This End Down

If you’re interested, first watch the video, and then read Tereva’s response she e-mailed them.

Whoopi, Sherri, and Hasselback on The N Word

As an African American woman, I would like to thank Elisabeth Hasselbeck for her empathy and concern for not only the Black community, but for the unification of humanity. As Whoopi stated in the controversial episode discussing the ‘N’ word, we do not live in the same worlds. There are prejudices that I will undoubtedly undergo because of my race, but, are we not called to correct the past wrongs of our history? I believe that Elisabeth’s yearning is for us to mend the bridges that our past has attempted to destroy, and the ‘N’ word has caused nothing but emotional strife and suffering.

I hope that the View’s audience did not walk away thinking that Whoopi and Sherri’s perspectives are accurate representations of African American thoughts and attachments to the word. How can we embrace something that has such negative connotations? By continuing to embrace the ‘N’ word, we are furthering the wedge of segregation and racism, by stating that it is ‘ok’ to make allowances for some people’s use of the word and not for others. We are also stating that is ‘ok’ for us to perpetuate self hatred, but it is not ok for others to hate us because of our skin. Can we get any more hypocritical and ignorant?

Is this the kind of world that we want our children to inherit?  A world where they are to continue living lives separate from their peers, mates, co-workers, friends, family, because they follow an unspoken rule of conduct? It’s absurd. You can NOT strip shame away from a word that has been used for hundreds of years. It is inextricable at this point. Whoopi, Sherri, listen to your female counterparts. The color of their skin does not strip them of their credibility, nor their wisdom, and desire to rectify situations that hurt our communities and world.

I’d love to do a huge amount of Biblical and etymological research into this concept, but I’m at work and need to keep working. But here’s my frustration (and yes, this is in response to the whole Lakeland Outpouring ordeal.)

We aren’t supposed to judge people. Judge not lest you be judged, Plank in your eye, and all that. People who God have used mightily in the past have ranged from those who occasionally disobey God to people who are seriously messed up–David, Samson, Solomon, Martin Luther King Jr., and plenty of other people. If you read anything about the lives of “revival” preachers and honestly about other people God have used in the past, they’re all messed up people. The gifts of the Spirit–big, powerful, crazy things–are not necessarily accompanied by the fruits of the Spirit in individual leaders. Why? Because God uses messed up people to work his will. If he didn’t, whom would he have to use? I’m constantly arguing this, and I’m constantly a proponent of seeking the good in what God’s doing, not the bad in how people are messed up.

However, we are called to be wise. We are called to discern between good and evil spirits. We are called to not be misled by false prophets. We are told there will be false prophets among us, wolves among the flock. We have a responsibility to see that the people of God are being led well, and that they are not being misled–especially away from God and/or toward oppression or bondage. And if we are wise, we will be aware of the potential for bad teaching, bad leadership, and things that don’t lead toward God.

Therefore, we have two primary responsibilities, whether or not we’re responding to a situation like this: to seek God, and to help others seek God. If the Lakeland Outpouring is a big revival that’s sparked, led, and inspired by God, then our response is to participate in any way we can and to encourage others to do the same. But if there are spirits or leaders who don’t point toward God, we cannot in good conscience sit back and say “Well, God will deal with them.” How do you think God will deal with people who oppress his people? By judging them on judgment day? Yes; however, God calls us now to draw people out of bondage and oppression and fear and the world, and if we see people in the name of God leading people away from God then we need to be the first there to stop it.

Am I saying that the Lakeland Outpouring is not God? No. I never have. My first response to it was positive; I started with the assumption that it was a legitimate move of God led by legitimate seekers of God. It’s only been through my attempts to discern wisely and Biblically and lovingly that I’ve come to see a lot of very worrying things about the man who stands in front of the pulpit throughout the entire meetings, the man who directs the movement of the meetings and controls the microphone. So am I saying its leaders are imperfect? Absolutely. But that’s a given.

God is moving in Lakeland. People are seeking God in Lakeland. Real healings (seem to be) happening in Lakeland. These things are very good. Todd Bentley is leading poorly in Lakeland (not just his past–he’s doing it now.) Some people are faking things in Lakeland. Lakeland itself seems, from friends I’ve spoken to in Lakeland, to not be affected at all by a “revival” in its midst. These things are very bad. Therefore, we need to respond wisely.

I don’t have a point. I don’t have an agenda. I don’t even have a solution for these things I’m writing. I’m just trying to figure out what my response should be. I’m not for or against the Lakeland Outpouring. I’m for people seeking God, and I’m against people being misled. I’m for the Kingdom of God coming into our world, and I’m against Christian bubbles and sensationalist church meetings that have no impact on the world around them.

Finally, a somewhat related note on the word “revival”: I put it in quotes because it’s a hugely dangerous word, one whose misuse has convinced far too many people that a true revival looks like a bunch of people in a big Christian orgy seeking God together. I’m sorry, but something that doesn’t bring about the Kingdom of God isn’t a revival. Therefore, if a revival is breaking out somewhere, I think (my personal opinion–correct me if I’m wrong, this isn’t hugely researched and I’m not a scholar in the history of revivals) that the surrounding areas should be affected. If revival breaks out in Lakeland, then the city of Lakeland should be transformed. People should see God’s glory and want to repent and then follow and glorify him. (Berry tells me that many historically significant revivals have been characterized by individuals repenting and then receiving the work of the Spirit in their lives; he characterizes revivals by three things: Repentance, Faith, and then Mission). Sinners repent, sick healed, poor restored, widows and orphans and the oppressed and aliens freed and loved. Is that happening now? No, no, and more no. Might it happen? Please, Jesus, work mightily in the hearts of those people who are desperately seeking you and move them to make a difference in that city and in their home cities. Yes, it might, and I pray that it will.

Since the days of the early church, history has led us to an unfortunate understanding of the word minister as a professional, seminary-educated leader. This leads the rest of us to think that ministry is an extra, a volunteer aspect of our lives. Kingdom resources are often wasted because those who do not do official “ministry” simply pour all of their skills and talents into self-growth, success or making money. More Christians should see themselves as ministers first in whatever job they do and seek to maximize their effectiveness as kingdom workers, regardless of position or title. [...]

If we believe that God is everywhere, there is no such thing as a secular job. We should never think of our work as being separate from our lives of faith. Any job, as long as it is not in opposition to the laws of God, can be a matrix for our real, central call–to be fishers of men and women. Work should be an act of worship, a vehicle for purpose, creativity and joy rather than simply a utilitarian act in order to secure food, housing or education.

From Following Jesus Without Dishonoring Your Parents

At church this past Sunday, the pastor was preaching about money, and at the beginning he asked everyone to raise their hands if they liked money. A lot of us sheepishly did, acknowledging that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil and that we were probably about to be told that we shouldn’t; some people didn’t raise their hands, holding out that, because of their frugality, it was somehow an indication that they didn’t like money.

Well, not my mother. She was quite comfortable with her hand up in the air, and she looked at me and laughed. “I like money!” She then proceeded to show and tell me over the span of the weekend that the reason she likes money is not for driving fancy cars, or wearing fancy new clothing, or for fancy jewelry, or for financial stability and security, but because she likes giving it away. Yes, that’s right. She told us about keeping $1 bills in her purse and the joy of handing them out to people who needed them (or just who were asking). She showed joy in being able to take care of me, often telling me that she was sad that I didn’t live at home because she could never buy me groceries or anything the way she can her other chilluns.

I don’t know why, but the joy she got from giving made a profound impact on me, almost more than any sermon on stewardship could. I just thought you might appreciate it as well. That’s all.

(She pointed out when I asked her about this post that Johannes is generous… and Abbie… and Ricke… and plenty of people I know… which is true. This is just a story about me loving my mom. )

Over the last few years I’ve gotten two prescriptions for what to do when you’re in a self-centered funk, and they’ve both proved to help marvelously. I want to share them with you.

Recently I was mentioning that night time often brings an introspective mood that often turns negative (because it’s late, and you’re alone, and Satan attacks when you’re alone, and often I’m sitting alone at my computer looking at photos or descriptions of awesome parties/adventures/missions other people’ve done). Erica said, “Yah, I know that. Go take a bike ride.” It’s great. Nature… Gainesville at night… Endorphins… Connecting to God… Seeing the beauty of my surroundings… Getting out of my stupid room and out from in front of my computer… Overkilling on the ellipses… You get what I’m saying. Take a bike ride.

Also, a few years ago I was in a significant spiritual funk and couldn’t figure out how to get out of it. I had been trying to connect to God and trying to pray about it, but nothing was working. Berry asked me, “Well, when was the last time you were on the ‘front lines’ for God?” He elaborated to let me know he wanted to hear the last time I put myself out there to help someone else; he wanted to know the last time my discomfort, concern, and prayers were for another person instead of for myself. I couldn’t think of the last time I had focused so much attention on someone else; rather, I had spent the entire time focusing entirely on myself. And that’s what it took. I think that’s an essential part of the Kingdom of God, and why we’re not supposed to defend ourselves, but we can defend others; why prayer for others always seems more effective than prayer for ourselves. God wants us to be interdependent and to focus on each other.

That’s it. Enjoy.

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 19:13:00 -0500
From: Scott Blades
Subject: Fwd: City Ordinance – Increased Restrictions on Homeless Ministries
Friends and Christian Brothers and Sisters:

Luke 14:12-14 says: “Then Jesus said to his host, ‘When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

As Christians, we have a responsibility to be compassionate, and to serve those who are hurting and need our help. Unfortunately, the Gainesville City Commission is currently proposing restrictions that would severely affect our ability as an institution of faith to provide food and shelter to homeless people in our community through programs such as the Interfaith Hospitality Network.

I have sent the letter below to the Gainesville City Commissioners to express my concern regarding the city trying to take away the rights of congregations to be to compassionate towards people who are homeless and hungry. Please consider speaking up so that we are able to continue helping our needy brothers and sisters without unnecessary restrictions imposed by the city. The commissioners’ email addresses can be found below. Please send them a letter or email expressing your concerns or feel free to forward mine to them saying that you concur.

(Craig Lowwe), commCL@ci.gainesville.fl.us
(Rick Bryant), commRB@ci.gainesville.fl.us
(Pegeen Hanrahan), mayor@ci.gainesville.fl.us
(Scherwin Henry), henrysl@cityofgainesville.org
(Comm Jack Donovan), donovanjf@cityofgainesville.org
(Jeanna Mastrodicasa), mastrodij@cityofgainesville.org
(Ed Braddy), commEB@ci.gainesville.fl.us

God Bless,

Scott Blades

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Scott Blades
Date: Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Subject: City Ordinance – Increased Restrictions on Homeless Ministries
Dear Gainesville Commissioners,

My name is Scott Blades, and I have been a proud member of the Gainesville community since 2002, the year I moved to this area to obtain my masters degree at UF in Educational Technology. Along with being the Coordinator of Instructional Design at UF’s College of Pharmacy, I am currently a Partner in Ministry at Grace United Methodist Church. As part of my activities at Grace, I have traveled to the Gulf Coast region to provide food and shelter to victims of Hurricane Katrina, donated resources to the Arbor House (a program providing assistance to homeless, single mothers), and volunteered my time to the Interfaith Hospitality Network (an organization that coordinates the efforts of volunteers from all faiths to shelter, feed, and transport homeless families).

I have recently become aware of your discussions regarding increased restrictions related to the housing and feeding of homeless people within Gainesville churches. I see these proposed restrictions as being unconstitutional, discriminatory toward churches, and ultimately counterproductive in what should be the city’s efforts to address our city’s homeless problem.

The First Amendment clearly indicates that US laws cannot prohibit the free exercise of a religious establishment. Furthermore, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) states that zoning and landmarking laws cannot (1) treat churches or other religious assemblies or institutions on less than equal terms with nonreligious institutions and (2) cannot unreasonably limit religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction. 1

Despite these clear guidelines, it appears that the City Commission is moving toward the following measures:

1. Congregations wishing to provide shelter to homeless people will only be permitted to house three families or three unrelated persons. Currently congregations offering housing to homeless people on a permanent basis are permitted to shelter up to 20 people at once. All of these scenarios fly in the face of the aforementioned laws. If a church has the staff and facilities (or wishes to develop the staff and facilities) to provide shelter for any number of homeless people, the government has no business prohibiting churches from using their resources for these purposes.If a new motel in town were to open its doors, the owners (operating within fire code) would make the determination of how many people to house each evening. If the motel has enough space for 50 travelers (people who do not have a place to sleep for the night) and 50 people show up at the doorstep, the motel would operate at full capacity and have a good night of business.The business of the church is to offer selfless compassion and help to those who are in need. If a church has the capacity to house X number of homeless people within its facilities, then that is how many people they should be allowed to serve. The ultimate instance of ludicrousness would be for a church with “room at the inn” to turn away any number of homeless people because the government is tying its hands. The government must treat religious institutions and nonreligious institutions equally.
2. New restrictions would only allow churches to serve 20 meals per day to homeless people and operate from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. The measures would also require a quarter mile separation between churches providing food to the needy. This is an incredible example of discrimination. Non-religious institutions such as restaurants and bars are allowed to serve as much food and drink as they wish, remain open for business until 2:00 AM, and operate side by side. If these measures are put in place, should we also expect the city to impose the same restrictions on Mark’s Prime Rib and Dragonfly? To fall in line with RLUIPA, the city would need to do so.
3. New measures would require the following lot sizes for congregations building in Resident Single Family districts:
   
   • Building capacity of 100 - 1.0 acre
   • Building capacity of 150 - 1.5 acres
   • Building capacity of 200 - 2.0 acres
   • Building capacity of 250 - 2.5 acres
   • Increasing by .5 acres for every 50 persons

   Would these same guidelines apply to non-religious institutions where people congregate, such as restaurants, bars, museums, etc.? Yet again, RLUIPA would require this to be the case.

Along with these proposed restrictions being unconstitutional and discriminatory toward churches, there is the much bigger issue of them causing our city’s homeless population to face even greater difficulties in receiving assistance and rehabilitation. In looking at these proposals, one has to wonder where the city expects homeless people to go. Why is the city making it so difficult for our homeless population to receive relief?

It was this time last year when I traveled to Mississippi to aid in the relief effort of Hurricane Katrina. I met many people, who lost their homes during the storm, but I will never forget the one elderly woman, who broke down into tears when our small group offered to put her in touch with a faith-based group that would renovate her dilapidated home for free. During our talk, a theme emerged that has stuck with me since. She communicated that her government had let her down and that her insurance company had failed her. We were the first group to offer her help with no strings attached and no bureaucracy to navigate.

I see the city of Gainesville’s current efforts to restrict and further regulate faith-based aid to homeless people as creating unnecessary obstacles for both those attempting to deliver services and those who desperately need them. The government should encourage the volunteerism and altruism of our city’s faith-based organizations, not devise methods to hinder and complicate such efforts.

I recognize that the push to put these types of measures in place is coming from neighborhood associations and local businesses that do not want homeless people “in their backyard.” There is the perception that when any number of homeless people gather in an area, they bring crime and other disturbances that would not have existed otherwise. Therefore, the city is attempting to appease these groups, “protect” its mainstream population from its homeless population, and “protect” churches from themselves. I take issue with this line of thinking for three reasons.

First, this reasoning conveys a “those people” type of attitude. It stereotypes homeless people as being hobos, vagrants, drug addicts, criminals, etc. My experience and research has taught me that homeless people are as varied and diverse as any other segment of our population. Homeless people are those, who have had the misfortune of losing a home to a fire or other natural disaster. They are mothers and fathers, who love their children. They are elementary, junior high, and high school students, who need to finish their homework just like kids with homes. They are people, like many renters or homeowners in this country, who find themselves in the rut of living paycheck to paycheck due to the nature of our economy and the cost of living. 2 They are even people, who go on to become famous like Halle Berry, Cary Grant, Kelsey Grammer, Jewel, “Colonel” Sanders, Martin Sheen, Hilary Swank, and Shania Twain. 3 World history has taught us the homeless people can even change the world. Yes, Gautama Siddhartha (Buddha) and Jesus Christ were both homeless. 3

My second issue is that this effort to legislate against “potential problems” seems grossly misplaced. I would be interested in knowing how the number of disturbances related to feeding or sheltering homeless people relates to the number of disturbances associated with our city’s thriving bar economy. Based on the fact that Gainesville Police Department reports that there is a shooting, stabbing, or other type of disturbance related to bar activity every weekend in Gainesville, I think it is safe to say that this segment of the population causes more crime than homeless people being fed or sheltered at a church. Despite this disturbing trend in “our back yard,” bars are allowed to serve as many beverages as their costumers can consume, operate side by side, and remain open until 2:00 AM.

Third, the idea that the government must intervene to protect congregations from the problems that can arise from helping too many homeless people at once shows little to no faith in these organizations to govern themselves. The Interfaith Hospitality Network (IHN) is an excellent example of a faith-based organization that recognizes its own strengths and limitations and governs itself accordingly. IHN accepts families with children. The organization does not accept persons with serious mental illness, substance abuse problems within the last 6 months, current dangerous domestic violence involvement, or certain criminal charges. A church or faith-based organization (knowing its own staff, facilities, and resources) is in the best position possible to regulate its own charitable activities for homeless people.

Ultimately, I believe these unconstitutional and discriminatory restrictions would result in the following:

• They would undercut one of the central missions of churches and faith-based organizations—to help those in need.
• They would create additional obstacles for homeless people seeking relief and rehabilitation and make their plight even more difficult to endure.
• They would communicate to our society that homeless people are not worthy of attention or respect (that they are nothing more than outsiders, who should go somewhere else, so that they are a not a bother to mainstream society).

What a sad day that would be.

My hope is that you will use your position of leadership to do the right thing at this critical juncture and abandon these measures. Legislation should never promote inequality, place a cap on compassion, or chain up a charity.

Sincerely,

Scott Blades

Sources:

1. “Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act,” U.S. Department of Justice (Civil Rights Division)
   http://www.justice.gov/crt/housing/rluipaexplain.htm
2. Sampling of news articles:
   “Homelessness grows as more live check-to-check,” USA TODAY, August 12, 2003
   http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2003-08-11-homeless_x.htm“Living paycheck to paycheck,” CNN, April 4, 2007
   http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/Careers/04/04/cb.paycheck/index.html
3. “Noted Individuals Who Have Experienced Homelessness” http://www.angelfire.com/stars4/lists/homeless.html