early sign of what we may be facing

My sister tipped me off to what is happening in Ada, Oklahoma. I think that as it becomes increasingly clear that Obama will be the next president, that some pus is going to seep out of our nation's racist wound.

http://www.koco.com/news/17724300/detail.html

Silly Season!

Because of all the financial panic going on, I thought I would click on The Drudge Report to see what was being drudged up. Here is an example of silly season in the world of politics. Cindy McCain, bless her heart, accused Barack Obama of running the dirtiest political in the 232 years of American history, including 44 presidential campaigns. To their credit, the Obama campaign has not responded to this accusation. Read about here... http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93N50180&show_article=1

The October Surprise

I believe that the financial meltdown is the October surprise. Maybe something else will happen between now and election day. But this is it, and it seems to be playing to Obama's strength. I think it is increasingly likely that Obama will be elected, and will have the pleasure of inheriting a once in a generation economic mess to cap off a long list of newly created or exacerbated problems left from the Bush administration. Bush, by the way, has pretty much checked out and is counting down the days to his freedom from Washington and return to the ranch.

If there was ever a time in my life where we needed a president that can communicate confidence and calm, and inspire people to come together and work hard for the future, it's now. And I am confident that Obama can be the communicator that is needed. I've consistently believed that the power of the president to fix things is severely limited. The president doesn't set policies or pass laws. But the president can set the tone. The president can conjur up a compelling vision. And a good tone is what we need. Obama can deliver it. I believe Obama is in the same league, communication wise, as Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy, F.D.R. and Abraham Lincoln.

Of course, only time will tell.

A brief history lesson

Go to www.keatingeconomics.com for a brief walk down memory lane to the S&L Crisis, Charles Keating and the Keating 5.

the sin of pollution

The ecumenical patriarch Bartholomew has been called the "Green Bishop." There is a 10 minute video about these unique symposiums Bartholomew has led on board ships that cruise through bodies of water that are experiencing threats due to pollution. The video is a little dated. You will get to see Pope John Paul, I believe only a few months before his passing. I think I read somewhere that next year Bartholomew will hold one of these symposiums while cruising down the Mississippi River.

www.goarch.org

two weekends of camping

Second weekend in a row going camping with the boys. No rain and cool temperatures have been perfect camping weather. If I can figure out how to transfer pictures from my cell phone to the computer, I'll post a couple things we experienced. This weekend's cub scout camp was next to St. Rita's School for the Deaf. I-75 was in eye shot and ear shot. This is what you call "urban camping." We had a great camp fire program. The executive director of the Freedom Center was there to tell his story about his family. His family were enslaved by Col. Westmoreland. There were also two actors who portrayed a man who helped escaped slaves through the Underground and another man who talked about being born a slave and able to be free. It made a good impression on my boys. The morning was bb guns and bows and arrows. We also had some Civil War reenactment folks who shot off a cannon and some muskets and showed off some artifacts. We were all done before lunch. After two weekends in a row, everyone is camped out.

It's Been Awhile

It has been a long time. But, I thought the first of a month, in this case, October, would be an excuse to get back to blogging. Happens to be the beginning of the Jewish New Year, so, why not.

Anyway, politics has been crazy and religion, at least for me, has been intense. I'm tired of the politics and can't wait for the election to be over. As for religion...I have been exploring Orthodoxy with great earnestness the past several months. I have even been attending an Orthodoxy 101 class at the Greek Orthodox church only a few miles from where I live. Check it out at http://www.holytrinity.oh.goarch.org/ . I talked to Fr. Bill about the core of my predicament, which is if it is possible to be a United Methodist and an Orthodox Christian at the same time. Unfortunately, he said I can't have it both ways.

I am committed to the United Methodist church and do not consider my ordination invalid or my place as a pastor in the United Methodist church as the wrong place for me. I believe God still wills me to be a United Methodist pastor. And yet, I remain very drawn to the fullness of orthodoxy, particularly its worship life and richness of its tradition. My spirit is strongly fed by my experience of orthodox worship and prayer. I am feeling pulled in that direction. So, does God want me to remain as a pastor in the UMC, or is God beckoning me to leave my ancestral home and go to another land that He will show me?

As I move into the fourth decade of my life, I feel myself also moving into a new place in my spiritual journey. Destination at the moment is unknown.

This is why Obama would be a great president

After reading a copy of this speech posted on CSpan, I decided to link the video to my blog. Once again, Obama proves why he would make a great president, if your primary criteria of president is one whose rhetoric can bring people together rather than tear people apart.

http://my.barackobama.com/hisownwords

A little laugher

http://video.236.com/services/player/bcpid1452197343?bctid=1452258048

A disturbing interpretation

I came across an op-ed from the NYTimes that offered a disturbing interpretation of Clinton's "Red Telephone" ad. The author does make the disclaimer at the end of the piece that his interpretation is likely not what Clinton or her handlers intended. Nevertheless, it is an opinion that is worthy of thought, and touches on a reality, that, once again, is not really being discussed: the truth that in America it is always about race.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/opinion/11patterson.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=orlando+patterson&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Suggestions for Obama

Interesting blog entry below regarding how Obama can defeat Clinton by simply focusing on defeating McCain, since Clinton and McCain are both of the "war establishment."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/obamas-run-against-mccai_b_90538.html

an excellent slant on the Democratic battle

Stephanie Dunning writes an unconventional take on the Democratic battle that I believe is in the realm of possibility, and is very encouraging.

How Hillary will Help Barack Obama Win the Presidency

Rightnow the prevailing logic in the media is that a protracted Democraticbattle for the nomination will weaken whatever candidate ultimatelywins. But if the contest for the nomination goes until August 25th whenthe Democrats have their national convention, things may not be as badas everyone portends.

There is a funny way, in fact, that a protracted battle might actually help the eventual democratic nominee, who is Barack Obama. Jonathan Alter over at Newsweekhas already shown that no matter what Clinton does in the next 11primary contests, she cannot overtake Obama's lead in pledgeddelegates. The only way for her to win is to claim a majority of theremaining superdelegates, which is unlikely given Obama's lead in thepledged delegate count and the popular vote. Howard Dean has alreadystated that the rules will not be changed--Michigan and Floridadelegates will not be seated at the convention. Furthermore, shouldsuperdelegates go against the will of the people as expressed in thecaucuses and primaries, many predict that there will be such rancor inthe party that Hillary would be guaranteed to lose as mass numbers ofDemocrats defect in disgust. This fact is not lost on the party"elders," Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Al Gore. Nor is it lost on thesuperdelegates. So--barring a Clinton theft of the nomination (they might try, but I do not think they would prevail. Everyone is predicting that if this happens, there will be a riot in the party.), Obama will be the Democratic nominee.

But this will not be settled before August 25th, because HillaryClinton will go all the way to the convention hoping to win it via thesuperdelegates. She won't. So on August 28th, Obama will be announcedas the nominee.

Thisis actually good news. Though Clinton is running an incredibly negativecampaign against Obama, and many Democrats complain that this iscreating talking points and sound bites for the Republicans, there justwon't be enough time for the Republicans to thwart Obama's momentumbefore the November 4th election day.

Considerthis--the mainstream media will spend at least 2 weeks spinning theresults of the convention and the fallout and/or aftermath of Clinton'sdefeat or the Obama-Clinton ticket. (Obama will undoubtedly bepressured by party insiders to offer Clinton the VP spot; if he does,she is certain to accept. But for strategic reasons, they should delaythat announcement for as long as they can. More on that below. And, inmy view, and I'll write about this in a later post, rather than take onHillary as VP, he should choose Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.)

That getsus to September 15th. All of the usual attacks against Obama will havebeen exhausted thanks to Clinton by then--the xenophobic smears, theRezko flap, "NAFTA-gate," and covert racism will all be "old hat" byAugust. They would have played those stories as far as they could goand Obama will undoubtedly get better at responding to and deflectingsuch tactics as he has proven again and again his ability to adapt tothe changing political discourse. The Republicans will have no "smokinggun" to pull out in late August/early September when Obama is announcedas the democratic nominee.

Meanwhile,John McCain will be completely off center between now and then as heattempts to attack two different candidates. His opposition to the bothof them will be diffuse and, hence, weak. If you listened to hisvictory speech last night in Ohio, he attempted to criticize bothBarack and Hillary by talking about "divisive politics." That doesn'treally land a blow against one or the other; his energy against hisopposition will be undermined by the battle between Barack and Hillary.Furthermore, the media will continue to obsess over the Democraticnomination since there are primary contests every few weeks. In otherwords, no one will be paying much attention to John McCain or hisrhetoric. He won't be "the story." Barack and Hillary will. That isactually good for Barack, because it means he stays in the publicimagination while McCain fades to the background. Remember the oldadage that there's no such thing as bad publicity? This is somewhat thecase for Barack since it is virtually impossible for him to lose thenomination now.

OnSeptember 1st, John McCain will have to rouse himself from a longsiesta. A debate will be scheduled. How fast could they get that up andrunning? Let's be generous and say they agree to a debate one weeklater. The Obama campaign should delay the announcement of the VP spot,if they can, for about a week or two. They should schedule aPresidential debate, then release the VP announcement. If it isHillary, the media will go bonkers and talk about it endlessly for daysand days. That will shift the focus away from whatever negative attacksthe right launches against Obama. The right is already incredibly worried about an Obama candidacy. Rush Limbaugh has recently argued that ""If Obama is the nominee, we are doomed."(There is widespread belief that Obama lost Texas because of Limbaugh'sappeal to Republicans to vote for Hillary in order to knock Obama outof the race. The same is true in Ohio.) As of right now, the rightisn't really sure how to take Obama down. And Hillary is doing a goodjob of "vetting" Obama before the general. If he survives, and he will,there won't be anything left for the Republicans come the late date ofSeptember.

SoMcCain and Obama will have their first presidential debate say, around,September 10th. The post-debate spin will occupy another news weekwhile Obama and his VP go out on the stump. Speeches and record-turnoutrallies will occupy another week or two. There will be attacks andcounter-attacks. We are now into October. The Republicans will bescrambling to find a new scandal or angle to run against Barack. Let'ssay it takes them a week to produce a few racist and libeloustelevision ads. We are now at October 7th, with less than 4 weeks untilelection day. Obama will respond in kind--another week. And, if Clintonis the VP, she will go dirty against McCain and the lobbyist story willtake on new life and Vicki Isberg will emerge from hiding to tell herstory. McCainmight even make a gaffe or two and give the Obama campaign plenty ofammunition. Things might take a turn for the worse in Iraq and the Demticket will ride hard on that.

Then there will have to be a vicepresidential debate. Another media week. Then, the media will spend itstime preparing for election day and historicizing the "historic"democractic race. Now we are to November 4th. Withonly 1.5 months to take Barack Obama down, the Republicans will behard-pressed to make a cohesive case, to deliver their message withenough power to sway an already well established Barack Obama base. Bythe time the Democratic nomination is decided, voters will knowBarack's agenda and platform almost by heart. That is good for Barackbecause the more voters know him, the more he wins. The more he is ableto discuss his policies, the better he does. Hewould have been fully "vetted" by the Clinton attack machine and therewill very slim pickings for the Republicans come September 1st. Whethershe gets the VP spot or not, Clinton will have to endorse Obama andappease the voters dedicated to her. If she doesn't do this, then hercareer is essentially over--so she will do it. And Obama will win thePresidency.

Sowe need Hillary to stay in the race and make it a protracted battle.Barack Obama cannot be defeated and the longer the media rhetoric isabout the Democratic nomination, the less time the Republicans have toformulate a cohesive strategy against Barack. The longer there are twoDemocrats that could potentially win the nomination, the less ableMcCain and the Republicans will be to come up with "swiftboating"television ads or smear the Democratic candidate. With both of them inthe race, McCain's target is always moving so he'll never be able toland a direct blow. So let Hillary stick around. It will just make it that much easier for Barack to beat McCain in November.

Think this is a crazy theory? No less of a political mudslinging genuis Karl Rove writes "Along Democratic battle doesn't automatically help the Republicans. Infact, it hurts the Republicans in certain ways. Mr. McCain becomes lessinteresting to the media. Stories about him move off page one and growsmaller. TV coverage becomes spotty and short. There are not yet bigand deep and unbridgeable differences between the two Democrats andthere is plenty of time to heal most wounds (except, perhaps among theyoung if Mrs. Clinton were to win). Continuing to build a profile andlay the predicate for the short fall campaign against either Democratbecomes the challenge for Mr. McCain while the Democrats battle it out." Predictions that the party will be torn asunder and that Obama is sure to lose in the fall are just spin and nothing else.

Where is your heart?

Below is the talk I gave at this evening's Ash Wednesday service:


Many of us think about giving something up for Lent. Some of us actually do. Maybe you decide to give up chocolate, or coffee, or meat. Maybe you will skip lunch and instead spend the time reading your Bible or praying. Or, instead of giving up something, you decide to take something on: get up a half hour earlier to pray, read a chapter a day from the Bible, whatever. I think we all would agree that we should do more of something, should pray more, read scripture more, give more to those in need; or we should do less of something, less food, less television, less caffeine.
The question I want us to consider this evening is this: what is our motivation for taking on a Lenten discipline? Why are we doing this? Perhaps there are several motivations. One is because of a desire to be more devoted to God or more intentional about living out the Christian life, or to nurture your spirit. Maybe there's some guilt you want to alleviate. In other words, you want to prove yourself to God that you are committed. I'm not saying you want to "look good" before God. But you do feel an obligation to let God know you're serious. Maybe there is a little thought to how you appear before others, fulfilling perceived expectations. In other words, since the conventional expectation is for a Christian to take on a spiritual discipline during Lent, you don't want to be seen as a slouch by others. You want to fulfill the expectation, to show others that you're serious, that you are a committed Christian because you are taking on something or giving up something.
I want us to probe two of these possible motivations for taking on a spiritual discipline during Lent: one being to show God you are serious, the other being to show others that you are serious. And I want us to consider these two motives in light of this passage from Matthew.
This is a passage that is read just about every Ash Wednesday. It's a familiar part of Jesus' sermon on the mount. There is a formula in this passage. You have the hypocrites, who are the Pharisees, who do their pious acts in public for everyone to see how pious they are. They get their reward, the applause and admiration of others. But then you have the alternative, to do your pious acts in secret, and God, who sees what you do, will reward you in heaven.
I want to push this a little farther. First, on the issue of giving help to the needy in public or in secret. Let's ask a practical question. If you see someone in need, and you have the capacity to help them, but the person is out in public for all to see, what should you do? Should you try to help them on the sly, hoping no one sees you? Or do you not take the chance and just walk on by, regretting that it's not possible for you to help this person in a private way? Why would you refuse to help a person, just because someone might see you? Why limit yourself to only helping people in a private, anonymous way? Do you see what I'm getting at? Is it the technique that Jesus is challenging, or is it the motivation of the one who is giving?
I mean, in reality, it's more likely that someone will see you when you help someone in need, at the minimum, the person who you are helping. Helping others in need is generally a public act, not a private one. So, is the issue really about helping others in public, or is it a matter of motivation? I say, Jesus is not challenging helping others in public, but in one's motivation for doing so.
Part of this is because Jesus chooses to refer to the Pharisees as hypocrites. A hypocrite is someone who wears a mask, so that they appear to others one way, but in truth they are something else. Here, the Pharisees appear as compassionate and merciful to those in need. But in reality, they are exploiting the needy person to promote themselves before others. They are objectifying the needy person. They really don't care about the person, they really aren't compassionate and merciful. Instead, they see the needy as an opportunity to promote themselves. In reality, they are not full of compassion, but of vanity. Their external appearance is not consistent with their internal motive.
On the other hand, the person who helps without making a show of it, without letting the right hand know what the left is doing, or, in the words of Hampton Keathley, "when you give with your right hand, don't wave your left hand in the air," there is obviously a lack of concern about how you appear before others. Your motive is not to look good before others, it is not to exploit the needy to promote yourself before the eyes of others. You aren't thinking about getting the approval and applause of others, just helping is a good enough reward for you. And when the person says "thank you", you humbly reply, "glad I can help, don't worry about it, good luck." This all sounds good.
But, let me ask another question. When you help another person, are you mindful that God is watching you? Does the thought come to your mind that God is watching, so you should help this person? Do you think about earning another star in your crown, or proving again to God how good and sincere you are? Are you hoping that God noticed what you just did? If that is the case, then how is your motive much different from the hypocritical Pharisee? In this case, the needy person is being objectified again. Helping the other person is seen as an opportunity to "look good" before God, to prove to God that you are committed, and hopefully will be repaid accordingly when you get to heaven. The needy person is a means for your own promotion, not before others, but before God. That doesn't seem right. Can it be that helping another person with your eye on whether God sees you or not is just as sinful as helping another with your eye on whether others see you? Is it two sides of the same thing? Is not both motives essentially focused on self-vanity, concern either with how you appear before others or before God, a different audience, but the same motive, how you appear?
Think about this. Why do we take on spiritual disciplines at Lent? Is it to show others how sincere we are? Is it to show God how sincere we are? What is motivating us to show our sincerity? Are we that concerned with how others see us, or even how God sees us? Is there an alternative motive, of taking on spiritual disciplines without regard for what others see of us or even what God sees of us? Can we take on spiritual disciplines, help the needy, pray, fast, with no concern for what others think or even what God thinks about what we are doing? Is it possible to take on spiritual disciplines, with no regard for yourself?
Jesus gets at this dynamic of not being mindful of yourself, how you appear before others and God in Matthew 25. There, Jesus welcomes in those who fed him, and clothed him, and visited him, for they did it to the least of these. And they did not know they had done it to Jesus. I would suggest that they were not thinking about how they appeared before others, nor did they have in mind, "Hey, we're helping Jesus here!" No, they simply saw a person in need and helped them. Period. No thought about how that made them look before God and others. They just helped.
So, I ask the question again. What is our motivation for taking on spiritual disciplines in Lent? Can we honestly claim that we just do it, for no other reason than just we can? We're not thinking about how we might appear before others. We're not thinking about how we might appear before God. We are just doing it, because we can. We are helping others, because we can. We are getting up earlier to pray and read scripture, because we can. We are fasting, because we can.
I submit to you that this attitude, of living the Christian life, not for the sake of appearance before others, or to prove your sincerity before God, but just because you can, is a freeing attitude. It is not self-conscious at all. Instead, it is courageous, confident, and empowering. It is applying the truth about who you are. You are a child of God. You are a Christian. So, you live like one. You don't have to prove to anyone that you are a Smith, or an Orr, or a Brown. This is who you are. It's your name. You are a child of God. You shouldn't worry what others think of you, other's opinions don't change the fact that you are a child of God. You don't earn the right or privilege to be a child of God, for God has made you His child. You simply are. So, live like it. Be who you are. Take authority as a child of God to live like a child of God. You don't have to prove yourself to anyone or to God. Let me say it again, you have nothing to prove. That is an attitude that is freeing and empowering.
The last part of this passage is the proverb that Jesus quotes, "where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Where is your treasure? There you will find your heart, your mind. Is your treasure locked up in a box? A literal box with a key where you have laid aside money, awards, plaques, degrees? Is it locked up in a box of imposed expectations, of narrow piety, and closed ideas and possibilities? If so, your heart and your mind are locked up in a box.
But what if your treasure is in heaven? What if your reward is a deferred payment? You aren't going to see it, it's out of sight and out of mind, it's some hoped for thing, that you just have faith that you will receive? You aren't thinking about it. It's just not factoring in to what your doing in your life. If that's the case, then your heart and mind are not locked up in a box, but in a wide open space, like heaven. You are free to just live your life, with no thought of what you might get, what reward you might receive, what accolades and admiration might come your way. You're just living your life as a child of God. That's it.
I invite us to give up something for Lent. I invite us to give up self-regard. I invite us to give up thinking about ourselves, particularly how you appear before others or even before God. I invite us to give up preconceived or externally imposed notions of what a good, sincere Christian does. I invite us to give up our locked boxes, and instead to step out into a wider space, to allow the Holy Spirit to guide our thoughts and actions, our decisions and behaviors, and to simply live our lives with no regard for ourselves. I invite us, in fact, to die to ourselves, and discover new life in Christ.

Yes We Can

This link was sent to me and I enjoyed the video, particularly the star power.

Kevin

http://my.barackobama.com/yeswecan

reflection on the republican debate

It's interesting that the Republican candidates seem to be thinking that, in fact, hoping that Hillary Clinton gets the nomination for the Democrats. They seem to think that the idea of having Bill and Hillary run the country is just not palatable for the majority of the country. I particularly took note of what Mitt Romney said. He essentially said that Hillary and Bill have been in Washington for too long, and sending them back and thinking you will get a different result is foolish. Of course, he is thinking about himself, the "self-made" millionaire and governor. But I also thought that was a good plug for Barack Obama.

I'm trying to multi-task right now: listening to the debate and reading Obama's "Blueprint for America." He's got some great ideas. Check it out.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

politics and religion in a sermon

I enjoyed hearing Barack Obama preach at Ebenezer Baptist Church last Sunday. Great words. And a nice skirting of the fine line between church and state.
I also noted the comment he made about how the media sensationalizes division, including the tit-for-tat between campaigns, which was on full display last night at the Democratic debate, which John Edwards took full advantage of.

http://my.barackobama.com/KingChurch

I just finished watching Ben Bernake, the Fed. Reserve chair, address a house committee regarding the state of the economy. I am so impressed with his clear thinking. But, I tell you, what a job. Financial crises come and go. I believe that as a country we will make it through this crisis. But, I really worry about the longterm sustainbility of our country. When you combine the aging of the population, our out of control government spending, crushing personal debt, things really do have to change quickly. And I really do believe that the wealthiest must pay more. We must spend more money on public works and infrastructure. We have got to stop spending so much money on defense. And my generation will just have to grind it out and hope that our grandkids have it better.
The other thing that crossed my mind when listening to this hearing is the reassurance that there is a lot more to life than the economy. Times can be really rough. But a meaningful life can be lived regardless of a country's or family's financial position.
Interesting time we live in.

first blog post

Here I go. I've been thinking about blogging for quite a while and have been hesitant because I was concerned about the time it would take. But, I've decided to just go for it. I've got something to say. And I want to hear other's thoughts. So, why not give it a try.