Paul Harvey
Laurie Goodstein, "Without a Pastor of His Own, Obama Turns to Five," discusses what happened when Obama, unlike our own Jon Pahl, was no longer jammin' with Jeremiah Wright. My favorite passage:
None of these pastors are affiliated with the religious right, though several are quite conservative theologically. One of them, the Rev. Joel C. Hunter, the pastor of a conservative megachurch in Florida, was branded a turncoat by some leaders of the Christian right when he began to speak out on the need to stop global warming.
Heavens, wouldn't want to be talking about that there global warming thing.
On another note: Gary Laderman takes aim at the ARIS study (reported on here a couple of days ago), in "Sacred and PRofane: ARIS Survey Gets Religion, Misses Boat." Then, Mark Silk responds to him here. The exchange shows both the limitations as well as the utility of religious adherence surveys.
Tampilkan postingan dengan label religion and the 2008 election. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label religion and the 2008 election. Tampilkan semua postingan
Minggu, 15 Maret 2009
Kamis, 12 Maret 2009
Jon Pahl Jams With Jeremiah Wright
Jammin' with Jeremiah Wright
By Jon Pahl
I sat in on the alto sax with the excellent choir at the Mt. Airy Church of God in Christ last night as Jeremiah Wright, Jr. preached. The infamous pastor has not noticeably tempered his rhetoric. But in between my own improvisations, it occurred to me that understanding Wright as an artist can explain in part the flap that led to his painful distancing from former parishioner, Barack Obama, about which I've written previously on these pages (http://usreligion.blogspot.com/2008/03/jon-pahl-on-jeremiah-wright.html).
Wright is an improvisational artist. And sometimes, when you improvise, you hit wrong notes. But, more often, when you're as good at jammin' as Jeremiah Wright is, you create something new, good, beautiful, and true.
Wright speaks truth to power like no preacher in America today. Countless sharp insights peppered his 40 minute sermon on Matthew's story of the Three Wise Men, whom Wright called--in a sermon delivered as part of our Seminary's "Preaching with Power" series--"scholars." The story traces Herod's attempt to capture and kill the baby Jesus by enlisting the "scholars" as unwitting accomplices to Herod's paranoid megalomania.
Wright repeated the basic point he drew out of this story several times: "Governmental policies that put politics before people are harmful." It was not difficult to hear in this sermonic theme some of Wright's own pain at his treatment by Barack Obama.
Wright's sharpest words were directed at the United States. Herod's genocide was just the logical extension of his "Homeland Security" policy, Wright offered. In a line that drew laughs from anyone who has had to deal with ridiculous TSA policies in airports, Wright suggested that the real name of the policy should be "Homeland Stupidity."
Wright compared the Roman Empire, in which Herod was a "puppet," to the British Empire, as examples of how being an imperial power "makes you think you're in charge of other people's lives." He then went on to riff that we also need to look carefully at the policies of "The United Empire of America."
He backed up that rhetoric by tracking a bit of 20th century history, notably the annexation of Hawaii and Alaska and the burgeoning number of U.S. military bases around the globe, and then documenting the methods of this empire--a "preemptive" war that "should never have been waged," costing the lives of over 4300 "young Americans," and "torture." These imperial practices coincided with governmental policies that leave millions "with no healthcare," and that leave millions of black and brown children behind with no decent education.
Finally, Wright turned to Herod's attempt to use religion for political purposes, by bringing the "scholars" to Jerusalem. "Beware when politicians call a bunch of preachers together," Wright suggested, "you got some faith-based foolishness about to begin."
But in the last third of his sermon, Wright turned to gospel. "I love the Word of God," he riffed. "It tells us about lying politicians, it tells us about Empire, and it always tells us about a loving God who gets the last word."
That word was "worship." "The government is out there," Wright preached, "and the government isn't going to change, but in here we worship, and worship changes us!"
The story of the three scholars ends with them going home "by another way" to avoid Herod's spies. Wright suggested that when we worship--when we come into the presence of the living God like the scholars did at Bethlehem, "we're changed. We go home by a different way."
God changes things, Wright concluded. The bitter becomes sweet. The curse becomes a blessing. Obstacles become opportunities. Crucifixion becomes resurrection.
That Lenten theme fit perfectly Wright's own biography. For all the abuse he has received at the hands of the press, in popular opinion, and even from his President, Jeremiah Wright is still jammin'.
By Jon Pahl
I sat in on the alto sax with the excellent choir at the Mt. Airy Church of God in Christ last night as Jeremiah Wright, Jr. preached. The infamous pastor has not noticeably tempered his rhetoric. But in between my own improvisations, it occurred to me that understanding Wright as an artist can explain in part the flap that led to his painful distancing from former parishioner, Barack Obama, about which I've written previously on these pages (http://usreligion.blogspot.com/2008/03/jon-pahl-on-jeremiah-wright.html).
Wright is an improvisational artist. And sometimes, when you improvise, you hit wrong notes. But, more often, when you're as good at jammin' as Jeremiah Wright is, you create something new, good, beautiful, and true.
Wright speaks truth to power like no preacher in America today. Countless sharp insights peppered his 40 minute sermon on Matthew's story of the Three Wise Men, whom Wright called--in a sermon delivered as part of our Seminary's "Preaching with Power" series--"scholars." The story traces Herod's attempt to capture and kill the baby Jesus by enlisting the "scholars" as unwitting accomplices to Herod's paranoid megalomania.
Wright repeated the basic point he drew out of this story several times: "Governmental policies that put politics before people are harmful." It was not difficult to hear in this sermonic theme some of Wright's own pain at his treatment by Barack Obama.
Wright's sharpest words were directed at the United States. Herod's genocide was just the logical extension of his "Homeland Security" policy, Wright offered. In a line that drew laughs from anyone who has had to deal with ridiculous TSA policies in airports, Wright suggested that the real name of the policy should be "Homeland Stupidity."
Wright compared the Roman Empire, in which Herod was a "puppet," to the British Empire, as examples of how being an imperial power "makes you think you're in charge of other people's lives." He then went on to riff that we also need to look carefully at the policies of "The United Empire of America."
He backed up that rhetoric by tracking a bit of 20th century history, notably the annexation of Hawaii and Alaska and the burgeoning number of U.S. military bases around the globe, and then documenting the methods of this empire--a "preemptive" war that "should never have been waged," costing the lives of over 4300 "young Americans," and "torture." These imperial practices coincided with governmental policies that leave millions "with no healthcare," and that leave millions of black and brown children behind with no decent education.
Finally, Wright turned to Herod's attempt to use religion for political purposes, by bringing the "scholars" to Jerusalem. "Beware when politicians call a bunch of preachers together," Wright suggested, "you got some faith-based foolishness about to begin."
But in the last third of his sermon, Wright turned to gospel. "I love the Word of God," he riffed. "It tells us about lying politicians, it tells us about Empire, and it always tells us about a loving God who gets the last word."
That word was "worship." "The government is out there," Wright preached, "and the government isn't going to change, but in here we worship, and worship changes us!"
The story of the three scholars ends with them going home "by another way" to avoid Herod's spies. Wright suggested that when we worship--when we come into the presence of the living God like the scholars did at Bethlehem, "we're changed. We go home by a different way."
God changes things, Wright concluded. The bitter becomes sweet. The curse becomes a blessing. Obstacles become opportunities. Crucifixion becomes resurrection.
That Lenten theme fit perfectly Wright's own biography. For all the abuse he has received at the hands of the press, in popular opinion, and even from his President, Jeremiah Wright is still jammin'.
Kamis, 29 Januari 2009
Facts, Fundamentals, and Foreign Policy
Editor's note: in the rush of early semester activities, I failed to post in a timely manner this guest contribution from Jeffrey Scholes, who is finishing his PhD at Denver University. So, although a bit late for the news cycle, here is his take on Hillary Clinton and what constitutes a faith-based foreign policy.
___________________________________________
Facts, Fundamentals and Foreign Policy
by Jeffrey Scholes
Hillary Clinton’s confirmation hearing for Secretary of State was notable not because there was much doubt in the outcome but for what she said. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99290981&ft=1&f=1003
In it we find not so much a brazen, novel path to be forged by the new administration into foreign lands but more a statement of contrast to the approach of the Bush administration.
Here’s a quote from Clinton: “The president-elect and I believe that foreign policy must be based on a marriage of principles and pragmatism, not rigid ideology. On facts and evidence, not emotion or prejudice. Our security, our vitality, and our ability to lead in today's world oblige us to recognize the overwhelming fact of our interdependence.”
On the surface, heads nod unconsciously to this statement. Yet it is code for, “The Bush administration acted with emotion and prejudice fueled by a rigid ideology in a spirit of utter American independence.” She is largely echoing Obama, especially on the “facts and evidence” part that is based on the popular belief that the Bush administration deliberately glossed over facts and evidence (lack of WMD in Iraq) with the aid of a neo-con ideology that pushed the declaration of war.
Several thoughts: On one level, this point of contrast made by Clinton is overstated. Facts and evidence, of course, mattered to the Bush administration—it is nature of the interpretation that bothers the left. But no one is naïve enough to think that the Obama administration will only deal with raw, unmediated facts and evidence. It will interpret on an ideological grid too. In addition, the other theme of Clinton’s hearing is that there will be a restoration of American values regards foreign policy (diplomacy not commands, interrogation without torture, etc.)—a card from generally played off of the Republican deck.
Most interesting about the “just the facts, ma’am” rhetoric is that it plays on a hundred and fifty year historical divide between Evangelicals and liberal Christians/secular modernists. With evolution forcing each group into separate camps in the later 19th c., the “facts” of evolution were largely subordinated or dismissed altogether by Evangelicals and later fundamentalists in favor of acting on a clear moral conscience. The “world” came be identified with scientific facts and its burgeoning ideology when set of principles that can guide action was all that was necessary. Then, the external results, which translate quickly into facts, are far less important than the internal foundation off of which decisions were made. It is this “internal moral conscience vs. external facts” that constitutes the core of Clinton’s remarks and speaks to frustration of those on the left when Bush defends results by saying, “I merely acted on principle.”
___________________________________________
Facts, Fundamentals and Foreign Policy
by Jeffrey Scholes
Hillary Clinton’s confirmation hearing for Secretary of State was notable not because there was much doubt in the outcome but for what she said. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99290981&ft=1&f=1003
In it we find not so much a brazen, novel path to be forged by the new administration into foreign lands but more a statement of contrast to the approach of the Bush administration.
Here’s a quote from Clinton: “The president-elect and I believe that foreign policy must be based on a marriage of principles and pragmatism, not rigid ideology. On facts and evidence, not emotion or prejudice. Our security, our vitality, and our ability to lead in today's world oblige us to recognize the overwhelming fact of our interdependence.”
On the surface, heads nod unconsciously to this statement. Yet it is code for, “The Bush administration acted with emotion and prejudice fueled by a rigid ideology in a spirit of utter American independence.” She is largely echoing Obama, especially on the “facts and evidence” part that is based on the popular belief that the Bush administration deliberately glossed over facts and evidence (lack of WMD in Iraq) with the aid of a neo-con ideology that pushed the declaration of war.
Several thoughts: On one level, this point of contrast made by Clinton is overstated. Facts and evidence, of course, mattered to the Bush administration—it is nature of the interpretation that bothers the left. But no one is naïve enough to think that the Obama administration will only deal with raw, unmediated facts and evidence. It will interpret on an ideological grid too. In addition, the other theme of Clinton’s hearing is that there will be a restoration of American values regards foreign policy (diplomacy not commands, interrogation without torture, etc.)—a card from generally played off of the Republican deck.
Most interesting about the “just the facts, ma’am” rhetoric is that it plays on a hundred and fifty year historical divide between Evangelicals and liberal Christians/secular modernists. With evolution forcing each group into separate camps in the later 19th c., the “facts” of evolution were largely subordinated or dismissed altogether by Evangelicals and later fundamentalists in favor of acting on a clear moral conscience. The “world” came be identified with scientific facts and its burgeoning ideology when set of principles that can guide action was all that was necessary. Then, the external results, which translate quickly into facts, are far less important than the internal foundation off of which decisions were made. It is this “internal moral conscience vs. external facts” that constitutes the core of Clinton’s remarks and speaks to frustration of those on the left when Bush defends results by saying, “I merely acted on principle.”
Selasa, 20 Januari 2009
The Inaugural Speech: Religion's Role in the 'New Era of Responsibility"
Religion's Role in the "New Era of Responsibility"
by Jon Pahl
Barack Obama's inaugural speech signaled a fascinating new twist on an old role for religion in American culture. Platitudes of civil religious discourse, exploited so effectively by recent administrations--"sacrifice," "God's gift of freedom," and the ritual invocation of God's blessing on America--were present, but muted. Obama's chief theme was that religions provide people with spiritual strength to be responsible citizens; to work for the common good.
This was not a speech about mystical union with some millennial destiny. Indeed, Obama's clear articulation that "God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny" means that history is up to us. What America will be depends upon what we do, not what some hidden hand might provide.
This was a speech about the spirituality of work. "What is required of us," the 44th President intoned, "is a new era of responsibility--a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task." The President here argued that it is through our common work that humans find spiritual fulfillment, this side of eternity.
No less than ten times Obama invoked "work," "works," or "workers." "Everywhere we look, there is work to be done." It is not in "worn out dogmas" that one can find the American spirit, he asserted, but "the faith and determination of the American people" is evident in "the kindness to take in a stranger . . . the selflessness of workers . . . [a] firefighter's courage." "Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America."
The last line--an oblique reference to a Langston Hughes poem, might seem to invoke the old Horatio Alger version of the Protestant ethic. In fact, Obama's religious foundation was intentionally pluralistic. 'We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus--and non-believers." Such a "patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness." But if and when people of faith commit to work together with unbelievers toward a vision of a more just and virtuous common good, we might see how "old hatreds shall someday pass;" how "lines of tribe shall soon dissolve;" how "our common humanity shall reveal itself;" and how "America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace."
There is in such a vision plenty of the old American millennialism. But the stronger voice was this practical assertion: "greatness is never given. It must be earned." And this pragmatic question: it is "not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works."
The world Barack Obama addressed with this speech was not just the American nation and its future. Invoking George Washington's words at Valley Forge, it was "the future world" broadly envisioned that he had in mind. And that meant that Americans needed to "set aside childish things," in the words of Paul's First Letter to the Church at Corinth. It was time to get to work enacting the substance of faith, hope, and love--beyond mere rhetoric of sounding gongs and clanging cymbals that had merely sustained the wealthy--"those who prefer leisure over work"--under a cloak of religious pretense.
Jumat, 09 Januari 2009
Give Me Your Ears: Religion and Oral History
by Phillip Luke Sinitiere
As some readers may have heard, the Library of Congress is in the process of compiling an oral history of sermons, speeches, and other orations relating to the inauguration of Barack Obama. It is formally called Inauguration 2009 Sermons and Orations Project, and will be part of the LOC's American Folklife Center. The center is only taking oral materials delivered between Friday, January 16 and Sunday, January 25, 2009.
This collection will obviously be of interest to historians and other scholars of religion in America, and the assembly of this collection is certainly interesting in light of the role pastors and sermons played through the campaign season (and since).
Oral religious history (and a sort of corollary, sensory history) has received some attention on this blog before (among others, John Turner's book employs oral history, for example, Paul Harvey commented on this, and the JSR Katrina issue has a bit of oral history). From those in the know I'd love to hear more about the state of the field, or any other thoughts related to religion and oral history (including bibliographic suggestions/leads).
Perhaps a place to start on the blog is Mike Pasquier's insightful methodological post from last September that discusses what he calls "religion-in-the-moment" as well as Rebecca Carter's notion of "spiritual dwelling" and Thomas Tweed's concept of "crossing and dwelling."
As some readers may have heard, the Library of Congress is in the process of compiling an oral history of sermons, speeches, and other orations relating to the inauguration of Barack Obama. It is formally called Inauguration 2009 Sermons and Orations Project, and will be part of the LOC's American Folklife Center. The center is only taking oral materials delivered between Friday, January 16 and Sunday, January 25, 2009.
This collection will obviously be of interest to historians and other scholars of religion in America, and the assembly of this collection is certainly interesting in light of the role pastors and sermons played through the campaign season (and since).
Oral religious history (and a sort of corollary, sensory history) has received some attention on this blog before (among others, John Turner's book employs oral history, for example, Paul Harvey commented on this, and the JSR Katrina issue has a bit of oral history). From those in the know I'd love to hear more about the state of the field, or any other thoughts related to religion and oral history (including bibliographic suggestions/leads).
Perhaps a place to start on the blog is Mike Pasquier's insightful methodological post from last September that discusses what he calls "religion-in-the-moment" as well as Rebecca Carter's notion of "spiritual dwelling" and Thomas Tweed's concept of "crossing and dwelling."
Senin, 05 Januari 2009
Of Politicians, Pastors, and Prayer
by Phillip Luke Sinitiere
Here's a piece Shayne Lee and I wrote about Rick Warren, Barack Obama, and the inaugural prayer. It relates to some of the ideas behind contemporary Protestant evangelical religious leadership and American culture, which we detail in our forthcoming Holy Mavericks: Evangelical Innovators and the Spiritual Marketplace (NYU Press, April 2009).
It is crossposted at From the Square, NYU Press's blog.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Numerous journalists, political pundits, and scholars are discussing and debating Barack Obama’s decision to invite California pastor Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural prayer, particularly in the context of Warren’s support for California’s Proposition 8.
E.J. Dionne’s New Republic column, for example, titled “Big Tent,” (HT: John Fea) a thoughtful analysis of the Obama-Warren issue, reports that some wonder to what extent Obama has betrayed his liberal politics, while others embrace Obama’s decision and call for a more enlightened liberal politics. Christianity Today, the leading magazine of evangelical thought and culture, features some writers who are asking if Warren is the next Graham, or if he’s transcended the aged leader’s stature. Another voice of the religious right, Steve Brody’s blog at the Christian Broadcasting Network, “The Brody File,” (HT: Get Religion) features e-lamentations about Warren’s decision to pray at the inauguration. Alan Wolfe’s New Republic piece “Obama’s New Pastor Problem?,” (HT: John Fea) offers further contextualization about Warren and the religious right. And corroborating Steve Brody’s blog, Rachel Zoll’s article points out that some of Warren’s toughest critics are those on the religious right. Sociologist Gerardo Marti offers a brief history of Warren his Southern California context, what he calls “Warren-ology.” Religious studies scholar Anthony Pinn provides precise analysis of theology, political compromise, and the presidency, and historian of religion Anthea Butler contends that president-elect Obama misgauges Americans’ religious convictions.
Obama’s choice of Warren to pray at the inauguration—and in particular the range of responses this choice has elicited—gives us occasion to reflect on Protestant evangelical religious leaders we call “holy mavericks,” five of whom we discuss and analyze in Holy Mavericks: Evangelical Innovators and the Spiritual Marketplace.
We contend that Rick Warren is a holy maverick. Simply put, a holy maverick is an enterprising religious leader who crafts his or her ministry to a particular niche (or niches) in the spiritual marketplace. Holy mavericks are talented and savvy spiritual suppliers we call innovators, efficiently successful at recalibrating their messages and ministries toward the existential needs and tastes of church-going America. Houston minister Joel Osteen, for example, effectively marketed messages and books titled Your Best Life Now (2004) and Become a Better You (2007). Osteen’s brand of self-help spirituality reaches millions, and gains new followers each day.
Holy mavericks can be a fascination to the general public, and command wide audiences with messages of purpose, empowerment, and uplift. Rick Warren, for instance, took his purpose driven message to professional sporting events, political meetings, and to pastors in Africa. He also recently addressed the Muslim Public Affairs Convention in southern California. Holy mavericks can also exist as a thorn in the flesh of gatekeepers of church traditions who chide innovators for casting wide nets and polluting the gospel with “watered-down” versions of Christianity. Holy mavericks can elicit both intense loyalty and venomous contempt from clerical peers and congregants.
Another distinguishing mark of a holy maverick is his or her ability to sense how historical moments and opportunity structures shape their messages and marketability and help to bring their individual initiatives to fruition. Holy mavericks possess social, cultural, and spiritual dexterity. Put another way, holy mavericks are brilliant at surfing spiritual waves, a practice in which spiritual leaders discern where God is moving in one’s cultural milieu, and then prepare their churches and themselves to cooperate with the movement. Here’s Rick Warren: “Three key responsibilities of every pastor are to discern where God’s spirit is moving in our culture and time, prepare your congregation for that movement, and cooperate with it to reach people Jesus died for. I call it ‘surfing spiritual waves.’”
Warren knows that of which he speaks. Consider these snapshots from his recent activities: not many other preachers are friends with the president of Rwanda, write a monthly column for Ladies Home Journal, and receive a standing ovation after speaking at Harvard University. Not many other conservative pastors possess the flexibility to be pro-life and pro-poor, the ingenuity to lead a preaching seminar for rabbis at the University of Judaism, or the versatility to work and dine with homosexual activists while maintaining a firm stance against same-sex marriage. Not many spiritual leaders mentor prominent businesspersons like Rupert Murdock and Jack Welch, or can claim that after three decades of ministry, they have never been alone in a room with a woman other than their wife. Few evangelical pastors are friends with both President George W. Bush and Democratic president-elect Barack Obama, a notable participant at Warren’s 2006 Global Summit on AIDS and the recent Presidential Forum, both at Saddleback Church. And Warren’s latest book, The Purpose of Christmas, adds further insight into the complexity of this holy maverick’s cosmopolitan outlook. It continues to articulate the readable simplicity of the purpose-driven message and hit the major points of conservative evangelical theology (e.g., centrality of Jesus, authority of Bible, etc.). Yet with a closing chapter on Warren’s P.E.A.C.E. plan, it registers as decidedly cosmopolitan in outlook and activist in tone.
And there’s even more to the relationship between Warren and Obama: the president-elect launched a “40 Days of Faith and Family” tour while campaigning in October 2007 in South Carolina, an initiative clearly adapted from Warren’s popular “40 Days of Purpose” movement from a few years previous. (Read first-hand accounts about “40 Days of Faith and Family” from Obama’s website.)
So if Rick Warren is accustomed to surfing spiritual waves, and if Obama is serious about working across political lines as he embraces the change he promised, then Warren accepting Obama’s invitation to give the inaugural prayer is neither out of character nor a simple, shrill political move. It is a holy maverick at work.
If Warren is serious about working for social, political, and economic change through his P.E.A.C.E. plan and if Obama is serious about embodying change in today’s combative and partisan political order, and if these two visionaries will work together—at least for a day—then perhaps history will observe that the real mavericks of the 2008 Presidential election cycle were not, in fact, John McCain and Sarah Palin, but Barack Obama and Rick Warren. Why? In the midst of differences, each appears willing to find common ground in order to work together. Perhaps we all have something to learn from pastors and politicians after all.
It is crossposted at From the Square, NYU Press's blog.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Numerous journalists, political pundits, and scholars are discussing and debating Barack Obama’s decision to invite California pastor Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural prayer, particularly in the context of Warren’s support for California’s Proposition 8.
E.J. Dionne’s New Republic column, for example, titled “Big Tent,” (HT: John Fea) a thoughtful analysis of the Obama-Warren issue, reports that some wonder to what extent Obama has betrayed his liberal politics, while others embrace Obama’s decision and call for a more enlightened liberal politics. Christianity Today, the leading magazine of evangelical thought and culture, features some writers who are asking if Warren is the next Graham, or if he’s transcended the aged leader’s stature. Another voice of the religious right, Steve Brody’s blog at the Christian Broadcasting Network, “The Brody File,” (HT: Get Religion) features e-lamentations about Warren’s decision to pray at the inauguration. Alan Wolfe’s New Republic piece “Obama’s New Pastor Problem?,” (HT: John Fea) offers further contextualization about Warren and the religious right. And corroborating Steve Brody’s blog, Rachel Zoll’s article points out that some of Warren’s toughest critics are those on the religious right. Sociologist Gerardo Marti offers a brief history of Warren his Southern California context, what he calls “Warren-ology.” Religious studies scholar Anthony Pinn provides precise analysis of theology, political compromise, and the presidency, and historian of religion Anthea Butler contends that president-elect Obama misgauges Americans’ religious convictions.
Obama’s choice of Warren to pray at the inauguration—and in particular the range of responses this choice has elicited—gives us occasion to reflect on Protestant evangelical religious leaders we call “holy mavericks,” five of whom we discuss and analyze in Holy Mavericks: Evangelical Innovators and the Spiritual Marketplace.
We contend that Rick Warren is a holy maverick. Simply put, a holy maverick is an enterprising religious leader who crafts his or her ministry to a particular niche (or niches) in the spiritual marketplace. Holy mavericks are talented and savvy spiritual suppliers we call innovators, efficiently successful at recalibrating their messages and ministries toward the existential needs and tastes of church-going America. Houston minister Joel Osteen, for example, effectively marketed messages and books titled Your Best Life Now (2004) and Become a Better You (2007). Osteen’s brand of self-help spirituality reaches millions, and gains new followers each day.
Holy mavericks can be a fascination to the general public, and command wide audiences with messages of purpose, empowerment, and uplift. Rick Warren, for instance, took his purpose driven message to professional sporting events, political meetings, and to pastors in Africa. He also recently addressed the Muslim Public Affairs Convention in southern California. Holy mavericks can also exist as a thorn in the flesh of gatekeepers of church traditions who chide innovators for casting wide nets and polluting the gospel with “watered-down” versions of Christianity. Holy mavericks can elicit both intense loyalty and venomous contempt from clerical peers and congregants.
Another distinguishing mark of a holy maverick is his or her ability to sense how historical moments and opportunity structures shape their messages and marketability and help to bring their individual initiatives to fruition. Holy mavericks possess social, cultural, and spiritual dexterity. Put another way, holy mavericks are brilliant at surfing spiritual waves, a practice in which spiritual leaders discern where God is moving in one’s cultural milieu, and then prepare their churches and themselves to cooperate with the movement. Here’s Rick Warren: “Three key responsibilities of every pastor are to discern where God’s spirit is moving in our culture and time, prepare your congregation for that movement, and cooperate with it to reach people Jesus died for. I call it ‘surfing spiritual waves.’”
Warren knows that of which he speaks. Consider these snapshots from his recent activities: not many other preachers are friends with the president of Rwanda, write a monthly column for Ladies Home Journal, and receive a standing ovation after speaking at Harvard University. Not many other conservative pastors possess the flexibility to be pro-life and pro-poor, the ingenuity to lead a preaching seminar for rabbis at the University of Judaism, or the versatility to work and dine with homosexual activists while maintaining a firm stance against same-sex marriage. Not many spiritual leaders mentor prominent businesspersons like Rupert Murdock and Jack Welch, or can claim that after three decades of ministry, they have never been alone in a room with a woman other than their wife. Few evangelical pastors are friends with both President George W. Bush and Democratic president-elect Barack Obama, a notable participant at Warren’s 2006 Global Summit on AIDS and the recent Presidential Forum, both at Saddleback Church. And Warren’s latest book, The Purpose of Christmas, adds further insight into the complexity of this holy maverick’s cosmopolitan outlook. It continues to articulate the readable simplicity of the purpose-driven message and hit the major points of conservative evangelical theology (e.g., centrality of Jesus, authority of Bible, etc.). Yet with a closing chapter on Warren’s P.E.A.C.E. plan, it registers as decidedly cosmopolitan in outlook and activist in tone.
And there’s even more to the relationship between Warren and Obama: the president-elect launched a “40 Days of Faith and Family” tour while campaigning in October 2007 in South Carolina, an initiative clearly adapted from Warren’s popular “40 Days of Purpose” movement from a few years previous. (Read first-hand accounts about “40 Days of Faith and Family” from Obama’s website.)
So if Rick Warren is accustomed to surfing spiritual waves, and if Obama is serious about working across political lines as he embraces the change he promised, then Warren accepting Obama’s invitation to give the inaugural prayer is neither out of character nor a simple, shrill political move. It is a holy maverick at work.
If Warren is serious about working for social, political, and economic change through his P.E.A.C.E. plan and if Obama is serious about embodying change in today’s combative and partisan political order, and if these two visionaries will work together—at least for a day—then perhaps history will observe that the real mavericks of the 2008 Presidential election cycle were not, in fact, John McCain and Sarah Palin, but Barack Obama and Rick Warren. Why? In the midst of differences, each appears willing to find common ground in order to work together. Perhaps we all have something to learn from pastors and politicians after all.
Rabu, 26 November 2008
Can Hope Become Justice: Post-Election Roundup
Paul Harvey
Just a brief roundup of some post-election views. First, the religious historian, jazz instrumentalist, and fantasy football player extraordinaire Jason Bivins asks, "I will be eager to see if one of campaign 2008’s keywords—hope—is supplanted by a different word: justice." That seems to be a theme running through many of these pieces. Another example: John Carlson's "The Justice We Need" suggests:
But Obama’s election suggests more than just a victory for equality or the realization of hard-earned civil rights. For, just as Obama now shines under the lamp of King’s legacy, it is essential to recall that, for King, justice was never only about civil rights. Justice was also a political formulation of the “beloved community”: the uniting of diverse peoples in one “beautiful symphony of brotherhood.” . . . . To be sure, this was an ideal never to be realized fully on earth. But it is an ideal that is every bit as important to King’s politics and his pursuit of justice as the Forms were to Plato or the Heavenly City was to Augustine.
King’s dream makes clear that justice begins with rights. But justice encompasses so much more than rights just as the injustices of America’s past—slavery, lynchings, segregation—extended far deeper than any simple denial of rights. The suffering and inhumanity associated with these indignities tore apart individual bodies and ruined lives, not to mention the relations that solidify families, communities, and, at times, the entire nation. Justice, then, also entails the process of binding old wounds, of reclaiming moral wholeness, and, most of all, rectifying the civil relations that countenance moral disorder. So understood, justice is not established the moment slavery or segregation is abolished or the instant that civil rights are extended to all. Conceiving justice as such overlooks the ongoing role that civic attitudes and actions play in healing relationships among citizens and shaping the moral character of a polity that binds them together.
And finally also from Immanent Frame, this roundup of responses, crossposted here:
In conjunction with recent post-election reflections at The Immanent Frame by Howard Adelman, Arjun Appadurai, John Esposito, Conrad Hackett, D. Michael Lindsay, Elizabeth Prodromou and John Schmalzbauer, Nicole Greenfield gathers a selection of articles that consider the role religion played in last Tuesday’s election (and the way it might figure politically in the months ahead), while Ruth Braunstein surveys news and analysis on “Voting in a year when ‘Muslim’ was a slur.” Find both of these roundups (and more) at here & there.
In our ongoing discussions, Patrick Lee Miller continues his exchange with critics of his recent post on “Immanent Spirituality,” Arjun Appadurai responds to Jason Kuznicki’s criticisms of his post, “The magic ballot” (and Kuznicki fires back), Christine Wicker and Conrad Hackett consider how best to grasp the polling impact of “evangelicals,” and readers of Christianity Today and others react to D. Michael Lindsay’s post on evangelical leaders and the “Changing of the guard.”
Just a brief roundup of some post-election views. First, the religious historian, jazz instrumentalist, and fantasy football player extraordinaire Jason Bivins asks, "I will be eager to see if one of campaign 2008’s keywords—hope—is supplanted by a different word: justice." That seems to be a theme running through many of these pieces. Another example: John Carlson's "The Justice We Need" suggests:
But Obama’s election suggests more than just a victory for equality or the realization of hard-earned civil rights. For, just as Obama now shines under the lamp of King’s legacy, it is essential to recall that, for King, justice was never only about civil rights. Justice was also a political formulation of the “beloved community”: the uniting of diverse peoples in one “beautiful symphony of brotherhood.” . . . . To be sure, this was an ideal never to be realized fully on earth. But it is an ideal that is every bit as important to King’s politics and his pursuit of justice as the Forms were to Plato or the Heavenly City was to Augustine.
King’s dream makes clear that justice begins with rights. But justice encompasses so much more than rights just as the injustices of America’s past—slavery, lynchings, segregation—extended far deeper than any simple denial of rights. The suffering and inhumanity associated with these indignities tore apart individual bodies and ruined lives, not to mention the relations that solidify families, communities, and, at times, the entire nation. Justice, then, also entails the process of binding old wounds, of reclaiming moral wholeness, and, most of all, rectifying the civil relations that countenance moral disorder. So understood, justice is not established the moment slavery or segregation is abolished or the instant that civil rights are extended to all. Conceiving justice as such overlooks the ongoing role that civic attitudes and actions play in healing relationships among citizens and shaping the moral character of a polity that binds them together.
And finally also from Immanent Frame, this roundup of responses, crossposted here:
In conjunction with recent post-election reflections at The Immanent Frame by Howard Adelman, Arjun Appadurai, John Esposito, Conrad Hackett, D. Michael Lindsay, Elizabeth Prodromou and John Schmalzbauer, Nicole Greenfield gathers a selection of articles that consider the role religion played in last Tuesday’s election (and the way it might figure politically in the months ahead), while Ruth Braunstein surveys news and analysis on “Voting in a year when ‘Muslim’ was a slur.” Find both of these roundups (and more) at here & there.
In our ongoing discussions, Patrick Lee Miller continues his exchange with critics of his recent post on “Immanent Spirituality,” Arjun Appadurai responds to Jason Kuznicki’s criticisms of his post, “The magic ballot” (and Kuznicki fires back), Christine Wicker and Conrad Hackett consider how best to grasp the polling impact of “evangelicals,” and readers of Christianity Today and others react to D. Michael Lindsay’s post on evangelical leaders and the “Changing of the guard.”
Kamis, 06 November 2008
Sober Reflections
Our Ed Blum has some of the best post-election analysis I've read in an essay at Religion Dispatches. It should be required reading for Obama supporters and detractors. Striking a Niebuhrian tone (in my mind, at least), Blum compares this year's "day of Jubilee" to that experienced at the end of the Civil War:
When we think of Obama as "savior-elect," we court trouble. When we forget history we weaken our own resolve; mysteries can be dangerous and days of Jubilee do not always end with eras of sublimity.
You can hear more of Ed's thoughts by listening to a San Diego NPR panel.
When we think of Obama as "savior-elect," we court trouble. When we forget history we weaken our own resolve; mysteries can be dangerous and days of Jubilee do not always end with eras of sublimity.
You can hear more of Ed's thoughts by listening to a San Diego NPR panel.
Jumat, 10 Oktober 2008
Pentecostal Palin
By John Turner
TIME has a profile of Sarah Palin's religious roots with a brief primer on Pentecostalism. It's a good piece of journalism (I'm impressed with the distinction between the charismatic movement and Pentecostalism), though they should of course have interviewed our Matt Sutton and Randall Stephens.
Perhaps Palin could exorcise whatever is bewitching the financial markets?
TIME has a profile of Sarah Palin's religious roots with a brief primer on Pentecostalism. It's a good piece of journalism (I'm impressed with the distinction between the charismatic movement and Pentecostalism), though they should of course have interviewed our Matt Sutton and Randall Stephens.
Perhaps Palin could exorcise whatever is bewitching the financial markets?
Kamis, 09 Oktober 2008
U.S. Catholic Intellectual History and the Election
Paul Harvey
At U.S. Intellectual History, Tim Lacy has initiated a conversation that I wanted to note here:
No matter your politics either this election year or in the past, Pepperdine Professor Douglas Kmiec's recent book, Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question About Barack Obama, is a game changer. I have read the book. My bold prediction is that it permanently modifies the debate about abortion politics and Catholicism for future elections.
You may join the conversation there, or in comments here. To me, the question is whether this is a peculiarity of one election, given the nature of the candidates and the recent overwhelming focus on economic realities rather than the usual stuff of values voters. But perhaps, there is something going on that is deeper than that.
At U.S. Intellectual History, Tim Lacy has initiated a conversation that I wanted to note here:
No matter your politics either this election year or in the past, Pepperdine Professor Douglas Kmiec's recent book, Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question About Barack Obama, is a game changer. I have read the book. My bold prediction is that it permanently modifies the debate about abortion politics and Catholicism for future elections.
You may join the conversation there, or in comments here. To me, the question is whether this is a peculiarity of one election, given the nature of the candidates and the recent overwhelming focus on economic realities rather than the usual stuff of values voters. But perhaps, there is something going on that is deeper than that.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)