Scott Freeman

I hope to continue blogging regularly over the next few days but I don’t really know what my schedule will be. Packing is picking up steam and the desktop is already dismantled. Tracy and I will have to fight over the laptop.

One of the things that I am looking forward to beginning next Wednesday is the opportunity to be in an office again. Call me weird but I love being in an office. I love study time and digging deeper into the text.

Shortly after I announced my resignation in Waco my office computer died. The cost for it to be repaired would approach the cost for a new machine. Rather than expect a new computer as a lame duck I just spent the last two months of my tenure there working at home. That amounts to 3 months that I have not had regular office hours. I miss it greatly.

I also look forward to getting back into some more substantial blogging. While looking for a new work I stayed away from some of the more sensitive issues that I have dealt with in the past. When I get back to a regular grind here are some things that you can expect in this place:

–More on Moltmann’s Theology of Hope
–How militant atheism is a good thing for the church
–A series on soteriology
–More on nonviolence
–The 10 best and worst song-writers
–What’s the Deal? An opportunity for readers to plug their own political candidates
–A return to C.S. Lewis
–The greatest living theologians
–The role of women
–Good science as a backbone of good theology

These are just a few of the things that I’m looking forward to talking about. Thoughts?

What happened to you, Mr. President? The money needed for expanding health care to poor children in America is far less than the money that has been lost and wasted on corruption in Iraq. How have your priorities stayed so far from those children, whom you once agreed were so central to the soul of the nation? What do they need to do to get your attention again? You will be literally barraged by the religious community across the political spectrum this week, imploring you not to veto children’s health care. I would just ask you to take your mind back to a little meeting in a Baptist Sunday school classroom, not far away from where you grew up. Remember that day, what we all talked about, what was on your heart, and how much hope there was in the room. Mr. President, recall that day, take a breath, and say a prayer before you decide to turn away from the children who are so important to our nation’s soul and to yours.

God bless you,

Jim Wallis

I wish I had those 2 votes back.

I really think this guy is serious. His headline is “Why Al Qaeda Supports The Emergent Church.”

Read this excerpt:

The emergent church is an ally in the war against radical Islam–al Qaeda’s ally. Not in the sense they are supplying bullets and bombs to Osama, of course, but in the sense they are weakening our conviction to fight.

If those in the emergent “we’re-a-missional-not-an-institutional” church had their way, American church buildings would be just like European church buildings – empty. And the church, the people themselves, would be so intellectually, morally, emotionally, and spiritually lost, confused and uncertain, that they would be incapable of doing hardly anything more than inviting their Muslim oppressors in for a cappuccino and a good conversation about the sociology of knowledge, the absurdity of propositional truth, and the misplaced certitude of the Muslim metanarrative. All the while, no doubt, nodding in agreement that America probably deserved to die and mumbling something about carbon footprints.

The term “emergent church” refers to a loose association of people who share common values and attitudes toward, well, everything. It’s Christianity for postmoderns who don’t like truth, knowledge, science, authority, doctrine, institutions, or religion. They claim absolute or objective truth is unknowable, that the only “truth” that can be known is rooted in communities of shared subjective experience–the infamous “it’s my truth” of relativism.

And if nothing is objectively true, if no text has a meaning independent of the reader, then the truth claims in the Bible are no more authoritative than the funny papers. Hence, there’s no emphasis on core beliefs, essential doctrines, statements of faith or the institutions built to defend and propagate them–especially the institutional church and its Bible colleges and seminaries.

Bottom line, it’s feelings over thoughts, the heart over the head, experience over truth, deeds over creeds, narratives over propositions, the corporate over the individualistic, being inclusive rather than exclusive, with none of that offensive “in versus out” language, such as those who are “saved” and those who are “not saved,” or even the most divisive of all referents–“Christian” and “non-Christian.”

The emergent church and its allies on the religious left are to Christianity what termites are to wood. They devour it from the inside out, little bit by little bit, and you don’t notice it until it’s too late–unless you look for the droppings.

They’re leaving lots of droppings if you only have eyes to see.

The emergent church has rejected the “linear” and “modern” categories of true/false, good/evil, and right/wrong, and they recoil at the notion of applying these terms to Christianity or any other faith tradition–even radical Islam. To believe Christianity is true, good, and right is divisive, offensive, and well, rude and anti-conversational.

It’s time to call these people out from the shadows and expose them to the light of public scrutiny.

Now, I am no apologist for all things emerging. I agree with a lot and there is much in which I differ. But to paraphrase a McLaren book this guy is on an adventure in missing the point.

Every single paragraph is Coulter-esque in its naivety and dishonesty.

(HT: Aaron Monts)

Wednesday’s are generally meant for political reflections on the ole blog. I didn’t last week so let’s get back into it with a few (completely insignificant) nuggets.

–Does anybody besides me find it interesting that Mitt Romney’s favorite book is Battlefield Earth? Now, I love Scientology as much as the next guy (see, I wrote that. Please don’t sue me. In the name of Xenu, please don’t sue me.) but doesn’t it seem odd that it would be the book of choice of a practicing Latter-Day Saint?

–I like the completely insignificant questions that the AP often asks like the one above. The most recent one was on what they would take to a Desert Island. Here were there responses:

DEMOCRATS:

Delaware Sen. Joe Biden: “Jill, my wife.” (Jill was not available for comment.)

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton: “A good book.” (Apparently, this is her book of choice.)

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd: “Coffee with cream and sugar.” (Dodd doesn’t really think big thoughts, now does he?)

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards: “A book.” (This one)

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich: His wife, Elizabeth. (Kucinich would not elaborate if he was talking about his own personal wife, Elizabeth, or if the *his* that he is referring to is John Edwards.)

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama: “Other than my wife and my kids, an inanimate object I would have to have would probably be a good book.”

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson: “Blackberry and a Davidoff cigar.” (Elitist!)

REPUBLICANS:

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback: “Tarp.” (He’s staying and starting his own dominion, isn’t he?)

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani: “Books and music.” (A versatile man. He’s not satisfied with just one item. He needs two. Apparently he gets bored easily. Take that as you will.)

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: “Laptop with satellite reception.” (Obviously the laptop with satellite reception was a gift.)

California Rep. Duncan Hunter: “Mrs. Hunter.” (Again, he would not clarify which Mrs. Hunter.)

Arizona Sen. John McCain: “Books.” (McCain thinks outside the box here with multiple books. Actually his first answer was sunblock.)

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: “My wife, Ann.” (And a copy of Battlefield Earth)

Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo: “Boat.”

–I propose that we each select our next president based upon who has the coolest people donating to them. The Hill listed celebrity donations in the first quarter and they are interesting to say the least. Now, I’m no mathmetician but it seems someone could construct some algorithm or formula to quantify and rank the cool factor of the celebrity donations.
Now, it’s obvious that the GOP is eliminated right out of the gates unless the fear of being Republican and living is Hollywood is somehow eliminated.
Sure, Sam Brownback has Pat Boone and the Papa John’s guy but that’s not cool. Guiliani can boast Adam Sandler, A-Rod and Kelsey Grammer so he warrants a +3 (or whatever rating system is devised). McCain has Michael Jordan. But it’s in the Democratic field that the celebrities come out of the woodwork.
So, under my proposal, we eliminate those who don’t have enough “cool people” throwing in the cash. Here’s a sample rundown from The Hill of Democratic donations:

Clinton
Candice Bergen
Christie Brinkley
Chevy Chase
Hugh Hefner
Christine Lahti
Barry Manilow
Marla Maples
Rosie O’Donnell
Jerry Springer
Barbra Streisand
Analysis–Those last three names will likely rob her of all the cool points she gets for the Manilow contribution. Cause let’s face it, Barry rocks.

Obama
Jennifer Aniston
Jackson Browne
Morgan Freeman
Tom Hanks
Dennis Haysbert
Tobey Maguire
Barry Manilow
Branford Marsalis
Eddie Murphy
Ed Norton
Ben Stiller
Gene Wilder
Analysis: Pure coolness here. Jackson Browne? I have all his albums. Ed Norton? One of the best actors of my generation. Eddie Murphy? Robbed for the Oscar. Jennifer Aniston is hot. Tom Hanks is one of the most loved actors in history. Dennis Haysbert has already been president. Ben Stiller. See, Obama is already at like +45.

Dodd
Edie Brickell
Michael Douglas
Steve Martin
Lorne Michaels
Paul Newman
Elisabeth Shue
Paul Simon
Joanne Woodward
Analysis: This group of donors was really cool about 20+ years ago. Too bad he’s not running against Bush I.

Edwards
Larry David
Seth Green
Don Henley
Barry Manilow
Analysis: Edwards comes up way short here. I hate to say that but Henley hasn’t recorded anything great since 1989. And I think Barry Manilow just sent me 1000 bucks to run.

OK, who is going to develop the formula to determine donor coolness?

At this point we have looked at the top three Democratic contenders for the 2008 nomination.
We’ve looked at the top 3 Republicans.
We’ve spun through the list of Republicans who are basically throwing money at a lost cause.
You can access those discussions here.

Barring the inevitable late entries by Gingrich, Thompson and Gore all that is left is to take a look at the pretenders in the Democratic field. I will still reserve Wednesday’s for all things politic but this will wind up the look at the candidates. At least until I have Newt in my crosshairs.

Throughout the series the Democrats have consistently drawn more comments from my largely Republican leadership with John Edwards, my choice for 2008 thus far, bringing in the most.

Like the Republicans it is a huge drop-off once you move past the top 3 of the Democrats.

Bill Richardson–Despite an extensive and impressive resume, including stints as governor of New Mexico, UN Ambassador and secretary of Energy, Richardson is still nationally an unknown. He brings more diversity to an already diverse field and has ample credentials to campaign on.
He has bolster New Mexico’s economy, been nominated for the Nobel Prize multiple times and has more foreign policy experience than most, if not all, in the field.
Again he is the most experienced candidate in the field but he doesn’t have the right last name.

Joe Biden–Has foot-in-mouth disease. Too many Pat Robertson-esque comments make him too much of a political liability.

Christopher Dodd–Yawn. He looks like my banker. He wins cachet points for having once dated Bianca Jagger but those are negated for being in bed with Enron.

Mike Gravel–Who?

Dennis Kucinich–He never officially ended his campaign last time, did he? Reminds me of Lamar Alexander, who has already thrown his hat in the ring for 2012 and is already in his denim shirt, riding his pick-up around Tennessee. I like him but he ain’t got a prayer.

Any thoughts on the hangers-on?

For previous discussion on candidates click here.

I was going to continue with individual entries but at this point there is such a steep drop-off between the top three in each party that I just don’t have a whole lot to say about each of them. And with the recent release of first-quarter campaign donations the gap between the haves and have nots becomes more pronounced.

Among the Dems it’s a three-horse race between Clinton, Edwards and Obama.

Among the GOP it’s a three-horse race between Giuliani, McCain and Romney. Of course, that landscape changes greatly in Gingrich and Thompson (not Tommy) throw their hats in the ring.

So, rather than prolong this list longer than it needs to, let’s do a quick run-down of the GOP contestants who running for president but running from reality:

Mike Huckabee–He’s long been my GOP dark horse but a 500,000 dollar first quarter is too paltry against the front-runners. He is the one bona fide social conservative who isn’t either a)Mormon (Romney) and b)downright frightening (Brownback). But he would have a long way to go to convince the party that he is a fiscal conservative. His record as governor of Arkansas proves otherwise. My personal issues with him aside, he has about the best consistent message of the GOP aspirants. But his road is too uphill at this point. And he’s never met a gift he didn’t like.

Sam Brownback–Theocrat without a country. Ain’t happening.

Duncan Hunter–Who?

Ron Paul–Who? I live in Texas and I don’t know this guy.

Jim Gilmore–Again, who?

Tom Tancredo–Um, first act as president is what? Bombing Mexico?

Tommy Thompson–It may just be me but I don’t see much likelihood, at this point, of someone from the Bush Administration getting the nom.

I really don’t see a scenario at the current time of any of these guys punching through to the other side. The only one that would even have a shot is Huckabee because he is nominate-able providing he can explain away his tax increases.

Again, the landscape changes drastically with Gingrich or Thompson (not Tommy) if they throw their hats in the ring.

Any thoughts on these guys?

For previous analysis and discussion click on the individual names: Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Guiliani, John Edwards, and John McCain.

Again, another week passes without any changes to the field. I thought I would be in the market for a new candidate to support but for now the campaign marches on. And we are still waiting for the GOP to welcome it’s best hope into the field.

As always, we flip back across the aisle and this time take a look at Barack Obama. As one of the front-runners for the Democratic nomination in ’08 his profile is still on the ascendancy.

Pros: Polished, well-spoken, at the right place and time for America to elect someone other than a white male, a strong democrat not named Hillary, has appeal across the aisles and can play to minorities, staunch opposition to the boondoggle, for a universal health plan, has been a voice for the religious left paving the way for restoring ties between the Democratic party and people of faith, green

Cons: Does not have the fund-raising punch of Hillary, still a relative unknown compared to his major competitors, has to endure Fox news, not a clear proposal for universal health like Edwards, will deal with racial backlash, does not have much experience, young.

Analysis: Obama is a strong name that will continue to make waves during the primary campaign. Part of the question is whether or not he can endure the infighting between him and Hillary while withstanding Fox New’s smear campaigns against him.
I like Obama and would be firmly in his corner if Edwards had bowed out. I feel that he is a tremendous voice that can speak for those disenfranchised with both parties.
However, I fear that many voters, in the south primarily, are still both unable to admit their prejudices and unable to vote outside of their own demographic. That will play against Obama.
At the same time, I believe that Obama will resonate with the younger audience as his presence on social networking sites attests.
Ultimately, however, I would like to see him as a running mate, preferably for Edwards.

For the entry and discussion on Hillary, click here. (50)

For the entry and discussion on Rudy Giuliani, click here. (40)

For the entry and discussion on John Edwards, click here. (62)

For the entry and discussion on John McCain, click here. (18)

(Noting the comment totals, I must ask: does this mean the Democrats are more popular than the Republicans among my blog readers? And is this scientific enough to give Edwards the advantage in ’08?)

Now, we move back again to the GOP side of the aisle and if all the speculation over new aspirants tossing their hat in the ring, we have to ask: who isn’t running for the Republican nomination?

Let’s turn our gaze now to the incomparable Mitt Romney. News just came out that Orrin Hatch has endorsed him for 2008. That’s no surprise but with the election this far out you will take any positive press you can get. Maybe Hatch is angling to play at the inauguration.

Pros: Is the conservative that Guiliani and McCain are not (although McCain is desperately trying to repaint himself as one), not a senator, sterling job as the director of the 2002 Winter Olympics, married once with no skeletons having emerged (yet), his work to provide health care for all Massachusetts residents, knows how to revitalize industries and eliminate red-tape; more political endorsements thus far than any other candidate.

Cons: question on whether his Mormonism would prevent evangelicals from voting for him; a record of flip-flopping and equivocation on important conservative issues; “tar baby” and Hitler ads being linked to his campaign; Not present as governor his final year in office; joined the NRA as a political move off-setting the gun-control efforts while in office; supports the “surge,” has no where near the clout, record or legitimacy to be a viable candidate.

Analysis: Ultimately, I believe that the evangelical bloc of the Republican party will be unable to pull the lever for a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Despite the fact that he agrees with them (at least he says he does, now) on their key issues of abortion and gay marriage, they won’t be able to get behind him. Their discomfort with Romney as the champion of conservative values is evidenced by the “adopt Newt” and “adopt Fred” movements.
While I applaud some of the moves that he made as governor, such as health care and gun control, there are too many issues where I disagree with him for me to feel comfortable about his candidacy.
I believe that Romney’s position in the “top three” of Republican contenders early on is akin to seat fillers at the Oscars when the legitimate contenders are taking bathroom breaks. He is keeping that chair warm for an approved conservative which paves the way for a Gingrich, Thompson, or (shudder) Huckabee to step in. He’s not nominate-able, nor is he electable. He has no legitimate shot and his treatment as a front-runner for the GOP election is a joke.

For the entry and discussion on Rudy Giuliani, click here

For the entry and discussion on John McCain, click here

For the entry and discussion on John Edwards, click here

As we continue along we jump back across the aisle to the Dems. Rumors of more candidates jumping into the saturated Republican field underscores the uncertainty in that grand old party. However, the Democrats seem to be a little bit more stabilized with 3 front-runners and the rest lagging painfully behind (insert AI comparisons here).

Who better to look at then America’s senator: Hillary Clinton. The sheer mention of her name is enough to provoke some 40 million Americans to begin pulling out their hair, rending their clothes and doing something akin to spontaneous combustion. Yes, she is that polarizing. But is she electable?

(Note: let me repeat that this is not intended to be an in-depth analysis of issues and positions. The comments can deal with that. These pros and cons deal with profile, aesthetics and electability. And let’s face it: electability and issues do not walk hand in hand in this country.)

Pros: A strong, widely recognized last name that carries a tremendous amount of clout; the deepest war chest with a tremendous ability to raise money; the first legitimate female aspirant to the presidency; Initiated the Children’s Health Insurance Program while first lady among other works; a champion of stopping violence against women; the power of Bill.

Cons: Far and away the most controversial and polarizing figure in the field who is absolutely hated by conservative Republicans; unspectacular Senatorial career; for the Iraq war before she was against it; does not possess her husband’s charisma or likability much less his ability to play the middle; past scandals and controversies (as all candidates do); does not have the clearly defined positions as her primary opponents do.

Analysis: Hillary is the front-runner for the democratic nod and it is her nomination to lose. It’s a long way until February and her constant sniping with Obama could deplete her coffers and pave the way for a third candidate (i.e. John Edwards) to break through.
However the power of her name and the presence of Bill makes her a formidable opponent and one that the GOP is scared to death of. There are still some who will make the contention that there is no way she could ever be elected. That’s denial at its finest.
However popular she might be and despite the cachet of the name, however, there are many blights on her record and the Dems must realize that she might not be the best candidate to reach out to middle America.
The prospect of seeing on a national scale the never realized Giuliani-Clinton showdown is tempting. She is polling well and is a money-raising machine.
But what does she believe? Who is she really? I don’t believe that she is the ultra-crazed liberal that the far right have painter her as. But I don’t believe she is the best candidate either.

Thoughts?

For the entry and discussion on John McCain, click here.

For the entry and discussion on John Edwards, click here.

(Note: I’ve been chided for this not being an in-depth analysis of where the candidates stand on the issues. I haven’t intended it to be. I just want to do a cursory overview of each of them listing points about their candidacy. Of course, John Edwards having a Second Life site is not indicative of his ability to govern. But it is telling of his presence and visibility during a campaign. And let’s be honest, that often matters more than the issues. Any in-depth discussion of the candidates positions will unfold in the comment section.)

Since the speculation that he would be seeking the presidency in 2008 has heated up, Rudy Giuliani has raced to the lead of GOP contenders. At this writing he stands head and shoulders among his competitors in early polling.

Giuliani brings an interesting mix into the Republican primaries, being the least republican of the bunch. Which could be his downfall come primary time.

Pros: America’s mayor, his leadership post 9/11 galvanized the country, sterling record as a prosecutor in his early days, perceived as being instrumental in reducing crime drastically as mayor of New York, most attractive GOP candidate across parties, oversaw the transformation of Times Square, great experience in leadership in times of crisis, moderate.

Cons: Republican , his marital history, lack of alignment with GOP power brokers over their key issues of abortion and gay rights, the Bernard Kerik flap, as of this time a lack of clarity over where he stands on major issues

Analysis: At this point in the race it would seem that the nomination is Giuliani’s to lose. He is crushing in the polls. He carries tremendous cachet with GOP voters who long for the ascendancy and good will of the party in the immediate aftermath of September 11th. There is the view that he will be the voice of reason in a “war on terror” that Bush has failed so miserably at.
But we are a long way away from February and Giuliani will be hammered by issues on his family ad nauseum between now and then. At the moment he has a great amount of cachet and appeal that will most likely wane between now and the primaries. It’s hard to picture a pro-choice Republican who is pro gay rights getting the nomination. In addition, as the dust settled on NYC greater questions about his leadership pre–9/11 have emerged.
Ultimately, I differ greatly with him on several important issues for him to have my vote. Then again, I’m not a Republican. However, he does bear watching closely.

Thoughts?