A fascinating tidbit that deserves a bit more airtime.

Why a Spiritual Advisor to President Bush Supports Obama

— Beliefnet.com

The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell is pastor of Windsor Village United Methodist Church, the largest United Methodist congregation in the nation. Often described as a ‘spiritual advisor’ to President George W. Bush, Caldwell introduced Bush at the 2000 Republican National Convention and delivered the benedictions at the 2001 and 2005 presidential inaugurations. He endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president in January.

Readers of the whole article will find some surprising things in here, including this minister’s take on the Rev. Wright:

Can you give an example of something Wright said that was “blown up” by the news media?

This whole G.D. America piece, that’s a great example. First of all, right after he says that, the next sentence, which they never play, says, “And that’s in the Bible.” Now, it’s not written that way in English, but the Hebraic expression basically says this: if America makes itself and views itself as God, and not Yahweh, or the Lord God Almighty as God, then America basically is committing adultery*, and then America is darning itself.

He never said “I would D. America.” He was saying that when the government begins to worship itself, then there is a price to be paid, and you basically fall into that category whether you want to or not.

*[blogger's note: Transcription error?  "idolatry" makes more sense here than "adultery"]

It sounds like you agree with the point he was making.

It’s not my role to agree or disagree with him, but I think it is my role to contextualize what, in fact, he was actually saying. No Christian that I know would agree that idolatry is acceptable to God, and clearly that’s a breach of the Ten Commandments, among other things. So, as I understand it, the point that Pastor Wright was making is that when America places itself–its own self in an idolatrous position, then you are basically positioning yourself for bad news….

And yes, this is the same minister that officiated last weekend at Jenna Bush’s wedding in Crawford, Texas.

Ran across this…. I like it.

krishnamoorthy6’s profile - StumbleUpon
Two Wolves

One evening an old Apache told his grandson about
a battle that goes on inside people.

He said, ‘My son, the battle is between two ‘wolves’
inside us all.

One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret,
greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority,
lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.

The other is good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity,
humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity,
truth, compassion and faith.’

The grandson thought about it for a minute, and then
asked his grandfather: ‘Which wolf wins?’

The old Cherokee simply replied, ‘The one you feed.’

Almost missed this tidbit from a neighboring blog.

Good for nothing « Tinsel Wing
Never put a conservative in office. It ought to be one of those no-brainer bromides that everyone learns at her mother’s knee. Right up there with “Never eat anything bigger than your head” or “Never start a land war in Asia.”

Before you all start shouting, go read the rest of the piece. It’s short. And I’ll even give away the punch line:

It’s not that conservatives are more evil than liberals, or more naturally corrupt. It’s that their philosophy creates a vacuum of motive the moment they begin to govern. And evil and corruption, dwelling nascently as they do in every human being, stand ever ready to rush into that vacuum.

Let’s put that into a form suitable for lessons at mother’s knee. Those who believe that government is good for nothing will use government for nothing good.

Of course, some of our most prominent conservatives of recent days don’t believe  that evil and corruption dwell nascently in every human being. They are insulted and offended at any suggestion that they or their associates can be identified with anything evil, and equally offended at any suggestion that those whom they call evil could have any teeny potential for what could be called good. In other words, our political world has been largely run in recent years by people who, seemingly, learned their sense of morality from comic books.

A new scientific breakthrough of the first order.

By R. Colin Johnson, EETimes
InformationWeek
April 30, 2008 02:17 PM

NowPublic

Back in 2004, a group of people who were very interested for partisan and ideological reasons in derailing the viability of John Kerry’s candidacy created a major distraction that was designed to do one thing, and history shows that by and large the purpose was accomplished. The design was to transform one of Kerry’s greatest strengths — his status as a decorated war hero — into a liability. The chosen means was the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,” who produced public information consisting of half-truths, distortions and untruths to cast an indelible shadow on the public perception of the candidate’s character. The tactic was successful in part because Kerry’s campaign was slow in refuting the half-truths and untruths, considering them beneath the dignity of a detailed response. By the time detailed responses became necessary, the damage was done, and the candidate never recovered. A tactic known as “swift-boating” entered the political lexicon.

I’d like to frame recent events along similar lines in the following fashion. This year, as political enemies of Barack Obama searched for a way to transform one of his greatest strengths into a liability, they found just the way to do it. Not being able to find a way to do him damage with respect to his message or his positions on issues, echoing the approach of the political enemies of a faithful public servant mentioned in Daniel 6:5, they began to turn to his associations, his identity as a practicing Christian in an active church, and must have spent many hours combing through the vast bulk of recorded sermons of his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, to find short clips that, when edited to greatest effect and made public, would do for Obama what the allegations of the Swift Boat group did for Kerry. (more…)

From some scribbled notes:

By scripture we are INFORMED
Of wondrous acts that God PERFORMED,
So that, no longer CONFORMED,
The church can be REFORMED,

And we — and through us the world — TRANSFORMED.

So, is it now a code word for “uppity”?

Just asking…..
More here.

Richard Rohr’s meditation for today.  I think it is particularly fitting on the 40th anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Resurrection      

Question of the day:    How do I join in the liberation of the victims and executioners?

The good news of the resurrection is not that the poor victims of this world will finally triumph over the executioners, while the executioners will be fittingly punished. That is our petty notion of justification.  If the resurrection is truly God’s great answer and God’s good news, then God is telling us that Jesus died and rose not only for the victims but also for the executioners. God is not just liberating the liberated and saving the saved.  The new righteousness, the good news that is too good, is that God is somehow seeking to free the executioners too. 

from Near Occasions of Grace

Over on the RedBlueChristian blog, our friend Andrew Jackson has offered “10 biblical guidelines” for how a Christian might engage in politics “without losing your soul”.  Here’s one of them:

RedBlueChristian
4 - Christians must always remember that our ultimate security is in Christ and in the unshakeable kingdom of God, no matter what presidential candidate or party wins (Hebrews 12:26-29). One of the dangers that many Christians seem to often fall into is that we begin to elevate the outcome of presidential elections to an apocalyptic status. In other words, if our presidential candidate or party does not win, we begin to see it as the end of the world.

I recommend the entire essay.

From the e-mail archives: Thought I’d revisit a response I gave to a thoughtful discussion starter back in 2004. I should first say that the writer of the original comment regularly provides fair-minded, well-thought, balanced answers to many difficult questions and actively encourages others to think things through and not just take his word as gold. It was in that spirit that I wrote this response. Here it is:

I have a comment about your answer to the question at this link:

http://www.seriousfaith.com/question_detail.asp?questionid=718 (”A Jehovah’s witness told me that they do not vote or do anything with the government. Does the bible teach us not to vote?…”)

It’s very important, when dealing with scriptural questions, especially on matters of some controversy, to keep in mind some principles, and proceed accordingly. I’ve never forgotten an old saw that I heard many years ago: “A text without a context is a pretext.” This cautions us from being too free with pulling isolated texts from different places, stringing them together in support of an idea, and calling the result biblical doctrine. Closer to home is an Old Testament principle that is affirmed in the New Testament: “By the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established.” A strict application of my first principle above will quickly reveal that this has to do with what constitutes valid testimony (on the part of an accuser) in a court of law, but I take it that this is also helpful in biblical understanding, since “in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.” Thirdly, we learn from the Revelator that “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy,” and from Peter (in his sermon to the household of Cornelius) that “to him [Jesus] all the prophets give witness.” and as Jesus says concerning the scriptures themselves, “It is they which testify of me.” I give you these principles, Brent, just so you can have at least an inkling of where I am coming from and on what basis I am thinking about these scriptural matters, since I will be disagreeing with you on certain things even though I also agree with you on many things and enjoy reading your devotional.

Now, in your response to the questioner, you provide a serious and reasoned answer with regard to voting, and bring in, additionally, some material of your own that the questioner did not ask about. Nevertheless your way of framing the question is legitimate and open-ended: “”what is our duty to the government and the authorities as Christians?” What I want to get you to think about more closely is whether or not a single answer covers all of the categories that you then identify: voting, saying the pledge of allegiance, serving in the military and general civic issues. You cite three passages (Romans 13:1-7, Matthew 22:21, and 1 Peter 2:13-17) to make your point (fulfilling the “two or three witnesses” requirement; good for you!); all of them deal with general issues of whether or not to submit to what is a clearly unjust, pagan government that is persecuting or oppressing the people of God. We know this by applying the context test: in this case, the historical context which is known to us. It is within this same context that you provide yourself a bit of balance with a fourth reference (Acts 5:29). I want to look at the textual context of each of these, one at a time, and draw some observations. (more…)