The difficulty with "prophetic distance" is that in the prevailing political culture, which for the past few decades has been horribly polarized, makes it difficult, if not impossible, not to feel that you have to choose a side. That's played out in one of two ways -- if you criticize one side, either you 1) have to belong the other or 2) believe that your side isn't committed enough to whatever agenda it subscribes to. That's why you have all these labels thrown around that don't always fit.

Posted by: Rick | August 6, 2008 2:11 PM

Eight years ago, I wanted McCain as president, but not now. Four years ago, I thought Obama was a poor choice, but not now.

The one thing I still hold true is that G.W. Bush was the wrong choice to lead this country into the 21st century.

I don't think that the Kingdom of God is on the earth, I KNOW it is in the hearts of those who live in His Way. Don't let the charisma of any man distract you from the truth of God's perfect will. Obama is a good man with a heart that can lead people to do mighty things, but he is NOT a messiah. Through Christ, we can accomplish all.

Posted by: Paul, seeking wisdom | August 6, 2008 3:03 PM

Maybe I'm a prophet and don't know it, but aren't we talking about a healthy distance here, instead of a prophetic one?

I'd use the same thing at work, even among family. Sure you want to be close, but not so close that you can't help them when they need it.

Following blindly is always a dangerous thing, as is hating everything blindly. If you agree with everything someone has ever done, you aren't thinking much.

I've picked winners and I've picked losers -- and there's nothing fun about wishing your candidate made it when he didn't. Winners though -- they can disappoint you big time in the course of 4 years. I've never really had a problem separating what I like about someone from what I don't like. How hard is it to say, "I disagree with him on that score, but we needed him to fix that mess, and it's better now."

But I'm registered independent...

Posted by: frankie | August 6, 2008 5:21 PM

There is a serious flaw in the prophetic analogy. Israel could be called to account by the prophets because of its covenant with God as God's people, who originally had a God for a King instead of a King who claimed to be god. On the other hand, as the treaty with Tripoli stated, the U.S. is not and never has been a Christian nation (an oxymoron?), in spite of recent fantasies to the contrary.

The prophetic model that is appropriate was best modeled by Martin Luther King, Jr., who made no effort to be welcomed into the White House but was invited when the moral force of the movement left little alternative for the president. He was also able to appeal to those who didn't share his faith on the basis of common ground.

The appropriate stance for any Christian should be one of clear-eyed realism that understands that no president, no government, no matter how well intentioned, can ever be, nor even should try to be, faithful. The very reality of the power of nuclear weaponry at the hands of a president makes the office inherently contradictory for a follower of the Prince of Peace.

I suggest with all seriousness, in spite of the potential for misunderstanding and ridicule, that the right stance for Christians is a Christian existentialism/anarchism that takes an over/against prophetic stance toward any and all governments. The centuries-long disaster following Constantine's supposed conversion, lamented by Phyllis Tickle, John Wesley, and the Anabaptists, among others, should be warning enough.

There was a reason the first Christians were considered traitors for saying Jesus, not Caesar, is Lord.

Posted by: Peter W. | August 6, 2008 6:33 PM

Peter,

The best prophetic models for a non-Christian nation can be taken from Jonah and many other prophets from the old and new testament. Granted the prophet is not there to legislate prayer into secular government. But the prophet can be like Howard Thurman, mentor of MLK Jr and he was a mystic.

p

Posted by: Payshun | August 7, 2008 12:05 AM

Just a thought on our two political parties and where that puts those who claim to "Follow in the Way," who answer to a more supreme political power. What would happen to the political landscape, if we forced ourselves to love our "quasi-Samaritan" neighbor? What if we who have more left leaning inclinations, intentionally decided to hop the political fence into our neighbor's yard, and subvert this empire? Register as a Republican, and vice-a-versa, politically involve yourself in the other party forums and discussions. Who knows, in an attempt to be a pseudo "Yes Man" wise ass, we may learn something from our political enemy.

Posted by: nathan | August 7, 2008 1:48 AM

Dude, Brian, keep it up man.

Posted by: Marcy Walworth | August 7, 2008 6:48 AM

I can't leave it alone;

"As a Christian and citizen, you owe the winning candidate -- whoever he is (we've only got "he's" left this time around).

Please, this is part of what's wrong with our election processes. There is still a woman running. Cynthia Mckinney for the Green party.
Does she stand a chance, not really. Is it predetermined that she won't get elected, or even heard? Yes, by the 2 party system deeply indebted to the corporations who claim themselves to be good American citizens, but use their money to sometimes work against the U.S. best interests.
In my opinion, of course.

"As a Christian and citizen, you owe..." Here's the ONLY thing I owe anybody as a Christian and a citizen; I need to look deeply into the candidates, all of them, and decide who most closely reflects my beliefs and priorities. For the 1st time since I started voting in 1976, I am voting FOR someone, not AGAINST the opposition.

I always enjoy Brians articles, including this one. But he pointed out the limits of our corporate corrupted 2 party system right at the beginning of this article.

www.gp.org.

Posted by: paul w. | August 7, 2008 7:56 AM

brian, remember the words of james madison from the federalist papers "factions are to liberty what air is to fire" roger

Posted by: roger | August 7, 2008 10:32 AM

Big Guy:
After reading your post, I went back and carefully reviewed by original post and I was unable to find any "is" in any of the goals that I identified. Nevertheless, here is some "fleshing out" that you requested:

There has been an unprecedented politicization of the Justice Department under Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Miers and others. After receiving calls from Republicans that the prosecution of Democrats was not aggressive enough and that the prosecution of Republicans was too aggressive, several federal prosecutors were fired and replaced by attorneys that were more palatable to Republicans. The White House even tried to pressure former Attorney General Ashcroft to sign off on a domestic spy program while he was recovering from surgery in the hospital because the Acting Attorney General refused because it was blatantly unconstitutional.

Our wounded veterans were housed in horrible conditions at Walter Reed Hospital until the families of these men started to publicize the conditions.

DoD has chanelled billions of dollars to Cheney's former employer (Haliburton) and others with absolutely no accountability for how the money is spent.

This administration has censored the statements of its own appointees who have attempted to identify the effects of global warming.

This administration took us to war while relying on the statements of informants like "Curve Ball" and other unreliable sources. We have expended over 4000 American lives, probably in excess of 100,000 Iraqui lives, and over one trillion dollars to replace an autocratic regime with no evidence of either WMD or Al Quaida with an equally corrupt government which will surely include Al Quaida - whether we leave now or 100 years from now as McCain has suggested. After witnessing the carnage in Iraq, I'm reluctant to elect a government that assumes such a casual attitude about committing our country to war.

Posted by: sister marie | August 7, 2008 10:50 AM

roger: "brian, remember the words of james madison from the federalist papers "factions are to liberty what air is to fire""

Of course, Madison then proceeded, along with Jefferson, to organize the first political party in the United States. See, for example, The Making of the American Party System 1789-1809, Noble E. Cunningham.

Posted by: carl copas | August 7, 2008 11:24 AM

Kevin S says, "You can't, however, expect someone actively campaigning for the Democratic candidate to mention the party that will likely steal votes from the Democratic candidate."

I think steal is a poor choice of words when referring to legitimate votes for a legitimate third party candidate. It implies deliberate immoral intent, as well as re-making the point that I was writing against in the first place, that anyone outside the 2 main parties has no right to be running. Let's leave the word "steal" for the Diebold executives that install the vote changing software into their machines please.
I know, that's a so far unproven accusation, but the way the votes went in 04 flies in the face of voting logic of all other elections that came before. I'm just grateful that there are finally investigations into it.

Posted by: Paul W. | August 7, 2008 12:31 PM

What's wrong with factions anyway? I consider them a sign of a healthy society in which people feel free to associate and express their views freely.

They're problematic in the church because people tend to consider those who are different as "less than" -- I come from the Reformed theological tradition and such an attitude is rampant there.

Posted by: Rick | August 7, 2008 1:16 PM

Why I'm Thanking God for Obama

"..But the "theologies of liberation".. go on to a disastrous confusion between the poor of the Scripture and the proletariat of Marx." ~ Pope Benedict XVI

Some would have us pervert justice by favoring the poor. Leviticus 19:15

Of course, no one here knows anyone who would think of perverting justice by favoring the proletariat, do we? :)

Posted by: Matchett-PI | August 7, 2008 4:04 PM

Matchett-PI: "Some would have us pervert justice by favoring the poor. Leviticus 19:15 "

Why don't you give the entire verse? "Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly."

And then what about Leviticus 19:27? "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."

O"f course, no one here knows anyone who would think of perverting justice by favoring the proletariat, do we? :)"

Is the proletariat = the poor?

Posted by: carl copas | August 7, 2008 5:22 PM

Sis. Marie,

You make a good point. But when you quote Brian's statement "In contrast, secure and wise leaders will always want independent voices around them -- voices who speak from a place of "prophetic distance" -- voices who have the courage to differ and whose loyalty to their nation and their president is always superseded by their loyalty to the truth."

I get the feeling Brian is only talking about Sen. Obama. I don't think he or any of the others have an interest in working with Sen. McCain. They are picking who they think will win and disgarding the other candidate. If Sen. Obama loses, will they expend just as much energy trying to work with a President McCain. Also, based on the quote you lift up from Brian, does is suggest that Sen. McCain would not be a "secure and wise leader"? Seriously, were talking about someone that has been in the Senate 26 years versus someone who hasn't completed his first term, but we're suppose to beleive he a "secure and wise leader"? Come on now. Are we that niave or are people just enamored with Sen. obama's "ideas" and personality politics? Ideas don't always turn out to be the reality, especially when you're talking about a politician.

Also, if those maintaining a prophetic distance put their loyalty to truth before loyalty to their President or candidate, what do they do when they disagree with each other and their President makes decisions the prophet may disagree with? Does the prophet just hang around so that he can keep his seat at the table or does he cut his loses. Again i sight FISA, i'm sure those maintaining prophetic distance must have said something, but when Sen. Obama made his decision, what were they to do? After the prophetic voice is heard and ignored, then what?

Futhermore, Brian and all of these other preachers chose Obama before he chose them. And since neither Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain is President, wouldn't it make sense for those maintaining a prophetic distance to be in dialogue with both candidates given that God hasn't told Brian or anyone else that Obama is going to win and if he and others are trying to protect the best interest of all Americans then it would make sense to not hedge your bets and "pick a winner."

Posted by: Don't Believe the Hype | August 7, 2008 5:53 PM

Carl:

I think "Matchett-PI" was trying to say Obama is some kind of Marxist, which was the reason for my "non sequitur" comment.

He first gives us the link to an article accusing some of almost deifying Barack Obama. Nothing new there. I remember similar hero worship of JFK, Ronald Reagan, and who can forget how conservative Christians latched onto George W. Bush as "one of them"?

Then Matchett-PI gives us, through the words of Pope Benedict, the old Vatican saw that liberation theology is little more than Marxism described in Christian terminology. That's the official Catholic position, of course, but I think that position has less to do with the actual teachings of liberation theologians than it does with its perceived threat to Vatican authority. I suppose Matchett's saying that we ought to consider Obama to be a believer in liberation theology, even though that hasn't been fully established. Another non sequitur.

Finally, as you pointed out, Matchett-PI quotes Leviticus out of context, but to try and say that Obama favors the poor in some illegitimate way? Sounds like a third non sequitur to me. Since, as you also pointed out, Matchett-PI doesn't contextualize his/her proletariat comment, it's hard to know what he means for sure.

Fianlly, I'm not sure what this link or Matchett's comments have to do with Brian McLaren's post, but since I have posted irrelevant stuff here myself, I won't say any more about that.

But regarding Obama, he's articulate, he's obviously intelligent, and his message is resonating with many people who are tired of the failings and incompetence of the last seven years. Some of those with whom Obama's message resonates are carrying their enthusiasm to extremes. Again, nothing new there. But Obama is just a man running for president--nothing less, nothing more. He still has to prove himself with the voters. The deification of him by some of his most enthusiastic followers isn't going to make anyone else vote for him.

peace,

Posted by: Don | August 7, 2008 7:33 PM

To Rick,

"Unfortunately, the conservatism that has dominated the Republican Party for the last three decades or so has taken an attitude of "my way or the highway," which does not lend itself to outside, possibly moderating influences."

I agree, but to assume that Democrats and even Sen. Obama are any different without much evidence, could possible have us in the same boat under a different name. Democrats are just like Republicans to the extent they believe in us against them. Obama talks about both Parties working together but if that were the case he would take every chance he gets to point out the problems with Republicans. One the one hand he talks about working together but usually that only means, when people want to work on his ideas, and on the other hand, he talks about how much wrong Republicans have done, as if Democrats haven't done just as much wrong doing. Obama talks and acts like he's the answer to all of America's problems but he's not. He's another politician who has mastered the art of getting people to believe what he says even if it's just pandering to get elected. Clearly this is a man who changes he opinion to fit the moment and what the pollsters say will work. Saying anything to win is unfair to the American people, that goes for both Parties. In the end, the only people who get hurt in all of this are the regular people. Win or lose, most of the problems Sen. Obama talks about fixing aren't his problems, he doesn't know what it's like to pay high gas prices because he just sits in the back of a limo. He doesn't know what it feels like to be fighting for your home, because he got a big cut in the interest rates from is corporate friends, he doesn't know what it's like to find a good and safe school for your kids, because his kids have security teams and go to private school. Yes, you could say some of the same things about McCain but atleas we have more of a political track record to go on and please don't tell me about Sen. Obama's State Senate experience as if that compares to serving in the U.S. Senate, a positions he's been for less that four years and half of the time he's been their, he's been running for President and missing votes in the Senate. But here we are with people who want to put their lives in the hands of a man with less than four years of experience on the national political scene because he talks about hope, change and dreams. Hope in not a plan, dreams can become nightmares over night, and change, if not clearly defined can result on more of the same.

Posted by: Don't Believe the Hype | August 7, 2008 8:09 PM

I agree, but to assume that Democrats and even Sen. Obama are any different without much evidence, could possible have us in the same boat under a different name.

Historically, however, that's categorically untrue, and even many conservative activists have admitted as such. "Non-conservatives" never used polarization -- whether race, class or political affiliation or lack thereof -- as a political strategy because they know it would never work. That said, Obama represents hope to a lot of people because he's someone who has gotten away from those old-style political atmosphere that came from the political right in the 1960s, and to say that he's "just like the rest of them" doesn't give him credit. Do I think he's the "Messiah"? Of course not, but considering the last decade or so he certainly looks good to a lot of people. (And as for his lack of experience, remember that his home base is Chicago, which politically is as bare-knuckles as anywhere in the world. If he can make it there ... )

Posted by: Rick | August 7, 2008 9:54 PM

Obama brings as much as experience to the table as the last man elected to the presidency from Illinois. Am I saying he's another Lincoln? Only time will tell. But let's not pretend that the experience that McCain brings to the office would make him a better president - especially one who seems to take so lightly a possible war with Iran (bomb, bomb, Iran)

Posted by: Sister Marie | August 7, 2008 11:01 PM

"Non-conservatives" never used polarization -- whether race, class or political affiliation or lack thereof -- as a political strategy because they know it would never work.

Huh? I guess all those comments from liberals about the rich getting richer or not paying their fair share in taxes aren't meant to polarize the low-income and middle class against the rich? This was John Edwards' entire shtick.

I'm not saying liberals aren't correct...just pointing out they do use class to polarize. Never say never.

Posted by: Martin | August 8, 2008 10:37 AM

I think McLaren’s was an excellent and thought provoking column. It seems he and others are assuming Obama will win and that the religious left (SoJo and liberal Protestants) will be unable to criticize due to “prophetic distance”. This fear is well founded. Obama, in spite of native charm and intelligence, seems to share all of the prejudices of most columnists and posters here: Republicans and the religious right are thoroughly discredited and so misguided as to be beyond redemption. Genuine cooperation with benighted conservatives is literally unthinkable. With such assumptions, of course you good folks will be unable to criticize your man. Not because you are evil or unintelligent yourselves, but because your capacity for self criticism is as narrow as your Western, naturalist worldview. Christianity is thriving in practically every place in the world that does not share the West’s disdain for supernaturalism. (And in areas of the world that lack religious freedom, Islam is thriving). The Christianity promoted at SoJo, while not necessarily insincere, is unable to criticize the presuppositions favoring what is called science (but is really just naturalist philosophy), and opposing supernaturalism—whether in the form of “miracles” or of a revelation of morality such as the Ten Commandments. I agree that the RR is discredited by an overly close association with the Republican Party—a largely secular group, skilled at enlisting the support of rural and less educated churchgoers. There are Obama’s “bitter” voters, clinging to things that SoJo and Obama either don’t understand, or do understand and shrink from. Jim Wallis, and I would assume McLaren as well, keeps his Christianity largely under wraps for fear of what the secular left will say if they realize what I means for folks to believe in miracles and the Ten Commandments. So prophetic distance will be a problem as McLaren has described it, and also because SoJo is terrified of speaking prophetically of morality from Sinai. (Least common denominator morality—“Here at SoJo, we just denounce the BIG sins like war and slavery”—is safe and timid, not prophetic). Fortunately, revival does not depend on human effort, but on the wind of the Spirit. Regardless of the election results, I remain an exceedingly hopeful supernaturalis in a naturalist wilderness!
Blessings, Witness for Peace (Shalom, the reign of God through his GOOD laws, protecting and blessing all nations.)

Posted by: Witness for Peace | August 8, 2008 11:50 AM

You're right Rick. I can't call liberals narrow minded and then defend the sort of conservative who won't reach across the aisle!
One of the keys to Bill Clinton's success was doing things as a Democrat that were traditionally associated with Republicans, like reforming welfare or balancing the budget. Sadly, I don't see any sign that Obama will cooperate on moderate issues. I recall a thread a month or two back where SoJo lauded him for his willingness to revive the faith based intiative--but only after the last bit of faith had been squeezed out! Nonetheless, if he manages to win I will wish him well on this and other issues.
Thank you for not getting me started on the other guy, please; a favorable comparison with McCain is not my point...

Posted by: Witness for Peace | August 8, 2008 4:30 PM

VERY well said, Brian!

Regardless of who is elected, some of us are going to find that we are dealing with a President who absolutely will NOT meet some of our political goals, however much of a 'prophetic voice' we seek to be. Obama will not restrict abortion. McCain will not seek fair trade aggreements that benefit the poor. Neither will decrease military spending. However, this is not reason that we cannot seek to influence whoever is elected on issues where they are not immovable - both of the candidates, for a refreshing change, are more pragmatic than ideological.

No matter how much anyone here likes Obama - and I absolutely realize he can be inspirational - criticizing him is a good thing, for him and for American democracy in general. Remember the statement he has on his website: "I'm not just asking you to believe in my ability to change Washington... I'm asking you to believe in your own." The greatest strength an Obama presidency could have is the number of people he has drawn into politics - enough to not only elect him but, once elected, require him to do as THEY want. Make democracy, the rule of the people, something that happens not once every four years, but every day, on every big issue.

Beyond that, adulation is just plain bad for people. If you want Obama to not only be President, but be a GOOD President - take a step back, see where he's wrong, and tell him so!

(This could go for McCain as well, except that I haven't seen anyone who's absolutely, passionately devoted to McCain.)

Posted by: Katherine | August 17, 2008 9:46 PM