John Shelby Spong
Former Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of Newark

John Shelby Spong

His best-selling books include "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism," "A New Christianity for a New World," "Why Christianity Must Change or Die," and "Eternal Life."

 ALL POSTS

Fervor Can Move Us or Manipulate Us

Obama does elicit fervor. Is fervor somehow considered to be a mark of religion? Perhaps it is for some, but fervor alone is not necessarily an asset. Billy Graham elicits fervor. So did Adolf Hitler. The issue is whether the fervor leads the candidate and the nation in the right direction.

Some presidents seek to reflect the point of view on issues they discover in focus groups. Lyndon Johnson was famous for that. Some are ideologically oriented and try to sell the people on following their lead in moving the country in their direction. Ronald Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt were both successful presidents in doing just that, even though on opposite sides of the ideological fence. Others seek to impose their own ideological perspective on the nation when they have no mandate to do so. The results are usually destructive. George W. Bush is the most recent illustration of that.

A politician’s vision must always be in dialogue with the people that politician hopes to lead. I do not want a president with no vision of his or her own, nor do I want a president who will not listen to the will of the people and seek to be in dialogue with them. In that way fervor and passion will serve the nation.

By John Shelby Spong  |  February 23, 2008; 7:42 AM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Obama's Three Levels of Oratory | Next: Obama Casting a Good and Needed Spell

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



"Others seek to impose their own ideological perspective on the nation when they have no mandate to do so. The results are usually destructive. George W. Bush is the most recent illustration of that."

Any backup for this silly statement? I know it is a trope of partisan liberals, but like most liberals, Spong makes the statemetn and provides no evidence to back it up.


Any other mindeless Bush haters like Sprong out there care to enlighten me? Unforunately he could only scrawl three paragraphs before becoming to lazy to continue.

Posted by: Mike | February 27, 2008 7:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Omen, nice (sort of) to see the John birch society is still alive and well.

Posted by: Garyd | February 26, 2008 6:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Sorry, but I am amazed at the comments by the posters on this blog...and Bishop Spong.

During the Canal Zone Treaty Negoitations, I over heard the following--between a flag officer and a Bildeberg member:
"If you want to get promoted, you will have to become a member of the Trilateral Commission."
The flag officer declined and told him that the TC was a one world order group and he wanted no part of it. The man then said:
"We are going to make it so expensive to run for public office that only the people we choose can afford to run. Therefore, everyone running will be ours. Of course we must have other candidates, but they will be ours too. They will be well paid and they are to put on a good show so the people will think an election is going on. Then we are going to eliminate the Write-In ballot, so no one can change anything and our people will not have to rely on the voter to win election to office."

I have noticed that all the people running for office are members of the TC....I do not know about Ron Paul.

In a briefing on INFORMATION WARFARE, it was brought out that control of the media was an absolute necessity. Also there would be Think Tanks of psychologists to assist in the production of news media events.

Back to the candidates:
ALL THE CANDIDATES ARE NOW SITTING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS...this economic debacle and immigration fiasco--to include Iraq and Afghanistan--and all that graft and corruption with the multinational companies and the destruction of our civil rights has happend ON THEIR SHIFT!!!!
WHY WOULD I WANT THEM BACK?????

Coined Phrase:
The greatest fame and the most fortune comes NOT from solving problems but from FIGHTING those problems while spreading Hate, Hypocrisy, lies and fear in the aftermath of the unresolved issues.

If we had half as much foresight as we have hindsight, we would have twice as much insight.


Posted by: Omen | February 26, 2008 10:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Uh no w GWBush was never arrested for cocaine. Rather it was a misdemeanor DUI charge which at that time and place was very nearly a right of passage.

The cocaine charges were the result of a bogus book published by a one time drug addict who had no credibility with anyone and who could scarcely even prove he was anywhere near Harvard at the time Bush was there.

Posted by: GAryd | February 25, 2008 8:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I like that. You compared Billy Graham to Hitler. Good comparison. Billy Graham is and Hitler was agents of the biggest Devil of them all, Lucifer.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul With just a little help from Devil a good orator can stimulate 'fervor' among his followers. Moses did that.

Moses was the first leader of a 'master race' the Israelites. Did you notice how master races get their members into all kinds of trouble? Now take the followers of Billy Graham leader of the moral majority master race for example with no candidate for president this time. Isn't that awful?

Like everything else, being a good orator can be misused. Obama is not misusing his ability to explain what he has in mind and neither does any of the other candidates for president. That's accounted for by the difference between applying for the job of leader of 'a' master race and that of public servant.

Religions are governments lead by master racists for all claim to be the chosen people of Devil claimed to be God. Hitler and his Nazis were no different. Nazism was/is a religion with a slightly different altar and variety of sacrifices made to Devil. Devil is the supernatural being of record worshiped by all religions.

Obama doesn't qualify yet. Let's hope he keeps it that way.

Posted by: BGone | February 25, 2008 12:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Group think must always be questioned. It is an objectification used to manipulate the people being exploited.

Posted by: patient | February 25, 2008 9:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi, Henry - I hope you're firmly re-esconced in the firmament.

Actually the term was coined before Nixon's time, but he was the first presidential nominee to use the kind of market research tools that were used commercially.

Posted by: E Favorite | February 25, 2008 12:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

E FAVE

I nearly fell off my cloud when Rev Spong referenced Johnson's focus groups.
First, the term and practice hadn't been invented, you are right,
and if it had, it wasn't LBJ's style to pour over results of a focus group.

PATSY PAT!!!!!!

You president is an ALCOHOLIC.
His behavior of the last eight years has either been that of a Dry Drunk or a RA who has fallen off the wagon, as my favorite paper, the Globe (remember the gennifer flowers story?) regularly reports. Why do you think he fell off his bike?
Obama experimented with drugs in his first two years of college (never addicted as far as we know) and then gave them up.

Posted by: Henry James | February 24, 2008 6:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

PATSY PAT:

If you dig a little, you will discover that George W. Bush was arrested on a cocaine charge. Fortunately for him, his daddy was president, so strings were pulled. Otherwise, he could never have run for any public office if convicted.

A deal was struck for him to perform community service with poor Black kids in lieu of trial. That was where he was when he failed to show up for his mandatory duty in the Texas National Guard -- he was AWOL, which, ordinarily, would have led to a court martial. But, W was not ordinary.

Bill Clinton admitted to smoking pot, but claims he didn't inhale. Please.

Posted by: Johnny B. Goode | February 24, 2008 3:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I would certainly say with the frequent change of Obama's "self" religious beliefs, association with his criminal friend Rezko, background drug use, racism, experience level, cult affiliation, and so on and so forth it would be considered manipulation to the highest degree.

I would like to hear Obama talk to the American people about his book "Audacity of Hope," which includes his very, very, questionable past, including hid use of cocaine to cope with life and everyday stressors.

WOW, what a great president he will make, NOT.

Americans better think long and hard before putting someone in the White House that uses cocaine as a coping mechanism for everyday life.

Good Lord, what is this world coming to, voting for a president that has a history of habitual use of cocaine.

Posted by: Patsy Pat | February 24, 2008 2:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Spong says: "Some presidents seek to reflect the point of view on issues they discover in focus groups. Lyndon Johnson was famous for that."

Famous? Could you reference that, please?

It may seem like a minor point, but I think any strong historical statement should be easily referenced and verified.

It's my understanding that Richard Nixon (who’s presidency came after Johnson’s) was the first political candidate to use focus groups. In a quick Google search, I found one reference that suggests this: http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2003/summer_elections_tenpas.aspx “Every president since Richard Nixon has hired professional pollsters to take, periodically, the pulse of the electorate.”

I found nothing to suggest that Johnson used focus groups, but admittedly I didn’t look very long.

Please don’t use this information again until you can verify it.

Thanks

Posted by: E Favorite | February 24, 2008 9:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The lizard like heretic of Newark offers us his "views" on politics. Are you as much as ignoramus about it as you are of religion? If so, why should anyone listen to you?

Posted by: Anonymous | February 23, 2008 5:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Excellent commentary. This is the most cogent differentiation between fervor and religiosity.

Posted by: Johnny B. Goode | February 23, 2008 1:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Interesting comments sir. And precisely where does Obama wish to lead? No where we haven't already been and with largely disasterous results.

Posted by: Garyd | February 23, 2008 12:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company