When an invasion is not an invasion.

I have been told, “You have a way with words.” It is not always meant as a compliment. I will admit that I have chosen the wrong word on occasion – like the time I described a woman’s engagement ring as “garish” – but I like wordsmithing (which is actually not a word) and the satisfaction of finding new and good words that communicate my thoughts clearly. It’s what writers and preachers do. It’s also why it takes me multiple drafts of a sentence before posting on FaceBook or sending an email.

Finding the perfect word can be challenging because words have literal meanings, but they also have emotional meanings. It’s “denotation” versus “connotation.” I learned that in a 10th grade English class.

The words we choose may denote properly, but may convey an idea or emotion (connote) improperly. For instance, saying a person is “cheap” connotes a very different idea than saying that the person is “frugal” or “economical.” No one wants to be called, “cheap.” It’s negative and reflects poorly on a person’s character. “Economical,” on the other hand suggests wisdom and money management skills. “Garish” can denote “glittering, showy, flashy” (By the way, the ring WAS garish in those terms), but “garish” expresses that the wearer lacks good fashion sense and is tacky.

“Invasion” is a good word. It denotes “an influx or an advance of a large group of people into a place.” It is the word the president and several media outlets have used to characterize the impending arrival of Latin Americans traveling through Mexico toward the U.S. border. Literally, it is a correct use of the word. However, “invasion” connotes militarism and hostile intent. It is a word that stirs up anxiety and fear. Last week, the president sent military troops to the border in preparation for the “invasion,” announcing that a rock thrown at border patrol or troops would be viewed the same as a bullet. Local militia groups – that are not beholden to government policies and military orders – have now begun to arrive at the border to aid the military when the invasion begins.

“Invasion” may be an accurate word in the literal sense, but it is the wrong word for what is happening. When we begin to describe a large group of people that includes hundreds of children under 5 years old as an “invasion,” we dehumanize them and we minimize the circumstances that led them to begin their dangerous trek in the first place. This is not a military force advancing against the U.S. These are refugees escaping the violence of San Pedro Sula—a Honduran city that has held the title of “murder capital of the world” for years. These are not people coming to take jobs away from Americans in search of the “American Dream.” These are families that are simply trying to keep their children alive in the face of the “Honduran Nightmare.”

Because we’ve had the word “invasion” drummed into our heads (and our hearts) for weeks, many people have begun to believe it and have begun to prepare for it. And instead of finding safety, these terrified refugees will arrive during the season of Advent and be met with suspicion and hostility and more terror.

Unless we change our words, we will be no different from the “posses” and gangs they are escaping. Unless we change our words, our response to the “invasion” we fear will become something even worse – something we publicly denounce during the Christmas Season. Our response will be the Slaughter of the Innocents.  Merry Christmas!

Lottery Tickets are printed in Hell.

That’s always been my suspicion.  Now there is growing documentation to prove it. And watching the craziness around the recent record shattering MegaMillions and PowerBall jackpots the past two weeks has confirmed it.

The desire to win more money than you’d ever know how to spend afflicts the people who can least afford it – low-income households of color. In 2017, Americans spent almost $73 billion (BILLION) playing the numbers.  That is $223.04 per man, woman and child in the U.S.  Put that into perspective: We spend more playing the Lottery than we do on movie tickets, video games, books, NFL and Baseball tickets combined!   And according to studies, the poorest third of households buy half of all lottery tickets sold.  Those who can least afford tickets often spend the most–both in real dollars and as a percentage of their income. West Virginia has one of the highest poverty rates in America (17.7%), yet West Virginians spend a whopping $598.47 per person on lottery tickets.  In both Connecticut and Illinois, the poorest zip codes in the state (also home to people of color) account for the most lottery ticket sales.  See how your state compares.

Government-sponsored lotteries are not a means of reducing income and wealth inequality and purchasing a ticket is not–in the words of John Oliver–a contribution to a “charitable foundation” as the State would like us to believe.  I encourage you to watch John Oliver’s 2014 piece in it’s entirety. Yeah, he uses the F-bomb a lot and his statistics are a few years out of date, but he hits the nail on the head again and again on Lottery lies.

Let me speak the truth.  The Lottery is a regressive taxation tool that targets low-income households who already spend a hefty chunk of their resources paying other taxes–retail sales taxes, property taxes (even if they rent), income taxes (at least in Illinois), and excise taxes on gasoline, tobacco products, bottled water and even plastic bags.  Overburdened and desperate, they are encouraged (via slick targeted advertising) to seek financial solvency through luck.  After all, somebody has to win it. Why not you?

Government-sponsored lotteries 1) prey on the hopes and fears of the most vulnerable people, 2) steal their resources while promising them benefits that never materialize, and 3) shift the burden of paying for the social services they need away from those who can afford it and should be paying more.  The rich ultimately win every time the jackpot rolls over and the poor get poorer.

We aren’t being sold lottery tickets; we’re being sold a pack of lies.  It’s not PowerBall; it’s PowerBULL.  The Devil is the father of lies (John 8:44). Those who peddle lies as truth reserve their place in Hell (Revelation 21:8).  It’s time to stop playing their game and start dealing out real justice for the poor.

 

 

 

What gets exposed isn’t pretty.

Less than a month ago, the nation was riveted to the confirmation hearing of Brett Kavanaugh and the sexual assault allegations leveled against him. We listened to Christine Blasey Ford share her story under duress and heard his angry and emotional denials. We collectively struggled with the question: “Who is telling the truth? The woman or the man?”

Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing was eerily parallel to the 1991 confirmation hearing of Clarence Thomas and the accusations against him brought by Anita Hill. Ms. Hill claimed that Thomas—her boss ten years earlier—had sexually harassed her multiple times. He angrily denied it, calling the allegation a “high-tech lynching”. The same question was asked: “Who is telling the truth? The woman or the man?”

In both situations, the men prevailed. Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed and now sits on the Supreme Court. So was Clarence Thomas. But the question, “Who was telling the truth?” still lingers.

The fact that the men—separated by 25+ years—survived their confirmation process in spite of allegations of non-consensual sexual advances reveals that not much has changed despite the #metoo movement. The testimony of men when denying allegations of sexual assault, harassment or abuse of power is still more believable than the testimony of the women who come forward with the allegations. People—both men and women—will still default to protecting the reputations of men while dragging women through the dirt, questioning their motives and morals—especially when political power is at stake.

Why is this? Is it rooted in our justice system and the presumption of innocence? Maybe. But even when multiple women allege the same or similar acts, politically powerful men tend to prevail. Anita Hill had corroborating witnesses—though they were never called to testify. Other women echoed Christine Blasey Ford’s story, but they were never interviewed by the FBI. Having multiple accusations from multiple women made no difference. To answer the question of who we believe and why, we must go deeper than legal due process.

In this situation, the most obvious answer is politics. We believe the people we think will further our own political agenda. And we will publicly shame and humiliate those we perceive as a threat to attaining our goals. The bottom line is that our political goals trump our concern for truth. (The pun was not intended, but it does seem appropriate.) We witnessed the same phenomena when Juanita Brodderick made allegations of a 1978 sexual assault against Bill Clinton. People believed (or disbelieved) her story according to their political alignment. Honestly, we don’t care about the people involved or what happened to them, we only care about the outcome. We will excuse bad—even illegal—behavior if we believe it is in our political interests and we will accuse people of lies—even if they are telling the truth—for the sake of gaining or keeping power. This is true whether a person is conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat. Sadly, it is also true whether a person identifies as a Christian or an atheist.

But there is another answer to the question that is unrelated to politics but must be addressed. We must take an honest look at the foundation of our social order: patriarchy and its metanarrative of male superiority.

Under the assumptions of patriarchy, mens’ words are always more believable, mens’ reputations are always more valuable, mens’ actions are always more justifiable, and mens’ behavior is always more easily excused.  Under the codes of male superiority, men have the right – even the obligation – to dominate and control all those who are inferior to them. When the patriarchal order of male preference is embedded in the culture, boys grow up believing they are entitled to take whatever they perceive to be rightfully theirs—including the bodies of girls—and use them as they see fit.

In addition, patriarchy justifies male sexual aggression as evidence of masculinity. A culture built upon patriarchy implicitly encourages boys and men to act aggressively through sexual harassment, voyeurism and sexual assault, and dismisses the destructive results with winking phrases like “boys will be boys.” It is patriarchal culture that allowed Bill Cosby to drug women for decades to have sex with them, enabled Harvey Weinstein to use his position to lure women into compromising situations, and a gave our current president the freedom to boast that he could do whatever he wanted to a woman with impunity.

One need only to watch the products of our entertainment industry (controlled primarily by men) to see that male sexual aggression is treated lightly, as boys being “goofy” and having “fun”.  For instance, the 1980’s classic romantic comedy, “Sixteen Candles,” depicted the sexual assault of an intoxicated teenage girl as a “funny” rite of passage for a teen male character. Generations of boys have grown up with the message that male sexual aggression proves their manliness and initiating sexual acts—both consensual and non-consensual—is their birthright.

Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas are embedded in – and are products of –  patriarchy and male superiority and the rape culture it spawns. Christine Blasey Ford and Anita Hill, also embedded in the same patriarchal system, understand the rules and their place in the hierarchy. Their stories are not believable—no matter how many corroborating stories are told about the same person. Their motives are suspect—no matter how much proof they have. Their morals are lax—no matter how upright their character and behavior. Patriarchy assumes female inferiority and by extension, female guilt. Women must prove their innocence beyond the shadow of a doubt. And because insistence of innocence only reinforces the assumption of guilt, women have learned to remain silent.

The more the toxic patriarchal metanarrative of male superiority is repeated, the more difficult it is to challenge and change it. Despite the rise of the #metoo movement and recent shifts in our culture that have begun to hold men responsible for inappropriate and unwanted sexual aggression, the foundation of patriarchy and the metanarrative of male superiority remains deeply embedded in our culture. And, unfortunately, it continues to be buttressed by religion—especially Christianity.

The church (led by men) has historically affirmed the metanarrative of male superiority and female inferiority and weakness using the stories of the Bible—especially the stories of creation and the Fall. And in doing so, the church has reinforced the structures and rules of patriarchy and disempowered women—dooming them to a second-class existence under the dominance of men.

For example, on the basis of Genesis 2, the man is created first, the woman second. The woman is created to be a servant to the man. The “created order” affirms female place within God’s hierarchy. Genesis 3 and the story of the entrance of sin into the world continues to affirm male domination and female subservience. Male rule over females is declared to be God’s will (“your husband shall rule over you”) rather than a description of the outworking of sin. And the fact that “the woman was deceived and led the man into wrongdoing” affirms that women by nature lack sound moral and spiritual judgement, and men must always protect themselves (and the integrity of the social order) by taking charge of decision making and leading as the “head” of the household. Because the man’s sin was that he “listened to his wife,” men must always be on guard against becoming a victim of female lies, distortion and cunning by keeping women silent.

The writer of the book Proverbs warns his son to avoid becoming the victim of the “wayward woman” who is out to trap him (Sound familiar?). Samson (the hero of faith who couldn’t seem to keep his penis in his pants) is the victim of the manipulative and duplicitous Delilah, the predator who is out to destroy him (sound familiar?). The story of a power obsessed woman, Jezebel, who leads the nation of Israel into idolatry and sin sounds a warning: Beware of women seeking political power (sound familiar?). While there are stories of godly female leaders sprinkled through the Hebrew Scriptures such as Deborah and Hulda, they are treated as aberrations to the patriarchal norm—as a second best option in the absence of a preferred man.

The problem with the theological doctrine of male superiority that serves as the support structure for patriarchy is that it nullifies the good news of Jesus Christ, who by his acts and teaching restored women to their rightful place as equal partners and co-laborers. For instance, Jesus refused to reprimand Mary for sitting at his feet along side with the other disciples as their equal. The doctrine of male primacy and rule also undermines the good news that through the resurrection of Christ, the curse associated with sin has been reversed and a new creation has begun—a new creation where gender hierarchy is voided (Galatians 3:28) and both sons and daughters prophesy (Acts 2:17), proclaiming the truth.

Ove these weeks, I have wondered how Jesus would answer the question, “Who is telling the truth?”  While it is always presumptive to put words into Jesus’ mouth, I actually don’t believe he would answer the question.  I believe he would ask us questions that reveal the truth about us.

• Why do you prefer political power over the truth?  
• Why do you use (or better, misuse) the Word of God to preserve a patriarchal system that denies women’s voices and women’s pain?  
• Why do you strip women of their God-given dignity and their rightful place as equal partners?  
• Why are you more concerned about your sons being the victims of false accusations than with your daughters being the victims of sexual assault? 

I also believe Jesus would issue a warning:  Unless you renounce your idolatry of patriarchy and the false doctrine of male superiority, you are condemning your sons to repeat the sins of their fathers and condemning your daughters to bear the pain of their mothers.  

God help us.

I process through writing.  I’ve written essays, children’s stories, sermons and poetry.  I’ve published a number of them on my church’s blog and shared them via Facebook.  But this blog is for my personal thoughts on a wide range of topics filtered through my Christian faith.  It is my tongue, fired up with a passion for Christ, justice, life and peace. It is my voice. While the opinions I express may reflect the view of many people within my  congregation, this blog does not express the official positions of Kimball Avenue United Church of Christ and Nuestra Señora De Las Americas Episcopal Church on any topic.

If you choose to follow along, my hope is that you will be challenged to think, to see the world through a new perspective and to open yourself to what the Spirit may reveal.  You may not agree with everything you read, and that is fine.  But since we only grow through dialogue, I hope you will consider the contents, interact with it and respectfully express your thoughts. It is my prayer that, together, we will experience the abundance of life God promises.