Over the weekend I tweeted and updated my facebook status with the simple statement: Muslims killing Christians in Nigeria followed by a simple question: Will we respond like Christ or like humans? It’s always interesting what captures people’s imaginations and provokes response.

After a year of conversations on facebook, I was still amazed at the response the simple status update received. Feel free to check it out here: http://bit.ly/auO0bH

Reflecting on responses, the following points are worth of mentioning:

1) There is no emotion like religious emotion.

Wars over the centuries have demonstrated that religions are frequently front and center in every war. Religious emotion is a product of two things as I see it. First, it is an indicator that people genuinely care. If they didn’t care, they wouldn’t get so upset.

continue reading

Last summer I had the chance to travel the country with my wife to interview influential thinkers and actors in the areas of the social gospel and Christian humanitarianism.  On one occasion I sat down with Tony Campolo, one such influential thinker and author of Red Letter Christians, in his office outside of Philadelphia. 

Our conversation touched on numerous topics that didn’t make the final cut for the book (Humanitarian Jesus).  One of those topics was health care reform.  What follows is a rather un-edited snippet of the interview on that topic:

continue reading

After spending a glorious Sunday afternoon watching the best Ice Hockey game ever (and I've seen many), I posted a tongue and cheek comment on my facebook page, indicating that Canada had both the gold medal and health care.  The comments that ensued were a reminder that Christians are as deeply divided and entrenched on this issue as everyone else.  We're red Christians and blue Christians - big government Christians, and small government Christians, and we're good at pushing each other's buttons.  I'm pretty certain though, when the comments were done being posted, nobody had changed their minds, or changed anyone else's mind either.  Perhaps the only thing that happened was a little bit of grace and charity was lost.  

All this leaves me wondering if there's value in the dialogues between blue and red Christians.  I think there can be, but only to the extent we hold these truths to be self-evident:

continue reading

Several weeks ago, Google announced that because of a "highly sophisticated attack" on the e-mail accounts of Chinese dissidents, that the company would no longer filter Google search results in that country.  As search engines are required to agree to this stipulation in order to operate in China, many suspect that this will lead to Google's eventual withdrawal from the country. Because of the size of China's population (and what this means for Google's market share), Google's increasing entrance into other product markets (operating systems and cell phones), and the increasing importance of China as a world power, this announcement was almost entirely unexpected. And despite the view articulated in the Business Week article linked above, although there may be some business considerations for the decision, when Google announced the decision, the reasons articulated had nothing to do with profits, but were about people.

continue reading

This weekend, I finished reading Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, the Pulitzer Prize winning book by Doris Kearns Goodwin. I will make a confession: this book will linger with me for a long time--it's an amazing experience and if you allow yourself the time to get lost in its 19th century world for a while, this book could change your perspective on leadership in the 21st century. Growing up in Northern Illinois with regular trips to Springfield, I encountered Lincoln's heroic status at a young age and as I have grown older, I am simply more appreciative of Lincoln not simply as a leader, but also as a man.

The New York Times, in November of 2005, published the following words in regard to the book by Goodwin and more specifically in regard to Lincoln the leader:

"How did he do it? Goodwin deals with this question better than any other writer. Part of the answer lay in Lincoln's steadfastness of purpose, which inspired subordinates to overcome their petty rivalries. Part of it lay in his superb sense of timing and his sensitivity to the pulse of public opinion as he moved to bring along a divided people to the support of "a new birth of freedom." And part of it lay in Lincoln's ability to rise above personal slights, his talent for getting along with men of clashing ideologies and personalities who could not get along with each other." (the full article can be found here.

Let's reflect on the lessons as identified by this New York Times writer, but let's do so with an eye to faith and leadership in the 21st century.

1) "steadfastness of purpose"--instead of caving in to public opionion or trying to be trendy and relevant, Lincoln seemd to focus his energies on leaving a legacy. And I believe we'd do well to mimic his example.

2) "inspired subordinates to overcome their petty rivalries"--how many times have we seen teams split up or churches fall apart due to 'petty rivalries'? The phrase seems to haunt the present relationships being exhibited in Congress as well.

3) "his talent for getting along with men of clashing ideologies"--this may be one of the single most needed traits of leaders in a globalized era. Now, how will faith leaders within Christendom prioritize what's essential over and above what's not essential? Who will not only lead God's people, but who will also "get along with men of clashing ideologies," so that Christians can press forward with what's important instead of devouring one another in partisan debate?

Of course, there are many more lessons to draw and Team of Rivals is worth its own seminar or college class. For whatever reason, the world seems devoid of leaders who are willing to put a higher purpose above petty debate and rivalry. If you have a leadership role in any organization, do yourself a favor and read Goodwin's book. You won't be sorry and you may find yourself challenged to imitate Abraham Lincoln over a 100 years after his death.

continue reading

While some may question whether a national prayer breakfast blurs the line between church and state, it is one of the rare non-partisan events that has attracted presidents from both parties. It dates back to the days of Dwight Eisenhower. While the organizers might be specific in their religious convictions, the event itself celebrates America’s civil religion. How appropriate that President Obama would call for a renewed civility. He suggested we can challenging each others’ policies without questioning people’s motives. “Surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith or for that matter, my citizenship.”

The cynic may consider that a political ploy designed to rescue plunging poll numbers. Yet, the depth of our national problems requires some setting aside of partisanship. We can agree on the need to alter our political discourse, to move forward in economic recovery, to get out of the nightmarish wars abroad.

This morning's BBC report discloses that the French government has refused to grant citizenship to man because he is forcing his wife to wear the 'full veil'. Because she is not free to 'come and go with her face uncovered', this man's values place him a category of person to whom the French government denies citizenship. It is recommended by the French government that anyone showing signs of "radical religious practice" be refused citizenship.I'm interested in your thoughts on this subject so I'll just toss some questions out:

1. The phrase 'radical religious practice' seems ambiguous. Isn't 'eating the flesh and drinking the blood' (see John 6, or your weekly communion table) also radical? Or living in community? What are the risks that this ruling becomes precedent setting for all manner of religious persecution? On the other hand, isn't the state obligated to protect the powerless (Romans 13), and isn't this woman being rendered powerless? But what if she wants the full covering?

continue reading

There were many in the evangelical world of my youth (read: James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, et. al.) who decried the 'liberal courts' for overstepping their bounds by using the court as means of legislating, rather than limiting their responsibilities to 'upholding the constitution according intent of its framers'.  They viewed Roe v Wade as an example of, not merely ruling on a case, but of using a case to create and impose a new ethos that was far beyond the scope of the case at hand.   How dare those liberals do that!  If only conservatives ruled the court, such nonsense would cease, right?  

 Apparently not.  The court used the case of "Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission" as a means for overturning a century of campaign finance laws, ushering in an era whereby corporations (both American, and foreign ones with US subsidiaries) are granted the same freedom of speech rights as individual Americans.   The McCain/Feingold law that sought to limit the degree to which companies could influence elections (and thereby, influence elected officials) was overturned with this ruling.  

continue reading

So I’m scrolling through my newsfeed on Facebook the other day and see a link to a story on ABC about Focus on the Family running an anti-abortion ad during Super Bowl XLIV starring Tim Tebow. I may have been the last person on the 'Interwebs' (that’s what my 65 year old dad calls it) to see this, but it sparked a few thoughts.

In the article, Gary Schneeberger, a Focus on the Family spokesman, is quoted as saying, “There is nothing political or controversial about the spot.” Are you kidding me? Nothing political or controversial… right. Focus on the Family has become synonymous with both politics and controversy due to its strong alignment with crazy right-wing ideologies.

continue reading

While no one can predict the outcome of the Prop 8 trial, the unlikely pairing of conservative lawyer Theodore Olson with his former liberal foe, David Boies, is making plenty of headlines.   They faced off in the famous Bush vs. Gore Supreme Court battle.  Together, they are now arguing against the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 which outlawed gay marriage.   

Newsweek features a fascinating first person account from Ted Olson.  Rather than discussing how and when he reversed his position, the former solicitor general for George W. Bush maintains that conservatives should inherently affirm individual liberty and any legislation that promotes marriage, stability and family.     It is also intriguing that liberal lion David Boies relishes the opportunity to put the Obama's administration's equivocating on the issue on trial.    He told Newsweek, "The current administration has been decidedly halfway on this issue," he says, "and I think the specter of having George Bush's lawyer out in front of a Democratic president is something that, shall we say, might stimulate people to rethink their positions."  Conservative scion Edwin Meese offered an editorial protesting the particulars of the trial (including its San Francisco venue) in the famed venue of the left, The New York Times.   

continue reading