Two Marvelous Podcasts – One for Pastors and one for Everyone

So, two podcasts to lift up with the highest recommendations.  One for a slightly more specific audience (although I think there’s great stuff in it for all) and one for anyone interested in the current political debates going on around us.

Take me to the Bridge w/ David Wilcox

My wonderful wife got me hooked on David Wilcox’s music several years ago.  He is a “folk” singer / songwriter and has a thread through his music of spiritual themes and some commentary on social topics as well.  He also has some plain fun songs too about kayaking and getting angry while driving.  Anyway, his website talked about an interview he did on this Take Me to the Bridge podcast (which apparently is largely about songwriting, etc – its not on my regular podcast rotation).  Wilcox has a wonderful segment about 25 minutes in that spoke deeply to me about my process of sermon writing.  He talked about how, to write a good song, he needs to enter into a place of emotion and intimacy and not just “process” in putting together the lyrics and the music.  He also talked of how, when he sings a song, he has to  remember that the song is not for him, but for the listener and they will each take what they experience and not necessarily his own intention.  Anyway, it spoke to me about the process of engaging a sermon – that its more than putting together a 15 minute message based on exegesis, etc but instead entering into the Scripture deeply and allowing the Word to sink into the emotional and deep places within and finding a message from those places.  So, I highly recommend it.  The page is linked in the header above and you can find the podcast on itunes as well.

The Unger Report – What to do about Evil?

I Tivo’ed and skimmed through the Obama/McCain thing at Saddleback Church over the weekend.  I watched pieces of it largely out of curiosity of what would be asked and whether anything “new” would come out from either candidate.  Sadly, my personal feeling on that was that it was largely a waste of time and each candidate did their own talking points in their own way and that each candidate, when challenged by a question, largely chose to be evasive in their answer so that nothing could be used against them in the campaign ahead.  My $0.02 review.  Anyway, one of the most inane questions (imho) that Warren asked somethign to the effect of “Does Evil exist?  And if so, how do we confront it?  Ignore, negociate, contain, destroy?”

(Editorial note – I think Obama gave a reasonable response to the question while McCain just gave the Republican talking point about “evil = radical Islam” and the ridiculous “gates of hell” comment about Osama Bin Laden – while Obama gave a much more thoughful, compassionate, and realistic answer – see this youtube link for their specific answers)

Anyway, one of my favorite podcasts is NPR’s The Unger Report and the most recent one is Brian Unger’s perspective on this.  Linked here and above. Also on itunes if you don’t want to stream it.

Enjoy.

Misc Topics – U2, Africa, “Green” football, and more thoughts on The Dark Knight

Ok – just a few quick hit topics that have been floating around for me.

Africa’s U2 Album
Ok – this isn’t really new news, but I finally got the album, In the Name of Love: Africa Celebrates U2.  Its been out for nearly a year now, but I finally got around to ordering it (Amazon mp3 store of course).  If you are a U2 fan, this is a must purchase.  I heard a few tracks from it via my friend Jeff and realized that it needed to be added to my U2 collection.  Its a stunning series of covers of U2 songs by African musicians.  They put their own styles, rhythms, and sound to twelve classic U2 songs.  Proceeds from the album go to African aid causes.   The covers of Pride by the Soweto Gospel Choir and Love is Blindness by Waldemar Bastos are especially amazing.

.

“Green” Football
My alma mater (Univ of Colorado) and the surrounding city (Boulder, CO) often get a bad rap for the goofiness that goes along with the People’s Republic of Boulder.  Some of it is deserved (such as the funeral for the tree that was cut down because of a road expansion) and some of it is not (the fact that Boulder is amazing in its forward-thinking about environmental causes and healthy living).  So, its not a surprise that Boulder and the Univ of Colorado are trying something that no other college has attempted.

If you have ever seen a stadium after a major sporting event, you know the insane amount of waste that is produced during that time.  Well, CU is attempting to recycle 90% of the waste that is generated at each CU home game this season.

I will be curious how this turns out.  I think its a great idea, but I wonder about things that simply cannot be recycled – dirty diapers for example.  Of course, who in their right mind would bring a diaper wearing infant or toddler to a major college football game?

Anyway, for a University and a football program that has gotten some really bad press in the last few years, its great to see something like this.  Now, the team needs to just get some big wins this season too!

A Few Final Thoughts on The Dark Knight
After thinking more about the film over the last week, I have decided that a second viewing of TDK is not going to happen.  I haven’t changed any of my thoughts about the performances, story, quality of the moviemaking, etc.  The thing I keep getting stuck on is the violence in the film.  The violence in the film is without purpose in any way.  I know there’s the whole thing that is referred to (rather obliquely) in the film about Batman’s code of not killing anyone and how the Joker keeps trying to make Batman break this code.  But the violence brought out by the Joker is just so over the top that it is sadistic.  I know that was the point of the writers to make the Joker a totally sadistic villian.  But the more that I see the sadistic forms of violence that we humans put upon others in real life (Darfur, Bosnia, shootings, wars, etc) the harder and harder time that I am having witnessing fictional sadistic violence in film.

I think there is a place for darkness in film.  There is a place to explore the darker sides of life – the realities of pain, suffering, trial, etc that are a part of life.  Film enables us to enter into places that need exploration, need light to be revealed, and so forth.  In a movie like Hotel Rwanda, one witnesses horrific, sadistic violence that humans have brought upon other humans.  But the difference is that the film is calling us to something different – it is call to action for those who were outside Rwanda at that time and virtually ignored what was taking place (as we continue to do with so much taking place in the world).  What is The Dark Knight calling us to?

Not so sure.

The media as the candidates’ ad servers?

Maybe this is because I have probably paid more attention and been more actively involved in this election than any other in my life, but there is something that seems very new in this 2008 presidential election cycle.  Granted, I live in a state where John McCain could be an alien from Mars and stil get 60% of the vote over Barack Obama and therefore have not seen one presidential campaign television ad, but it seems that the television networks and many of the online news sources seem to become the ad servers for the respective campaigns.  For both Obama and McCain, I have seen stories about the ads that their respective campaigns has put out – either on television or online-exlcusively, without having actually seen the ad in person.

A perfect example are the two recent “controversial” ads from McCain’s campaign – the “celebrity” one and the one that compares Obama to the Antichrist (seriously).  In both cases, they were ads that were shown either in a selective market (celebrity) or online (antichrist).  But in both cases, they made the front page of CNN.com and also on Google’s news page.  So, therefore McCain got national play for what should have amounted to local ads.  I have seen similar examples with Obama’s ads.

Not sure that the networks should be in the business of putting these ads out further than they were intended.  Is it really “news” that McCain’s campaign came up with these ads?  Not so sure.

UDPATE: The NY Times also comments on this much more eloquently than me.

UPDATE 2: CNN does the same with Obama’s new ad…

I don’t own a flag pin…I’d be in trouble…

I have alternated between laughing at the silliness and annoyed at the inaneness of the discussion about whether Barack Obama should wear a flag pin.  Does his choice to not wear one make him “un-American” or “un-patriotic”?  Going back to the useless 2 hours that ABC had a few weeks ago that was offically called a “debate” between Senators Obama and Clinton…it was even asked then as if it was still a significant issue in the campaign.  Like the columnist I link to below, I have been watching how many pundits (conservative and liberal and every stripe in between) are not wearing one when they are talking about whether Senator Obama should wear one.  Anyway, in the midst of this silliness, a voice of reason (other than Senator Obama’s) has emerged…

Thank you once again Roland Martin for injecting some much needed sanity into this ridiculous debate.

Make wearing a flag pin the 28th Amendment

Overlords, Rama, Sex, and Ordinary Radicals

Well, since finishing up my thesis (woot!), I have begun to fall in love again with the printed word. While I read over 150 books and other forms of “literature” as sources for my thesis, it is very different to read for a thesis than it is to read for “choice.” So, in the several weeks since I submitted my thesis, I have plowed my way through four very different books.

Childhood’s End & Rendezvous with Rama | Sex God | The Irresistible Revolution

SciFi Novels

I started with some good old science fiction in recognition of the recent death of Arthur C Clarke. I had read several of his books previously, but not Childhood’s End and Rendezvous with Rama. Rama was an interesting and fun read, but it was Childhood’s End that really struck me. What a stark contrast of a story focusing on aliens visiting earth of a book written several decades ago compared to similar films of the last twenty years. I remember watching V on back in the late 80s and the story of how the aliens came to earth to harvest people for food, then movies like Independence Day furthered the idea that aliens would only come to destroy us or eat us. Anyway, Childhood’s End focuses on others coming to our world to guide us into a new way of being. In many ways, this book isn’t entirely different from the ultimate focus of 2001 – that humans one day will take a further evolutionary step into something beyond what we are today. Anyway, a fascinating read.

Sex God

Moving onto an entirely different topic, I read Rob Bell’s book Sex God: Exploring the Endless Connections Between Sexuality and Spirituality. I had previously read Bell’s Velvet Elvis and was struck by the new perspective that he brought to Christianity and to its connection to culture today. I had Sex God on my shelf for a while and finally got to reading it. I have to admit that the last third of the book seemed to start to drag – it seemed repetitive and almost like Bell was trying to fill pages. That being said, I don’t think it truly takes away from the perspective the book offers. Ultimately, the book is a solid (although not exceptional) exploration of how deeply linked our sexuality and our spirituality truly are. In a religious climate that continues to try to separate the two or make people deny sexuality (of any form) because of spirituality, Bell focuses on how we truly do experience God through our sexuality. It is important to note that he doesn’t limit sexuality in his definition to the act of sex itself, but instead widens it (appropriately) to focus on the quality of relationships with others – both within and without a marriage. He notes in several places that God did create humans as sexual creatures and as we are created in God’s image, our sexuality is there as part of God’s image within us.

I was also deeply appreciative of the fact that he, unlike most evangelicals (although I am not sure Bell would want to be called an Evangelical), uses the appropriate interpretation of Ephesians 5 when talking about the power relationship between husband and wife. Many evangelicals want to separate the passage after the statement of “submit yourselves to one another out of reverance for Christ” as the NIV (New International Version of the Bible) does. What is significant is that that verse should be paired with what follows (wives submit to your husbands, etc) and not separated. The Greek (original language of the letter to the Ephesians) doesn’t separate them – why should modern translators? Anyway, Bell focuses in one chapter on the mutual submission that couples should have to one another in their marriage relationship. And ultimately, he brings it to the Christian community – a call for us to submit to one another out of reverance for Christ.

The book is a very different style to read. If you are expecting long, detailed theological arguments on specific subjects quoting great historical theologians, you might get rather frustrated with his writing. He writes much as he speaks and I believe he writes this way to encourage this as the beginning of dialogues on this topic, rather than this book being the authority readers should just fall in line with.

While the book does have some flaws, I would seriously consider using this book as a discussion starter in small groups focusing on the topic of sexuality and I would also strongly consider its use in a youth group or within a premarital counseling relationship when talking about the issues of power, communication, and sexuality within a relationship.

The Irresistible Revolution

This is a book that has been sitting on my shelf for far too long. I knew what it was about through two sources – my colleague Jeff and the church he serves and through an episode of Speaking of Faith. Shane Claiborne is a participant in what observers have called a “new monasticism” – people who truly have given up what they have and have begun living together in faith-based communities trying to live our their faith in new, challenging, and prophetic ways. Unlike the traditional concept of monasticism, this form is centered within cities (such as inner-city Philadelphia where The Simple Way [Claiborne's community] lives) and focuses on living out their faith for the benefit of the community around them. The subtitle of the book is “living as an ordinary radical.”

I think the book sat on my shelf for so long because I knew (both consciously and unconsciously) that it would challenge me in incredible ways. When I heard the SoF episode while driving home from Dubuque last summer, at one point I had to pull over because I was just so deeply convicted by what I heard. The perspective that he brings really moves out of the liberal/conservative/evangelical/mainline /red/blue/republican/democrat dividing that we are so apt to do today. Similar to how McLaren titles his book, A Generous Orthodoxy, Claiborne cannot be painted into a corner as he is at the same time a strong evangelical who is absolutely anti war (of any kind), social activist, faithful disciple, etc etc etc.

There was much in the book that resonated with me – his perseptive on the Iraq War specifically. He traveled to Iraq shortly before the war started and he speaks of how he experienced being on “the other side” as he worshiped with communities in Baghdad as the bombs began to fall. A priest prayed that they might love their enemies and Claiborne realized that they were speaking of those who were dropping the bombs on their country. He journals about his experience here.

While there was a great deal else in the book that affirmed where I am spiritually, politically, etc, his words challenged me greatly about how these areas of my life must be far more integrated than they often are. Often, it is too easy to separate the political from the spiritual from the material. They are all deeply and intricately connected and all must be informed by the rule of love. I think Claiborne would like to be described as a “radical lover” – not in the contemporary use of the word “lover” – but instead as one who seeks to radically love as Jesus loved (and loves still today). He has a marvelous quote that highlights this when he speaks of his dream of a faith community:

…a community of people who have falls desperately in love with God and with suffering people, and who allow those relationships to disturb and transform them.

In many ways, the message that Claiborne offers challenges me on the same level as the sermon I linked to a few days ago. In Rev. Moss’ message, he notes at one point that the preacher’s role is to “keep catastrophe before the people” essentially to never let people get so comfortable that they forget (or choose to ignore) the realities of the world around them – both right next door and thousands of miles away.

There are so many levels that Irresistible Revolution struck me on that its impossible to put into words. It is worth a read, however, knowing that it will challenge, encourage, and disturb you.

The next books? Through a Screen Darkly by Jeffrey Overstreet and a return to my dearly loved A Prayer for Owen Meany

Red Dawn – A blast from the past

I found myself watching Red Dawn a few nights ago. It was spurred on from a Risk (facebook version) game I was playing with some of my buddies. I remember seeing it when it initially came out in 1984 (I guess they didn’t care it was PG-13 when I bought my ticket since I wasn’t even 11 at that time) and I remember thinking of it as a cool war flick that took place in my home state. I had seen it a few times on cable since then and slowly began to see the incredible level of late-era Cold War propaganda throughout the film. Upon watching it a few nights ago, I was struck once again by what I saw.

Before going any further, it must be noted that this it is really not a good film. There are plot holes and common-sense holes that one could drive a Soviet-era tank through (such as how the Soviets could keep up a supply chain from Siberia through the Aleutians and Alaska and down through Canada) and the acting is rather suspect. In some ways, its like the Breakfast Club with guns in that its chock-full of classic 80s actors – Patrick Swayze, Charlie Sheen, Lea Thompson, Jennifer Grey, C. Thomas Howell, and Powers Booth. It would have been great to have Molly Ringwald and Anthony Michael Hall make a few cameos. Anyway…

Back to the propaganda concept. Let’s see…what’s present in the film…

• Immigration Concerns – They note that the way the Cubans initially infiltrated the US was through sneaking over the border posing as workers coming into the US and built up their forces until it was ready to strike.
• Gun Control / Right to Bear Arms – The people who are lifted up as the heroes in the film are the ones who owned guns (and lots of them). The Soviets actually use the lists of people who own guns as the key to who they should round up first. Implication that background checks, etc are a bad thing?
• Macho Old West American Machismo – Again, the heroes are the ones who are depicted as living off the land, not showing any emotion or feelings, etc. Put Clint Eastwood in there and you have a pretty good idea of what’s in the film
• Depiction of the Soviets / Cubans – The Soviets in the film are portrayed at various times as bumbling idiots, rapists, thieves, and unable to fend off a small group of high school students. Two scenes in particular stand out here – one time where a group of three soldiers are ambushed in the mountains as they are bumbling about taking pictures of themselves and another where a group is taken out after they try to catch Jennifer Grey, presumably for more than just taking her to a re-education camp. Speaking of those camps…
• Re-Education Camps – Those who are rounded up by the Americans (mostly men it seemed) were taken to re-education camps where they were shown (seemingly round the clock) films that told of the wasteland that is America and the power and superiority of the Soviet way of life.

Timing wise, this film came out the summer of Reagan’s re-election campaign in 1984 as the Cold War rhetoric was in high-gear at the time.

Twenty-four years later, it is very easy to watch this film and see what a propaganda machine it really was. Of course, films have always been used for this purpose – from Birth of a Nation to Triumph of the Will and up to today. I wonder what we will think 24 years from now about films and television coming out today. Will we watch films like The Siege, The Kingdom, 300, and several seasons of 24 (to name a few) and think similar things?

Anyway, if you find it on some night, check the film out. Its worth a viewing, not necessarily for the quality of the film, but the not-so-subtle messages contained throughout.
(image credit: Cracked.com)

The Connection between Technology and Spirituality

Well, its amazing how things come together timing-wise. I submitted my final version of my Doctor of Ministry thesis on Monday morning. The focus of my project was on how seminaries need to integrate multimedia into their preaching curriculum. Many (if not most) seminaries (at least PCUSA ones) are still training their pastors in the traditional 15-18 minute spoken oral- and text-based sermon. And then pastors are going into many congregations where they are asked to use multimedia as a part of their preaching and many of those extremely well trained preachers find themselves at a loss. How to integrate visual, audio, or other forms of media into the word/text-based exegetical process that we were taught in seminary?

Anyway, I was syncing my nano last night and found that one of the key authors that I referenced in my project, Shane Hipps, was preaching at Mars Hill Church in Michigan whose podcast I download weekly. The title of the sermon was the “Spirituality of the Cellphone.” I just finished listening to the message and cannot recommend it enough to take a listen to. Hipps, while covering some of the same ground as his book, powerfully reflects the ways that the digital age is changing how we experience spirituality and experience one another. He is far from a anti-technologist calling for the abolition of the internet, email, IM, etc, but instead holding up a mirror to how it affects us, often in ways that we do not recognize ourselves.

The ultimate point he makes (spoiler alert) is that the prevalence of digital technology today has a paradoxical effect on how we relate to one another. While the vast and powerful tools of digital technology allow us to be connected to people in a long-distance manner in ways that we could not do so previously, they also often have the opposite effect in how we relate to those who are closest to us. We often employ the same methods of communication in the digital age with those closest to us that we do with those many miles away. Which is easier? To get together f2f with someone or to just call them on the cell phone? What about in the office – easier to just IM someone rather than walk a few offices down to talk to them? I know I am often guilty of this.

Ultimately, the point is that Christianity is a religion of presence. It is a faith based on the idea that God is not some distant deity, but the Word became and lived among us (John 1:14). Christ had a physical ministry of presence and even when he was departing this world, as recorded in Matthew 28, he promised that he would never ultimately leave us.

Anyway, a challenging series of thoughts, at least for me. There are two links to the sermon below. The first is to the itunes store podcasts and the second is the archive page. The sermon is from 3-30-08.

Itunes link to sermon (sorry no direct link on their website)
MarsHill.com Archive

Further thoughts about race in America

I read this commentary on CNN.com today by Roland Smith echoing the comments of Sen. Obama on Monday and was struck by his comparison to the current debate to a message delivered by Martin Luther King in 1967. Smith writes:

When Wright was castigated for being anti-American for saying “God damn America!” — which was not delivered in his speech about September 11, 2001 — I couldn’t help but think about that famous speech Dr. King gave at Riverside Church on April 4, 1967, when he blasted America’s involvement in the Vietnam War.

King was disowned by many of his supporters, was denounced as a traitor to the nation and his speaking fees dried up.

See, even the man who many conservatives quote today with fervor, was treated as an outcast in his own country.

One of the most significant classes I took while in seminary was “The Ethics of Martin Luther King” taught by Dr. Peter Paris. Paris led us through an examination of King’s actions, writings, and speeches. One of the most referenced books I have from my seminary days came from this course – A Testament of Hope : The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. – I continue to be struck by the relevance of King’s words to today.

Yes, we have come a long way since King was one of the leaders of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, but once again, it is so obvious we have a long way to go.

I did not remember King’s message that Roland Smith referred to, but I found it online (gotta love the internet):

Text of the message

MP3 audio of the message

While the message is obviously focused on the specific issue of calling America to stop the war in Vietnam, King does not miss the ultimate larger issues at play.
I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a “thing-oriented” society to a “person-oriented” society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. n the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life’s roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: “This is not just.” It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: “This is not just.” The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: “This way of settling differences is not just.” This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

Those words echo to us today as we continue to fight an unjust war in Iraq, we continue to exponentially increase military spending at the cost of programs that lift the poor and oppressed in our society, and so forth.

UPDATE: An update on previous post – Roland Martin blogged about the larger context of Rev. Wright’s sermon.

Barack Obama – latest issues on race, etc

I have been struck by the “controversy” over Rev. Wright and his comments while he was pastor of the church that Barack Obama attends. There are many layers of this that are striking, but the most notable for me is the idea that just because Obama attends this church that he must automatically agree with or support everything his pastor says or that the words of his pastor are automatically what Obama must believe. As a pastor of a church myself, I know there have been many times that congregants have disagreed with things I have said or positions I have taken in sermons, in conversations, or in public events. There have also been many times where ideas, etc were agreed with and supported. Also, as a pastor, I don’t want the congregants of the church I serve to agree with everything I say or automatically follow every word I say to them. Like Rev Wright, Barack Obama, and every single human being, I am a flawed creature and there are times that I think I interpret God’s Word correctly and times that I am probably in error, times when I clearly understand events around me and can speak accurately to them and times that I am off-base.

So, the idea that Obama, because he attends this church and hears some of these words, has to repudiate not just Rev. Wright’s words, but almost to the degree of repudiating the man himself is crazy. I have not yet finished watching the entirety of Obama’s message yesterday, but I am deeply thankful that he spoke in ways that are very uncommon for politicians today – he didn’t try to distance himself from Rev Wright as much as he held up a mirror to America and said, “this is a problem we ALL still are struggling with.” I have heard people say that Obama might be significantly hurt politically be these latest events, but even if there was any question about me voting for him (which there wasn’t), he solidified my vote yesterday.

Here’s the video of his speech

Some reactions – courtesy of huffington post -

The New York Times’ editorial, entitled “Mr. Obama’s Profile In Courage”:

Inaugural addresses by Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt come to mind, as does John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech on religion, with its enduring vision of the separation between church and state. Senator Barack Obama, who has not faced such tests of character this year, faced one on Tuesday. It is hard to imagine how he could have handled it better.

The Corner, Charles Murray:

I read the various posts here on “The Corner,” mostly pretty ho-hum or critical about Obama’s speech. Then I figured I’d better read the text (I tried to find a video of it, but couldn’t). I’ve just finished. Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I’m concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant–rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America. It is so far above the standard we’re used to from our pols…. But you know me. Starry-eyed Obama groupie.

The Politico, Ben Smith:

A smart colleague notes that this speech is the polar opposite of this year’s other big speech on faith, in which Mitt Romney went to Texas to talk about Mormonism, but made just one reference to his Mormon faith.

Obama mentions Wright by name 14 times.

TPM, Josh Marshall:

I think I have to dissent from David’s view that Obama didn’t bring his A-game to the speech this morning. I was only able to listen/watch out of the corner of my eye because I was on deadline for something else. But my sense was that the tempo and tenor was suited to the occasion. The kind of stirring delivery he’s made a trademark of in his victory celebrations would not have been appropriate for the moment.

Mother Jones, David Corn:

With racial sentiments swirling in the 2008 campaign–notably, Geraldine Ferraro’s claim that Barack Obama is not much more than an affirmative action case and the controversy over his former pastor’s over-the-top remarks– Senator Obama on Tuesday morning responded to these recent fusses with a speech unlike any delivered by a major political figure in modern American history. While explaining–not excusing–Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s remarks (which Obama had already criticized), he called on all Americans to recognize that even though the United States has experienced progress on the racial reconciliation front in recent decades (Exhibit A: Barack Obama), racial anger exists among both whites and blacks, and he said that this anger and its causes must be fully acknowledged before further progress can be achieved. Obama did this without displaying a trace of anger himself.

Atlantic.com, James Fallows:

It was a moment that Obama made great through the seriousness, intelligence, eloquence, and courage of what he said. I don’t recall another speech about race with as little pandering or posturing or shying from awkward points, and as much honest attempt to explain and connect, as this one.

Radar, Charles Kaiser:

He did it.

No other presidential candidate in the last forty years has managed to speak so much truth so eloquently at such a crucial juncture in his campaign as Barack Obama did today. And he did it by speaking about race, the most persistent source of hatred among us since America began.

It turns out that a candidate for president with a white mother and a black father has a capacity that no one else has ever had before: he can articulate an equal understanding of black racism and white racism –and that makes it possible for him to condemn both of them with equal passion.

Atlantic.com, Andrew Sullivan:

But I do want to say that this searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime. It is a speech we have all been waiting for for a generation. Its ability to embrace both the legitimate fears and resentments of whites and the understandable anger and dashed hopes of many blacks was, in my view, unique in recent American history.

The American Prospect, Kate Sheppard:

Obama’s much-anticipated speech on race today hit the appropriate tone not just for addressing the Jeremiah Wright flap, but for framing the relevance of his candidacy in general. It was best in the way it framed the discomfort and resentment in the discussion of race in America that has lead to a “racial stalemate” for so many years, and made race “a part of our union that we have not yet made perfect.”

The Network of Spiritual Progressives – is there hope?

I attended a conference here in Sioux Falls today from an organization called Pastors for Moral Choices. Its a local organization of clergy who are seeking to present an alternative voice in public debate and public action to the religious right that seems to believe they have the final word on moral positions. It was a great conference, but the highlight for me was the presentation by a member of an organization called the Network of Spiritual Progressives. Nikola shared about their efforts to not only provide an alternative voice to the religious right (similar to what PMC is doing), but going steps further. They focus on three tenets of their actions:

1. Changing the Bottom Line in America
Today, institutions and social practices are judged efficient, rational and productive to the extent that they maximize money and power. That’s the Old Bottom Line. Now Here is the NEW BOTTOM LINE for which we advocate: We believe that they should be judged rational, efficient and productive not only to the extent that they maximize money and power, but also to the extent that they maximize love and caring, ethical and ecological sensitivity and behavior, kindness and generosity, non-violence and peace, and to the extent that they enhance our capacities to respond to other human beings in a way that honors them as embodiments of the sacred, and enhances our capacities to respond to the earth and the universe with awe, wonder and radical amazement.

Other than the fact that they seem to be trying to do everything at once, there is some great stuff in there. Especially the new bottom line idea. Trying to get us away from the money and power focus of life to a much wider and more compassionate focus on people and their needs in the world. I also appreciate the statement about responding to human beings…as embodiments of the sacred…respond[ing] to the earth and the universe with awe, wonder, and radical amazement.

2. Challenging the misuse of religion, God and spirit by the Religious Right

Educating people of faith to the understanding that a serious commitment to God, religion and spirit should manifest in social activism aimed at peace, universal disarmament, social justice with a preferential option for the needs of the poor and the oppressed, a commitment to end poverty, hunger, homelessness, inadequate education and inadequate health care all around the world, and a commitment to nuclear non-proliferation, environmental protection and repair of the damage done to the planet by 150 years of environmentally irresponsible behavior in industrializing societies.

I touched on this earlier with the hypocrisy of the religious right in America today. How the right can say it has a focus on the things of God, etc but continue to refuse to raise the minimum wage, continue to focus on solving international problems through violence, continue to cut resources to low-income people, etc. NSP’s full covenant goes into some beautiful detail about this as well and their actions towards this.

3. Challenging the many anti-religious and anti-spiritual assumptions and behaviors that have increasingly become part of the liberal culture

Challenging as well the extreme individualism and me-firstism that permeate all parts of the global market culture. We will educate people in social change movements to carefully distinguish between their legitimate critiques of the Religious Right and their illegitimate generalizing of those criticisms to all religious or spiritual beliefs and practices. We will help social change activists and others in the liberal and progressive culture become more conscious of and less afraid to affirm their own inner spiritual yearnings and to reconstitute a visionary progressive social movement that incorporates the spiritual dimension, of which the loving, spiritually elevating and connecting aspects of religion has been one expression (but so has the group-in-fusion experience of the movements of the 30’s and the 60’s and the communitarian aspirations of many other efforts–social healing and health care, progressive summer camps, the wide appeal of service and service learning, the women’s spirituality movement etc).

This statement also resonated. It acknowledges the fact that spirituality is a vital part of the lives of people in our world. We’re not talking about secular humanism here, but instead on how a consistent spirituality can inform and build up a progressive movement in America and hopefully beyond.

Here’s a link to their larger covenant of their positions.

Powerful stuff in my opinion.