moderateBaptists.com

It may not be quite a flip-flop yet, but James Dobson has gone at least halfway. Although Dobson declared a few months ago that he could never vote for Republican John McCain, he now claimed he might:

I never thought I would hear myself saying this. ... While I am not endorsing Senator John McCain, the possibility is there that I might.

Yet, earlier this year, Dobson argued:

I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances.

Dobson is now using what some call "the lesser of two evils" argument. But isn't that a circumstance? Did Dobson really not foresee that he would find McCain more to his liking than Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? People support their favorite candidate during the primary, but if that does not work, many then choose someone they do not like as well but more than the other candidates. That is pretty much elections 101.

Dobson is acting almost like this is the first presidential election he has ever seen before. This seems like a good example of why conservatives Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson (no relation--at least recently) argued that Dobson and other Christians should "Focus on the Family, Not on Politics."

If it were just a misstatement or two, there would probably not be an issue here. But Republican presidential nominee John McCain, the supposed "expert" on foreign policy, has made a series of serious verbal blunders. On Good Morning America a few days ago he referred to the "Iraq-Pakistan border." There obviously is none so he must have meant the "Afghanistan-Pakistan border." On two different occasions last week he referred to Czechoslovakia, a country that has not existed since 1993. Several months ago, he got Sunnis and Shiites mixed up. On one occasion he identified Vladimir Putin as president of Germany. And, just last night in an interview with Katie Couric and CBS News, McCain mixed up the timeline related to the surge in Iraq, stating that the Sunni uprising in Anbar province was the result of the surge of American troops. Actually the Sunni uprising came before the addional troops even arrived in Iraq and most of them were sent to Bagdad not the Anbar province.

A few questions come to mind here. (1) Are these simple mistakes that anyone could make who is keeping the grueling schedule that a presidential candidate keeps? Perhaps so. But, could these mistakes also be a sign that senility is an issue with John McCain? We now know that Ronald Reagan was suffering from the early effects of Alzheimer's Disease during his last years as president. Is age an issue that voters should be concerned about?

(2) John McCain has staked his presidential aspirations on the argument that he is better suited for the presidency, indeed more knowledgeable in the area of foreign policy and therefore has what it takes to keep America safe from terrorists. Do these gaffes call that assumption into question? Perhaps not yet. However, the longer they continue, the more attention they will generate by the media.

(3) And speaking of the "media," the McCain campaign is complaining that the media is paying more attention to Obama than their candidate. Yet, these gaffes from McCain are not really getting very much attention in the media except on MSNBC and some liberal blogs. So, is there a double-standard here. The media is parsing every word Barack Obama says, particularly while he is overseas. But, it seems like McCain is getting away with these serious verbal blunders. So, who is truly the "media darling?"

My friend Michael Westmoreland-White has recently posted an index to his blog series on the ten practices of just peacemaking. I'm providing a link to that index here and would strongly encourage others to read through the series and consider how these practices might be applied in their own contexts.

As a college student, I remember having many frustrating and, generally, non-productive debates (or, more precisely, arguments) with my roommates about the merits of pacifism versus militarism. My biggest problem, of course, was that I was rarely able to offer credible alternatives to war and the few that I could manage to come up with (e.g., the violent resistance of Gandhi and King) were often dismissed as being unpractical methods of resistance to modern warfare. Thanks to Glen Stassen (and the many colleagues that have joined him in this endeavor), just peacemaking theory--based on a synthesis of Christian ethics and international relations theory--seeks to scientifically identify and articulate those specific practices that help to promote peace in our global, local, and interpersonal relationships. It bypasses the age old ethical debate of pacifism versus just war theory by focusing on the practices that actually work when it comes to peacemaking.

For pacifists, then, just peacemaking theory provides credible and scientifically proven alternatives to war. For just war theorists--all of whom would argue that war should only be used as a last resort anyway, just peacemaking theory offers an inventory of "first resorts" that can and should be attempted before opting for war as a last resort. In other words, the brilliance of this theory is that it stakes out common ground where pacifists and just war theorists can work together to further world peace.

As you might suspect, the practices of just peacemaking are hardly foolproof and, of course, don't prove effective 100% of the time. So even if they are practiced diligently, there will still be occasions where pacifists and just war theorists may have to part ways as the latter opt for war as a last resort. Nevertheless, if these practices were better known and more widely implemented, the reality is that we would probably find ourselves in a world where war and violence were much less commonplace than they are now.

Colorado Christian University filed suit, claiming the state is not even *allowed* to leave them out of the scholarship initiative on this basis. The state countered that the Supreme Court's decision in Locke v. Davey - which supported the state's right to refuse public scholarships for a major in devotional theology - does allow them to make such a determination. Today's ruling sides with Colorado Christian University, overturning the district court, and adding more ammunition to those who would argue that "pervasively sectarian" may no longer be a standard by which states are allowed to deny public funds.

Robert Novak hit a pedestrian (minor injuries) and fled the scene? And he isn't in jail?

This just in from Howard Bashman: Tenth Circuit declares unconstitutional Colorado's refusal to provide scholarships to otherwise eligible students who attend accredited Colorado colleges deemed "pervasively sectarian": Circuit Judge Michael W. McConnell issued today's ruling on behalf of a unanimous...

The arm of the government that investigates employment discrimination claims has updated its guidance for religious diversity in the work place. Thanks to Religion Clause for directing me to this Business Week story with the news. Last year, there were...

The arm of the government that investigates employment discrimination claims has updated its guidance for religious diversity in the work place. Thanks to Religion Clause for directing me to this Business Week story with the news. Last year, there were...

As I tend to be suspicious of anonymous newspaper columnists, I don't normally read the weekly column by "Simon" in the Nassau Guardian. Last week's column, however, offers a helpful critique of the shortfalls and limitations of Bahamian popular theology, particularly as it was articulated by the Bahamas Christian Council at this year's Independence celebrations.

Amongst other things, "Simon" challenges the prevailing ethos of prosperity theology which teaches that bad things never happen to God's faithful.

Moreover, the notion that God has spared the Bahamas from natural disasters and has instead allowed other lands to be ravaged is spiritually presumptuous and scientifically problematic.

To wit, why do natural disasters happen to good people in various locales on the planet while seemingly more sinful people are spared from calamity? Perhaps it has more to do with geography, chance and the scale of national development.

The thousands who perished in Myanmar did so because of an accident of geography, and because of substandard housing, bad infrastructure and a corrupt government. Not at the caprice of a vengeful God.

Natural disasters tend to ravage the poor because they do not have the means to protect themselves, as do the more affluent.

Additionally, "Simon" points out that the Christian Council (not to mention other publicly outspoken preachers) tend to disproportionately focus on narrow questions of personal morality while ignoring broader questions of social concern.

Rather, the focus was on the usual host of sexual sins and personal morality, while other issues of human dignity and social solidarity were largely ignored.

Access to health care, poverty alleviation, educational reform and the preservation of God’s earth, gave way to a relentless preoccupation with fornication, homosexuality and adultery.

It is not that such matters should be ignored. But a myopic focus on these is like cutting the Bible into a third and ignoring the rest of Scripture.

Since I have sought to address both of these concerns in my own teaching and ministry (see here and here), I am glad to see that others concur.

One of the things that did not draw much notice in the announcement of the Warren-McCain-Obama confab is the fact that the presidential interviews will be conducted under the auspices of the Saddleback Civil Forum (in partnership with the multi-faith...

I only link to this article because my family roots are in Bell County, Kentucky. (H/T: Jim West)

If someone did this for most of the stuff on TV…I still wouldn’t watch it. Be sure to check out the basic premise of the blog, too. It is not unlike a project I started here a couple of years ago. (H/T: Pseudo-Polymath)

The Associated Press reports that the EEOC released a new guidance document on religious discrimination in the workplace yesterday. Here's a snippet from the relevant EEOC press release: The [document] includes a comprehensive review of the relevant provisions of Title...

Now for something completely different!

Sell my clothes I’m going to heaven!

EthicsDaily is reporting that Codex Sinaiticus is going online tomorrow!

Here’s the link (It’s not working yet).

For you non-Bible Geeks:
Codex Sinaiticus is a Greek manuscript of the Old and New Testaments, of the greatest antiquity and value; found on Mount Sinai, in St. Catherine’s Monastery, by Constantine Tischendorf.

I’m sure Homan and the Bible Dudes are going to be thrilled. Looks like I’ll need to dust off my Greek grammar text.

Following up in McCain's attack on Obama, several have taken note of McCain's recent error on foreign policy. It isn't quite the Iraq/Pakistan border, but while he dismissively attacks Obama for his stance on the surge, McCain gets the key chronology completely wrong.

Oh, and for those who still cling to the "liberal media" mythology, CBS evidently spliced the video tape to not show McCain's completely wrong answer.

While not completely fair, a video showing how supportive McCain has been for Bush and his war.

Vanessa Mosharaf is this week's guest blogger in the continuing series here about millennials. Vanessa is serving as a Buckner intern this summer in our External Affairs division. She is a student at Baylor University, where she is a journalism/public relations major from Irving, Texas.

As much as I love over-generalizing, I can’t help but find a few problems with labeling an entire generation with some of the dominant American characteristics it produces. Millennials aren’t a repeated prototype with different faces. Yes, these qualities might very aptly describe many of my peers, but I have to say, it’s all relative.

I wanted to write about relativism and how it has shaped our generation and how it has made us distinct from the ‘boomers.’ The problem with relativism though, is that it creates an unending weave of ‘what-ifs’ and ‘well then agains.’ There’s always another side and someone else's point of view. I found myself going in circles trying to describe even my own philosophy.

I’ve grown up in the age of information. Not only is the information always at my fingertips, it’s being pushed upon me everywhere I go. Even the elevator in this office building has a TV in it broadcasting the daily news. There’s a story everywhere you look and someone always wants you to hear it.

The information hits close to home now that I’m at the age where I realize how little I know and how much there is to know. As a result, I’ve found it hard to make a decision or cling to something that will most likely be proven false tomorrow. Outside of my core beliefs of faith, I think it’s hard to really determine who’s right in the world and who just sounds right.

Some may call it open-mindedness, others call it flakey. I like to think that I cling to relativity because I am aware of my humanness. I don’t want to pretend to know everything. Instead I want to be aware that I have bias and I can’t prove everything but can only explore the options.

First Corinthians 13:12 says, “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”

This scripture is so neatly tucked away behind everyone’s favorite love passage that we rarely seem to notice it. How about we stop trying to find the best doctrines for every possible decision made on earth and instead live like Christ did. After all, Jesus has already given us the most important commandment: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind,” (Matthew 22:36).

Of course, I don’t mean to discourage a set of standards to live by or philosophy in general. On the contrary, without a constant flow of discussion and dialog over the latest theory we would easily fall to the ways of general opinion (which is usually wrong). But instead of creating absolutes inspired by one man’s personal experiences, let’s always keep in mind that we know very little about even ourselves. 

So why is this generation more affected by relativism than any before? Because we have and we use the tools that allow us to communicate with people who will share the other side of things. We know to some degree what it’s like to live in China, even if we’ve never been there. We have friends that come from different backgrounds, races, and even religions. This generation more than any other is being bombarded with messages of right and wrong and we’re given the choice to decide which to believe.

In many ways we’re no different than the generations before us. They were passionate and optimistic when they were our age. What’s different is that we’ve now gone global in our plight to sort out the shades of gray. We have options – lots of them.

First of all, my effort to start the online rumor that Parcells was McCain's top pick for the Vice President did not seem to get anywhere.  I did email the NY Times' top reporter covering the campaign, the reporter did answer my email saying the reporter had not heard that rumor and would be checking it out, and thanked me.  Apparently irony/sarcasm is not a trait of many Times reporters...oh well.