An Ironic Night at the RNC

I was embarrassed for our country to say the least. Such rude and condescending tone. I though they wanted to bring America together, you know, "country first."

I am not a two-party gal and I wish there were more choices. But after hearing that speech (written by Bush's speech writers) I am definitely moving to the bluer side of purple.

Thanks Brian.

When did the Nation Anthem become "God Bless America"? They introduced it as such. Palin was go good speaker, as one of my friends said, "That was the best speech McCain ever wrote."

She spent 45% of the time slamming Obama for promising the same things she has done for Alaska, 5% of the time telling of how great a mom she is and 50% of the time telling us that McCain, who she is not anything like, is a great man.

I listen to Palin talk last night and I thought that most of it was written for Obama, she sounded so much like him with all her words of promise, hope and renewing America.

Yet she is on the ticket of those who want more benefits for the rich, more pollution of the Air and sea as well as the neglect of the poor and middle class with the same failed polocies of Bush and the "Compassionate Conservatives".

Hey, Paul: Scroll down to the earlier posts today about Palin's speech. Open the one called "Plenty of Punches." I added a comment this morning where I pasted an AP article that catalogs all Palin's (and others) factual errors from last night. Check it out if you really are looking for the facts.

Brian,
Thank you for the post. I feel the same disappointment.
Others,
Sarah Palin was very condescending... and she did misrepresent. I can say that irrespective of my political leaning. I knew relatively nothing of Sarah Palin before she was introduced as McCain's running mate last week. Her first appearance on network news where she made a few comments made me hope that she was articulate and honest but also that she might bring a forthright and respectful dialogue of the issues to the election race. I was wrong. Last night was anything but respectful and forthright... what a dissapointment that this is what the Grand Old Party brought to the floor of their convention and the Nation.

Both sides are very disappointing this time around. The democrats put up a guy with a whole lot of hype and no experience to back it up. When you are voting for president of the United States you want someone who has been there and actually done something about the things he stands for. Obama has done some but nothing even close to this scale.

The Republicans put up a guy who claims to be a maverick but who sides with Bush on the vast majority of issues. He points to experiences 40 years ago that qualify him to be commander and chief.

So on one side you have a guy with 1 minute of experience from last week and on the other side you have a guy with a few hours of experience from 40+ years ago. Who do you pick?

I am not convinced that McCain = 4 more years of Bush. We can all see that isn't working. Obama is certainly not Bush but I can't trust a guy who I can't tell has really ever led anything in his life. His response? I led this campaign. If that is his best answer to that question he is not ready to lead this country. So I see in McCain a guy who is able to make tough decisions and lead but maybe in a direction we don't want. Then you see Obama who I don't believe is ready to lead the country and where he is going to lead us I really don't know either because he uses all that lawyer double speak and changes his mind repeatedly. This is really frustrating.

i couldn't agree more.

Brian,
I am sorry that I have encourage others to read your books and visit your website.
You are a typical liberal hypocrite. You say you want inclusion, yet you exclude.
You say to love others, yet you make sport of those who share a different political view then yours.
I expected more from you, yet you seem more focused on promoting Obama, then promoting the concept set forth by Christ of love thy neighbor as thyself.
You need to reread what the goal of the Emerging Church. It is not the Church of the Emerging Obama.

"I worry that in writing these words, I'm adding to the division, but I fear that if I don't say anything, I'm tacitly supporting something insupportable, and allowing something harmful to go unchallenged."

Brian, I know from having heard you and read you that you take scripture very seriously. And so I respond to your expressed concerns -- and rebut the calumny that Sam Armington has laid on you -- with the following from the New Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible. Jesus is speaking:

"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. And even the hairs of your head are all counted. So do not be afraid; you are of more value than many sparrows. Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven. Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it." -- Matthew 10:29-39

Brian, I consistently find in your work and words the heart of the Gospel -- the commands to love God more than anything, to love our neighbors as we love ourselves, and to love our enemies and do good to them, not harm them. In speaking against those things which do not meet these standards (especially in the public square), I find that you are acknowledging Jesus as Lord of Life, and specifically, as Lord of your life. What you have done is as much a sacramental act as that of the Eucharist or baptism.

It is to your credit, and a great example to the rest of us, that you continue to search your soul even as you stand up for the teachings of Jesus. May we all continue along this path, hard as it is, in faith and humility. Let those with ears to hear and eyes to see, understand and heed these words.

...the "different standards" argument is not one Jesus uses, as we are all held to the same standard...His...conveniently, in later days, displayed in red letters in some Bibles

...simple stated, because I know and care about the man, at depth, I stand with Brian as he stands with Jesus, and I know Brian stands with me as I stand with Jesus

...I also happen to agree with his assessment of last evening's speeches, and ended the day with a sad heart for the lack of attention to the needs of our country and world

...Brian is not a perfect human (there was/is only one of those), and neither am I, but he is one of the most grace-filled men I've ever known, and our friendship now goes back two decades

...I just wish Jesus would have said somewhere (and maybe He did...), "Bash not, lest you be bashed."

...so as a priest/spiritual director, I hear Mr. Armington's confession, "Yes, I did bash Brian....", and I remind you, Sam, that your sins are forgiven completely by all that Jesus has done for you, and I encourage you to now go and to both fully and creatively live the gospel, refocusing the fire in your soul that would so easily bash and turn that passion into all that would bring our Triune God the greatest honor and glory as you seek to live out the gospel in every one of the seven dimensions of your life...the life for which our God uniquely designed you to bear His image while alive in His world.

...amen and amen.

I had very similar thoughts. And more: It felt like we are witnessing the birth of a fascist America. With Giuliani especially, but then Palin in more muted, 'agreeable' terms.

I'm not saying that the Democratic Party is perfect or that politics is precisely equivalent with the liberating power of Jesus' good news, but I feel disappointed that the RNC isn't setting the bar higher.

Having read and listened to Brian for several years now, and having been impacted by his A New Kind of Christian, I'm terribly disappointed that he has swallowed completely the Obama doctrine. His is not a preference - he has allowed it to become his guiding philosophy, and the message he now preaches. I am deeply saddened to realize this.
Also, I found Wednesday's RNC refreshing, for two primary reasons: 1) Sarah Palin presented a fresh perspective and a fresh voice in what has become a long and tiring campaign, and 2) one party finally decided that humor is a good addition to a campaign. Compare that to Obama's speech on August 28, in which he kept his eyebrows furrowed nearly the entire time. Add that to Obama's perpetual unwillingness to laugh at himself, to be sometimes self-deprecating, and I see one stuffy man.
Brian has disappointed many by taking entirely partisan stands this year. I fear he's lost what standing and influence he once had with moderate evangelicals. Maybe he never really cared about them anyway.

I'm astounded at the negativity of the comments here! You may not agree with Brian's support for Obama (and I don't recall him insisting that you do) - but the points he makes above are truly fair enough.
Listening to Guiliani pretend he's spent his life in the bosom of conservative evangelicalism in small town America, rather than supporting the cosmopolitan and diverse (read gay-friendly and multi-racial) realities of New York really was laughable. It's ok if you like Rudy, and it's ok if you want to vote Republican, but you should be willing to notice when your side takes actions which cause them to lose credibility.

I wonder why Christians put any hope in government or any politician? Do we believe they can make God's Kingdom more of a reality in this world? Is that not the responsibility of Christians? And tell me one thing government does well? Is government necessary? Absolutely. But to think that it is any kind of solution to the problems of humanity is simply not true. The church needs to take back its responsibility for the people of this world. And if we ask, "How can we feed so many? Send them to the government for food." We have forgotten who Jesus is and what he can do.

I do not advocate for or vote for any presidential candidate.

sam:

The blog is dedicated to religious progressiveness. Another way of saying this is that those who are contributing to this blog have come to the conclusion that the religious right & religious conservatism in whatever religion are an unsatisfactory way of looking at the world, and are not productive for getting us past the problems we seem stuck on in American society. So if you expect these contributors to mouth the same stale conservative talking points, then yeah - you will be frustrated by this blog. But that's a problem with your expectations, and not a problem with the blog.

I'm speaking for myself here, but I imagine that there are others who agree. I am not really a Democrat. The only reason I would vote Democrat is because it's the only chance at ousting the Republicans who have screwed up the world, the country, the economy, and who for the last 8 years have shown themselves to be a living example of religious hypocrisy, injustice, abuse of power, lies and corruption. I feel that they have not been good stewards of the power they have been granted by the citizens of this country. If it takes voting Democrat to get them out of office, then vote Democrat I will.

But I hold the Democrats to the same standard that I hold the Republicans, and I will be the first to denounce Obama or anyone else who begins to show the same behavior that Bush and his administration continually displayed during his 2 terms in office.

There are many people who disagree with your pronouncement about the lack of "freshness of ideas" in progressive thought.

Regarding your statements about being called "vicious and hateful," if you listen to Obama's speech, he avoided a mocking tone when he discussed his opponent. He merely pointed out that Republicanism in whatever form it wishes to appear in is still the same Republicanism, the same thing that got is into the terrible mess we are in now. Contrast that with the tone of Gov. Palin, who took every opportunity to belittle Obama as a person, as an active citizen who has worked his whole life to help people, and as a professional politician. She also told a number of lies which you can see proof of if you read the AP fact check that was released immediately following her speech.

It is legitimate for people to point out that telling lies and slandering people with a mocking, sarcastic tone isn't exactly Christlike behavior. For some reason that bothers you, and yet the only possible reason I can see for why this bothers you is that you are a Republican. Brian, the contributor to this thread, owes nothing to anyone. What he said was spoken fairly and gently and even qualified at times.

sam armington: You hold back too much. The blog-list is nothing but political liberals and/or "progressive" leaders of various denominations and faiths. Rather than use the political terms of liberal and conservative when describing people of faith, I find orthodox/non-orthodox to be more descriptive. Every faith/belief has some base-line tenets that cannot be denied without placing the individual outside that faith/belief. Political parties and labels are definitionally amorphous; religious belief has some line that cannot be crossed or it loses its meaning (or in Christian terms, it loses its salt).
What I like about the emerging/emergent christian movement is that it seeks to find the base-line that defined the church originally. However, by tearing down and allowing every other idea in, it needlessly complicates the task. There is a starting point for christians, namely scripture (not the canon, necessarily). Absent our ultimate joinder with a creator God, this humanly inferior and defective correspondence is all we have. And it is not captive to the right or left wings of secular (and flawed) politics.

We all have our blind--or even fuzzy--spots. Brian's no different, so I embrace him as a Christian brother who just thinks different from me. However that action is grace, not counting the worst of interpretations I could imagine from his words.

I don't agree with them. After numerous blue writers tried to make red-staters look like knuckle-dragging simeons as fall out of the last presidential election, I definitely look askance on who's more divisive.

Let's not play that millions didn't also vote for another candidate. And as such, every presidential campaign is always one candidate that millions voted for against another candidate that several other millions voted for. That's a non-starter.

Is John McCain "joined at the hip" with George, as Joe Biden said? Not on "Theocracy". This site has McCain 'denouncing Christian Right leaders as “agents of intolerance,”' in 2000. Meanwhile, George was supposedly rank-and-file evangelical right-wing. Oops.

Defining it as "more of the same" because it's more "Republicanism" is a pretty poor argument.

Somebody brought up the post, "Plenty of Punches", as an example of legitimate criticisms about Palin's speech. Yeah, if you consider reading three sentences about how America=God into a small dig about being "always proud of America" then, yeah, to you it's a "fair" criticism.

But I'd like to know how we even get close to a calmer dialog taking the liberty of reading into other people's "code words" or a psychic mind-reading that I find so prevalent in liberal political "essays" these days, and making that the imputed "smear".

But it's kind of funny that Brian Williams of NBC can ramble, in the buildup to McCain's speech, about how it's remarkable that McCain was "savaged" by his party eight years ago. It's funny because one of the republican "smears" (as represented back then, not Williams' word) was about McCain's supposed temper. And now it's a character issue that we allow a man that can have an outburst at his wife that somehow the Republicans have just (hypocritically, one would believe) overlooked. Of course, none of this can be chalked up to penitence or moderation or even an unwillingness to cover old ground--because, conservatives don't repent, moderate, or reassess. We just don't have them down on the books for these things.

On the other hand, a display of temper--which is either too much or made too much of, we can't decide which without (further smearing)/assessing--wipes out Obama's quasi-Marxian patronizing reduction of dialectical forces which turn unemployed manufacturing proletariat into "bitter" people clinging to their guns and Bibles--oh yeah, and xenophobia. Despite that he likes to suggest that he's listening to people on their own terms. No one should be surprised that these people having a different view--and perhaps at being offended at such ready caricaturization, would not vote for Obama.

Not that I'm not somewhat moved that Obama tried to frame it sympathetically to his audience? Just the same way I appreciate his words during the primaries when faces with some anti-abortion protesters that some people just believe differently. But I simply can't understand the intellectual capacity of somebody who suggests that he has done an adequate job of explaining away his indulging their paradigm. Of course, when people lose their standard of material well-being, all bets are off; they just spiral downhill. (After all, it causes crime, as well, doesn't it? Simply becoming bitter doesn't sound so bad when other people are compelled to commit crimes!) Just give them back their material standing, and you'll see, they can be good progressives.

That said, I can't help but join in appreciation of the irony presented by Guiliani. However, it's not that surprising, is it? Being one of the least devout of Republicans I can think of, it only makes sense that he could be a more worldly, political player--doesn't it? What would the neighbors think if Republicans kicked people out of the party simply for not being... I don't know, call it "centered in eternal standards". After all, they don't kick a gay with some questionable morals out of the party, and they get Mark Foley, right? Hypocritical Republicans. Assuming that Repubs occasionally make passes at trying to adjust, they abandon their master plan of theocracy, kicking a less ideally-minded guy out of the party--that's a good way to send the message that you've adjusted to a more secular world right?

God bless.

Thank you for writing this. You boldly put into words what I and many others were also thinking and feeling, especially about letting something harmful go unchallenged.

Jesus told a story once about two children who were asked by their father to do a particular task. One said, "OK, Dad. I'll get right on that.", yet he did not do what he had been asked to do. The other basically said, "Hell no.", but then he went and did what he was asked to do. Who obeyed his father's will? The one who did what he was asked to do.

The democrats have been pretty benign in their comments, promising to love everyone and care about "the poor", and create new jobs, etc. But what will their policies actually do? I believe that they will create a bigger "state". And the more power the state has, the scarier it becomes. The more it "gives", the more freedomes it actually takes. Dems may SAY that they will make this world a better place. But history has shown that socialistic tendencies reduce freedom. I think God is big on freedom.

You may believe, Brian, that the Rep convention was unkind in their tone. I for one would rather vote for a ticket that I believe will promote freedom, whether or not they "sound" as nice as the loving democrats. True love is expressed in actions, not just words. And I believe that Sarah Palin showed TREMENDOUS restraint, considering the onslaught of Obama supporters who tried to destroy her in the media in the 5 short days that they knew about her before the convention. Obama gets months of glowing Newsweek covers with titles such as, "Why Michelle Loves Him." Palin got slammed by US Magazine (and many others) with the heading, "Babies, Lies, and Scandal."

These are the people you are ignoring, while "wincing" at the Republican Conventions "mockery", Brian.

By the way, in the last few days, Obama and Biden have begun attacking Palin themselves. I guess their pit bulls in the media weren't doing a good enough job, and they've actually had to get their own hands dirty rather than letting others do it all for them. Does this disturb you as much as the tone of Sarah Palin and the republicans at the convention? Does it disturb you that Obama considers a child "punishment" if the mother isn't married? does it bother you that his purchase of his $1 Million dollar mansion was HIGHLY discounted while his SLUMLORD friend Tony Rezko was purchising the next door lot, on the same day for full price, and that he sold a big part of it to Obama shortly thereafter, and that Obama directed $14 million dollars to him for housing projects in Chicago, and that he is now waiting sentencing for financial misappropriation? Does it bother you that NO major newsmagazine has had a headline about Obama's SCANDALS (Rezko, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, to name a few) but everyone has rushed to judgement over rumors within 5 DAYS!!! of Palin being introduced to America?

It bothers me. And it bothers me that you ignore this media genocide of republicans, while dems are exalted as paragons of virtue.

Does it bother you?

When I weigh actions against words, I'll grant you that Dems do a better job of sounding loving and caring. But when I weigh actions, I beleive that the republican party does much more to benefit this country, as a whole, than the Democrats.

Sorry if that makes you wince. But it makes me wince to know that Christian people like you are supporting abortion proponents like Obama.

Sometimes the truth is painful. The Republicans exposed the truth of the Obama/Biden ticket. I for one am glad that they did, since the media is still involved in the Obama lovefest.

Hi Brian,
Thank you so much for articulating what I have been feeling. I had no idea there were so many compassionate Christians until I heard you in Seattle on your 'Everything Must Change' tour. You've inspired me.

I can appreciate not wanting to add to the division, and it's unfortunate that Christ loving people can be so far apart politically, but you've really opened my eyes. I saw a great T-shirt the other day - it says "Obama 08 - Hope Kicks Fears' Ass". Keep up the good work.

Thank you.

With this comment, you prove to me to be just another partisan:

"And Sarah Palin proved she had the confidence to mock and misrepresent a candidate 18 million of us voted for."

Barack Obama proves himself to be just another politician when we does the same thing to McCain. He mocks and misrepresents McCain constantly. For example in his "historic speech" he said about McCain and Osama:

"but he won't even go to the cave where he lives"

Does Obama really believe McCain wouldn't go to Osama's cave if he knew where it was? It's ridiculous...

Can't we get away from this? I though the "Civil Forum" was a step forward, but it seems everyone has taken two steps back.

I, too, must agree that I was rather disheartened by the RNC. In fact, I am surprised to hear that some people found the convention (or Ms. Palin) to be refreshing. In what way was she refreshing? Does it legitimize her snide remarks and personal mockeries because she was confident, smiling and seemed to be having fun while making those remarks? Especially as Christians, what are we encouraging when we are cheering on the party or candidates who focus more of their effort negatively attacking (in total ad hominem) and spreading the fear and insecurities to promote their cause? If there is so much political power to be had among Christians (although I don't even believe in such "Christian political coherence"), shouldn't we flex this seeming political muscle to promote more positive and constructive political culture (for both parties)? Why aren't more pastors and Christian leaders standing up against negative (and often empty and distorted) attacks when there are so many who back up a party to promote their harsh-to-the-teeth anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage agendas under the family values no matter what kind of rhetoric is being used to support their cause and demote the other side? Really, is that the example you want to share with the rest of the family?

As for the criticism against Mr. McLaren's support for Mr. Obama, I don't think he is betraying what he has been preaching by endorsing a political candidate. First off, I don't think he is supporting a party right now, nor playing partisan politics. I don't think Mr. McLaren supports Mr. Obama because he agrees 100% with what Mr. Obama does or has to say. (In fact, Mr. Obama sounds a lot like a centurist than a progressive in his policy outlines in my opinion.) I would say Mr. McLaren's support for Mr. Obama should be seen more as one voicing support for an alternative to the current administration (and the reality and the paradigm of fear and bigotry that we have come to surround ourselves with). Sure, you can cast off Mr. Obama's campaign as nothing but empty rhetorics, but then what did Christians enthusiastically do in 2000 when Mr. G.W. Bush verbally (

Lastly, much thanks and respect goes to Brian for reaching out into political arena to support those who seek to pursue something other than fear-based agenda to lead the country.

i believe "doing what is RIGHT" is where I have issues with evangelicals and a lot of Christians in this country......we are commanded to LOVE (love radically with agape love) that is the truth and right thing we are to do first and foremost...maybe I'm wrong, but I think more people are worried this country is falling apart because we fail to behave and act a certain way, follow certain standards, play/act Christian more than trying to really love each other and work towards reconciling, listening and building towards a holistic life (as individuals and communities)....something I learned from Jesus via Brian...how can we boast about Christianity in our nation, historically, politically and socially while we are engaging in war towards two countries and bullying others to stand back (iran, north korea, russia...)....let's do the right thing and move, elect and practice love

Brian: I'm glad that this was the first link I checked out from your web site. I thought that you might be interested in faith issues, but see that you are just another quasi-religious front for a political party. Sorry to see it, but it saves me the trouble of exploring the whole "emergent" thing any further. If I want partisan politics, I already know where to go for it.

i don't understand how (republicans/evangelicals) say they are against abortion because it is murdering innocent lives and yet would vote for a party that promotes and justifies war? seriously? where is the consistency here? before we go on blaming anyone voting for Obama or pro-choice, to rant about the value of life and yet would vote for a president or party that justifies war is VERY hypocritical and absurd....is there a value scale of life I"m missing here? innocent babies yes, soldiers and innocent iraqi citizens no? everyone's life is important, christian and muslim!!! what is this "christian worldview" people are ranting about? if you promote life, i believe the war right now is more detrimental, literally day by day, than the abortion issues which is still illegal (which in fact causes many people to go get illegal abortions that is more damaging) and something we can work on over time and conversation.......people are dying DAILY in Iraq, where is our priority here? let alone the reason for the growing deficit that is feeding a war, we began, unjustly and unprepared...c'mon people!!!

Hmmmm....definitely time for another christian woman to comment on the Palin choice. I understand Brian to be respectful in his approach to dialogue. But I totally understand him when he says that he must speak out lest he be complicit in his silence. As everybody learns and reflects upon Palin I find that I am not rendered "giddy" (as some gals have literally been described) by a prominent woman who seeks to break oppressive glass ceilings if that woman's not willing to bring along everyone with her up through those ceilings. Honestly, and it's certainly her prerogative, Sarah Palin only seeks to empower SOME WOMEN. And she doesn't advance, much less embrace, feminist theory or theology for what it more deeply suggests: a holistic empowerment/moral deliverance of ALL PEOPLE. For example Palin's not interested in bringing along the Gay/Lesbian/Bi community into all the rights that she freely enjoys. She's not interested in bringing along all classes of people into a system of affordable healthcare. She's not interested in bringing unmarried teens into programs that will equip them with a range of effective birth control methods -- she's actually willing to allow even more young, immature girls to wind up pregnant and facing very difficult reproductive choices (while not all the Levi Johnson's of America want to be daddies with their Bristols). In this very important campaign she may be McCain's gritty co-pilot when it comes to his spending reforms, the Iraq occupation and energy policies. But, like a good flight attendant, she also gives a semblance of cabin security and safety while serving beverages with spunk (feminism with sugar? feminism with a twist of lime? feminism-lite?). No surprise that fiscally conservative women and socially conservative "faith moms" are enthusiastically drinking it up; I might be guzzling it too if I were sitting in the privileged first class section or if I were choking down the stale, dry, pretzels of scripture teachings that insist upon a woman's limited role in her local church or her marriage.