Monthly Archives: July 2020

Footprints in the Sand

Footprints in the Sand
Anonymous

One night I dreamed a dream.
As I was walking along the beach with my Lord.
Across the dark sky flashed scenes from my life.
For each scene, I noticed two sets of footprints in the sand,
One belonging to me and one to my Lord.

After the last scene of my life flashed before me,
I looked back at the footprints in the sand.
I noticed that at many times along the path of my life,
especially at the very lowest and saddest times,
there was only one set of footprints.

This really troubled me, so I asked the Lord about it.
“Lord, you said once I decided to follow you,
You’d walk with me all the way.
But I noticed that during the saddest and most troublesome times of my life,
there was only one set of footprints.
I don’t understand why, when I needed You the most, You would leave me.”

He whispered, “My precious child, I love you and will never leave you
Never, ever, during your trials and testings.
When you saw only one set of footprints,
It was then that I carried you.”

While this poem is not scripture, “Footprints in the Sand” does offer hope for the reader who recognizes God’s promises between the lines. However, there is scripture related to “Footprints in the Sand.” The poem seems to draw much of its inspiration from Psalms.

Psalm 37:23 says, “The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord: and he delighteth in his way.” In Psalm 77:19, it says, “Thy way is in the sea, and thy path in the great waters, and thy footsteps are not known.” Psalm 119:133 begs God to “Order my steps in thy word: and let not any iniquity have dominion over me.” In the New Testament, such as 1 Peter 2:21, the Christian is exhorted to follow in Jesus’ footsteps: “For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps.” 

The promise of God carrying us in times of need can easily apply it to the challenges of daily life. In the 4th stanza, God says, “My precious, precious child, I love you and I would never leave you.” This is what the Lord has promised in Deuteronomy 31:6: “Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the Lord thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.” With the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God has fulfilled His promise to be with us all the time and keeps that promise by not only being omnipresent, but by helping Christians in the form of the Holy Spirit.

This reality should give us real, solid hope. After all, if God is unchanging, and He has told us He will never leave nor forsake us: 

  1. We never have to be afraid. “What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?” asks Paul in Romans 8:31. What enemy is bigger, more frightening, or more powerful than God? Can there be any time in our lives so low that He is not there, sheltering us in the shadow of His Almighty protection? (Psalm 91) 
  2. We are never alone. Jesus prepared us for adversity and division. “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” (Mathew 10:34) Christ provides the defense and companionship of His Spirit “And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” (Ephesians 6:17) 
  3. We are not strong—God is. “My grace is sufficient,” is what God said to the Apostle Paul. Paul decided to “boast in my infirmities” because, in them “And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.” (2 Corinthians 12:9) God really is carrying us even if life seems unbearably difficult. He is carrying us particularly when life is at its toughest. 
  4. We can give this hope to others. Many people find consolation in the poem “Footprints,” but their consolation is shaky if it is based on a powerless view of God who is just an energy in the universe, not Lord and not personal Savior. Christians can use this poem as a way to discuss the power of God. In Ephesians 1:19, Paul tells us “And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power.”

It’s not healthy to spend too much time concentrating on our needs, but we can derive hope from understanding that God is closer than we imagine. If you take anything from “Footprints in the Sand,” perhaps it will be that reminder. We are weak, and God does carry us, because He is both omnipotent and omnipresent.


Pic of the Day


Moment of Zen: Those Eyes


Pic of the Day


Homophobic Language: Intentional and Unintentional

Homophobic language is a widely used and offensive pejorative in our culture. Common forms of homophobic language are “that’s so gay,” “you’re so gay,” or any use of the word “gay” to mean something is bad, uncool, or annoying. It is becoming less common for you to hear the word “gay” thrown around as a derogatory term, but kids especially still use it. Young people are increasingly using the expression “no homo,” after they’ve said something that might cause others to perceive them as gay. Other everyday expressions have a homophobic history or carry antigay connotations you might not realize. I want to discuss five common words and sayings with roots in homophobia.

The term “bugger” is not a term used in the United States very often though it was used in Colonial times and in the early years of the Republic. It is, however, quite common in Britain frequently used as an exclamation as in, “Oh, bugger! while “buggery” is synonymous with the act of sodomy. The modern English word “bugger” is derived from the French term bougre, which evolved from the Latin bulgarus or “Bulgarian.” The Catholic Church used the word to describe members of a religious sect known as the Bogomils who originated in medieval Bulgaria in the 10th Century and spread throughout Western Europe by the 15th Century. The Church used it as a term of offence against a group they considered heretical. The first use of the word “buggery” appears in Middle English in 1330 where it was associated with “abominable heresy” though the sexual sense of “bugger” is not recorded until 1555. The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology quotes a similar form, “bowgard” (and “bouguer“) but claims the Bulgarians were heretics “as belonging to the Greek Church, sp. Albigensian.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary gives the only meaning of the word “bugger” as a sodomite, “from the adherence of the Bulgarians to the Eastern Church considered heretical.” When someone is called a lazy little bugger, they probably don’t mean to accuse them of being a Bulgarian sodomite!

The term “nervous Nellie” borrows from “nelly” and “nancy,” archaic derogatory descriptors for gay men. The words imply gay men lack masculinity because of their sexual orientation. The phrase was popularized in the 1920s when it was used to refer to Secretary of State Frank Kellogg, a notoriously timid politician according to “Hatchet Jobs and Hardball: The Oxford Dictionary of American Political Slang.” Needless to say, it is as offensive to link homosexuality with timidity as it is offensive to criticize a meek politician as “gay” or “girlish.” These days, this term probably isn’t the best way to refer to an antsy or jittery friend. Typically, ‘nancy,’ ‘nelly,’ and others including ‘fag,’ ‘sissy,’ ‘fairy’ are used to perpetuate homophobia These slurs usually target people with male-sexed bodies who do not act sufficiently masculine. They are inherently sexist and frame femininity as an insult meant to emasculate men.

On the down low” is a specific term rooted in the Black community. The phrase first referred to Black men who had secret homosexual relationships; it was later adopted by Black men who weren’t closeted, but who rejected white gay culture. Men first started claiming the label in the mid-1990s. Back then, the culture was completely under the radar, and DL men lived ostensibly heterosexual lives (complete with wives and girlfriends) while engaging in secret sexual relationships with men. The phrase remains rooted in paranoia about homosexuality, and the belief these men were spreading HIV/AIDS to heterosexual girlfriends and wives.

If you’ve recently been around male elementary school students, you’ve probably heard a lot about what “sucks.” And what does suck? A penis, of course! Expressing your distaste for something in terms of a blowjob equates it with a sexually submissive woman or man forced into a homosexual act. The notion that oral sex is inherently shameful also reflects a generally skewed view of sexuality in which sex acts entail one party being belittled by the other. Using sexual submission as an insult is essentially the same thing as calling something gay; it implies that fellatio is gross, degrading, and punishing particularly when it is performed by a man.

It is common knowledge that “faggot and fag” are offensive, but it’s worth revisiting why especially if you’re tempted to use tamer-seeming phrases like “fag hag.” The English words “faggot” and “fagot” come from Old French and first referred to bundles of sticks used as firewood. In the Middle Ages, men were burned alive at the stake for engaging in homosexual intercourse as well as other acts of heresy. By the time the Inquisition finished its work in the 17th Century, several million heretics and homosexuals had been burned at the stake. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) revealed the words’ first uses referring to “a bundle of sticks, twigs, or small branches of trees bound together […..] for use as fuel” and “with special reference to the practice of burning heretics alive, esp. in [the] phrase, fire and faggot; to fry a faggot, to be burnt alive; also, to bear, carry a faggot as those did who renounced heresy.” According to the OED, in the early 20th Century, the term was adopted in the United States as a derogatory way to refer to homosexual and effeminate men. Curiously, the word “faggot” was not commonly adopted in the British Isles in the same sense; indeed, a “fag” in the United Kingdom is usually a slang term for a cigarette or used in the phrase “fagged out,” meaning exhausted.

Some in the gay community have reclaimed these terms, but that doesn’t make them fair game for everyone else. In fact, I don’t even like hearing them being uttered by gay people. When people use offensive language in their own community and claim it is only offensive when other people use the terms, that, in itself, is offensive. The words gay (used in a demeaning fashion), fag, sissy, fairy, queer, faggot can do psychological damage to a young person especially when used in a degrading way. These terms emphasize there is something wrong with being homosexual. It was one of the reasons it took me so long to acknowledge my own sexuality. Everything associated with homosexuality was deemed “bad,” an “abomination.” When the gay community normalizes these words, they don’t know the traumatic affect it can have on someone younger. I cringe whenever I hear these words. I don’t care who speaks them. I will never hear the word “queer” without hearing it in my mother’s voice filled with disgust. Other disparaging, homophobic slurs also bring back the torture many of us received from bullies while growing up. 

 In conclusion: the next time you start to use these words, take the time to think how they might affect those around you.

While we are on the topic of how words affect LGBTQ people, see the second half of this post where I have a few things to say about the language too often used concerning HIV and STI.


Pic of the Day


“Master” (De)bates

On Monday, CNN did a story on everyday words and phrases which have racist overtones. The story noted they are so entrenched in everyday use that Americans don’t think twice about saying them. Some of these terms, however, are rooted in the nation’s history of chattel slavery while others evoke racist notions about Black people.  But with that said, IMO, CNN is only partially correct. Following are words and phrases CNN used as examples: 

  • Peanut gallery
  • Grandfathered in
  • Cakewalk
  • Lynch mob
  • Uppity
  • Sold down the river
  • Master bedrooms/bathrooms
  • The Masters Tournament

Peanut gallerygrandfathered incakewalklynch mobuppity, and sold down the river have clear racist origins. The term “peanut gallery” dates back to the vaudeville era of the late 19th century and referred to the section of the theater where Black people typically sat; now the phrase usually refers to the cheapest seats in a theater and informally describes critics or hecklers. “Grandfathered in” comes from a law passed by Southern states during Reconstruction. The law stated anyone who was able to vote before 1867 was exempt from the literacy tests, property requirements, and poll taxes needed for voting. Enslaved people were not freed until 1865 when the 13th Amendment passed. They weren’t granted the right to vote until the 15th Amendment passed in 1870. Effectively, it prevented former slaves from voting. “Cakewalk” comes from slave owners holding contests in which enslaved people competed for a cake. The cakewalk originated as a dance performed by slaves and was intended to be a mockery of the way white people danced though plantation owners often interpreted slaves’ movements as unskillful attempts to be like them. Thus, the term “cakewalk” became associated with an easy victory, or something that’s easily accomplished.

The term “lynch mob” has such blatant connotations I shouldn’t have to explain it. It refers to the lynching of Black people for the smallest of offenses. “Uppity” is another term used as an epithet by white people in the Jim Crow era to describe Black people they believed weren’t showing them enough deference. This word has always been in common use with racists. No one who uses the word when describing Black people, can legitimately claim they did not know of the word’s racist origins especially those who leveled the claim against the Obamas. And finally, the phrase “sold down the river” is just what it sounds like. Slave traders traveled along the Mississippi River selling enslaved people to plantation owners further south.

Therefore, I have no problem with these everyday words and phrases being said to have racist connotations; they absolutely do. However, I do have a problem when someone tries to associate all uses of the word “master” with chattel slavery. The reporter pointed out that master bedrooms/bathrooms and the Masters Tournament (golf) evoke slave masters from the South. The phrase “master bedroom” first appeared in the 1926 Sears catalog and referred to a large second floor bedroom with a private bathroom. Some realtors insist that “master” in master bedroom is related to the assumed superior status of the man of the house, be it race- or sex-based. But if this were the case, the room would be called the master’s bedroom not the master bedroom. Likewise, the term Masters Tournament, which was intended as a reference to golfers with great skills, is now being called racist by some sports writers simply because it takes place at a Southern golf course. Not all uses of the word master have connotations of chattel slavery. I have a master’s degree in History which signifies I have mastered the discipline of History; if a golfer plays in the Masters Tournament, he has mastered the game of golf. 

The American lexicon is filled with derogatory terms used in everyday language. Some of them are more offensive than “master.” Do not get me started on homophobic words in everyday speech. That will be a topic for tomorrow.


Pic of the Day


An Attack on Americans’ Intelligence

The other day, I read an article written by two American gay writers. The article’s title was, “Are Americans the stupidest people in the world?” I’ve actually read these writers’ work before: one is an LGBT young adult novelist and the other was an editor of a former gay news and entertainment website. These two men are a longtime gay couple who decided in 2017 to sell their house in Seattle and travel the world as “digital nomads.” They’ve been moving to a new country every few months and supporting themselves by working remotely.

The opinion piece they wrote has some valid points. I agree that the U.S. response to the pandemic has not lived up to what most of the rest of the world is doing, because many Republican leaders in this country have failed to take the crisis seriously. Also, the supporters of those so-called leaders have acted according to what they see as an example. The public’s health and safety have been made into political issues.  

However, what I take exception to is when they try to lump all Americans and all politicians into the same category. At one point, they write, “The brutal truth is that a lot of Americans have grown selfish, lazy, and entitled. We want everything now, and we don’t want to pay the real cost of things. And we don’t seem to give a damn about people who don’t look and act exactly like us.” These two men left the United States when Trump was elected. Fine, great, go…but, not all of us can do that; being a traveling nomad is expensive. And by leaving, they are running away from the problem and doing nothing but complaining from a distance. The U.S. isn’t perfect, and it never has been, but when someone decides to run from a problem then disparage those trying to make things better, you become part of the problem, not part of the solution.

These guys ran away and say everything is so much better elsewhere. They act like other countries don’t have the same problems with police brutality and racism that the United States does. Bullshit! The United States has one unique character that most other countries don’t have: e pluribus unum. Out of many nationalities, we are one nation. Most countries are more monoethnic than the United States. And the countries these two men say they have been to and seen such a difference happen to be the most monoethnic countries in the world. 

I will admit many Americans since colonial times have believed in American exceptionalism. It’s the whole “City upon a Hill” mentality. The British novelist, Frances Trollope, visited the United States in 1830 and wrote, Domestic Manners of the Americans. The book created a sensation on both sides of the Atlantic. Trollope had a caustic view of Americans, and found America strongly lacking in manners and learning. She was appalled by America’s egalitarian middle-class, and by the influence of evangelicalism emerging during the Second Great Awakening. In her book, Trollope said:

A single word indicative of doubt, that anything, or everything, in that country is not the very best in the world, produces an effect which must be seen and felt to be understood. If the citizens of the United States were indeed the devoted patriots they call themselves, they would surely not thus encrust themselves in the hard, dry, stubborn persuasion, that they are the first and best of the human race, that nothing is to be learnt, but what they are able to teach, and that nothing is worth having, which they do not possess.

There is a lot of truth in her writing, but her attitude was influenced by the European view that Americans had no history and were uncouth. There was a prejudice against Americans around the world, and that view went both ways as many Americans felt they were better than the rest of the world.

The trouble with Trollope’s attitude is that this has never been true of all Americans, just as it is not true that all Americans are stupid. It’s only a certain, and very vocal, part of the population who are just plain ignorant. The head ignoramus, sadly, is the President. He has led his followers into nativism, paranoia, anti-intellectualism, conspiracy-mongering, and of course, rank racism. But those same followers already had those issues before Donald Trump. He’s just fueling the fire. These same people are unwilling to sacrifice for the common good, to think of others before themselves, and to endure difficult times.

I don’t like the stay-at-home orders or wearing a facemask when I have to go out. I am not looking forward to going back to work and having to wear a facemask any time I leave my office. However, I know it is for the common good. I am willing to endure the discomfort if it will help slow the pandemic. It’s just something we have to do. So, for people like the two guys who wrote, “Are Americans the stupidest people in the world?” they don’t realize many of us are trying. We are doing our part. We are not selfish, lazy, and entitled.

You know what to do:


Pic of the Day