Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Finally, A Thoughtful Conversation with Candidates
Three things struck me about the Saddleback Civil Forum before even considering the responses of the two candidates.
First, Rick Warren's format and questions did things that "normal" moderators don't do very often. They created interesting and substantive non-combative conversation. Why is that so rare? One factor, I think, is that too many journalists habitually turn communication towards a fight narrative, which makes for what some people call "good television." (These folks may consider Jerry Springer "good television" too.) Rick, on the other hand, wanted to create a context for understanding. He wanted to draw people out on important topics, not simply provide fodder for "gotcha politics." He postured himself not as an enemy trying to expose their weak underbelly, and not as a trickster trying to get them to embarrass themselves or insult their counterpart in some way.
Another factor: Rick's perspective brings some interesting questions to the table - not limited to sexual/reproductive matters (as might be the case with other religious leaders), but including issues like leadership, character, and self-knowledge. Perhaps his skill-set as a pastor puts him in a unique position to listen, draw out, and create "safe space" where the candidates could to some degree speak openly on topics they aren't asked about every day. Some journalists do this, but too few, I think. My guess is that some will learn from Rick's example, and our political discourse will be the better for it.
Second, Rick's religious perspective is a given. Everybody knows he is an Evangelical Christian. But the fact is, every journalist has a faith perspective of some sort: Tim Russert (we miss him), Chris Matthews, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity work from various Roman Catholic perspectives (quite an array!); Bill Moyers from a Baptist background quite different from Rick's, Jon Stewart (yes, I'm taking him seriously) from a Jewish background, and so on. Others are Mormon, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, and so on. The significant thing isn't that we had a forum hosted by a person of faith; the significant thing is that his faith was overt rather than covert. I'm not saying one is good and the other bad; I'm just saying that this fact is interesting, worth thinking about.
Which leads to a third reflection: faith is always involved in politics - sometimes overtly, sometimes consciously, sometimes positively with regard to the common good, and sometimes otherwise. Faith, in this sense, doesn't simply mean divisive dogma: it means an understanding of the big story that we all find ourselves in, and a set of values and priorities and "habits of the heart" that make sense within that story ... dimensions of all of our lives, whatever labels we apply to ourselves.
So, I hope that the outcome of the forum will be a better understanding of the candidates, and I also hope we may have a slightly better understanding of ourselves and our public life, thanks in part to the Saddleback Forum
By
Brian D. McLaren
|
August 21, 2008; 12:19 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Kashmir is not Hindu vs. Muslim |
Next: Warren Got Church-State Balance Right
Posted by: Gaby | August 22, 2008 11:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Disenfranchised??? Who is telling whom to take their beliefs into the political closet? The atheists act like politicians who finally noticed that Christians make up about 75% of the country and decided that maybe they ought to consider attempting to address their concerns for a change have committed the unpardonable sin of being willing to talk to those who represent a heavy percentage of the voting public. Well duh. Wake up and smell the coffee dude, Obama needs at least some of those God folk you so disdain in order to win and it's been demonstrated twice now that ignoring them doesn't work.
Posted by: Garyd | August 22, 2008 12:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Richard Thomas
You state, "Spirituality is simply based on everything being connected and part of one body, with One Being behind it all. This is what Jesus A Christ was trying to communicate. It is that simple."
What evidence do you have to back up your claim? How do you know what he was trying to communicate? Is this different than what he actually communicated? If it is based upon what he actually communicated, what evidence can you produce that your interpretation is probable?
Peace,
Rip
Posted by: D W Van Winkle | August 21, 2008 11:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
There is a big difference between spirituality and religion. Spirituality doesn’t have any dogma, fiction, or perversion. Spirituality is simply based on everything being connected and part of one body, with One Being behind it all. This is what Jesus A Christ was trying to communicate. It is that simple.
Politics being how various needs and wants are expressed and met or obtained how combined efforts are implemented and what joint ventures are formed and funded. Politics should include the view that we are all one; part of the same body. Religion should not be involved in Politics because it has become perverse in the eyes of the Lord it has become the house of hypocrisy not the House of God.
What is disturbing is how fast both candidates were swept into the Illusion, each not daring to question the popular fiction.
CHURCH: a body or organization of religious believers
FAITH: a system of religious beliefs
There is no difference yet neither candidate questioned it and was able to see through the Illusion created by Rick Warren. In other words he was propagating a fiction.
RELIGION IS AN EGO CREATION NOT ONE OF SPIRIT - scripture says and we are warned that the Churches (institutionalized religion) are the Antichrist; which must be true if we have Faith in Scripture?
McCain with his understandable doubts about the existence of a God resulting from his experience in prison camp, and Obama doesn’t really buy the Jesus died for our sins crap.
Jesus was a Jew and not a Christian. Furthermore the Christians should be thanking the Jews for crucifying Jesus since their act actually redeemed Christians, Jesus could have just committed suicide to die for your sins right?
What this character Jesus did was refuse to buy into the worlds fictions and he set the ultimate example of being steadfast in the truth.
Religion is one big fiction, and it was people protecting The Religion that crucified Jesus because he questioned the fiction and saw through it.
So if anyone really wants to honor Jesus, start ripping the fictions apart with your rational logical discerning minds and live steadfast in the truth, don’t sell out to the ego empire.
Remember a divided people are a weak people. This is what allows 10,000 to take advantage and make subservient the other 300 million people in the United States.
Religion is being used to divide you amongst your selves, in the US and other countries. It is one of the most effective weapons of the source disconnected ego to protect it's fictional world. Religion is a behavioral control mechanism a producer of shame, guilt and irrational conformity.
Most people have no idea what love is, because love that comes with a condition is not love. There is only one source of love, and one can choose to be a channel for it or not.
Why die and go to Heaven when you can bring it to you?
If I recall correctly Jesus once said something like “I am in your world but not of your world”. He was speaking of the world of fiction that most are living in which still persists today but looks like it is in it's end days and the Ego empire is going to fall.
Divine Source connected - Ego Divine
Divine Source disconnected - Ego Bastard
Yes, faith meaning trust is a verb not a noun. The word has been perverted by the Ego and made into a false idol.
Posted by: Richard Thomas | August 21, 2008 1:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
As a non-Christian, I wonder why the candidates have not been in a forum exploring their knowledge and attitude toward science. Especially now that there has been a forum hosted by an evangelical Christian.
Most non-Christians, and certainly most Christians too are interested in science. ie: exploration of the oceans and the solar system, testing flora and fauna for medical applications etc.
I'm frankly beginning to feel that Atheists and Agnostics are in danger of being disenfranchised. (The DNC convention is opening with an interfaith gathering to promote "unity")It's rather difficult to feel a spirit of "unity" when the comments of Christians say we are morons for expecting to have a Humanist at an interfaith gathering. Christians, including evangelicals and Catholics are represented with speakers. There's a Rabbi and an Imam and a Buddhist teacher. So America is only for people who have a personal diety?
I thought we were past the sort of thing that G.H.W. Bush said in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987 " I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." But it appears my feeling of security was delusional.
Even though my family has been in this country since about 1720, and we have fought (and died)in every war starting with the Revolutionary War through the Vietnam War, I'm wondering if my country still wants us?
Did the Jews feel this way in 1930's Germany?
German Jews who had been in Germany for generations, and even served in the German military during WWI, often did not leave Germany in time to save their lives because they just could not believe their country would do them harm.
I can learn a lesson from the Holocaust. Should we be thinking about leaving the country? Are atheists and agnostics safe? Are you sure?
Don't forget that the folks with the Westboro Baptist church are Christians as well...
Posted by: Sherry Young | August 20, 2008 6:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
HUH??? A thoughful conversation with candidates????
I think NOT!!!