The state of Oregon has fewer African Americans than any other state–only 2% of the population.  I’ve often wondered why.  Is it the climate? Is it the distance from the traditional south and family roots? Yesterday, I discovered the real reason. It was by design.  From the beginning, Oregon was intended to settled by white people FOR white people.

In 1844, the provisional government of Oregon Country (as it was known prior to statehood) passed what became known as the “Peter Burnett Lash Law” which expelled all people of color from the region or face up to 39 “lashes”. The law was quickly repealed, but exclusion laws continued to be passed. (On a side note, Peter Burnett became the first elected governor of California in 1849.)

In 1850, under the Oregon Land Donation Act only white settlers were allowed to receive 650 acres of land from the government. Blacks and “Mulattos” were excluded.  In 1851, Jacob Vanderpool, was expelled from the territory after a neighbor reported him for the crime of being black.

When Oregon Country sought statehood in 1859, its state constitution included this: “No free negro or mulatto, not residing in this State at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall ever come, reside, or be within this State, or hold any real estate, or make any contract, or maintain any suit therein; and the Legislative Assembly shall provide by penal laws for the removal by public officers of all such free negroes and mulattoes, and for their effectual exclusion from the State, and for the punishment of persons who shall bring them into the State, or employ or harbor them therein.” It wasn’t removed from the constitution until 1922, ironically the same year that Oregon elected Water Pierce as Governor. Water Pierce was a member of the KKK.

Initially, Oregon ratified the 14th Amendment (recognizing the citizenship of anyone born in the US including former slaves) in 1866, but rescinded it 2 years later. (It was re-ratified in 1973!) The state refused to ratify the 15th Amendment of the US Constitution (giving black men the right to vote). Oregon finally ratified the 15th Amendment in 1959.

From the beginning, Oregon was intended to be a “whites only” state. Racism is at the core of the state’s DNA.  It has always been (and still is) a state that is hostile toward people of color. So much for Oregon progressivism!

Oregon may have some of the most blatant examples, but you can find the same exclusionary policies and practices in just about every state as well as at the national level.  The more I learn about the systemic racism of this nation, it has become more and more difficult for me to say the pledge of allegiance, sing the national anthem (or other patriotic hymn like “God bless America”) or celebrate national holidays.  Our foundational values are antithetical to the values of my faith and my commitment to Christ–where status, ethnicity, gender are moot.  Our policies reflect our sin. Confession is needed. Repentance is required. Otherwise, we will continue to repeat the sins of our fathers.

For more information on Exclusion laws, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_black_exclusion_laws

Swedish teen, 16 year-old Greta Thunberg, stood before the 2019 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland and said, “Our house is on fire!” She spoke to the rich and powerful about the price tag of unfettered growth on the environment and on future generations and the disastrous implications of choosing to nothing in the face of climate change.  She said, “I don’t want your hope. I do not want you to be hopeful.  I want you to panic!  I want you to feel the fear I feel every day…  I want you to act as if the house was on fire, because it is!”

For generations, we have lived under the assumption that “individual freedom” gives a person (or a corporation) the right to do whatever they want irregardless of the impact of their actions.  Our founding fathers held the “inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as essential to the success of the American experiment.  American individualism at its foundation rejects limitation, regulation, and interference while at the same time rejecting responsibility and culpability.  Individualism gives us the luxury of not caring about the conditions of others – even when our actions have created those conditions. Individualism gives us the freedom from consequences.  We simply shift the burden to others. It is “their problem.”

Greta Thunberg prophetically reminds us all that every individual act has corporate ramifications; and that individual rights must give way to collective interests if we are to survive.  In the end libertarian beliefs and laissez-faire attitudes and policies lead to social destruction.

We have lived by the creed of Cain, excusing ourselves of responsibility of caring in the name of “individual freedom.”  “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Cain asked in response to God’s question about the whereabouts of Abel.  Cain’s question is actually a statement. “My brother’s whereabouts or condition is of no concern to me. I have no responsibility in regard to him. His circumstances are not my problem.” Beneath the statement is a deeper issue of the heart: Disconnection.  The more disconnected from others we understand ourselves, the more we will pursue self-interest without considering the consequences to the world and the generations who will come after us.

The apostle John wrote, “From the beginning, you’ve heard this message: Love one another. Do no be like Cain…”  (1 John 3:11-12).  Living as if we are independent from one another – as if we have no mutual interest or interdependency – is to live like Cain in ignorance and sin.

Are we the keepers of our brothers and sisters?  The answer is, “Yes!”

 

“Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others.”

As I continue on my Lenten “Fast for Community,” I continue to be drawn back to this statement from Philippians 2:4 (NRSV).  Self-interest is always a part of our MO in making decisions, forming opinions, and taking action. We ask ourselves continually, “how will this benefit me and impact my quality of life?”  It is a powerful question that determines our positions on almost every social and political concern.  We vote our self-interest. We advocate our self-interest. We defend our self-interest.

Pursuit of self-interest is evidence that we love ourselves. Self-love has gotten a bad rap – especially among Christians.  But love of self is never condemned by Jesus. In fact, it is normal and healthy. Jesus’ command to love our neighbor includes the proviso, “as yourself.” Self-love (and self-interest) becomes the standard to be used to dictate our actions toward others. The question for followers of Jesus is not, “how do I eliminate self-interest?” but “how broad is my circle of self interest?”  Does my circle extend to the “other?”

We will easily extend our circle of self-interest to include our children and grandchildren. We will also consider the interests of our close friends and extended family. We may create additional circles of self-interest based on our gender, our race, our class, our affiliations.  But our circles have boundaries. The lines are drawn and redrawn, but, in the end, “others” always end up separated from the “self” (and those we include as part of the “self”).  And we will usually choose to preserve and protect the interests of the “self”  at the expense of the interests of the “others.”

I believe Jesus challenges us to rethink the meaning of “self.”  The old circles are not big enough. “Self” must go beyond the traditional tribal boundaries. I believe the circle must also extend through time to include next generations.  In the phraseology of Paul, “we are members of one another” whether male or female, slave or free, Jew or Gentile (or any other tribal delineation); whether present or future. It is in our self-interest to pursue the interests of the “other” because we are indeed “one in Christ.”

But doesn’t that mean that our own interests will be sacrificed?  Doesn’t that mean that my own needs will go unmet and that my own quality of life will be at risk? Fear is at the core of our circle. We are afraid that in giving up pursuit of “self-interest” that the “self” will not just be denied – it will be destroyed! Despite our deeply felt fear, the opposite is actually true.  We will not be destroyed. We will not lose, we will gain. Self-interest and the interests of others are not in conflict, but are inextricably linked.  What is beneficial for the “other” is actually beneficial for the “self.”  In pursuing the common good, I am ultimately guaranteeing my own good now and into the future.

My fast continues.

When pastors become CEOs, evangelism becomes “marketing” and disciples become consumers, collapse is inevitable. The recent implosion of Willow Creek Church and Harvest Bible Chapel has confirmed to me that the mega-church model is not (and has never been) sustainable.

Once you have an auditorium that seats multiple thousands and a staff of hundreds, the emphasis shifts from authentic ministry to getting and keeping butts in the pews. Worship must, by necessity, become customer service and must focus on the desires and preferences of the worshipper rather than the praise of the One who alone is worthy.

Over the past 50 years, the church has increasing turned to Madison Avenue for direction and has adopted the structures and philosophies of corporate America. We have bought into the beliefs that “Bigger is better” and that growth is equal to health. We have studied community demographics and have tailored our methods and our message to reach our selected target audience. We have aspired to “success” and evaluated ourselves using the formulas of business—market share and financial gain.

We have substituted what is right with what works. We have replaced following Jesus’ teachings with following a charismatic leader. We have preached comfort without a cross. We have buried Jesus beneath layers of satin and silk. We have fed the flock junk food in slick packaging.  The Church has gained the world, but has lost its core values in the process.

If the church (of any size) is going to remain faithful to its calling, we must resist the temptation of spectacle (jumping from the steeple?) and gaining prominence via Satan’s machinations. Instead, we must fix our eyes on Jesus, our true example. By corporate standards, Jesus was an absolute failure, choosing the wrong target demographic (solidarity with blue collar workers and social outcasts is not a wise financially plan), the wrong strategy (you don’t offend just about everybody that could potentially support your ministry), the wrong methods (why would anyone make participation in the mission so costly that no one will want to join?), and the wrong message (“the last shall be first and the first last” is suicide if you want to reach the 1%).

By becoming an extension of Madison Avenue, the church has departed from Jesus’ Way and gotten lost. Now, the church is being sifted and shifted—a work of the Spirit, I believe. God is showing us it is time for repentance and a return to the narrow way of Jesus’ mission—announce good news to the poor, free the captive, release the oppressed, open the eyes of the blind, heal the injured.  The Church may not gain the appearance of “success”, but it will certainly be stronger and healthier.

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.