement as reconciliation with community.

The question here is not whether there are (or should be) differentiations but whether a harsh separation between us and them ought to be the driving force behind the Christian doctrine of the atonement. Must soteriology be rooted in a basic negation of the other? Must we define (our) salvation in a way that requires (their) damnation? Is violent exclusion the only way for God’s justice to be manifested? p. 87

Postmodern conversations about atonement tend to have less emphasis on picking a “correct” metaphor to describe atonement, but rather on celebrating the variety of symbolic stories that convey our need for reconciliation. It seems to me that atonement theories have taken so many different forms because there are so many different reasons for separation. Treating all broken relationships with a single metaphorical story of hope would be like treating all illness with a single medicine. We need more than one parable.

Incarnation and Evolutionary Biology

2008-12-30T23:36:00.005-05:00

Christian theology has often seen Evolutionary Biology (and science in general) as an enemy, but it doesn’t have to be that way at all. In fact, many of the ground-breaking theological moments have come from embracing new discoveries. Of course, there have been exceptions.

In early modern science the understanding of relation between the body and the soul was deeply shaped by Rene Descartes, who argued for a radical dualism between the (extended) material body and the (thinking) immaterial soul. In Cartesian anthropology, strong distinctions were made among the “faculties” of the soul (the intellect, the will and the affections) and between these soulish powers and the human body.

The sciences of neurobiology, however, have shown how human cognition is deeply rooted in and dependent upon the electro-chemical neural function of the brain. In fact, all ‘reasoning” (and “willing”) emerges out of and is shaped by the “feeling” of the embodied brain. Higher cortical processes depend upon and are regulated by the functioning of various parts of the limbic system, which are linked through the brain stem into the whole energetic network of the body as it responds to its environment. Rationality could not have evolved, nor can it emerge within an individual, apart from the emotional responsivity of the biological organism. - LeRon Shults "Christology and Science" p. 35

Human communication is a complex system of symbolic reference. We associate mental frames (images, symbols, pictures) with physical pictures (letters, words, characters, etc.) Memory is a process of our brains developing a strong signal path from one frame to another. Narratives are the complex web of these frames. Our brains physically change by strengthening those frequent pathways between frames. The strength of these embedded narratives can influence how we then interpret the world around us. It becomes impossible to access a single frame without pulling up the entire web of related frames. Our understanding of humanity is one of those narratives and it shapes how we do theology. It becomes impossible to think about theology without speaking through our understanding of human origins and what it might mean to be a living, thinking organism.

The origin of modern Homo sapiens involved the crossing of a “symbolic threshold.” The conditions for the emergence of this capacity are clearly related to changes in the human brain. It has often been assumed that human plausible explanation for the selection pressure that led to the prefontalization of the brain in hominid evolution is that the brain and language “co-evolved.” Changes in the brain were a direct consequence of the use of words. The first use of symbolic reference by some distant ancestors changed how natural selection process have affected hominid brain evolution ever since. So in a very real sense I mean that the physical changes that make us human are the incarnations, so to speak, of the process of using words. - Leron Shults “Christology and Science” p. 42

It seems that we did not simply develop language as a result of our larger brains. Our brains developed as we began to form symbols and make language. The use of symbols (language) made us more and more uniquely “human”. You might say that humanity has literally been spoken into existence. If our humanity is what happens when words become flesh as a complex web of synapse connections, then it radically changes how we might imagine God becoming man. However, it may only serve to reinforce our use of the metaphor “the word became flesh and dwelt among us”.

Christology After Christmas

2008-12-29T07:06:00.002-05:00

In “Christology and Science”, Leron Shults has written an interesting exploration of the doctrine of incarnation. There are elements of this book I like, and some I don’t, but it does what all good books should do; it has me thinking.

The task of reforming Christology will indeed require the reconstruction of previous doctrinal formulations, as it has throughout the church history. Many traditional depictions of the person, work and coming of Christ are shaped by assumptions about humanity and the world that no longer make sense in light of contemporary science. One way of responding to these challenges would be to try and insulate theology from science, defensively maintaining one’s favored ancient or early modern doctrinal formulation. Or one might try to insulate science from theology, defensively reducing the human longing for redemptive transformation to one’s favored disciplinary explanation. Extreme responses are often the easiest. However, the more difficult reconstructive response, which attempts to maintain the integrity of theology while integrating relevant scientific and philosophical insights, will also be more rewarding. p. 1

Shults brings the question of Christology back to the table. Does that scare you? He does this with a faithful recounting of the complex history of theological viewpoints about what it might mean for Jesus to be God, and then by showing the theological connection between those theologians and the science of their day. Since science is always expanding our understanding, theology can’t function well if it remains stagnant in either the ancient world of the bible or the medieval dogma and creeds. The biggest challenge in rethinking the incarnation is the problematic philosophical contribution of substance dualism found in ancient Greek philosophy. Most of the theology we’ve come to embrace surrounding the incarnation demands the acceptance of Plato’s dualistic understanding of the mind and body (or soul and body) as two different substances. This dualism translated directly into what we now know as the two natures of Christ (divine/human or God/man). That way of interpreting Christ may have helped people with an ancient world view, but it has failed to be productive for many people today. In fact, it has created unnecessary tension between faith and science.

Despite their openness to reformulation, most Reformers and early modern theologians did not challenge the underlying anthropological analogy for understanding the relation between the divinity and humanity of Christ, nor the substance metaphysical categories that saturated both sides of the analogy. p. 35

In my experience, the two modern responses to this problem have been to (A) dig further into dualism and fundamentalism or (B) reject the doctrine of Christology and throw away our ancient stories. I think there is a better alternative to those two extremes that honors our ancient stories and also does them justice by reinterpreting them with a current understanding of what it means to be human. This third way understands that parables (mythical stories) are the best way to communicate these transcendent concepts. These stories help us imagine what it might mean to incarnate love, forgiveness, and reconciliation into our own culture using our own understanding of the world. Our ancient stories are limited and any attempt to read those stories literally just shifts our attention squarely on their limits rather than their wonderful transcendent contributions. We can’t abandon our stories. They are the illusive but illuminating word of God.

I'll be posting more as I work through this...

Struggling With Incarnation

2008-12-25T16:24:00.006-05:00

Like most kids, I loved Christmas growing up. The smells, sights, and sounds were exciting. My favorite part was the living nativity scene at our church. I remember the sound of my father’s voice as he read the story of Jesus' birth while the characters acted out the scenes. I remember helping gather up farm animals to make the whole thing seem “real” and I also remember the first time I was old enough to play the part of a shepherd. I even remember the year that one of the angels fell off the roof of the church and broke his leg. But I also remember having doubts about the story. Something didn't seem right.

I was taught that the main point of telling this story was to convince people that it really did happen. Belief in Jesus meant believing these things about him. Having faith meant having the inner strength to deny what seemed rational and assert certainty in what seemed implausible. Like many, Christmas was my first encounter with the C.S. Lewis style of false dichotomy that suggests “either it happened, or it is a lie”. I wonder how my religious experience might have been different if I had been shown how a story can be very true without ever actually happening. I wonder how much easier it might be to have peace in the world if we stopped fighting about which one of these ancient beautiful stories "really happened" and began living out their symbolic meanings.

It’s Christmas and today we celebrate the birth of a story. It is a story that never actually happened, but it continues to be true every day all around the world. It is the story of a transforming way of life coming into the world. I’m glad I finally found a way to relate to this story and take part in it. There have been many wonderful progressive theologians who liberated this story from fundamentalism and opened up the notion of incarnation to mean so much more than ancient superstitious beliefs or the bizarre Greek fascination with gods having human children. The Christmas story is a symbolic, subversive, declaration against oppression. Every culture has these kinds of stories, but instead of the typical religious myth about a warrior coming to power through violent victory over their enemy, this community chose to create a story about making peace by loving your enemy, restoring relationships by forgiving unconditionally, and finding strength by giving up your power. Instead of creating a story about overthrowing a single emperor, this story directs us toward methods that could end all empires by stopping injustice and devoting ourselves to peace at all costs (even death). This story invites us to participate in the transformation of this world rather than placing our hope in some future "plan B". This story asks us to direct our attention to the lowest of places rather than the highest palace. This story is about changing the world through a different way of living that rejects the methods of empire. This story suggests that Jesus is Lord and Caesar is not.

Brian McLaren on the Birth of Jesus

2008-12-24T14:36:00.004-05:00

Never mind the low tech quality...this is really great stuff! Enjoy some Brian McLaren Christmas goodness...

Climate Disinformation

2008-12-23T13:33:00.003-05:00

Energy companies would like us to think there is confusion about global climate change.

The Search for Knowledge

2008-12-23T10:03:00.004-05:00

In the latest weekly address, President-elect Barack Obama took a bold stand for making decisions based on science and facts rather than ideology as he introduced leading members of his science and technology team.

“The truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources—it’s about protecting free and open inquiry,” President-elect Obama said. “It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient—especially when it’s inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. That will be my goal as President of the United States—and I could not have a better team to guide me in this work.”

This is a refreshing change for a U.S. president in the 21st century. Obama is using actual scientists as advisers rather than surrounding himself with oil company lobbyists and former executives from Haliburton and Exxon Mobile. Read more...

HT: Dave Rochelson at change.gov

Obama Knows Best

2008-12-22T19:34:00.005-05:00

Amidst all the responses about Obama's choice to invite Rick Warren to pray at his inauguration, it seems Obama does know what he is doing. Today, Rick Warren's church removed anti-gay rhetoric from their site and replaced it with more inclusive language. It may be merely lip service, but it's a step in a better direction. It proves that by treating people with respect we can actually shine a light on their mistakes and give them encouragement to change. I'm not sure that would happen if we simply berate and belittle these kinds of people.

I'm as disgusted as anyone about Rick Warren's comments and his theology, but Obama is simply doing the kinds of things that he promised he would do. Obama took heat for declaring his intentions to speak with bad people BEFORE they come around to his way of thinking. While the Bush administration consistently takes the "pay before play" approach of political negotiations, Obama invites his adversaries to "belong before they believe" in hopes that having a seat at the table will help change their perspective. Obama believes in a better way to handle conflict. In this particular battle Obama appears to be right. Maybe next time we will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Am I an Atheist?

2008-12-20T11:15:00.003-05:00

Wrestling With Scripture

2008-12-20T11:02:00.002-05:00

More parables from Peter Rollins...

The Case Against Civil Unions

2008-12-20T08:42:00.002-05:00

I received a few detailed responses in opposition to my recent post on gay marriage. The main thrust of this opposition lies in an attempt to argue against gay marriage by ignoring the constitutional issues and shifting the conversation into the realm of theology. They fixate on what the bible says about homosexuality. The bible also says things about adultery, drinking, and particular dietary rules, but arguing that point is off topic. Those arguing the "anti-marriage" position against gay marriage have shifted us away from a conversation about our constitutional responsibility to provide equality for all citizens. In a last gasp of hope, my responders have evoked a plea for civil unions.

I agree that civil unions would be a step in the right direction, but so was "separate but equal" treatment of African Americans. In the end, "separate but equal" didn't work because it didn't address the underlying stigma and associated discrimination that comes from being declared different, separate, or less valuable by the law of the land. History has shown that separate treatment can't actually result in equal treatment and that type of "separate" status shouldn't be perpetuated by state laws (like those governing marriage). It seems to me that the motive behind this argument is that they feel allowing homosexuals to marry would somehow taint their own marriages in the same way bigots suggested that their lives were tainted by close contact with African Americans.

This is where the civil union argument has completely fallen flat on its face. By recognizing the need to provide equal access, they've acknowledged that their intention has nothing to do with the legality of marriage and EVERYTHING to do with their particular bigoted religious views. They've continued to do their best to move the conversation into a religious emotional frame to avoid the constitutional implications, but individual religious views should not be legislated by our government. Marriages may (or may not) involve religious ceremonies, but we are not talking about those here. We are talking about the legal implications of those state sponsored legal arrangements called "marriages". Marriage is already a civil union no matter if it has a religious ceremony that goes along side it. The religious ceremony is not even a requirement. Simply signing the forms is enough to make a marriage. Therefore, whatever you think marriage is, we should agree it is not religious. The state does not (or should not) care. It is a matter of legal paperwork. It is hard to find a resolution to a debate when the two sides are really talking about different topics.

Here are my questions to those who support civil unions as a "compromise"...

1) By suggesting civil unions are you really meaning to argue for separate but equal treatment?

2) If we follow your logic to completion, should we invent a term that could describe gay American citizens without using the word "citizen"? Should we call them "civil participants" and grant them all the same legal rights and privileges but deny them the use of the actual institution of citizenship? Would declaring homosexuals full use of the word "citizen" taint the meaning of "citizen" when you use it for yourself?

3) If civil union is essentially the same in your eyes as marriage, then why not strike down ALL state sponsored heterosexual marriages and replace them all with the term civil unions. If you are willing to make that compromise, I think I'd agree that it is fair and equal under the constitution. However, at that point, we would have done nothing but waste time and money changing the terminology on millions of forms. It would seem pretty silly.

4) Do we really need to take this baby step by allowing temporary separate but equal laws like we did with the civil rights movements?

More Huckalogic

2008-12-14T13:59:00.002-05:00

The second half of Mike Huckabee's visit to the Daily Show is just as interesting as the first.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Mike Hardheadabee

2008-12-14T13:06:00.008-05:00

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 1

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

You might think conservatives would learn a few lessons from recent mistakes. There have been many effective phrases developed by the conservative spin masters, but there also are some real stinkers. The neoconservative movement is still clinging to the left over rhetoric of the Ronald Reagan era. That model for disastrous deregulation left us at the mercy of unregulated markets and the policy of tax cuts for the wealthy left us deep in debt. Even faced with the fact that the corpse is rotting and the smell has become unavoidable, Mike Huckabee is still unable to get past simplistic slogans meant to divide and lead people away from the truth. I'm surprised to hear the same mentality all over again.

Hopefully, America has moved past the tendency to be swayed by these silly slogans. People were drawn in by slogans like the infamous "Government is the problem" and "Drill Baby, Drill". How could less government control be the solution to unregulated markets run a muck? How can more oil be the solution to our oil addiction? Why should Americans elect government leaders who don't think government should actually do anything?

Thank you Jon Stewart for cutting through the crap. Huckabee seems like a nice guy but it is obvious that he won't entertain reason, even in a friendly dialog. He'd rather just shut down and fall back on his canned rhetoric.

A Better Case for Gay Marriage

2008-12-13T16:07:00.005-05:00

Newsweek took on the Gay Marriage issue this week and proved once again that progressives usually don’t know how to play the political game well. It also proved that the media seems out of touch when it tries to talk about religion. The Newsweek article was good and I liked it, but it makes the mistake of arguing for Gay Marriage from within the conservative framing story. By discussing gay marriage in the same breath as the bible, you’ve subconsciously invoked the religious frame. You've hinged the whole debate on the bible's verdict on homosexuality. That may be a good case among theologians, but it isn't one you'll win in public opinion. Newsweek has made two key mistakes. First they reinforced the conservative idea that government has a role in dictating morals. Then they made the mistake worse by trying to tell conservatives their religious views are not biblical and their most heralded theologians interpret the bible wrong. Progressives will not make a dent if that is their approach. Regardless of how nice you are, you can’t tell someone their religious authority structure is wrong (and has been wrong for 2000 years) and expect them to listen to what you have to say. The conversation is over at that point. There has to be a better approach than trying to convince Christians that homosexuality is not a sin.

This conversation should be held inside the progressive framing story. It should be discussed as an issue of upholding the integrity of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is built for these kinds of debates. It cuts right through the religious rhetoric and emotional partisanship. Debates held within this frame provide a much different tone. It isn’t about moral correctness of homosexuality; it is about equal access to privileges, tax advantages, and even social financial guarantees (like social security) granted by the state. In this frame the progressives, conservatives, and libertarians become strange bedfellows (pardon the pun) as they all seek to honor the integrity of our Constitutional freedoms. Inside this frame the conversation is about applying the same treatment to all people. Now we would need to consider if our Government should give ANY preferential treatment to people based on marital status (either gay or straight). This Constitutional argument would suggest that either the state gets out of the marriage business completely or else it applies the rules equally to all citizens. Conservatives would be faced with the tough choice of ending their own state sponsored marriages or allowing gay’s access to the same rights and privileges that their marriages provide.

Gay Marriage is another case of conservatives clearly setting the frame for the discussion, and progressives fighting hopelessly to negate the emotionally charged conservative argument by fighting on their turf. Instead, progressives should be making their own case in their own frame using their own emotionally charged language about liberty, justice, and Constitutional integrity. Making the case that everyone deserves the same rights and privileges despite religious views or sexual orientation is a much easier argument than trying to convince Christians that the bible approves of gay marriage and their pastor doesn't understand the bible.

Open Government

2008-12-10T07:22:00.002-05:00

Obama's transition team is giving us access to look inside the transition process. If you haven't visited change.gov lately, then it's worth your time. Here are just a few of the things you can find:

Recap of daily meetings about policy

Interviews with new staff members and appointees

Weekly addresses from the president-elect

Agenda items for his staff

Innovative ways for individual involvement

Improving Evolution Education

2008-12-06T11:26:00.005-05:00

"The results are in, and they’re not pretty. The United States leads Western nations — all 30 of them — in ignorance about evolution. We have a higher percentage of citizens who don’t accept evolution than any other developed country does. Oh … except Turkey. The reason why these two countries are on top (or at the bottom, as the case may be) is that they have more fundamentalists than other countries. The only difference is that Turkey’s are Muslims and ours are Christians." - Kevin Padian

Read the whole article...

In the following video, Padian gives a wonderful explanation of the larger problem of fundamentalism and it's error of "revealed truth that is not subject to investigation". More importantly, he goes on (in the full length interview) to dispel the myth that science is the 2nd side of the same modern coin as religious fundamentalism. There is this tendency that I often hear in Emerging (post-conservative) Christian discussions to lump scientists into the modern problem of overt certainty. I struggle with that tendency because I don't want Emerging Christianity to simply become a return to pre-modern naivety and superstition (i.e. a new form of fundamentalism). I love how Padian describes uncertainty and doubt in science without grasping for the crutch of supernatural intervention. I see an opportunity for a robust marriage of faith and science to emerge. Evolution education and discussion may be a great place to start. It is good to see churches having this discussion.

HT: James McGrath

Prop 8 Musical - Jack Black as Lord and Savior

2008-12-03T15:14:00.000-05:00

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

What the Gospels Really Teach About Jesus's Birth

2008-12-02T10:08:00.007-05:00

"The First Christmas: What the Gospels Really Teach About Jesus's Birth" is a wonderful look into the story of Jesus by two of the world's best known Jesus scholars, John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg. This book came out last Christmas so many people have already read it, but I really enjoyed a recent interview with Dr. Crossan on Tripp Fuller's Homebrewed Christianity podcast. Tripp allowed me to submit a question for Dr. Crossan and I thought the answer was very interesting. Thanks for reading my question Tripp!

Whenever Christianity feels too goofy and I get to the point of giving up, I look to Crossan and Borg. They make Christianity make sense even when mainstream Christianity appears to be going insane.

Advent Conspiracy

2008-12-01T08:56:00.000-05:00

Post Election Regrets

2008-11-16T14:00:00.011-05:00

Elections divide us. There is no way to get beyond that fact. We have to pick sides. I’ve had some interesting conversations with people who I love and respect. Some exchanges have been enlightening but others have been disheartening. I’ve talked to friends that I admired for their character and intelligence, yet I saw the worst side of their personality including some of the most bizarre statements you could ever imagine. I’m sure others have seen the worst in me at times. I'm not happy about what transpired, but I'm learning more about why it happened.

The fallacy of modern enlightenment philosophy is that there is a single right answer to every question. Secular and religious moderns are both subject to this fallacy. Modernity was consumed with a quest for absolute truth. That modern quest slammed head on into the wall of human narratives. There is no way to interpret what we see and hear without seeing the world through the lens of our narratives. This is how our brains work. Our brains associate words with mental images. Cognitive linguist George Lakoff describes this process as “framing”. But our brains don’t stop there. Our brains physically change to accommodate the binding of these frames into common narratives. The electrical pathways between millions of synapse connections physically adapt to arrange memories of the past and projections of the future into familiar patterns. Many of these narratives take the familiar form of victim, villain, and hero roles. Our brains have seen that story so many times in many forms and those roles are so familiar that we can't help placing everything we encounter into these familiar patterns. When we see a movie or read a book we immediately begin to place the characters into those familiar roles. We have empathy for the victim, we are suspicious of the villain, and we long for the hero to save the day. We do this in real life too. We can’t help it. We cast the players in our real life experiences into the same familiar roles and we expect people to cooperate. We expect our victims to be helpless and lovable, we expect our villains to be evil, and we expect our heroes to be noble. Once we’ve cast people into these roles our brains struggle to allow the characters to break out of the roles. Our need to type-cast is why a postmodern movie like “Crash” is so unsettling. It goes against the grain of our desire to keep the actors in character.

Modernity was wrong to assume that providing perfect data would solve the problems with our political debate. There is no getting past our brain's use of narrative. In this election, I’ve fallen victim to the fallacy of modernity. In fact, progressive political thinkers are some of the worst at missing this concept. I’ve entered conversations with the idea that the facts will save the day and my "misguided" friends would see the nonpartisan facts and suddenly change their narrative and adjust their views accordingly. That doesn’t work. Any data that doesn't fit into our neatly packaged preconceived narratives and roles will automatically feel like a lie. We are skeptical of anything that doesn’t fit.
When we meet someone or see a political candidate on TV, our brains immediately place them within one of our available memorized narratives. For the person beholden to the neo-conservative narrative, Barack Obama (the Muslim who pals around with terrorists and hates middle-class white Christian values) could not possibly do anything to help them. When the facts turn out not to fit our narrative it sounds to us like a lie. When lies and propaganda does fit our narrative it sounds like truth. As a result, the political battle becomes less about facts and more about gravitating toward data that fits our narratives.

Conservative politicians have done a much better job of understanding this. They’ve done this by setting the narrative up front and forcing progressives to fight the philosophical battles within their conservative framing stories. This is why we get so frustrated with our friends aversion to facts. Liberals expect everyone to be critical thinkers and actually evaluate the nuance of what is said and base conclusions on historical facts. It is an uphill battle. There is no better example than the narrative of “spreading the wealth”. Somehow, conservative sources have successfully convinced many middle class Americans that THEY stand to loose in the equation even though the data suggests 95% of us are the ones helped in the story and our future is most at risk. The narrative gets cast as the villainous tax man stealing from Joe the plumber to help Jane the lazy immoral welfare mom. Statistics about historical deficits in the Reagan era or disparity of wealth in the Bush era don't matter. There have been very few attempts to recast the narrative as Joe the plumber victimized by the rich political lobbyist villains and saved by a heroic system of justice that has made our nation a great force for prosperity and growth.

I think this happens psychologically because middle class people do not want to see themselves as grouped with “the poor”. We mentally prefer to see ourselves as “the rich” so this narrative simply sells better in middle America. It doesn’t matter what the data is. You can even supply facts (like $250k/yr) but that data doesn’t matter. The roles have already been cast. Why does a lower-middle class plumber in Ohio or a middle-class software entrepreneur in Colorado Springs cast themselves in the same role as Bill Gates and Exxon Mobile? The data doesn’t matter. I guess we all want to be the rich guy, so we cast ourselves in the other role even to our own detriment. The data doesn’t matter. When politicians talk about investing in the kinds of infrastructure that allows a middle class to develop, helps small businesses to compete in a global market place, and separates America from third world nations, it must be a lie or an attempt to help someone else at our expense, right? A character cast in the role of "tax man" can't possible cut my taxes and promote small business, can he? We long for our political opponents to be corrupt so our narrative will play out as scripted. We look for scenes that support the roles in our story. The data doesn't matter.

In the narrative of Wall Street v. Main Street, why does Joe the plumber subconsciously cast himself in the role of Gordon Gecko?

Your Weekly Address from the President-elect

2008-11-15T12:23:00.003-05:00

Wow! What will it be like to have a president that values communication and transparency in government? We've had government leaders who fundamentally thought government shouldn't work. This will be the first change. Government can't work unless our leaders think it should work and our citizens think it can work. Stay up to date with our more open government at change.gov

Why Not Support Marriage?

2008-11-12T05:38:00.001-05:00

Keith Olbermann issued a special comment on the recent ban of gay marriage in California. Like Keith, I just can't figure out why anyone wants to limit another person's access to marriage and all it's benefits.

The Power of Narrative

2008-11-08T09:07:00.004-05:00

The fallacy of the Modern Enlightenment was that logic, reason, and better information could override our narratives. Modern liberal politicians and theologians assumed that we could educate people right out of their naïve pre-modern narratives. The Modern Enlightenment also produced a conservative movement that thought we could bomb the world until it loved us again. They were both wrong. The New Enlightenment (post-modernism) understands the power of narrative and knows that information and force are both powerless against narrative.

Could the presidential election of 2008 be a glimpse into the future of America’s narrative as an inspirational force in the world instead of an imperial force? Could one election change the way the world frames the American story? In this new age, will religion be seen as a positive influence helping us cast this new narrative or will it continue to be a contributing factor in locking us into older failed narratives?

We live our narrative. The lived story is at the center of modern personality theory. The theory of neural computation, as we shall see later, shows how our brains not only permit this, but favor it. The typical roles played in narratives include Hero, Victim, and Helper. A doctor may not just be a doctor, but a Hero-doctor, saving people’s lives. A housewife may see herself as a Victim-Housewife, victimized by society’s sexism. A nurse may see herself as the Helper to the Hero-doctor. Or as a Victim of sexism in medicine. A president may see himself as a Hero rescuing a victim-nation from a Villain-dictator. Or as a leading a battle of Good against Evil. The roles in narratives that you understand yourself as fitting give meaning to your life, including the emotional color that is inherent in narrative structures.
…
We cannot understand other people without such cultural narratives. But more important, we cannot understand ourselves – who we are, who we have been, and where we want to go – without recognizing and seeing who we fit into cultural narratives.

We know from cognitive science and neuroscience that such narratives are fixed in the neural circuits of our brains. We know that they can be activated and function unconsciously, automatically, as a matter of reflex. And just as we – automatically, with out conscious control – Anna Nichole [Smith] and Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush in terms of such narratives, so we see ourselves as having only the choices defined by our brain’s frames and cultural narratives. And we live out narrative choices made for us by our brains without our conscious awareness.
…
In a New Enlightenment, cultural narratives will not be gone, replaced by cold, hard reason. Cultural narratives are part of the permanent furniture of our brains. But in the New Enlightenment we will at least be self-aware. We will recognize that we are all living out narratives. It will be normal to discuss what they might be, to raise the question of what influence they have, and whether we can or should put them aside. – George Lakoff - “The Political Mind” p.35-36

The Road To Change

2008-11-06T21:46:00.004-05:00

Avid sports fans form strong bonds with their teams. Allegiances to sports teams can span generations and the emotional bonds can often feel as strong as blood relations. You can spot a devoted fan, including me, by the fact that we refer to our teams in the first person. “We Won!” or “We played really bad this week”.

Almost a year ago I remember having a conversation with several of my best friends about what’s wrong with our government and why so many Americans have given up on it. We all agreed that the typical response to the word “government” was to wince (maybe even get a little sick to your stomach). We rarely ever speak about the government in the first person. The more people become disgusted with government, the less interested we all are in making it work and the fewer good people actually want to work in government. Of course, that just leads to a less effective government and that leads to more disgust with the idea of having government “help”. The cycle has been churning for a very long time. The result is that government is no longer “us”. It’s “them”. I can’t tell you how many conversations I’ve heard during the election that addressed the government this way.

So what happens when this philosophy sets in? In my eyes, the Bush administration was the result of almost 30 years of our government leaders teaching us to speak about our government in the third person. I’m sure this idea goes back for centuries, but Ronald Reagan was the first president that actually voiced this to the American people so clearly.

"Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem." – Ronald Reagan

That statement helped him win an election and began a wave of change in America. Unfortunately, it’s like McDonald’s telling its customers that French fries are the sole cause for diabetes. There might be some shred of truth behind the claim, but it wouldn’t be good for business. I spent a couple of decades buying into Reagan’s rhetoric. It was drilled into my head in business school. The sport of attacking government has replaced baseball as the national pastime. That attitude and the resulting decades of deregulation and privatization of important government functions that sprang from this philosophy have horribly failed our nation. Now we are in a place where any leader’s call to action or a simple suggestion of sacrifice is labeled “socialism” (or worse). Not only is that a misunderstanding of socialism, it’s a miserably dim view of American patriotism.

My friends and I came up with the idea that we need a public relations firm to sells us on us. We need somebody to sell us on our own ability to work as a team without screwing everything up. We need motivation and a hint of confidence that we could actually change this mess. My friends and I figured that campaign promises come and go, but once in office, politicians rarely attempt to motivate the nation or involve citizens in getting the job done. Maybe politicians refer to citizens as “them”?

One of the reasons I voted for Barack Obama is that I suspected he might actually understand this concept. Yesterday, his transition staff launched a site at change.gov to help us change the way we interact with government. He’s actually planning on extending the kind of grass roots organizational empowerment used in his campaign to involve us in the process of changing the nation. It looks like he’s decided to make sure that when he takes office we all feel like we are part of his transition team. We are going to transition the government together. The site includes important agenda items, information on how a presidential transition works, what staff appointments and accomplishments are being made, and ways we can get involved during and after the transition. The site even includes links to the transition resources that are given to every incoming president’s staff. Is this the start of a more transparent and responsible government? Are you curious?

So here is my challenge to everyone….

Let’s try on the word “we” for a while. Instead of waiting for government to fix itself before we will buy into it, maybe the government needs our buy-in before it could ever get fixed. Why not try? We can always go back to “they”. That’s easy. We can elect Sara Palin or Mitt Romney in 2012 and let them slash and burn what’s left in Washington and rekindle the fire of self-loathing "NO WE CAN'T" politics. But what if we can actually make this work? Wouldn’t that be so much better? Wouldn’t we be in better shape if we had a government we respected?

America Decides to Change

2008-11-04T19:49:00.003-05:00

Bravo America!

Moral Politics

2008-11-01T11:42:00.012-05:00

UC Berkeley professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics George Lakoff explores how successful political debates are framed by using language targeted to people's values instead of their support. I'm reading Lakoff's new book "The Political Mind". I'm impressed. No matter if you are conservative or progressive, you will enjoy the book and this talk summarizes the bulk of his important ideas. It is important that we understand this phenomenon in the way our brains work and how that relates to our political discussions.

watch the entire lecture...

Pay close attention to how Lakoff ties this into religion later in the lecture. It is a powerful critique of the shifts in religious thought during the modern enlightenment. I see a direct relationship to the way the Emergent movement has found ways to write a progressive theological narrative without losing post-conservatives on the way.

Framing Poltical Conversations - The Art Of Spin

2008-10-28T12:09:00.010-05:00

Geroge Lakoff is a Professor at UC Berkley and has written several books about the use of linguistics and psychology in politics. This article in 2003 highlights the predicament facing progressive political candidates and the many ways that conservative political figures have dominated political discussions for the last 40 years.

In Nov. 2007, Lakoff participated in the "There You Go Again: Orwell Comes to America" conference in New York. LinkTV has been airing a few of the panel discussions. Lakoff in particular really impressed me with his description of the problems facing progressive politics in America and the huge mistakes made by the Democratic party for the last several election cycles. I've heard this before and its been pretty obvious that conservatives have done a better job of making political problems into emotional responses.

...conservative think tanks, have framed virtually every issue from their perspective. They have put a huge amount of money into creating the language for their worldview and getting it out there. Progressives have done virtually nothing. - George Lakoff

What I found really interesting about Lakoff's analysis was that he clearly understood the relationship between politics and the modernist vs. post-modernist mindset. Pointing out the "enlightenment fallacy", he located the mistake of liberals in our trust of the modern enlightenment's appreciation for logic, reason, facts, and data. Drawing on the writings of George Orwell, he highlights that Orwell was wrong because Orwell assumed that if everyone could gain access to good information then they would be able to see the problem and break out of the spell of the empire. The problem is that this simply will not work. No amount of solid facts and figures will change the perspective of anyone who is operating from inside a particular linguistic metaphorical frame. Once the frame for the discussion is cast, there is no going back. You can't forget it. It's there. It's like trying to not think about an elephant when you read the phrase - "don't think about an elephant".

Language always comes with what is called "framing." Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. If you have something like "revolt," that implies a population that is being ruled unfairly, or assumes it is being ruled unfairly, and that they are throwing off their rulers, which would be considered a good thing. That's a frame.

If you then add the word "voter" in front of "revolt," you get a metaphorical meaning saying that the voters are the oppressed people, the governor is the oppressive ruler, that they have ousted him and this is a good thing and all things are good now. All of that comes up when you see a headline like "voter revolt" - something that most people read and never notice. But these things can be affected by reporters and very often, by the campaign people themselves. - George Lakoff

A classic example in our current political environment is "supporting the troops". Once that frame has been drawn around the discussion, there is a false dichotomy. It's simple. You are for the troops or against the troops. No amount of data about the justification for war will be effective in the discussion once the frame is set. The more we talk about the facts or point to the root problems, the more it sounds like we are missing the whole point of the discussion. The result is that political parties mostly talk past each other and no common ground or positive solutions can be developed. Progressives have not historically tried to recast the framing story. When is the last time you heard anyone frame the war as the "American Occupation of Iraq"?

Democrats have repeatedly failed to cast the same types of emotional frames for the discussion. In fact, almost all the discussion happens within the frames set by conservative thinkers. Progressives spend most of their energy arguing for the negation of the topic rather than offering positive images. For example, you can't talk rationally about women's rights inside the frame of "pro-life" because the issue is no longer about the women, its framed around the image of an "unborn child". You can't talk about responsible fiscal policy inside the frame of "taxation as a penalty for success" (i.e. Joe the plumber) because no amount of data about our national deficits under the Reagan and Bush tax policies will answer the concern about taxes as "penalties", or left over cold-war reactions to notions of "spreading the wealth". This is why Barack Obama has spent more time answering emotional rhetoric and goof-ball allegations and why little real political discussion took place in the debates. It also explains why the answer to "who won the debate" is so elusive when everyone feels like their guy won.

LinkTV has published the entire conference on the internet. I highly recommend the bipartisan panel discussion including George Lakoff along with conservative spin master Frank Luntz (the mad genius of right wing political polling). Frank is a smart guy and willing to own up to some of his tactics. I've read and enjoyed his book "Words that work". Watching this discussion has made me rethink my approach to political discussions. I agree with Lakoff, Orwell was wrong. Simply educating people with the best data will not solve the problem. I've had enough of these conversations with my conservative friends to know the answer is not found by sharing the facts. It is a matter of reframing the discussions.

On a side note, I think this is exactly what Brian McLaren means when he talks about framing stories in his book "Everything Must Change". He's shown that the same issues apply to religious discussions. Brian's approach to hearing everyone speak without immediately damning their framing story is important. He has done a wonderful job of reframing theological discussions to help many Evangelicals hear the rich history of theological discourse from within a completely different frame. At a minimum, he's opened the door for those Evangelicals to realize that their frame has not always been the dominant frame for the discussion.

Not All Politics

2008-10-27T19:12:00.005-05:00

Ok, I admit I've been swept up into politics this election season. It was much easier to ignore the hype when I was voting for a nominal 3rd party candidate or selecting the lesser of two evils. Barack Obama has changed that by giving us an intelligent candidate that gets almost every issue right (IMHO). I almost don't know how to act in an election where I actually like a candidate and can't complain about any of his policies or his character. This is really putting a damper on my skeptical, rebellious, and non-conformist tendencies.

anyway...

I'm not completely in a political trance. I've recenty discovered an interesting philosophy and world religions book (my favorite topics). This month I've been slowly working my way through John Hick's, "An Interpretation of Religion: 2nd Edition - The Human Response to the Transcendent". I've been engrossed in the book. Hick has helped me reconcile Christianity with a healthy pluralistic understanding of transcendent reality in all the world's major religions. In the past, I felt conflicted about my love and devotion to following Christ and my intellectual respect of the diverse cultural expressions of God. The recognition of common religious use of metaphors and myths combined with the horrible things that Christians have done in the name of Jesus has often left me wondering if I even wanted to retain the label "Christian" (read the latest disgusting hate speech coming from James Dobson's theocratic cult in Colorado). Like many people, the term Jesus-follower has become more tolerable but not exactly free from stereotypical baggage.

Thanks to the many remaining progressive religious voices, I finally feel at ease with my current understanding of faith (knowing me that won't last long). Hick's presentation of a rationalistic pluralism has done something wonderful for my understanding of Jesus. For me, he's liberated Jesus from the muck of competitive religious battles for supremacy. Jesus has, in my eyes, become free from the horrible superstitions and injustices commonly found in Christianity. In the process, I've seen how truly universal the concept of Christ really is by learning to see the message of Jesus in a variety of cultural and linguistic packages.

more to come after the election...

Blah, Blah, Blah the Environment?

2008-10-27T19:00:00.000-05:00

Did he really do that? Did they really cheer about a complete lack of concern about safety with nuclear power? Is this Candid Camera?

Political Assault on Reason

2008-10-24T21:11:00.004-05:00

Who is advising Gov. Palin? I don't know if this level of ignorance comes from Palin herself or from the right wing spin machine that feeds her these lines. She is apparently unaware that scientific research with fruit flies has led to valuable discoveries that have boosted autism research and our basic understanding of genetics, as in a study at the University of North Carolina demonstrated last year. Has my Republican Party become a party of ignorance or is it simply banking on the ignorance of the American voter? Did I miss this stuff when I registered as a Republican 19 years ago or has their integrity simply dissolved before my eyes?

read more...

Is Bin Laden Rooting for McCain?

2008-10-22T20:13:00.005-05:00

In 2004, Osama Bin Laden issued a statement with his primary method for attacking America.

"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript.

Unfortunately, George Bush has done everything he can to help make that wish a reality. I don't for one minute think Bush means to bankrupt our nation or support Al Qaeda. I just think he is blinded by idealism and self-destructive pride that ignores common sense (much like the Russians in Afghanistan). It appears John McCain is ready to continue down the same path of endless war and massive debt simply for the sake of pride. The more we spend the more tax cuts he wants to offer to the wealthiest tax payers. That means more debt. American fed Bin Laden during the Afghanistan war with Russia so he knows exactly how to bankrupt a super power. It is hard to fathom how we could misinterpret the history involved here. The path seems clear.

Read more about Bin Laden's goal...

Read about Al Qaeda endorsment of McCain (they endorsed Bush too!)...

Powell's Endorsement

2008-10-20T14:23:00.004-05:00

Well said! Not only do I agree with Powell's assessment of Obama. As a registered Republican (now ex-Republican), I'm in agreement with Powell's frustration with the party, their campaigning techniques, the Palin VP selection, and their support (even promotion) of religious bigotry.

Colin Powell Endorses Obama

2008-10-19T11:09:00.002-05:00

Colin Powell, one of the country's most respected Republicans, stunned both parties on Sunday by strongly endorsing Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for president. I wonder if there is an Obama cabinet position in mind here.

read more...

Joe the Plumber's Taxes

2008-10-16T06:03:00.003-05:00

The recent discussion of "Joe the plumber" has shown exactly how unfamiliar America is with American tax policy. I wish Obama would have asked John McCain, "Exactly how much money does Joe make?" The truth (straight from the real Joe's mouth - watch the video below) is that his business makes about $250,000 - $280,000 a year. Now, what I wish Obama would have asked him is "Is that 280k in REVENUE or PROFIT?" Only profits are taxed for businesses NOT revenue. So if Joe is making $280,000 in profit (after expenses, materials, labor, depreciation, etc.) then YES, he will pay 3% more on the marginal income over $250,000 (ONLY the amount over 250k). This is how marginal tax brackets work. Every business pays the same rates on the first $250k (even Donald Trump and Exxon Mobile). So bumping into a higher tax bracket does not suddenly destroy your income or overly burden anyone. This works the same way for personal income taxes. If you move up into a new bracket, only the amount of income in that higher bracket is taxed at the higher rate.

For Joe, the potential increase that had him shaking in his boots is $900 annually if he makes $280,000 in total NET profits. How is $900 a year going to keep Joe from buying his business? You guessed it. This was a setup and it is based on misinformation about American Tax policy and skewed logic about Obama's plan. McCain was adamant in the debate that Joe was going to be unable to purchase a business because of a possible $900 in additional taxes. Are you kidding me? Please, somebody in the news media point this out and give America an intro to marginal tax brackets. I run a small business. I've done the math. Yes, I could see a small increase in taxes, but it is a trivial amount compared to the revenue our nation needs from huge corporations making billions. We can't keep running deficits forever. Somebody has to pay the bills and I'm glad to pay more if my company has a huge year. Most businesses (small and large) are able to use the tax policies to their advantage. Many business expenses are deductible and assets are depreciated so that despite 36% or 39% marginal brackets, most companies pay little or no federal corporate income tax. Joe's fears are unfounded and it is a shame that the media is going to once again miss this opportunity to speak truth about tax policy and middle class Americans will make bad assumptions that end up costing us in the long term.

Was Obama a Boy scout?

2008-10-13T16:49:00.004-05:00

Well he seems to be well prepared. The one concern I had about Obama was uncertainty in his ability to get his feet on the ground day one. I've heard bad reviews of how Bill Clinton struggled to get his team up and running after his election. Jimmy Carter may have been one of the most intelligent and forward thinking presidents in my lifetime, but he received criticism for his administration skills and his presidency never made up for the problems with his staff selection. George Bush started slow and kept getting worse by making one horrible appointment after another. Fortunately, it appears that Obama is thinking ahead and putting together a well prepared transition team. He's answered many of my concerns. You can read more about the contrasting transition plans of Obama and McCain in the Huffington Post.

ht: Julie Bogart

Don't Feed The Rednecks

2008-10-13T16:18:00.003-05:00

I once liked and respected John McCain. I'm surprised to hear this type of crap from him. Normally, candidates make a center move during the election. In a "maverick" fashion, McCain has been moving further right and alienating everyone in the center. Let's see how well the strange VP pick and the extreme right wing rhetoric plays in a general election when the current right wing president is at an all time low in popularity.

Awkward McCain, Decisive Obama

2008-10-07T23:47:00.004-05:00

There were several awkward moments in tonight's presidential debate that I'm still trying to understand. I'll chalk it up to an "out-of-touch" McCain trying to stand toe to toe with one of the greatest political speakers in our lifetime. I felt bad for McCain as this format was not physically good for his older, smaller, and more robotic movements. It looked like the people in the room were visibly uncomfortable with McCain's movements and his inability to make jokes or relate to individuals. The only point that went well for McCain was his statement about the need for bailing out families in addition to wall street executives. The problem is that this is the one point that McCain has simply adopted Obama's earlier position. Obama made the case for a bottom up rescue over a week ago and McCain is late to the party. I felt that nearly every debate point ended with Obama closing out on an up note and perfectly rebutting McCain's points. Barack Obama has improved on his conversational tone and each debate seems to move him further ahead of the increasingly irrelevant John McCain. Can anyone say Bob Dole?

3 points:

1) Bob Dole was the last Republican I voted for (stop laughing!)

2) I've yet to vote for a winner in a general presidential election. I hated Clinton. I voted Libertarian in the last election and the DMV lost my voter registration in 2000 so I couldn't vote when I showed up at the polls (I was going to vote for Bush).

3) Until this year, I'd never once voted for a winner in a presidential primary so the latest trend is to break all previous trends.

The Maverick is a Gambler

2008-10-07T06:37:00.001-05:00

Not only does John McCain enjoy a night at the craps table, he's been involved with the very powerful Indian Casino lobbyists. Is this the John McCain that wants to keep lobbyist influence out of Washington and hopes to court the religious right with promises of "family values"?

"Mr. McCain has done more than any other member of Congress to shape the laws governing America’s casinos, helping to transform the once-sleepy Indian gambling business into a $26-billion-a-year behemoth with 423 casinos across the country. He has won praise as a champion of economic development and self-governance on reservations.

“One of the founding fathers of Indian gaming” is what Steven Light, a University of North Dakota professor and a leading Indian gambling expert, called Mr. McCain. " - By JO BECKER and DON VAN NATTA Jr. Published: September 27, 2008 in the New York Times

Read the entire article

I don't have a problem with casinos (I've spent many hours playing poker in those same casinos), however, it seems very hypocritical on the part of McCain. The article does reveal something interesting about the character of these two candidates. Obama prefers poker and McCain prefers craps. You can win at poker because it is a game of skill, judgment, and fiscal responsibility. Craps is, well, a crap shoot. It's is a loosing proposition over the long run (kind of like a surge).

Psychology of Partisanship

2008-10-05T07:39:00.001-05:00

Here are a few wise words about how (and possibly why) we divide among party lines and develop distrust of others. It is a well timed discussion considering our national political divide. We heard a bit of this tone in Biden's comments in the last debate when he talked about moving past our tendency to question the motives of others. Unless we start our political debates with the acknowledgment that we all come to the table with good intentions, the debate will fall apart.

Brian McLaren also had a great post about this video.

Real Live Conversation

2008-10-04T08:25:00.005-05:00

Gordon Atkinson (many readers will know him as "Real Live Preacher") recently sat down with Marcus Borg for an informal discussion. You can listen to the entire conversation online and read Gordon's reactions. I've enjoyed Gordon's blog for several years now and Marcus Borg's books have been instrumental in my own spiritual understanding and growth. I strongly recommend listening to this interview.

HT: Bob Cornwall

Playing Softball for the White House

2008-10-02T21:55:00.007-05:00

Well, tonight we proved that debating on national TV is likely to make you nervous. Both candidates were imperfect and awkward. Palin dodged most of the questions and Biden was solid but non-confrontational. I liked what I heard from Biden and I suspect Republicans felt like Palin salvaged their ticket by not puking on stage or falling off her high heels. After watching Palin for 90 minutes, I think I've seen enough cartoon character winks at the camera to send me for the antacid. Biden won me over (okay, I admit I was already a fan).

The first thing we really learned is that the moderator allowed these candidates to simply regurgitate their stump speeches. It would have been nice to see a few overhand pitches, but we got nothing but change-ups right down the middle of the plate. I guess the norm for debates will now be to ignore the moderator and simply read off the prepared notes. The second thing we learned is that Tbone Pickens is spending millions of dollars to convince Americans to spend billions on domestic drilling and moving our fossil fuel addiction from one scare resource (oil) to another (natural gas). Both sources make him a wealthy man and he's not afraid to throw in a brief illusion of wind, solar, and hydrogen as the worlds most expensive slight of hand marketing campaign. Sorry Tbone, I'm looking behind the curtain and there's nothing but fossil fuels up your sleeve. It isn't enough to move off foreign fossil fuels, we need to be off of ALL fossil fuels and we can do it right now if we can remove oil company influence in Washington. If there is a debate scheduled you can be sure that oil companies are going to buy up all the advertising space. It almost feels like Pickens is one of the candidates (McCain certainly has a lot of his money).

I suspect independents completely checked out after hearing 90 minutes of negative attacks. That could have hurt Biden who clearly landed more solid punches. I would score it a huge victory for Biden on debate points, while Palin exceeded the expectations (that means all she had to do was sound slightly better than Paris Hilton) and solidified her shrinking base of religious extremists and Rush Limbaugh fans by spewing prepared cold war era jargon.

The Politics of a Bailout

2008-10-02T09:21:00.004-05:00

I've heard more than one attempt lately to misplace the blame for this financial crisis. Some are simple attempts to avoid blame by suggesting there is no one to blame at all. Some are blatant racism, classism, and partisanship. We need to be honest about what caused this so we can move toward a solution. Sara Robinson at Alternet.org has written a good article on 11 ways that this mess has been used to promote bigotry and push the far right wing political agenda. A week ago, I would have thought her argument was simply distorting the problem with more partisanship exaggeration, but in the last week I've heard real world examples of malicious nonsensical arguments from the far right creeping into mainstream media. It was about time somebody called a spade a spade and provided a bit of fact checking.

Kucinich on the Bailout

2008-10-01T08:05:00.003-05:00

In moments of crisis, party lines blur and opponents find some strange bedfellows. This is an opportunity for our nation to come together or to become further divided. I'm not sure what the right answer is for the bailout, but the more this debate happens in a vacuum, the less comfortable I feel about the outcome. At least Dennis Kucinich is willing break party ranks and speak out. This bailout feels a lot like the rush to war. Shock and fear followed by large sums of public money shuffled off to who knows where.

More McLaren on Obama...

2008-09-30T14:27:00.002-05:00

Brian McLaren continued his series of posts on why he supports Barack Obama. Here's a taste...

"The gap between rich and poor is growing greater and greater, in this country and around the world. So I ask myself, which candidate is concerned about strengthening the economy in robust ways that will not simply help oil companies, coal companies, and job exporters make higher profits, but will instead support the development of new “green” businesses that have the most promising future and can provide meaningful jobs here and abroad that workers can take true pride in?" - Brian Mclaren

Debate This!

2008-09-27T07:54:00.004-05:00

I came away from last night's debate with a few clear impressions...

1) Obama is ready to lead and nobody can question his grasp on the issues or his ability to be tough on important issues. He would give America a much needed calm level-headed leader.

2) McCain answers EVERY problem with a military solution. I get the impression that if he is asked about his sex life he would find a way to work in a reference to shooting something.

3) McCain is locked into a cold war era world view.

4) Obama left some ammunition on the table. If McCain wants to talk about pork, then lets talk about the bridge to nowhere. I'm not sure why Obama didn't one up him on anti-waste rhetoric. The republican administration has been wasteful and this should be an area of strength for Obama. Unfortunately, he allowed McCain to own this issue. I hope he corrects this problem in the next debate.

5) Obama wins on the tax cut issue and he finally made this clear.

6) McCain can't even spell middle-class. He didn't use the term once.

7) McCain has a tendency toward over dramatic knee-jerk reactions to a crisis. His attempt to cancel this debate was a prime example. This character flaw along with his tendency to use military solutions for every problem should scare the hell out of every voter. These character issues are a dangerous combination. McCain is not just 4 more years of Bush. McCain is Bush x 10. McCain is Bush on a steroids rage!