Threats to Social Security

Social Security, one of the hallmarks of America's greatness, and one of the anchors of a strong middle class. 

The far right-wing, which has now hijacked the GOP, has always hated Social Security, the only reasons being ideological, favoring a Social Darwinism, the winner-take-all version of economics.

Privatizing, even a small portion of SS, would reap billions for Wall Street, and in the end, speed up the transfer of wealth in this nation from the many to the few.

And if Wall Street fulfills its own nature, the billions given to it will mostly be lost, and we'll see again Hoover's poor houses and the further collapse of the Middle Class. 

Romney/Ryan/Rand - their perverted view of things will prevail, and the rest of America will be reduced to third-world status. 

Ecumenical, Evangelical and Emergent Protestism

For the last 50 years, Evangelical Protestants (EvaPs) have pummeled Ecumenical Protestants (EcuPs) with a long list of complaints:

1. EcuPs have failed to honor Christ, Scripture and Tradition.
2. EcuP's decline in numbers is proof of spiritual failure.

While asserting:

1. EvaPs are more faithful to Christ, Scripture and Tradition.
2. EvaP's numbers prove their faithfulness.

Reading EvaP books and articles, it's obvious: reliance on numbers is overwhelming. Ask an EvaP about evangelicalism, and very quickly one will hear a long list of statistics - new churches, numbers in attendance, missionaries sent out, money rolling in, students in seminary, and so on.

This litany of statistics reflects the American Spirit of entrepreneurial success, which tends to isolate success from a host of contributing factors that make the "success" less a matter of personal achievement and more a matter of "luck," or in the Christian vocabulary, a matter of providence, or grace.

If the Bible has anything to suggest, it's likely this when it comes to numbers:

1. All human greatness is of God.
2. All such greatness becomes arrogant.
3. God brings down all such arrogance.


God is kind enough to take the torch from all movements and bring it elsewhere, that it can burn afresh.


EcuP was clearly on top of the game after WW2 and throughout much of the first half of the 20th Century, and then "decline," with EvaPs now dominating the playing field.

Yet, in the early years of the 21st Century, we see similar signs of decline in EvaP that were evident in EcuP decades ago.

EvaP will continue to slide, as Americas prove, once again, how fickle and shallow are their religious pursuits - more interested in losing weight, looking good and being assured that God loves them, no matter what, and after death, going to heaven with all of their friends, while their enemies can just rot in hell.

And so it goes.

And where it goes in the next 50 years remains to be seen.

Perhaps there's hope in what might be termed Emergent Protestantism (EmeP), a fascinating amalgam of the various energies of EcuP and EvaP, driven by missional imperatives in a post-modern, post-christian, world.

Perhaps a chastened Protestant Christianity can learn again the power of gratitude and humility; that we are creatures, one and all, great and small, of grace, and by grace, called to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth (gentle metaphors), letting the world see our good works that the world might give glory to our Father in heaven.

To Protestants ...

To Protestants ...

Unless we advocate believer's baptism and deny the validity of infant baptism, then we're likely a part of what's called Ecumenical Protestantism. Evangelical Protestantism, influenced by its Anabaptist antecedents, generally dismisses infant baptism and relies upon believers' baptism as the only acceptable mode of entrance into the church, and as proof of faith in Christ.

Within each group, lots of flaws, some of them even fatal. One of the fatal flaws of Evangelical Protestantism is its unrelenting search for "something better." This flaw generates a deep restlessness, often a hyper-critical stance vis-a-vis other Christians, even within their own ranks, and frequently leads to schism.

While EvaP has been more than willing to offer criticism of EcuP, calling the church "dead," and declaring that ECO (Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians), for example, will find "something better," EcuP has been reluctant to find the holes and offer careful criticism of the weaknesses inherent within EvaP.

EvaP has had pretty much a free ride in America in the last 50 years, puffed by the media and enjoying the success of numbers - which, by the way, seems to be the chief indicator of faithfulness. The more numbers a church enjoys, evidently the more faithful it is.

Sort of like the old Presbyterian notion that wealth proved God's blessing.

Both "proofs," of course, fail to stand up when measured by the Bible.

EvaP is riddled with holes:

1. Biblical studies often more driven by ideology than sound exegesis and historical studies.
2. Heavy reliance on numbers as "proof" of faithfulness and all the subsequent techniques needed to sustain numbers.
3. Preaching often driven by therapy rather than the biblical story, with its traditional focus on the individual, rather than God, and the need to "win God's favor."
4. Preaching that relies heavily on inspirational stories, heavy on the miracle end of things.
5. The Anabaptist notion that one must do something in order to win God's favor is the heart of evangelicalism greatest weakness. Like it's Anabaptist ancestors, it's driven by anxiety - "have I done enough - and pride - "look at what I've done."
6. The greatest weakness is its ceaseless quest for something better, never satisfied, and reluctant to give thanks and appreciate where it is.

As an Ecumenical Protestant, I'm well aware of our flaws, several of which are fatal, as well. Thanks to the EvaP, most EcuPs know their flaws well.

But our commitment to justice, equality, a trained and connected clergy, and sound biblical scholarship have served us and our culture well. That American Protestant Christians should find great appeal in EvaP is understandable and lamentable, saying a great deal about the character of American faith, and the failure of EcuP to sustain adult education.

Much work to be done on all fronts.

EcuPs need to deepen their own culture, find the best within it, sharpen and expand it, and for crying out loud, quit crying, and don't be afraid to challenge the EvaPs.

They need the challenge, and with honest and careful criticism, we might actually make a better impact on American and global culture.

Positive Thinking and Love

Americans love Positive Thinking - in the late 19th Century, Acres of Diamonds by Baptist Minister, Russell Conwell (a fitting last name), then on to Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, a Methodist Pastor who served for years at Marble Collegiate Church in New York City, known for his The Power of Positive Thinking.

From Peale to California's Robert Schuller and his Possibility Thinking, and then, as of late, Joel Osteen, who seems to have but three sermons in him: all of them based upon, 1) God wants you to be happy. 2 ) God wants you to be without disease. 3) God wants you to be rich.

What they all have in common is a high regard for wealth and the wealthy, and how the wealthy love them.

In A People's History of the United States, historian Howard Zinn comments on Conwell's Acres of Diamonds that the message was anyone could get rich if he tried hard enough and suggests that Conwell held elitist attitudes by quoting the following from his speech:

"I say that you ought to get rich, and it is your duty to get rich.... The men who get rich may be the most honest men you find in the community. Let me say here clearly .. . ninety-eight out of one hundred of the rich men of America are honest. That is why they are rich. That is why they are trusted with money. That is why they carry on great enterprises and find plenty of people to work with them. It is because they are honest men. ... ... I sympathize with the poor, but the number of poor who are to be sympathized with is very small. To sympathize with a man whom God has punished for his sins ... is to do wrong.... let us remember there is not a poor person in the United States who was not made poor by his own shortcomings. ..."

Theologically, they're all Anabaptists, in that they teach human action as the prerequisite for divine favor ... if you do such and so, then God will do so and such!

Such thinking is, in fact, pagan: the gods are remote and not particularly interested in humanity, but if you say it right, do it well, and use the formulae suggested by the oracle, priest or preacher, you, too, can have what you want.

All of this has created a self-serving motif in American Christianity, built upon snippets from the Bible, told with amazing stories of health, wealth and happiness.
The self-centered message fits well with American Evangelicalism which has always taught self-concern - "Here's what you need to do, say, believe, to go to heaven and escape the fires of hell."

Going forward at a crusade to save your own neck, or doing such and so to get wealthy - it's one and the same for Americans, who seem to love, above all else, themselves.

Tragically, self-love is a hideous tyrant.

Self-love has no room for other-love.

In fact, others are often seen as wanting in character, or deserving of their sorry lot in life. Charity may be indulged, but the kind of changes needed to make for a healthy society are resisted.

Self-love allows no room for real love.

And must drive out real love in order to survive.

Did Jesus Teach Us What to Believe?

Jesus said very little about belief, and almost everything about behavior.

Fundamentalism, on a whole, is all about belief and getting to heaven upon death, with a heavy prescription on individualistic behavior; Evangelicalism would like to style itself a bit more progressive, but it's a tough road for Evangelicals because they tend to share the same belief- and behavior-systems of fundamentalism, though they may hold them a little more loosely.

Jesus comes to us with a message of social compassion - the Kingdom of God, "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." It didn't take long, in the history of the church, for the Empire (Thank you Constantine) to gut this message and turn it into an eschatological device, leaving this world to the Empire, and the next world to the church (nothing could have been further from the mind of Jesus).

Evangelicalism, whatever it really is, and fundamentalism, and Lutherans (with Luther's two-kingdom theology) perpetuate this arrangement. Paul's message on giving and care (e.g. 2 Corinthians 8.10-15) and the early church's practice of communal ownership hardly dovetails with the fiscal message of the current GOP (less of everything except business, and let nature take its course, which is a form of radical social Darwinism, if you will; I find it fascinating that those who reject biological evolution welcome it with open arms when it comes to "survival of the fittest" in society).

Fundamentalists and Evangelicals are pretty much peas in the same pod; I have yet to hear any one of them offer a clear and working description of who they are, though the Fundamentalists have an easier time with their Fundamentals.

Frankly, Evangelicals remind me of the guy who passes gas at a party, and then when folks smell it, quickly looks at the guy next to him. Sorry about that, but, in reality, if you want to spark a fight among Evangelicals, ask them to define it.

How much better for "Christians" to set aside belief-arguments and begin to look at the Sermon on the Mount, the Book of James, the Prophets and the deeply ethical passages of Paul. Jesus of the Gospels (not the Reformation - see N.T. Wright) can revolutionize the church, and the church can then be "the salt of the earth" and "the light of the world," as it practices the kindness of God (Matthew 5.43-48).

I realize that quoting Scripture rarely helps; we all have our favorite passages that we haul out of the closet when needed.

The above note was posted in a FB thread, June 27, 2012.

Thoughts about Peace and Violence

Jesus says to his disciples, Love your enemies.

Here is where we meet the power and depth of love - not a feeling, mushy and gushy, but a way of life, a form of behavior, deeply and wonderfully ethical. The word love describes an ethic that is honorable and fair - as Jesus notes, just like God, who makes his sun rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.

In the world described here, God has no enemies, but treats everyone with fairness, and that’s always kindness - with regard to sun and rain, two essential components necessary to life.

Of such things, God deprives no one … because God is love.

Jesus then adds to this commandment, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven.

In a world full of violence, where nation takes up sword against nation, with hardly a thought about consequences; in a world where politicians win elections by promising a strong military and preemptive strikes as needed, Christians have got to do some serious thinking about Jesus, the one they claim to follow.

I sometimes wonder if Christians follow other gods, the gods of war - as history is full of Christians killing Christians, and Christians, and in the name of Jesus, conquering other peoples and even enslaving with hardly a thought.

The great challenge facing Christianity in the early part of the 21^st century is violence, and the place of Christianity in the nations of the world, especially for Christians who live in powerful empires, or are caught up in war zones in places like Nigeria or Sudan.

It’s easy to give in to hatred and war. But Jesus offers us a different way of life. A way of life that fulfills the description of what God desires of us: to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world.

Is John Ortberg Wrong?

Ever since my encounter with the Text, a long time ago (Ha!) in seminary days, and Peter’s walk on the water, I’ve seen that passage as a commentary on Peter’s impulsive and individualist approach to faith and life. In other words, this is no story to be mined for the typical American “you-can-do-anything” approach to life.

Peter was wrong to get out of the boat!

His moment of exultation lasted only a moment, his 15-minutes of fame, if you will. Glory of this kind is always a passing fancy, a story without substance, an experience without purpose (which seems to be very much a part of the American religious story).

Jesus saves Peter from the waves, of course. 

But here’s where the story turns important. Not only for what is said. But for what isn’t said.

Jesus doesn’t invite Peter to try it again.

Nor does Jesus invite the other disciples to try it, either.

Jesus takes Peter in hand and they both return to the boat.

It’s in the boat where the fellowship of faith is experienced, and that was the point of Jesus coming to them. Not to invite them out on to the waves, but to join them, or at least, as Mark puts it, to “pass by them,” as God “passed by Moses in the cleft of the rock,” to reveal God’s glory. 


In Mark and John, there’s no Peter doing his thing. But only in Matthew, and there, Matthew makes it clear when Jesus says to Peter, “You of weak faith; why did you doubt?” Not his ability to walk on water, but that it was the LORD coming to them. 


Peter’s impulsive move contradicts one of the central tenants of Christianity spirituality - waiting. Waiting on the LORD. Peter couldn’t wait, and that can only end badly, for everyone!

Impulsively, Peter leaves the boat, even as he did in the post-resurrection account in John. Peter dives into the water, wanting Jesus for himself, abandoning the work of his fellow-fisherman who have just taken a miraculous haul of fish and need help.

Peter is always about Peter … and he wants Jesus all to himself.

Which is why Jesus instructs Peter to “feed my sheep.” It’s not about Peter; it never is. It’s about others; it always is.

When I first read Ortberg’s book, I was taken with the story as he re-tells it. Yes, and wow, “you can be just like your rabbi; you, too, can walk on water. But ya’ gotta get outta of the boat first.”

It makes for great American preaching.

It appeals to our narcissistic instincts and our “Jesus and me” attitudes.

It appeals to our pride of power, and our daring-do stories.

But is it faithful to the text?

Is this what God wants us to hear?

Is this the Gospel?

I think not.

And more, I think Ortberg is wrong on this point. Seriously, terribly, tragically, wrong, misleading so many who are hell-bent on their pathway to the American version of faith.

It’s not about daring-do and water-walking - this is not what faith is all about, because faith is defined by love, by the Beatitudes, by mercy and compassion, forgiveness and bonding in Jesus, and through Jesus to the fellowship of faith and to the whole wide world. 

Faith about loving one another as Jesus loves us, by washing feet and putting our lives on the line, not for personal achievement, but for the sake of one another.

Faith is all about getting back into the boat with Jesus! It’s about feeding and tending the flock.

Peter has always been willing to abandon the others to secure his own place.

Peter has a lot to learn.

So do we!