(from del.icio.us)
(from del.icio.us)
So, as a life-related aside, I’m looking into purchasing a bike. One of the nice benefits where I work is an annual wellness benefit, where we receive an amount of money that we can use on… wellness. Workout equipment, bikes, gym memberships, weight loss, things to help quit smoking, and so on. It’s a wonderful thing.
In any case, this year I want to use it toward getting a bike. My wife and I live in a small one bedroom apartment in Atlanta, and don’t really have a place to put a large object like a bike, or the desire to get mud and all those things all over carpet that we don’t own. So, I’m very interested in getting a folding bicycle that I can leave in my car, or leave in a corner of the apartment where it doesn’t take up much space.
Our working arrangements are not such that we could get rid of a car in favor of a bike, unfortunately, but I do hope and plan for this to be the case in the near future.
With all that said, I’d love to hear any recommendations for good folding bikes. Reasonably priced, long lasting, folding bikes. In the beginning parts of my search, I have been impressed by the Dahon Espresso and the Dahon Speed. Similar recommendations, or contrary recommendations, are welcome.
There is an interesting interview with Rick Warren that took place after the presidential forum that was held at his church. In it, the interviewer stops just short of saying that Dr. Warren endorses John McCain, and then later states that he will not make an endorsement. Fair enough. I’m sure the same could be said of many others who are not making endorsements.
But there is a quote that I find odd, and that I feel is worth a look:
But the other important distinction Mr. Warren notes is the candidates’ approaches to government, which he says are “totally opposite.” “McCain is more of a limited government guy and Obama sees government as the solution to major problems in society.”
This is, of course, a classic argument between conservatives and liberals. Since I began to have my own political views, I have been somewhat troubled by the thought that I could be a person who “sees government as the solution to major problems in our society.”
However, in recent days it has become clear to me that this argument is no longer valid in 21st century politics. There are many valid arguments between conservatives and liberals, but this is not one of them.
For an example, watch the beginning of this episode of The Daily Show. In it, you can see a look at various media responses to this ad from John McCain, likening Barack Obama to a celebrity. Which is fine. And the media responses look at whether Obama is an elitist, whether he makes unrealistic promises, and so on. All of this is also fine. They should ask these questions.
However, the implication of course is that John McCain is not an elitist, and that he does not make unrealistic promises. The beauty of the above linked episode of The Daily Show is that it shows the other side. By 2013, apparently, McCain will lead us out of Iraq, give us economic growth, a secure Southern border, a balanced budget, $100 million in tax breaks (of course, mostly to “the wealthy” who make $5 million or more each year), and any number of other things.
And this is a small government that does not see itself as the solution to major problems in our society? Hello? Is there anyone who sees these kind of claims, whether or not they are valid, as representative of a small government? Is there anyone who still believes that George Bush runs a small government? The sweeping intrusions into civil liberties alone should keep anyone from believing that, even without looking at budgets, or taxes for people who are not wealthy, or military engagements, or political intrusion into the Justice Department, or …
So. I propose that the question of United States politics, from where we currently stand, is not whether we will have a small or big government. The question is what kind of big government we will have.
(from del.icio.us)
For the past few days, the country has been abuzz with talk about Rick Warren’s forum that took place at Saddleback Church, in which Barack Obama and John McCain answered some of the questions of evangelicals.
During this event, I was on a flight from San Francisco to Atlanta, and thus was able to use AirTran’s in-flight XM radio to listen to some of it. I heard most of the questions asked of Obama, and a few of them asked of McCain. Interestingly, most of the flight aside from this was spent reading Jesus for President and discussing culture, Jesus, politics, Shane Claiborne, and theology with an artist/activist sitting next to me.
I have written occasionally about my support for Senator Obama, and still maintain this though I have not written about it recently. I have noticed the rise of the Matthew 25 network, and Brian McLaren’s support for this network and for Obama. Certainly I think this is a much more balanced approach, biblically and theologically, to an attempt at following Jesus with one’s politics compared to what we have seen from conservatives. But I’m still not planning to join this kind of thing.
In this faith forum, I thought Barack Obama gave some great answers to some great questions. I especially loved his answer to the problem of evil, especially in contrast to that of McCain. Obama’s, at face value, was much more centered on justice and help for the poor and oppressed, while McCain’s was, of course, entirely centered on bin Laden and the rest of the fight against terrorism. Terrorism, of course, is an idea. It can be defined, shaped, and twisted to fit the person who is speaking against it. Darfur cannot.
In addition to this, after he had given his response to evil, Obama stressed that it is not human responsibility to get rid of evil in the world: it is God’s. This is a refreshing statement. Most of America’s politicians believe that, not only is it humanity’s responsibility to get rid of evil, it is the specific responsibility of the blood-stained righteous hands of the United States to get rid of evil. McCain, of course, believes that it is the responsibility of the United States to kill bin Laden.
Do you see the contrast in this? I had hoped that many evangelicals would see this, and it may prove that they will. A quick view of many of the responding blogs and articles, though, would suggest that they don’t. Most conservative evangelicals were entirely won over by McCain’s unelaborated reference to prayer, his unquestioned description of himself as being pro-life, offshore drilling, and going after bin Laden. Wow.
Now. I mentioned that I was reading Jesus for President on this flight. I plan to write a couple of posts about my thoughts and experiences in reading this book, but at the moment when I was listening to all this there was a single thing that stuck out to me. Note that Shane Claiborne is not endorsing a candidate. In his book, he spends a lot of time talking about the honest call of Jesus to nonviolence, and how that works itself out in the life of a believer. It is a challenging, illuminating thing that I would encourage you to take seriously.
In the presidential faith forum, Dr. Warren asked Obama what justification would lead him to take the country to war. The response was reasonably consistent with Just War theory, which of course was constructed by the fourth century church to justify its allegiance with the State. One of the statements he made was related to the idea that it is necessary for us to consider what, as Americans, we are willing to die for.
Of course, the implied answer is that we are willing to die for liberty, freedom, justice, and so on. Fairly standard talk, and the question of what we will die for is incredibly relevant to the person who seeks to follow a man who died on a torture device to offer forgiveness to his killers. But the question that no one asked, or will ask, is what we are willing to kill for.
Evangelicals tend to dismiss the peace-promoting words of Jesus in the ways that we vote, the things we expect from our country, and in our own private hypothetical situations, illustrating Dallas Willard’s statement that we may like Jesus, but we don’t believe he is very smart. My hope is that things like Jesus for President will resonate with more people, like it did with my neighbor on my flight, and that we will have to devote the energy to learning how to live like Jesus rather than learning how to justify not living like him.
(from del.icio.us)
For 48 hours starting today (Monday) at noon, there is a premiere of a new video from Nooma, called “She.” I would encourage you to give this a look. Be prepared to watch for around 10 minutes.
It is described like this:
We didn’t have anything to do with our birth. We are all here because some woman somewhere gave us life. Her pain, her effort, for our life. And when a mother gives like that to a child, she is showing us what God is like. But sometimes this part of God’s nature is overlooked. A lot of us are comfortable with male imagery for God. But what about female imagery for God? Is God limited to a gender? Or does God transcend and yet include what we know as male and female? Maybe if we were more aware of the feminine imagery for God we would have a better understanding of who God is and what God is like.
Depending on what circles your theology fits in, this statement could be either very tame or very radical. Either way, I think it is worth watching and thinking about.
There is great beauty and wisdom in some of the writings of the feminist theologians, and it is often a beauty and wisdom that has been forged in spite of deep oppression. However, there is also often great anger, and sometimes this anger leads these theologians to turn the oppressions on the heads of those who oppress them.
The same issue exists in liberation theology. In both cases, it is entirely justified. It is just for the oppressed and ignored to want retribution and to attempt to get it.
But in these issues, as well as issues of violence and war and annoying bosses, justification is not enough for something to line up with the heart of God. Certainly, it was just for Peter, seeing the arrest of Jesus, to cut off an ear or two. Countless other examples, before and after Jesus put the ear back, have occurred and in general we as humans have responded in ways that seek the kind of justice that Jesus didn’t allow.
In light of all this, if I could encourage feminist and liberation theologians, I would encourage them to draw closer to the heart of God as they cry out for the world to remember the things that truly are on his heart. But they must remember the masculine qualities of God as well as the neglected feminine attributes. They must remember the peaceful subversion that is the kingdom of God as well as magnify the neglected cries of the poor and oppressed. It is hard to live like this. But it is essential.
In light of all this, watch the new Nooma video.
(from del.icio.us)
(from del.icio.us)