5 Reasons Why Candice Wiggins is Wrong

As I have been watching the college basketball tournament over the past week, I've been thinking about Candice Wiggins and her words regarding the culture inside the WNBA as relayed in an article from the San Diego Union Tribune back on February 20th. To summarize, Wiggins, now retired from the WNBA, gave an interview to the SD Tribune in which she laid out a negative experience in the league, featuring being bullied for being a straight woman, being called the "B word," and a level of competition that, for some reason, bothered her.

For those of you who don't know, Candice Wiggins is a recently retired WNBA player. She played 7 seasons in the WNBA after entering the league in the 2008 draft as the number 3 pick. Previously, Wiggins was a superstar at Stanford University, holding the women's record for scoring at both the university and in the PAC-TEN conference. She's played in the WNBA for the Minnesota Lynx, the Tulsa Shock, the Los Angeles Sparks, and the New York Liberty.

Wiggins' interview has been on the back burner in my mind for quite a few weeks, and it didn't really hit me until I was watching the women's games in the NCAA tournament, as to why it irked me so much. But I get it now and I want to talk about this, as it relates to a bigger picture about women in sports. Candace Wiggins has been asked to clear up a few of her statements following that interview, but has conveniently refused, insisting that people should look forward to her forthcoming memoir.

Well, I don't need to wait for her book in order to point out her ridiculousness, so I offer at least 5 reasons why Candice Wiggins is wrong.

5. Professional sports are hard.
In her original interview with the San Diego Union Tribune, Wiggins said of her time in the WNBA "There was a lot of jealousy and competition, and we're all fighting for crumbs."
No kidding? A lot of jealousy and competition? In the professional level of a sport? Shocking.
If there's one thing that should be seen as common sense in sports, it is that as the level of competition increases, the sport gets harder, not just in play, but in the entirety of the package that comes with being a professional athlete. This is the reason why it's not for everyone and why not everyone becomes a pro athlete. Some people can handle being in the spotlight and some can't. It's the reason why only 1% of female college basketball players go pro. I'd like to ask Wiggins if she knows how many other women would have done anything to be in her place, to even have the opportunity to play basketball professionally, for a living (even though players in the league do not make anything close to their male counterparts, the average salary is $75K). I'd like to give Wiggins the benefit of the doubt for this remark, as she could have been referencing something else, but since she sees herself as a prominent athlete, she should have made a clearer statement. I would expect something more professional from well...a professional.

4. Don't diminish the struggles of those who came before you...or of those still willing to fight.
"Nobody cares about the WNBA," said Wiggins in the interview.
Of the number of the incendiary statements Wiggins made in her interview, this one has some pretty serious implications. In five words, Wiggins seemed to diminish the blood, sweat, and tears of all of the women in basketball that struggled for just a chance to play, let alone, play at the professional level and make a living doing it. Now, it's true that the WNBA doesn't enjoy the fanfare of the NBA or any other male-dominated sport, for that matter. But what bothers me is that if you go and look at the comments section of a story on ESPN.com covering women's sports, you'll inevitably see some douchebag bro make that exact same statement.
Over the course of the past 20 years that the WNBA has been in existence, so many women have worked hard just to have a shot to do something that was unthinkable in our lifetime. And we can talk about attendance numbers (which have grown, by the way), we can continue to talk about the wage gap (though Wiggins enjoyed a hefty salary most women and current players could only dream of), but the fact is, it has taken a long time just for women's basketball to get to this point. Players much better than Wiggins paved the way for that. Players much better than Wiggins do and will continue to play and fight for this league that was only a dream for some.

I can't help but wonder what Pat Summitt would have said to Candice Wiggins if she dared say "Nobody cares..." in her presence.

3. Get over yourself.
One of the claims made by Wiggins is that players were jealous of her and the way she looked and played. She also said she was often thrown to the ground as a way that other players communicated their dislike for her. Also, she stated that she had never been called the "B-word" more in her life.
Well, guess what, kid? You chose to play a competitive sport that includes a lot of physical contact. You're going to get shoved around and tossed down a few times, especially when, as you seem to believe, you are a premier player (and I'll concede that fact, as Wiggins was the number 3 overall pick from Stanford in 2008). Other players will make it their job to take you down a notch. And you will constantly have to compete with players older, younger, better, and worse than you for a starting spot on the floor. If you're not getting shoved around, then you're not a threat.
As far as the name calling, I can't think of something more stupid to complain about. Everyone gets called names, regardless of their profession, or how much money they make, or who they are. It doesn't make it ok, but it's just a fact of life. And when you're an athlete, particularly a professional one who will play games on the road to some unfriendly fans, it's just part of the deal. You should expect it and you should have the presence of mind to either let it go or let it drive you.

2. You don't know about bullying.
Wiggins' statement about being a victim of bullying really hit me the wrong way. She claims to have been bullied about her heterosexuality, though not a single additional WNBA player has yet to come to her side to confirm this. In fact, a number of players have disputed her claims, and not a single team that Wiggins played for can corroborate her stories, since she never bothered to file a complaint to anyone in the organization.
It might serve Candice Wiggins well to speak with players such as Tamika Catchings, who retired after the 2016 season from the Indiana Fever. Catchings was born with hearing loss and has worn hearing aids. She details being bullied from a young age because of this in her book "Catch a Star," which I would highly recommend everyone, especially Ms. Wiggins, to read.
And Catchings' story is not the only one Wiggins should read up on. Countless other players in the WNBA have overcome actual real-life obstacles to play the game and make it to the professional level. And I don't doubt that Wiggins has overcome her own obstacles in life, but to call this one out specifically is a joke, especially given that we have hard evidence that homosexuals consistently are bullied far more than heterosexuals.
I, like Candice, grew up playing this wonderful game and at times had to play with boys. For a long time, I was the only girl in the league, let alone a team. Even up to high school, I would play in competitive recreational leagues with boys. You want to talk about bullying, come talk to me about the disgusting things said and done to me. And I know I'm not the only one.
It is more likely that Wiggins made these statements to play up the anticipation of her forthcoming memoir, an action I find manipulative and contradictory, considering that she apparently believes nobody cares about the WNBA...if that is so, I don't think many people will be interested in her book.

1. I'd check that math, if I were you.

Of course, the most outrageous thing that Wiggins claimed in her interview that "I would say 98% of the women in the WNBA are gay women."

The irony here is that while Candice is stereotyping professional women basketball players, she is playing into the stereotype that women aren't good at math. A number of players have stepped forward to let Wiggins know that she's being ridiculous on this, both straight and players who identify with the LGBT community. Wiggins went on to say that the WNBA culture encouraged women to act like men, leading her to feel bullied because she is "proud to be a woman." 

First, let's just call this what it is...total bullshit. If Wiggins' math was correct, she'd be one of 3 straight women in the league - and that math just doesn't add up.

Next, this seems to contradict something that Wiggins said on the record, not too long ago. In 2015, Wiggins went on the record, celebrating the WNBA's Pride Night, saying "It's good to open up the conversation, to get people more comfortable with things that maybe before they didn't identify with."

So, which is it, Candice? Has the WNBA set a good example for their focus on diversity, or has that diversity been negative for you?

In a follow up with the San Diego Tribune, Wiggins defended her comment by saying she used that figure to be more illustrative, implying her words shouldn't be taken literally.

That sounds so familiar...not to drag politics into this, but this is the same thing Trump's surrogates end up saying on the Sunday shows to fend off questions about his tweets. When you have to say that, combined with an inability to admit you were wrong, it's a symptom of an ego problem.

The homophobic nature of Wiggins' statement is disgusting, and if it's only a taste of what is to come in her forthcoming book, then no, thank you. Hard pass.

Perhaps it's time for Candice Wiggins to hire a better PR person, if she has one at all. Those gay ladies she complains about make up a large portion of the fans that attended the games she was payed to play. When you alienate a fairly large portion of that fan base, I think you probably shouldn't expect great sales when your book comes out, unless you're going to market it to the Westboro crazies or the people who refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings. 

I think what we're actually seeing with Candice Wiggins is a player that came into the league with insane potential to be great, but she didn't have the illustrious career expected of her. But after facing fierce competition with women who play year-around (both for financial and physical reasons), having to move to different cities for new contracts, injuries that required surgeries, and less than superstar stats (Wiggins averaged just 8.6 points per game, about half of what she scored in college), I believe Wiggins has become bitter about her career, and didn't choose her words very carefully when she was first interviewed by the San Diego Union Tribune.

If all of these hardships she faced in the league were real, she should have reported them and spoke up at the time. That would be the best example she could have set for young women, everywhere and in every walk of life. She could have become more involved with the league union and fought to make the league better than she found it. That's what a great player would have done. 

And that's why few will remember the career of Candice Wiggins.

Mr. Trump Goes to Congress

As I've stated before on this blog, I love the Presidential address to Congress. It is one of the biggest political highlights of the year. Throughout the Obama presidency, I always looked forward to hearing him address the nation in his trademark hopeful, optimistic tone, while being able to tell us the hard truths about the state of our nation.

I have to admit that as much as I've always looked forward to this yearly address to Congress and the nation, I've spent the same amount of time since the election trying to not think about what would be Trump's first address to Congress. It was one of those things that I couldn't even fathom, and even when I tried, all I could imagine was the Trump we all saw on the campaign trail - a blowhard amateur, unable to stay on message, much less speak in a complex sentence structure. I figured that the only good thing that would come out of a Trump address would be non-stop fodder for the writers at Saturday Night Live.

Well, Mr. Trump certainly did not let me down in his first address to Congress and the nation last night. There were many issues with Trump's speech; not just in the words, but in the optics, and also in the context of all of the things going on around the speech.

First, I'd encourage all of you to go read the transcript of Trump's speech and see if you can identify a common thread in the writing, as compared to the transcript of previous addresses made by Obama.
Do you see it?
Here's an excerpt from President Obama's final state of the union address to Congress:

"That's why Social Security and Medicare are more important than ever; we shouldn't weaken them, we should strengthen them. And for Americans short of retirement, basic benefits should be just as mobile as everything else is today. That's what the Affordable Care Act is all about. It's about filling the gaps in employer-based care so that when we lose a job, or go back to school, or start that new business, we'll still have coverage. Nearly eighteen million have gained coverage so far. Health care inflation has slowed. And our businesses have created jobs every single month since it became law.Now, I'm guessing we won't agree on health care anytime soon. But there should be other ways both parties can improve economic security. Say a hardworking American loses his job – we shouldn't just make sure he can get unemployment insurance; we should make sure that program encourages him to retrain for a business that's ready to hire him. If that new job doesn't pay as much, there should be a system of wage insurance in place so that he can still pay his bills. And even if he's going from job to job, he should still be able to save for retirement and take his savings with him. That's the way we make the new economy work better for everyone."

Now, here's an excerpt from Trump's first address to Congress:

"Ninety-four million Americans are out of the labor force.Over 43 million people are now living in poverty, and over 43 million Americans are on food stamps.More than 1 in 5 people in their prime working years are not working.We have the worst financial recovery in 65 years.In the last 8 years, the past Administration has put on more new debt than nearly all other Presidents combined.We've lost more than one-fourth of our manufacturing jobs since NAFTA was approved, and we've lost 60,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.Our trade deficit in goods with the world last year was nearly $800 billion dollars.And overseas, we have inherited a series of tragic foreign policy disasters."

Notice the difference in sentence structure? It seems as if the writers of Trump's speech realized that he is unable to speak in complex, understandable sentences, so they relegated him to small phrases made up of 7-9 plus words that translate to bullet points when spoken.

The reason this is worth pointing out is because it speaks to the fact that we have a guy in the Oval Office who does not understand the complexity of the job he was elected to perform. He lacks the awareness of nuance and can only speak in a manner suitable for Twitter, not for the Leader of the Free World.

Next, Trump made many claims throughout his speech that when fact-checked, turn out to be untrue or slightly true, but also misleading. When Trump takes credit for being a job creator, taking credit for bringing jobs from Ford, Fiat, Intel, and others back to the American people, what he's not telling you is that in many cases, these job increases were parts of plans that had already been in place for years. It seems crazy that Trump can take credit for Fiat-Chrysler jobs that have been part of an industrialization plan put in place last year to coincide with a 2015 deal with the UAW.

If I remember correctly, Trump was still nothing more than a celebrity millionaire with a reality show in 2015, toying with the idea of running for office, and was also still peddling the claim that President Obama was not born in America. His only connection to Fiat-Chrysler at the time might as well be that he owns multiple vehicles. But we know this is a trademark of the Donald Trump era - taking credit for something you literally had nothing to do with.

As quoted above, Trump stated that 94 million Americans "are out of the labor force." What Trump is trying to sell you is a scary number taken out of context with the intention of proving his campaign claim that "The unemployment rate may be as high as 42%." Trump is not telling the truth on a couple of levels. First, his 94 million number includes folks who are retired, are college students, the disabled, and stay at home parents. The majority of these folks have said they either didn't want or need at job at this time. This number that is meant to scare the public is simply not true, nor is it an indicator of a bad economy.

Now, how about that statement to work with members of both parties to create clean air and water? This one actually made me laugh, because literally in the hours before the speech, Trump signed an order rolling back the "Clean Water Rule." Also, it is being circulated that Trump intends to lay off nearly 20% of the people currently working for the EPA. Hardly seems like a sincere attempt to create clean air and water. Also, consider that Flint, Michigan has now gone over 1,000 days since they've had clean drinking water.

But perhaps the biggest moment of the evening and of Trump's speech is the one that made me sick to my stomach: he used the widow of fallen Navy Seal Owens as a political prop to sell his first military operation as a success. Trump went on to lie, saying that General Mattis confirmed that the operation in Yemen was a success that generated large amounts of intelligence. Now, we don't know if Mattis actually said this to Trump, but we do know that an overwhelming amount of military analysts and officials would not characterize this operation as a success. And let's be honest here, labeling a military operation such as this one, a success or failure is a false binary choice. It's hard to call an operation successful when it resulted in the death of a solider or civilians, or when a $90 million dollar aircraft had to be destroyed, or when a top leader of a terrorist organization escaped capture. There's no way the American people should accept the claim that this operation was a success, especially considering the way that this operation was handled.
From the start, it's disturbing that this president couldn't be bothered to interrupt his dinner with his son in law and Steve Bannon to go down to the Situation Room to observe the mission, instead spending the evening on Twitter. I think of the iconic photo of President Obama in the Situation Room, surrounded by the folks involved in the decision to green light the raid that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden. The President was present, intent on being as close as he could be with the soldiers who risked their lives on his order.
That is leadership.

In the days following the raid, Press Secretary Sean Spicer, first said the raid was a success, then as details were released about the numerous civilian deaths, the destruction of the Osprey, failure to capture any valuable intelligence or enemy operatives, Spicer shifted his position, saying the operation was originally planned by the Obama administration. This shift was intended to place the blame on the outgoing administration, though it was clear that Obama never gave the green light on the operation, due to timing and insufficient evidence that the operation would be worth it. Trump seemed to jump on the first opportunity to give the green light to a military operation, an amateur move meant to convey an image of a decisive and strong Commander-In-Chief, though he clearly didn't even know or care enough about the operation to oversee it. Spicer then tried to sell the raid as an intelligence gathering operation. Another lie, as Seal Team Six is not the team that gets sent in for intel based missions. But even if that were true, what intelligence was gathered? Again, another lie comes from the administration as the Pentagon releases an instructional video of homemade bomb-making techniques believed to be recovered...that we already had in possession for over 10 years!
But now the story has shifted again, with Trump proclaiming this operation as a success, even after saying just yesterday morning that it was the Generals who lost Owens. When asked, he specifically said "they" lost him, shifting all the blame and responsibility to someone, anyone else. Later that evening, Trump used a moment in his speech to prop up a grieving widow in order to gain political points. It is sickening to see this woman being manipulated and used for the sole purpose of making Trump appear presidential. And even more sickening, the media is highlighting this moment to say that this is the moment where Trump became President.

The idea that a man who literally has no idea what he is doing, who got up in front of Congress and was able to read a prepared speech off of a teleprompter, written by someone else, and written in a manner suitable for a 3rd grader, has magically become Presidential, is the lowest possible bar we could set for what leadership looks like in this country. The media is giving him points for not insulting someone, as is his usual style. Are you kidding me?!?! Anyone could have gone up to that podium and given that speech...it is not an accurate measure of the ACTIONS Trump has taken in his first weeks on the job.

Last night, we saw an Adderall version of Trump, meant to appear as someone who could appeal to the masses. This is not an accurate portrayal of the man who sits in the Oval Office now, who gives in to every chance to jump on Twitter to spout libel about someone or something he doesn't like; the man who has spent more time Tweeting and golfing than in intelligence briefings, the man who gave the green light on a military operation in such a cavalier manner that he didn't even bother to stay up to hear the results of the raid.

I'm becoming more convinced that throughout this presidency, these addresses will mean nothing. Instead, we must look at the actions and the doings of this administration to see what is really going on. And what is really going on is an unhinged, power hungry man, looking to stoke his ego and expand his brand in any way possible, no matter the cost or who gets lost in his wake.

No Cerebellums Allowed

"Melli, you're too cerebral."

I remember these words vividly, as they came sprinting out of the mouth of the youth pastor I was working for in my first paid ministry job after graduating from Bible college with a freshly pressed youth ministry degree. I remember my internal reaction, which was much different than the calm, cool external reaction I was conveying. In my mind, I was screaming "Hold the phone...in your opinion, my biggest weakness is that I use my brain too much?!"

For months, the lead pastor of the youth department had been talking about hiring another full time youth pastor to add to the staff. I had been hired after graduation under the guise that I would pay my dues doing administrative tasks, earning a meager $7.00 per hour while also being the caretaker of the house on church property. In addition, I would also take on the responsibilities of a pastor, and when the time came, I would just move right into the role.

I got along very well with the youth pastor. We had similar backgrounds and were both unique in that we had never let the fact that we were female stand in the way of accomplishing our goals. She was a trailblazer in youth ministry, being one of the better known female youth pastors in the nation. The only glaring difference was our personalities, she being the definitive extrovert fun pastor that could turn Wednesday night service into an updated version of Double Dare, and I was the introvert pseudo-pastor that focused on creating deep, meaningful messages that would help make church and their faith mean more than just a weekly social event. I always saw our differences as a great way to balance our team.

The shock that I felt after being told that I use my brain too much, and the implication that my sermons were too brainy, made me question why I even bothered getting an education (a very expensive one) and why I bothered taking advanced theology and Biblical study classes. Apparently, I would have been more valuable to our team had I just sat around and watched shows like Wipeout, re-runs of Double Dare, and Survivor. The focus of the youth ministry program at this church was getting kids in the door and entertaining them, then sneaking in a Christian-lite message. And it’s not that this is a wrong approach to youth ministry, but in this case, it was the only approach. When I questioned this, I was told that the reason that the ministry focused so intently on creating a fun-park atmosphere is because it would appeal to the majority of teenagers in the area. And this was absolutely true. There was nothing wrong with creating an atmosphere to get kids in the door. What I took issue with was that in absence of meaningful messages and thought-provoking teachings, we were nothing more than a Boys & Girls Club, or after school program. What about the teenagers that had been coming for years, who often expressed their boredom with the same entertainment over and over? What about the kids that were committed to coming to church, but wanted deeper teaching and wanted to know why prayer was important?

What bothered me the most about this ministry was that it was stuck on step one – getting people in the doors. This youth ministry was so good at that, but its greatest weakness was what to do after that. And that surprised me, because a number of us on staff had degrees in Biblical study. We were all capable of delivering meaningful messages…but why weren’t we doing that? Why weren’t we challenging the youth to think about their faith?

I recently read “The Great Derangement,” by Matt Taibbi, a book that calls out our political and religious institutions for their back room, cultish dealings. As I read about Taibbi’s experiences in Pastor John Hagee’s megachurch in Texas, I continually found myself checking off a list of shared experiences. One of the main aspects of Taibbi’s book is exposing the crowd manipulation tactics used on people who are new to church. In short, the American Evangelical church encourages it’s congregation to not think for themselves, even going so far as to, as one chapter of Taibbi’s book shows, exorcising the demon spirit of “Intellect.” Pastors get up every Sunday and in some ways, manipulate the Bible to push a certain brand of political belief. In Taibbi’s experience, he often writes of the church’s firm stance on embracing Israeli statehood and all of the complicated aspects that come with it, but exposes how the church never really offers a sound explanation as to why the congregation should support it. The only explanation is rooted in a certain interpretation of the book of Revelation, in conjunction with a faulty theological theory called Dispensationalism.  In one chapter, Taibbi writes of how Pastor Hagee’s son preached against climate change and environmental awareness, by telling the congregation that it was nothing more than a devious liberal plan to force people to have abortions, and that it was all a conspiracy to curb the population. He writes in detail of how this brand of church, which stands as the prime example of the Conservative Evangelical movement, operates as a sort of Christian boot camp, where newcomers are stripped of their identity and initiated into a group of Christian soldiers, who all think alike, talk alike, and await instruction from their mega-rich celebrity pastors.

As I was continually told from that day forward that I was too brainy for the position of youth pastor, I never stopped wondering why it was so taboo to do more than entertain people who came to church. I eventually came to realize that the modern Evangelical megachurch isn’t interested in growing people’s faith or helping them develop beliefs that can’t be summed up by those cheesy Christian decals. You know the ones…the fancy script fonts that decorate the walls of every church mom’s home. Today’s Evangelical movement has become one with Conservatism, and only seeks to ingrain their followers with political principles that require no deep thought, empathy, or even remotely resemble the Christ they claim to follow. By actively hindering the congregation’s ability to think critically, the church has purposefully stunted the growth of their people. Anyone with a dissenting opinion about reproductive rights, prayer in schools, or even the budget for the Department of Defense is not welcome in the club, and becomes the pariah for not being lockstep in line with the Conservative point of view.

For “Christian Thinkers” like me, the problem is not that you won’t find differing political opinions in the church; the problem is that many Christians don’t know why they hold their opinions when asked.  They offer up some form of “That’s what Christians are supposed to believe” or “That’s what our pastor told us the Bible says”.  The political beliefs of many Christians are rarely backed up by fact or their own thoughtful examination of the issue.  Pastors have created a flock that lacks all motivation for critical thinking about political viewpoints and Biblical principles.  They have created a perfect following, that seemingly would leap off a cliff if they were told it’s what the Bible said was the “right” way to be a Christian, or the one way to ensure their salvation.

It is indeed, a derangement, as Matt Taibbi, writes. And what continues to astound me, especially in this political climate, is how blind and vapid the sheep are…to the point that they now believe that Donald Trump is the man of God that will lead our country back to Christianity. I refuse to accept this as the new normal.

*Seriously, do yourself a favor and read The Great Derangement by Matt Taibbi. I’ve never read a book that resonated in such a humorous and dark way with my experiences in the Evangelical church. Thanks, Matt…you did an astounding job of exposing the monster that has been living under the surface of the church for quite some time.*

This is the Real You, Church.

Since the election of Donald Trump as our 45th President, I've noticed an interesting shift among some of my friends and acquaintances from my "Church Days."

After Donald Trump spent his first week in office, signing Executive Orders/Memos/Actions, failing in what should have been some of the easier tests of his ability to be a diplomatic leader, embedding his Neo-Nazi strategist into the NSC, set up one of the most racist pieces of policy in our modern history, and basically just pissing everyone off (even those who voted for him), I was a bit shocked to hear some of my Evangelical friends say things that basically said "This is not who we are."

I have to admit that I was impressed that they so quickly realized that Trump, who secured the Evangelical vote in one of the most impressive cons in the history of our elections, was not the representative of their faith or values in the way that many of them enthusiastically insisted throughout the election. My friends from Bible college were very quick to dismiss Trump after he named Somalia in his immigration ban, as our college is located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in one of the largest Somalian neighborhoods in the city. We all interacted with our Somali neighbors every day, participated in community projects with them, were customers in their stores, cafes, and restaurants, mentored their children, helped them learn to speak English, played soccer with their kids in Elliot Park. They were and continue to be our neighbors, our friends, and are an important part in the community. We know them, and they know us.

My friends seemed to be shocked that Trump was capable of placing Somalia on the list of countries that were a part of his immigration ban. After all, we know some of these people personally. They don't match the Trump/Bannon ideology of what makes a terrorist. And because of this personal connection, my friends suddenly found themselves capable of speaking up to say "This isn't right. This isn't who we are."
For a moment, I felt proud of them. For a moment. Then, I felt the all-too-common, gut-wrenching feeling I've had about the intersection of Evangelicalism and politics that seems to haunt so much of my experience in the church. The feeling that makes me respond "No, this is exactly who you are."

I was reminded of the time when I was working at the church I grew up in, during the 2008 election, when the youth pastor walked into the office and exclaimed "Anyone on this staff who votes for Obama should be fired!" Or the numerous times I heard another pastor refer to one of our young Hispanic volunteers as a "Wet Back."
Or the time I opened up my email from the office manager of the church to find a racist political cartoon, depicting Barack Obama as a slave.
Or when I walked in to the breakroom in the church office to find a picture of Sarah Palin taped to the refrigerator with a note that said "This is what a woman of God looks like."
Or at the first staff meeting after the 2008 election, when a staff member was genuinely concerned that Barack Obama was the Antichrist, and how she hoped for his failure, only to be outdone by the maintenance workers who volunteered to go to the inauguration with their hunting rifles and take him out.
And then, you know, there was that time when I was asked to resign from the church because the same youth pastor mentioned above had suspicion that I was gay, and their defense for asking me to leave was that I posed a threat to the children (because all gay people are pedophiles in their eyes).

This is who you are, Church.

So, in walks Donald Trump as the Republican candidate for President. A man who previously identified as pro-choice, has been seen as a philanderer, a failure as a businessman for his multiple bankruptcy filings, a Hollywood elitist, a reality television show host, and personal friend of the Clintons. But in history's greatest con, he managed to still be exactly that guy, and yet convince Evangelicals and other people of faith that he is a new man, a devout Christian with strong morals. He was now pro-life, wanted to punish women who had abortions, and suddenly stood for everything the Conservative Right has stood for. He even managed to get quite a few well-known pastors and faith leaders to vouch for him. Of course, these were the typical types you would expect to endorse a guy like Trump...the kind of pastors that believe in Prosperity Gospel, have multi-million dollar homes and book deals, are more media mogul than shepherd of a flock.
And they fell for it, hook, line, and sinker. And no matter how many times Trump showed his true self...by making fun of a disabled reporter, getting caught bragging about how and where he likes to grab women, the amount of women who came forward to talk about how he assaulted them, showed his lack of humility by saying he knew more than the generals, encouraged violence at his rallies, the list literally goes on and on...and yet, Evangelicals insisted this was the "Man of God" they needed in the White House. The litmus test was no longer "Does this man exemplify the Fruits of the Spirit," but became "Can this guy give us what we want, no matter the cost?"

This is who you are, Church. You either fell for the biggest con of all time, or sold your soul for a few silver pieces of legislative promises that violate the Constitution.

And none of that mattered, until it impacted you on a personal level. Until you knew someone being detained at an airport, or being sent back to the horrors of war and genocide.

It's a new form of selfishness, Church. And it's who you have been, since trading the command to follow Christ for the promise of notoriety and prosperity, for the promise of a creating a culture of false righteousness instead of a culture of love.

This is who you are, Church. You are no longer a reflection of Christ, but a reflection of Donald Trump.

We Were All Strangers.

“Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger. We were strangers once, too.”

Of all the things that President Obama said in his speech last week, I found this application of Exodus 23:9 to be one of the most poignant aspects of the entire presentation. I thought it was perfect.

In the last several years, I’ve been appalled by many responses of the Conservative Christian Evangelical machine towards the issue of immigration. With all of the ways in which the religious right tries to impose their particular brand of Biblical living within the confines of the Constitution, they seem to want to pretend that the sections of the Bible that give explicit instructions on how we treat immigrants do not exist. It is westernized American Christian hypocrisy at its best.

Why do so many believe that immigrants are only here in this country for a free ride or to have some sort of easy life of no accountability? Because I feel like that is what the argument comes down to...this sense that we don’t want to share the rewards of living in this country if we deem that someone has come here to take advantage of the system (especially if their skin is brown)? Let’s be honest here…when we talk about immigration, internally many people don’t immediately picture a college aged kid from the Ukraine or Lithuania, or Australia. We don’t seem to have a problem with those folks coming here to study, get a degree, or contribute to our economy. But we seem to have a problem with the people south of our border who want to come here to provide a better life for their family, sometimes working two or three jobs only to send that money back to their families in another country…by the way, doing jobs that most of us would never be willing to do, or to seek refuge from dangerous and complex situations in which they are powerless. After all, isn’t this the exact same manner in which many of our ancestors came to this country?

How can people claim to be followers of Christ and yet feel that children sent here to escape horrific violence in their own country should be sent back to those awful situations? How is it that people can be so intolerant towards immigrants but say they believe in the Bible, when it has so many examples of mercy shown to people seeking a safe place to live?

I recently experienced this kind of hypocrisy from a friend who claims to be a Christian. On one hand, she proclaims to be a follower of Christ, but insists that the immigrant children who have entered our country need to be returned to their countries of origin. I do not understand her reasoning on this…how can she claim herself as a follower of a teacher who did not send the marginalized or oppressed away from Him, who said that the world will know His followers by the love they show to others? How can she not see that her attitude is the exact antithesis of a person who follows Christ?

I’ve concluded that she is able to take this position, as others easily do, because they do not personally know someone who has faced that struggle. Their lack of empathy is the direct result of insulating themselves from the issue.

Years ago, I went to Nicaragua with a group from my church. It was the summer of 2001, and Nicaragua was smack in the middle of election season, not to mention that some hundreds of thousands of coffee workers were protesting the loss of their livelihoods. Meanwhile, there was still vast corruption and economic hardship that the country had been struggling to climb out of. Gangs were running rampant, drug use everywhere, child exploitation far and wide. While in that country, my eyes were opened up to some of the complex problems of Central and South America. It is not an easy place to live. Not a day went by when myself and most of the other ladies on this trip were not approached by a young mother, who would plead with us to find a way to take their babies and children with us back to the United States. There were mothers, literally trying to hand us their infants, because they knew that their child would have a better chance to live…the kind of living that you and I take for granted, the kind of living where we don’t fear for our lives every day and with every breath. Their babies and young children actually had a better chance of living past the age of 17 if they could just find a way to get them to the United States. I will never forget that and the desperation I saw in the eyes of those mothers, who were willing to find any way to save their children.

We desperately need immigration reform in our country, for the sake of all of us. And yes, the politics behind the President’s speech last night are multifaceted, but they are only distractions from the actual work that needs to be done. And we need leaders who are willing to do the hard work, regardless of what that means for their future political careers. So, it is incredibly frustrating to already hear demands to sue the President, impeach him, do everything possible just to score political points for the next election and please the base. I hear people on the right say that the President lacks leadership…well, he just took the reins and did something that Congress wouldn’t do. And they can throw their arms in the air and throw a fit for as long as they would like, but at least the President did something, which actually is super similar to policies put in place by both Republican and Democrat Presidential predecessors. So, this isn’t a new thing at all. Stop trying to pretend it is. And maybe there is a better way for us to have comprehensive immigration reform…so let’s explore that, but stop pandering and just sweeping the issue under the rug. That’s not governing, and it certainly isn’t serving the American people, which is what our elected officials are supposed to do.

Here’s your chance, Republicans, to show just how devoted to the pro-life, pro-family, Biblical ideals you claim as the foundation of your political principles. Here’s your chance to ante up and not just talk the talk, but walk the walk.

So, to our Republican lawmakers, I’ll simply repeat the best advice you’ve ever been given by the President: “Pass a bill.”

Yes, I Am A Pro-choice Christian

The first time I recognized that I had a different point of view than pretty much all of my church friends, it was the 2000 election. I had turned 18 and the very first election in which I was able to cast my vote was when George W. Bush was running for President against then Vice President, Al Gore. 

 

After placing my vote earlier in the week, I was headed off to visit Evangel University in Springfield, Missouri. My best friend was attending there and I was going to classes at a local college in Indianapolis, but longed to go to a Christian university to study ministry. So, I took advantage of a trip that our church youth group was going on to take other students interested in attending this particular school. We were listening to election results on the radio in the church van, when the youth pastor’s wife realized that I had voted in this election. She was really excited for me and was glad that I had voted for George Bush…

 

Except, I did not vote for George Bush. 

 

When I told her that I did not vote for George Bush, she was shocked, as were all of the other adults in the church van. When they all asked me why, I said it was because he was not pro-choice in regards to women’s reproductive rights.

 

Not only were the leaders appalled at my decision, but they felt the need to tell me over and over again that it was wrong for me to feel that women should have access to choose to end a pregnancy…did I not think that all life was precious? How could I believe it was okay for a woman to kill a harmless, innocent little baby? To say I was berated would be an understatement. The response from the youth leaders in that van and even from some of the students was straight up harassment. The entire weekend, I heard lecture after lecture about this wrong I had apparently committed. And when I wasn’t being lectured by adults, I was being made fun of by some of the students. Everyone assumed I had just made a misinformed mistake, that I just didn’t know what I was doing. 

 

But I did. I made that conscious decision when I cast my vote.

 

What the youth leaders, pastors, and students didn’t know was that I was adopted, and being adopted played a huge role in how I came to feel about a woman’s right to choose.

 

Now, most Evangelical Christians would still probably assume that since I was adopted, I would still be pro-life instead of pro-choice. Again, this is a false assumption.

 

My biological parents were very poor and already had two children before I came along. Since my parents had very limited financial resources, they were desperately trying to figure out what they were going to do. It was financially impossible for them to raise a 3^rd child. My biological father began to insist my biological mother have an abortion. But my biological mother knew that she had a choice in the matter…

 

She had a choice. And she pushed back against this idea to end her pregnancy, knowing there must be another way.

 

Eventually, through a lot of random circumstances, my biological parents met my adoptive parents, and they worked together, which resulted in me being born, and adopted by a couple who could not have a child.

 

Now, what most people on the pro-life side of this issue believe is that anyone who is not pro-life is some evil, baby-hating, pro-abortion person. And that’s just not true.

 

I’m not pro-abortion. I think it must be an incredibly horrific experience and difficult decision to make. But I also know that I’m limited in my understanding of choices because I’ve never been in a position to have to make that choice to end another life. I know that when I say that I believe in the Constitution and in the rights of individuals, it means that I would protect the right for people to make intensely personal choices, even if it means I may not agree with their choices. I know that I can’t fully understand what it is like to walk in the shoes of a person who has come to that decision to have an abortion. What I do know is that if I can’t understand someone else’s experience, then I certainly can’t judge them. I certainly have no right to do that or to tell them what they should do. Based on my limited experience in life, I have no right to take away someone else’s rights.

 

And I believe that if we limit a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body, we would do irreversible damage to civilization. Let me make it clear: passing legislation that would make abortion illegal will not stop abortions from happening, just in the way that prohibition did not stop people from consuming alcohol, but instead, created a subversive and dangerous market for what they were seeking, resulting in corruption and death. Making abortion illegal will not solve the problem, it will only mask it from being seen in daylight. 

 

By allowing a woman to have the right to choose, however, we can create regulations that may help us create opportunities that ultimately help women and children. We can make sure that if a woman has to make that difficult choice, then she will be taken care of by a qualified physician, and not by someone with more nefarious intentions or motivations. We can create education programs that help people understand the circumstances of their decisions and give them alternatives.

 

It would be naïve of us to fully believe that we live in a country where women have equal rights. The truth is that women still face issues of inequality in multiple aspects of life here in the United States. Can you honestly say that if we pass legislation that would absolutely take away a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body, that we are the advanced society that we claim to be? What does it say about us as a society if we don’t trust that a woman is capable of choosing what is best for her and her family? If we only mask the problem so that we aren’t forced to see it in the daylight, can we really lay claim to be the greatest democracy in history? 

 

Being pro-choice is not the antithesis of being pro-life. It is not the enemy. Being pro-choice is acknowledging that women face all kinds of issues in our country, and is a decision to be open to help educate and serve women that desperately need help, no matter if they decide to end a pregnancy or to seek out adoptive services. Being pro-choice is being humble enough to know that I am in no position to pass judgment on others. Being pro-choice is a practice of unconditional love, humility, sacrifice, and being brave enough to confront the difficulties of humanity.   

 

I fully believe that if I had been conceived prior to Roe vs. Wade, that I would not be alive. If my biological mother had no choice in how to decide whether she would give birth, I believe that she may have sought out an illegal and potentially dangerous method to end her pregnancy. If she did not have the right to choose, she may have felt forced to give birth and raise a child that she could not financially support. The fact that she was able to choose adoption, though, gave her the opportunity to not only help herself, but gave another family a chance to have a baby. Her choice created a space for love and sacrifice and healing to exist where it may not have existed had she been forced to raise me. She chose to find a way to choose life.

 

I know it goes against the grain of what our American ideals are of what it means to be a Christian, but I’m pro-choice. Being a follower of Christ means that we don’t just sweep issues under the rug so we don’t have to confront them. Being a follower of Christ doesn’t mean that we pass judgment on people because we don’t understand their circumstances. Being a follower of Christ means that we meet people where they are at and love them, even when it is difficult or they do things we may not agree with. It is a harder path to follow. 

 

So, when I look back on the days following the 2000 election and remember how I was harassed and bullied by people who thought I had made a mistake, I don’t look back with regret. I look back on a situation where I made the first few steps of following a path that was more difficult, required more love and less judgment, and doesn’t exactly sit well with religious folks. And that reassures me that I’m on the right path.

 

We Bring Everyone Home...Period.

Imagine if this type of speech was made by the President:

 

“We had an opportunity today to return Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl to the United States. However, we reviewed the circumstances surrounding his capture by the Taliban and determined that since he voluntarily walked off base, we could not justify rescuing this soldier. It matters not that he is an American. It matters not that he volunteered to serve in the military. It matters not that he has been held captive by Taliban forces for 5 years and his health was deteriorating severely. We wish him the best of luck and condolences to his family, who have suffered greatly these many years that he has been captured. Also, his dad has an unusually long beard, so we think he might be a Muslim. So, yeah…no rescue today, folks. Thank you, and God bless America.”

 

Ridiculous, isn’t it? We all know that if the President of the United States said something like this, the media would go bananas. The reason this scenario sounds ridiculous is because it is exactly ridiculous. But, all of a sudden, there are pundits and armchair politicians, media outlets, and the typical peanut gallery of radical conservatives who believe this is what the President should have said. The very people who claim to have supported this soldier and prayed for his safety and return, despite the circumstances of how he was captured, have now decided he was not worth it.

 

They’ve deleted their supportive tweets.

They are denying support that they once freely gave on the record, on camera.

 

This is a new level of low for the political right, who have always prided themselves on being supportive of our military and not leaving any of our soldiers behind. They do not seem to think that this soldier was worth the negotiating of five members of the Taliban who have been imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay for more than a decade. According to the voices on the right, these prisoners were more valuable sitting in a prison than an American soldier, suffering at the hands of the Taliban.

 

They argue that the soldier wandered off base, deliberately deserting his post, and that’s why they can’t justify a prisoner exchange. Why should we break our necks to get to a guy who carelessly wandered off and was captured?

 

An American soldiers life and value are suddenly conditional. We don’t know the whole story about what led to his capture or why he wandered off base, but according to the right, we shouldn’t even care to find out. We should have left him for our enemies to devour. Instead of at least getting him back here and conducting a proper military investigation, apparently we would rather let the Taliban serve up their version of military justice. And we are so short sighted that we don’t realize that doing nothing hurts us more in the long run.

 

So, this is how we treat our soldiers and POW’s now? We leave American soldiers to die if we think there was something “off” about the circumstances surrounding their capture?

 

They also argue that these 5 Taliban prisoners released from Guantanamo are supremely dangerous and criticize the President for releasing them “back to the battlefield.” But I think that’s seriously misguided thinking, on a couple of levels. First, these guys have been out of the fight for over 10 years. Let’s face it, war is different now than it was 10 years ago. Plus, if they were so dangerous, how is it that we managed to catch them? We have this problem where we make these guys out to be a terrorist version of Jack Bauer or some group of X-Men, and it’s just not true. In fact, thinking that these guys are supremely dangerous is kind of giving them exactly what they want…our fear of them is exactly the kind of terror they hope to inflict upon us. So, let’s not give them that perceptual victory, ok?

Second, it’s not like these guys are now free and clear to do whatever they want. There were very specific conditions based on the agreement of their release. Trust me, these guys are having their every move being watched. As an aside, though I am very critical of our military’s use of drones, don’t you think for one second that if we needed to take these guys out, that we could do that in the blink of an eye? Bill Maher said it best: “we didn’t so much set them free as much as we gave them a running start.”

 

I’m having a hard time fathoming that the political right believes that we should usher in a new era of conditional military procedure, where we don’t always bring all of our people back home, which is why I don’t buy it as a valid response for the right.

 

There’s something more at work here…and I think it has to do with the party affiliation of the man who sits in the Oval Office, and the fact that there are elections coming in November.

 

If you’re still operating with the hope that Congress will get something done, you’re living in a different dimension. These people have no concern whatsoever about governing or doing what you or I trusted them to do. They have no regard for lives being affected by their inaction in the here and now. They don’t do their job because they are consumed with keeping their job. And shame on us for letting them.

 

Shame on us for allowing them to imply that we should let a soldier remain a captive and die because he deserved it for walking off of his base. Shame on us for letting them decide that is how military justice should be served. Shame on us for letting them forget about Iran-Contra, or about all of the Gitmo detainees released under President Bush. Shame on us for allowing Gitmo to still stand.

 

The two sides we are seeing in this situation with the soldier have nothing to do with what we see at the surface. It’s all about providing that sound clip, that video clip to be used in the million dollar ad buys we will be suffering through all summer and fall until November. It’s all about face time on the Sunday shows and promoting another book or some other product. And if you’re buying what they’re selling on Fox News or Glenn Beck or Alex Jones, then you’re a sucker. You can’t be the party of family, pro-life values, driving around with a yellow ribbon on your vehicle that says “Support Our Troops” and decide that an American military family doesn’t deserve to have their son come back home alive, and at least be able to give us all some answers for why he wandered off of that base.

 

Keep an eye on the politicians who will continue to argue that we shouldn’t have brought Bowe Bergdahl home…and watch how they will have to defend their talking points as they campaign over these next several months. Then, you will see the true motivations of these folks.

 

We don’t leave anyone behind, period. And if you think we should or that there are caveats to that mantra, then I hope you never have to face a family who had their loved ones returned home in a flag-draped coffin, or speak with a soldier who has returned home maimed emotionally and physically. Because if you could stand there and argue that we don’t bring everyone home or that there are conditions in which it is ok to let a soldier die, then I would argue that you have lost your soul.