I knew who Rick was… I just knew it. But I had to watch again anyway since he is such a great theologian.

Note to self: always check status bar at the bottom of the page before clicking on any of Scot’s links.
Lots of great stuff as usual.
Mark Galli’s commentary on the fascination with “leadership” is a good read.
And here we have the only Bears worth watching.

With respect to #6 – This is just good exegesis isn’t it?

For a rejoinder to Nicholas Kristof’s ridiculous article (the right direction, Scot? Are you serious?), see Thomas Sowell:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDgzMGYyYmNmN2Y2NDFlMTdjNmI0OWExOGRiZmQ0YWM=

Yes, Ben, I do think intellect is to be respected and whether or not Stevenson is a good example — Sowell in his inimitable carping manner doesn’t think Stevenson is a good example — is not “the direction” I was pointing out. I was pointing out that intelligence is a good thing. By the way, I think Sowell is an intelligent man and liked his memoir, even if it revealed an incredibly stubborn, self-assured man.

Oh Brother… Number 6. I guess I have been away from the States and the KJV people too long to remember how they think. They focus on little frases in certain versions and they turn them into major issues. Sadly, I have to say: Thanks for the reminder.

Yes, intelligence is important, but Kristof seems to think that intelligence means holding his own policy positions. Does he honestly think that Obama has any innovative thinking at all? I can’t see any.
More to the point, the whole article is part of an incredibly irritating class of articles that I’ve run into after the election, explaining precisely why the Republicans are anti-intellectual neanderthals, and mourning the loss of the so-called “good” Republican, who of course held liberal opinions. The way to get smart again? Why, adopt the policy prescriptions of the Democrats, of course! Timeo Danaos et dona parentes, if you ask me.

If you watch #6 and think of “Jack” from Lost it gives it a whole new level of humor. Anderson has another sermon where he says ADHD is not a disorder and that it needs to be disciplined out of kids. Thanks for the mention.

Scot, so funny… the headline paired with that photo.
Also, thanks for the link to the Thanksgiving Invitation. You would surely be welcome to a piece of pie. And definitely welcome to bring on some cranberry sauce or other such thing

Thanks, Scot. Civility not easy always even among Christians it seems, especially in the hot stew of politics along with some other issues.
Ben, I would respectfully disagree with you. President-elect Obama thinks on his feet well, and that is partly what got him in trouble over at Rick Warren’s church, though I for one much prefer that from a politician, and I think it may bode well in the world and situation which his administration will face. But they all need our prayers, whether we agree with them or not, as I’m sure you’ll agree.

…I don’t mean to put down Obama’s opponents either, or the Republicans at all. I just see him as exceptional among politicians, just a special gift. And I hope he is humble and has a sense that he is well in over his head, and that this translates into a trust in God as well as a good ear for the wisdom of others.

Is it just me, or are others having a tougher time adjusting to the new Beliefnet site? Seems as tho there are fewer comments than before, so maybe I”m not alone? Don’t know that it should be different, but somehow it is a bit.

Ted,
I wasn’t saying that I thought Obama wasn’t intelligent; just that I didn’t see him as an original thinker. Everything I’ve heard from him is what liberal thinkers have been saying for the last twenty years. And his answer at the Rick Warren forum was a vacillation, and an attempt to sugarcoat his opinions that he knew would not go down well with his evangelical audience. It was not thoughtful.
Change? Hardly.

I’ll try one last time, as this not only has not released my comment twice, but loses it as well (I need to remember to copy it, this time).
Ben,
I respectfully disagree, and it seems like you may be putting the worst case construction on Obama. And of course he wants to appeal to all the electorate, as any good president should want to do.
Obama should not try to reinvent the wheel. The United States has roots and a rich history to draw from. He did show creative thinking in my mind during the campaign, out strategizing even the Clintons and I believe winning impressively in a divided country.
Obama evidences for me a desire to be a president of the United States and from that to work on understanding well the times and what the United States should do in them.
I also like it that I sense he senses he’s in over his head, as is true for any person with that job. But to be thoughtful as he is could end up translating in some ideas and strategies we haven’t seen yet.
(by the way, just how much in thinkers is original? C.S. Lewis thought the best thinking was building on the work of others, and I think it’s rare that good thinkers come up with something truly original, from what I’ve heard)

#12 Christine, the inability to simultaneously read all of the comments plus the total original post is a hassle factor for me.
Also the “type in the text you see (imagine)” – though I imagine it’s needed to prevent spam – I take that claim at face value.

Good points, Ted. And though it may only be a symbolic gesture, I was pleased that on election night, it was Obama’s decision to not have any
fanfare – no confetti, music, balloons, or a cast of thousands on stage. I found it quite moving to see him standing alone on that stage . . . and unlike those of us who supported him, he was rather subdued. I mean, gosh, he had just been elected president! But the seriousness of the times weighed on him. It seemed quite an appropriate measure on his part.

From Pam W … who struggled to post comments.
well, this site is a pain! third try to comment since you moved. I couldn’t save the earlier ones as they were from my phone, and I don’t know how…
Ben – I believe the ‘direction’ that is good for this country in Kristof’s piece is a valuing of intellectuals in leadership. Republican or Democrat, the popular position in campaigns in recent years is anti-intellectual. It started long before Bush, but Rove made it into an art form. Really quite brilliant to watch the spin doctors on this one. That is what people said lost Bush Sr. the election – he refused to play with the spin doctors and dumb down his message. He was an intellectual (unlike his son, sorry to the ‘w’ fans), and believed working hard as President rather than campaigning would be obvious to the American people. Clinton won so big because he ‘played’ the non-intellectual as Kristof implies (there were definitely other reasons Clinton won, but this one has been brought up by many Republicans, so I wanted to present the bi-partisan nature of this).
That is what was brilliant about the Obama campaign. I’m sure he had many advisors telling him to dumb it down, but he said not this time. One of the best examples is the March 18 speech in Philly. That one would have gone down in history regardless of the outcome of the election. People say ‘that’s speech writers’…well, those folks don’t know much about campaigns. The speech writers were saying “you can’t present the complexity of the race issue like that and get elected. The American people need simplicity”. That is what political campaigns have given us recently – Republican AND Democrat. Obama had a higher opinion of the American people.
We as a nation have been sold the false idea that someone can’t be an intellectual and understand the needs of the average American. Then came this guy who was head of the Harvard Law Review, a Constitutional Law Professor, AND had worked as a community organizer on the S Side of Chicago. Which btw, is the heart of Republican polity: decisions made by engaged citizens at the local levels. True commitment to a Republican agenda should value the experience of community organizing above many other leadership competencies. I digress from the topic there though….
It’s not about one person’s creative ideas. It’s about a leader’s ability to tap the collective intelligence and generate the collective action of this innovative and resourceful nation.

Pam W,
Great comment. Tap the collective intelligence means assuming that the intelligence and creativity exists, first and foremost.