The USA Will Not Become Socialist, But Wealth Inequality is Real

In a recent article in the USA Today, the point was made that America's youth (the millennials) are innovators and capitalists, but also have a strong social conscience.  They spend their money making corporations rich, and even start their own businesses--but they reward those companies that make society better.  So it looks like the next generation won't be raving, Socialist lunatics, so feel free to not jump off the bridge.  The United States is not going to become a socialist, communist nation, so let's set the panicked hyperbole aside because there is something much more important to talk about. IS THE USA SOCIALIST?

The United States can no more become a Socialist, Communist paradise than I can become the next LeBron James.  It's set in our American DNA.  In the same way that I will never be nearly 7 feet tall and able to physically dominate NBA athletes, the United States will not be able to turn itself into a Socialist nation.  The US is the most individualistic, hyper-capitalistic society in the world.  It has always been this way, and it will always stay this way.  The word "socialism" itself is over-used and used badly and broadly at that.  Sweden is "Socialist."  Germany is "Socialist."  Japan is "Socialist."  They are also all capitalist.  There's always a mix of both socialism and capitalism in a modern, successful economy--the U.S. included. The U.S. Post Office, Medicare, the construction of the freeways and railroads, the power grid and the Homestead Act are examples of when U.S government intervened to make sure things were done and resources distributed fairly, or set up to serve all people using taxpayer money.  Medicare is not left up to Capitalist market forces.  If it were up to true capitalistic market forces, the old in the U.S. get insured in the U.S. even though they should be less insurable because of their age. Somehow, 80 years ago as a society, we decided that this isn't fair.  Both political parties (Democrat and Republican) still want it this way.  Is this Socialism?

One area where the US certainly dabbles in "Socialism" in the broad, sloppy sense is in the high finance industry.  Our tax dollars definitely get distributed to Goldman Sachs to make sure that it continues to exist.  Whether you believe that these banks and investment firms are "too big to fail" is beside the point.  Major corporations receive government subsidies and protection that would be labeled socialist if it were aimed at the common man or lower income regions.  Corporate Welfare is enormous in the United States and very much backed by both parties. States too, are willing to give taxpayer money away to corporations, yet continue to tax the citizens. Is this socialism?

Recently, a story has been floating around the internet about a teacher who wanted to show his students the futility of socialism.  His millennial students believed in some form of wealth distribution, so he started to grade the class cumulatively.  The students had their grades averaged out so that everyone would receive the same grade.  Nobody would receive an "A" and no one would receive an "F."  The first test averaged a "B."  The second test averaged a "D" and the students were upset.  When the third test rolled around, the average was "F."  Of course the students were upset.  The ones that had worked hard suffered low grades, and the ones that didn't work hard had their grades...(sort of) elevated.  The professor seemed quite satisfied that he had proven the idiocy of Socialism to his students.  Well, he would have made a good point...if they were North Koreans.  But since they are American students, he actually did them a disservice by setting the stage incorrectly. It was a false analogy.

Socialism Isn't the Danger. Inequality and Imbalance is:

What is currently happening in the USA is more like this:  A school is filled with some of the top, hardest working students on the planet (time and time again, we see that Americans work longer hours, with less vacation, and have more productivity than just about any nation on earth). Very few of these kids are truly lazy, because they come from a successful neighborhood that has always believed in hard work and has been far more successful than other neighborhoods.  But when these kids get to school, one of the kids is put into a separate classroom than the others.  This lone kid will get the full attention of the teacher, and whether the student learns or not, he is guaranteed an "A+."  The rest of the kids are in a second classroom.  There is a second classroom and the teacher who will lavish his attention on 2 of the 30 students, and those 2 kids will get an "A" because he helps them so much.  For about 23 of the students, they are going to work really, really hard, but will never get above a "C."  Only about 5 students in the class have no pride or concern for their work, because the reality is most people are not hardwired to enjoy being unproductive and a total failure.

In this school system, only a select few even have the potential to get an A or even rarer still, an "A+."  And it is not because of the quality of their work; it is because of privilege.  Somewhere along the line, hard work and studying were no longer rewarded equally.  The class changed its paradigm so that upward grade mobility was no longer as possible.  The teacher's attention belonged only to 2 students.

This has happened in U.S. history before (the Roaring 20's anyone?) and it is happening now.  It is not about Capitalism vs. Socialism.  It is about a deeply Capitalistic society which reaches a tipping point where a super-rich elite class is created to the detriment of the whole country.  The U.S. always changes course and corrects the imbalance when this happens. It does this through government. The Great Depression and World War II brought top tax rates to a high of 99% and 95%.  They were in the high 80's under the Republican Eisenhower.  Even Reagan raised taxes on Capital Gains and raised taxes in 1982 and 1984. So the Patron Saint of Low Taxation Ronald Reagan raised taxes.  So much so, that the business magazine, "Money" (not exactly a Leftist, Socialist, Commie-pinko rag...it's called "Money") wrote:

"Reagan's behavior might not pass muster with those voters today who insist their Congressmen treat every proposed tax increase as poisonous to the republic."

That's an understatement.  Ronald Reagan would have been hung, drawn and quartered by the anti-tax, anti-socialist brigades of today. But U.S. history has never been American's strong-suit.  That is one of the country's strengths and one of it's biggest weaknesses.

The British Magazine The Economist (another Conservative magazine that cares about capitalism...it's called "the Economist") writes about the shorter life-spans of poor Americans being a problem for the wealthy (not just the poor, but the wealthy!):

"One need not be a radical egalitarian to find this picture morally troubling."

Wealth Inequality Should Matter to the Rich

In the same way that hardcore North Korean Socialism is dangerous, destabilizing and soul-erroding, so is hyper-capitalism.  Societies historically fall apart when the rich get too rich and the divide between rich and poor is too great.  This is not a direction any civilization wants to go, for it ushers in its demise.  This is why the United States has always wisely made adjustments to swing back in a more equitable direction when we have reached the point that the Middle Class is no longer upwardly mobile.  A country of extreme rich and poor is dangerous to the wealthy--let alone the poor.

Last week, the crisis in Cyprus illustrated this point.  Like many countries, Cyprus is economically falling apart, and it seized the assets of the rich to survive.  Cyprus as a tax-haven has probably seen its last days.  And there will be others to come making it more difficult for the super rich to store their money because what they are getting away with is untenable.  Many of the rich are Russians happy to not be paying into the new Russia and hoarding their wealth for themselves by living outside of Russia and not paying taxes.  Super capitalist  Mark Faber, (once again, not a commie, pinko socialist, but a very wealthy investment guru) says that this is a growing danger around the world.  The rich (and he doesn't mean you, he means multi-billionaires) are no longer safe:

"The problem is that 92 percent of financial wealth is owned by 5 percent of the population. The majority of people don't own meaningful stock positions and they don't benefit from a rise in the stock market. They are being hurt by a rising cost of living and we all know that the real incomes of median households has been going down for the last few years."

Exactly.  The economy reaches a point where it is like the 2 classrooms I described above.  The wealth becomes so unevenly distributed that it becomes dangerous to all of society.  What people often fail to realize is that Reaganomics and Thatcherism were meant as pragmatic (conservative) corrections in 1980/1981---not as a recipe for all-economics, for all-time.  An inflexible, ideological economic program is against the principles of true conservatism.  Today it's harder to find a true conservative than it is a martian, although they are starting to make a comeback in the U.K.  That is why Reagan and Thatcher would not be welcome amongst "conservatives" today. As much as they reigned in bad economic policies from the 1970's, they would not have advocated extreme ideological economic policies from their own party.  Pragmatism trumps ideology for the true conservative.  Their skepticism about government was matched by a skepticism about ideological solutions.

In my 2008 book "Faith in the Future," I wrote about "the Disappearance of the Third World."  I meant that globalization was creating a new, highly global, educated, and wealthy class of people in most every nation of the world.  No longer would the rich in a country like Russia, Nigeria, or China be laughingstocks compared to the rich in the USA or Europe.  A new superclass was being created.  But as this happens (as in Russia, China, and now in the U.S.), the disparity between rich and poor goes beyond normal boundaries and becomes far too extreme.  (I also discuss the divide between rich and poor in a section entitled "a New Divide Between Rich and Poor," in my book Passport of Faith 2006).

I also pointed out in "Faith in the Future" that the poor are themselves getting richer at a faster rate than at any time in human history.  In underdeveloped and emerging nations, more poor people are being lifted out of poverty than ever before.  This is something I have literally seen with my own two eyes.  A new middle class is emerging globally in countries that did not have a middle class.  But in developed nations like the United States, wages are stagnating and the middle class is shrinking as the underclass grows and the super-elite pull far way from the pack playing on another field entirely.

What Happens Now?

The millennials are showing us what will happen.  In a healthy society (like the United States), a major correction will take place.  Just as there was a swing toward hyper-capitalism in the 1980's which resulted in a new wave of globalization--but, alas,  also with a credit bubble, there will be a swing toward equality over the next 20 years.  The truth is that the era of fast economic growth (1980-2008) did not really happen as it was perceived.  It could not have existed without massive debt and bubbles. So attempts to replicate it in the same way will not work.  More modest and balanced growth is the only course for the future.

In countries like China, the nouveaux riche and the income inequality will eventually get challenged by a revolution from the middle or lower classes, or the rich will abandon the country completely as they take their wealth to places like Australia, The USA, and New Zealand.  The United States has the opportunity to not have such a messy adjustment as some of these other nations.

Morally, all of the world's major religions teach the need for materialism to be tempered and some wealth to be distributed: that is not solely a Marxist idea.  It's possible to desire prosperity and value hard work without turning into a religious Darwinian materialist.  Jesus preaches far more about the dangers of money than he does about the dangers of over-sharing.

The coming re-balance will be slow and painful.  It will take a full generation to enact and not without more economic pain as we climb out of an unsustainable bubble that lasted a full generation, but the United States will come out stronger.  That is why it is time to abandon the extreme rhetoric about socialism.  The real danger that lies before us is not of being hostage to Marxist Socialism (which is far too boring for Americans), but of being slaves to an unrealistic expectation of material wealth at the expense of others.

To see the imbalance, please watch the video based on Michael I. Norton's Harvard Study.

Can Movements be Saved When They are in Decline?

3W's Ken Oldham passes on this article by David Brooks on "How Movements Recover."  It has to do with the Republican Party and the Roman Catholic Church and the way movements in trouble are often divided into "Donatists" and "Augustinians."  The Donatists want to re-purify themselves by isolating themselves from the culture.  The Augustinians want to generate movement again by engaging the world.  Which path is better?  The article suggests the Republicans are held hostage to Donatists while the new Pope Francis is taking the Augustinian approach. What about movements in general?  Usually they run out of steam for a long time.  They live in total denial as long as possible.  Then there is mismanagement and slow disintegration.  There is the disillusionment of former believers in the movement and the demonizing of those who point out the loss of momentum.

Real movements are meant to be a correction, only a moment in time---like the Civil Rights Movement.  When the change is made, it no longer needs to exist.  But "movements" like the  Republican Party, the Catholic Church, and the Church of God want to continue existing even though they've lost momentum.

During the period of decline (or even during any changes or adjustments), there's always a group of people that call the movement back to its roots.  The logic being that if only the things that were done in the past were still being done, then everything would be alright and the movement would still be strong. This is useful in recalling the heritage and distinctive issues that made the movement successful at one time.  But it is then taken a step further:  "If only things were like they were, we would be in a better place."

This is a fantasy.  What made the movement move at one time were certain conditions and variables in place that allowed for momentum and growth.  Those conditions and variables, however, inevitably change over time.  Society changes, laws change, generations change, leadership changes etc.  The change is resisted through denial and staying the course--even as the course proves to be ineffective and the movement declines.

This is followed by a pro-active glorification of the past.  Instead of remembering what America was like before Civil Rights laws were in place (when I would not have been able to drink from the same water-fountain as my own father because I have brown skin), or the corruption and violence of Christendom, or the divisive/hostile spirit in the movement in the past (as was the case in the Church of God)--all that is remembered is the success and the rituals/tactics that led to that success (in that particular time).  An unrealistic view of history is adopted and the hope is to replicate this idealized vision in the future.  LIke I said, it doesn't work.

As the anger sets in that it is not working, there is a demonization of anyone who is not sounding like the "pioneers of the good old days."  Criticisms and adjustments are not allowed:  only propaganda and ideology.  During this phase, the movement gets very dualistic: "You are either in or you are out." Diversity is not welcome.  While once people joined the movement out of inspiration, now they are repelled by the movement's hostility to reality and its ineffectiveness.  Or the movement can just go silent:  Completely unable to define who they are, what they are doing, and why they are relevant.

Some movements need to die because their time is passed (Women's Voting in the USA).  Others need to die because they are destructive (Mao's Cultural Revolution).  And still others could die (and be replaced) or survive and flourish.

What is necessary for new life in the movement, however, is an adjustment to current day realities that still preserves some of the spirit of the movement's original message.  It's not rocket science, but movements are often not led by the right people as they decline.  They don't have the skill-sets to pull of the adjustments needed so their default position is ("let's go back to what I know"). It's the one-trick pony syndrome.   Pope Benedict clearly didn't have the skill-sets or the know-how to look like he was engaging the 21st Century.  He retreated into pomp an circumstance and never looked like he was fully engaged with the world around him.  His red Prada slippers were emblematic of his disconnection and lack of awareness with what people wanted from him as a leader. Pope Francis, however, has done the opposite in his first two weeks.

What movements will run up against is vested interests.  Those with the money and titles often don't want things to change and they can retard growth for a very long time.  They know only one way of operating and if that is discarded, they are lost at sea.  To eventually get out of this, people have to get tired of the complacency and ineffectiveness of the movement (if they still even care--and that's not a given).  A visionary (usually an excellent communicator and a charismatic figure) must arise to show a third way. A way in which the movement can retain some of its core ethos, but yet make it relevant and alluring for current realities. A tipping point has to arise in which there are more people following that leader than idealizing the past or staying complacent or indifferent.  If so, the movement can have a new life--although it will be different than the past, and may not necessarily be as big again.  But hopefully, it is healthy, effective and relevant.

There are no guarantees that movements can recover.  The vast majority don't: especially religious movements.  As I said, movements are usually there to usher in an adjustment and then they fizzle. Their job is done.  But for those movements that have become institutions, it is only through wise, talented leadership that they have a chance at surviving.  It is hard to get there without some form of civil war breaking out as vested interests and old identities and traditions get challenged.  That is always an ugly, but seemingly necessary phase.  Avoiding the conflict phase however, only prolongs the inevitable disintegration.

Time to Laugh: Africa Laughing at You

I continue to watch the rise of Africa very closely.  It's now been about 10 consistent years since Sub-Saharan Africa began to see a sharp upturn in economic growth.  Much of this has come from China's investment in Africa as a way to tap into the abundant natural resources there.  All across the continent, China is doing deals with African governments and bringing in hundreds of thousands of Chinese to work on African soil.  They mine, they create infrastructure, and they pay.  This sounds like classic imperialism--and in some ways, it is a form of colonization. But it also creates opportunity via new roads, for instance. But it is the cell phone, above all else, that is unleashing an entrepreneurial spirit in Africa.  Businesses are able to function better, markets are more accessible, and money is transferred more easily and more securely.  Of course, there will be a great divide between the richest and the poorest, but there is also clearly a middle-class emerging in many African countries.  On my own travels in Africa, the rapid modernization has become very evident.  There will be some derailments in the near term, and Africa has some serious challenges (the challenge of geography and climate will not be going away anytime soon), but in the long term, Africa has an opportunity to set a new , better course.

I love this video because it shows a different Africa--and in a funny way.  I look forward to the day we don't even assume that Africa is only a backward, troubled land.

A Very Great Young Man

I am still in Ireland, but wanted to post this video.  Grandma Sharon told us about this unique Cafe in Albuquerque and I wanted to see the video.  So here it is.  We have a supporting church in Albuquerque that is due for a visit, so I'd love to stop in and visit.  I'll be back to share about our experiences in Ireland in a couple of days.  Thanks for being patient while we take this vacation.  

As I said over on my Facebook page (yes, I do have a personal Facebook page now...as well as a Three Worlds page) and Twitter account (3WCHOG), I'm proud of this young man and proud that the United States is a country where this is possible.

Easter Vacation in Ireland with the Family

Hello friends.  I've been silent for a few days.  That's because I have been on vacation.  On Saturday, Jamie, Marco and I flew from Berlin to Dublin, Ireland for a week of driving across this beautiful country.  In Dublin, we picked up Jamie's mother Sharon, and together we are trekking around this beautiful country.  I cashed in some of my air miles and wanted to take the family someplace that they have never been--and some place that I love.

I first visited Ireland in 1995.  I also visited Northern Ireland more recently.  That first trip to Ireland was very special.  I had an extremely powerful spiritual experience on that journey at the Cliffs of Moher.  Maybe one day I'll tell the story here on the diary.  Suffice to say, the Cliffs of Moher (on the West Coast of Ireland), is a special, spiritual place to me.  It was great to get to show that to Jamie, Marco, and Sharon as they have heard so much about my famous Cliffs of Moher story.

Ireland has changed a lot since I was last here.  Back in 1995, Ireland was pretty much a third world country.  The runt of Europe--backwards and poor.  All of that changed with the boom of the mid-90's, which led to the "Celtic Tiger" era of Ireland, when globalization arrived and the economy and real estate went through the roof.  Then the banking crisis of 2008 hit, and much like Greece, Spain, and Italy---the country and it's infrastructure looks good, but go down deeper and you see that the nation is actually bankrupt and in severe trouble.  More about that later here on the diary.

For now, it's enough to say that we are having a great, very relaxing time, and enjoying spending focused time as a family and with Grandma.  We rented a car and are driving around much of the country visiting a lot of key regions.  Our trip will end up back in Dublin where we picked up our car.  I'll be writing more about the trip here on the diary and including photos.  At the moment, we are in Dingle, Ireland where we just heard live Irish folk music a few minutes ago in a local Irish pub.  We saw the Cliffs of Moher earlier today and head to drive around the Ring of Kerry tomorrow.  More coming soon.

Is Beyonce Peaking? The 12 Year Mark

Since it's my diary, I can write what I want m-kay? Over at my twitter account (3WCHOG), I speculate that Beyonce may be now peaking as a pop-star and that from here it's all downhill.  The former Destiny's Child lead singer has released a new single "Bow Down/I Been On," is truly awful.  Musically it's atrocious and the lyrics are vulgar:  especially for someone who has carved out a pretty good niche as a female artist that is appealing to younger audiences as well as older audiences.

My theory is that the biggest pop stars:  Michael Jackson, Prince, Whitney Houston, Madonna, Mariah Carey--the biggest of the big--only have 12 years of relevancy before they become irrelevant retro-acts.  Great artists can have less (Jimi Hendrix only lasted about 3 years before dying and the Beatles had a good 7 year run before choosing to break up while on top), but no artist can have more than 12 years of being truly relevant. (I'm not talking about their first album to their last album.  I'm talking about their period of relevancy in which they influenced the music scene and set the tone).  12 years. That's my theory.

I'd argue Prince was relevant from 1978 to 1990 (Batman Soundrack).  He still wrote a lot, still a great performer, but not a part of the cultural musical fabric anymore.  It's nostalgia.

Madonna?  1983 to 1992 "Bedtime Stories" produced by BabyFace.  After that, her influence really waned.

Michael Jackson (solo artist) 1979-1991 (Dangerous).  Dangerous was a lousy album, but he still got his airplay even though it sold half as much as "Bad" which sold half as much as "Thriller."  The albums after that nobody remembers and were not on the radio.

U2 (and I say this as a fan) 1987-2000.  That's being generous actually.  They ceased to be the biggest ban in the world, or influential, or trendsetting with "Pop" and the Pop-Mart tour.  "All that You Can't Leave Behind" in 2000 was an album that was completely tanking.  Were it not for the September 11th attacks and their embracing that moment (especially with their song "Walk On," their period of relevancy would have ended in the mid-1990's.

Bruce Springsteen 1975 to 1985 (The Live Album from the Born in the USA Tour).  After that, Tunnel of Love (my favorite album) did poorly.

Some of my favorite artists like The Police or Duran Duran had even shorter lifespans.  Led Zeppelin and the Doors ended tragically before their relevancy ran out.

Some often forgotten people who had excellent but shorter runs were:  Phil Collins, Kool & the Gang, Hall & Oates, The Bee Gees, Abba, and Guns N' Roses.

Perhaps it's that 12 years is a good portion of a generation and after that, there's no way to not become a nostalgia act.  And of course, it's rare that any artist can put together a string of great albums.  The absolute best artists may produce 4 or 5 really great albums in their careers.  But even then, they usually peak pretty severely.

Of course an artist can come back with a great album (Bob Dylan's "Time Out of Mind", Paul Simon's "Graceland," Aerosmith in the late 80's/early 90's, and David Bowie's latest come to mind), but it doesn't make them musically relevant.  They just remind us of their good musicianship and why there were once relevant.

I don't really believe Beyonce writes her own songs.  There's no evidence of that.  She doesn't show the slightest inkling of knowledge about music.  She's got a pretty airy voice compared to Whitney, and her type of R & B is not my thing.  But she is an incredibly hard worker (like a machine) and she built up a great brand---one which was appealing across a pretty big demographic sway.  But it's about time for her star to fade.  She comes off as nice, but she is one of the least interesting personalities out there.

With her new edgier, "R" rated single, she is making a miscalculation that a lot of clean-cut artists make:  they think dirtier will keep them relevant as they age.  But the reality is that millenials prefer the clean cut sound to the darker, negative vibe.  But I'm sure all her producers and writers (especially her husband Jay-Z) are all Gen-Xers and will steer her (like they did Britney) toward a harder edge as she ages.  Beyonce has dabbled in this before, but the new song is over the line, in my opinion, and will cost her.  Janet Jackson made the same mistake--getting more sexual and raunchy.  She lasted from 1987-1997 ("The Velvet Rope" ushering in her demise as a relevant artist.

"There is a season to everything.  A time for hits, a time to play Vegas."

To hear Beyonce's lousy new song.  Here it is.

Greg Wiens: A Seismic Shift Needed

I am currently writing from beautiful Lago di Garda, Italy in the Italian Alps (Dolomites).  I am here to visit the 2 church plants in Italy and speak there.  For the past 2 1/2 weeks, I've been on the road in England, Hungary, and Italy with Greg and Mary Kay Wiens.  Greg is the State Director of the Church of God in Florida and also a founder and leader of Healthy Growing Churches Network (a movement within the Church of God that is bringing revitalization to churches and the movement as a whole). Greg led the 3W Seminar in London on "Why Church plants die and Why they Succeed."  It was excellent.  That was followed by being the speaker at the 2nd "Budapest Lectures" where he gave an expanded presentation on that subject that encompassed a lot of information on what makes churches, ministry team, and pastors healthy.  It was a wealth of information.

Now he is with me helping to take a look/assess the church plants in Italy.

Both Greg and I feel like it is do or die time for the Church of God Movement.  As I wrote in my 3rd book: "Mosaic: A Journey Across the Church of God," either we make some serious re-calibrations within the next 10 years or there won't be much left after that.  What we need is an organizational, missiological, and evangelical overhaul in the church of God movement.

It's been great having a lot of time with Greg over what will end up being a 3 week trip, to process and discuss all of these issues in-depth.  We're both committed to ushering in health and are willing to make the hard decisions to do so.  There is a price to pursuing health and making wise choices.  It's not the default position of old churches or old movements.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  Instead, they lose the desire for health, fight change, and even lose the ability to identify what is healthy and what is not healthy.  The longer an organization or church stays dysfunctional, the more it punishes (and chases off) it's visionaries and reformers.  That leaves even less opportunity for change.  It's a process of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.  The system stays the same:  unthreatened but dying nonetheless.

I'm glad to see that Greg has stayed the course and still has a passion for the Church of God despite the slings and arrows that that inevitably brings.  And I'm glad to see that Greg joins me in not romanticizing the Early Church as the Church of God did/does.  The Early Church was a mess much of the time.  One that was not immune to having to be corrected and even shut down.   Christian organizations and churches (like people) have to change if they are to mature.

I'm very proud of the leaders in the Europe/Middle East region.  Everywhere from London, to Paris, to Berlin, to Budapest, to Russia, to the 3 churches in Italy and beyond---we are seeing churches willing to take some risks and usher in healthy change.  It is absolutely phenomenal to be here right now.  I think Greg was able to see that despite our small size (Europe being the hardest mission-field), our churches are on the cutting edge of thinking out of the box.  It is an exciting time here!

And of course, I can't say enough about our Three Worlds Mission Team which has shown that it is possible to work in unity, free from division and competition, and being committed to empowering others (particularly the young), instead of ourselves, our reputations, and our careers.  They are catalytic people that are making a regional difference.

All of Greg's sessions have been marvelous.  Here is a sample of his thinking from the recent HGC Conference where he shares the need for Seismic Shifts.  Thank you Greg for all you do.

HGC Network Closing Session 2013 from Mike Brookins on Vimeo.

2nd Budapest Lectures Under Way

I'm writing to you today from Budapest, Hungary.  We are in the middle of our 2nd ever "Budapest Lectures" which brings top leaders from the Church of God to Hungary to provide in-depth teaching to the leaders of the churches in Budapest and which is open to the rest of the region.  The first speaker was Rainer Klinner of Germany who did a wonderful job and took the Hungarian leaders into deep subjects.  This week we have Florida State Coordinator and leader of Healthy Growing Churches, Greg Wiens, along with his wife Mary Kay. Last weekend, Greg led a 3W Seminar in London which was superb.  We are discussing "Why Church Plants Succeed or Fail," but the material actually discusses in-depth, what makes a healthy church (and a healthy leader).  This information has been worth its weight in gold.  Both in London and in Budapest, they have greatly enjoyed these very enlightening sessions.  I can hardly wait for tomorrow's sessions.

The Budapest Lectures will take place 4 times a year:  Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall.  I believe we already have the next 4 speakers lined up.  This summer, 3W's Ken Oldham (Egypt) will be teaching.  It is our hope that this will also be our first Budapest Lecture that will include CHOG guests from other countries.  Our desire is to open this up to leaders from throughout the region.  Four times a year, every year, they can choose to join a training session.  It will build up CHOG unity (remember creating inner-connecticity is the 3rd part of our 3W Prism) and it will create opportunities for fellowship, synergy, and education.  We hope to see Budapest CHOG becoming like an airport with people constantly coming in and out to refuel and take off again.

3W's Ken Oldham and Dan Kihm will be helping to lead the development of the Budapest Lectures over the coming years.  And we are grateful to Pastors Peter Kiss and Laszlo Debreceni for being willing to host all of us.

Exciting things happening in Europe/Middle East!

Rhonda Philips and Berlin's Neustart Cafe

We are so proud of the work XZ Berlin's Rhonda Philips has done at Neustart Cafe in Berlin and how she has led many interns through the process of ministering to women caught in sex-trafficking.  Please watch this video and get to learn more about our 3W teammate Rhonda and her passion.

Cafe Neustart from photogenX International on Vimeo.

What's Behind the The Pope's Resignation?

 

NOTE: (This post is not intended to insult the Roman Catholic Church, but to analyze where the church now stands in light of Pope Benedict XVI's Resignation, and what a possible way forward could look like).

The evening that Pope Benedict XVI announced his resignation as the Pontiff, the Bishop of Rome, the head of the Roman Catholic Church--lightening struck St. Peter's Cathedral in Rome.  Is this a coincidence or an ominous sign?  While the Vatican has always been a place of political intrigue and complexity, the Holy See's current situation is not so difficult to figure out:  The church is facing a severe global public relations problem that is spiraling out of control during Pope Benedict's tenure.

WHAT HAPPENED UNDER BENEDICT?

When Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI in 2006, he was following in the footsteps of the most charismatic, global, and popular Pope in the history of the Roman Catholic Church:  John Paul II.  The Polish Pope was electrifying for a number of reasons:

1) After decades of Italian Popes, the Cardinals chose an obscure Cardinal from the Eastern Bloc nation of Poland.

2) John Paul II spoke nine languages fluently and managed to visit nearly 200 countries around the world.  Prior to him, Pope's rarely traveled--and certainly not to that extent.

3) JPII used the power of the Papacy to pressure the Soviet Union and Eastern Nations' Communist regimes.  He is often credited along with Gorbachev and Reagan as being a key to the end of the Cold War.

4) John Paul II was only in his 50's when he became Pope which gave him that title for a whole generation.  Enough time for him to truly take full control of the Vatican and create a full deck of Conservative Cardinals from which future Pope's would be chosen.

There were two things, however, about John Paul II's reign that were often not discussed, but are now looming large.  The first is that it was clear that John Paul II believed a Pope should govern for life.  Despite having numerous health problems beginning in 1992, JPII remained the Pope even as the world saw him age dramatically, hunch over, lose his ability to speak, and even his ability to control saliva from coming out of his mouth in public.  For John Paul II, his physical suffering was a public sign to all that human life was precious and should never be ended prematurely.  The same held true for the Papacy.  You are Pope until you die.  Now Pope Benedict XVI is contradicting that and turning the Papacy into an institutional position in front of being Christ's chosen Priest on Earth.

The second issue that was not fully exposed or discussed under the John Paul II papacy was the extent to which the Vatican had spent literally decades shielding priests around the world from charges of child molestation.  There were scandals in the United States and other countries, but the full extent of the Vatican's involvement was not yet public knowledge.  This was a tidal wave that would not fully break until Ratzinger became Pope.

All cases of child molestation by priests were directed to Joseph Ratzinger's desk from 2001 onwards.  Very little was done.  In fact Ratzinger as Archbishop of Munich had allowed a priest to avoid any legal punishment after raping a number of children.  The priest secretly completed therapy and then went on to molest more children.  It  can be said that Ratzinger was aware of every sex scandal involving child molestation for 4 years prior to becoming Pope and nothing happened.  Actually, something did happen.  The Vatican started a pattern of ignoring legal inquiries from various countries, ignoring protesting Catholics that showed up at events, or even acknowledging a problem.  Upon becoming Pope, Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, began to slowly deal with the situation.  However, by then, it was far too late.  New molestation cases became public from Australia to Holland--and often the details were horrifying.  Schools for the disabled that were run by molesting priests,  the story of Marcial Maciel--the Mexican priest who raised nearly $650 million dollars for the Vatican and was allowed to retire in peace despite raping seminarians, fathering numerous children, and doing drugs' and many other incidents.  Even in his most recent visit to Marcial's home country of Mexico only a few weeks ago, Pope Benedict XVI refused to discuss the issue offending many and continued showing a pattern of denial that is truly global.

When Ratzinger succeeded John Paul II, it was believed that he was chosen because he was deeply conservative, a very close friend and preferred choice of JPII, and finally because he would have a short-tenure.  But even though Benedict has only been Pope for less than 8 years, it's proven to be too long.  In addition to the sex scandals and offending numerous nations, he provoked murderous riots after offending Muslims, lifted the ex-communication of a bishop who denied the Holocaust, and attempted to open the church to Anglicans without conferring with the Archbishop of Canterbury.  Furthermore, it became clear that many of the sexual molestation cases and characters (like Marcial) had been hidden by John Paul II, yet Benedict put his friend John Paul II on the fast-track to Sainthood. Some of this could be mismanagement.  Regardless, the cost has been high.

With the selection of Ratzinger, a German as Pope, there was great hope that this would revive Catholicism in Europe.  It has had the exact opposite effect, however.  Nowhere is that more clear than in Germany where Roman Catholicism is falling completely off the map.  In the span of 15 years, the strongholds of Ireland and Poland have abandoned Roman Catholicism en masse.  Everywhere throughout Europe, the church is embroiled in some scandal, often refusing to be transparent with governments, failing to truly put priests under local law; preferring to deal with scandals in-house.

Most recently, the Pope's own butler exposed many confidential documents to the world in what became known as the Vatileaks scandal.  These documents showed a high level of intrigue and financial corruption occurring within the Vatican's walls, including a failure to cooperate with global money laundering laws.

WHY THE ENABLING?

Why did John Paul II allow so many cases of abuse to take place under his watch?  The generous answer is that as a humble priest from rural Poland who saw and took part in the rescuing of Jews from the Nazis by Catholic priests, he was not able to see priests as being capable of that kind of evil.  For Ratzinger, at least since 2003, there seemed to be a more sincere effort to deal with sexual predators.  But the truth is that both John Paul II and Benedict XVI send contradictory messages.  Committees are named and in-house action is taken, but there is a constant failure of acknowledgment of how horrid these crimes have been.  In fact, there have been attempts by the Vatican to blame the American media for blowing it out of proportion.  Whenever the choice is between vocally speaking up for the victims or for the institution, the Vatican always chooses the institution and people notice.

The trail of these crimes goes back to the 1930's and in this globally interconnected world, it is easy to go on Youtube and watch a documentary about Marcial or see Mea Maxima Culpa on HBO.  Often decaying institutions don't realize how quickly the world can move on without them.  They make adjustments far too late, and they allow weak leaders to govern too long. Ratzinger was known as a theologian and as the "Pope's Rottweiler."  It was his job to keep the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church full of conservative leaders.  He admitted he was not a good organizer.  Now we know for a fact that he is not a good organizer, or communicator, or a good advocate for victims.  The hope has been that small quiet measures would be enough to stop the bleeding. Dying Institutions often make the minimal amount of change  possible in hopes of somehow regaining control without having to completely reform. But those small quiet measures are usually viewed as "institution before people or mission" by the world-at-large.  The failure to admit that a major reformation is needed is only making the church and Benedict XVI lose credibility.

WHY THE RESIGNATION?

The Pope has had 2 serious injuries and a pacemaker put in over the past year or so.  The Vatican, once again,  has not been transparent--this time in regards to the Pope's health.  Some say he is being blackmailed--perhaps by those who want to stop the investigations into sex crimes.  Another possibility is that he realizes that he is simply not up to the job of reform anymore and he does not want to end up like John Paul II; being Pope but yet pretty incapacitated.   One odd thing stands out:  Benedict's desire to retire within the Vatican walls while a new Pope is governing down the hall.  Why is this significant? Because enough hiding of sex crimes can be traced back to Ratzinger/Benedict for him to be tried for Crimes Against Humanity.  He cannot, however, be arrested within the Vatican's walls.

We may never know the full truth of why Benedict resigned.  Or there may be a scandal brewing or a leaked document that will reveal all soon. Regardless, the Roman Catholic Church now faces a moment that will either be a Public Relations Success or a P.R. disaster.  If the new Pope can usher in new reforms and transparency laws, speak candidly about the Vatican's involvement in protecting priests around the world, and make it clear that people (especially innocent children) come before the institution--there is a chance for a re-set.  It won't mean dramatic growth.  It's too late for that.  It will only staunch the bleeding in the West and outside of the West the church will grow in it's own non-Western way.

But if the deeply entrenched powers elect another Vatican insider or another incompetent organizer, the effects will further devastate the church.  The pool of healthy reformers is very small.  Many of the top names under consideration for the Papacy have had their own fights with authorities in their countries as they attempted to protect abusive priests.

When the church seeks self-protection to such an extent that it cannot stand up for an abused child, it quite obviously ceases to reflect Jesus.   Benedict is not the man to lead this church away from this period of dark history.  Can anybody do it, and will they be able to do it from a de-mystified bully pulpit know that Ratzinger has made it clear that the Pope is just a man holding an institutional title that can be resigned from at any time? That remains to be seen. Benedict may have opened Pandora's Box in his effort to get out of his bind.

In a time when Institutional Christianity is on the ropes, how the largest Christian Institution of all handles these next few years will have an impact on all of the Christian world.

WHAT COULD THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH DO?

1) New Bridge Pope:  Do not elect a European or an Italian.  Elect-a-Pope not tainted by scandal.  That rules out the U.S. candidates.  Elect a bridge Pope that paves the way for a future non-Western Pope, but re-calibrate for the Post-Christendom West one more time.  The Cardinal from Canada would be a bridge figure (not European, but from a Post-Christendom Society).

2) Tour Soon but Strategically:  The new Pope should make his first visits those countries that have been hit hardest by scandals: Ireland, Mexico, the United States-to name a few.  There has to be recognition of the massive efforts to cover up church scandal at the cost of silencing and further hurting victims.  There's no need to try to re-enact Pope John Paul II's excessive traveling.  The Pope has now been relegated to an administrative position after Ratzinger's move and that's probably for the best. The new Pope should be seen in public with the survivors of the abuse--as opposed to shielding themselves from the protestors.

3) Sell off unused Catholic Properties:  As the largest property owner in the World, the Catholic Church has many properties that are not used or are under-used as the church is in decline in the West.  Sell these properties off and give them to local charities.  Show that it's not about the money, empire, or Christendom.  This forces the church into re-evangelization mode as opposed to resting on its wealth, laurels and land already "claimed for Catholicism."

4) Announce a major  Human Development Goal:  Like the Gates foundation, the new Pope should mobilize the church to tackle a crucial global problem like bringing pure water to every village around the world.  Show that it's about the mission, not about bringing money back to Rome.

5) Allow Priests to Marry:  It's difficult to not think that the inability for priests to marry has not created a culture of sexual abuse throughout its history.  This would be a radical move, probably unacceptable to the current crew of Conservative Cardinals, but a major shift in a major policy would show that it is a new day.

6) De-Frock Abusive Priests and Allow Law Enforcement to Deal With Them: Most importantly, priests that abuse should be de-frocked and not protected from local authorities.  Change the way this is dealt with and make the new process public.

The Vatican is always a place filled with intrigue and interest groups.  Without a strong, charismatic leader like John Paul II who had the benefit of nearly 30 years of centralizing and aligning things his way, it's unlikely that today's Vatican is very pliable.  The new Pope is probably facing the most divided church in a generation, if not a century.