Phoenix, Arizona is the latest city to be targeted for the display of billboards touting freedom from religion and the separation of church and state.   A group based in Wisconsin, known as “The Freedom From Religion Foundation,” is funding the month-long project, just as it has in other cities.

A spokesperson of the group, which claims some 12,000 agnostics and atheists as adherents, expects minimal resistance to the effort.  An Arizona state senator thinks Christians will find the billboards “offensive.”

Honestly, does anyone care?  I can’t see such billboards shaping a person's opinion or faith.  Those who agree with the sentiment will agree, and those who don’t appreciate it can drive on by.  If “believers” become hostile, belligerent, or otherwise negatively respond they simply will show their true colors.  Perhaps they can align themselves officially with the Religious Right, if they haven’t previously done so.

I remember years ago when the film, “The Last Temptation of Christ” was released, and  some folks became very agitated because the story of Jesus in the movie was different from their tightly-held version.  When visiting a church on a Sunday during that period, I watched as one of the faithful stood up during the announcement time in worship and read portions of the script, apparently trying to rouse the Soldiers of Christ into a battle-ready frenzy.  The minister finally told the guy to sit down.

Who cares if a film like the “The Last Temptation of Christ” (which I never watched) puts a different spin on things?  Some probably didn’t like “Jesus Christ Superstar,” “Godspell,” or other movies of that ilk. 

Under some moderate pressure, I went with a group to see the movie Mel Gibson came out with a few years ago in which Jesus got a two-hour whipping.  I found it ridiculous and absurd.  It meant nothing to me, other than a waste of time and money.  In the group discussion that followed, someone told me I “had to read The DaVinci Code,” which also was in vogue at the time.  I don’t always do as I’m told.

My faith isn’t affected by any movie, t-shirt, book, political idolatry, billboard, or anything else that runs counter to it, or claims to present a new or overlooked truth.  And I know that God’s authority, freedom, and ability to make all things new are not threatened in any way.

My suggestion to people of faith that become so worked up over such things is to “chill.”  I think it would be better to save your spiritual indignation and righteous anger for something important, like poverty and hunger, racism, homophobia, cultural idolatry, pre-emptive war, consumerism and greed, and other offenses to God’s love and grace.

My satellite television provider has a special channel set up for a live feed of the Democratic National Convention, and it’s an HD channel, so that makes it difficult to switch over to the PBS coverage.  The only difference is that analysis is done by Jim Lehrer and others on PBS, whereas the live feed is just that – it’s like C-SPAN, and when nothing actually is happening, you just see a shot of people milling around.

I really didn’t catch much of the opening night of the convention.  I missed Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, her uncle Ted Kennedy, and most of Michelle Obama’s speech.  I happened to be in the room when Sen. Tom Harkins (D-IA) introduced Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA), who outlined his pride in the contributions to American history and progress by the Republican Party, but who declared his support for Barack Obama because of his numerous disappointments with the current approaches of the Republicans and the Bush administration.  He described a great sense of irony in the policies and practices of his party, given his understanding of Republican values.

At the end of the convention’s first session, a minister was introduced to offer a benediction. (I already have forgotten his name.) Last week I mentioned how evangelical Christian Cameron Strang had second thoughts about his acceptance of an invitation to fill this role, and have since read a more complete expression of his thinking on the matter. 

Strang explained, “If my praying on opening night at the DNC would be perceived as showing favoritism or incorrectly labeling me as endorsing one candidate over the other – rather than being the bridge-building gesture which I intended it to be – then I needed to re-think the decision.”  His original intention was to represent to folks that we all need to work together to face up to and deal with serious issues before us:  “fighting systemic poverty; defending innocent lives lost to pre-emptive war, sex-trafficking, torture, genocide, slavery and preventable disease; protecting the environment; and proactively working to reduce the number of abortions each year.”

The fellow that replaced Stang read on the teleprompter a lengthy prayer that made reference to numerous issues facing the nation and the world.  I was a little uncertain, but thought it contained a few “applause lines.” Weary convention-goers were ready to call it a night, though, and some were leaving as the minister spoke. There was no applause, or shouts of “Amen” that I could hear. 

I admit, I was less interested in being in an attitude of prayer than I was in waiting to see how the prayer would be ended (I admit to being jaded, after all.).  Often, in a mixed crowd, a Christian minister will leave off the “in Jesus’ name we pray” reference in an attempt to be inclusive.  This young man did not do that.

Did the prayer make a difference?  Was it important to have a benediction, and whatever religious rituals were observed at the opening of the evening’s program? 

Apparently, this is a new approach by the Democrats at their convention.  If it all is genuine and heartfelt, then yes, it does make a difference.  If it is a calculated attempt to reach another voter demographic, then I suspect God has other things with which to be concerned.

Cameron Strang changed his mind and canceled his appearance at the upcoming Democratic National Convention.  He earlier accepted the invitation to offer a benediction at the end of the first session.

Strang apparently is well-regarded among charismatic and Pentecostal Christians, and is the editor of a magazine called Relevant.  His father established Charisma magazine, and has endorsed John McCain in the presidential election.  Cameron, the son, was registered as a Republican when initially invited to pray among the Democrats, but since has changed his registration to Independent.  He states that he currently is undecided about his vote.

When he accepted the invitation, he felt it was an opportunity “to pray in a forum where faith isn’t typically emphasized,” and to demonstrate that his generation of believers (he’s 32 years old) isn’t caught up in establishing “political battle lines” when reflecting on important issues of the day.  His discovery that he would be on the main stage on the first night gave him “serious pause.”

The convention will feature an unusual emphasis on diverse faith traditions, presenting a variety of religious leaders to offer prayers.

At this point I don’t know what the Republicans have in mind for their convention regarding nods to religion and prayer.  I am somewhat skeptical of either party putting on a parade of clergy or other faith representatives, since it is clear both sides are working hard to court religiously-oriented voters.

While Cameron Strang’s discomfort with the invitation to offer a first-night benediction was not clarified precisely, I can relate to any hesitancy to be put in that position.  Is it an honest attempt to place the work of the party and its convention into the context of seeking God’s guidance and spirit?

Or is it merely a ploy to attract a particular segment of voters?

Wow.

First we heard about evangelicals breaking out of the mold and expressing concern for issues beyond same-sex marriage and abortion; issues like the environment, the economy, war and peace.  Weary of being categorized as religious extremists, some evangelicals began to speak out on a wider range of concerns, while the youngsters in the group simply couldn’t comprehend why their vocal elders were so narrow in their focus.

A more astounding development, to me, is the rise of Hip Hop Republicans, perhaps best described by what they are not, according to Lenny McAllister on The Root: 

 “A Hip-Hop Republican is not an Uncle Tom.  A Hip-Hop Republican is not a sellout.  A Hip-Hop Republican is not a race traitor, willing to sell out the best interests of the black community for the scraps off of the proverbial political table.  A Hip-Hop Republican is not meek and mild, content to be a poster-child for GOP diversity…Hip-Hop Republicans have not lost their collective identity as a result of self-hatred or economic success.” 

H-H R’s, a diverse group in and of itself, are deeply concerned about urban issues, and are looking for application of traditionally Republican such as personal economic empowerment and school choice to the difficulties with which they struggle.  On the matter of schools, a “Hip-Hop Republican believes that competition, the prime motivator in a free market, will force change and progress.”  

On a general scale, Hip-Hoppers intend to influence and transform the politicians and political structures within the GOP, while embracing many of the ideals of the party.   They aren’t just signing up to be Republicans because they feel Democrats have let them down or excluded them.  Rather, H-H R’s are being pro-active, and looking for and trying to shape what they feel are the most effective approaches.  If that reflects Republican policies or values, then so be it.  Labels aren’t important -- results are.

McAllister asserts:  “New black conservatism holds that buppies and yuppies must take advantage of the current tax climate and invest their capital into private endeavors that will create wealth and opportunity for our communities. In a society that embraces Social Darwinism, only the strongest survive. We must invest time and money into our communities to become stronger.”

As the molds continue to break, it will make for an interesting election season.  H-H R’s, broader-looking evangelicals, and who knows who else, are tired of politicians focused on being elected by pandering to the stereotypical perspectives they think will promote that,   Rather, meaningful debate is emerging, pressure on legislators – and those who want to be legislators -- is mounting, citizens are embracing responsibility, and change is in the air.

The pendulum is arcing.

Why anyone aspires to be a public figure is beyond me.  Undoubtedly, there is a psychological issue or two at work.  Some individuals need to be the center of attention.  Some apparently believe they are better-equipped than others to be in leadership or decision-making roles, or perhaps they equate it all with fitness as a person, or as someone who will be loved.

But, those in the public eye, for whatever reason, do not just reap a bounty of adulation, admiration, and praise.  They also are subjected to criticism (justified or not), ridicule, and invasion of privacy.

Today on the MSN internet homepage, there is a feature called, “The Hypocrisy Hall of Shame,” listing a “dirty dozen” well-known folks who were deemed first-rate hypocrites because of the disconnect between their actions and their words.  Certainly, there are more than twelve hypocrites in the world, and all hypocrites are not famous or notorious.

At the end of the slide-show of the Hall of Shame inductees, readers are invited to select the worst of the bunch, and to suggest which, if any, really should be excluded from this dubious list.  You can look at the list and make your own determinations.

But, I must say, that while I never would delete Rush Limbaugh from any list that makes him look bad, I stopped for a second and wondered about Strom Thurmond, the late virulent segregationist who was a U.S. Senator from South Carolina for almost fifty years.  He was included because he fathered an out-of-wedlock child with his African-American housekeeper.  And it happened a long time ago.  When Thurmond died, his secret daughter was 78 years old.

My question is this:  Is a racist necessarily a hypocrite when he engages in illicit sex with a person of the race he so despises?  The way it looks to me, if the woman involved was Thurmond’s housekeeper, she was not seen by him as an equal, especially in those days and circumstances.  Was it consensual sex?  I don’t know, but I have my doubts, even though the senator never was accused of rape, to my knowledge.  She may have feared for her job (or life) if she refused his advances.  To me, it looks like a power issue far more than a romantic issue.  He disregarded her as a person, kept her in subservience, and exploited her for his own purposes.  And while I would not condone extra-marital sex even if Thurmond and his housekeeper truly loved each other, this whole episode smacks of racism.  So, maybe ol’ Strom shouldn’t be in the Hypocrisy Hall of Shame.

Being a low-life doesn’t automatically qualify one as a hypocrite.

There actually now are churches where the person preaching the sermon on Sunday is not physically present, but is seen as a 3-D projection, or hologram.  Some mega-churches now have “video venues” that are off-campus satellite locations, enabling those at a distance to be “in church” and to witness a sermon by the well-known preacher.  This differs from the experience of merely watching a worship service on television in that the folks get in their cars and go somewhere rather than sitting at home.  They also get to participate in the offering.

A couple thousand churches have these off-site video venues, and some predict the trend will increase significantly over the next several years.  According the an online Slate article, “the most ambitious pastors are predicting that, thanks to video, they'll have branded outlets nationwide and more than 100,000 followers—twice as large as the country's biggest megachurch today. Gigachurches are the way that next-generation celebrity evangelists are building their empires.”

“Gigachurches?”  “Celebrity evangelists?”  If a celebrity evangelist is salivating at having 100,000 “followers” in a gigachurch setting, or “empire,” it seems to me someone is missing the point.

The notion that “success” in the church is found in huge numbers of people attending worship services is very short-sighted.  At what point does a congregation cross the threshold of success?  Is it an attendance of 500?  5,000?  10,000? 

What is the effect of the celebrity evangelist’s preaching on all those people?  Is each one engaged in significant ministry in the name of Jesus?  Have they merely been pacified with affirmations of a consumer-oriented, individualistic lifestyle imbued with North American values and priorities?  Are the video venue attendees encouraged in their passivity by being spectators of something that someone else is doing in a remote location?  Do people leave the worship service talking and thinking about God or about the preacher (or his/her image that was on display?). 

Personally, I have known of churches with fewer than 50 people who ministered effectively to the needs of those in their immediate community.  There have been countless pastors who never achieved celebrity status – nor sought it – whose words and example deeply influenced others.  The Holy Spirit doesn’t require an appearance fee in order to show up.  Jesus said something about “wherever two or three are gathered in my name…”

And frankly, I’m finding it difficult to see the positive influence on our society and culture of the celebrity evangelists and their hordes of followers.

He was about six feet tall, carried a lot of excess weight, and seemed always to be dressed sloppily.  A description sometimes heard seemed to apply:  He looked like an unmade bed.  He was a fellow student at my college, and the only name I ever knew him by was Mousey.  He and another fellow I did know by name, Larry, challenged my friend Jeff and me to a doubles ping-pong match.

Jeff and I played a good bit of ping-pong in those days.  We figured, with Mousey being who he was, and with Larry being about half Mousey’s size, we stood a pretty good chance.  After all, Jeff and I were in good shape, we were strong and had quick reflexes.  We played the game regularly.  No problem.

We were correct.  It was no problem --  for Mousey and Larry, or really just Mousey.  I never saw anyone play ping-pong like Mousey.  The match wasn’t even close.  A few times afterwards, I saw Mousey play and beat two people at a time -- while he was sitting in a chair.  The guy had ping-pong covered!

Watching the Olympic games recently, I saw a lot of world-class athletes performing at a very high level.  All-time Olympic champion swimmer Michael Phelps is described as being the prototype for someone in his sport.  His body is perfect for what he does, so maybe there shouldn’t be much surprise that he excels.  Yes, he works very hard to perfect his skills, but he is the right person in the right place to succeed, according to expert analysts.

Some of the women gymnasts, especially from China, are so tiny (and young), it’s a wonder they can do such amazing things, requiring so much strength.  They showed the world what they could do.

You can’t always tell about a person, just based on his or her appearance. 

In the text coming up this Sunday from Matthew 15, we find a woman who was, according to the standards of the insider religionists of the day, “not worth nothin.’”  Jesus himself even applied to her the description of “dog.” 

Yet, it turned out that her faith was recognized by Jesus as being greater and more appropriate than those righteous folks who made the rules for everyone else. It even was more effective than the faith of Peter, as displayed in the preceding chapter.

Blessings ensued because of the quality of the faith of this person, so easily dismissed by those who were “superior” to her.  Read the story to capture the details.

On Saturday, there will be a forum featuring presumptive presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama.  The event will be held at The Saddleback Church, a megachurch in Southern California.  The pastor is Rick Warren, and he will moderate the discussion.

Warren and Saddleback present themselves as the religious “middle,” and suggest that they represent most Christians in the country.  The forum with the two candidates is part of an ongoing series of discussions featuring a wide-range of experts and analysts in varieties of fields important to the lives of Americans.

To learn more about the forum, click here.

The questions for the discussion with Obama and McCain will cover four areas:  Stewardship, Leadership, Worldview, and America’s Role in the World.  Warren will interview each candidate for 50 minutes, asking the same questions.  Obama will appear first, according to a coin toss, and McCain will not be allowed to hear the questions asked of Obama.

A panel of writers has offered their suggested questions for the candidates.  What would you want to ask McCain and Obama?

If you respond to me with your questions, I will post them (without giving your name) on the blog.  Either click the Post Comment button below, or email your questions to me at ghblog@yahoo.com.

I think if I got to know Mike Huckabee, I probably would like him.  He was a contender for the Republican presidential nomination until Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) rounded up enough electoral votes to carry the upcoming nominating convention.

Huckabee was the governor of Arkansas for nine years, has written a number of books, has been a leader during every phase of his life, served as a pastor for a few Baptist congregations, and plays in a band.  He is perhaps a year or so younger than I.

He seems like a personable fellow, and while we see many things differently, I can imagine getting along well with him and enjoying his company.  He once even described his experience as a pastor as trying to be the “captain of a ship” on which everyone pulled together on a journey of faithful witness and service, only to discover that most of the folks simply wanted to be “passengers on the Love Boat.”  

But, I’m a little concerned by Huckabee’s establishment of a “think tank” called the “Vertical Politics Institute.”  Maybe I am over-reacting, but even though Huckabee says the organization is “vertical” because its focus is not “left or right politics,” I have to wonder if there isn’t a hidden agenda.  The institute will fulfill an “educational” role “in states where there may be ballot initiatives that involve things like the fair tax or marriage issues or sanctity of life issues,” according to the man himself.

Those are sounding like target issues of the religious right, and the image of a “Vertical Politics Institute,” makes me suspect that someone’s version of God’s intentions, desires, will, or scriptural mandates is the expression of what is found when one goes “vertical.”  I have to wonder if Huckabee, or the Institute, will define what God wants, and then “educate” others about it.  If that is the case, danger is all around.

As good a guy as Mike Huckabee seems, neither he nor anyone else speaks for God.  I believe people can pray, study, meditate, discuss, and do all kinds of things to open themselves to the leading of God, but to identify and codify somehow God’s will for a diverse society and nation, usually in a way that reflects the dominant culture’s worldview, is nothing short of idolatry.

And I do know God doesn’t like that.