The Mainlne Church in Search of Relevancy

(This blog is a “special edition” that has turned into more of a short essay than a blog.  I apologize and hope you will bear with me through these words.  It is also addressed to my friends in the church though it may be of interest to others as well.)

When I was in Seminary we all discovered a wonderful world of ideas and began to engage with hundreds of people through their writings.  Sometimes we would become infatuated with a particular writer or idea and would inflict them on one another.  One of my classmates became enamored with Soren Kierkegaard, a 19th Century Danish theologian, whose writings on love were equal parts biblical scholarship, theology, and poetry.  My classmate spent the entire year quoting Kierkegaard every chance he had.  In the classroom, the student lounge, in the pulpit, and in casual conversation.  His classmates merely chuckled at his infatuation.  His congregation tolerated him as best he could.  Many simply avoided him.  He was not the only one so smitten by a particular writer or idea.  He was merely an easy-to-see example of something that has become far too common in the last four decades, intellectual and spiritual elitism.

On January 22, 2018 I posted this to Facebook.

“Until Churches and other religious groups can discover ways to develop public policy that is grounded in love and is easily understood and accepted by those with less than a college education, they will continue to drift toward social irrelevance. Until then, they are more a part of the problem with our partisan divide than a solution.”

Since I posted that comment, I have been thinking a lot about this friend from Seminary.  Why did we find his constant references to love and Kierkegaard so distasteful?  The subject matter, love, was certainly comfortable and even inspiring to us.  Kierkegaard was a solid source of insight and academic reasoning.  I have come to believe that our irritation grew out of three simple impressions that our friend made on us.  The first was his choice of language that was more 19th century than 20th Century.  The tone was more esoteric than “every day.”  But mostly, by constantly quoting “Kierkegaard” he demonstrated a clear lack of respect for the rest of us.  He implied that his classmates did not understand “Kierkegaard” like he did, his church members did not understand love like he did, and regular folks were more ignorant about life itself. 

The mainline church has become largely irrelevant because we are too much like my friend from seminary and too little like the one we serve.  It is part language, part tone, but mostly a lack of respect for the people.

I may be wrong with this, but I cannot remember a single time when Jesus named the theologian he was quoting.  He allowed his words to carry their own weight rather than weighing them down with the authority of others and demonstrating his “superior understanding.”  He told stories and invoked teachings that connected with people’s lives.  He did not try and “snow” them with scholarship and feigned academic powers.

Nor can I remember a time when Jesus talked down to people.  He was one of them.  Generally, his tone was conversational.  He would raise his voice, but only when it was appropriate in the moment.  When he did raise his voice he did not come across as a scolding parent, but as an angry and frustrated friend.  His tone was that of a companion along the road.  He refused to be called the Messiah.  He would accept the title “rabbi” but only as a way of finding his place among the people.  He was “of the people” and he spoke as one “of the people.”

Finally, I cannot think of a time when he disrespected the people he was trying to teach.  He spoke to their humanity and always acknowledged that they were worth his time and energy. He set aside his own needs when the people’s needs were greater than his own.  He allowed his humility as a servant to dominate his feelings for the crowds and the individual’s he encountered along the way.  The crowd that followed him up into the hills, the little children that gathered about his feet, the woman at the well, and the sinner who hung on a cross beside him all felt his humble, loving presence.  He respected and accepted them as people, not as objects of his pronouncements.

Many of the people I love and respect voted for 45 in the last election.  They did so for reasons that I cannot support.  They acted out of their fears and at the urging of fear-mongers among us.  They voted out of a deeply embedded American racism and exceptionalism.  They refuse to see any of this and continue to follow a political agenda that is contrary to their interests and many of the ideas that they hold dear about our country.   These folks represent a good portion of my friends just as they represent about 30% of the American people.

The Mainline Church, following the progressive/liberal agenda of today, lectures these people from the pulpit, in classes, and on posters from marches in the streets.  The Mainline Church cites religious authorities, both biblical and non-biblical, to “convince” them of the error in their thinking.  The Mainline Church talks down to them, using language that is “churchy”, academic, and steeped in economic and sociological theory.  Such language demonstrates that the Mainline Church believes that they know more about life than those to whom they are speaking.

Finally, the Mainline Church disrespects people with whom we disagree.  Religion is, by its nature, tribal using doctrine and practices to define “us” from “them.”  We have done this against those who also follow Jesus as well as those who have taken a different path.  We have learned to be quite passive-aggressive in defining ourselves over against others with the language and images we use.  We throw out Bible citations without the text, assuming people should know their meaning.  We plaster crosses on everything, assuming that the image gives our words authority.  We dismiss the non-religionists as people who have not met God yet.  We issue broad proclamations that “speak for God.”  We assume that we should be given tax breaks because we are “good” for society and offered places of honor at the head table during the “banquets” in life.   We expect the world to listen just because we are talking.  All of this boils down to disrespect for those with whom we disagree and even those who are not as enlightened as we are.  Humility is not our strong suit!

It has been argued that we are locked in a battle for the soul of America.  I believe this is true and the Mainline Church is losing the war.  We need to seek forgiveness for our arrogant elitism and sit down with people.  We need to listen deeply to them as they tell us their hopes and fears, joy and sorrows.  We need to allow the gentle Spirit to speak through us as one among them.  We need to respect them as children of our God and sisters and brothers in our family.  Whether they are Christian or Muslim, Jew of Hindu, religionists or non-religionists we need to listen and then speak gently out of our own hopes and fears, joys and sorrows.    We need to do this in coffee shops and beer joints, waiting in line at the bank or grocery store, or where ever we go about our daily lives.  We need to give up on press releases and public relations projects and live out of our own understandings rather than the authority of others, our own humanity rather than our presumed status, and our  love for our neighbor that makes no distinction between “us” and “them.” 

In short, we need to have more love about our lives than “Kierkegaard.”

Living into Our Heritage by Removing the Smoke and Mirrors

Capitalism grew out of the Scottish enlightenment that sought to describe a moral philosophy of life.  Among the giants of this movement was Adam Smith who sought to understand the flow of wealth (Capital) among the Nations.  His book, The Wealth of Nations, sought to describe the ebb and flow of labor and capital that, in turn, created economic relationships.  His primary goal was to suggest ethical ways to shape that flow of wealth and labor. 

At the dawn of the 19^th Century, others coined the word “capitalism” to point out the brutality of the economic systems of their time.  These Socialist were more interested in an economic system that served the purposes of equal and fair distribution of wealth.  What has become lost in the ensuing Capitalist/Socialist debates is that both of these systems grew out of a Moral Philosophy movement that sought to observe both how the real world worked and understand the moral imperatives in those economic relationships.  Observation of reality and the ethics of life were the stock and trade of both.

In the years since, the public discourse has shifted away from a discussion of “what is right” to “what works for me.”  Very often the latter is couched in the language of a moral imperative.  This shift has required smoke and mirrors to twist the meaning of their words in order to turn the tide of public opinion. 

For example, the discredited idea of “laissez faire” capitalism has become “Trickle Down” that is built on the false notion that enormous profits for those who hold capital will trickle down to the labor force in the form of more jobs and higher wages.  This has been the economic gospel since the Reagan Years.  Unfortunately, there is no evidence of any significant trickle down.   However, since observation no longer served the purpose of the supporters, they turned to Smoke and Mirrors couched in moral imperative language.  This has made been accomplished by recasting “Greed” as the more acceptable “self-interest.”  We were told to vote our “self-interest” as a moral civic duty.  The “public good” of Smith’s writing has become “the private good” of trickle down through the use of the smoke and mirrors of political rhetoric.

However, it is important to recognize that the Right is not the only group to employ smoke and mirrors.  The Left uses their economic policy of social democracy to push for more control over the lives of the people.  While they proclaim a noble goal of Healthcare for all in their universal health care policies, they also attach many “nanny state” policies that limit the individual’s ability to take responsibility for their health care.  For example, they seek to deter smoking by raising exorbitant taxes on tobacco.  Often described as “social engineering,” such regulations only serve to limit the freedom of the very people they say they are seeking to liberate.  Many on the Left cannot separate their passion for the “public good” from the desire to force people to be “good.”  Again, smoke and mirrors are used to shape the public’s perception of the major partys’ intentions and policies.

What is to be done?  First, we have to accept that we do not accept the false reality that is being shoved down our throats by the Right and the Left.

Turn on the fans of observation to blow away the smoke.  Look at the world for yourself.  Stay awake and watch what is happening to real people.  Talk to folks unlike yourself and listen to how they are doing.  Observe and learn.  Challenge those who perform a sleight of hand with their words to redirect you from how their policies are really touching people’s lives. 

And then break the mirrors of illusion that are hiding the reality.  The old idea of “doublespeak” has never been more popular.  Refuse to give others the power to interpret what you see.  Talking Heads on TV are very dangerous.  They can “spin” the good into evil and the evil into a good.  When a talking head starts telling you what a policy or event means, turn them off and spend some time learning for yourself.  You are smart enough to learn from unbiased sources and making up you own mind about what a policy of event or action in our world means.

There are several “culture wars” going on at the same time in 2018.  There is a war being waged by the wealthy to steal as much as they can before they get caught.  This is not about social change or anything other than greed.  There is a war being waged by the left to take away the rights of people to make a mistake and grow through their choices.  “Social engineering” has had only limited success.  This is all about social change at the expense of individual liberty. 

By blowing away the smoke and breaking the mirrors, perhaps “We the people” can guide the American experiment through the troubled waters of the present.  We will find a way to navigate the ship of state between the rocky shoals of liberty and the public good to find a new day!   In doing so we will live into our heritage as children of 1776.