Category: ethics

Reflection on the Incarnation

Published by mhelbert on December 18, 2013

The past month and a half has been a time of deep reflection and introspection for me. The Ignatian exercises have taken me on a journey in which I’ve been compelled to visit my humanness in the light of God’s grace and mercy. Some of what I’ve experienced has been in the realm of Darth Vader…the Dark Side. As I’ve sat with Jesus and allowed his gaze to penetrate into the depths of my heart, I have realized my complete identification with the whole of humanity and the world. I am no different than anyone else. I am not exceptional in relationship to any other member of God’s good creation. We are all part of the whole that God called ‘tov me’od’…very good.

As I began to live with my own humanness, which includes all the crap that I’ve done to myself and others, I had a palpable awareness that God was smiling. Far from what I have been taught by people, that God is angered by our shortcomings and failings, I felt complete acceptance. I began to realize that through God’s pitching God’s tent among us in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, God learned first-hand how frail we are. Compassion and empathy grew within God’s heart and God really and truly has become our advocate through Christ. How this all works I haven’t a clue. What I do know is that God is glad to be with us…no matter what.

This morning as I was contemplating the Incarnation, I was directed to consider the world and all of its inhabitants. I thought about the nearly 7.2 billion people who inhabit this planet. We all, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion or any other perceived differences are part of God’s shalom community. We are, in some way, related one to another. So, my thoughts wandered to those who are lonely. (In a world with more than 7 billion people the idea of loneliness boggles my mind.) In that context, we have failed the lonely. I think of the young man whose struggles with his sexuality ultimately cause him to give up and take his own life. We have failed him. The young woman who experiences separation from all, including herself, so that she turns to cutting in order to feel anything. We have failed her. To the other young woman who is afraid of the New Year holiday because she may be alone. We have failed you. I see the bodies of young children being buried because they did not have the necessary food and water to survive. We have failed them. I feel the pain of the homeless people freezing on our city streets. We have failed them. I view the sectarian violence that destroys lives and mars the image of God in each person. We have failed them.

Then, I wonder…does God feel failure, also? Has the reality of the Incarnation allowed God to feel and experience the depths of human depravity and inhumanity? I begin to glimpse a sliver of God’s compassion. I see that God…Emmanuel…feels empathy for/with us. Is there hope, then, that the failure can be turned to triumph? As I reflected on this, I heard that inner voice that I’ve come to identify as the voice of Christ say, “I am forever human. I know the way that we should go. Compassion, love, justice. Always seeking the good and illuminating the bad.” (NOTE: NOT condemning!) “Embracing each person, community and culture as expressions of God’s own image.”

With that, I wish for all of us to experience and celebrate the Incarnation of God at this time of year. I think that the folks who think that there is some sort of war on Christmas need to walk away from that. Rather than shouting, ‘Put Christ back in Christmas,’ I would encourage us all to BE the Christ in Christmas.

2 Comments

Who’s Your Best Friend? Pt. 2

Published by mhelbert on October 14, 2013

This is the second part of a series about the possibility of women and men building ‘best friend’ relationships. As I reflect and write about this topic I find that it continues to morph and grow into something more than a simple yes or no can address. Yes, there will be a part three. And, at this point probably a part four. We’ll see where God takes us.

Last week I began writing about relationships between women and men here. Particularly, on the possibility of them being ‘best’ friends. I stated some of the common objections to these relationships. And, I began to deconstruct some of those objections as having their origins in a particular, privileged male view of sexuality. I pointed out how this view demeans and silences women, as well as reinforces the image of how poor, weak men are bound to be ensnared by the sexual wiles of women. I feel that view of sexuality is pretty much crap talk. I’m not about to go along with any position that unfairly labels women as sluts or gives men a pass on their own, personal faults. What I am going to do today is try to unpack some of the issues regarding cross-sex relationships.

When I was a young boy most of my best friends were other boys. We played in the woods and climbed trees. We raced bicycles and played baseball. We prided ourselves as being true ‘He Man Woman Haters.’ However, I knew who the fastest kid in our class was. And, she could beat any one of us boys in a foot race. When teams for kickball were chosen, I tried to make sure she was on my team. In the classroom I spent more time with the girls because they were smarter than most of my guy friends. It always helped to be on their team during spelling and math contests. Many times outside of class boys and girls played together. (That is, as long as the girls didn’t want to play house. Yuk!) The point is kids know how to be friends with anyone, regardless of gender. But, something happened as we got older. Our bodies began to change. Hormones started messing with us. Parents and other adults started telling us that boys and girls needed to start preparing for marriage. Physical pressure, peer pressure and social pressure built to the point of bursting. I’m surprised anyone survives this! All of the sudden…the innocence is gone. Now, we have to learn a whole new way of relating to one another. The girl who once was one of my best friends has become a sexual object. Not because we chose that path. But, because others defined it for us.

I want to be clear about something before I continue. In this series I’m not addressing casual or professional acquaintances. These relationships are viewed as completely necessary and acceptable by most people. I am writing about the possibility for women and men to have relationships in which their hearts are knit together. In which they become kindred spirits who support and encourage one another. In essence, they are best friends in every sense that implies. However, they remain just friends.

Impossible? I don’t think so. Let’s take time to look at some of the issues.Please note that these are serious issues. Many good people and relationships have been shipwrecked because of them. So, I do not take them lightly. I do, however, want to place them within a context that may, perhaps, shed some light on them and offer hope to people who may feel lost and hopeless.

In my last post I shared a video clip from the movie, “When Harry met Sally.” Billy Crystal’s character said that it was impossible for women and men to be friends because ‘the sex part’ always gets in the way. I think there’s some truth in that statement. Whether it’s always an issue, I’m not sure. I do know that in many cases physical attraction and desire are potential deal breakers. I don’t want to belittle this issue, but I think that we need to understand that ‘the sex part’ is totally natural. As I wrote before, we are sexual beings. However, we tend to obsess over this. Especially, in the purity culture, sexuality is whispered about or it is ignored. This sentiment seems to have its roots in how the early church incorporated the Christian scriptures and Greek philosophy, particularly Plato. That view divides the unseen ultimate concept of things from their physical representation on earth. The physical is always something ‘less than’ the ultimate, non-physical reality. The church began to understand that the spiritual reality, therefore, is something to be sought after. The physical, or the ‘flesh,’ was something to be despised. Spirit=Good; Flesh=Bad. However, the folks who wrote the First Covenant did not seem to view humanity like this. Theirs was a wholistic view of people. It looked more like this: Flesh+Spirit=Soul. This view honors the whole person. We can accept and embrace ourselves as God’s image bearers in God’s Good Creation. I truly believe that grasping this is the first step in freeing ourselves from the prison of shame and false modesty. That freedom is necessary for openness and friendship to be established between women and men. Freedom can be won when a person admits and owns their sexuality. When I confess that, yes, I am attracted to this person, I don’t have to hide it or deny it. I can embrace it. After all, this ‘sexual’ me is part of who I am…who God has formed me to be. By not giving into shame and obsessing over my human nature I don’t empower it. I can simply admit that it’s there and move on. I do not have to gratify it. It took me a long time and some monumental failures to learn this. And, it wasn’t until I realized that one of my best friends is a woman that I began to understand that embracing who I am is one of the greatest safeguards against pursuing ‘the sex part.’

There is another potential hazard that I think is vital to understand. It is, perhaps, even more important than this one. But, you’ll have to wait for part three for that.

How do you feel about your identity as a sexual being? Is it possible to accept and embrace ourselves as whole persons and share that with others?

Leave a Comment

Who’s Your Best Friend? Pt. 1

Published by mhelbert on October 8, 2013

This is part one of a discussion I’ve been considering for quite some time. And, it has been one of the most difficult pieces that I’ve attempted to address. At this point I can only say that there will be at least a part two. Maybe, more. I will publish part two next week.

A couple of months ago I read a post over at Rachel Held Evans’ blog. It was a guest post written by Alise Wright entitled “Not ‘Just’ Friends -Thoughts on cross-sex friendship.” Alise has her own blog here. The piece was a critique of the common assumption that when women and men get together, they cannot possibly be friends because the ‘sex thing’ will always rear its hoary head. I read the post and comments. I chased several links through many other similar posts by other authors. And, I noticed that this topic was addressed mostly from a women’s perspective. Other than a few comments, I did not find any posts written by men about this. While I thought this was a tad odd, I was not surprised. I find that, in a broad generalization, men are somewhat reluctant to discuss matters that touch on ‘cross-sex’ friendships. So, I thought that I would offer some reflections from my very male perspective.

I can only speak to those of us who live in Western culture. For much of the world, gender roles are specifically delineated. For instance, in parts of the Muslim world, women are totally segregated from men. Different clothing and different rules for appearing in public are written into civil law. In these instances the kinds of relationships I want to discuss are simply not possible.

However, in the West we are not subject to such strictures. Overtly, there is an understanding that women and men are equal and, therefore, are able to seek whatever companionship and camaraderie they desire. (Although, covertly there is still a long way to go before ours is a truly egalitarian culture.) But, are we able to simply ‘be friends’?

The embedded clip from the movie “When Harry Met Sally” is actually a pretty accurate assessment of what many people think. In the circle that I’ve been a part of for the last 30 or so years people will swear by this. It’s the gospel. Men and women cannot be trusted to be together outside of state and church sanctioned wedlock. And, to be quite honest, I have experienced the difficulties and consequences of relationships like this. They can be extremely precarious. As I was training for various ministry positions and even at seminary, we were often told that the best rule to protect oneself and one’s reputation was to simply avoid being alone with someone of the opposite sex. (Or, with someone who is the gender that one is attracted to.) This ‘necessary’ precaution would provide a barrier against ‘impurity’ or even the appearance of impropriety. In practice this would mean that pastors and counselors could not meet with these people behind closed doors. Or, at the very least, windows should be installed so that nothing could be hidden from view. Meetings with cross-sex colleagues and coworkers should be avoided. And, never, ever was it appropriate to go to lunch or spend non-official time with them. These rules were put in place to protect individuals from following their inherent ‘lust’ from spilling out and contaminating everyone.

This way of thinking has naturally grown out of what has become known as the ‘purity culture.’ In this culture two characteristics predominate. The first characteristic is that women are Jezebel seductresses who dress and act in ways that are designed to capture men’s imaginations and cause them to stumble and fall. Members of this culture decry the way women dress, particularly in the summer or in warm climates. I heard one church leader say from the pulpit that he hated summer for that very reason. This position not only objectifies women in a negative way, it opens the door for shaming that always demeans and silences women. The second characteristic is not unlike the first. This suggests that men are weak, carnal beasts who cannot control the sexual lusts and desires that the seductress women cause them to have. (Please note, it’s the women who bear the onus of this charge, not the men.) Both of these characteristics diminish people and marginalize them. The scriptures tell the story of humans created in the ‘image of God,’ as eikons who represent God on Earth. Granted, humanity is fallible. We are not far removed from other animals. We are, in a word, sexual beings. But, to reduce us to the two characteristics mentioned above is to caricaturize people. It also tends to cause folks to obsess over the issue of sexuality. Much like telling your child not to eat the cookies, continually telling people that they must avoid any kind of behavior that may smack of impropriety may, in fact, draw them into it. I think that there must be a better way to address cross-sex relationships. A way that not only honors marriage and family, but that allows people to express their love and friendship freely and without all of the baggage of the ‘purity culture.’

In my next post I will share some of my thoughts and reflections about how we may have and enjoy these relationships. I would also like input from readers.

How do you view cross-sex relationships? Do you think that it is even possible to have them and not engage the ‘sex thing’? Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Leave a Comment

Whose Side are You On? No.

Published by mhelbert on September 24, 2013

For anyone who has been awake in the U.S. in recent years, the conflict between conservatives and liberals, right and left, has taken center stage, not only in the political arena, but in economics, religion and anywhere else that people can stand against one another. We have all witnessed the vitriol spewing all over broadcast and social media. And, I suppose that many of us simply cannot identify with everything being claimed and counter-claimed by pundits and so-called ‘experts’ who speak and write with self-proclaimed authority. I know that I can’t. In truth, I cannot align myself with either side in these arguments.

One of the problems is that we have allowed these people to define and shape the discussions. Regardless of the issue, there always seems to be someone willing to stand up and ask, ‘Who’s with me? Who’s against me?’ Immediately the line has been drawn and everyone is expected to stand on one side or the other. Then, we can all snarl and growl at each other. What if we were to say “no, I don’t feel like playing those games? Too many people get hurt.”

I used to play, though. For years I stood on the left of the line. Those were the days when I was a young, naïve idealist. I really thought that the folks of my generation were going to stand up and change the world. We watched as American apartheid was dismantled. We were front row witnesses to the downfall of a president and the end of, what was up until that time, the United States’ most unpopular war. People were being liberated from constructs and systems that had bound women, the poor and people of color for centuries. (Well, at least we thought so.) Then, as I grew older, got a job, married and had children, I heard a voice from the right, ‘red rover, red rover, let Mikie come over.’ And, I did. The idealism of my youth was slowly replaced by pragmatism. The reality of caring for hearth and home turned my gaze inward. It was more important to feed my family than to concern myself with feeding ‘those’ people. Yeah, we dipped our toes into the humanitarian pool by supporting organizations that helped others. But, by sending a check we didn’t need to really think about them.

Then, a funny thing happened, though. My inner idealist woke up. I began to see that the conservative blood that was coursing through my veins carried no nutrients to my soul. The polarizing effect that is inherent in so many of the discussions and decisions that I was party to simply drained me and left me with a conflicted identity. Seriously, I really didn’t know who I was or what I was doing. So, I moved back toward the left. This, too, was not satisfying. What we call liberalism today is empty. It has its roots in the enlightenment of the 18^th and 19^th centuries. At its core is the belief that human reason can lift humanity to higher self-realization and prosperity. Liberalism exalts individuality even as it strives for a sense of communal accountability. The modernist ideal that grew during that period brought about giant leaps in technology, science and medicine. It also was at the foundation of White privilege and Manifest Destiny. These caused unsurpassed damage to indigenous people worldwide and environmental destruction beyond reason. So, no…liberal doesn’t fit me.

I do lean to the left, however. I stand firmly with the 99%. I support LGBT people in their struggle for rights and identity. I think that the Affordable Care Act is a great step forward, albeit, not the final step. Food stamps and other tools that can help people who really need help are good. I also feel that infatuation with the military can only cause harm and hardship. Some people might say, “Yeah, looks like a liberal and smells like a liberal. Gotta be a liberal!” Well, let’s not jump there so quickly. Over at Homebrewed Christianity, Bo Sanders has written some good stuff on the differences between liberals and what has been termed Progressives here and here. While I don’t pretend to fully understand all that Sanders wrote, I do notice that the emphasis appears to be more on the community of believers rather than on the potential of human individualism. For me, then, the concept of a body that has a source outside of human achievement begins to come into focus.

Perhaps the most distinguishable difference, at least for me, is the reality of the transcendent. I embrace the mysteries of faith. Those things that human reason simply cannot grasp, but are real. I believe in miracles. I long for the transformative nature of God’s Holy Spirit. I embrace the relationships between humans and the Good Creation. Relationships that are more than simply utilitarian. We are more than organic mechanisms, yet less than divine. It’s because of this that I must support organizations and policies that are designed lift people out of misery. That’s why I cannot support Western arrogance and militarism. That’s why I give my hand and my heart to those deemed ‘less than’ or ‘other.’ No, I’m neither liberal nor conservative. I’m simply a human being.

Leave a Comment

Therefore, What God has Joined Together…Sometimes Gets Broken

Published by mhelbert on August 2, 2013

“Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.” These words written by the apostle Paul to the folks who followed Jesus in Rome are included in his description of what a community of people who are being transformed from those who live according to the rules of human culture into a spiritual community. These people, he stated, were in actuality part of a single ‘body.’ They were a unified whole in which each part was dependent on the others for their very existence. This is a way of viewing our interdependence with others that has, for the most part, been lost to Western culture. It has been also lost in the one place that one would expect to find it…the Church.

We followers of Jesus have been known for a long time as one of the few groups who shoot their own wounded. When life gets tough and some of us struggle to move, barely able to put one foot in front of the other, we often accuse, shame, and shun that person. I’ve seen this happen in others. And, I’ve experienced it personally.

Please understand that my intention is not to bash anyone. I know these people. I have been these people. They have good hearts and desire more than anything to serve God. But, we all get caught up in a righteous fervor from time-to-time that makes it difficult to get past the letter of the law to the graciousness that God has exampled for us in Jesus.

With that being said, I am going to turn my attention to divorce. I am not going to quote statistics other than to mention that the divorce rate among people who follow Jesus is pretty much the same as those who do not. Some say that anywhere from one third to one half of all marriages end in divorce. Whatever polls are used, that adds up to a lot of hurting people.

How should we respond to this? Should we follow the letter of the Scriptural prescription? Jesus made it very clear that divorce was not God’s intention for people. He is recorded as saying, “Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.” There’s nothing ambiguous about that statement. Divorce is not an option that God desires. Many people in the church read this statement written by Matthew and conclude that divorce is therefore a sin. God said it. I believe it. That settles it. But, what does that look like in real life?

I had a friend many years ago who was in an abusive marriage. At times she feared for her safety. She and her husband went to church leaders for help. Much of what they received in counsel was that the husband needed to learn to love her sacrificially, just as Jesus loves the church. And, the wife had to submit to her husband no matter what. That meant that she was told to stay with him, abuse or no. At one time she became so afraid that she left to find a safe place to stay. She was commanded by the church leaders to return to her husband. Confused, hurt, and shamed she acquiesced and like a good little wife, went back.

After time, however, the fear and tension in that home became too much to bear. She moved out and began divorce proceedings. Shortly after this she received a letter from the church leadership stating that if she and her husband moved forward with a divorce they would be considered to be actively sinning and would no longer be welcome in the church. They did divorce and are now both remarried and seem to be doing very well.

The reason that I used this example is to demonstrate, what I feel, is a pastoral fail. Again, I don’t intend this to be a personal attack on any particular group of people. This kind of Biblicist action takes place in many churches. The thought being that if Jesus has apparently condemned some action or behavior, we must condemn it, also. After all, the Bible is God’s word and we don’t want to go against that.

Ok, well, let’s take a look at how Jesus handled a situation where the letter of the law, God’s word, was called as a witness. In the Gospel according to John there is a story about a woman who was caught in the act of adultery. A group of religious leaders dragged her before Jesus and explained, rightly, that the law demanded that she be stoned to death. After all, Torah was God’s word. Jesus realized that. At no point did he deny that Moses had written that adultery was a capital offense. He could have simply agreed with those men and righteously condemned the woman. But, he did not do that. Instead, he turned the issue into an opportunity to show all of the people that we are all fallible and subject to error. In essence he said, “Let the person who is without sin throw the first stone.” No one came forward. In fact, all of the accusers turned and walked away. In the end, no one was left to condemn her. Jesus, then, said, “I do not condemn you either.” He sent her on her way with an encouragement to stop sinning.

Jesus did not do away with the law. He set it aside in order to pour out compassion on a hurt and confused woman. He reinterpreted the text in the context of real life with real people who have real needs. Yes, the Bible is clear on Jesus’ feelings about divorce. We, however, need to recognize that what Jesus said is an ideal. How we apply that must be tempered with compassion. One commentator wrote, “Only an unjustifiable Biblicism will force the idealism of New Testament ethics in a cruel and heartless manner by an adamant insistence upon the teaching of this passage, (Mat.19:3-12), as merely a collection of detailed laws.”

Whatever position on divorce someone takes, we as people who desire to follow Jesus must look closely at the things that Jesus did, not just the words that he spoke. As the quote at the beginning of this post states, we must show empathy, not judgment when our sisters and brothers are hurting. We are, after all, sewn together in a glorious tapestry of humanity. Each joined to the other in the love of God through Jesus.

Leave a Comment

Relationships can be Messy

Published by mhelbert on July 30, 2013

Relationships are stressful. Yeah, Hollywood makes them look all nice and pretty. Two people who are attracted to one another, walking hand in hand along the beach toward the setting sun to live happily ever after. Umm…not in this lifetime. The reality is relationships are messy and complex.

Two people sitting at a table in some bar or café see each other and smile. There’s a song playing that both of them like and they mouth the words together. One of them gets up and introductions are made. Close up, they look into one another’s eyes and a kind smile reinforces the feelings that are growing in intensity. Small chit chat. Maybe a drink or latte. An exchange of contact information. What really seals the deal, however, is if I feel that this person really likes me! Being accepted by another person is the glue that binds the hearts together.

The new couple can’t wait to spend time together. There’s so much to learn about each other. Besides, there are those tingles! You know the ones. They make you giddy with expectation. When you hear her voice butterflies flit around somewhere deep inside. It’s exciting to explore someone’s life. Especially, this person who makes us feel sooo good. We get to know what they like and don’t like. What kinds of foods are good. Music, clothes, theater…all reflecting the personality of that person who is becoming a significant part of our life. We ask each other about home and family. “Where were you born? Do you have any siblings?” We want to know as much about this person as we possibly can. Why? Because we’re genuinely interested. And, we really want them to know that we are interested!

As time goes on, though, some folks find that something’s not quite right. The mutual admiration society that was shared at the beginning becomes a tad deflated. The spots of dirt begin to appear. Disagreements arise over things that at one time enamored us. You know, that quirky little laugh of hers? It grates on us now. She used to love it when you touched her. Now, you feel her tense up and pull away. We begin to feel that we give more than we receive. (At least in our own mind.) Finances become a contentious topic. She actually wants to know your credit rating! Dirty dishes and laundry create frustration and anger. The other person never seems to be ready on time. The bedroom becomes a desert where only a few scorpions and cacti live. Messy.

As stress builds, so does anxiety and fear. Anxiety over the possibility of the relationship’s failure. Fear over being stuck in a bad relationship…for-freakin’-ever! This is when that part of our brain called the amygdala kicks into high gear. The amygdala is an ancient part of the brain that many believe “processes information regarding threats and fear.” It is important in the ‘fight, flee, or freeze’ reaction we experience when some threat or stress is present. (Brian McClaren notes that some experts add a fourth ‘f’ to the list. For them the list is ‘fight, flee, freeze, or…copulate.’) It is here that some relationships are pushed to the breaking point.

What started out so fresh and exciting has become a source of pain and struggle. Acceptance and affirmation have long since gone the way of the dinosaur. Rejection and dismissal have taken their place. In a way, trust has been broken. Disappointment and disillusionment seem to fill every moment; every crack and crevice of our consciousness. Choices need to be made…and quickly.

If one person in the relationship does not share the frustrations of the other, she/he may be able to withstand the pressure and tough it out. However, that will not guarantee that the other person will. There is a chance that the more satisfied partner may encourage some kind of counseling or intervention. Reconciliation may be possible. (Calling in the outside cleaning service to help with the mess.) Even with these measures, there’s a good possibility that the relationship will end. We humans have proven ourselves quite ready and adept at breaking relationships. For many, however, this is the only viable option that can allow each individual to maintain their own integrity as a person. Both reconciliation and separation have their limitations. Neither is perfect.

Another possibility is to stay in the relationship even though there is no longer any real personal connection. This was once encouraged by some conservative religious leaders in cases where children were involved. One such leader stated that staying together for the sake of the children is the only correct and proper action to take. I disagree with him on many levels. Not the least of which is raising children in an unloving, adversarial environment cannot be good.

Still one more option is to start the process all over again…with someone else. This path is taken by those who are afraid to lose their current, seemingly, secure relationship. Or, they truly don’t want to hurt the other person. They feel, however, there is no other way to experience love and acceptance. This is how infidelity begins and lives are destroyed. This is McClaren’s fourth ‘f’. Yeah, there’s the hope of something fresh and new. Excitement over being accepted by another bubbles to the surface. The person may actually believe that the object of their affection feels the same toward them. But, this path goes nowhere. Eventually, the other person is not going to want to play the game and will demand that this new relationship move on to greater commitment. Out of the possibilities stated here, this is the most hurtful and destructive. In its wake are only anger, frustration and shame.

Why has God formed humans in such a way that we struggle with intimate, committed relationships? Why can’t it be easy? Honestly, I have no answer for these questions. And, spoiler alert, no one else does, either. If anyone says that they do they’re either deluded or lying.

There are some things to consider, though. Throughout history there have been conflicts. Two people, or two nations, become dissatisfied with their current relationship. Maybe there is some breach of treaty or other provocation. Some of these conflicts are large, like wars and ethnic violence. Some small, like fights and arguments on the playground. God has revealed God’s self as loving and caring…unconditionally. God displayed that love by wholly identifying with the Good Creation, including humanity, through the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Selflessness. In our messy relationships we have the opportunity to emulate God. The apostle Paul wrote to the folks living in Philippi,

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

We can share in the suffering of Jesus and offer our pride and our desires and, yes, ourselves to the person who has chosen us as a partner to walk through life with. Is this a guarantee that a relationship will be successful? No. In fact, I think that there are some relationships that should have never been established in the first place. These are very likely to fail no matter what the partners try. What this can do, however, is provide perspective for our desires. It can shift the focus away from what I want to what my partner wants. That may be the spark that keeps love’s light shining.

Leave a Comment

People…Commodities to be Sold? Or, God’s Image Bearers.

Published by mhelbert on July 26, 2013

Slavery. What images are evoked by this word? In the U.S., I’m sure that most people think of the Antebellum South in the late 18^th century through 1860. Although African people had been stolen from their homeland and shipped to this country from the early 17^th century, this later period saw the greatest increase in slave trafficking. Advances in technology, most notably the cotton gin, produced a huge demand for labor in the fields. Those in the dominant culture sought whatever means that were available to produce more in order to make more profit. This included buying more slaves.

With the end of the Civil War in the U.S., many people thought that slavery had mercifully come to an end. After all, didn’t President Lincoln issue a proclamation that freed every slave? Apparently, slavery has survived. It seems that not even the federal government can effectively stop people from exploiting others for their own financial gain.

I’m one of those people who have been blissfully ignorant of human trafficking here and around the world. It was not until I was in seminary a few years ago that someone brought this to my attention. A student from Argentina began to talk about it in class. She had a passion to make modern slavery known and to fight to end it. I found out at that time that Ohio ranks near the top of a list of states in human trafficking activity. As I found more reports and stories, I realized that this is a huge problem today. I was outraged and overwhelmed. Yet, I did nothing. Yeah, I applauded the few victories that I heard about. But, I have not joined in the fight. Maybe I’m afraid. More likely, I’m just lazy.

In the last few years there have been more stories about modern slavery. One report from China told how many men had been freed from slave labor at a brick kiln. Another, just yesterday, reported on the sex slave industry operating at truck stops in Ohio. Jamie Wright, a person who blogs about the exploitation of people, wrote two posts this week about a recent trip she and her husband went on to Southeast Asia. They went with an organization called “The Exodus Road” that investigates the sex slave industry and partners with local governments and law enforcement to free the slaves and bring the slavers to justice. Jamie’s posts are linked here and here.

I have been reflecting on all of this. To be sure, I feel paralyzed at the magnitude of the problem. What can I do? What can any of us do?

Awareness. This is the first step. We can become aware that in this country, this state, and maybe in this community there are people who are being exploited in order to keep someone’s wallet fat. We can educate ourselves to know what to look for that would indicate that a person is a victim. We can join with others who are already fighting against this heinous crime.

There is another thing, however. In order for traffickers and those who support them to exploit their victims they necessarily must dehumanize them. They must see these poor, marginalized people as commodities to be traded and sold. The pimps and the johns who buy from them see only dollars, not real human people. The farmers, fishermen and other industrialists who use these people as human resources to gain profit see only necessary machinery that is needed to achieve their financial ends. Even in legitimate businesses employees are considered human resources. Just another piece of the business plan along with electrical and mechanical resources. Employees are not real people. They can be moved around and dismissed at the whim of the business owners in order to accommodate their economic ends. Even in the church we consider others as sinners…commodities that need to be acquired and assimilated. Ours is a mindset that looks at people as less than God’s image bearers and sees them as disgusting and dirty and ‘less than’ us. Of course, we would never word it like that. But, that is the attitude that flows from many pulpits.

In truth, I don’t see this problem ever being finally extinguished. At least not in this age. But, we can learn to see people as real human beings, not property or ‘resources.’ There is a passage from the Christian bible about a rich man who came to Jesus and asked what he had to do to inherit eternal life. Jesus proceeded to tell him what he must do to live in the realm of God. You see, I think the rich person asked the wrong question. He asked about eternal life. He should have asked, “What must I do to live in the realm of God here and now.” We, too, should ask ourselves that question. Perhaps that answer will allow us to see the goodness and worth of each and every man, woman and child. Perhaps then we can begin to live with and love one another in God’s Good Creation as God desires us to.

Leave a Comment

My Perspective on the World Christian Movement Pt. 2

Published by mhelbert on March 22, 2013

As promised, here is part 2 of my musings on missions.

Randy Woodley, a Cherokee himself, in his book Shalom and the Community of Creation, observed that a large majority of native Americans understand that there is “some sort of primal power in the words of oral tradition.”[1] The transmission of ontological truth was trusted to be passed orally. They heard the words spoken “from the heart” and accepted them as truth. Yet, we in the West find it necessary to dispense with that and teach these people to read. We teach them to read the scripture, that’s good…right? In our arrogance we fail to discern that many of these people view our sacred text with suspicion. The reason? Woodley answers in a response of some native Americans: “We know that the white man translated the Bible and he could have removed things he didn’t want us to hear or he could have added things that are not true.”[2]Hmmm….

What if we had, rather, taken the time to listen to those who lived in the land? In a previous blog I wrote that maybe the Europeans were lead by God to visit other lands. But, not to conquer. And, certainly not to force their particular brand of Christianity upon the native population. Rather, what if they were lead to these lands to learn from others, to humbly listen to the stories that the indigenous people had to tell. But, Euro-Americans have a tendency to talk first and listen, well, never. (This, too, is arrogance. To think that what we have to say is more important than what anyone else on the planet has to say.) Had we listened we could have learned about the land and the people, about their special relationship to the cosmos. In dialog we could have then, maybe, shared our story. We could have had an opportunity to see where our different cultures merged and, just maybe, we could have found connecting points that would have allowed the open sharing of the Good News of Jesus Christ. Not to make others change to be like us.

But, to let our story and theirs join as equally viable realities. We could have let go of the need to control the story and let the people of the land take and assimilate it as they felt best.

Now, of course this raises the question of syncretism. And, as I’ve read about missions, this seems to be at the crux of much errant thinking. Let me digress a bit…The two major ancient churches both consider themselves the one true Church. Both the Roman and Orthodox confessions claim to be able to trace their origins back to the Apostles. Both claim to have the only accurate traditions. And, both hold tenaciously to what they perceive to be that one, true, apostolic tradition. All other claims to faith are, at best, considered heterodox. At worst, they are considered heretical. Now, I’m not a math major, but I can see pretty quickly that both cannot be right. And, to add to the confusion, along came the reformers in 16^th century who also claimed to have the only true faith. What I want to point out by this is that we in the West have a long history of trying to prove that we are correct and everyone else is wrong. We have developed an unsustainable dualism that has allowed abuses that would make Hannibal Lecter blush. Now, how would things have looked had we actually built our faith on the teaching of Jesus? We would have been compelled to accept others as created equal to us. We would have had to learn to listen. Yeah, there’s a lot of red text in the gospels, but Jesus really listened to people. How many times did he ask someone, “What would you like me to do for you?” How often did he “look at,” really “look at,” others with respect and compassion? He did not, like we have in the West, simply assume that he knew what the other needed. Even today we assume that we in America know what is best for people in Africa, Asia and Latin America. We do not take the time to listen to what theymight think that they really need.

So, back to the problem of syncretism. Who said that we need to control the Gospel? Who said that ours is the only true expression of Christian faith? No one has. We seem to think that the Church and the Gospel belong to us. Therefore, we have some right to control how the story is told and how it should properly be understood. I think that there is Someone far more qualified to do that than we. Jesus told his disciples that he was going to send a Teacher. This Teacher would be Someone who would walk beside them and show them how to live in God’s new realm. Paul wrote about the work of the Holy Spirit. He wrote that it was the Spirit who provided gifts and direction for the Church. Now, it is true that these gifts are realized as people cooperate with the Spirit. But, it is God the Holy Spirit who is the director. I think that trusting in God trumps our fear of syncretism.

We Euro-Americans would do well to hear what we have actually done to indigenous people with our White, male, hegemonic, arrogant approach. What we have thought of as Good News about redemption in Christ has not had the effect that we may have thought it would. Again, I turn to Randy Woodley:

The gospel, as it has most often been preached to Native Americans, does not promise us restored balance or harmony. Actually, too often, the gospel preached to Native Americans and other indigenous peoples around the world was quite the contrary to good news. We have mostly heard the gospel as “bad news.”

The “bad news” of Jesus Christ requires people to forsake their own ethnic identity for the identity of the dominant culture. The “bad news” of Jesus Christ means trading in shared communal values for economic systems based on greed and the success of the individual over the group. The “bad news” of Jesus Christ requires indigenous peoples to accept their status as those meant to be colonized and to cooperate with their own demise. The “bad news” of Jesus Christ askes us to draw our theology, values, and meaning as people from a culture that wishes to make us self-haters.[3]

What to do? I don’t want to come across as having the answer. I don’t. No one person, or group of people does. However, a good place to begin searching for one would be to humble ourselves before Yahweh and pray for forgiveness. Forgiveness for our arrogant disregard for the wonderful diversity that Yahweh has built into humanity and the Good Creation. Forgiveness for twisting Yahweh’s Word to fit our own perceptions. Forgiveness for trampling on our sisters and brothers in God’s name. Forgiveness for not listening to the people of the land, thereby trampling on the Good Natural resources that these Others were called by Creator to be stewards of. Richard Twiss said that the Native American community does not need missionaries. It does not need us to just send money. It needs us to join in real relationship as full partners.[4] I think that maybe it’s not too late to repent and embody the love that Jesus Christ, the God who walked among us, revealed is at the heart of God.

[1]Woodly, Randy S., Shalom and the Community of Creation, An Indigenous Vision, William B. Eerdmans,

Grand Rapids, 2012, p. 140.

[2]Woodley, 2012, 141.

[3]Woodley, 2012, 150.

[4]Richard Twiss: Hope For the American Church, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHKtDoKoD80, last accessed Mar. 20, 2013.

Leave a Comment

My Perspective on the World Christian Movement Pt. 1

Published by mhelbert on March 21, 2013

I have been interested in Christian missions, as in cross-cultural missions, since I was a young follower of Christ. I read the books about famous missionaries and went to missions conferences. I listened to stories of selfless heroism and noble sacrifice. Early on, I thought that my part of the task of world evangelization would be to support it from home. I never really saw myself actually ‘in the field.’ At least, not until I went on a short-term trip to Australia. Ok, not a really huge cultural shift from the U.S. to Australia. But, it created a new yearning to be more involved.

I have friends who have gone to the mission field. These folks dedicated their lives to spreading the gospel, as we understood it. They work to establish churches and to help the local population grow in our understanding of the gospel. But, as I have grown and reflected on how we have pursued missions, I’ve been compelled to rethink some things.

Our understanding of missions has been deeply rooted in a Western patristic reading of scripture. It grew out of a desire to spread the good news of forgiveness of sin through faith in God alone. This was coupled with the concept of sola scriptura, which meant that the only way to salvation was a strict adherence to how we understood the scriptures. As missionaries accompanied explorers they went out to conquer the world for Christ. In essence, this was a mandate to spread the gospel by spreading the culture. What this meant for indigenous populations was the end of their way of life. They were taught that, as the late Richard Twiss said, “You can’t be a Christian until you reject your culture and your spirituality and your ceremonies.”[1]And, when the native people would not willingly do that, they were brutally ‘converted.’ Thousands of people were systematically raped and murdered…all in the name of the Church.

I began to ask, ‘why?’ Why would the God that I saw revealed in Jesus desire this kind of wanton destruction of human beings? Did God really desire that nations and people groups become assimilated or destroyed in Christ’s name? Weren’t these the nations and tongues and people that the scripture said would one day bring praise and glory to God? Something just didn’t compute.

What really got me thinking that maybe we were pursuing missions in a manner that may not be in accord with the Jesus Way, was when I wrote a paper on Jim Elliot for a missions class in seminary. Now, I am not going to disparage Elliot and the other men who gave their lives for God. Everything they did was faithful to their understanding of the Gospel and evangelization. What I am questioning is the model that they were given to use. This model, presented here very simply, was to go into a native community and begin to educate the indigenous people. They did this by learning the language of the people, translating the scriptures into that language, then teaching the local people how to read their own language so that they could read the scripture. Ok, it sounds kind of convoluted, and, actually it is. What happens with this model is that the indigenes must adopt a Western approach to education and spirituality. Their own culture and spirituality was, and still is, deemed less important than having a “saving” knowledge of scripture. In a nutshell, as Richard Twiss observed, “You have to chuck all that stuff and just become White.”[2]

Why? What makes our Western understanding of the gospel the be-all and end-all? As I continued to pursue clarity on this, I found that there is more than one way to understand the scriptural text and the Gospel itself. I began to immerse myself in the ‘story’ of the Bible. I recognized that the text that we have has its roots in oral tradition. This tradition employs narrative and poetry and forensics and history and apocryphal stories. The biblical text is NOT a user’s manual of how to get into heaven when you die. It is a love story about Yahweh’s furious love for the cosmos. From Genesis 1 to the end of Revelation, it is God’s story given to humanity so that we can know and relate to the Divine. Story. That word has kept returning to the front of my brain. Story. The telling of events and tales and fables and myth that prick our human hearts. We find God and ourselves in stories. I began to see that my story was not necessarily yours, or anyone else’s story. Or, the story of the Auca, or the Lakota, or the Cherokee, or the Maori. God had given them a different story.

Tomorrow…Part 2

[1]“Invitation to Reconcile Clip”, Richard Twiss, CCDA, September 26 2012,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRtATZkpAJI&feature=player_embedded, last accessed Mar. 20,2013.

[2]“To Live in a Good Way”, Richard Twiss, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PJ0CCCVZNk, last accessed Mar. 20, 2013.

Leave a Comment

I now pronounce you…

Published by mhelbert on January 16, 2013

The past few years there has been much ink spilled with books, essays, blogs, etc. about Godly or biblical marriages. The evangelical tradition that I grew up in is very patriarchal when it comes to marriage relationships. The husband is the ‘head’ of the wife who, in turn, must remain submissive to that headship. After all, Paul made it clear in Ephesians that this was so. For many years I’ve felt that this is simply not accurate. There was something missing when Paul could say something about men, (husbands), being like Christ and women, (wives), being something less. This seemed to ignore the ‘no longer male or female’ texts. It also made singles into second-class citizens. Today at Rachel Held Evans’ blog, she posted a guest essay about this issue. I thought that it was wonderfully thought out and presented. Here is a link:
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/kristen-rosser-marriage-christ-church?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RachelHeldEvans+%28Rachel+Held+Evans+-+Blog%29
Please take time to read and comment there, or here.

Leave a Comment