A colleague told me about his experience several years ago when he was on a vacation trip.  During his travels he worshiped at a church in Florida, then later at a Texas church.  He heard the same sermon at both churches.  It wasn’t two sermons on the same topic with similar emphases or conclusions drawn.  It was the same sermon, "preached" by two different ministers.

Perhaps they owned the same book of sermons, or downloaded the text from the Internet.  However it happened, the preachers used the work of someone else without attribution or acknowledgement.  Some would call this stealing, or even lying.  Whatever you call it, the pastors skipped out on their ministries to their congregations. 

Sure, the content or message of the sermon may have been helpful to some of the folks in the pew.  It may have been faithful to the truth of the gospel.  But, the one upon whom the people depended to take seriously the responsibility and calling of studying the scriptures, spending time in prayer, wrestling with the Holy Spirit, all in order to facilitate God’s speaking to the congregation through him or her with a word relevant to their lives as individuals and as a community of faith, failed.  Anyone can read a manuscript written by someone else.  No calling by God, specialized training, or spiritual gifts are necessary.  Perhaps some acting ability would enhance the experience.

David McGrath, now a professor of English at the University of South Alabama, recounts his contributions to the temptations of plagiarism.  When he was a young man, fresh out of college, his first job was to write term papers ordered by college and graduate students.  He contracted with an outfit known as Termpapers, Inc.  Before long, the feds closed down the operation, and investigations into the “fraud, forgery, plagiarism, and subversion of the educational system” ensued.  Threats of lawsuits from universities filled the air.

These days, McGrath is hyper-sensitive to the issue of plagiarism, and contends that politicians presenting speeches written by their staff or others they have hired are plagiarizing and misleading the public.  For instance, he points out what apparently is fairly common knowledge:  the speech presented last night at the Republican National Convention by Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin was written weeks ago by a McCain staffer prior to Palin's selection, who assumed a male nominee.  Tweaking by Gov. Palin and McCain operatives “personalized” the speech as it was presented.

Recently, I read Journals, the diary of the life and career of Arthur Schlesinger, who for some fifty years moved in and around the inner-circle of Democratic Party politics.  In addition to his career as a historian and professor, Schlesinger wrote speeches and suggested wording for passages in speeches for prominent Democrats from Adlai Stevenson to Al Gore.  It was plain from Schlesinger’s account that many others were involved in the process, and there even was competition among speechwriters to have their words spoken by candidates and office-holders.  So, it is a very common practice.

David McGrath maintains that this is plagiarism and that it robs the public of the opportunity to learn what politicians truly think and believe about an issue, which, theoretically, would lead to more informed choices by voters.

Banning political speechwriters also would, in my view, eliminate many candidates from running for political office.  Often candidates without adequate experience, knowledge, or insight are recruited, selected, and marketed by party leaders because of the image he or she presents.  If that gets the person elected, the ones who truly have an agenda then can do their ventriloquism routine.

Recently, I mentioned here that I established my own personal page on Facebook, an online “social network.”  In the weeks since then, I have connected with over twenty “friends.”  Some of them I contacted and asked to be “friended,” and some contacted me.  Included among those on my friends list are at least two people I never met or heard of before.  Why they wanted to add me to their lists is beyond me.  In both cases, we have some friends in common, so I suppose that is how they even found me in the first place.

It has been fun to correspond with long-lost acquaintances.  One person answered my message, we had a happy exchange of three or four additional messages, but he didn’t add me to his friends list!  I found that amusing, but curious.  I suppose since we were out of each other’s lives for over thirty years there was no reason to change now.  If it ain’t broke…

One way a person can connect with others on Facebook is through a listing of people who indicate they graduated from the same high school, even in the same class. When I scroll through that list, most of the names are unfamiliar to me.  Granted, I was in a class of over 600 people, but I probably knew a vast majority of the names.  Not any more!  Who are all those strangers with whom I shared those pivotal four years of my life?

Rachel Beckman writes in the Washington Post of how ads that appear on a person’s Facebook profile page are specifically geared toward that person.  They result from the information entered when the profile was established.  She particularly took umbrage at ads related to weight issues, referred to as “muffin top,” and shows the ad in her Post article.  I found it hilarious, myself.  Perhaps enough people complained about it, because Beckman states that these particular ads now have disappeared.

Other ads showed up on her page that she felt were an attempt to appeal not only to her personal interests, but that hit her at various “psychological soft spots.” This is one of the by-products of the Internet, wherein “data miners” learn what they can about a person and market products and services that fit the profile. 

As for me, I couldn’t tell you what ads are on my page, because I pay no attention to them whatsoever.  The data miners are barking up the wrong tree with me. 

Hmmm, perhaps now on my page there will be ads for careers in forestry, or dog products.  Maybe even fire hydrants.

Gordon Atkinson describes a mission trip to the Dominican Republic, during which he and the other volunteers helped address a pressing need in the community where they worked.  They installed two water purification systems in the capital, Santo Domingo, as clean drinking water is not provided by the local government or a utility company.  Those with adequate financial resources drink bottled water, the rest of the population takes its chances with tap water.

Atkinson relates how the mission trip experience changed his life.  He describes it as being “like a child,” as other people – the ones he thought he was going to take care of – took care of him.  His group arrived at night, and after a bus ride into unfamiliar, and dark, territory they had no idea where they were.  The only food available to them was the meals placed before them each day, menus planned and prepared by local hosts with whom there was no consultation.  While Atkinson had money in his pocket, there was no opportunity for conversion to local currency.  He and the others were transported by bus every day to their work site.  Conversations occurred around him, but he was not a part of them, for he didn’t speak Spanish, and decisions were made by others.  Everything about the mission trip was an exercise in total dependence on someone else – like a child’s dependence on a parent or parents.

Gordon Atkinson discovered that he lost several pounds on the trip, since he couldn’t get his hands on between-meal snacks.  He otherwise developed a mindset of dependence, even to the point of forgetting his passport for the trip home, and not having any idea of the phone number or location of the place the group slept while in the Dominican Republic.

It was a strange experience for a North American adult to be so dependent on others, but one in which he discovered that his needs all were met.  Perhaps they were not met in ways he always would choose, and his “wants,” i.e., extra food in particular, simply were not part of the equation.

Upon his return home, Atkinson discovered that his eating habits were affected, and he continued to lose weight.  His mind wouldn’t let go of thoughts of those who took care of him.  His words:

One of the great, enduring mysteries of the Gospels is the command of Jesus that we become like children. He said, "Unless you become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

"And how shall we become like children?" we ask him, reminiscent of Nicodemus. "Can a grown person become a child again? Can I enter again into my mother's womb?"

I spent a week in the care of brothers and sisters in Christ in Santo Domingo. Yes, you can become a child again. But do not think it is something you will recover from quickly. When you become vulnerable and allow your life to rest in the hands of others, you live only in the present moment. Your eyes are open to the world around you. In that moment you begin to understand what it means to live in the kingdom of heaven.

And you may find, to your joy, that it is hard to find your way back home.

My words:  It is very difficult for all of us -- people of faith, or others -- to embrace dependence upon God who provides abundantly for our needs, because our "wants" get in the way.  And "get in the way" is what they so often do, when it comes to knowing the life God has in mind for us.

As I have mentioned before, I am not comfortable with public prayers being attached to civic or political events.  I feel there is pressure on the person praying to be less than authentic, and possibly co-opted to the cause, party, or outlook of the event sponsors.

Not everyone shares my hesitations, even among clergy.

I learned today that Disciples pastor Cynthia Hale, of the Ray of Hope Christian Church. just outside Atlanta, Georgia, offered an invocation at the opening of Tuesday's session of the Democratic National Convention.

The text of her prayer follows:

    Great and awesome God, as we gather in this place from all across the length and breadth of this nation, we pause to acknowledge you as the one in whom we live and move and have our being. You, oh God, created us in your image and likeness and invited us to partner with you in the stewardship of your world. We are called to be faithful over the earth, its people and resources.

    On this day as we gather to renew America's promise, we are keenly aware of the challenges American families are facing. God, people are being hit hard by the economic downturn, the energy crisis and rising food costs, the mortgage mayhem, as well as the absence of affordable housing and healthcare. Parents desire and deserve to be able to give their children quality and affordable education from pre-school through college.

    Times are tough; people are struggling; some have lost hope. We know, God, that this is not your perfect will for any of your people. It is your desire that all people have these basic human needs met. It is your desire that all would prosper and be in good health. It is your desire that everyone would be treated with dignity and respect.

    As a nation and as a party, we are at a crucial time. We have an
opportunity to not only make history, but to bring about change we can all believe in and restore hope to the hearts of women and men. Unite us as a party, oh God. Let us be one in this common purpose, to renew our promise so that we might live out our creed to be one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.

    In your strong and mighty name, we pray. Amen.

As I was driving to the church last evening for a meeting, I heard on the radio a replay of Hillary Clinton's roll call statement at the Democratic National Convention declaring that the assembled delegates should stand with one voice to nominate Barack Obama as their candidate for President of the United States.

It was an historic moment, and today, on the 45th anniversary of the March on Washington, at which Martin Luther King, Jr. proclaimed, "I Have A Dream," someone other than a white male will accept the nomination to the nation's, and some would argue, the world's, highest office.

I will not presume to try and articulate what this means to people of color.  Instead, I will encourage you to read an essay by Rev. Susan K. Smith, the senior pastor of Advent United Church of Christ in Columbus, Ohio.

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.