Where is George Bailey when you need him?

We celebrate this Christmas in perhaps the worst national (and global) crisis since the oil shortage of the Carter years, and some say we will face the worst economic crisis since 1929 … a sort of “Great Recession.”

This made me think of one of my all-time favorite movies, “It’s a Wonderful Life” with Jimmy Stewart as the civic minded George Bailey and Lionel Barrymore in the role of the evil and greedy capitalist, Henry Potter.

For those of you who have not seen the movie (perish the thought); Mr. Potter is a banker who is attempting to take over Bedford Falls by buying out other businesses. The one business that stands in his way is a small, family owned savings and loan owned by George Bailey’s father. After the father’s death, George Bailey takes over his father’s savings and gives up his dream of a trip to Europe in order to keep the savings and loan afloat during a run on the bank. He ends up staying in Bedford Falls and spending the next 25 years on a small salary, raising his children and helping his neighbors and working friends get sufficient credit to own their own homes. At a critical moment, Mr. Potter steals the money from Baileys bank deposit, on Christmas Eve, just as a bank auditor arrives to look at the savings and loan books. Bailey despairs and considers suicide and expresses the wish that he had never been born. An angel named Clarence is sent to him to show him what life (and Bedford Falls) would have been like if George Bailey had never existed. At the end of the movie, George gets his life back, and all of the friends that he has made through a lifetime of service and friendship show up with contributions to make up the deficit. He is called the wealthiest man in Bedford Falls because of the integrity of his good name and the trust and loyalty of his friends. George Bailey is a good guy. He puts the collective good of his town, his business, his employees and his neighbors ahead of his own self interest.

For the sake of clarity, lets do a quick review of the recent bad news. First, investment giant Bear Stearns went under. There was a bank run in California in July and by Sept. 7, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were put on conservatorship to keep them from collapsing. News began to come out about their executives bailing out with golden parachutes consisting of hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses.

Then Lehman Brothers went out of business on Sept 13 after failing to convince the Federal Reserve to provide assistance. Then, on Sept. 16, AIG successfully demanded a bail-out from the Federal Reserve to the tune of 85 billion. AIG executives promptly yelled "YIPIIIIEEE! went on a lavish company retreat to celebrate and spent God-knows how much money on drinks and massages. Bank of America purchased Merrill Lynch on the cheap. On Sept 17 Bernanke and Paulson convinced President Bush that urgent action was needed to prevent an economic meltdown worse than 1929. Bush went before Congress on Sept. 20th to ask for a 700 billion bail-out package

While unemployment rose to its highest point in over 20 years, the executives whose greed and mismanagement contributed to this mess continued to get million dollar salaries and million dollar bonuses. The ratio of executive pay to the salaries of average employees grew from about 60 to 1 in the 1950s to over 500 to 1. click here (for the rise in salaries of CEOs of Defense contractors since 9/11, click here)The rich have been getting richer and the poor poorer. The middle class who buys all of the damn consumer crap is shrinking.

But wait… it gets better! Shades of Mr. Potter.

Just when we think that maybe the crisis is subsiding, we find out that the big three American automakers in Detroit are running out of money and may go bankrupt. If this happens, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, and multiple business will fail. “We cannot allow this to happen!” say the CEO’s of Ford, GM and Chrysler. So, crusading to save the American way, these courageous capitalists mount up on their private jets and fly to Washington (in three private jets) to the turn of $20,000 round trip EACH, compared to $180 for a seat on a commercial airline. Now, this is just staring to look ridiculous. Ford CEO Mulally’s employment contract was 28 million last year …let me repeat that … 28 MILLION! And they (CEOs AND Congress) are calling for labor to take the hit and reduce their salaries… give me a freakin break….

And if this is not enough … now we have the news about Governor Blagojevich attempting to SELL a U.S. Senate seat to the highest bidder, and another 50 billion investment dollars are lost to a giant ponzi scheme that ran over a 20 year period and was overlooked by federal regulators. Go check out former chairman of the Nasdaq stock exchange, Bernard L. Madoff’s investment web site, it is appropriately in black for mourning. One investor has already committed suicide. And we used to look down our self-righteous anglo noses at Latin America for its corruption? Please.

Are we getting the point yet? It is one thing for Alexis de Tocqueville to talk about “self interest rightly understood” in 1830 when people still had a Judeo-Christian moral foundation … now we are not talking about the invisible hand of the market being self interest, but the cloaked hand of naked greed unchecked by any kind of morality. And while the ship is sinking, Limbaugh and Hanity keep ranting and raving against democrats and liberals and about ‘personal responsibility’(and what about 'social' responsability?) and the land of 'free market' opportunity (that dawg don’t hunt no more), the Republican national committee is already attacking our President-elect even before he is sworn in (click here), and the lunatic left is also attacking our new President for reaching out a conciliatory hand to moderate evangelicals by inviting Rick Warren to offer a prayer at the inaugural. This is ideological mystification of the body politic in the extreme.

And it is not just the banks, automakers, congress, the federal non-regulators and CEO’s that are the problem: WE ARE all the problem. We have all caved into greed, the housing bubble, and rampant credit card debt. We have all sinned and fallen short (Romans 3:23) … trickle-down economics has turned into trickle-down self-indulgent greed … we have become a society of Mr Potters and there are no George Baileys around to rescue us. The U.S. has become Pottersville and the bill has come due. We have turned politics into a uncivil war … the “politics of destruction” that Clinton warned us about. “My friends” (to quote John McCain) we have met the enemy and the enemy is us.

It is time to rethink our paradigm. Are we fed up enough yet? If there are any George Baileys out there, they probably invested with Madoff and are now, on Christmas Eve, standing on the bridge thinking about jumping. Where are the good angels when you need them? Clarence, Monica, or Gabriel, are you out there? Right now would be a really good time for a little help. Merry flippin Christmas everyone ... this year the grinch wins.

Priceless comments from the New York Times blog on the defeat of the financial bailout:

hi ... do you remember my post on Jurgen Habermas a couple of months ago and his view of the inherent instability of the advanced capitalist system? He believes that there are irresolvable tensions and contraditions in global capitalism as it now stands ... I would add that the core operating principle is 'self-interest, properly understood" to quote Alexis de Tocqueville, but that self-interest working properly depends on a civic minded population informed with ethical and biblical values. What happens when CEO's no longer respond to ethical values? Greed, my young friend ... naked, ugly greed. That is why Jurgen Habermas was right ... I applaud the members of the house for having the cojones to stand up to Bush-Paulson-Pelosi and company.

Even average 'joe six-pack' americans can see right through this bullshit. here are two choice comments from the New Yok Times blog ....


community.nytimes.com


#15 29, 2008 7:52 am

This plan is indefensible using reason. That's why all they have resorted to is fear mongering. Disgusting. Shameful. Irresponsible and insulting.

"...this sucker could down!" "Financial Armageddon"

"A once in a century event" "Unthinkable catastrophe" "3-4 million Americans will lose their jobs in the next 6 months" "A meltdown on Wall St. that will IMMEDIATELY cause a meltdown on Main St."

Pelosi's statement was priceless- "All of this was done in a way to insulate Main St. and everyday Americans from the crisis on Wall St."

Insulate? Then why no bankruptcy reform? Why no money for investigators and auditors to provide transparency of the web of toxic practices that got us into this mess? Why no commitment to shut down the CDS casino going forward? What you sold to everyday Americans is the most expensive blanket ever made while neglecting to fix the heat.

The fundamental principle of this bi-partisan plan is a $700 billion dollar tax increase on Joe six-pack and his family to pay the gambling debts of multi-millionaires. That's just a fact. The bogus possibility of taxpayers recouping their losses on those worthless credit derivatives is dependant on the housing bubble re-inflating, which we should all be hoping will not happen! If it does, it will only be brief before it bursts again because bubbles must burst by definition. Inflated price/household income ratios are dangerous. Get it? Talk about voodoo economics. This is the equivalent of bloodletting to treat AIDS.

200 economists wrote to Barney Frank and Co. urging them to wait and study alternatives. He told them to take a hike. The public, screaming in fury at their representatives in polls and thousands upon thousands of phone calls, letters and e-mails were told to take a hike.

Exactly WHY there isn't more time has never, I repeat, NEVER been laid out in unambiguous terms. All we've been fed is a revolting diet of the politics of fear. "You won't be able to get a mortgage! Credit card rates will skyrocket! Businesses will be unable to expand and grow. Unemployment will rise!" They think we're idiots. All these things have temporarily happened before without cries of Armageddon.

Sure, if you got bad credit, you won't get a sub-prime mortgage, which is a really good idea. But mortgages make banks money, they're not going to disappear. Credit card rates going up might cause people to stop living beyond their means, also not a bad idea. Businesses with good products and good models will grow because they are profitable, worthy of investing in. Those with no profits, when you take away the deceptive accounting tricks derivatives facilitate, will fail. And a jobs program would cost a lot less than $700 billion dollars.

The policy makers on both sides of the aisle who accept this deal are lying to us and bowing to fear, subservient to financial industry lobbyists. This bill is a big, fat ugly mistake that must be stopped.
— joe (new york), New York


#18 29, 2008 7:52 am

1. What the U.S. economy needs is a recession. Historically, recession has been the best medicine to cure the excesses of an overheated economy, especially following a bubble. If the weak, the reckless are not weeded out then the next rescue package will be even bigger. A financial package in an effort to stamp out an upcoming depression is fine, even though I don't it will work. But it should not try to smooth over the natural selection process of the capitalist system.

2. Ultimately I don't believe the rescue package will achieve its intended goal. After a short period of false cheer, the reality will sink in -- when the Chinese and Japanese are forced to face the reality that they are holding a few trillion of worthless paper, the dollar, U.S. stock market, and U.S. interest rate will crash in a spectacular fashion as to make Japan's "lost decade" look benign.

3. Hank Paulson should not preside over the implementation of this bailout. He needs to resign after (a) being incorrect in every government intervention so far this year (b) arrogantly demanding monarch-like power in his initial request 2 weeks ago. This is absolutely not acceptable in a democracy (if people still value such quaint concept). (c) His obvious confliect of interest as former CEO of GS must be explored and exposed. Any judge in much more vague connection will have long since recused himself.
— Harry Huang, Philadelphia

People of faith challenge Democrats

Yahoo News

Donald Miller, a 37-year-old author from Portland, Ore., is little known to most voters but revered among many young evangelicals for his best-selling spiritual memoir "Blue Like Jazz

Miller was a loyal Republican but said he left the party, in large part, because he thought Republicans pandered to evangelicals on abortion and gay marriage to win votes without accomplishing much.

Democrats are "reaching out to us, and I'm not naive as to why — they want our votes," said Miller, who gave a two-minute prayer to close Monday's convention session. "But they won't get them and keep them unless they continue the momentum of adopting policies that promote the sanctity of life."

Miller cited progress along those lines — including on abortion. His other priorities — poverty, global warming — also reflect a widening evangelical agenda that might benefit Democrats, if not in large numbers in November then in future elections. Miller also said he'd leave the party if some Democrats keep mocking people of faith…

…That freedom also was evident when Bishop Charles Blake, head of the 6 million-member Church of God in Christ, spoke of "disregard for the lives of the unborn." Blake, who called himself a pro-life Democrat, challenged Obama to adopt policies to reduce abortions and chided Republicans for not caring about "those who have been born."

Newbigin - Chapter 1, Dogma and Doubt in a Pluralist Culture

Newbigin begins the chapter by talking about his experience as a cross-cultural missionary in India… reading the Upanishads and the Gospels in the Ramakrishna Mission, India is a religiously plural society with the freedom to follow whatever religious path one chooses. Jesus was viewed as one of many great teachers (Newbigin: 3).

Newbigin discusses the changes that secularism and pluralism has wrought in the role of religious faith. Religious truths came not to be regarded as facts in the same way as scientific facts. Only what can stand up under the critical examination of the modern scientific method can be taught as fact, as public truth: the rest is dogma. “Dogma” derives from dokien, “to seem.” It is the word used to designate that which seemed good to a competent authority (Newbigin: 5).

The New Testament repeatedly affirms a radical contradiction between the apostolic message and the wisdom of the world. To subject every alleged truth to the critical scrutiny of reason is, in our culture as in the Greek world of Paul’s day, the mark of a mature person (Newbigin: 6).

The principle of pluralism is not universally accepted in our culture. There is a sharp distinction between a world we call “values” and a world of what we call “facts.” In the former world we are pluralists; values are a matter of personal choice. As long as the church is content to offer its beliefs modestly as simply one of the many brands available in the ideological supermarket, no offense is taken. But the affirmation that the truth revealed in the gospel ought to govern public life is offensive (Newbigin: 7).

If we are to meet secular criticism, if we are to be faithful bearers of the message entrusted to us, we need to pay attention to four points:

One: Part of the reason for the rejection of dogma is that it has been entangled with coercion, with political power, and with the denial of freedom of thought and conscience. When coercion of any kind is used in the interests of the Christian message, the message itself is corrupted.

Two: We do not defend the Christian message by domesticating it within the reigning plausibility structure. That was the great mistake of the eighteenth-century defenses of the reasonableness of Christianity (Newbigin: 10). That the crucified Jesus was raised from death to be first fruits of a new creation is—in the proper sense—dogma (Newbigin: 12).

Three: It is essential that we recognize that to be witnesses, does not mean to be possessors of all truth. It means to be placed on a path by following which we are led toward truth. There is indeed a proper place for agnosticism in the Christian life. There is a true sense in which we are—with others—seekers after the truth. The apophatic tradition in theology has always insisted on the fact that no human image can grasp the full reality of God (Newbigin: 12).

Four: The dogma, the thing given for our acceptance in faith is not a set of timeless propositions: it is a story. Moreover it is a story that is not yet finished, a story in which we are still awaiting the end when all becomes clear. The 18th century apologists wee wide of the mark at this point: The Christian religion which they sought to defend was a system of timeless metaphysical truths about God, nature and man. Any valid defense of the Christian faith, I believe, must take a quite different route. It is to be primarily understood as an interpretation of the story—the human story set within the story of nature. Every understanding of the human story must rest on a faith commitment—for we do not yet see the end of the story (Newbigin: 13).

The Gospel in a Pluralist Society

Newbigin, Lesslie. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Cambridge and Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989.

BIO
Lesslie Newbigin was British missionary and theologian born in 1909 and educated in a Quaker school. He was converted to faith in Christ in Queen’s college at Cambridge in 1928 and began to work with the Student Christian Movement. He was ordained in 1936 by the Church of Scotland and was sent to Madras, India as a Presbyterian missionary. He eventually became Bishop of Madras in the fledgling Church of South India, an ecumenical group of Protestants (Wikipedia). After his retirement in 1974, he moved to Birmingham and became a pastor and a lecturer at a nearby college. He died in 1998.


From Wikipedia:
“He is remembered especially for the period of his life when he had returned to England from his long missionary service and travels and tried to communicate the need for the church to take the Gospel anew to the post-Christian Western culture, which he believed had unwisely accepted the notions of objectivity and neutrality developed during the Enlightenment. It was during this time that he wrote two of his most important works, Foolishness to the Greeks (1986) and The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (1989)”


Christopher Duraisingh from the forward:
“Newbigin has the courage to take up a position and the conviction to defend it against what sometimes appear to be impossible odds. What he has to say—and says with refreshing clarity—comes out of his background of long pastoral experience, missionary commitment, ecumenical vision, and unwavering confidence in the gospel."

Here is a passage on page 9 that adjusted some of my own thinking:
“In the famous story of the blind men and the elephant, so often quoted in the interests of religious agnosticism, the real point of the story is constantly overlooked. The story is told from the point of view of the king and his courtiers, who are not blind but can see that the blind men are unable to grasp the full reality of the elephant and are only able to get hold of part of the truth. The story is constantly told to neutralize the affirmation of the great religions, to suggest that they learn humility and recognize that none of them can have more than one aspect of the truth. But, of course, the real point of the story is exactly the opposite. If the king were also blind there would be no story. The story is told by the king, and it is the immensely arrogant claim of one who sees the full truth which all the world’s religions are only groping after. It embodies the claim to know the full reality which relativizes all the claims of the religions and philosophies.”

ok -- my new copy of McLaren just arrived as I was writing this ...I'll hit it this week.

Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac and Jürgen Habermas: The crisis of advanced capitalism.

I was on my way to political theory class this morning, to hear the wrap-up of a lecture on German post-marxist political theorist Jürgen Habermas. I flipped on the radio to NPR (National Public Radio) and immediately started to get pissed off.

There was a piece on the current housing market downturn and the possible crisis of Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae, mortgage lending institutions established by congress but publically owned by shareholders. Global markets are plunging based on fears of a financial collapse of these two mammoth institutions in which most of the risk is assumed by taxpayers and all the profit goes to private individuals. There is talk of a congressional bail-out, to protect the markets, but which ultimately would lead to lining the pockets of the executives running these two institutions at the expense of tax-payers and creating a precedent in which they will become reckless with risk since they will have a black check from the U.S. government to bail them out in the future.

In brief, Jürgen Habermas (1929-- ) believes that Marx’s concept of the driving economic base with a resulting but less powerful cultural superstructure is too simplistic for advanced capitalism. Habermas updates and alters Marxist theory by dividing human society into three semi-autonomous but overlapping spheres: the economic subsystem, the political subsystem (where the state is located) and a socio-cultural subsystem which he calls the “lifeworld” which is where people live, think and experience the effects of the other two subsystems.

In Advanced capitalism, similar to industrial capitalism, there is an inherent contradiction which results in periodic boom-bust cycle of system “crises” that can either be described as recession or depression. In Habermas’ theory, it is the job of the political-administrative subsystem to anticipate and “bail-out” these economic crises as they occur. This has meant a great strengthening and centralization of the political subsystem to the expense of the socio-cultural “lifeworld.” This leads inevitably to a “Legitimation crisis” or “rationality” crisis of the political subsystem with the socio-cultural lifeworld.

In others words, when a lot of people lose their jobs, go bankrupt, or lose their house through foreclosure while the government provides a welfare “bail-out” to guarantee the “welfare” of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac executives and share-holders, the people tend to get pissed and begin to have doubts about the system and to suspect it is rigged against them. Habermas believes that these tensions and crises in the advanced capitalist system will continue until people in the socio-cultural lifeworld come together to find a better way of running the whole system. Remember September 11? What did the government do in response to a security failure of the politico-administrative system? The advice was to “go shopping.” In the words of my esteemed professor, when there is a crisis, the government tells us not to worry, but just go to the “megachurch of your choice and have a Starbucks coffee.” He apologized for being a bit cynical.

I remember a popular Bible teacher that I admired saying in the mid-1980s that “God is a capitalist.” At the time, I was naïve enough to accept his statement at face value (I know, it is embarrassing) My response now? Please, do not pin this on God … he has enough problems!

I have heard several interviews on NPR about building troubles at Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae. One report detailed a large number of executives in both institutions that have been paid salaries in excess of a million dollars and huge bonuses. Today’s interview on NPR details the lobbyist role of both institutions in giving large donations to both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Fanny Mae is a corporation that is supposed to be the mortgage lender of last resort. It is private but was initially funded with public funds. The Federal Reserve has offered Fanny Mae a line of credit. There have been repeated calls for reform of Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae (see this article from 2005).

The logic is, “we have to do this or the crisis will spread.” In other words, the government tells us, “We are going to use your money as a tax-payer, to bail out these people whose job was to evaluate risk and help first-time home buyers, and we are doing it for your good.” What a croc of cow manure! A welfare system for wealthy mortgage bankers!

Yesterday on NPR, Peter Wallison, a former Treasury and White House counsel under Reagon, questioned whether congress controls Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae, or whether they actually control Congress.

According to former Rep. Richard Baker, a Republican from Louisiana and a longtime critic, "I noted that, of the top 20 officials of the company, none made less than $1 million a year," Baker says. "And during the course of a 5-year period, there were bonuses, not salaries ... bonuses paid out of $245 million. This, going to an entity that was supposed to be focused on helping first-time, low-income homebuyers getting access to housing credit."

Here is how Habermas describes the means that the political-administrative system of advanced capitalism uses to resolve these boom-bust cycles:


“In the decades since World War II the most advanced capitalist countries have succeeded in keeping class conflict latent in its decisive areas; in extending the business cycle and transforming the periodic phases of capital devaluation into a permanent inflationary crisis with milder business fluctuations; and in broadly filtering the dysfunctional secondary effects of the averted economic crisis and scattering them over quasi-groups (such as consumers, the sick, the elderly, etc.)”
(Habermas, 1975:39).

Check it out -- Miami-Dade County is in the process of laying off several hundred school teachers, including about 70 school psychologists. Consumers are paying $4.14 per gallon for gas, and cannot afford to live in a house, (or keep the house they already purchased). Don’t even talk to me about the sick and the elderly.

In my short and mostly uncomfortable lifetime, I have seen the anti-war riots of 1968-70, the oil crisis of the late 1970s, the economic downturn of the late 1980s, the dot.com boom and bust of the late 1990s, and now the boom and bust of the housing market. Somehow, through it all, the wealthy get wealthier and the poor get poorer…. The kingdoms of this world are being shaken, including the good ole U.S of A.

Makes me glad that my hope is not in U.S. nationalism, nor in storing up wealth that the thief can steal (mortgage bankers? oil companies?) or the moth corrupt (inflation? Cell phone companies?) but my treasures are in heaven … not a place of fluffy clouds but the dimension where absolute, incorruptible TRUTH reigns along with Divine Love.

-- Jurgen Habermas, Legitimation Crisis (Beacon Press, 1975)

TOCQUEVILLE AND RELIGION - part 1

The Problematic Relationship Between Religion And Democracy


“Their mutual centrality is not surprising. Politics, after all, deals at the most general level with the organizing principles and symbols of the entire society. Religion, in turn, provides values which give meaning to human life, placing any given set of social or political events in a broader framework of significance.” – Daniel Levine

Alexis de Tocqueville astutely observed that the “spirit of religion” was an essential factor in the success of American democracy. Unlike other social observers of his time and since, Tocqueville did not trace American political culture and institutions solely back to the rational traditions of John Locke, John Stuart Mill and other Enlightenment philosophers. Tocqueville believed that it was essential to go back to the starting point of a civilization in order to best understand the normative framework or national character of a people. In most cases, these early beginnings of European nations are lost in the mists of time, but the United States, according to Tocqueville, offered a unique case in which the beginnings were relatively recent and well documented. Rather than only looking to the Scottish Enlightenment to explain the apparent success of democracy in the United States of the 1830s, Tocqueville carefully examines beliefs, mores, institutions and motivations of the early Puritans of New England to discover the normative framework that makes the U.S. a unique example of democracy and civil society.

Tocqueville believed that Puritan political culture provided a normative basis for American constitutional democracy. A key element of the Puritan influence on the American political system was the belief in popular sovereignty, which Tocqueville calls a “generative principle,” which spread from New England to the rest of the colonies. Early examples include the Mayflower Compact and other covenants which established the right the people under God to form a "civil body politic." Democracy at the level of the local township was predominant in New England by the mid-seventeenth century. Puritan political processes were very democratic and encouraged citizen participation. Despite Great Britain's overall jurisdiction, democracy prevailed in the local townships with the making of their own laws, raising taxes, and judicial accountability (Kessler:784). Due to the separation of church and state, along with the Puritan tradition, the spirit of freedom and the spirit of religion, in Tocqueville’s view, successfully co-existed in the United States and provided a religious fabric to social mores unlike France, where the spirit of freedom led to a strong current of anti-clericalism and even an attack on religion.

Revival or transformation?

This is a note that I wrote to a young friend who asked what I thought about the Lakeland revival with Todd Bentley. My friend expressed some mixed feelings: grateful for the possibility of some healings, but concerned about the “hype.” Below is my response.

Dear Friend,

I think your concern is a valid one. I too, have had mixed feelings about it.

I never want to be in a position of criticizing the work of God or the Holy Spirit. And it seems to me that God really is at work in the Lakeland revival at some level. Perhaps not everything, but some percentage is genuine -- perhaps a large percentage. This is because God loves to help people who are hurting and he will go to almost any length to minister to those who are in need. He will also use almost anyone who has faith, regardless of their personal merit or character. That is why the ‘charismas’ are ‘gifts of grace.’ We get no credit for our gifts, they come entirely from God. The true measure is character.

In my own opinion, revivals almost never build character. They do raise the level of faith, but rarely do they bring positive transformation, at the individual level or at the societal level. In face, revivals have occasionally done more harm than good in the long run.

In church history, many revivals (but not all) have created a ‘burned-over’ phenomenon. Charles Finney led a remarkable revival in upstate New York in the early nineteenth century. Some towns became so gripped in the presence of God that people passing through the towns on trains would fall down and weep with repentance when the train entered the city limits. Nevertheless today, those same towns are often described as spiritually dead.

Another example was the Welsh revival. I believe it began in 1903, more-or-less, and went all around the world. However, today Wales is economically and spiritual depressed – a ‘burned over’ area if there ever was one. There are not many biblical examples of revivals. What happened in the early chapters of Acts was not a revival -- in no way was Judaism or temple worship revived -- nor was it a 'reformation.' the Old Wineskin would no longer serve. It would be more accurate to describe the events in the book of Acts as a spiritual revolution.

There was a revival of national Judaism recorded in 2 Kings under Josiah that included reverence for the word of God and a re-consecration to biblical worship. Nevertheless, the "revival" only lasted as long as Josiah was king, and failed to turn the Jews outward toward the nations around them as a redemptive influence in order to be a "light to the nations." Judgment and the Diaspora was only postponed, not averted.

I see these revivals like wild fires, that burn out of control and draw the people’s attention to the gifts instead of the giver, to the power instead of the source, to the healinga instead of the divine healer. In my opinion, while God may be truly healing many people and refreshing others, hyping a “revival” often eventually does more harm than good by getting the people focused on the wrong things. Many people become ruined for long term obedience and spiritual formation and just go from revival to revival looking for their emotional “fix” -- their Holy Ghost buzz.

Jesus was faced with a similar dynamic in John 8 (7 or 8, I don’t have it in front of me). Crowds were flocking to his healings and his miracles. He DID NOT want a revival atmosphere … he wanted to attract true disciples who would apply themselves to learning his commands and being a transformative influence in the world. This was a real dilemma because HE DID have compassion for the sick and hurting and demonized, and he DID want to minister to their needs.

This explains for me why he tried to keep his miracles and healings quiet and private – behind the scenes -- the direct opposite of what one sees in Lakeland, and other similar recent revivals. Jesus tried, mostly unsuccessfully, to underplay the supernatural and to rather highlight his ‘hard sayings’ about discipleship and serving. He had the divine fire, but he tried to keep it in proper boundaries of spiritual formation and loving God and one's neighbor -- transformative. He specifically DID NOT want to hype the power of God to draw crowds. He said to those who would follow him: deny yourselves, take up your cross.

When he sent out the 70 to preach the kingdom and heal the sick (there is another difference—he didn’t keep the power in his personal hands—he gave it away), they returned to him ecstatic that “even the demons were subject to them in His name” … he actually gave them a gentle rebuke and said not to rejoice about the power over demons but to rejoice that their names were written in the book of life….

He didn’t launch a revival – the Jewish national religion could not be revived, just like contemporary American Christianity should not be revived – he launched a transformative revolution that changed the world. If you use Jesus as the standard by which to discern the Lakeland revival you will be fine. We must not be critical or cynical … thank God for those who are being healed! And yet, although it may be the genuine power of God, the “administration” of the power may not be wise, or may not be godly. Hold fast to that which is good, and ignore the rest.

There have been religious movements that have been socially and spiritually significant over the long-term. The U.S. Great Awakening is one example. The Methodist movement in England may have spared England from a bloody French-style revolution and possibly led to the ending of the slave trade through Wilberforce. The Pentecostal movement in Azuza street has changed the whole world. But we have to watch out for wild fire, avoid it whenever possible, and rather look for the nuclear power that quietly changes the world. And it begins in our own journey of spiritual transformation.

I hope this is helpful.

jh

Ideology or integrity?

I wrote the following piece as a response to something a friend wrote in an email regarding the conservative dilemma in the post-Super Tuesday world. If you disagree with me, all the better for spirited conversation but let’s keep it civil.

Hi,
I take it from your email that you don't like McCain, or that you don't feel that he has good character or consistent positions? i would say that is precisely the reason I voted for him in the primary. I like the fact that he has not "pandered" to the conservative or the evangelical establishment and that he has consistently maintained convictions even when they are not popular or politically expedient with the left (anti-abortion, pro Iraq war) or politically expedient with the right (a fair and humane immigration plan, working proactively across the aisle with democrats).

I don't understand why the Limbaugh-Coulter-Dobson crowd hates him so much ...but I suspect it is because, despite actually being quite conservative on many issues, he refuses to cave in to conservatism as an ideology with its “scorched-earth” “take no prisoners” attitude toward all liberals and democrats.

I like Huckabee but I don’t trust him... there were too many ethics questions swirling around about his time as governor... I refuse to vote for another politician because they are "born again" only to be embarrassed and disappointed when they show themselves to be pragmatic politicians who use the “born again” vote for their own benefit. Nevertheless, I certainly liked him better as a candidate than Giuliani or Romney.

I really like Obama ... not so much because of his political positions but because of his seemingly sincere desire to move away from the politics of ”mutual assured destruction” ... 'ideology' on the left, and his attempt to raise the level of civility. Witness the flack he drew for affirming that Republicans occasionlly have good ideas. If Obama faces McCain, I will vote for McCain. If it had been Giuliani against Obama … I would have voted for Obama on the character and conviction issue that you mentioned. Anyone who is concerned with connecting young people to a spiritual life, needs to carefully observe Obama's message and his style.

Also, democracy (something I know that you have reservations about as a system) requires the sharing of power ... periodic alternations of political parties representing interest groups. One party or dominant ideology in power too long ... will almost inevitably become corrupt. In places like Colombia and Spain it has even led to destructive civil wars in the 20th century. If Limbaugh had his way, the democratic party would be totally destroyed and we would have a conservative Partocracy ... probably not a good thing in the long run (in case it does not come through, I am being 'ironic' here ... making a huge understatement of what I actually believe).

A Democratic system require three important values:

-The ability to exercise toleration of opposing beliefs without resorting to violence.
-The ability to peacefully alternate power (check out Kenya)
-Confidence in the overall fairness of democratic institutions.

probably a fourth thing is what is called a civic culture... informed citizens who take responsibility and participate in the electoral process.

What is happening in this election is very healthy and very good for our country and our civic culture... through Obama and Ron Paul, (and perhaps even Hilary) a lot of people who normally don't care about politics have become passionately involved in the political process, especially young people. Thanks to the splitting of the conservative bloc by Huckabee and Romney, the failure of Guiliani and the success of McCain... the conservative power block that was in danger of becoming arrogant bullies (they already are IMHO) and possibly suffering the corruption of power is being broken up and room is created for new ideas and fresh approaches....

my prayer is that the left-right stalemate and extreme ideological polarization in our country can be diminished by a spirited but civil election campaign between Obama and McCain which might help us move the public discourse to a higher more effective level. and may the best "person" win.... (too bad McCain is not a 71-year-old former P.O.W., maverick conservative AND a woman... but I guess we cannot have it all in one election!).

if the contest is between Clinton and McCain ... that’s another story for another day and another post.

In any case, it is time for us who call ourselves followers of Jesus to humble ourselves and pray and repent for putting our faith in faulty and incomplete political ideologies as the ultimate answer for our country and recommit to loving God and loving our neighbor and building bridges instead of walls. And whoever is elected, from whichever party...let us commit to pray for him or her before we begin to criticize.

j

We are told to "go"

here are friends of ours who are going in Costa Rica...they have a burden for helping poor disadvantaged kids ... recently a young prostitute who was nearing a spiritual commitment was killed.



Any thoughts or questions about this? What can you do?