Obama Tilts to Center: A Bias for Talent, Experience, Ideas

President-elect Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination with the enthusiastic support of the left wing of his party, fueled by his vehement opposition to the decision to invade Iraq and by one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate.

Now, his reported selections for two of the major positions in his cabinet — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state and Timothy J. Geithner as secretary of the Treasury — suggest that Mr. Obama is planning to govern from the center-right of his party, surrounding himself with pragmatists rather than ideologues.

The choices are as revealing of the new president as they are of his appointees — and suggest that, from its first days, an Obama White House will brim with big personalities and far more spirited debate than occurred among the largely like-minded advisers who populated President Bush's first term.

---NYT 11.21.08

This is the direction, the approach, I expected from a President Barack Obama: single-mindedly, even selflessly, seeking the best executive and operational talent, the best organization possible, to share the challenge and the stage of leadership, regardless of their politics, personalities, or their prior relationships with him.

[T]he names racing through the ether in Washington about the choices to follow also suggest that Mr. Obama continues to place a premium on deep experience. He is widely reported to be considering asking Mr. Bush's defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, to stay on for a year; and he is thinking about Gen. James L. Jones, the former NATO commander and Marine Corps commandant, for national security adviser, and placing Lawrence H. Summers, the former Treasury secretary whom Mr. Obama considered putting back in his old post, inside the White House as a senior economic adviser.

He appears to have the personal strength, confidence and ability to lead and manage this heady, consultative process, even with such an elite line-up of star-quality experts and leaders--including some strong egos and personalities. And he also appears to have the intelligence and wisdom to thereby find and promote the best answers. But he is also bringing in strong, proven talent to help him manage that process, as well. "That," suggests the Times, "explains Mr. Obama's first selection — Rahm Emanuel, another centrist Democrat and former member of the Clinton White House, as his chief of staff."

He has shown no reluctance to call on former adversaries within and without the Democratic Party, or Independents or Republicans, for that matter. But he will demand that they share his earnest, nonpartisan commitment to addressing successfully the extraordinary, daunting list of challenges that now face our country, including restoring our country to economic strength, our people to confidence and the better life, and our more consultative, respected leadership role in the world. Part of that approach is a function of the idealistic, but pragmatic team-oriented side of his nature, and his priority on talent. But there are also reasons related to our singularly difficult times and circumstances:

The reason, several of Mr. Obama's transition team members say, is that they believe that the new administration will have no time for a learning curve. With the country facing a deep recession or worse, global market turmoil, chaos in Pakistan and a worsening war in Afghanistan, "there's going to be no time for experimentation," a member of the Obama foreign policy team said.

He will doubtless make mistakes. It is inevitable. But it will not be for failure to employ and consult the best minds, the most experienced professionals, and yes, the wisest politicians--nor for a lack of willingness to make tough decisions and work hard and wisely to carry them out . In point of fact, I have concerns about his approach to bailing out the Big 3 auto makers outside the bankruptcy process, as I have written, but there may be considerations I am not privy to--and regardless, I do not expect to agree with everything he does. I will hope that it is nonetheless successful, and be humbly quite pleased if it is. I am just grateful to have a person of his talent, energy, vision and character at the wheel as we navigate these most dangerous waters.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27849923/

A Requiem: Restructuring the "Big 3"

The only remaining questions appear to be the process of their demise and how they will be restructured--and whether our public money is wisely spent in answering the pleas for life-support through this enormously wrenching and untidy process. Dying organizations, liking dying people, too often plea against reason for another day of life as they know it, and another dollar to make it happen. Regardless, of the answers there will be lots of pain to be shared by all. There is no soft landing to be had.

Under most circumstances, I would doubtless see no wisdom, no defensible short-term benefit, no accountability for long-term results attending any approach other than allowing the bankruptcy reorganization process to unfold and work its painful resolutions. Seldom does artificially supporting a noncompetitive, failing enterprise result in anything more than deferring the inevitable failure, and assuring that everyone suffers longer and loses more. And while Chapter 11 is still likely the best answer today, there are singularly unaccommodating aspects of the current financial and economic environment that could reasonably lead the taxpayers to assume the banker's role and provide "bridge financing" to the Big 3 as they work though this process--within or without the Chapter 11 process.

But if we are to consider this extraordinary venture outside the bankruptcy process, don't we have to require a financial stake in return, a planned restructuring process, oversight, and conditions that assure all other stake-holding parties--shareholders, employees, suppliers, creditors and dealers--share in the sacrifice necessary to produce an effective, competitive, restructured U.S. auto industry? And don't we have to accept that there may be only one or two companies resulting?

In a Newsweek article, "How to Bail Out General Motors," Robert Samuelson provides a balanced reflection on these issues and is almost persuasive that, all things considered, we may be better off holding our nose and providing "life-line" financing to the Big 3 outside the bankruptcy process. But first, on the off-chance that you haven't been paying close attention to these matters, allow me to share some personal reflections and conclusions about the Big 3, how they got to this place, and how dark their situation is.

Without Chapter 11 or government intervention, they will likely fail--GM soon, and one or the other soon after. The Big 3 have been in the slow process of leadership failure for at least a few decades. I once read a study that suggested that a principal factor in identifying great management and great leaders is how far and how insightfully they look into the future. And then, of course, it is just as critical how well they lead and manage to that future. The Big 3--and particularly GM--have failed on both counts, and they've been doing it for a long time. This is not a revelation; it is not news. As a professional and executive in large-corporation America for over 20 years, I can assure you that during that time this slow demise proceeded predictably and was discussed and written about with some regularity.

They have survived on yesterday's American market segments that foreign auto makers have largely left to them as the world has moved on. For during this time, more forward looking, more effectively managed and competitive automotive companies have evolved in Japan and Korea, and joined a few European auto makers to set the standards and claim world-wide leadership. Within 10-20 years, China will doubtless join or lead this group. And also during this time, new managers and older expatriates of the Big 3 have quietly shared their disappointments and frustrations with the myopic, sometimes dysfunctional, management cultures. The only question was, when and how they would fail?

The when, is now, and the how, is the question of the day. So let us just matter-of-factly pronounce the inevitable last rites and sing the requiem song over the dead men walking, and then move on to what a wise reorganization process of the American automobile industry might look like.

The Newsweek article by Samuelson makes clear the circumstances in which the Big 3, the congress, and we taxpayers find ourselves:

• "So it's come to this: General Motors, once the world's mightiest industrial enterprise, is now flirting with bankruptcy. Ford and Chrysler may not be far behind. Car and truck sales have collapsed. GM is rapidly exhausting its cash reserves and may soon be unable to pay its bills. Here's the dilemma: GM and other U.S. automakers ought to be rescued to minimize damage to the economy, but the rescue should require tough conditions that neither the Democratic Congress nor the incoming Obama administration seems willing to support."

• "In a booming economy, a GM bankruptcy might be tolerable and useful. It would remind everyone of the social costs of mediocre management and overpriced unionized labor. But far from booming, the economy is declining at an apparently accelerating rate."

• "No one knows what further havoc a GM bankruptcy might inflict. A study by the Center for Automotive Research (CAR) estimates that 2.5 million jobs would be lost in the first year. The logic: if any of the "Big Three" went bankrupt, many suppliers would also fail; because car companies share suppliers, all U.S.-based manufacturers would suffer crippling parts shortages. [But] this may be too pessimistic..."

• "In a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, GM would "reorganize." It would suspend many existing debt payments and continue normal operations. Perhaps. The snag is that even in "reorganization," GM would require new loans and these might not be available. "Historically, when companies go bankrupt, there's 'debtor in possession' financing—investors lend you money, but they get repaid first. That market has evaporated because of the credit crunch," says auto analyst Rod Lache of Deutsche Bank. No loans, no production.
  
  Another possible pitfall: worried about warranties and service, customers might shun a bankrupt GM's vehicles." [But I submit this would be a factor regardless of approach since the public has a ringside seat and clear sense of the Big 3's fragile condition and uncertain future.]

Based on those points, Mr. Samuelson then tacks toward avoiding bankruptcy through government loans, but with stronger conditions than have so-far been voiced by the congress. He follows this course despite his own expressed lack of confidence in the congress to require and enforce the necessary conditions, and in labor unions to agree to them.

• "Why run these risks when the 6.5 percent unemployment rate seems headed toward 8 percent and almost a quarter of the 10 million jobless have been out of work for six months or longer? Just to satisfy a purist "free market" ideal? It doesn't make sense. But neither does it make sense simply to heave taxpayers' money at automakers. The objective is not to rescue the companies or workers; it is to shore up the economy and improve the U.S. industry's competitiveness. A bailout won't succeed unless other things also happen."

• "GM will need a $25 billion government loan to get through the recession and cover closing costs, says Lache. But GM already has $48 billion of debt. Unless the old debt is sharply written down, GM would be overburdened and its rendezvous with bankruptcy would merely be delayed. Already, shareholders are essentially wiped out."

• "Labor costs need to be cut. By Lache's estimates, GM's hourly compensation—wage plus fringe benefits—totaled $71 in 2007 compared with Toyota's $47. Health benefits for retirees (many in their 50s, having retired after 30 years) are expensive. These costs contributed to GM's massive cash drain, $31 billion since 2005. But the United Auto Workers opposes making concessions. Just the opposite. Government aid, says UAW president Ron Gettelfinger, is needed "so that auto companies can meet their health-care obligations to more than 780,000 retirees and dependents." The bailout should be more than union welfare."

• "In bankruptcy, a judge can modify a firm's labor contracts and debts. GM needs the benefits of bankruptcy without the uncertainties, but the political process—so far—resists that desirable bargain. The conditions that Democrats seem to be discussing are mostly rhetorical gestures against high executive compensation (already limited) and in favor of more fuel efficiency (already legislated)."

• "We are now seeing the first political side effects of the open-ended $700 billion rescue of financial institutions. With so much money going to so many recipients, boundaries and rationales need to be established. When is public intervention justified? Who deserves support and why? Otherwise, political firepower will increasingly rule. The reason for imposing tough conditions on the auto industry is not only to improve the odds of success, but also—by the sacrifices required—to make the process sufficiently unpleasant so that countless other companies and unions won't demand similar handouts. In 1979, when it rescued Chrysler from bankruptcy, the Carter administration insisted on concessions from management, investors and labor. We should do as much or more."

I think Samuelson has a made a strong case for the best course of action. It is just not the one he has proposed. They do need the benefits of a bankruptcy-like process to impose the requirements and necessary discipline on all parties to assure a viable restructuring of these companies--but only a Chapter 11 proceeding will provide it. Samuelson cannot just end his analysis with an unsupported conclusion based on the implied hope that somehow the congress, labor, and financial institutions will voluntarily do what they have expressed no willingness to do. And Chapter 11 is also the best way to avoid the slippery slope and impossible judgments of who among the lengthening line of supplicants also deserve to be "bailed out."

The one significant and justified reason for government "bridge loans" identified by Mr. Samuelson is the huge current problem with the lack of a normal banking and financing environment. And gaining the needed additional financing in this constricted and frightened market presents an abnormal and significant risk to the success of a normal bankruptcy restructuring process. Unless the $48 billion of existing debt is written down and subbordinated to "debtor in possession" loans from other financing sources, they are much less likely to emerge from bankruptcy optimally and successfully restructured. Unfortunately, it is quite possible there will not be adequate financing or reasonable terms from other sources in today's dysfunctional financial markets--except from the government.

The better alternative might be to allow GM and other members of the Big 3 to go into Ch. 11 bankruptcy proceedings, but with agreement that the government will be the banker of last resort providing financing up to what is economically justified--say, the requested $25B--but only if the banks holding the existing $48 billion of debt will subordinate it to the government loans. Then, let the Ch. 11 process legally force the unions to adjust to real market wages and benefits. Let the real forces of the world-wide marketplace exert their shaping influence on the restructuring, merging, split up, or outsourcing process. That will likely be the only way to bring the full force of market and economic reality to bear on the process--and on the timely resolution of the economies of scale and work force issues which allow all parties to get on with business, and get on with their lives. Tough, but likely right.

Yes, a lot of jobs will be lost, but they will be lost anyway, sooner or later. Job displacement, and all the unfortunate distress and suffering that goes with it, are a painful but constant fact of life in a healthy market economy. And there is usually no wisdom in subsidizing continuing failure or deferring the inevitable. We have or should have sufficient social support programs to bridge the displaced from lost jobs to new places and new jobs--and if existing programs are inadequate to the needs of this extraordinary time, then they should be legislatively strengthened and made adequate. That is also a necessary part of an effective market economy's healthy adjustment process.

To follow the course Samuelson proposes does not appear to follow from his facts or premises. It is unwise to merely hope the legislature will or can create the conditions, discipline, and accountability of a bankruptcy process outside of Chapter 11 proceedings. To harbor such hope is naive, at best. We can still be the banker of last resort in bankruptcy. But anything more appears mostly about politics. Maybe it's smart politics, but it is just politics.

[Thanks for the question, Adam.]

Religion & "Niceness"? Community Identity & Happiness? Faith & Spiritual Journey?

Many Americans doubt the morality of atheists. According to a 2007 Gallup poll, a majority of Americans say that they would not vote for an otherwise qualified atheist as president, meaning a nonbeliever would have a harder time getting elected than a Muslim, a homosexual, or a Jew. Many would go further and agree with conservative commentator Laura Schlessinger that morality requires a belief in God—otherwise, all we have is our selfish desires. In The Ten Commandments, she approvingly quotes Dostoyevsky: "Where there is no God, all is permitted." The opposing view, held by a small minority of secularists, such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, is that belief in God makes us worse. As Hitchens puts it, "Religion poisons everything."

--Paul Bloom, Slate Magazine

And so the American cultural battle goes between theists and anti-theists. The religious seeing good resulting only from faith in God and faith community; the secular seeing only the excesses of narrow and rigid religious organizations, and the dysfunction and suffering resulting. Of course, both are to some extent right--and both are wrong. That much--to the objective and informed person, at least--is quite clear.

Religion & Niceness

In his recent Slate article, "Does Religion Make You Nice? Does Atheism Make You Mean?," Paul Bloom reviews recent research suggesting that religious people--especially when mindful or reminded of their religious identity--are more generous than non-religious people. But the reasons proffered suggest more going on than a simple transforming faith in God.

[The research authors] suggest that this lopsided outcome is the result of an evolutionary imperative to care about one's reputation. If you think about God, you believe someone is watching. This argument is bolstered by other research that they review showing that people are more generous and less likely to cheat when others are around. More surprisingly, people also behave better when exposed to posters with eyes on them.

Maybe, then, religious people are nicer because they believe that they are never alone. If so, you would expect to find the positive influence of religion outside the laboratory. And, indeed, there is evidence within the United States for a correlation between religion and what might broadly be called "niceness." In Gross National Happiness, Arthur Brooks notes that atheists are less charitable than their God-fearing counterparts: They donate less blood, for example, and are less likely to offer change to homeless people on the street. Since giving to charity makes one happy, Brooks speculates that this could be one reason why atheists are so miserable. In a 2004 study, twice as many religious people say that they are very happy with their lives, while the secular are twice as likely to say that they feel like failures.

It would be understandable, then, if based only on that information you concluded that religious people really are "nicer," however complicated the reasons. But then there are these other confounding studies and findings that might support a different conclusion.

In his new book, Society Without God, Phil Zuckerman looks at the Danes and the Swedes—probably the most godless people on Earth. They don't go to church or pray in the privacy of their own homes; they don't believe in God or heaven or hell. But, by any reasonable standard, they're nice to one another. They have a famously expansive welfare and health care service. They have a strong commitment to social equality. And—even without belief in a God looming over them—they murder and rape one another significantly less frequently than Americans do.

...The Danes and the Swedes, despite being godless, have strong communities. In fact, Zuckerman points out that most Danes and Swedes identify themselves as Christian. [And they once were devout Christian nations, a point I will return to later in reference to my own writings.] They get married in church, have their babies baptized, give some of their income to the church, and feel attached to their religious community—they just don't believe in God. Zuckerman suggests that Scandinavian Christians are a lot like American Jews, who are also highly secularized in belief and practice, have strong communal feelings, and tend to be
well-behaved.

...Denmark and Sweden aren't exceptions. A 2005 study by Gregory Paul looking at 18 democracies found that the more atheist societies tended to have relatively low murder and suicide rates and relatively low incidence of abortion and teen pregnancy.

Community & Happiness

Now, considering these additional findings, the case for needing faith in God to be nice or good appears to fall apart. Looking at this puzzle, Bloom wonders why within the United States, religion seems to make you a nicer person, while in non-religious societies, somehow, atheists are very nice people and--in many ways--nicer than religious ones. Of course, he has an opinion.

...And [also] there is the community that a religion brings with it—the people who are part of your church, synagogue, or mosque.

The positive effect of religion in the real world, to my mind, is tied to this last, community component—rather than a belief in constant surveillance by a higher power. Humans are social beings, and we are happier, and better, when connected to others. This is the moral of sociologist Robert Putnam's work on American life. In Bowling Alone, he argues that voluntary association with other people is integral to a fulfilled and productive existence—it makes us "smarter, healthier, safer, richer, and better able to govern a just and stable democracy."

American atheists, by contrast, are often left out of community life. The studies that Brooks cites in Gross National Happiness, which find that the religious are happier and more generous then the secular, do not define religious and secular in terms of belief. They define it in terms of religious attendance. It is not hard
to see how being left out of one of the dominant modes of American togetherness
can have a corrosive effect on morality. As P.Z. Myers, the biologist and prominent atheist, puts it, "[S]cattered individuals who are excluded from communities do not receive the benefits of community, nor do they feel willing to contribute to the communities that exclude them."

The sorry state of American atheists, then, may have nothing to do with their lack of religious belief. It may instead be the result of their outsider status within a highly religious country where many of their fellow citizens, including very vocal ones like Schlessinger, find them immoral and unpatriotic. Religion may not poison
everything, but it deserves part of the blame for this one.

...There is no evidence that, when you factor out community, those who believe in a deity are any better than those who don't. The important part of religion is the people who are around you, not the gods above.

A Different, Complementary Perspective

A few years ago, I addressed this question from a different perspective in my essay "Good People," the last in my Identity's Complaint series. I suggested that the influence of multi-generational acculturation within a faith community, and genetic selection by marriageable couples for the predisposition to the values of their faith community may account for much of our good behavior, whether or not particular individuals of later generations claim that faith or not.

Questions about behavior and culture almost always bump up against the age-old questions of nature or nurture—or, to what extent nature or nurture is involved in shaping them. And it would probably be easy for students of these questions to agree that most behavior is a function of both—to some degree a function of our genetic prescriptions or predispositions, and to some degree a function of family, social, and cultural learning or conditioning.

To expand on that, certainly it would seem likely that 4000-5000 years of Judaic faith and culture, on the one hand, or 1000-2000 years of Christian faith and culture on the other, would likely exert significant conditioning or shaping influence on the values, character and behavior of generations of individuals raised in families in those faith cultures. And doubtless, the reproducing young men and women in those cultures sought spouses with characteristics that those cultures and families honored and rewarded most. To the extent those were genetically-influenced traits or predispositions, they would be the most likely selected and genetically transferred through the generations. And this is no less true for other faith traditions and cultures that have endured for millennia.

So, it would seem defensible to suggest that whether or not an individual were observant of their Judaic, Christian or other faith today, they would nonetheless likely carry the same cultural values, honor the same personal characteristics of "good" people, and likely be indistinguishable in that respect from their faithful or observant brethren. That is to say, we could easily be indifferent or even antagonistic toward the faith of our forefathers, but owe our own predisposition toward the good behavior of good people to the social behavior and values conditioned or genetically passed to us through the generations of our families in their religious cultures.

Faith & Spiritual Journey: What God?

Does that mean there is no God? Does it mean that all the answers are to be found outside ourselves and our sense of identity in the more limited world of the biological and social sciences, rather than a search for a spiritual identity and transcendent truth? Later in my piece, "Good People," I suggest there is more than that, and a body of experience and knowledge to support it.

It is often more about our personal depths to be plumbed, following an internal voice faintly heard, seeking a truth which at first is more sensed or apprehended than articulated or understood. It is about seeking and finding peace about that which passes and that which endures. It challenges us with notions of humility and transcendence. It challenges us to understand ourselves as a passing experience, identity and consciousness, which is somehow part of a greater Purpose and existence that endures. This understanding and peace, ever incomplete but continually unfolding, seems more often extended by invitation and accepted than pursued. And it appears that the more attentive we are to the unfolding, the more often we accept the invitations, the deeper, more intimate the journey becomes.

But can the existence of God be proven--or disproven? What is the case to be made for faith? Of course, all people of faith have their own case to make, their own story to tell. I make mine in my What God? series of essays, and in particular in my essay "What God?"

First, allow me to respond with a question of my own: does a genetic predisposition or the involvement of biochemical, neurological or psychological processes—including necessarily, evolutionary processes—dictate that there is no greater purpose, no Author or Director Spirit, no spiritual Mystery, no God in control? How does that follow? How else might we have been ushered to this place and time, ready to ask the great questions, ready to search out the purposes for it all, ready to encounter the One who calls us?

You look askance at me, and I understand. But after all is said and seen, the work of science provides no more evidence for the absence of God than for His presence. Neuroscience, for example, struggles with the relationship between neurological processes and consciousness, whether that of everyday phenomena or spiritual experience. They even struggle with a useful, researchable definition of consciousness. And to the extent they approach questions of God at all, they are reduced to proxy questions of faith consciousness or spiritual experience, which in turn are approached only through proxy measures of attendant neurological activity. However important this basic research—and it is important—it appears to provide only another groping, attenuated and unavailing approach to scientifically answering questions about the existence of God, and adds but very little to understanding the experience of God.

...And so I am left with my epiphanies, still asking, what could be more miraculous and awe-inspiring, more beautiful, more humbling, than the complexities and unfathomable realities of evolutionary mechanisms and the progress of life? How else than through these evolving biochemical, genetic, social and psychological processes might all of creation have moved continually upward toward sentience and cognition, curiosity and questioning, the pursuit of truth and identity? For what other purpose might we be brought face to face with the history of the development of creation, and those transcendent apprehensions that lead us, than to seek the sensed Author and understandings of why we are now here?

...As I continue my faith journey, I have available to me the breadth of today's considerable knowledge and understandings set side-by-side with the shared knowledge and understandings of the ages. To that I add my own existential and spiritual experiences, and it all contributes to what I know and understand. And as my mind, heart and soul are so informed—as it all continually changes me—it also informs what I believe. And it all sets the occasion for my evolving relationship with God, and my understanding of Him. It all might seem to you epistemologically circular, but for me it forms the most important of my understandings.

So, I cannot work with the supposition that God does not exist. My experience and understandings will not allow it. I could no more deny or abandon the reality of my Spirit-of-God experience than my spirit-of-man experience—kin and connected as they inextricably seem to be, transcending our individual identities as they so often do. To do so would also render life too vain, and hope and the reasons to reach higher unacceptably less than my soul requires. Even though others seem able to deny or abandon the reality of one or both—and do—I cannot. We each must make our own choices, however informed they may be, and however they may be informed.

And I would also add my conclusion and invitation from my essay, "Being Found" (also included in the What God? series):

Be found by God. Watch for Him; listen for Him. And whenever, wherever He finds you, go with Him. Just take yourself along. His Peace He promises and His Peace He gives, but it is not easy to receive. Find, be with the people who know God and can accompany and direct you. Be ready to change and grow, continually. Be ready for challenge as well as joy. Be ready to see the world, its people and problems, your life and friends, with new, more understanding eyes. Be ready for a faith that transcends, but a life that is renewed, involved and serving. With Him, we are always growing and seeing things new—especially who He is, and our loving relationship with Him and each other. As much as you can, hold onto those caring and generous sentiments, those grateful and forgiving feelings. Hold onto Love, and let it show.

But why, then, do so many Christians appear so angry, judgmental, even intolerant, so politically contentious and alienating? Why do so many appear unloving, unforgiving, and lacking in compassion and kindness to those outside their religious community? Why do they appear to reflect so very little of the humble, nonjudgmental character the Bible ascribe to Jesus? Why do they appear to distrust the efficacy of God's work, and feel they must take into their own hands the public approval or disapproval of the choices other people make?

These are good and fair questions. Allow me first to respond that many Christians, with all their human failings, do strive to live as close to Jesus' teaching and example as they can, God willing and His Spirit leading. As to the others, I don't know the answer, not entirely, anyway. But I do know that it has a lot to do with traversing the challenging bridge of faith with the limitations and failings of our human nature and the alluring, lesser values of the world that call and claim us. But I share your concerns, and have my thoughts about it all that I expressed in my essay "Missing the Point About Jesus," found also in my What God? series.

People claim Jesus for many reasons. You know that, of course, and that their faith in Him can mean so many different things. But He may or may not change the way they consider and live their lives. But if they do claim Him, or a faith related to Him, shouldn't it change them?

There are many who attend church—regularly, perhaps, on particular religious holidays, or just unpredictably. Regardless, they know the language and rituals of their Christian church community; they know the culture and the teaching. And yet I have not seen much change in many of them—in what they do or say, in who they are. At the very least, shouldn't they reflect some of Jesus' love and forgiveness, some of His humility and compassion toward others, both within and without their faith community.

Rather, too often, their faith and church appear a convenient front, and their Jesus claimed more a cloaking justification, an excuse, for culturally-biased, sometimes bigoted views and actions. Too often, they claim their ersatz, reinterpreted Jesus—their distorted biblical teaching and Christian history, too—to support their public judgements and intolerance, their lack of public compassion and concern for the poor, their aggressive political agendas to legislate their cultural values on others. I recognize none of this in the Jesus I find in the Bible, the Jesus that abides also in my heart.

[And after exploring some of these matters further, I conclude:]

So, where do we go from here? If we would follow after Him, should we be surprised that Jesus calls us first to seek and experience the consuming love of God, and to learn to love Him in the same consuming way? Should we be surprised that in that process, Jesus calls us to move beyond our limited sense of worldly identity, it's addictive attachments and selfish strivings, and invite more of His Spirit and nature to abide in us. And, second, He calls us to allow that love to overflow in an expression of love and caring for all others.

Jesus, by His teaching and example, then makes clear his first priorities for our life of love and service. In the context and with the gravity of final judgment, He calls us to feed and clothe the poor; to visit and care for the ill, infirm and unable; to invite in the stranger, and visit the prisoner. He wants you and me to attend them, care for them, feed them. That is where we go from here. Those are the things that should fill and direct my life of faith and yours.

Faith Journey and Loneliness

And what of Bloom's conclusion in his Slate article about community marginalization and loneliness? If you really go down this path of a life more focused on Jesus teaching and example, if you are more indwelt, informed and led by His Spirit, doesn't it necessarily distance you from so many of the Christian communities that we have discussed? Doesn't it leave you feeling particularly alienated by the more publicly aggressive Christian organizations and churches? Doesn't there result a sense of division and isolation? Can that be good? No, it is not good that this situation exists, not for Christians, their churches or for society at large; but yes, it is most certainly good that you feel distanced and alienated by it. There are much better alternatives.

First of all, there are Christian churches--and there are certainly individuals--that often succeed in carrying Jesus' love, compassion, humility, and nonjudgmental teaching into their life and relationships outside the church. Seek them out. And my experience is that your faith life does not find balance in God's creation, in His work and among His people--and all people are God's people--unless you also find community and nonjudgmental relationships among the many good and nice people in the broader world at large. But most important, your sense of identity and wholeness must be invested most deeply in life with Christ seeking after God. There is no enduring loneliness in those places, most especially when--as you find community and relationship--you also find life in God.

http://www.slate.com/id/2203614/pagenum/all

60 Minutes: Obama's Thoughts on His Presidency

Last Sunday evening, 60-Minutes provided 18 minutes of discussion between interviewer Steve Croft and President-elect Barack Obama. They discussed the President-elect's thoughts and priorities on approaching this historic presidency in troubled times. The remainder of the program was spent chatting with the President-elect and the next first lady, Michelle Obama, about their relationship and approach to being a family living at the most famous address in the world.

If you missed this 60-Minutes presentation Sunday evening, please take the opportunity to view and hear it now. Click on the link below and the 18 minute interview will play, or click on the video option that offers the full 41-minute program. This is an exciting and encouraging time.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4608192n

Ignorance, Darkness Still

Cross burnings. Schoolchildren chanting "Assassinate Obama." Black figures hung from nooses. Racial epithets scrawled on homes and cars.

--msnbc news article: Obama election spurs race threats, crimes

The offspring of ignorance and darkness are still out there. We knew they were. But yes, there has nonetheless been significant observable and palable social progress. There is a new generation of more enlightened young people, and an older generation now more open-minded and less burdened by prejudice or bigotry. It has been easy to hope for more: an end to dark, ignorant views and behavior. But we knew they were still there.

In the course of this presidential election, there were the recurrent public and private comments about Obama that too often cloaked closet prejudice: "There's just something I don't like and don't trust about him; he's just too arrogant," or "I don't think we know who he really is; I don't think we can trust him." Of course, we understand just what it is that some of those people don't like or trust about him, and why they think he is too uppity. Some appear to feel they know enough about who he is by merely looking at him and listening to other like-minded people--and that's still a problem, isn't it?

But no candidate's life history--his experiences, education, work, activities, writings, views and beliefs--have been more thoroughly, publicly vetted than Barack Obama's. For all who open-mindedly wish to read or hear the facts and understand the values of this man's life, they are readily available. We know exactly who he is and what he stands for. And to be sure, there are many whose principal concerns with Obama are honestly about his politics and policy directions. But for some others, regrettably, he is really just an unequal black man usurping the rightful place of a white man as president of the United States. I suppose we should be relieved that in civil society, at least, most of them are shamed by their feelings, and seek to camouflage them or hide them.

But now the election is over. Now an extraodinarily talented, accomplished, and well-qualified African-American man has been elected president of the United States by a clear majority of Americans. And now the residual, irrepressible anger of the most ignorant and uncivilized racial bigots is expressing itself in uncompromisingly despicable terms. How despicable? The msnbc article goes on to list the ways some of these people have recently expressed their identity and their values.

Incidents around the country referring to President-elect Barack Obama are dampening the postelection glow of racial progress and harmony, highlighting the stubborn racism that remains in America...

• Four North Carolina State University students admitted writing anti-Obama comments in a tunnel designated for free speech expression, including one that said: "Let's shoot that (N-word) in the head."
• Second- and third-grade students on a school bus in Rexburg, Idaho, chanted "assassinate Obama," a district official said.
• University of Alabama professor Marsha L. Houston said a poster of the Obama family was ripped off her office door. A replacement poster was defaced with a death threat and a racial slur. "It seems the election brought the racist rats out of the woodwork," Houston said.
• Black figures were hanged by nooses from trees on Mount Desert Island, Maine, the Bangor Daily News reported.
• Crosses were burned in yards of Obama supporters in Hardwick, N.J., and Apolacan Township, Pa.
• A black teenager in New York City said he was attacked with a bat on election night by four white men who shouted 'Obama.'
• In the Pittsburgh suburb of Forest Hills, a black man said he found a note with a racial slur on his car windshield, saying "now that you voted for Obama, just watch out for your house."

But before my disappointment paints too despairing a picture, we must remember and celebrate the importance of this historic presidential election and how far we've come as a nation--and the fact that these few cultural miscreants are now merely a statistically insignificant criminal element in a much changed, much better America. As I observed, a notable majority of all Americans voted for Barack Obama on the merits of his candidacy and out of self-interest: he was the best and most qualified candidate. And many others voted against him only because of their political identity or preferences, not their racial identity or preferences. On the whole, it feels much better to be an American.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27738018/

YES!

A new beginning. A better set of governing values. A better approach to national leadership. A shared, consultative role in international leadership. A new, promising president: Barack Obama.