The Imitation Church

Churches pick funny names for themselves. I attend St. Johns United Church of Christ. A lot of saints are the in the names of churches: John, Paul, Stephen, James, Mary, and Luke, generally after the gospel writers or early apostles or disciples of the church. Good enough names I guess but they all seem a bit misleading in that we don’t worship those people at those churches.

My mother disliked the denomination “The Christian Church”, she thought they were ostentatious as if they were the only Christian church. I rather liked its simplicity. Lots of folk get confused when the Apostles Creed is said and the part about believed in the holy Catholic Church. Catholic means universal and they confuse this the Roman Catholic denomination.

Then you have a slew of “non-denominational churches.” They are popular but you know nothing of their history, traditions, theology and the like because they don’t identify with any of them. I tend to think of them as “seat of my pants churches; (church pastor’s) leadership. They also tend to be rather lax in the training of their clergy. Nevertheless they have their place.

A lot of old mainline church just designate themselves with a number: 1^st Presbyterian, 2^nd Presbyterian, 3^rd Presbyterian based on when they were created in a particular community. Some toss in God references in the name such as: Immanuel Lutherans, Trinity Lutheran etc.

I got to thinking about what I might want to name a church and this odd thought came to mind: The Imitation Church. Now you could add modifiers to it referring to denomination or number or a deity name – The 1^st Imitation Church; The Methodist Imitation Church; or The Imitation of Jesus Church (fill in the blank at this point in parenthesis with a denomination.

Churches are comprised of individuals who believe in Jesus as Savior, but also they are people called to imitate Jesus, his life and teachings, to live, act and teach as he did. It is the like the Thomas a Kempis book, The Imitation of Christ. There is a certain amount of humility in the name that I like.

I also doubt that any church will be named that way.

Is Capitalism Over?

Richard D. Wolff is U.S. economist born the same year as myself who has credentials all over the place; B.A. from Harvard, M.A. from Stanford, M.A. from Yale, and a PhD from Yale. I think I saw his video of Bill Moyers website; the video was entitled, Capitalism Hits the Fan. I will try summarize his views here for you to consider. He certainly gave me a lot to consider and though I don’t agree with everything he says, he makes some very important points. But then my credentials are a bit different.

Wolff says the economic crisis is not financial, meaning that is too limiting of a concept to show what is wrong. He also believes this is not a temporary but terminal crisis. Finally, the crisis is not easily or quickly fixable; nothing has worked so far and we need major reforms.

Wolff tells us from 1820 to 1970 in every decade the working person in this country had a continually rising standard of living, even through the depression (wages down but also costs). He says we have this incredibly rich country with this constant 150 years of rising standard of living. Workers became more productive each decade and were rewarded for their productivity. This led, he states, in a belief of American Exceptionalism, each generation will have it better than the last; it’s just who we are.

Then comes of pivotal year of 1970 when it all changed. A major reason was the use of the computer who took away many workers replaced by this technology giving us too many workers. Also, American business to this point didn’t really have any competition from other countries. But other countries set their sights on the U.S. realizing they had to beat us in order to compete with us and they did. Thus no TVs made in this country or autos etc. Japan and Europe did what we did better. He goes on the say that the U.S. business then adopted an attitude of “if you can’t beat them, join them,” and began exporting jobs with more and more production taking place outside our borders. Add to this, women entering the job market in greater numbers, waves of immigration, and resulting lower wages.

As a result wages stopped rising so people to work more. Workers had to work on average 20% more hours for the same pay, while in Europe workers worked 20% less hours. All this resulted in binge borrowing. First we used our collateral (houses) to borrow to maintain our standard of living. Next comes the beloved credit card, easy to obtain but commanding 18% interest. Thus we accumulated huge individual debt resulting in national anxiety.

On the business side things were great. Workers kept producing more and more but they the corporations, didn’t pay them anymore because there were too many workers. Thus, companies accumulated huge profits, biggest ever in our history. It was an employers dream. Out of these profits they began to pay themselves huge salaries and benefits. They merged their companies and made more profits. They put those profits in banks so banks are very happy. Banks and corporations then began to lend money to workers. This is not new for banks but was new for corporations. So, now corporations not only get to pay lower wages they get to lend money to their workers along with interest. Wow! An example Wolff uses is GM, which created GMAC their lending institution, and they found they could make more money lending than building cars resulting in lousy cars. At that point they get into mortgages along with banks.

Now we have a problem when corporations and banks lent money to people who couldn’t pay it back. Oops big problem and as Wolff says capitalism hit the fan.

Then came dumb ideas. One being that the Internet would revolutionize the universe; big investments in companies that didn’t make any money ending in the Silicon Valley burst bubble. Then the stock market takes a dive from which it never recovered. The government lowers interest rates so folk can buy houses, which they did until, that bubble burst as well.

Wolff believes things will continue to fail.

Here is what he believes needs to happen.  But first he points out what won’t work. Regulation (Keynesian economics) won’t work as it did up until Reagan and deregulation. This is where he sees Obama trying to recreate a past the won’t work again. He believes that even after the great depression Hoover’s and FDR’s programs didn’t work (I find that a wee bit hard to buy, and two very different approaches.) He says it won’t work because corporations are just too adept at avoiding regulations and have boards of directors that defeat them too easily and with their huge profits have no incentive to change. Even American workers don’t want it (not sure why he says this.)

Wolff believes we must change the structure of society. At this point Wolff becomes Jane Fonda (if you remember her thoughts several years ago) advocating economic democracy. In other words, the workers need to own the corporations and become their own boards of directors thus their vested interests become good for both. The models for this Wolff sees in events in Silicon Valley where individuals left the big companies and set up shops in their garages with a few friends. They come to work in the Bermuda shorts and take Fridays to think about how they want their company develop; they are the workers and the board of directors. He sees them as Marxists in Bermuda shorts.

Now note Wolff’s field is Marxian economics, Political economy and International affairs. He opposes Neoclassical economics (Keynes/demand side), Neoliberalism (economic liberalization, free and open markets, privatization, deregulation and increasing the private sector in society), and Chicago School (neoclassical views sometimes seen as the new Keynesians), and the Austrian School (weird). They way I picture it Wolff rejects both demand side economics and supply side economics (Reaganomics.)

-       - -

I rather like the model Wolff presents of workers owning corporations and we have some examples. But how you get from point A (now) to point B (that model) is beyond me. Why would corporate American let go? It is like going to the Walton’s and asking them to give up their yearly millions and give the Wal-Marts and Sam’s Club to the workers. I don’t think they would go for it.

More realistically in my mind’s eye is moving to demand side economics and regulations and stimulus to programs such as Wolff describes. The big problem remains with the economic imbalance and its resulting political power that needs to brought to bay. Populists groups that work actively towards election reform and the ousting of lobbyists seem essential for needed change if we are to capture the American Dream where workers are rewarded appropriately for their work. Even though Europe and Japan and now China have their own economic problems, the models remain better than ours.

Conservatives Internal Ideological Conflicts

Many political pundits today talk about the possible demise of the Republican Party. The reasoning being that they have become too out of touch with their constituents, the general public, have too much internal conflict and too influenced by the extreme right and are intractable in their views. All of these may have a bit of truth in them, but I would like to pursue another line of thought.

In this country as in others there have always been as a rule two primary points of view, conservative and liberal with most folk being a bit of each. The moderates generally provide enough stability to carry the day and keep the wheels of government turning. That has become less and less true in our country where we have suffered “gridlock” for an extended period of time and great animosity between the parties, and within the parties.

Let me turn in particular to the Republicans. Republicans have long stressed individual freedom and individuality and the right to do as one pleases as long as it does not infringe upon others freedom. This may well be impossibility as everybody affects everybody else to some degree; nevertheless that is a traditional conservative value. Yet that does not seem true of the Republican Party today. If it would true, then Republicans should be supporting same sex marriages, pro-choice options for women, gender equality, equal educational opportunities, equal employment possibilities, and the like. All of these fit their ideological premise of individual rights.

But it is clear those are not the values being advocated by Republicans today who instead of taken a certain set of values, being almost the opposite of those things mentioned in the above paragraph and seek to enforce those values and ideas upon others whether they like it or not. This is their internal ideological conflict or as judgmental folk might call hypocritical.

This is not infer that the liberals as embodied in the Democratic Party do not have to deal with internal ideological conflicts as well; it is just less prevalent than it is of the conservatives. In my opinion the Democrats have also moved a significantly towards the political right and have become less and less progressive over then last 30 some years. The Democratic Party can easily be viewed as taking positions Republicans did in the Eisenhower and even the Nixon years.

As a country the number of folk in poverty has increased rather than decreased. This distribution of wealth has turned us into a plutocracy or oligarchy rather than a democracy where the rich rule by power and influence. The Democrats who claim to stand up for the common persons have failed to do so. The middle class the claim to represent is decreasing in size, economic well being, and the American Dream is more of a dream than a realistic possibility. Education, which is the backbone of democracy has suffered becoming more of a right of the wealthy that a necessary component of the American Dream.

While minimal advances have been made in the area of medical care, we fall far behind other first world countries in quality and cost of care. Capitalism, lacking the proper government oversights does not operate according to supply and demand but seems the mechanism by which the rich grab and oversized share of the economic pie, which is socialistic not capitalistic.

I have often said for a healthy country we need to strong political parties with real differences in their ideologies but also able to come together in compromise for the common good; to be public servants of all citizens not just the few that can contribute to their campaigns and reelection.

I believe there is a social and economic awakening in this country not unlike the spiritual awakening that I have been talking about recently. We need strong populist movements to encourage this awakening and we politicians with the courage to do the right thing rather than the expedient things.

May both find their voice soon before it is too late.

Enough of Sin, Let’s Talk Metanoia!

Metanoia means a transformative change of heart. It is a Greek word (we theologs who have studied dead languages love to toss these about) meaning to change one’s mind which is a better way of understanding the word repent; meta + noein  to think from nous  or mind.

I was born and raised in the 40’s and 50’s where tradition reigned, the American dream was believed and attainable, and we had few choices and a lot of connections. We lived in small rural communities and smaller towns, and our world was relatively small experientially. I graduated from high school in 1960. In the 60’s and 70’s much of our tradition came under scrutiny, and new visions and changes were afoot. Young folk were demonstrated what many saw as an unjust war, but they were also. More significantly I think, demonstrating against the status quo. Our parents raised us to have a better life and many were defining that better life in a way that upset those same parents. I likely identified more with the beat generation than the hippie movement, but it was all counter cultural.

Diana Bass in her book Christianity after Religion that I mentioned previously see this time as a time a American’s (and beyond America) 4^th Great Awakening; a time of spiritual renewal. William McLoughlin, who Bass quotes in her book describes it this way:

“Such a reorientation will most likely include a new sense of the mystical unity of all mankind and of the vital power of harmony between man and nature. The godhead will be defined in less dualistic terms, and its power will be understood less in terms of an absolutist, sin-hating, death-dealing ‘Almighty in Heaven’ and more in terms of a life-supporting, nurturing, empathetic, easygoing parental (Motherly as well as Fatherly) image. The nourishing spirit of mother earth, not the wrath of an angry father above, will dominate religious thought… Sacrifice of self will replace self-aggrandizement as the definition of virtue; helping others will replace competitiveness as a value; institutions will be organized for the fulfillment of individual needs by means of cooperative communal effort rather than through the isolated nuclear family.”

Wow! I love it but it didn’t work out exactly that way. When I was in seminary, which was a union of a Roman Catholic, a Lutheran (ELCA), and a Presbyterian seminary; Vatican II has just taken place and I was convinced that women would be playing far more important roles in the church, ordained offices; priests would be allowed to marry and women would become priests. Or, I was as off as McLoughflin.

When Bass was in college there were dorms that were vegetarian, one that dealt with climate change, dorms that were comprised of Evangelicals for social action and a feminist center dorm etc. When she returned 10 years later to teach they had all disappeared; the feminist center was now filled with video games. The religious right, Falwell, Robertson, Franklin Graham, James Dobson and the like were flexing the religious and political muscles. Bass has lunch with an evangelical historian that had been her graduate advisor as asked, “What happened?” He replied with two words, “Ronald Reagan.” Odd. The man said, Reagan represented a rejection of the experiments of the 60’s and 70’s to recreate a mythic past. [Which he did not do, just made it sound that way.] He dealt with people fear of change.

Remember he ran against Jimmy Carter who was emblematic of change and new visions of justice and equality, human right, dealing with poverty and the need of a worldview, and care for the planet. They stood in sharp contrast. In a tight election the majority of Americans sought to recapture the past. And then came the strength of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, the Moral Majority, and then Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Glen Beck, Ann Coulter and the Tea Party. Or, Give me that old time religion….  The followers of Falwell, Robertson, Bakker and the like were not leaders of the new Great Awakening. They railed against change much less embrace it and saw awakening consciousness, metanoia as wrong and even evil.

Bass believes, and I hope she is right that despite all that has taken place recently that the new Great Awakening, the metanoia, and change in spirituality among the people is still alive and well. What I would describe as what God always does, leave a faithful remnant emboldened by the Spirit, to get us back on path with God and God’s intent for us.

Bass describes the New Lights; those who emphasize spirituality, creation, restoration, shalom. They understand a fallen humanity (those distracted from the paths of faith) and seek a new world away from authoritarian churches and clergy and concepts of fall, rescue and salvation (promise of a good eternal life as a reward for acting “good.”)

When you watch the country beyond the negative reporting of the media and check the data, you do see folk seeking equity and justice, care for the environment. Folk wanting the redress the imbalance of wealth, and helping folk out of poverty; to respect and care for seniors who do not ask for entitlements but for they investments in this country returned. The New Lights see a society more open and inclusive, flexible and open to religious diversity. There may be only 20% of the population attending church regularity, but there is a high level of spirituality.

On a personal level I mentioned previously at age 19, beaten in a religious argument (I like the head stuff), I saw religion, Christianity anew. I felt a kinship and intimacy with God I had not learned growing up in the church or in its teachings. In simple terms I fell in love with a God who I knew loved me. My prayers following that frequently reflected this as I would pray, “Well, boss, what is on the agenda for today?” A kindly boss I saw who I was delighted to work for and deserved my respect and my love, and my devotion. (My next word study might be on “hesed”, so be warned, but it has to do with than feeling.)

For me it was a metanoia moment. I suspect many if not most of us have had such moments in our lives but we don’t share them well. In the first church I served I took the members of session (the governing leaders of the church) and their spouses on retreat. This was in a town of 600 where everybody knew everybody else, not at all, as I liked to phrase it. My church was small, about a 100 members. During that retreat I asked them to share spiritually impacting moments in their lives with each other if they were comfortable doing so. The stories that came forth were absolutely amazing; stories they had never shared with each other, personal and powerful stories of faith that had changed them. It created such a bond among those people, other members of the church observing them afterwards, envied. Or, as one woman said to me concerning her rather shy and reserved farmer son, “What did you do to him?” But she was pleased.

Though I have had a love hate relationship with the church my entire career, and have heard countless of these stories and been intimately involved in many of them, metanoia moments so to speak. And for this reason I remain optimistic and believe perhaps Bass is right that there is a new spiritual awakening afoot in the world.