In Today’s Remembrance

“Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”
— John 15:13

Today being Memorial Day 2017, I have to confess that my mind is always a bit conflicted when it comes to honoring our own country’s fallen soldiers. It’s a conflict brought on by my belief that war itself is rarely if ever “just”; yet, those soldiers who lay down their lives for their friends, neighbors, and unseen others are justified in receiving honor for their heroic sacrifice.

It is in remembrance of these fallen soldiers that I begin this day.

For me Memorial Day is one for waving ribbons on behalf of soldiers and not flags on behalf of nations. It is set aside to honor those individuals who sacrificed their lives for others, who lovingly laid down their lives for their friends. It is not about the nation that declares or conducts war, but about the citizen who chooses love above fear and enters war’s battlefields, skies, and seas in obedience to love’s immortality rather than fear’s mortality.

Personally, I came of age during the Vietnam War. Upon graduating from college in 1968, I was subject to the Selective Service draft used to conscript men of my age into this, in my then newly educated opinion, highly unjust, immoral, and even illegal war against the newly sovereign nation of Vietnam. It was based strictly upon an American lie involving an attack in the Tonkin Gulf.  So I joined in protest against that war.

The sin of our anti-war movement of the 1960’s was this, however: we failed to differentiate between the war and the warrior. We wrongly condemned those who served as soldiers and tarred them with the same brush used to condemn our nation’s war policy. Our collective sin as a peace movement was to deny the greater love of those who laid down their lives for their friends, as Jesus had so described it in John 15:13.

So what would Jesus do today?

I wonder if he wouldn’t walk among the families of those who lost loved and loving soldiers of war. Any war. Not to justify the wars themselves, nor even the nations that declared them. But instead to justify those who, when faced with fearful control as driven from within their own mortal bodies, refused to obey that fear and instead chose their own loving influence (never to be in vain) as drawn from their immortal soul. I wonder if Jesus would not take a knee at the grave-site or otherwise pause to honor the loving sacrifice of those who laid down their lives for their friends and unseen others also known as “neighbor.”

And I wonder if Jesus would not call us into remembrance that he, too, was a soldier of war. That upon the hillside of Calvary he, too, was driven by bodily fear of losing control but drawn by the spiritual love of gaining influence (never to be in vain) in this world God so loves. Jesus chose to obey his soul over his body.  To place his own faith in influence instead of control.  To lay down his own life. To love God and neighbor sacrificially, which is the greatest love in keeping with the greatest commandments.

Yes, my mind will always be conflicted to think that warriors may be moral even when their warring nations are not, or to think that love’s influence will outlive fear’s control even to the point of resurrecting that which was once buried. This is the ultimate conflict between life and death itself. And it is the very essence of what Christian faith is all about. The ultimate resolution that places love above fear, the immortal soul above the mortal body, and the fallen soldier above the nation itself.


Regarding Solomon’s sword

Back in the 1970’s when I was a newly minted Clinical Social Worker, I went to work as a clinician for a private family counseling and child welfare agency. This meant the occasional case of an Adoptive Study for couples who, often due to infertility issues, were applying to adopt a newborn infant. Each of these couples came with some sense of calling and purpose, and most did deserve to receive a child. Taking into account the best practices and actual policies of that era, I did the best I knew at the time to assess the loving capacity of these couples both while in my office and in their home. My vetting process included a review of other professional opinions, which seemed to invariably include a nice letter of recommendation from some priest, minister, or rabbi. Yet, as I had to clarify in every initial session of the study, I was not there to find these nice parents some special baby. I was there to find some special baby the most loving parents. My actual client whom I worked for was the baby, who without any exception deserved to receive healthy, loving parents. Already in that decade, the tide of public social policy in Washington was shifting, and there were more available parents than babies for us to work with. I couldn’t get every loving couple a baby, even if I’d wanted to. But I could, purportedly, get every baby a secure and loving set of parents who would be flexible enough to meet a full range of that child’s needs growing up.

I bring this up because, now that I’m in my own 70’s and looking back on a couple of careers including ordained Christian ministry, I feel a sense of empathy toward a group within my own church denomination of United Methodism. This group is called the Commission On A Way Forward. See if you would like to know more about them. Phrased less eloquently, they have the job of keeping the United Methodist Church United. This group of commissioners is being asked to represent the family of United Methodists. Keep that family together, prevent a divorce, serve the best interests of our family going forward.

Lotsa luck with that one, I cynically say to my retired and relieved self. Having acquired a few of my own battle scars from conflicts past, I could probably offer up a bit of advice if ever asked to do so for this Commission On A Way Forward.

I won’t be asked.

But if I was to toss out an opinion of sorts in any direction these days, it might go something like this. Commissioners: be quick to clarify who your client is. And isn’t. Hint: it isn’t the family of United Methodists. It is the baby Jesus. The church is his body. Not anyone else’s. Belongs to him. So he alone is the client. Just because the United Methodists are paying you and the baby Jesus isn’t, don’t be fooled into taking on the family as your clients.

The Hebrew Bible tells of a time when King Solomon was to decide for the best interests of a particular baby. See I Kings 3 when you get a chance. Two different mothers. Used to be two different babies but now there was only one. Each mother claimed to be the rightful Mom. Solomon’s job? Find a way forward. Not for the sake of the mothers but rather for the best interest of that one living baby moving forward.

Now I have no idea how I’d have handled that case if I were Solomon. But I can pretty much guarantee I’d have not been wise enough to do what he did. As the story goes, he commissioned, of all things, a sword for the purpose of cutting this one living baby in half. Each mother would receive half. Both would then be satisfied.

You remember what happened next, don’t you?

One mother openly consented to Solomon’s plan. The other mother openly protested, preferring to give her baby away to that other mother than to have him killed by Solomon’s sword. At which point Solomon knew who the rightful mother was and with whom he would place the infant. Case solved.

Lots of great theology in that story, of course. Jesus himself would go on to teach his disciples about how the ones who would lose their lives for his sake would be saved, and those who would save them would then be lost. Same principle. And Jesus himself would bring forth the sword (Matthew 10:34) commissioned by the all-wise God whose Kingdom he served.

So maybe it is time for the Commission On A Way Forward in the United Methodist Church to call forth the competing parties in conflict, place the sword atop the baby Jesus come Epiphany Sunday of 2018, and invite that party which has the perfect Scriptural hermeneutic and perfect Spiritual discernment to strike the first blow to cut Jesus in half, to make the first cut of incision, to draw the first blood, to sever his body in two.

If Jesus is truly our client, we will give him the loving support he deserves moving forward. It may be time once again for Solomon’s sword.   It won’t be the first time Christ’s blood was shed for our iniquity.


Hold on or let go?

Isn’t that one of the toughest questions to answer in our various life situations?

Especially these days? When so much of our society seems divided between those who would desperately hold on and those who just as desperately would let go?

If you are reading this, you probably are already aware there was in the United Methodist Church within which I’m an ordained Elder a recent ruling of its Judicial Council on a case involving an ordained Bishop in what is called our Western Jurisdictional Conference. That Bishop, for those of you living somewhere beneath a rock and don’t already know this, had previously come out as a married homosexual. Things may simmer down somewhat this week in commentary, but many of us realize this pot will boil over eventually as the UMC flame has a tendency to shoot upward from time to time. How that flame has kept from igniting and destroying the nearby cross itself is a mystery for the ages.

It is a short stretch of the imagination to say that today’s western society is painfully divided between those who would hold on and those who would let go concerning a range of social issues. We typically label those who would hold on as conservatives and those who would let go as liberals. Even then we are divided between those who would hold on to such labels and those who wish to let them go while in search of new (improved?) ones.    Hence, we have today’s evangelicals and progressives.

Regardless, humankind may be incurably divided around this general question: hold on or let go?

If I’m to be an authentic Jesus-follower in today’s world, I had better work at understanding how Jesus behaved with respect to this general question. To be sure, Jesus was surrounded by those in his day who wanted to hold on vs. those who wanted to let go. His own people, the palestinian Jews under Roman occupation, had at least as much religious and political polarity as we do today. There were those in his own society who desperately wanted to hold on while others just as desperately wanted to let go. Jesus was more than aware of his contemporary conservatives and liberals.   Herodian reactionaries vs. Zealot revolutionaries were no less “divided” than today’s American Republicans vs. Democrats on the political spectrum. And the religious divide between conservative Pharisees vs. liberal Sadducees was no less severe than today’s evangelical conservative vs. mainline liberals.

As best I can discern from my own reading of the Gospels, his own divided people sought to do with Jesus what people in conflict commonly do: triangulate. By this I mean each side wanted him on their own side against the other. They sought to triangulate Jesus.

Think United Methodist Judiciary Council when you think of triangulation today. But let’s not stop there. Let’s also be thinking about Jesus. He who was in his own time often triangulated between those who wanted to hold on and those who wanted to let go.

Let’s take the Jewish Laws of Moses, for instance. Actually there were several instances sprinkled throughout the biblical Gospels. In every instance I can trace within my own memory, Jesus gave a patterned response to the question of whether to hold on or let go when it came to the Mosaic Laws, whether dealing with adultery, murder, divorce, Sabbath, tithing, or cleanliness. His answer was a resounding “yes” to both sides of the question. As in, “Yes, hold on to the Law” and “Yes, let go of the old interpretations of that Law.” Jesus had a patterned way of saying to his own liberals and conservatives alike that, yes, do hold on to the conservative words but do let go of the conservative meanings for those words. He was both conservative in his regard for the Law and liberal in his interpretation of the Law.

If you’ll remember Solomon’s ruling when it came to the dualing mothers of the single child, the mother who won that case turned out to be the one willing to let go of her baby. I’m not so sure that represented the wisdom of Solomon so much as it does the lengthier pattern of human history itself. Those who hold on to both the old law and the old interpretation are routinely on the wrong side of history over the course of time. Those who hold on to the old law but let go of its old interpretation generally prevail in the long run. That last act of letting go has its own way of keeping the baby well into the future.

Jesus, as we surely must agree now two millennia after his death and resurrection, was on the right side of history. He has prevailed. He has said, “yes” to both holding onto the old words and to letting go of their old meanings. Where the Mosaic Law was concerned, he introduced the new meaning: Love God, and love neighbor as self. The old Law and Prophets taken together? He introduced this new meaning: “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” — Matthew 7:12. To the important old word of adultery he introduced the important new meaning of lust. To the important old word of murder he introduced the important new meaning of anger.

Jesus refused to be triangulated between the holders on and the letters go of his day. And if we United Methodists would follow him in our day, I wonder if we would not end up saying “yes” to today’s questions of whether to hold on or to let go. I wonder if we, too, would not say “yes, hold on to the words of scripture and let go of the old interpretations of them.” Or, should we sanctify the United Methodist Book of Discipline as if it were our own Torah, say “yes, hold on to the words about homosexuality and let go of the old interpretation of them.”

Herein lies our UMC challenge today, as I perceive it. No. Let me rephrase that and say the entire Christian Church today. We may choose to hold on to the baby and have it cut in half, or we may let go of it and thus keep it alive. We may part company with Jesus and hold onto the old interpretations of those words we have cast as being sacred, or we may follow Jesus into the heavenly Kingdom he is still establishing here on earth. Which means both holding on to the old words and letting go of their old meanings.

“Behold, I am making all things new” — Revelation 21:5.


What Easter means to me

There are two kinds of human beings in this world. Those who have a fear problem, and those who are afraid to say or even think they have a fear problem.

Which is another way of saying that there is only one kind of human being.

We’re all in this together.

We all have a fear problem. Some of us are just more afraid of our fear problem than others.

That being said, I believe Jesus had a fear problem in the days prior to Easter we Christians often label as Holy Week. And I also believe Jesus had no fear of his fear. Therefore, he could face it head on and solve it.

Fear is what happens to all of us throughout our lives as human beings. It is our core human emotion. We all feel it in our bodies before we know it in our minds. Our bodies often express it as symptoms of dis-ease.  Fear may cause us to get sick.  It also causes us to avoid something.  Fear causes us to feel guilty, or angry.  Causes us to flee, or to fight.  Causes us to seek control over that object we fear.    And to at other times pray for God to take control.   Without fear there would be no desire for control, no anger, no violence, no avoidance, no escaping.  Those would be unnecessary without human fear.

I’ve been around this place we call earth for over 70 years. I’ve seen a lot of fear in my time. As a therapist and then as a pastor, I’ve seen what fear does to people. Myself included, of course. Fear causes every argument, every act of aggression, starts every war. It drives our spending habits and our saving habits. It causes us to over-react. Yet, our fear of fear can cause us to under-react, even to practically paralyze us.

The 2016 Presidential election in the United States was a classic illustration of how fear affects people. Some folks were afraid to vote, so they avoided doing so. Others were afraid of one candidate, which caused them to vote for another candidate instead.

Many in America’s minorities fear those in the majority; many in the majority fear those in the minority. Some of our police fear some of our citizens, and vice versa. All police violence is triggered (an apt pun) by fear.    Unresolved fear kills people; even innocent people.   Unresolved fear stems from our fear of being afraid.

We humans fear the future. We fear death. We fear loss. We fear pain. We fear our emotions in various ways at various times. We fear people “other” than ourselves. We fear ourselves. We fear judgment and criticism and rejection and failure. We fear loneliness and isolation. We fear God. We fear hell.

We’re a mess! Especially nowadays. We have a fear problem so large we are afraid to even face it or acknowledge it.   It remains largely unresolved.   And people really are dying from it every day.    

Which is perhaps the best reason in this world to follow Jesus.

Because Jesus leads us to the solution. He demonstrates the solution. He shows us the way, the truth, the life. He does so when he’s alone in his own wilderness journey for 40 days. He does so when dealing with people during his reported years of ministry. And he does so, perhaps most of all, during the days before Easter. The days we call Holy Week.

In the garden of Gethsemane is the scene in the Bible’s synoptic Gospels (see Matthew 26, Mark 14, and Luke 22) where several disciples reported seeing Jesus dealing with his own fear problem. It was a giant fear problem. Jesus named the problem his “cup,” perhaps in reference to his own blood that would soon pour from his body onto the cross of unparalleled torture, and into the ground beneath. He fearfully prayed for a way of avoiding this “cup.” He was, after all, fully human just like you and me.

Want to know what I picture when reading this powerful Holy Week story from scripture? I picture a body trying to tell the mind what to do, what to decide. Has your body ever tried telling your mind what to do? It’s a common way of self-talk. The body goes first. And then the mind has the final word, makes the decision……..whether to obey the body or overrule it.   Either way, it then tells the body what to do. Both the body and the mind have a will, but they’re not always in agreement. And when they are not, as when Jesus and the Father………God’s body and mind…….are in conflict, we see what happens next.  A third party intervenes and breaks the tie.  We call this third party the soul.   God’s Holy Spirit. The one who has the final authority to inform the mind’s decision, which then tells the body what to do. And so I picture God’s soul engaging in the self-talk of Jesus as if to say, “I know you are about to walk through the Kidron valley with its burial grounds called the shadow of death, and I know all about the table where your enemies were present, and about the one who anointed your head with oil from her alabaster jar. I’m your soul. I’m always with you. My love for you is greater than your fear for yourself. Your fear will end, you will fear not, but your love will last forever. I will live in your body for a little bit longer, but you will live in my soul forever.”

Then I picture Jesus saying, “that’s the solution.” That’s the solution to every fear problem on earth. It’s the Spiritual solution to our somatic problem, our mental problem, our fear problem, our death problem. It is God’s permanent solution to our temporary problem.

Which brings me back to our own humanity. Our own fears. Our fear problem at its very worst, which finally comes to an end when we take up our own cross and follow Jesus. Which is when Easter comes along and proves to us, once and for all, that love outlasts and outcasts fear.    Which can only happen when, like Jesus, we are not afraid to be afraid.   When we instead face our fear out loud in our own garden of Gethsemane.

That’s what Easter means to me.


The Shack of God’s Counter-Transference

You may have read Paul Young’s best-selling book, “The Shack,” and perhaps have seen the movie now showing in most first-run theaters.

You may have also heard of the term, “transference,” as used in the context of psychological counseling. And if you actually studied hard in that Intro to Psychology class, you may even remember the term, “counter-transference.” Either way, I’d like to write a few things about the important connection to be made between the fictional story of “The Shack,” and these old terms from that dusty Psychology textbook of yore.

The word “transference” as used within the broader field of mental health counseling applies to a theory within the Psychoanalytic school of early physicians like Sigmund Freud. This theory was that the relationship we experience with our earthly parents gets transferred onto each other relationship with an earthly authority figure. Every desire, every fear, and every human hang-up in between gets transferred from our childhood experiences of the past into our adulthood experiences of the present. What we like or dislike about any person present is the very same as what we liked or disliked about our parent of that particular gender in our childhood.

Anyhow, that’s the theory.

Paul Young’s story of “The Shack” plays this theory out in grand form, as we find a badly traumatized young boy whose mother did not protect him from his own abusive father meeting up with a mothering God who most recently failed to protect……………well, go see the movie and find out.

It’s a story of “transference.” The mother who merely stands at the window watching cannot be trusted for protection. The father who punishes with pain cannot be trusted to love. That’s God. Yet, as even an abused child feels strangely drawn to the only mother and father he has in this world, so the son who grows up to become the father feels strangely drawn to meet God. And say to God that which he could never dare say to his own negligent Mom and abusive Dad. That’s what “transference” would look like if it were made into a book or movie.

Are you with me so far?

If you get how it is we all carry over and transfer our childhood traumas into our adult relationships, including that with the God of our own understanding, then the next step becomes super important. Because it involves “counter-transference.”

You see, in theory the counseling treatment for those persons suffering in their present adult relationships from the unsolved pain of their childhood involves use of “counter-transference” on the part of a counseling therapist. And while the use of such a time-consuming relationship in psychoanalytic counseling is now about as common to our healthcare industry as the old Packard sedan is to our automotive industry, it did serve a useful purpose in many cases. The therapist would assume the role, say, of a passive mother or a verbally aggressive father just long enough to draw out the full voice of pain and anger on the part of a suffering client. But after such a blasting forth of pent-up emotional baggage, the healing would come by way of the “counter-transference,” in which the therapist would now issue a response of perfect unconditional love and positive regard for the client. This love would take the form of identification with the client’s suffering. It would involve a total gift of empathy and understanding.  It would involve a  “transference” of the therapist’s love for, say, his own child onto the suffering client.

Such therapy served, as I say, a useful purpose at times. Most times it did not. Because most of the therapists were themselves bad parents and no better at loving their clients than they were their own children. Yet, even the best of parents and best of therapists found themselves limited by having never had an intimate personal relationship with God the three-in-one, soul-mind-body, all in same place at the same time.

That’s my own theory of why psychoanalysis usually fails.

Or so I thought until I saw “The Shack.”

Because “The Shack” is a story about both our human “transference” and its power to keep us suffering in our pain, and God’s divine “counter-transference” and its power to heal us of that same pain. This triune God whose mind and soul bears the scars of his own body’s painful suffering is the source of perfect love. Love that identifies with all who are suffering, who then casts out all fear and heals all pain. And forgives all sin. When we treat God as our own combination of too passive and too aggressive parents, our own “transference” attracts God’s treatment as his or her own suffering child (which Christians would name Jesus Christ) through God’s “counter-transference.”  God bears our own scars as if we were his own body, the Christ.

So what does this mean for you and me?

I believe it means that when we get totally honest with God about our own pain and suffering, even daring to unload the fury of our pent-up rage onto God like never before, God is there to do exactly what God does in the movie, “The Shack.” God is there to heal us, to reassure us, to help us by using God’s love to cast out all our own fear, and in that way grow our own mess into a beautiful garden.

Some who have read the book or watched the movie have made it all about their own theology. That’s their “transference” talking. Paul Young has written the “Shack” to instead be all about God’s own psychology. That’s God’s “counter-transference” talking. And God’s knowing our minds far better than our own “transference” can ever know God. It’s about God’s own psychology, knowing us enough to heal every ounce of psychological pain we might ever present.


When Behavior Modification becomes the treatment of choice

I noticed yesterday that during debate in the British Parliament, our new President of the United States (POTUS) was described at one point as being “a petulant child.”

Figured I may as well weigh in on this a bit using my prior years of service as a family therapist, sometimes in response to “a petulant child” presented by forlorn parents. True, no one has asked me to come out of retirement and play therapist for any good purpose. But there are different ways to assume one’s patriotic duties, and at least offering a few words of suggestion to my fellow Americans seems not so far out of bounds at this point in time. By now you may be desperate enough to even consider a new suggestion or two.  .

For one thing, I’m a bit tired of hearing the diagnosis of our new President, no matter how well formulated or agreed upon that may be. I say, let’s get on with a treatment plan. At least let’s discuss such a possibility, before it’s too late to intervene at all. Why wait for the house to burn down before addressing Junior’s anger issues? With this many matches laying around and no way to remove them all, maybe now is the time to attempt some treatment.  ASAP.  How about today?

Even “a petulant child,” if one is presented to us, can be helped. Behavioral healthcare does not always require an adult to child consensual contract. I’ve written many treatment plans for which the child’s signature was irrelevant. The adults simply had to get together and themselves act appropriate to the needs of that child.

Such a child may be helped by a behavioral modification plan. Which would look something like this in relation, say, to our new POTUS. This President obviously craves praise and behaves in the way that reinforces his craving. Praise is his primary motivator. It is his drug of choice. Hint: flattery will get you everywhere. And attention for the child’s bad behavior will quite equally get you nowhere. So our treatment of choice has to center around our own praise. Call it the “art of the deal” if you’d like, but the fact is we people of the world have much leverage and power when it comes to “dealing with” this President who craves attention but above all flattery and praise. For example, try this experiment using the comment section below. Finish this statement: Donald Trump will be the greatest President in the history of the United States and receive my greatest praise ever for any world leader in power today when he __________________________.

Go ahead and make a list. If you’re willing to do so, you may share it below in the comment section. Such an experiment may net a few such statements as building a border wall with Mexico, lowering taxes for wealthy Americans, reducing regulations for small businesses (even though it is large businesses through their paid lobbyists who typically write these regulations to benefit themselves), or to rid the world of radical Islamic terrorism. But there may be other statements such as stopping Russia from advancing further into Ukraine or any other Baltic state of sovereign independence. My personal list would include his finding a way to legally and successfully end Citizens United and district gerrymandering.  And to automatically register all U.S. citizens 18 years of age to vote, just like they used to register 18 year old boys for the military draft when I was that age.  As all praise reinforcement statements are tallied up, they then become leverage in modifying behavior. Obviously, the more participants in the process, including people in other nations willing to join the praise for the “greatest world leader of the 21st Century” plan, the more likely some behaviors, like building a wall, will lose loud appeal. A world “rally tour,” or even a state by state USA “rally tour” for praise upon accomplishment of the top 3 behaviors of a “greatest ever” President, might make the current red-state supporter rallies look like Arnold’s Apprentice ratings. Way down by comparison.

Show me 3 million people who would promise to attend this President’s 2020 inauguration in Washington if he successfully organizes, attends, and actively listens for a full 60 minutes at any Congressional Black Caucus meeting, and I’ll show you at least one small behavioral improvement by that POTUS. Consequences do influence choices, and not just the other way around.

Behavior modification plans work. Except for one thing.

As with petulant children at home or in school, they are easily sabotaged not by the child but by, you guessed it, the adults who refuse to cooperate. Let’s say you have a teacher who goes along but a principal who continues to reinforce the disruptive behavior, or a Mom who goes along but a Dad who continues to praise bullying behavior, etc. Whoever offers, in such a case as our new POTUS, the loudest level of reinforcing praise will determine the success or failure of such behavior mod treatment. For some kids, it comes down to which adult blows up the most and biggest balloons.

There is something every family therapist faces whenever a petulant child comes into focus. The treatment is never up to the child. The child can always be helped. The question is whether the adults in the room are willing to help, or if they in their own pain will choose to be like hurt people who only hurt people. The latter is what I see going on now in our United States.

I’ve had my share of cases over the years where the teachers, aides, cafeteria workers, principal, etc. at school did their part in helping. But if the louder parent in the home refused to make the right noise at the right time, the child made little improvement. What such a micro problem means on a macro scale is this: the other nations of today’s world may, like the British Parliament, all figure out how to use flattery and praise of the POTUS to win their own desired trade deal with the USA, etc. They may all agree to shun or ignore “petulant” behaviors (no State Dinner for the Donald). But if we Americans at home don’t get our own act together and find our own way to flatter and praise good behavior more than bad, then the problem child will not get the help we all need to see happen. As always, the first behavior to be modified must begin at home with the adults, not the child. Especially not “a petulant child.”

Okay, your turn. Any reactions, comments, questions?


Trickle-down theology

Some of you are well acquainted with the language of “trickle-down” when used in the context of money and economics. Simply stated, trickle-down economics involves the idea that money in the hands of wealthy individuals is spent in ways that provide jobs to those below as if in a virtual waterfall, where the bigger a river is above the bigger a lake is below. In theory, say, tax cuts and increased profits for the wealthy in any economy will mean more jobs flowing down and growing more wealth for everyone else.

Count me as a skeptic where such a theory is concerned. I’m one of those folks who doubt the rich spend their money when, by nature of their acquired wealth in the first place, they more likely save it to invest in greater profits to come. I’ve seen plenty of wealthy spendthrifts in my day. They know how to save and invest far better than how to spend and consume. The river on top gets dammed up and one ends up with a bigger river on top and what waterfall remains trickles slowly into an evaporating lake beneath.

That’s my view.

I’m equally skeptical when it comes to what may be called “trickle-down politics.” That’s where the centralized powers share authority with those below in efforts to expand the local governance.  I just don’t see that ever happening. In fact, I see that as having cost the Democratic party this past election and a few ones prior.

One of the great ironies of American politics is that the Republican Party espouses trickle-down economics, which does not work, and trickle-up politics, which does. The Democrats work in reverse, and now are victims of their own failed trickle-down politics. The Republicans have built a successful party from the ground up, not from the heavens down.

Okay, and here’s where I’m another skeptic. I doubt that trickle-down theology works either.

Bigger river on top, perhaps, but beneath the dammed up waterfall lies a smaller lake below.

Waiting for God’s Kingdom of Heaven to trickle down to earth may take forever, or so it would seem. The high-powered churches are like institutional dams up top, and they work to enlarge the river above to supply their own energy needs and investment income.  They see the dwindling waterfall beyond, yet they loathe removing the dam for fear they’d run out of their own bigger river on top.

These churches simply don’t get it. Trickle-down theology doesn’t get it. So I’m a skeptic.

God gets it.

God gives us Jesus as an infant born into an impoverished family living in an oppressed region of a foreign occupied land inside an ancient and primitive period of human history. Why?

I believe it is because God understands that trickle-down doesn’t work. Trickle-up does.

Just as God’s mighty oceans form the basis for our weather patterns, causing our clouds to gather and our rains to fall and, yes, our inland rivers to then form and beautiful waterfalls to refill our oceans, so God came to us in the form of Jesus. Out of the ocean of God’s love we find ourselves nurtured not from the kings of this world but from the children of this world who represent God’s Kingdom trickling up. The last shall be first. The least of these represent the Christ who represents God’s oceanic wisdom and love. And the bigger the ocean below, the more rain falls to supply the rivers above and the waterfalls expand in circular success.

Works that way in economics.

Works that way in politics.

And, God knows, it works that way in theology as well. That is where I place my faith. That is the one place where my lengthy skepticism finally goes to die.