Respectfully clarifying

Lipscomb University theologian Lee Camp has clarified his remarks that were cited in yesterday's Tennessean article, which apparently were taken out of context. I stand by what I said yesterday that respect, honesty and humility need to go hand-in-hand in any dialogue between people with different or opposing viewpoints. Professor Camp appears to agree, and I appreciate what he had to say. I would like to see more Christians share his opinion on loving neighbors, even ones half a world away:

"The dialogue prior to my lecture had been most encouraging and refreshing: Numerous speakers had insisted that Jews, Muslims and Christians must not pretend that our differences are insignificant. Moreover, we can acknowledge the seriousness of the differences, while honoring one another...

I believe and profess "Jesus is Lord," and am compelled by Jesus' Lordship to share this Good News world-wide. But if such sharing treats others in a way contrary to the teachings of Jesus, I have thereby denied my profession. I choose not only to proclaim that "Jesus is Lord," but to live Jesus as Lord, among all — believer or unbeliever, Catholic or Protestant, Muslim or Jew."

The Tennessean has posted a follow-up story this morning. The paper appeared to represent a summary of the evening's discussion as Camp's personal views in yesterday's edition, and I'm glad they responded to Camp's efforts to clarify his position.

Respectfully speaking

I am impressed that the words below were spoken by two Lipscomb University professors and that an interfaith gathering recently took place on campus:

To live peacefully with Muslims and Jews, Christians must put aside the notion that their faith requires the creation of a Christian kingdom on Earth, a Lipscomb University theologian told an interfaith gathering at the university.

"We are not going to get very far in our relationship with Jews or Muslims if we do not let go of this idea," Lipscomb professor Lee Camp said at Tuesday's conference.

As I've said before, I don't expect someone to forfeit their beliefs in the name of tolerance, but I do hope that we can all find a way to be respectful when sharing our viewpoints by acknowledging that other legitimate perspectives exist.

I'm a Lipscomb high school alumnus, and I've had my share of frustrations with the institution over the years. That said, there are many kind-hearted, well-intentioned people who attend, work for or otherwise contribute to life on that campus. I don't think that this kind of event or the words above would have generated anything but outrage when I was a student. This kind of forum is major progress.

What would you do?

This is heavy handed, but I agree with it. I think this ought to apply to all of us, even beyond those of us who are Christians. I don't think there's anything wrong with entertainment or wanting to enjoy leisure time, whether it's taking in a movie or doing something else. (Not that the Passion of the Christ is really anything people "enjoy" inasmuch as it depicts a very painful series of events.) No one person among us can save the world, but we can all give of our time and our money to make the world a little bit more hospitable for people who are in need.

Even though this cartoon is dead-on accurate in my opinion, maybe Christians are an easy target because the Bible calls us to such a high standard in trying to emulate Christ. There's a paradox in seeking that goal because it's unattainable for us as fallible beings, and yet it is noble and admirable to want to live humbly and be of service to other people. Christians can't possibly live up to the standard Christ established, but it often doesn't help that many of us, myself included, don't seem to take that goal very seriously in how we live our lives. (It doesn't help, either, that a lot of us think that we have God all figured out and in our hip pocket, but that's a topic for another post.)

Just answer the freaking question

NBC News has chosen to call the situation in Iraq a civil war as of this week. Many other news outlets are doing the same. Here's how President Bush responded when asked that question today:

"No question it's tough, no question about it. There's a lot of sectarian violence taking place, fomented in my opinion because of the attacks by al Qaeda causing people to seek reprisal."

My point here, though I did not vote for Bush in 2004 and objected to the war in Iraq prior to its onset, has nothing directly to do with which side of the aisle the president or anyone else is on. This kind of non-answer to a reporter's question, once lauded as an effective media relations tactic, is not only hurting public discourse in our country, if you ask me, it is damaging public opinion of anyone who uses it consistently. Democrats do it just as much as Republicans, and I think it's hurting America.

The Bush administration spent six years refusing to answer questions, even ones that it was silly to refuse to consider. Now that the balance of power has shifted in Congress, the administration is finally beginning to address its critics humbly and openly, relatively speaking, despite what Bush did or did not say today. If the administration had learned how to do that even six months ago, it might not be dealing with a loss of seats in both sides of Congress today.

I think it's fine to have talking points to get across in any interview, but it isn't fine to just parrot them back incessantly as if the question were never asked. It's really a moot point by now any way because the media is so accustomed to public figures doing this. CBS went ahead and did what Bush was trying to avoid by clarifying the president's position: "President Bush said Tuesday that the sectarian violence rocking Iraq is not civil war but part of an al Qaeda plot to use violence to goad Iraqi factions into repeatedly attacking each other."

Just say "yes" or "no," and then tell us why. We'll all be a whole lot better off, if you ask me.

One pant leg at a time

I saw U.S. Congressman Jim Cooper walking to his office on Church Street downtown this morning as I made my own way to work. Congressman Cooper was juggling (OK, not literally) a couple of packages while flinging the door open.

Representative Cooper wasn't breaking any laws as far as I could tell, and he didn't appear to be cursing about the door. I know there are 430-odd members of the House, but I just found it refreshing to see one of them lugging his lunch pail to the office just like the rest of us, so I thought I'd share.

Happy birthday, Jon Stewart

Happy birthday, Jon Stewart! By “Jon Stewart,” I mean the host of the Daily Show, not the:

• Scottish footballer
• The secret identity of the Green Lantern
• Member of the Kingston Trio
• Financier and railway builder
• U.S. Congressman from Pennsylvania
• Canadian Member of Parliament
• Scottish Earl
• Son of James II of Scotland
• Son of James III of Scotland

What Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz (Stewart’s given name) may lack in anti-Semitism, it gains in recognizance. Still, Jon, kick back and enjoy your 44^th knowing that among Jon Stewarts, you currently have monopolized name recognition big time compared with your counterparts above. Take that, John Stewart, 2nd Earl of Buchan!

Thanks to DVR technology, I have been a pretty regular Daily Show viewer for about two years now. I love Stewart’s sense of humor because it is somehow even drier than my own. (Some of my friends, and possibly my wife, would dispute that. Water, anyone?) Here’s hoping for many more years of fake news and occasional cameos by Steve Carell.

The easy way out?

Has sports replaced religion in our society? I think maybe it has. It's hard to argue that point looking at the sports page in the newspaper or looking at football stadiums on weekends.

The more curious question, for me, is why. Are we looking for an escape? Are we looking for meaning? How many of us who are sports fans can honestly say that we are as invigorated on Sunday mornings as we are on Sunday afternoons? For those who aren't sports fans, how often are you more excited about a worship service than you are about your favorite television show? How many of us care more about what takes place on a screen in our living room than what takes place across the street?

Now that survival is generally no longer a challenge for us, are we desperate to escape the malaise of our everyday lives to be a part of something larger and more exciting? Are we looking for a gift for ourselves when we already have "everything?" Are we choosing the easy way out by escaping into entertainment and comfort instead of looking to connect with the people around us and finding ways to change our worlds for the better?

I think we are, and I think it's because it's easier to choose that path. Most of us in the U.S. don't have to work especially hard to eat, sleep and survive each day. The tribes and battles that would have engaged us centuries ago are gone or at least irrelevant for most of us, or they are half a world away where they are easily forgotten. For many people, questions of faith and reason are much murkier than they were for prior generations, and religion isn't the simple answer it once was (not that it can't still ultimately be a solution). Perhaps we are struggling to hold on to any meaning we can, even if it is as fleeting as wins and losses and jerseys and goalposts.

Don't get me wrong. I love sports, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. I just wonder why it can become so important, sometimes excessively important, at the expense of more important things.