Month: June 2025

My friend, the Rev. Lauren McDonald, recently preached a sermon about the power of story. Facts and reasoned arguments seldom change minds or inspire action—but stories, told well, do. The Bible is full of stories that inform, inspire, and reveal truth. It would be just another storybook if that were all, but it is grounded in a deeper reality—one beyond human comprehension yet revealed through real events we can understand. These stories tell us who we are and who God is. They show how we live in relationship with one another and with God. They have shaped our past, help us navigate the present, and—if we choose—can guide us toward a better future.

Other stories, rooted in imagined realities, promise a better life through the dominance of powerful leaders. They offer dreams they cannot fulfill, inspire hopes that never bear fruit, and fabricate illusions of prosperity built on the suffering of the most vulnerable. The Bible is brutally honest by contrast. It pulls no punches in showing how easily people and nations are led down paths of disappointment and destruction.

We can do the same to ourselves and those around us when we let our lives be ruled by our own desires and devices, heedless of God’s call to a better way.

It’s easy to forget that the Bible is not one book, but a collection. The writings narrate the unveiling of God’s redeeming love—over two thousand years of engagement with the Israelites, and a mere three decades of the Christian era. They describe God’s persistent guidance toward lives of justice, peace, and love—visions difficult for people to live in to.

The culmination of God’s self-revelation comes in the stories of Jesus—his birth, life, teaching, death, and resurrection. In them, he is made known as the Word of God made flesh. His voice is God’s voice. In him are life and truth. There is no higher authority, no alternative way. His is the way of redeeming, reconciling love for all—a love that invites but never coerces.

Yet even as this has been made known to us through real experiences of real people, it does not mean we fully understand it. Peter Gomes reminded us that while the Word may stay the same, our ability to understand it changes. We are shaped by the context in which we live, and that gives rise to two common mistakes. The first is assuming that the way someone understood the gospel a thousand years ago is exactly how we should understand it today. The second is believing that our current understanding is somehow sufficient to judge all that came before.

The biblical stories that revealed God’s word and our hope continue to open new ways of understanding in what it means to follow the way of love—to be disciples of Jesus Christ in our own time and place. We would be foolish to ignore the wisdom of the past or the transforming events of previous generations. But we would be equally foolish to believe we have now discovered, with finality, what it means to love God, self, and neighbor; to build up the kingdom of God in the lives of others; and to know fully what godly justice looks like.

We have much to learn and a long journey ahead. Future generations will judge us just as we have judged those who came before. Even Paul confessed he could only see the full picture “through a glass, darkly.” We are no different.

In the meantime, we are to struggle with the Bible and its stories, drawing inspiration to live more fully into God’s kingdom now. We trust in God’s grace, knowing that our place in the heavenly kingdom awaits. Let us not allow fear of the new to blind us to what God is saying anew. Let us be cautious not to let the demands of daily life cloud our vision. And let us not let complacency keep us from confronting the injustices and deprivations that afflict the least among us.

July 4 is nearly here and it may be time to reflect on some of the conditions that led to our Declaration of Independence.

King George III plays the villain’s role in the Declaration, and rightly so—he served as a symbol of a more complex set of failures. Parliament, the bureaucracy, the mercantile elite, and the Church were among the institutions that failed to recognize the legitimate needs of their fellow citizens in the thirteen colonies. Ordinary people were increasingly aware that they were being treated with disregard bordering on contempt. Interests critical to their survival and prosperity seemed to be nothing more than irrelevancies in the eyes of the English elite. They were not wrong and it helped generate a critical mass of support for independence and revolution.

We were fortunate that colonial leaders were determined the new nation would be a democratic republic in which the voice of the people would always be heard and no king would rule. The Articles of Confederation were the first attempt to create a government of thirteen independent states promising to coordinate and cooperate out of goodwill. It didn’t work. The Constitution was the second try—and it turned out to be a political masterpiece, laying the foundation upon which we’ve continued to build toward the fulfillment of the promise that every person would be secure in life and liberty, with an equitable opportunity for a prosperous life.

There are some similarities between the conditions that resulted in the War of Independence and what many Americans feel they are experiencing today.

The Vietnam and civil rights years deeply challenged public trust in the institutions of American government and society. That breach created fertile ground for a media barrage claiming that ordinary working people are being tyrannized by left-leaning elites. The so-called “heartland”—the last holdout of real Americans—was portrayed as ignored and unheard by liberal coastal elites more interested in radical social policies that gave underserved advantages to minorities at the expense of ordinary people.

Race and gender were at the heart of messages that claimed to promote fairness and justice but proved effective tools for inciting discontent. One could blame the messengers—and they certainly bear responsibility—but their messages hit real nerves: fear, anxiety, and a profound sense of abandonment.

As in the revolutionary era, it seemed the institutions of federal government, big business, and elite universities had failed to hear and heed the voices of this segment of the population. That needs clarification: I believe the institutions did respond—but not in ways that the people I’m calling “heartland Americans” could perceive as hearing them. Congress enacted policies and funded programs to meet real needs, but they did so in ways that made people recipients, not participants, in decisions affecting the most vulnerable parts of their lives. Human dignity erodes when one’s sense of agency is disrespected or ignored.

Big business treats every consumer as a malleable commodity, easily manipulated by appealing to desire. They claim to offer goods and services that improve life—and sometimes they do—but they don’t really care whether they do or not. They only care about the sale. That’s how it feels to many Americans. Millions who work for big corporations are rightfully proud of what they do, but may also carry the nagging suspicion that the corporation cares little for them or for anyone else. A corporation is a legal entity organized to reward investors—it has no personal stake in the well-being of anyone. Whatever morality it expresses depends entirely on the ethics of its senior management, and its terms of operation are set by law.

Elite universities assumed the role of arbiters for what is right and acceptable for the good of America. But their criticism of tradition often came across as condemnation of ordinary people and their ways. A degree from such institutions appeared to be the key to privilege, status, and opportunity—doors that seemed closed to everyone else. Whether true or not, appearance is what counted. And it was the appearance of arrogant contempt.

Let’s be clear: whatever the reality, right-wing media seized every nerve, exaggerated every threat, and demonized everything inconsistent with their definition of “heartland values.” They turned smoldering resentment over real problems into the populist uprising we now know as MAGA. They even promoted talk of a new revolution—not like our own American Revolution, but more like the French one: bloody, brutal, and ending in dictatorship.

So where does that leave us?

Let me suggest four impossible things (and yes, I know the White Queen had five, but I’ll stick to four):

First, and by far the most difficult, is to do everything in a way that affirms the dignity of every human being. Heartland Americans must come to believe that their dignity is fully affirmed—but not greater than anyone else’s. The full dignity of every person is mutually dependent. Rugged individualism must give way to the authenticity of community. No individual can flourish apart from the well-being of the whole.

Second, the federal bureaucracy must be restructured as a leaner, more efficient organization oriented to public service and satisfaction.

Third, the legislative rules governing large corporations must include enforceable standards of accountability—to workers, to customers, and to the communities in which they operate.

Fourth, public community colleges and universities must be adequately funded to provide affordable, accessible education for all, whether that leads to a licensed trade or a Ph.D. is secondary. What matters is that the doors are open.

I had several ideas in mind for a new article when the announcement came that Trump had bombed Iran—and now it’s all I can think about.

My first thought was: I hope he knows what he’s doing. But that seems unlikely, at least in terms of any strategic, consequential, or moral consideration. His lifelong pattern is to treat every action as a transaction in which he must benefit, regardless of the consequences for others. It extends into every part of his life, from business to personal relationships. The good of the other, when mentioned at all, is part of his sales pitch to close a deal.

It’s a pattern that hasn’t always ended well for Trump—and never for those who work for him. It runs parallel with another lifelong habit: avoiding responsibility. He’s honed that skill to perfection. He commits major offenses in public, boasts about them, and calls them virtues.

By now, you’ve read countless accounts and analyses of the bombing. You don’t need mine—but I feel compelled to say something.

Like the mythical weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon remains in doubt. Netanyahu has issued warnings, year after year, that Iran was just weeks away from having one—warnings that began nearly two decades ago. Most military intelligence experts don’t agree with him. I can’t say for sure who’s right. In the old story, the wolf did eventually come, but only after people had stopped listening.

What we’ve seen in the Middle East so far is retribution, visited on the people of Gaza after the massacre at an Israeli music festival. The word justifiable ceased to have any meaning long ago. Now we have tit-for-tat exchanges of missiles and drones between Israel and Iran—no longer war by metaphor, but a contest of mutual death and destruction. Leaders on both sides claim the moral high ground. But, like any war, this one is about egos, power, greed, and self-preservation of the leaders—not the people.

And what about religion? Isn’t that what it’s really about?

No. Religion is a patriotic tool used to stir emotions among the fearful and misinformed.

As a priest in the Episcopal Church, I was especially offended by Trump’s assertion that God blessed the bombing raid—coming from a man whose life and words show no sign of a relationship with God. The Lord our God is not a convenient mascot to be trotted out for public favor.

We are, of course, right to ask God to guide and protect those who serve in the military. We’re told to pray for wisdom among military leaders and policymakers. But to claim God’s blessing for any act of war is blasphemy.

Lincoln said he was less concerned with whether God was on our side than whether we were on God’s—because God is always right. We might remember the ancient Israelites who carried the Ark of the Covenant into battle against the Philistines—only to see it captured. God is not amused at being used as an auxiliary weapon. It is in direct conflict with the teachings and commandments of Jesus Christ, who is the Lord—God made flesh.

What does God require of us? To act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God.
What does God command? To love God above all else, and to love our neighbors—including strangers, aliens, and even those we distrust or dislike—as we love ourselves. We are to live that love as Jesus lived it. The way of the cross is the way of life and peace.

War is never that way. It may be justified, but it is never the way of life and peace.

I know some will argue we had no choice. Iran is a terrorist nation, underwriting violence against innocents across the globe. They were months away from a nuclear weapon, so what were we to do? Were they? Most intelligence agencies aren’t so sure. Only Netanyahu has been sure—for twenty years. Maybe this time he’s right. Who knows?

What I do know is this: Trump destroyed a promising diplomatic path when he tore up the multilateral nuclear agreement with Iran. That agreement aimed to dismantle Iran’s weapons program and open a path back into the community of nations. Now he’s taken another reckless step, the consequences of which are unknown. It might be a brief spasm of violence—but it won’t bring peace.

Peace cannot come until Iran is once again engaged with the world. Will Trump’s actions provoke renewed terror against Americans? Possibly. Will they further erode our credibility as a trustworthy ally? Certainly. America cannot be a reliable partner as long as a 12-year-old delinquent boy is piloting the 79-year-old body of the President.

Not long ago, I wrote a column on making America better and offered a few specific suggestions for how to do that. I suppose this column might be called Making America Better, Part II.

Major news media continue to report on Trump and his policies as if he were giving thoughtful attention to complex issues to determine the best course of action. I don’t understand why they turn a blind eye to the obvious. The public record is long and clear: he has little understanding of complex issues, appears to lack curiosity about them, claims his erratic and wandering statements are tactical moves, and is committed to the reality of whatever fiction is fed to him. He falls asleep when he should be paying attention, slurs his words, and shows energy only when speaking off the cuff about whatever wanders through his mind.

That alone is troubling, but it’s made worse by the utter incompetence of administration appointees—inept in everything except the heavy-handed demolition of government. Their goal is to make room for undemocratic, authoritarian rule that benefits the rich and powerful at the expense of ordinary people—and to call it progress. Particularly galling is the blatant profiteering by the Trump Organization, enriching the family at taxpayer expense and boasting about it as if it were a virtue.

Public outrage—expressed by millions at Hands Off and No Kings rallies—and the growing popularity of commentators willing to confront the administration with hard facts have led to headlines about “anti-Trumpism,” as if being anti-Trump were an end in itself. It isn’t. It’s a movement driven by the angry fear that American democracy is being demolished, the Constitution shredded, the less affluent and marginalized left without rights or resources, and a Gestapo-like police state replacing the rule of law.

But it is also a movement with a better vision for a better America. That vision needs to become the greater focus of its work and messaging.

The better vision is a leaner, more efficient, and more effective bureaucracy—one held accountable for high levels of “customer satisfaction.” It recognizes some parts of government need to be eliminated. It calls for reforming the civil service system to allow for greater managerial flexibility while preserving nonpartisan career paths.

The federal government’s highest priority must be to create policies and programs that foster conditions in which every person can access well-paid employment, decent housing, and adequate food. Think of it as finally fulfilling FDR’s Four Freedoms: freedom from fear, from hunger, of speech, and of religion—not just for some, but for everyone.

The movement also aims to restore the nation’s financial integrity by increasing taxes on the very wealthy, and by reducing or eliminating corporate welfare and tax breaks—reserving federal assistance when it is genuinely needed. The ease with which large corporations and the ultra-rich evade taxes by parking funds offshore must be curtailed. Finally—and perhaps most controversially—we need the world’s best military, but not the world’s largest.

And then there’s Congress. It is an institution so entangled in arcane rules and traditions that it often seems incapable of meaningful action. The obvious solutions are politically uncomfortable. What might be done, day to day? 

Enforce strict rules against gerrymandering. Restore the Voting Rights Act nationwide. Pass legislation to overturn Citizens United, establish campaign time limits, and cap campaign spending. Elect leaders courageous enough to replace obstructive legislative procedures with clear, simple rules. None of it seems politically palatable—but you never know.

Immigration remains a major bugaboo. We’ve made immigrants the toxic enemy of white America and stripped them of their God-given human dignity. It’s a shameful outrage. But perhaps we’ve finally reached the point where we have the will to reform our immigration system with justice, order, and compassion. Of course, we want secure borders—but that doesn’t mean closed ones. Anyone who has tried to navigate the current legal immigration system knows it’s nearly impossible without money and legal counsel. I do not see why we cannot build a reasonably simple and accessible immigration system.

We have already seen the cruel damage an administration can do when it has a clear blueprint—like “Project 2025.” There is every reason to believe that a new administration, armed with a different blueprint, can rebuild rather than demolish. That new plan may run to hundreds of pages, but it must be distilled into a few trusted phrases—words that will offer real, tangible hope for a better life for all people.

Writing about affordable housing when our democracy is crumbling all about us may seem like whistling in the dark. But the lack of affordable housing is one of the reasons why people are so upset and have given opportunity for authoritarian to claim they can solve all our problems. So I am writing about affordable housing today.

Affordable housing has been an interest of mine for most of my adult life. One of my first jobs out of college was with a housing and redevelopment authority in a small Midwestern city. A good deal of my career has been involved in advising smaller communities about comprehensive economic development. I spent a few years dealing with homeless issues in New York City and ten years as a commissioner of a housing authority in a small western city. I am by no means an expert. I am only a Country Parson, but affordable housing has become a campaign issue once again, so I decided to offer a few thoughts on the matter. Take them for what they’re worth.

Affordable housing continues to be an issue candidates promise to address, but governments seldom do much about. It’s difficult to gain momentum toward solutions because governments at every level and different elements of the private sector are able to affect slim portions of the problem. It leads to what can only be called a disorganized build-a-house-without-a-plan, and no one is in charge of the whole project.

The federal government has a few powerful tools at its disposal if funded generously. The so-called Section 8 voucher programs fund local housing authorities to issue vouchers for rental housing to low-income persons. The vouchers are used to pay for housing in the private sector from landlords generally offering low-quality, poorly maintained properties.

A second federal program can be used to make the voucher system work much better. Tax credit financing is a program that allows local housing authorities to raise capital from the private sector to build housing and rent it to voucher holders. Large corporations and other institutions earn tax credits for investing in housing authority projects. It’s a complicated program beyond my ability to describe here, but it gives housing authorities the resources needed to build quality low-income housing managed for the good of the community and tenants. It reduces reliance on slumlords and tends to improve the quality of private sector rental housing.

There are other federal programs, but these two provide the most help for the most people when they are well funded and the money goes to competent, well-managed local housing authorities operating in communities of goodwill.

State governments sometimes have low-income housing funds of their own that can sometimes be yoked to federal programs, which can sometimes work well together. The larger state role is played by uniform statewide building codes. On one hand, they ensure safe, durable construction practices that no one wants to weaken. On the other, they can be inflexible to the point of disallowing less expensive methods and materials of equal or better quality.

Local governments have the largest and most important role to play. Zoning can improve the rental market by permitting mixed commercial and residential areas, mixed single- and multi-family areas, reducing minimum lot sizes, and the footprint of buildings on them. It can streamline permitting to be more helpful and less burdensome. It can require builders to include smaller, more affordable houses amidst others in large developments. It can stop surrendering tax credits to builders who demand them or else. It can enable a creative, bold, well-managed housing authority to use every tool at its disposal to make quality low-income housing available to all who qualify. It can hold landlords accountable for the quality and maintenance of their properties.

Most importantly, local governments can stop the informal segregation of neighborhoods by race and income. Mixed neighborhoods work very well, and some segregation will occur naturally, but the city need not aid and abet it.

What is civil religion? It is a government endorsement of a particular religion that defines how a nation presents itself to the world. It consists of a set of rituals expressing support for certain religious tenets. Belief in or adherence to them is not required, but participation in the rituals is.

Writing in the first century BCE, Marcus Varro wrote that civil religion was an excellent tool for establishing order and control over a population. He considered it one of the virtues of what he called civil theology. Emperors and kings have, over the centuries, set aside any claim to virtue but used civil religion as a cudgel to enforce order and control. It also proved useful as the pretext for engaging in war. Fighting in a god’s name against a god’s enemy can elicit public support when it would not otherwise be given.

The United States has never had that kind of civil religion, partly because it is prohibited by the Constitution. It has had a few hundred years of a de facto national religion in the form of generic Protestant Christianity. It was a religion five miles wide and one inch deep with more variations than one could count. Though not formally a government-endorsed civil religion, it had some of the same effects, including the intolerance of others not Protestant and white.

The era of a de facto national religion ended in the years following the time of the civil rights and anti-Vietnam movements. They raised questions about whether organized religion could be trusted as a legitimate voice of moral authority. It is one reason why church attendance has been declining and those claiming no religious affiliation have been increasing ever since. I am not as unhappy about that as others are. It has stripped away the veil of a well-intended but shallow form of the Christian faith. It has created an opportunity for a deeper, more profound voice of the good news of God in Christ Jesus to be heard.

Authentic Christianity will always challenge civil authority and social norms to be more kind, generous, and just in the way of loving God, loving self, and loving the other no matter who the other is. It gives its singular allegiance to the Lord God Almighty, whom it knows as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and to no other. It is commanded by God to be a tireless agent of healing, reconciliation, and godly justice, with an emphasis on the needs of the poor, the hungry, the oppressed, and the marginalized. It is commanded to speak boldly against every form of injustice and evil. Therefore, it will always be in an uneasy relationship with civil authority.

Saint Augustine helped explain how that works when he made the distinction between the visible and the invisible church. The visible church is the institutional church and its members. The institutional church exists within the framework of civil society and its laws. It is never a comfortable relationship, and the institutional church has sometimes stumbled to subordinate itself to governmental demands at odds with God’s way of love, peace, and justice. The invisible church consists of the people within the institution who remain honorably faithful to Christ Jesus in the best way they can. They are not perfect. They frequently fail. Nevertheless, their ultimate allegiance is to God only.

Civil religion intentionally uses the visible church to suppress the voice of the invisible church. It is wrong. There can be no justification for it. The current movement to make the United States a Christian nation characterized by a generic form of Protestantism subordinate to the social and political values of persons in power is an affront to everything Jesus did and said and died for. It is condemned by his resurrection to glory that revealed him fully as the Word of God made flesh. For Christians, there is no higher authority, and every power on earth must be measured by what he commanded.

note: Dianna has a bad cold so I asked Sam to edit this. I hope he did a decent job. Wine guy typing