Skip to content

Author: mhelbert

Equity Act: A Response to Mitt Romney

There is currently a bill in Congress, H.R. 5, that is commonly referred to as the “Equality Act.” This bill is designed to add protections for LGBTQ people to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. It’s description is “To prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes.” I’m not going to dwell on the content of the bill. Y’all can read it yourselves here.
What I am going to write about is the response that many conservative, religious folks are saying about the bill.
Well, actually, I’m not going to discuss so much THEIR responses as much as I am going to respond TO them.
In particular, I am going to single out Sen. Mitt Romney, (R-Utah), for his response.
Like so many others, Romney has seemed to be a voice of sanity among all of the craziness of conservative politics. But, under the veneer of moderation he is still far to the right of moderate.
The Equality Act was introduced into the House last week on the 18th. Later, a spokesperson for Sen. Romney released the following statement:
“Sen. Romney believes that strong religious liberty protections are essential to any legislation on this issue, and since those provisions are absent from this particular bill, he is not able to support it,” said Arielle Mueller, a Romney spokesperson, via email to the Washington Blade in response to an inquiry on the Equality Act.
For several years people have tried to cloak their personal biases and opinions under the mantle of “Sincerely held Religious beliefs.” This is pretty much what Romney said.
People who believe in various religious texts say that those texts prohibit them from agreeing to certain practices or beliefs of others. In this case, they cite a Biblical prohibition of homosexuality and “clear” statement that God created two distinct genders in all species. Ok, I’m not going to address the religious side of this. I could. And, I could present opposing views of the very same texts that they allude to. That’s the nature of Biblical interpretations. That’s what they are; Interpretations.
No, I want to go in a different direction.
I want to talk about what may be referred to as the “accidents of nature.” Or, perhaps, even as Acts of God.
I currently live in a middle-class American suburb. I have a house and a garden. I own a car and have time to write silly blog posts. I wasn’t born into a developing nation where houses are patchworks of whatever materials I can forage. Where such things as running water and sanitation services are non-existent, let alone computer or internet access.
I don’t think that anyone would argue that the above is an accurate account of an Accident of Nature. I had nothing to do with where I was born. Nor, did the individual in that other culture. We both have privileges and lacks in both. For those who like to explain things in terms of Divine Providence, I was Providentially born into the life that I now have.
Now, let me ask you.
Is the fact that some are born left-handed an Accident of Nature?
Of course they are. They had no say in the fact that they have a gift that is divergent with the majority.
How about people who may be born with a cleft palate?
Are these folks somehow responsible for this? Did they choose to be born this way?
Of course not! It’s obvious that somewhere in their development something happened that allowed them to develop this particular trait.
My wife is a nurse. She tells me stories about children who are born with any number of issues. Some have a hole in their heart that needs to be repaired surgically. Others have incomplete bowel development. All of them are what we could call Accidents of Nature.
There is another condition that doesn’t get a lot of press.
It is referred to as Intersexuality. This is a condition where a child is born with two sets of sexual organs. There may also be a difference in chromosome identity with the actual sexual organs present. A child born with female chromosomes who is born with apparent male genitalia would be an example. Some children are even born with both sets of genitalia. Many times at birth, the parents are asked to choose which gender the child should be. What if they make the wrong choice? What if their child with female chromosomes is surgically altered to give them a son?
Even in nature such things may occur.
Recently, I saw a news item about a cardinal that appeared to be half red and half white.
They reported that this was in fact a bird that was two genders!
I don’t share this because it gives credibility to Intersexuality in humans. It doesn’t.
But, it does show quite clearly that Accidents of Nature happen!
Let’s take this discussion a step further.
What if a child’s genetics are clearly male and there biological sex is also physically male. Now, let’s suggest that as this boy grows up his body produces hormones differently from other boys. This is all hypothetical, mind you. And, let’s say that these hormones, that would naturally cause this boy to find the female body attractive, are different. In his case they cause him to find pleasure in the male body. In fact, just as I am attracted to females, his attraction is to males. He desires another male in whom he can confide and grow with; another Person with whom he can bond and love.
That’s not a far-fetched idea.
In fact, for millions, it is the reality of their lives.
I share all of this to make the point that when people talk about LGBTQ issues, they are not talking about religion. There is nothing religious about an Accident of Nature. Unless, of course, you want to call it an Act of God.
No, this entire issue is about Civil Rights. It’s about the unalienable right guaranteed in our founding documents that are granted every citizen.
So, Mr. Romney, in framing the Equality Act in religious terms, you are making a horrible category error that threatens the lives and livelihoods of millions of your fellow citizens.
Many of whom are your co-religionists.
I urge you, and all other Senators to truly engage in these issues and set aside biases and bigotries that hurt rather than heal.

1 Comment

Original Sin?

Ok, I think that I’ve put this off long enough. After all, it was a request from someone I respect. So, I should probably get on with it.
Oh!
What is “That”?
A couple of months ago a friend messaged me and asked what my thoughts are on “Original Sin.”
Yeah, that “That.”
And, I have, indeed, been putting that off.
I have lots of reasons for not wanting to get involved in that discussion. Perhaps the biggest reason is that the doctrine of Original Sin has no importance to me.
Ok, ok! Give me a few minutes and I’ll get to that!
I also don’t like to get involved in theological discussions about Church dogma.
Much of that is because I don’t consider myself a theologian.
I’m a Bible guy; not a theological guy.
As far as I’m concerned, theologians are the religious embodiment of philosophers. They like to sit around and speculate and argue. And, at the bottom of it all is a desire for certainty. They want to know the “Why we are who we are” answers. In the mist and fog of existential reality they look for a solid rock on which they can stand and say, “Hey look! I found the Answer!
It’s just that no one was really asking any question. At least, not “That” question.
Anyone who has read what I’ve written on the here blog thingy should know that I am quite content to live in the paradox. Now and Not Yet; Life and Life to Come. I am as certain of my uncertainty as I am certain that I’m sitting here typing on non-existent paper right now.
So, theology, as such, holds no real interest for me.
Unless…
Any particular doctrine or belief that arises from the world of Theology is blatantly inaccurate, dangerous, or harmful to people.
Then, it becomes an ethical issue that may demand my attention.
As I’ve considered this particular question about Original Sin, I can see where that dogma may meet those criteria.
It is absolutely inaccurate. It is a danger, especially for those who disagree with it. And, it is harmful to people in that it provides a near-to-hand excuse for accepting evil.
What is ‘Original Sin,’ anyway?
Well, it’s a long convoluted way to try and explain why humans have a knack for doing the wrong thing. In the early days of the Church theologians worked hard to try and understand this new thing called Christianity. They pored over the various texts and traditions that were passed down to them from the beginning. This was all an attempt to make sense of the stories that they held to be inspired by God. Now, without going anywhere near the questions of inspiration and inerrancy, let’s just say that the folks in the 4th century considered every word written in what became the Canon of Scripture to be the absolute truth.
Period.
Yeah, they tried various ways to understand the stories and interpret them, including allegory and metaphor. But, the bottom line was that what was written in the sacred text were the very words of God. And, God would not tell fictions.
This particular doctrine had it’s start in some of the so-called Church Fathers. But, it was articulated in its current form by Augustine of Hippo. Augustine had a rather colorful and, some would say, debauched life before he came to faith in Jesus. As he reflected on his own life of excess and license, he began to ask questions like, How is it that people Sin?
Why does Sin seem to infect everyone without exception?
He found an answer to his questions in the Bible.
In Paul’s letter to the Church at Rome is written,

“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12).


What does that mean?
Well, we need to look waaayyyy back to the third chapter of the Book of Genesis for that answer. That is the story of Adam and Eve and the so-called “Forbidden Fruit.”
In that story Adam and Eve were deceived by a serpent. As a result, they ate some fruit from a tree called, “The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.” God had told Adam that was the one tree in all of the Garden of Eden that Adam could NOT eat from.
Having eaten the fruit of the tree, the story says that their eyes were opened and they realized they were naked and yadda, yadda, yadda.
Ok. Augustine and others looked at this story and made some observations.

  1. Before the serpent enticed the Original Humans to disobey God and eat the fruit,
    the world was a pristine paradise.
  2. The Original Humans had Free Will to choose obedience over disobedience.
  3. By eating the fruit the Original Humans willfully disobeyed God.
  4. The result of that disobedience was that Sin and Death entered the world and
    corrupted it.
  5. God was right and just to punish the Original Humans for their disobedience.
  6. Sin and guilt were passed on from one generation to the next so that ALL Humanity is
    born corrupt and guilty because of Adam and Eve’s transgression.
    That’s the crux of it, anyhow.
    I am not going to exegete either Gen. 3 or Rom. 5. That would take this post too far afield for the present.
    What I can say, after all of this, is that it never happened.
    What?
    How do I know?
    For the doctrine of Original Sin to be valid, there MUST have been a couple of Original Humans. At some point in time, God had to have created Ex Nihilo the world and all that it contains. There had to be a Paradisaical Garden that was pristine and without corruption. And, there had to be a talking serpent.
    What we know of the Universe today puts the lie to that story. There were none of the things I listed.
    So, If there were no Original Humans, the concept of Original Sin becomes moot.
    I know that accepting this opens me up to a lot of other questions. Like, if there was no Original Sin, why did Jesus need to die on a cross? Why is there evil and injustice in the world?
    What was the Original Cause to the problems we deal with today?
    All of these questions, and more, I’m sure, beg for Certainty. Humans are uncomfortable with the possibility of paradox. Or worse, no good answer at all.
    Sorry. Can’t help ya.
    Deal with the questions. They don’t require definite answers.
    All they desire is to be asked and to make us think.
Leave a Comment

Gratitude

First, Happy Thanksgiving to all!

Things may look bleak right now in many ways.


Covid-19 is taking lives and livelihoods every day. Friends and family are affected by job loss, income loss, and lives lost. It’s hard to be thankful for anything when these hit us so close to home.

Our culture is severely divided along ideological lines. It’s not just right vs. left or Democrats vs. Republicans. It’s son vs. father, daughter vs. mother. There are many households that are fractured during a season where joy and thanks should be the hallmarks.

Issues that surround the differences in skin color have been cut open and are bleeding in our streets. For many people, particularly white Americans, this has come as a surprise. They had thought that this issue had been settled in the 60s. In fact, racism had just been covered up. It still festered like an untreated infection until the poison came to a head and exploded.

Native Americans remember this day with great sorrow. Many take this day for “reflection and mourning for Lives Taken.” Others celebrate the harvest in order to remember what Thanksgiving is truly about.

Yet, here I am encouraging everyone to embrace Thanksgiving.
Not as the cultural holiday that it has morphed into.
But, so that we may express Gratitude.
It’s easy to sit around a table laden with all sorts of seasonal goodies. We can gorge ourselves on turkey and dressing, pie and cream. Then, sit in our living rooms watching football and feeling content.
Gratitude is not the same as feeling content. Feeling content is more akin to feeling satisfied.
Satisfied in how well I and my family fare so that we can afford this meal with all the trimmings. Satisfied that I can watch a game on my 50″, super HD television while seated in my padded recliner in the warmth of my heated home.
I don’t want to judge anyone. I’m going to do the same thing today. With, maybe, a nap thrown in for good measure.
There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with feeling content.

We must, however, remember that the feelings we have are not truly gratitude.

Perhaps we can be grateful for the resiliency of humankind.
We are stretched almost to breaking by the pressures of the pandemic and the culture and politics and the economy and, and, and….
Yet, we do not break. We find ways, not just to cope, but to overcome. Our lineage still hearkens back to our first forbears, including Lucy. These beings adapted and overcame obstacle that could have caused extinction. There are many examples of hominin species that did not survive. Ours, thankfully, did. Their survival and continued existence through many changes and forms seems to have engrained in us that same will to survive and thrive.
So, thank you Lucy!

We can be thankful for our friends and family. Especially, those of us who are difficult to love. People still put up with us. One or two actually seem to like us! Holy Crap!
So, thank you to all. (You know who you are!)

The food and shelter that so many take for granted are truly reasons to be thankful. Through science and sweat we have surpluses of grain, fruit, meat, and fish. We have technology that allows us to build and maintain housing in cities and suburbs. We are able to pipe water into our homes and, pipe our waste out. Gas, electricity, and telecommunications are things that we take for granted. We should not. These are things that we should be particularly thankful for.
So, thank you to the scientists, engineers, and laborers who make these things possible.

I could go on about specific things that we may be grateful for. But, I don’t want to sit here typing all day. There are turkey and potatoes calling my name!

I do want to say thank you to One more Person.
How can I express my gratitude to the One Who has given more than any other could possibly give?
Call this Person God if you like.
Love and acceptance are difficult for us humans. We find ourselves trying to condition our offering of these to others. “They aren’t like us,” we say. So, whoever ‘they’ are don’t receive those from us. “They talk strange,” or “They worship differently.” These difference seem to give us license to treat them as “Other” or “Less than.”
Yet, a Merciful God did not consider us as “Other.” God did not think of us as “Unworthy” or “Less than.”
God chose to Love us instead.
And, not only us!
God chose to Love the earth and the cosmos and the entire universe.


This should serve us as the Ultimate Example of how we should express our gratitude toward God, our families, and our communities.
And, not only these.

Perhaps during this season of thankfulness and joy we can take a minute to consider how we have benefitted by being a part of the Cosmos.

Thank you, God!

And, thank you for reading this.

Leave a Comment

“I HAVE MY RIGHTS!!!” Said Jesus NEVER!

Bob Mertes
Rest In Peace my Brother

I have to say that I’m pretty pissed off right now.
Yeah, I know that I should be glad that the trump reign of incompetence will soon end.
And, there’s hope that new vaccines will knock down Corona virus.
But, these are very things that piss me off.

Let me explain.
As most of you who read this blog thing regularly know, I fled from the world of Evangelical Christianity. I spent over 30 years within those walls. I was formed by the teaching and fellowship of that tribe. I was glad to consider them my family, my sisters, my brothers…my friends. Many of them I still count as friends and family.
That doesn’t mean that I agree with what they currently stand for or believe.
In fact, I found that I had to run from the bubble that so insulates that world as to suffocate those locked inside. Once outside, I had to “shake the dust off of my shoes” in order to begin a process of cleansing. And, as a witness against that world.

Ok, so I’m out and allowing God the Holy Spirit to build anew in my life.
So, why worry about what once was? Why not simply embrace the present and look forward to a blessed future?

The answer is actually quite simple.

EVANGELICALISM HAS BECOME A THREAT TO OUR HEALTH AND WELL-BEING!

Over the years the Evangelical Church, in particular, the White Evangelical Church has become radically political and conservative. Thanks to such people as Jerry Falwell, Sr., this brand of Christianity climbed into bed with the Republican party. Over time, like a parasite, Evangelicalism gorged itself on the power that they were acquiring in the political arena. Christian nationalism grew and the so-called 7 Mountain movement came into its own. This group seeks to install like-minded Christian leadership into every public area in our society.
Conservative values became Christian values. Single issues like abortion or gay rights became a rallying call that could muster the faithful to elect more cultural conservatives.
Evangelicals and political conservatives began to fear-monger in order to activate their political bases.
“Oh my God! Our culture is being overrun by homosexuals and demonic abortionists! Soon, they will take over the schools and the government! We will lose our power and our voice as ‘Muricans!”
We saw the result of this first hand in 2016 when 81% of White Evangelicals threw their lot in with Donald Trump. EIGHTY-ONE PERCENT!!!
In the 2020 election, 76% still supported the pussy-grabbing, lying, pornstar sleeping, adulterous, thrice married bigot.
Much of that was a reaction to that uppity Black guy, Barak Obama. The nerve of him thinking that he could actually be President of these here United States!
Most, however, was that the power that Evangelicals felt as their savior took the oath of office made them giddy with delight.
They could finally impose their will on the majority of citizens because The Donald would give them whatever they desired.
And, he rewarded their faithful loyalty by doing just that.
Nominees to all of the federal courts were approved conservatives. Three of those to the Supreme Court.
But, that wasn’t all.
Evangelicals are expert at playing the persecution card. If someone doesn’t agree with their particular brand of Christianity they claim that they are being persecuted.
Don’t want to sell to gay people?
“I’m being persecuted because I can’t let my religious bigotry keep ‘those’ people out of my shop!”
The biggest lie that these people tell, however, is costing lives.
There are many large Evangelical churches and organizations who think that the minimal requirements for curbing the current Covid-19 pandemic are an affront to their rights.
When businesses were shutting down because of the spread of Covid, churches were often exempt from those orders.
And, how dare some politician tell ME that I have to wear a mask or social distance!
I have rights, you know.
In particular, there is a church in California pastored by Covidiot John MacArthur. He heads Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California. He spent much of the summer in litigation with state, city, and county officials over his refusal to do anything at all to help stem the spread of the virus. For him, his religious rights trumped the health of the community. I single him out, but there are many, many more church leaders like him across the country.
One of the tacts that MacArthur and his cohort take is to cite scripture for there defiance.
They say that the writer of the Book to the Hebrews has a verse that commands them to gather together. That verse is in chapter 10.
It reads:


“not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing.

[New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. (1995). (Heb 10:25). La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.]


They make the claim that this verse demands that they obey God rather than humans.
They are compelled to gather together because told them “Not to forsake our own assembling together.”
This is what most people refer to as ‘Proof texting.’
People have a belief in something, so they pour over the Scriptures until they find a verse that “Proves” that belief is correct.
(Actually, it only Proves their ignorance.)
Proof texters yank any verse or passage out of its context just so they can say that they have a Biblical basis for their opinion.
In this case, that verse does NOT provide them with the clarity they so desperately desire.
In its context, the writer of this book was trying to encourage people to maintain their faithfulness to God. It seems that some were becoming discouraged. Their old friends and relations had rejected them. They weren’t welcome at the clubs. Some may have been getting a ‘side eye’ from people on the street. And, they had been taught that Jesus, himself, was going to return and vindicate them. That day seemed further and further off. Some had apparently given up and left the fledgling church to return to their own lives. At least there they would be treated with the respect and dignity that they just knew that they deserved.
This was the social context that Hebrews was written to address. If people really want to get an idea of what the writer was getting at, we must look at a couple other things.
First, the previous verse provides a reason for the above encouragement.
It states,


“And let us pay attention to each other for the provoking of love and good works.

[Translation by Gareth Lee Cockerill in, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. Joel B.Green, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 2012, p.464.]”

The writer encouraged the readers to love others and do good works.
How was the best way for these 1st century believers to do that?
By gathering together to encourage one another. He especially called on those who did find themselves discouraged, who may have developed a ‘habit’ of sleeping in on Sunday, to be of good cheer and gather!
Jesus was King and Savior! He sits on a throne next to the Father in the heavenlies!
He will bring his reward for those who remain faithful!
That is what the writer called for.
There is no command in this.
There is no imperative anywhere in this verse.
“Don’t forsake one another. Especially, as you see the Day (of the Lord) approaching.

Are there ways that we can fulfill this writer’s words of encouragement today?
Do these ways absolutely require us to gather together and disregard the health and safety of our sisters and brothers in the faith? Of our families? Of our co-workers and friends? Of our communities?
Yes! There are many ways that we can do this task without the dangers of virus exposure.
But, it seems that the Evangelicals would rather exert their own rights to disregard any so-called government meddling that might cause them a bit of discomfort.
“I Have My Rights,” say the people who claim to follow a Lord and Master about whom it was written,


5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

[New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. (1995). (Php 2:5–8). La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.]

God would NEVER, let me say it again, God Would NEVER require the faithful to do anything that could bring harm and suffering to anyone.
Let that thought sit in your mind and grow roots.
Let the Love that sprouts from those roots grow and bear fruit that may bring blessing, not curse, to us all.

This post is written in loving memory of, Bob Mertes, a dear Brother in Christ who recently walked on after a battle with Covid-19.
Rest in Peace, Bro! We’ll catch ya on the other side!

2 Comments

Part of Something Bigger Than Myself

Last Saturday I had the opportunity to be a delegate to the 204th Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Ohio. Basically, it’s the business meeting for our little corner of the Episcopal universe.

I agreed to be a delegate because I’m really a newbie in this Church. I really want to see how it functions. Since I am kind of a student of the Church and all things Jesusie, my participation allowed me to see how things work in an organization that is supposed to be Christ’s hands and feet in this life.
And, I gotta tell ya, it was everything that I imagined it would be.
The convention was organized according to that Old Man Roberts and his Rules of Order.
Presiding over the affair was the Bishop of our Diocese, the Rt. Rev. Mark Hollingsworth, Jr. He had a gavel and everything!

I had received a booklet that contained everything that I could possibly want to know about what the order of business would be. There were the financial reports and the blurbs with information about all of the folks who were running for the various offices of the Diocese. We got to vote on possible changes to our Constitution and Canons. (That’s Church-speak for the rules that govern how we do, well, pretty much everything.)
And, best of all, we got to do all of this Virtually!
Yes, that’s right! More Zoom meetings!

Ok, in all seriousness, I want to extend my gratitude to the folks who work so hard to make something like this virtual convention happen. Our Diocese contains about 90 different parishes across the Northern half of our state. So kudos to all of you who made this convention happen.
I also want to shout out to Bishop Hollingsworth and the Diocesan staff for all that they do to assist all of these disparate parishes. Our Church is not a monolith. It is comprised of regular people doing regular stuff everyday. We are politically and culturally diverse. We are rural and urban. We are mixed racially and by class. The Church must balance the various needs and desires of all of the people who choose to follow in the footsteps of Jesus with our Episcopal tradition.
As the convention began, we the opportunity to hear a brief address from the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the U.S., the Most Rev. Michael Curry. Some of you may recognize that name. He delivered a message at the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle a while back. As he spoke a smile broke out across my face. In his presence with us, and in his words, I realized how big this Church really is. There are thousands of people who worship with us. I want to emphasize that:
There are thousands of people who Worship With Us.
And, in that moment when I listened to Bishop Curry speak, I realized that I am a part of that!
I’m not an outlier in some strange, self-serving organization with no roots or history.
No!
I am a part of something much bigger than I am.
Something that is alive and breathing.
Something that has deep roots in a tradition that ultimately goes back to the first century and the singular voice of an itinerate, Palestinian Rabbi who said,
“Love God with all your heart, mind, and strength,”
and
“Love your Neighbor as yourself.”

These words still anchor us today in the bedrock of Christian faith that the very first disciples of Jesus passed on to their next generation.
Who passed them on to the next.
Eventually, these words have come to rest in our care.

Through the Church to the Diocese to the Parish these word are now ours to pass on to the next.

I am thankful to the Episcopal Church for her faithfulness in carrying this tradition and proclaiming it to all who would hear.

Leave a Comment

Stop The Presses! Breaking News!

I am currently in the process of updating my Blog Site.
It’s fun experimenting with new themes and appearances.

I am also adding a new page.
It is specific to Bible Stuff. (Hence the name of the page!)
That page will contain some of the things that I’m learning for the St. Barnabas Bible study.
It will also contain my own personal study points and opinions.

Should be Fun!

The Blog, itself, will continue to deal with faith and culture issues.

Let me know what you think of the New Look and Content as I start to roll it out over the next week or so!

1 Comment

Friday Musing_8-14-2020

Indigenous rendering of Battle of Greasy Grass

I’ve often heard folks say, “the writing of history belongs to the victor.”
There are few people who would disagree with that. After all, how many white people in the U.S. were aware of “Juneteenth” before 2020? Does anyone know what the Lakota People call the Battle of the Little Big Horn? (ans.: Battle at the Greasy Grass. You can Google it yourself.)
The inherent danger in the victor producing the main accounts of history, is that there is only One Side accounted for.
We get to see all of the honor and courage of those on the winning side. While, at the same time, the cowardice and shame of the defeated is illuminated.
In every event, whether armed conflict, economic systems, religion, or you insert the name, those whose effectiveness in arms or wealth or prestige are the ones who tell the story.
A case in point are the recent post that I shared on the Civil War. In school we were taught that the war was fought over the issue of slavery. That’s one part of the story. That’s the part of the story that raises the honor of the White government and army so that they are considered “liberators.” The blood shed on the battlefield won a great victory for the benevolent people who had all of the power. See? We’re not all vicious slavers. Not All White People Are Like That!
Yet, while it’s absolutely true that many White Americans had purely altruistic motives, the actual Powers-That-Be were those who controlled the economy. These folks’ sole interest was in expanding their own wealth and influence. Hardly praise-worthy.
But, that’s a part of the story we don’t hear. It places the integrity of the Victors in a negative light. They all want to be known as Lovers of Liberty. Not, the lovers of money that they actually were.
So, that leads me to another saying that has been tossed around by folks.
“Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.”
First, just let me go on record of calling Bullshit on that.
What?
Well, it is!
Again, I would like to throw out the possibility that even this saying is the product of the imagination of the victors.
Of course, they desire that people remember what has gone on before! They, themselves, know all about the circumstances that led to their own acquisition of power and honor. They know all too well about how they had to fight to gain, or retain, the economic and political power they now hold. And, they don’t want their own to forget that struggle. For if they do, they realize that someone else might step into the role that they had and fight for their own power and honor. That would, somehow, diminish them.
The main reason that I call Bullshit on that saying, though, is because it simply isn’t true. History doesn’t repeat. History is literally just part of the continuum of time that has led the World to this point. It only seems repetitive because human nature is always the same. So, we continue to see the same concerns and struggles that have been part of humanity ever since our forebears climbed out of the trees of Africa and built community on the ground. It only seems to repeat because the victors are always fighting the same battles over and over again and recording their victories.
Reality, though, tells a far different story. A story that the victors don’t even realize is alive and well. It is a story that is not only ignored, but in many cases violently subdued.
It is the story that we see embroiling cultures and societies around the globe.
I call it an Affective History.
This is the long, term lived history of people.
An example:
Chattel slavery in the U.S. is a historic fact. It happened during a finite period of time from the first African slaves that were sold in Jamestown 1619 until the 13th amendment to the constitution was ratified in 1865.
What we were never taught in school, and which has only recently appeared on people’s radar, is how almost 250 years of bondage Affected the humanity of African slaves. We heard about Reconstruction, Carpet Baggers and others like them. Most of us probably heard in passing that ex-slaves were promised “40 acres and a mule” upon emancipation. What we didn’t hear was how that promise, like so many others the U.S. government made, never happened. No one ever explained how the Southern states began in 1878 to dismantle Reconstruction and resurrected their power over African Americans through Jim Crow. Yeah, we heard about those things. But, we were never privy to how this Affected those who felt the effects of racial hatred.
The Civil Rights Movement in the 50s and 60s certainly resulted in more legal rights for African Americans. White folks grudgingly gave in to many of the demands of the oppressed. That is until they could find ways to get around them. Jerry Falwell, Sr. is just one example of many who began private schools for whites only in order to exclude people of color. This lasted until 1983 when the Supreme Court upheld IRS rules that removed tax exemptions for those donating to private schools that were segregated by race.
Even that little bit of history, while it appears to put White racism in its place, doesn’t tell how this Magnanimous offering to racial minorities actually Affects those minorities.
I’m sure that if we put our heads together we could add countless examples of how events in history currently Affect people.
Women, Indigenous, African, Hispanic, Jewish, Muslims, and on and on and on.
How have people been Affected by the stories that the victors are privileged to tell?
It’s past time to hear history, and life, as told by these.

Leave a Comment

Liberty for Some?

The year was 1865. The Civil War had just ended at Appomattox. Slavery was officially dead in the U.S. Finally!
Now, came the hard work of Reconstruction. The South was completely destroyed during the war. Not only was it physically bruised and burned, but all of the institutions that had grounded the entire culture had been crushed.
As I look back on that time I can’t help but wonder, how did things after the war turn out like they did? How is it that African Americans are, in so many ways, still in bondage?
The official Reconstruction period lasted a mere 12 years. During that time from 1865 to 1877 Blacks were elected to public office. Ex-slaves became bankers and lawyers and farmers. The future really was beginning to look up.
Then, form 1878 until, well, it’s not really over yet, Jim Crow was born and has lived as a shadow on the land blotting out the sunlight and bring death and hatred in its wake.
What happened that caused the nation to turn its back on those whose backs the country had been built upon?
Last week I mentioned an essay written by Matthew Karp and published in Catalyst. (Except where indicated, all quotes are from Karp’s essay.) In it he provided some insights into how the anti-slavery movement in the North became a political movement that enabled it to gain the power of State that ultimately led to the War.
In order to do that a political party was formed in the middle of the 19th century: The Republican Party. The party was formed in order to end slavery in the U.S. be wresting Washington from the rich landowners from the South. Those landed few were painted as oligarchs who wanted to expand their holdings across the country.
And, in many ways, it appears that they weren’t far from the mark. Frederick Douglass wrote in a memoir about the place where he was held in servitude. It was a large plantation in eastern Maryland. The owner, Col. Edward Lloyd, sat as the royal head of his domain. His holdings included at least 20 outlying farms with all of the necessary masters and overseers for his, according to Douglass, 1,000 slaves. By all accounts, Col. Lloyd was extremely wealthy. There was no law other than that uttered by Lloyd. He was a member of that undisputed aristocracy that ruled over what amounted to a feudal system in America.
These landed few desired nothing more than to retain all that they had and to expand it.
In the North, however, the Industrial Revolution was at full steam. Capitalists were flexing their muscles and gazing about looking for their own ways to expand. In order to do this, though, they needed labor. And, in the North, that was a substantial expense. Workers needed to paid for their efforts. While, south of the Mason-Dixon Live, labor was free.
As I wrote earlier, it seems that aside from a vocal minority, anti-slavery sentiment in the North was not wide spread. Most people simply weren’t affected by it. So, they paid little attention to what happened ‘away down South.’
The Republicans needed a way to get the majority population in the North on board a political program that could sweep away the powerful minority of the South who controlled the government. So, they developed a strategy that would pit Freedom against Slavery.
Karp wrote,

“Above all, Republicans depicted the battle against slavery as a species of class struggle — a social war not simply between slaves and masters, but between the overwhelming majority of Americans and a tiny aristocracy of slave lords who controlled the federal government.”
William Seward described the battle lines succinctly. He “lambasted slaveholders as a ‘privileged class,’ which he later refined into a ‘property class,’ akin to the patricians of Rome and the landlords of Europe.”

By framing the issue this way, the Republicans were able to turn the apathy of many in the North into a political advantage to unite Northern voters behind their party.
Seward stated that the divide was not between North and South, but

“between ‘labor states,’ subject to democratic self-government, and ‘capital states,’ where master-class barons monopolized political and economic power, quashed free speech, and organized all society around ‘the system of capital in slaves.’”

I considered all of these statements and began to see that, while there were many in the North who considered slavery a moral stain of evil on the whole country, many more were simply concerned with the economy and their own well-being. Concern for the welfare of the Black slave was secondary to the security of white labor.
Newspapers at the time captured the prevailing sentiment of many Northerners.

“Southern masters, declared a Cleveland newspaper, ‘enslave the blacks, not because they are black, but because they are laborers — and they contend that the highest civilization demands that the laboring class should be subjected and owned by the ‘higher class.’”

“The election of 1856, argued a Republican editor in Pittsburgh, was ‘not a contest of races, but a contest of institutions.’ It was a fight ‘between the Slave-holding Oligarchy, on one hand, who desire to introduce slave labor and slave institutions into Kansas, and the laboring white people of the country opposed to slavery … who wish to introduce Free Labor.’”

These are things that we were never taught in school. We were told that the North went to war to free the slaves. We heard about abolitionists who risked their lives to rescue enslaved Blacks and conduct them safely into the Promised Land where the Freedom Bell Rang.
No, not really. As with so much in our lives, it all came down to the almighty dollar.
All of this revealed to me the reasons that Reconstruction failed and Jim Crow was allowed to live and breathe in BOTH the South and the North. It explained this quote that is on the wall beneath the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. written by the Great Emancipator himself. In response to an 1862 op-ed written by Horace Greeley, Lincoln wrote,

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

Charles, Mark and Soong-Chan Rah, Unsettling Truths:The Ongoing, Dehumanizing Legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery, IVP, 2019, p.144

Africans stolen from their homeland and dragged across the Middle Passage where they were sold as if they were cattle or hogs; who were bred and traded as chattel; who were beaten and abused; who were broken and despised. They were eventually freed, not for the sake of their personhood nor their standing before God. But, because it appeared to be for Lincoln, a necessary concession and politically expedient.
Is it any wonder that African Americans are still treated as secondary? Greater still, is it any wonder that the African American community is, to this day, a place where hope is dimmed by the lived reality of human beings who live in fear and want? I am beginning to see why these communities erupt in violence. Places where not even their own community members are secure against the frustrations that a life of hopelessness can create. When your people have lived for over 400 years under the yokes of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, and derision how are you supposed to live?
Yet, these people, people who bear the Light and Likeness of God within them, continue to love God and, like Jesus before them, love those who persecute them and treat them like second class citizens.
These questions I’ve held in my heart and mind since I was young. The history that we were taught didn’t add up to the reality that I saw outside of my front door. Matthew Karp’s piece helped to illuminate the dark corners where those questions have laid all these years.
It’s not too late for the U.S. to do the right thing and finally free those who have had a white boot on their necks for far, far too long.

Leave a Comment

A Stroll on the Lake

I don’t usually write much on Sunday. I take that whole day of rest thing pretty seriously. Mostly, just because I need it! I stay pretty busy during the week. So, when Sunday comes along I try to kick back and enjoy it. I find it good for my body and mind.
Today, however, I want to share something simple that came to mind this A.M.
The Gospel lection for today was from the Gospel According to Matthew. The selection was from the story just after Jesus had fed a huge crowd of people with only a few fish and a couple of loaves of bread. It goes:

22 Immediately he made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. 23 And after he had dismissed the crowds, he went up the mountain by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone, 24 but by this time the boat, battered by the waves, was far from the land, for the wind was against them. 25 And early in the morning he came walking toward them on the sea. 26 But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, saying, “It is a ghost!” And they cried out in fear. 27 But immediately Jesus spoke to them and said, “Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.”
28 Peter answered him, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.” 29 He said, “Come.” So Peter got out of the boat, started walking on the water, and came toward Jesus. 30 But when he noticed the strong wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, “Lord, save me!” 31 Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, “You of little faith, why did you doubt?” 32 When they got into the boat, the wind ceased. 33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. (1989). (Mt 14:22–33). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Now, I’ve read this passage and heard preachers talk about it far too many times to recount. They talk about how life is like the storm that Jesus can calm. Some really bad songs have been sung about that. These folks like to talk about how Pete would have been just fine if he had just “kept his eyes on Jesus” rather than allowing himself to be distracted by the wind and waves. There are the classic ones that speak to Pete’s lack of faith. “We must not lose faith like Peter did!” they say.

These are all well and good. There is a whole lot packed into these few verses. And, all of those options for sermon material, and much more, are viable.

There is one thing hidden in there that I had never noticed before. And, like I said, I’ve heard and seen a lot in this passage over the years.
When I was in seminary I had a professor who introduced me to a certain way of reading the Greek text. No, I’m not going to give you a Greek lesson. But, I think this is kind of neat for getting a handle on the above passage. While studying Paul’s Letter to the Church at Rome we came to a verse that is traditionally translated, “Faith in Jesus.” A believer must have faith in Jesus in order to be saved. Simple. All of the old theologians and Bible folks agree on that.
I learned, however, that because of the way Greek works, there is another way to read these texts. This way would render the translation, Faith of Jesus.”
See the difference? In one, Jesus is the Object of our faith. In the other, Jesus is the subject of faith.
Another way to read it would be that we are saved by the “Faithfulness” of Jesus.

When I learned that my eyes lit up! I’m sure that everyone in the class could see that giant light bulb pop on above my head! Suddenly, so much clarity came to me that I just sat there with my teeth in my mouth and my bare face hanging out.

So, this morning as I listened to our Priest’s homily on the above text that light bulb went off again. This time it was an LED, not incandescent.
I saw Peter step out of the boat. I imagine him thinking that if Jesus can do this, so can I. Lo and behold! It worked! He stood on the water!
Then, he lost it and began to sink.
He cried out, “Lord, save me!”

Jesus immediately reached out an caught him. They got into the boat and the weather became calm.

Did ya see what happened there?

Peter lost sight of Jesus and floundered. Jesus reached to him and lifted him up.
Jesus saved him.
This had nothing to do with Pete’s faith in Jesus. I imagine the only thing that Pete was thinking about was not drowning. In total panic mode I doubt that he stopped to think, “Ok, ok…I believe, I believe, I believe!”
No, he was probably think, “Oh My God! I’m gonna die right now!”

Jesus lifted Peter out of the water because Jesus had faith.
Not Pete.
It was the Faith of Jesus that saved Peter that day.
And, it’s that same Faith of Jesus that still saves today.

Leave a Comment

Musing on a Thursday Morning-Slavery Edition

William H. Seward

Since I retired from active employment a few months ago, I have found myself with more time to read, study, and think about a great many things. One topic that has truly taken up residence within a deep crevasse in my mind is Racism. White folks like me usually shy away from this. We don’t like confrontation with a violent and oppressive past that none of us ever experienced. For many of us, our forebears didn’t even emigrate to the U.S. until well after the Civil War had decided the fate of chattel slavery once and for all. How, then, can we be held accountable for any of that foul history that still rises as a stench, like the gases that seep upward from a long ignored landfill, over this land?
For those of you who know me can attest, I am not afraid to ask questions. Nor, am I afraid to confront the answers that I find.
With that in mind, I’m going to share a few thoughts. Take them for what they are, simply my musings.
Recently, there has been a lot of talk about something called systemic racism. For many of us that’s simply stating the obvious. While I don’t endorse everything that was stated in the NYT “1619 Project,” one thing stands out. The United States owes a great deal of its economic wealth and strength to the fact that it enjoyed over 200 years of free labor through the institution of African slavery. There is no doubt about that. We enjoy what we have as a direct result of the economic structures that were erected, particularly during the early 19th century, that have allowed the U.S. to become one of the two most powerful economies that the world has ever known.
So, it’s no wonder that many states in the South fought tooth and nail to preserve that institution.
However, while the institution of chattel slavery was the most publicly voiced reason for the South to challenge the U.S. government. It was not the only one.
To be clear, the South was clearly pissed off that the North was trying to tell them what to do. That’s where the claim that the war was simply about the rights of States to govern their own affairs. Yet, as I read through some of the Articles of Secession from those states, I found one common theme. That theme can best be shown by a quote from Mississippi’s Articles:

“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

Please note how slaves are spoken of in this quote. They are “products” and “material interest.” Nowhere are they considered human beings who share in the inalienable rights of all people. No. They are property and objects over whom white landowners have complete control.
PLEASE NOTE THIS!
From the position of the Southern states the so called “War Between the States” was all about slavery.
That may seem obvious to most of us who took high school history. There were chapters in our books that at least mentioned that slavery was the primary issue that sparked the fire that burned half of the nation.
However, there are other concerns and forces that were in play at the time that we were not taught. These are the kinds of things that the publishers of history books conveniently tend to overlook. (Like how the Indigenous People of the continent were abused and killed and dislocated for the benefit of white expansion. But, that’s a topic for another time.)
I owe much of the insight for the next part of this post to an article written by Dr. Matthew Karp, Ph.D. in the Catalyst titled “The Mass Politics of Antislavery.” Dr. Karp is teacher at Princeton University. His area of study and expertise is the U.S. Civil War era and it’s place in the world of the Nineteenth Century.
Humans really like to simplify things. Keep It Simple Stupid is our mantra for pretty much anything and everything we think or do. Evolution may have helped us in this. I can imagine our ancient ancestors in Africa saying, “Ok. You run straight out there and grab the fruit. Then come straight back. Maybe that tiger won’t eat you.”
Simple; straightforward; easy-peasy.
As with all things, we like to think of complex issues like the Civil War in simple terms.
It was all about slavery.
Dr. Karp presents another take on things, though. A take that we may be able to relate to over 150 years later.
(Note: All quotes are from that article by Dr. Karp in the Catalyst.)
Like so many, many other things, we can be encouraged to Follow the Money.
William Seward, yes THAT Seward, was also a staunch abolitionist. But, his reasons were not all about the human cost of slavery. He seemed to be more concerned about politics and economics. In an 1850 speech he stated,

“So long as slavery shall possess the cotton-fields, the sugar-fields, and the rice-fields of the world,so long will Commerce and Capital yield it toleration and sympathy.”

Linking Northern economic concerns to slavery in the South alone would make doing away with slavery, at best, difficult. We all know how hard it is today to ask people to give up anything in order to benefit the “Other.”
Seward saw the need to build a political consensus that would necessitate the erasure of slavery. He stated how developing that consensus might look and how it could be employed in that same speech,

“Emancipation is a democratic revolution.”

Dr. Karp explained that by

“Likening the struggle against American slavery to the struggle against European aristocracy, Seward argued that any challenge to the power of the slaveholding class must come through mass democratic politics.”

Seward, and others, would need to show that the Economy of Slavery was incompatible with, and hostile to, our American democracy.
As I reflected on this, I began to see how Seward’s attempt to spin the story about slavery was both politically expedient and wise. While slavery had been debated ever since the Continental Congress sat down to consider the future of the American colonies, it had always been pretty much a local issue. There were states, like Massachusetts, where Black folks fleeing the horrors of slavery could go without much fear of being sent back into that dark world of the lash. Other states chose to abide by the Fugitive Slave Act that required runaway slaves be returned to their “rightful owner.” There was a degree of ambivalence among much of the population of the U.S. concerning slavery.
Too many people benefited by the institution of slavery for Emancipation to be a ‘slam-dunk.’
The complexity of the issue was a threat to the very Democracy that was still trying to find its way in the world.
The questions that I have revolve around “How was this a threat?”
And, even if it was a threat, why should I think about that today?
Are there issues from this period of the 19th century that are even relevant in the 21st?
I will chase some of these questions in another post.
Stay tuned!

Leave a Comment