Jesse A. Schroeder

I've heard a lot lately about Sarah Palin and her new book. I've heard that she was on Oprah, that her book has many factual discrepancies, and that she was promised $5 million for the book, which is mostly a slamming of the McCain campaign which was largely responsible for propelling her to a place of national recognition.

All this new about Palin really pisses me off. It really scares me to hear people say things like, "She is thinking about 2012." I start to wonder how a world could possibly allow someone like her to exist and how people could be so blind to her tricks and lies.

And then I remember that a lot of people feel the same way about Barack Obama, someone that I greatly respect and look to as a hero. Even though Obama is a role model for me, many people wonder how in the world he was elected, why he was given the Nobel Peace Prize, and how so many in America could blindly follow his rhetoric and politics without questioning the implications for our lives.

These two people - Obama and Palin - represent in many ways two opposite poles in American politics and worldview right now. Perhaps "ideology" is too strong a word, but perhaps not. An ideology is often deeply set into a person's psyche, and they look for evidences that affirm their ideology, willingly ignoring evidence that contradicts.

Is this how I approach Obama and Palin? Is my mind already made up? I got Obama's book from the library and gave it my best attempt at a read (I can't make it very far into political books). Should I do the same for Palin's book? Trying to read it with an open mind and willingness to change?

If nothing else, I want to be aware of my harsh attitudes, my fears, my inconsistencies, and do my best to be charitable and loving towards a different ideology than my own. Because another part of ideologies is that the people who hold them are genuinely trying their best to do what they can to make the world a better place. Even if we disagree on what that "better world" might look like, we can at least join hands in the effort.

As always, Brian McLaren states clearly, calmly and Christianly how I feel about the current issues - this time, regarding the very hot health care debate. A few excerpts of his "Open Letter...to Conservative Christians"

My concern is that many of my sisters and brothers, without realizing it, have begun seeing Jesus and the faith through the lens of a neo-conservative political framework, thus reducing their vision of Jesus and his essential message of the kingdom of God. As a result, too many of us are becoming more and more zealous conservatives, but less and less Christ-like Christians, and many don’t seem to notice the difference.

But we Christians, it seems to me, have a high calling – to be radically committed to integrity and civility, even (especially) with those with whom we disagree. God, after all, is merciful, generous, and kind to “the just and the unjust”: How can we not have that same obligation regarding those with whom we disagree? Even if others resort to dirty political tricks and distortion of the truth through exaggeration and fear-mongering, we simply cannot. At the very least, we should be seekers of truth, seekers of wisdom, not consumers (or purveyors) of propaganda – even if it comes from members of our own political party and people who quote a lot of Bible verses (often out of context). We have a higher calling.

I would simply like to plead with conservative Christians – conservative evangelicals, conservative charismatics, conservative Catholics, and so on – to take a stand for integrity and civility in the health-care debate, alongside and in solidarity with those of us who love Christ just as you do, but do not rally around the conservative political banner.

Even if we disagree on health-care reform and other political issues, I hope we can agree that it is time for us to start walking – and talking – more worthy of the calling to which we have been called, to use Paul’s words, to speak the truth, and to do so always in love.

I wish that I had something eloquent or profound to comment on McLaren's words, but he seems to summarize what is really important, namely living and speaking as Christ would at all times. Christians cannot continue to let issues - whether they be gay marriage, politics, or eschatology - continue to divide us against ourselves. How ridiculously embarrassing! There is a better way. The way of Jesus.

On the same note, Jim Wallis also has a good blog post you should read.

I know very little about the Iran situation, mostly because I'm not informed about international politics, and because the presidential election and ensuing protests happened while I was out of town last week. But all across the Twitter-sphere is the campaign to support freedom in Iran. On the one hand, I think there is a sort of beauty when I see so many avatars with a green overlay, and the support and concern for Iran is powerful.

But I'm not entirely sure I understand phrases like "Free Iran." What type of freedom are we calling for? I would guess that we conceive of an American-like, democratic freedom. But that is not the middle East and that is not Iran's political set up. We can't just throw around words like "freedom" without understanding the implications.

The video below touches upon the important aspects: First, the entire situation is dramatically compelling and heart wrenching. I believe that the images and footage of Neda will rightly be remembered forever, and perhaps may become a symbol for a turning of politics in Iran. However, the support from people across the internet - while it is well-intentioned and touching in its own way - is simple, requires little effort and certainly no sacrifice, let alone any type of informed decision or procession of the complexities of the situation. What good does it do for me to change my profile pic to green when I have nothing to do with the situation, and in fact I may be conceiving of "changes" "freedoms" and "rights" that would do more harm than good in Iran. As the news report conclude, Neda is an example of the sacrifice that Iranians may have to make - not Americans.


Many American condemn the Iraq war, arguing that we have no right to meddle in the affairs of the Middle East. So why are we eager to push our conceptions of freedom upon Iran during their election? Again, I find the the support beautiful in a way, but it also confuses me. Six years and counting in Iraq should give us some insight into the complexities of Middle East politics, or at least remind us that it is not as simple as overthrowing the unpopular leader du jour.

I agree with President Obama's stance in which he condemns the violence and the stifling of free speech and political rallies. He states that "the United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings and imprisonments of the last few days." The President is correct that it is always a tragedy when life is lost and that free speech is a freedom that should be protected around the world.

However, I also agree with his restraint and decision to not more openly support the protests in Tehran, despite criticism from other politicians. I think his words here are very wise: "The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States," Obama replied. "That's what they do. That's what we're already seeing. We shouldn't be playing into that." In contrast, the words of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) seem driven more by politics and childish games than wisdom. He said "[The President has] been timid and passive more than I would like. There is a monumental event going on in Iran, and, you know, the president of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it."

Americans have to learn how to carefully balance support, concern, and grief for tragedies around the world, with an equal temperance and understanding that the governments and politics of other countries are not the same as ours. There are other ways to experience freedom beyond the American version of democracy, and for us to simply push phrases like "Freedom in Iran" seems, to me, ignorant and almost insulting, since we would not be the ones to pay the price and do the work to achieve such a freedom.

I read this article last week on my way home from Costa Rica, and I was struck by the parallels to The Great Emergence conversation. Writer Jefffey Rosen points out that President Obama is not following the typical progressive/liberal track, and he is also not a conservative, but rather is "looking to synthesize and transcend the established legal categories —
articulating a genuinely new vision for what it means to be a liberal
justice in the 21st century."

The author quotes from Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope," in which he says that "democracy not as a house to be built, but as a conversation to be had." In regards to the Supreme Court, the new understanding is called "democratic constitutionalism" and seeks to remain faithful to the constitution within the current American context. Essentially there is an ongoing dialogue between the popular opinion and the values of the Constitution, as well as between the President, Congress and Supreme Court. A more full description:
"courts and political movements [are] partners, influencing each other and
society as a whole. Courts sometimes act boldly and sometimes
cautiously. Constitutional change ultimately flows from the bottom up,
not the top down (which results in “democratic
constitutionalism”), but the courts play an important if subsidiary
role in codifying and extending values that the American people
themselves have come to embrace as fundamental (which results in
“democratic constitutionalism”)"

The parallels with emergent Christianity and the Great Emergence as a whole seem evident. First of all, moving beyond the old dichotomies of liberal and conservative; embracing a conversation that is more ambiguous that clear cut, but is deeply concerned with the concerns of the common person (I think the nomination of Judge Sotomayor is absolutely beautiful in this regard). And finally, an approach that will lead to change within the institutions that will reflect the change that is already happening within the popular culture.

This recent article points out that even the President and a government that owns 80% of the company cannot control or make demands that will keep AIG honest. The concluding paragraphs:

"But like Obama, Bernanke and the rest of the political elite, who lined up Monday to share their outrage, are rather powerless to act. If AIG fails, almost all experts agree, the damage to the entire financial system would be horrific. So the leadership has little to do but posture. "Unconscionable," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "Outrageous," said her Republican counterpart, John Boehner. Sen. Chris Dodd, the chair of the banking committee that failed to regulate AIG, called on the executives to "voluntarily" forgo their bonuses. The best the government looks able to do is insist on some tough new pay restrictions going forward before giving AIG its next installment of $30 billion.

...

But even as he described the problem, Obama offered little hope of exacting justice for past violations of the social compact. Instead, he asked the country to look forward, to an era of new regulations that will prevent a repeat of these failures. And he repeated again the outrage that most Americans now feel, with a little levity to lighten the mood. "I'm choked up with anger," he said, to cover for his coughs. It was a fleeting laugh for a nation steaming with fury"

What is wrong with our country that these corporations can ignore the President, the Congress, the Federal financial systems, and the majority of the American population? Simply because they spun a web too difficult for anyone else to unravel, they now can throw a party safe from any retribution?

Somehow, the American public has to break free from these giant corporations that control our lives. They tell us we need insurance, and then lose our money, and then tell use we have to bail them out. Something isn't right here......

...American education -

I'm no expert, for sure. Yeah I'm in my fifth year of teaching, but I didn't take one class in even basic education theory. There is no state certificate for teaching religion, so I have figured out my own way the last five years. But that's not the point -

What seems broken now is the overall mentality toward education and personal achievement in America. Nicholas Kristoff is lamenting Congress' decision to trim the stimulus package by removing money for education  - and the response he gets from readers is so vicious and divided it is obvious that our country doesn't know where to go in terms of education. All we know is something is seriously wrong.

First some quotes from Kristoff:

"I’m increasingly of the view that our nation’s top priority...must be revitalizing
our education system." I wouldn't have a problem agreeing with this statement, but the "revitalization" has to penetrate beyond just the schools and into the homes of Americans.

"Come on, senators, education is the best way to fight poverty, the best
way to break the cycle of the underclass, the best way to ensure a
broader distribution of opportunity in America, the best way to
preserve our country’s economic competitiveness. And it’s just as good
for stimulus purposes as repaving a road — and you still want to throw
those school children out the window?" Right on - I'm so pissed at the latest "debates" regarding the stimulus package. Well-off senators talking about the "best interests" of Americans when it seems the concerns are more re-election and securing their "clients" (not their constituents) vote. Drinking my morning coffee, listening the updates every day, the partisan voting and "debating" - all I can say is euugghhkkkk.......How do we think throwing more money at the big corporations who are concerned with their bottom line and their CEO's salaries is going to "stimulate" the economy? I have appreciated Obama's long term view in this bill, but it seems that the Senators are to near-sighted and thick-headed to consider what "job security" is going to mean beyond next Christmas.

Beyond Kristoff's great article (and I so much appreciate his op-ed pieces lately), it is unnerving to read the comments on the blog: 336 just this afternoon, and many offering drastically different positions - pointing the blame in a hundred different directions - teachers, administration, the home, the students, lack of funding, diversity, etc. etc. This is why I'm most concerned about the nation's education system - it is so broken we are not even sure what it would mean to fix it any more. We can't locate the problem, and so we can't work to find a solution.

What I have learned by teaching for five years is that education is so much more than test scores and homework. There is an entire system (and I mean that in the most comprehensive sense) that shapes and impacts a student from pre-K through college. The biggest influence on this system is the prevailing worldview of America: Consumerism and Ego-centrism. In my opinion, this is what drives our education. The goal of students is not to learn for the sake of knowledge, for the sake of bettering themselves and society, for the purpose of development and contributing to make a more beautiful world. But rather students offer the answers they are supposed to so they can get it over with so they can get back to whatever it is they want to do - which is usually texting.

We need to paint a new picture, tell a new story and sing a new song. One that goes beyond fame and fortune, and finds beauty. We need to teach our students how to live, how to cope, how to wrestle with life and death. Instead, we are offering more money, more technology, and less education.

I hope we can find the problem soon so we can all work together to fix it - but just like the latest debates regarding "economic stimulus" have shown, the plank in our nation's eye is so huge, we are nearly blind.

Interesting statistics regarding US counties that "flipped" this past election: 372 counties flipped, almost half were in the Midwest, and the majority went from Republican to Democrat. Obviously there are many reasons for why an area changes its political color, but this made me think about something Don Miller said back when he visited Ohio Wesleyan.

Don talked about how the swing voter is the person who holds the most power in our system of elections. The candidates spend millions of dollars trying to figure out what swing voters want, how to win their vote, developing programs and initiatives that appeal to swing voters. In contrast, those voters that align themselves with one party for life essentially "put themselves in the pocket of the <insert political party here>." The result is that the party no longer has to work to please these staunchly committed voters, and the party can easily stray from the ideals it once espoused in order to gain the voters in the first place. IMHO, this describes the current Republican party (although I'm no poli-sci major).

That is why I "swung" to Democrat. I felt that they were working harder for my vote, doing more to assure me that the things that were important to me and most Americans really would happen in Washington. And I have no problem "swinging" to another party in the future. Thus is the power of a democrat, multiple-party, political system.

In these last few days following the much-anticipated presidential election, the Christian community has been charged with differing responses to the outcome. Some people are hopeful, seeing the opportunity for real changes and recognizing the significance of the first African-American President believe that even greater things are just around the corner. Others are disappointed and concerned, wondering what a liberal Democrat will do in political power. I have heard questions from students about abortion, race, gay marriage, health care, and more.

In talking to students and adults about these issues and questions, I have found that there are very real differences between some of us. And sometimes these differences cause hurt and conflict between us. And so I've been thinking a lot about the conflicts that have come up as a result of this election, and I've come to two conclusions:

1) Being a Christian is - more than anything else - about resolving conflict. On a spiritual level, we resolve our conflict with God and are reconciled. On a personal level, I must do all I can to resolve my conflicts with people I disagree with or whom I have hurt in some way. The implication of Jesus' death on the cross, bringing me back to God through forgiveness, is that I have to be brought back to peace with my fellow human beings. For me, being a Christian means that my relationships with other people should mirror my relationship with God as much as possible - and so I must work to reconcile, forgive, and heal.

2) Standing firm in what you believe to be true is very difficult. It is always easier to run away from conflict. But when a person comes to the conviction that something is true and right, and they take a real stand, the opposition and the conflict will be shortcoming. A very big part of me would rather not have conflicts with other people at all. It would be much easier to go with the flow and not make a big deal out of it. But then I would not be being true to myself, to what I believe and see to be true in the world around me. And so I have to be willing, and expect, conflict - even though I don't like it and my goal is always to be reconciled to those around me.

I can't really say that I have many "heroes" outside of the people in my family who have dramatically impacted my life. But in the last few weeks, I found myself inspired by Barack Obama. I see him as a man who is willing to stand up for what he believes is true and what he believes is possible, regardless of those who oppose him and regardless of the conflict and the attacks. Below are some selections from his keynote address in June 2006, entitled "Call to Renewal" that I find particularly inspiring.

I don't agree with all of Barack Obama's policies, and I don't know how he will be as president. But I know from my own life that it is hard to stand firm in your beliefs and convictions. And I see in Barack Obama someone who shares many of the same convictions I hold at the core of my being, and someone who is dedicating his life to seeing his hopes and visions become a reality. My hope is that I can live with the same type of unwavering dedication.

"Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts.

You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it. You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away - because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey....

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing...

...I said a prayer of my own. It's a prayer I think I share with a lot of Americans. A hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all. It's a prayer worth praying, and a conversation worth having in this country in the months and years to come. Thank you."

This guy's stuff is pretty funny - and often right on...

Don Miller, with full transcript of acceptance speech

Yesterday, I thought a lot about the beauty of our voting system, and this message from President Bush is a good example of why voting in America is such a privilege.

Good thoughts from Emergent Nazarenes

Is there some intentional irony in this?

The terribly funky CNN hologram

I wish more evangelicals had attitudes like these...

Interesting summary of ballot initiatives, and here on gay marriage

A prayer (and prayer/comments) for President-Elect Barack Obama

Sojourners thoughtful and challenging response to the election outcome

I just saw this video today, but it's pretty awesome (same video below)

Wow - this caught me off guard: Doug Pagitt running for Minnesota State Legislature. Doug is a leader in Emergent Village, author of a couple of great books, my favorite being "Church Re-Imagined".

I guess this raises some interesting thoughts about the relationship between religious leaders and the government. I was just talking with my students yesterday about Shariah (Islamic law, based upon interpretations of the Koran) and I told them, that as I see it, you have religion on one side, and government on the other, and these two come together to shape our society. But exactly how that relationship between government and religion should play out is where the difficulties arise.

I suppose that it is good that someone with the vision, leadership and morals like Doug Pagitt might be a leader in government, but I also wonder what credentials he thinks he has to be able to make policy decisions? An informed citizen? A moral man?

More thoughts on this to come....

reposted from The Corner

This sums it up:

"NPR projects that Barack Obama has won the 2008 presidential election.He becomes the first African-American president in a country whereblack people could not freely exercise their right to vote in manystates less than a half-century ago."