The final speaker in the 2005 January Series was also the best received. Fleming Rutledge, an Episcopalian Priest from New York with one of those genteel southern accents I’d only previously heard in movies, took on the most politically charged issue in modern America and did so impressively.

As she began to laud evangelicalism while critiquing theological liberalism I was rather concerned. In the context of a series which has had a clear conservative bent and a talk entitled “Christian Right, Christian Left: The Polarized American Religious Scene” the danger of an hour on the merits of legalistic theology was very apparent. Thankfully, that apprehension was quickly subdued as it became clear that Rutledge was not interested in tight definitions but was looking for theology that surpasses the narrow confines in which modernist liberalism and conservative evangelicalism both languish.

Noting the near-omnipresence of Jim Wallis in the popular media over recent weeks, Rutledge urged those on the “Christian left” to follow Wallis’ lead in being explicit about their engagement of faith and politics and declared that she was keen to try and engage the “Christian right” in dialogue. She talked of the dangers of a church that makes no public comment on the fact that a man recently jailed for his leading role in the Abu Ghraib abuses was a committed member of his local church, of the need to be humble in the wake of disasters such as the recent tsunami, and the need to be radically inclusive.

Rutledge has clearly thought deeply about the much-discussed clash of civilisations, and the forecast confrontation between Islam and Christianity in both the global north and south. She called for a faith that in its inclusivity, its respect for human life and its determination to be good news, did not enter any such confrontation as a belligerent party. At the same time, she didn’t hold back from pointing fingers, most notably at Dick Cheney for his many abuses of power. The talk clearly embodied the bold assertions she was making.

It is easy to be cynical about the possibility for reclaiming the name of Christian in America. As the voices of Richard Land, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson continue to ring loud, clear, and increasingly insanely, it is tempting to simply search for other battles. Despite Rutledge’s words I very much doubt that serious engagement can take place between evangelicals who remember the root of their label and the figureheads of the “christian right.” Perhaps if figures like Wallis and Rutledge continue speaking clearly there is some chance that they could chip away at the support for these mavericks. Or perhaps that’s just the memory of the standing ovation talking?

Tags: CalvinCollege religion politics usa jamesdobson

Howard French’s penultimate January Series lecture couldn’t have been more different than that which preceded it. Where Frank Deford offered light-hearted stories, French dug deep into the issues facing Africa and its portrayal in the West. Where Deford had a light, informal stream-of-consciousness approach, French read from a script in a manner that was often hard to follow, but rewarded careful attention.

French’s style was hard to follow. A Senior Writer for the New York Times, he demonstrated very clearly the skill with prose and clear grasp of critical issues that won him that position but was much more impressive when questioning took him away from his script. Nevertheless, his topic was a vital one and I sincerely hope he made the impact it deserved.

Probably the closest thing to a left-leaning speaker the series has thus far presented (he spoke in the wake of Frederica Mathewes Green’s naive call for single-issue voting on NPR this morning) French highlighted hypocrisies in Western approaches to Africa and was particularly impressive when making an impassioned response to a question as to whether African problems aren’t Europe’s responsibility rather than America’s. His two-pronged argument that America was complicit in imperialism even if not an imperial power, and that anyone who believes in humanity has a responsibility to care for a continent facing so many trials, received a strong round of applause. Personally I bristled at his positive casting of US involvement in Latin American politics, another area where the US government has not lived up to its freedom rhetoric, but I suspect given more time he might not have made that generalisation.

French was also good at making clear that we must look beyond the headlines to see what is happening in Africa beyond the crises. He cited the growth of democracy in Mali as one positive sign neglected by the press, as well as similar moves in a number of other countries. As a significant player in the media he was critiquing, he didn’t entirely own the problem but encouraged his audience to hold the media to a higher standard in its coverage of Africa.

The talk was clearly rushed and didn’t provide the clarity of thought on how we should respond that might be hoped for. French’s talk of the need for reform of international trading practices fell on receptive ears here, but it would have been good to hear more on how we could enact change there, and for all the use of the word ‘debt’ and criticism of the lending practices of the richest nations in past decades, too little was made of the ongoing debt crisis. Nevertheless, another interesting contribution that I hope fosters further debate.

Tags: Africa Debt Trade Mali

At times during Frank Deford’s January Series talk, it felt a little like he didn’t believe people like me exist. A sports writer, occasionally he’d pass reference to women who didn’t like sports, but I kept getting the feeling non-sportsfan men were an alien concept to him. But lest that sound too negative, the talk was probably one of the most entertaining to date. His gentle storytelling style, mostly stream-of-consciousness made a subject I normally can’t muster the interest to follow quite fascinating.

There was one note on which I differed from Deford, and that was his contention that the US has managed better than any other country to balance its praise for the individual and for ‘the team.’ In the world of sports, he may well be right, but to many outsiders (and a fair few on the inside, it seems) this country appears highly individualised.

From the cars that get bigger and bigger, keeping people further and further from the environment they’re travelling through, to the strong focus on ‘private morality’ and tax cuts that seem to have landed a certain international villain back on Philadelphia Avenue, and on to the rejection of the international community that has occurred over the past four years, there are many signs that make it hard for me to take seriously the contention that this is a good balance.

Tags: CalvinCollege Sports

I had the plan quite carefully laid. I needed to have a meeting this morning that meant I couldn’t make it to Calvin for the January Series today, so I ensured the meeting was scheduled with plenty of time for me to listen in online, and enacted at Kava House so there would be WiFi at hand. Unfortunately, I couldn’t get a clear stream. I quickly gave up. If the talk is archived, I’ll try and listen in and continue my commentary.

Also. since several people have asked, I didn’t watch/listen to the inauguration today. I did, however enjoy Colin’s report that Channel 4 News had a French MP on who riposted: “We in Europe watch with a small smile, because we know you cannot spread freedom like you spread perfume.”

Tags: inauguration

It was clear as Tom Ackerman gave a quick précis before launching into his talk proper that there was no real question for him about global warming. Though his January Series talk, “Global Warming: Fact or Fiction,” was dominated by a hasty journey through a series of graphs showing the unprecedented levels of carbon dioxide currently increasing the levels of ozone gases trapping heat within our atmosphere, and models clearly suggesting the human role in that CO2 buildup, Tom Ackerman is clearly as convinced as most of the rest of the world: global climate change is a reality, it has been deeply affected by human involvement, and we have already done untold damage to the earth which will be felt for generations.

Ackerman also worked hard to introduce his listeners to the current state of public policy in the US on the issue. He highlighted the inaction of successive administrations, and the need for radical change given the United States’ dominance of the league tables of carbon emissions whether in raw terms or per capita. And he noted that we must be ready to heavily subsidise any alternatives to our current energy sources as they are not yet ready to be financially competitive with fossil fuels.

Listening to the talk I was reminded of Phill’s post this morning, in which he uses the metaphor of an ‘all you can eat’ meal to talk about inequities in a world of limited resources. I’m grateful for opportunities such as A Year Of Living Generously to help set manageable targets for changing lifestyle.

Try as we might, few of us will achieve an overnight turnaround of lifestyle, so I’ve been wondering most of the day how to extend that model. Perhaps there’d be some interest in a version of YOLG more adapted for those in the US? Perhaps those of us in Grand Rapids can do more to support the woefully under-realised public transport we have available? I’m hoping this lecture continues to work as a salient reminder of an all too pressing issue.

Managing Editor of Newsweek by the age of 29, Jon Meacham has certainly had a glittering career to date. His memory for details and ability to apply those details to the questions he was asked give some insight into that meteoric rise. Beyond those attributes, Meacham’s enthusiasm for the topic of the relationship between Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill and his respect for those two men was more than apparent in today’s January Series lecture.

As someone whose knowledge of US political history remains distinctly sketchy, the stories Meacham told were fascinating, helped by his enthusiasm and storytelling skills. The intimacy of their relationship was made very apparent, as well as some of the tensions that occasionally rose to the surface. He made his point well that being a political leader in a time of war can be a very lonely experience and that this relationship played a great role in the outcome of World War 2.

What wasn’t so much touched on was the second pair of names in, or indeed the second clause of the advertised title “From FDR and Churchill to Bush and Blair: The Changing Face of Leadership.” Early on Meacham made reference to Bush’s use of religious and moral language in the post-twin towers attacks era being somewhat reminiscent of the stark tone Churchill often employed, he noted the obvious overlap of nationalities, and the context of a nation at war. But the discussion didn’t go far beyond that.

I for one got little sense of how leadership has changed beyond my own observation that those leaders have far greater speeches to their names than their modern counterparts. The closest thing we got to an appraisal of the modern pairing performance was a comment that Meacham had no problem with Bush using religious rhetoric (personally I’d be more comfortable with that if he had never started conflating America and Jesus).

An engaging, enjoyable talk that would have been better still if it had a more fitting title.

Tags: Newsweek Meacham CalvinCollege Churchill FDR Leadership

By far the most personal offering so far, Barbara Omolade’s story of coming of age in the civil rights movement was concisely presented as today’s contribution to the January Series. Omolade is currently Calvin’s first Dean of Multicultural Affairs and a noted expert on minority involvement in US Higher Education.

While the focus on the presentation was principally to chart the journey from youthful membership of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) to her present position, Omolade also slipped in a thesis of ‘generational challenges.’ When asked a question about the success of the Civil Rights movement, Omolade argued that it had met its goals and achieved that generation’s challenge. Our task, she suggested was to identify the corollary challenges of today, and there was a hint that she sees that as extending some of the freedoms of civil rights globally.

I was particularly struck as she talked of how SNCC co-ordinator Ella Baker insisted all her staff and volunteers spend time listening to the voices of the people they were advocating for. All SNCC workers were sent to meet with the victims of segregation and encouraged to respect their voices. It’s amazing how the idea of “listening to the affected” remains radical whenever it’s suggested; how much we need to be reminded to be grounded.

Tags: SNCC CivilRights CalvinCollege

Another highly anticipated January Series speaker, Frederica Mathewes Green left a chorus of lively debate behind her. Taking as her title “When Every Day is Casual Friday: Anxiety Hangs Over a Culture When Adults Act Like Children” she developed a thesis that the baby boomer generation, brought up by parents well used to hardship, generally developed a negative perception of adulthood and as a result have engendered a culture that doesn’t know how to be adult.

Contrasting modern film heroes with those of the films of the 20s and 30s, Mathewes Green made a compelling claim that the filmstars of that era carried a far greater gravitas than those of today. She pointed to later marriage and extended time in education as causes, and the emergence of films such as Garden State and books like Quarterlife Crisis as evidence, of an increasingly extended adolescence.

She cogently argued that a greater degree of maturity is good for a society, not saying that adulthood involves claiming that the world is simple (she was questioned on this and clarified there) but that it is a developmental stage that allows us to effectively engage with the world, rather than spending our time searching for a place within it. Her analysis shed more light on the plight of the orphaned children Paul Farmer had discussed on Monday.

Mathewes Green believes that one answer to this maturity-deficit is (while making a point of reinforcing some peoples’ calling to celibacy) earlier marriage. Her own children were all married in their late teens and early twenties and she pointed to statistics that show that 50 years ago when the average age of marriage for a woman in the US was considerably lower the divorce rate was also lower. She argued that marriage and child-rearing considerably increase maturity and that biologically we are wired to want this earlier than it often takes place in the modern west.

These claims naturally drew strong reactions. Questioners pointed out that there are a range of other factors involved in getting married—it’s not so easy as simply deciding to get married early! Sadly time was limited, and I for one would have liked to question Mathewes Green on whether perhaps having children and marriage have these effects because of particular innate characteristics that they share with other activities, whether this could perhaps lead us towards other models of developing maturity within society, and where the line comes between the essentialness of childlikeness and this maturity.

In a former life, I completed an undergraduate physics degree. I only barely passed that degree, but complete it I did, thanks in large part to my dissertation titled “A Response To Postmodern Critiques of Physics: Towards a Narrative Understanding.” It may have been a pretentious title, but it seemed to sit better with my supervisor better than “The Physicist and the Fairytale” which was my preference.

I hadn’t been to a physics lecture, or even read much about physics, since completing that degree. Brian Greene’s January Series lecture, “The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time & the Texture of Reality,” broke my fast and I’m very glad I did.

Moving deftly through a brief history of how physicists conceive of space and time, Greene stayed on a clear trajectory towards his goal of introducing the audience to the cutting edge of super string theory in all its 11-dimensional glory. Naturally given his audience, he glossed over the maths and didn’t spend long on the theory’s competitors but he did own his biases and place the theory in appropriate historical and philosophical context.

That inclusion of context, bringing with it honesty, openness and an all important conceptual framework was what my paper had been attempting to argue for. Too often higher-level physics teaching loses sight of its context, ignores the many philosophical implications of its content, and glosses over its bias, and it was good to see the power of a presentation that did none of those. But beyond that, this particular talk suggested to me that one day I might open my textbooks again and try to remember how we used all those equations that flashed back into my head.

Eugene Rivers‘ contribution to the January Series, “Our New Post Civil Rights Reality: A Christian Perspective,” came highly anticipated but turned out to be an exercise in hiding occasional good points in rhetoric and hyperbole.

Rivers is involved in some fabulous projects to revitalise urban areas plagued with gang violence, broken homes, and crippling poverty. In the question and answer time that followed his brief sermon (I’m not sure I can really call it a lecture) he was able to outline some startling statistics of drops in homicide rates in Boston that he argued (with the backing of several studies) were the result of those programmes. His arguments for strong role models, for church groups to advocate on the behalf of those experiencing systemic injustice and to work with law enforcement to assist those who fall foul of law enforcement, and for the need for civil rights mindsets to enter a new paradigm were potent ones.

Those arguments were also at times hard to make out. A plea for recognition of the uniqueness of the black American experience was hidden in a torrent of homophobia, and a call for strong father figures for black children and teenagers came swathed in implied misogyny. It is certainly true that the black American experience and the resultant civil rights movement has many unique qualities, but that does not give it ownership of the phrase ‘civil rights’. Most agree that children are better off if brought up when intimate relationship with strong male and female role models, but that is not in itself reason to numerous times lash out at ‘white upper-middle-class lesbian’ strawmen. And while it may have been a slip of the tongue when he appeared to say that he didn’t care whether white people did anything for Africa, the context was at best confusing.

Things improved a little when it came to questions and answers. Rivers commented that he had joined a march against hate crimes being perpetrated against the gay community. But he did not fully engage with questions on whether the gay community had the right to its own ‘civil rights’ movement, or whether we lived in a time of (wholly precedented) change in the nature of the family.

Disappointing, to say the least.