Daniel Day Lewis as Obama

If you haven't seen it yet, the spoof trailer for Steven Spielberg's "Obama" is out. Amusing, but his stand up routine was actually funnier.



The Annual White House Correspondents Dinner has been catching more and more flack, actually, with some prominent journalists (Tom Brokaw and Barbara Walters) criticizing the event. The event has become increasingly focused on celebrities even while the white house press core seems to be becoming less and less relevant.

Tidbit about Bipartinanship in US Congress

As we all know, the US Congress is more ideologically now than in living memory. There has simply been far less cooperation between Democrats and Republicans. But there is one shining exception, the Food Safety Bill. In response to all the recent food safety problems (recalls, deaths, etc.) both sides of the aisle decided it was time to strengthen the FDA and put some more regulation in place to ensure safety. The article about this in the NYTimes includes this amusing paragraph:

Despite Mr. Coburn’s opposition, the bill is one of the only major pieces of bipartisan legislation to emerge from this Congress. Some Republican and Democratic Senate staff members — who in previous terms would have seen each other routinely — met for the first time during the food negotiations. The group bonded over snacks: specifically, Starburst candies from a staff member of Senator Mike Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, and jelly beans from a staff member of Senator Richard J. Durbin, an Illinois Democrat. And in the midst of negotiations, the negotiators — nearly all women — took a field trip to a nearby food market so that a Republican staff member could teach the Democrats how to buy high-quality steaks. (source)

At least we all agree that steak is yum.

-t

Seders...

The Obama family started a tradition of observing a Passover Seder meal back in the Campaign days, now it is an annual tradition at the White House. It's strictly for family and close friends of the Obamas, and has been the occasion for some amusing misunderstandings with security and culinary personnel. You can read about in the NYTimes... The idea of Christians hosting these events is a bit sticky, but the article doesn't comment on that. Personally, I love going to Seders. I think it a wonderful way to celebrate a shared, holy history. We, too, claim Abraham as our forefather.

I hate to be too cynical, but I think the reason that we are only hearing about this annual tradition this Passover is because of the current tensions between the White House and the state of Israel. No doubt the President's people are feeding this charming glimpse of White House life to the press corp to soften his image a bit in relation to the Jewish people.

Because despite Sarah Silverman's persuasive arguments, many Jewish-Americans still distrust President Obama (especially older Jewish-Americans). And the recent tension between the President and the Israeli government doesn't help. But maybe this Seder story will make a few people smile?

-t

President Obama and Religion...

This is so good I just had to repost in its entirety. Andrew Gerns posted this in the Episcopal Cafe blog:


A year ago, the big question was "where would the Obamas go to church?" From a human interest angle, it was right up there with what kind of dog they'd get and where the girls would go to school. Everyone had ideas about what church community they would join. A year later, the Obamas have not joined a church and have taken a private approach to their faith expression and formation, one that does not routinely include a faith community.

Ariel Sabar of the Boston Globe reports:

...since President Obama took office a year ago, his faith has largely receded from public view. He has attended church in the capital only four times, and worshiped half a dozen times at a secluded Camp David chapel. He prays privately, reads a “daily devotional’’ that aides send to his BlackBerry, and talks to pastors by phone, but seldom frames policies in spiritual terms.

The greater privacy reflects not a slackening of devotion, but a desire to shield his spirituality from the maw of politics and strike an inclusive tone at a time of competing national priorities and continuing partisan division, according to people close to the White House on faith issues.

“There are several ways that he is continuing to grow in his faith, all of them - or practically of all them - he’s trying to keep as private and personal as possible so they will not be politicized,’’ said Pastor Joel C. Hunter, who is part of an inner circle of pastors the president consults by phone for spiritual guidance.

The apparent lack of interest in a public religious life has been noticed by some religious leaders and political analysts, who say it opens Obama to questions of sincerity. Others point out that his support among religious voters his campaign attracted might be threatened as well.

“You can’t be using the church just to get elected and then push the church to the side,’’ said the Rev. Wilfredo De Jesus, a prominent Chicago pastor who had campaigned for Obama among Hispanic evangelicals, many of whom had voted in earlier elections for George W. Bush. “If the president says he’s Christian, then in his narrative, and in his speeches and in his life, that should be displayed.’’

Some say his administration has just had too much on the plate:

“We have a recession, we have the health care agenda - Obama has taken on so much, why add one more thing, especially one that you can’t legislate on?’’ said Professor Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College.

Of course, the president has concerns that very few Americans have to worry about. Security, for one thing, and the fact that someone has actually counted how many times and where he and his family have gone to church. He also has resources that most Americans do not have: aides who text him devotions, military chaplains who can come in and out of the White House or Camp David, and a circle of pastors who can advise him by phone.

The missing ingredient is community. In this respect, the church-shopping Obamas of a year ago and the private faith that uses personal resources is a position that is like many Americans, who can shop for a faith that suits their needs and tastes on-line, in stores and in the media. While institutional religion declines in trust and support, the idea of a community of faith often gets lost.

(source for all of the above)

Chin-Up, Canada, You're Okay!

Timothy Egan writes in the New York Times today about the collective modesty of Canadians that prevents them from expressing their nationalism in the way that they deserve.

It seems like eons ago that the opening ceremony, a triumph complete with magical bears and sub-surface killer whales, prompted some Canadians to take a long overdue bow.

“It made me proud to be from here,” said Ian Brown, writing in The Globe and Mail, a Canadian national paper. But then he added, “I hesitate to say it. Such declarations are always unwise.”

No. Say it! Can you imagine an American being afraid to make such a simple declaration of national chauvinism? “Maybe for a while again,” Mr. Brown concluded, “we can feel alright about being Canadian.”

The prime minister, Stephen Harper, had to make a similar pitch last week in front of the British Columbia Parliament. He urged Canadians to show “an uncharacteristic outburst of patriotism and pride.”

Why the prodding? Why the lack of self-esteem? Canada — snap out of it! You’re gorgeous, baby, you’re sophisticated, you live well. No need for an apology. (source)

Yes, we do live well up here: low crime, beautiful cities, universal health care. We pay too much for phone and internet service, it's true, and I do find the characteristic modesty of Canadians gets in the way of entrepreneurial ministry. Yet among nations Canada has a LOT to be proud about, and the lack of a single national origin myth (read your John Rolston Saul) shouldn't prevent us from having a little pride in our country! The olympics are a good chance to show off!

-t

Just War Theory and Obama's Christian Realism

David Brooks and others have been studying Obama's fascinating Nobel Peace Prize speech last week. It's a rousing defence of Just War Theory and the complexity of war and politics: "that war is sometimes necessary, and that war, at some level, is an expression of human folly." What can bring peace is not a change in human nature, but a "gradual evolution in human institutions" (paraphrasing JFK).

It's an amazing and thoughtful speech. Right up there with his speech on race during the campaign. It's nuanced and reflective and represents the heritage of Christian Just War Theory. Good stuff.

-t

The White House Situation Room

Ever wondered what the real Situation Room of the White House looks like? Here's a picture. Note that before 9/11 this room where the President receives classified briefings and manages crisis was distinctly underwhelming. They were still using fax machines and CRT monitors. After 9/11 the renovation, already underway, received an obvious boost in priority--this is the result.

-t

Coming Home

I'm tired. it was good to spend some time with my sister and dad but I'm anxious to get home. Unfortunately, this turned out to be a very busy time at COTM so I've got a lot to do when I get home. Thank God my Wardens and Staff are so capable.

I'll be curious about the feedback from the NRA connection. As a parish priest I always have to be careful about what I reveal about myself, as people make a lot of assumptions about how I should act or believe. I've been screamed at on the TTC Subway merely for being an Anglican Priest, even! To tell the truth, it makes me not want to wear my collar around when I'm aware that at any moment I might be verbally attacked. One time an Anglican priest I know was harassed by a woman in an airport who assumed he was Roman Catholic. When she had finished dressing him down for not ordaining women, he said calmly, "Are you finished?"
"yes."
"Then I should tell you that I'm not Roman Catholic, I'm Anglican. We do ordain women."
"I've made a terrible mistake, haven't I?"
"yes."
"I should go away and sit down, shouldn't I?"
"Yes, I think that would be best."

I'm not ashamed of my sister or what she does. And if people want to disagree with me about the rightness of her cause, that's fine. I'm used to holding a lot of opinions that other people disagree with. Even something as simple as my belief in God has gotten me into some heated debates! I've actually taken about as much heat from the "right" from time-to-time as the "left." like I've said, I really have a foot in each world.

I think that this situation will also reveal something of the difference between American and Canadian Culture. Not much I can say about that except to accept that I live in Canada and that's my home! I love Canada, but I'm an American citizen with some of the peculiarities of that culture still embeded in me. Sorry! it is confusing sometimes, I admit, even for me. Living trans-culturally isn't always easy.

So if my time at the NRA convention bothers you, I'm sorry you feel that way. I certainly didn't mean to offend, and I'm not making any statements here about Canada or anything like that. Certainly I'm committed to a peaceful and law-abiding society and believe in a God of Peace and Love. Certainly I think crime and urban violence are terrible things. Sigh. in the end I can only be honest about who I am and where I come from and where I believe I am called to go.

-t

Tay at the NRA

With friends and family at one of the dinners
I haven't been posting much because I'm visiting my dad and my sister at the NRA convention in Phoenix, Arizona, this weekend. My sister works for the NRA, so it made sense for the three of us to meet up here. I know that will seem really strange to my Canadian friends and parishioners, but I'm used to maintaining a foot in two worlds.

It's been a series of events for us. Lots of fundraising breakfasts and lunches and dinners. Perhaps the most impressive was tonight's "Celebration of American Values Banquet." There were 6,000 people at that banquet dinner, which is a record for the state of Arizona. It was completely smooth and even delicious. Very polished fundraising operation! The results... in the last two years they've raised something like $110 Million--and that's over and above regular dues to the Association. That's with an advancement staff of about 30 people. Impressive.

Overall there were about 62,000 people at this convention, which makes it the largest convention in Arizona State history. Some of the events were of a mind-boggling scale. I took some video. Here's an example of me playing with a super-advanced rifle designed for U.S. Special Forces. And no, this rifle is not available for civilians, even in America...


In case you're wondering, all weapons on display on the show floor were rendered inoperable by removing the firing pins. Also, there was no ammo on the show floor. There was a also a very heavy security presence in case someone thought that stealing guns from NRA was a good idea!

Almost everyone we met were friendly and personable. You might not agree with their politics, but you can't deny that they are hard-core patriots that believe in liberty. In fact, a lot of the speeches were less about gun-rights, in particular, than the preservation of personal freedoms, generally.

There were some things that definitely made me squirm in my seat. Some of the criticisms of Obama, for example, I thought were unfair or poorly argued. But when everyone rose to say the Pledge of Allegiance or sing the Star Spangled Banner it was hard not to feel a stirring of the heart.

But what I'll remember most is meeting some really fun people. Two couples in particular that we spent time with at the various receptions and events. Just the nicest people you ever met....

-t

The War

Lately the NYTimes has had some excellent accounts of the battles going on in Afghanistan. An example is this audio and slide show. One of things that is remarkable about this is that the embed reporter got not only still photos during the battle, but audio as well. Needless the say, the distinctive sound of real m-16s (note the three round burst) and M-249's (longer, sustained volleys) is very different from the movies. Also interesting is to hear the platoon commander giving orders in the midst of the ambush--mostly he seems to be saying pretty useful things: stay here, go there, etc. The accompanying article details how the ambush played out showing how both the Taliban and U.S. forces are both experienced fighters who press their advantages.

Needless to say, the American response to what could have been a devastating ambush was swift, complex, and deadly. One American soldier was killed (in the initial IED explosion), but the pinned-down platoon managed to fight its way out of the riverbed where it had been trapped.

This is the same embed reporter and platoon that ambushed a Taliban column that was, itself, on the way to set up an ambush of American forces a few weeks ago. In that battle at least 13 insurgents were killed using claymore mines, grenades, machine gun fire, and a knife. Yes, one of the U.S. soldiers killed an insurgent with his knife. Obviously, the coalition forces are highly motivated to win this fight.

On the Canadian side of things, a recent Discovery Chanel documentary/series followed a Company training for its first deployment. I noticed how the military culture and training techniques differ between the U.S. and Canada. One Canadian Officer proudly explained to me, at a cocktail party, that the Canadian forces still operate with the mentality of a citizen militia. There isn't the same sense of a military culture. Consider that the U.S. has 1.5 million men and women in active duty vs. 65 thousand Canadians. Defence budgets compare as about $700 billion to $20 billion. That puts the U.S. second only to China in terms of the number of active duty military! Canada ranks 46 out of 107 on that same list, between Venezuela and Romania. I'm not criticizing, just explaining how the military is a different thing in the U.S. vs. Canada.

But victory in Afghanistan is going to be much more complex than the Canadian, U.S. and coalition forces winning military victories. This is mostly, IMHO, going to be about whether the U.S. can establish an effective government that can provide for its citizens and protect them. The results of that mission are still pending.

-t

Torture

A stunning article in the NYTimes by Mark Danner (itself a condensation of a longer article he wrote for the New York Review of Books) details the best record yet about the torture conducted on suspected terrorists in the "Black" Prison programme. The article is based primarily on the classified report written by the Red Cross based on their extensive interviews with prisoners who had been transfered from the "black" prisons to Gitmo. It's chilling reading, and has the ring of authenticity.

One of the things that is striking to me about all this is that two former CIA Operatives that I have known were both highly critical of the use of torture. One told me that he had conducted or supervised many interrogations, including some were local officials used torture, and his cold-blooded experience was that torture was simply not as affective as other means. "There is no magic to it," he told me, "you simply keep asking the same question over and over again. It just takes time, that's all." Further he told me of disgust for what he was hearing about in the "war on terror": "I find it professionally insulting."

A third source, whom I haven't met, is Slow Burn, a book by former CIA operative named Orrin DeForrest about his experiences as an interrogator in Vietnam. Essentially, DeForrest replaced crude, cruel, and ineffective methods with a system of interrogation that (according to his account) was successful but too late to effect the war's outcome. Again, this is the voice of an experienced interrogator who found that torture was not the best way to get valuable intelligence from people.

But even if torture were effective in getting information, there are still powerful moral and even purely utilitarian arguments against employing it. Danner summs it up:

As I write, it is impossible to know definitively what benefits — in intelligence, in national security, in disrupting Al Qaeda — the president’s approval of use of an “alternative set of procedures” might have brought to the United States. Only a thorough investigation, which we are now promised, much belatedly, by the Senate Intelligence Committee, can determine that.

What we can say with certainty, in the wake of the Red Cross report, is that the United States tortured prisoners and that the Bush administration, including the president himself, explicitly and aggressively denied that fact. We can also say that the decision to torture, in a political war with militant Islam, harmed American interests by destroying the democratic and Constitutional reputation of the United States, undermining its liberal sympathizers in the Muslim world and helping materially in the recruitment of young Muslims to the extremist cause. By deciding to torture, we freely chose to embrace the caricature they had made of us. The consequences of this choice, legal, political and moral, now confront us. Time and elections are not enough to make them go away. (source)

There is talk of some kind of Truth Commission. I sure hope that happens for the sake of our national conscience.

-t

Sasha Obama Keeps Seeing Ghost of Creepy Twins

From The Onion:

Sasha Obama Keeps Seeing Creepy Bush Twins While Riding Tricycle Through White House

February 23, 2009 - Issue 45.09
WASHINGTON—A little more than a month after the first family's move to the White House, reports of strange happenings have continued to surface, with Sasha Obama confirming Tuesday that she had once again been visited by the eerie specter of the Bush twins.

Sasha, who was playing in the East Wing of the executive mansion so as not to disturb her busy father, reported seeing the former first twins while riding her Big Wheel tricycle down the Cross Hall corridor. The frightening apparitions, the 7-year-old said, emerged out of thin air and were dressed in identical outfits consisting of spaghetti strap tank tops and denim skirts.

"At approximately 4:36 p.m., we received a detailed account from Sasha Obama about a series of manifestations in the White House," press secretary Robert Gibbs announced. "However, a thorough search conducted by security officials has thus far uncovered nothing."

Added Gibbs, "Whatever grotesque and haunting images the president's youngest daughter thought she saw must have been a figment of her imagination."

According to White House security documents, Sasha told Secret Service agents that the ghostly twins spoke to her in unison and repeatedly beckoned her by chanting the phrases "come play with us," "come play with us, forever," and "Daddy's making fajitas."

White House officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, also detailed a disturbing vision experienced by Sasha, who at several points during her encounter suddenly saw the twin girls lying motionless in a pool of spilled strawberry margaritas.

"She said they kept whispering 'we want to party' over and over again," said one Secret Service agent, who comforted Sasha following the incident. "God, it's so horrifying." (source)

-t

President McDreamy

Judith Warner has a very amusing and insightful blog entry on her NYT Blog about people's passionate feelings about the new President. In particular, she talks about how many people feel they have so much in common with him that it's just possible to imagine having him and Michelle over for dinner and scrabble...

I understood perfectly where these cozy dreams of easy familiarity came from. It was that sense so many people share of having a very immediate connection to Barack Obama, whether they’re black or biracial, or children of single parents or self-made strivers; or they’re lawyers or community organizers or Ivy League graduates or smokers or basketball players or Blackberry users or parents or married or Democrats. A lot of people share the fantasy that having the Obamas over for “dinner and a game of Scrabble,” as one daydreamer put it to me, is something that really could just about happen. ....

Sometimes this sense of close identification turns a bit dark. There’s a subcategory of people who feel that they really should have true intimacy with the Obamas. Because they went to school with them. Because they used to dream like them. Because, with one or two “different turns,” they maybe could have been them. ....

“Will Michelle stay down to earth? She could prove it by joining our book club,” wrote a Sidwell mom.

This is, perhaps, the price of faux-familiarity. If I were Barack Obama (or Michelle, for that matter), I’d be a little scared. After all, when people are wearing their egos on their sleeves, it’s so easy to bruise their feelings. What will happen if fantasy turns to contempt? (source)

Did I mention that I sent a letter of congrats to President Obama? I suspect I may receive a canned reply in a few months if I'm lucky. I actually knew a girl who interned in the White House in the Bill Clinton era. She worked in the mail room and described how many hundreds and thousands of letters come to the President daily. Still, it's the gesture that counts.

Speaking of politics and politicians, all the clergy in the Diocese were asked to meet with their local government reps (City Council, MPP, etc.) to advocate for social justice issues (homelessness, HIV/AIDS, etc.). I'm embarrassed to actually do this, yet. It's one of those side projects that tend to get pushed aside in favour of more pressing concerns...

-t

Obama Roasts Rahm Emanuel

In this clip from a 2005 Political Roast, then Senator Obama displays his wit making fun of Rahm Emanuel--now his Chief of Staff at the White House. The relate to each other more like brothers with a unique talent for getting under each other's skin as this New York Times article relates:

Early this month, Barack Obama was meeting with the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and other lawmakers when Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff, began nervously cracking a knuckle. Mr. Obama then turned to complain to Mr. Emanuel about his noisy habit. At which point, Mr. Emanuel held the offending knuckle up to Mr. Obama’s left ear and, like an annoying little brother, snapped off a few special cracks. (source)

In this clip it's time for big-brother Obama to give a little love. There are some genuinely funny lines in here...



-t

And Winner of the Prayer Contest is....

The Rev'd Dr. Joseph Lowery!



I don't think anyone else could have pulled this off, but he sure did!

-t

Bishop Robinson's Prayer Controversy

The plot thickens... HBO said that they didn't broadcast Bishop Robinson's prayer because the Inaugural Planning Committee had decided to put it in the "pre-show." The Obama people have apologized and said that this was a mistake. So today the whole Lincoln Memorial Concert will be re-broadcast, with the Bishop's prayer.

Here is a summary of events around this from Rachel Maddow:


As for the prayer itself, here the video currently circulating on the web:


I imagine that this was a challenging prayer to write! But I'm proud that the Episcopal Church had such a central role in everything. I have some friends on staff at Washington National Cathedral and I'm curious what kind of stuff they have going on around the Inauguration.

-t

Bishop Gene Robinson Discussing His Role in the Inauguration

Bishop Robinson, who is very controversial for being the first (openly) gay Anglican bishop was sought out by Barack Obama early in the campaign to discuss "being first" as well as issues of relevance to the LGBT community. He was also consulted about the Millennium Development Goals. So in a sense it was not so surprising that he would be one of the religious leaders asked to pray at the Inauguration. It seems likely, perhaps, that the planners wished the balance the two sides of religious life in America by also inviting Rick Warren (who has said some very conservative things about human sexuality).

The two men are being quite polite about the whole thing:

Last week, the two men of the cloth, Robinson and Warren, joined forces. "President-elect Obama has again demonstrated his genuine commitment to bringing all Americans of goodwill together in search of common ground," Warren said, commenting on the selection of Robinson. "I applaud his desire to be the president of every citizen." Robinson echoed those sentiments. "Frankly, I think it is a magnificent, symbolic statement that Rick Warren and I will be praying for the new president and the nation." (source)

I think it's a brilliant example of Obama's big-tent inclusiveness. He really likes sustaining mutually exclusive ideas in dialog. Below is a clip of Robinson being interviewed by Rachel Maddow on her show.



Incidentally, I'm not sure his prayer made it onto the HBO special. Did anyone else catch it? Nor is it on You Tube, yet. I'll be curious to hear/read it. I met Bishop Robinson once when I was in Seminary--I found him to be an excellent preacher and a nice enough guy to have in your chapel!

-t

Donatism and Roland Burris

Stanley Fish wrote an interesting piece of his NYTimes Blog about the application of the theological heresy known as Donatism to the Roland Burris situation.

Burris, as you probably know, was appointed to the U.S. Senate by a state Governor accused of corruption. The argument of many against accepting the Governor's appointment is that his malfeasance "taints" Burris' appointment. The question then becomes, to what degree is the validity of any official act of office dependent upon the purity of the person performing it. In other words, if we accept that Burris' appointment is "tainted" by the Governor's alleged misconduct, are the actions of other disgraced officials also up for review?

This last question is not new. It was debated in the 4th and 5th centuries in the context of what is known as the Donatist controversy. This debate was about the status of churchmen who had cooperated with the emperor Diocletian during the period when he was actively persecuting Christians. The Donatists argued that those who had betrayed their faith under pressure and then returned to the fold when the persecutions were over had lost the authority to perform their priestly offices, including the offices of administering the sacraments and making ecclesiastical appointments. In their view, priestly authority was a function of personal virtue, and when a new bishop was consecrated by someone they considered tainted, they rejected him and consecrated another. (source)

Donatism has always fascinated me. It's one of those heresies that keeps manifesting in subtle forms despite the Gospel. To be clear: sacraments are the work of God and do not depend on a priest's purity to be effectual. If they did, we'd all be in trouble! But God's forgiving and bountiful grace is sufficient to make up for any lack that me or my brother/sister priests may have! That's not to say that the ethics of priests are irrelevant, only that the "taint" of sin is not perpetuated upon the sheep!

One of the philosophical consequences of this contra-Donatist position put forth by St. Augustine is that a certain insulation is introduced between the person and the office they hold. In other words, some actions derive their authority from the office rather that the merit of the person filling it. This is counter-cultural right now, where increasingly people are motivated by the chrism of the officer rather than their relationship to the office. The modern shift is towards privileging relationship over contract.

Another problematic aspect of this understanding is that it emphasizes the duality of official leadership. For instance, when in the 16th century when lawyers for the English Crown argued that the “The king has in him two bodies, a body natural and a body politic.” His body natural is “subject to all infirmities that come by nature,” but his body politic does not have a bodily and imperfect form; rather it consists of “policy and government” that has been “constituted for the direction of the people” (source). This duality can create understandable confusion!

The real question to resolve, as Fish points out, is what kind of framework of judgment ought to be applied in the Burris case.

The legitimacy of an appointment can be either a procedural or a moral matter. If it is a procedural matter, authority is conferred by the right credentials, and that’s that. If it is a moral matter – only the good can be truly authoritative (this was John Milton’s position) – authority is always precarious, and the structures of government and law are always in danger of being dissolved.

The (perhaps paradoxical) truth is that while governing has or should have a moral purpose — to safeguard and advance the health and prosperity of the polity — it is not a moral practice. That is, one engages in it not by applying moral principles but by applying legal principles. Senator Reid and his colleagues in the Democratic party seem finally to have figured that out, which is why, in the absence of any more bombshell revelations, Roland Burris will be seated as the junior senator from Illinois. (source)

See, knowledge of the Church Fathers and the early controversies of the church does have practical value!

-t

Robin Williams on Obama

Robin Williams--a good Anglican boy--did this hilarious routine recently.



-t

Rick Warren Selected by Obama

Rick Warren, the leader of the new-wave of American Evangelicals, was selected by Barack Obama to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, a role previously occupied by Billy Graham. This is a big deal because it signifies a huge culture shift in American Protestantism. For instance, before Warren Evangelicals were pro-business at the expense of the environment and wouldn't touch HIV/AIDS with a ten-foot pole. Warren and his generation, however, believe that protecting the environment is a biblical imperative (cf. creation, the flood story, etc.). Even more striking, Warren has raised millions and millions of dollars for HIV/AIDS work in Africa, which would have been an unthinkable thing for an evangelical preacher just a few years ago.

Another shift has to do with the ascendancy of a new church structure. His mega church, and the ones based on it, are really a collection of small cell groups that meet frequently. It's in these small groups where personal accountability, spiritual encounter and growth, and intimacy develop. In other words, going to his church you don't get lost in the mega-church crowd but instead experience fulfilling, intimate relationships with peers.

So this represents an important passing-of-the-torch in American religious life.

-t