PeaceBang
The manic mind of the minister -- Auntie Mame Meets Cotton Mather. Blogging about Unitarian Universalism, UU Christian spiritual practice, occasional cultural and political ravings, and the inner life of ministry. PeaceBang is the alter ego of a small town pastor serving an historic New England Unitarian Universalist congregation.
Brown Bag Lunch
May 28, 2007 on 10:08 am | In Theological Reflection (Biblical), Unitarian Universalism |So let me get this straight. Because of an old, racist practice of determining someone’s acceptable level of “whiteness” by using a brown bag, the folks at the Starr King School For the Ministry are now banishing the term “brown bag lunch” from their collective vocabulary?
Of course it makes no difference at all that the totally benign practice of bringing a brown bag lunch to a gathering has nothing whatsoever under heaven to do with the pernicious old use of brown bags… but you know, we’re fighting oppression here. So brown bags are out. I don’t know what I’ll use to take out Ermengarde’s poop now; maybe little plastic produce bags. But that’s not sustainable. So we’re in a bit of a bind now. How can I assure that when I ask the cat sitter to scoop Erm’s poops into the brown bags in the mud room, she won’t be offended or oppressed? It might stir up a bad association. It certainly will for me, thinking of students at Starr King, who have so many things to learn about ministry (none of which I heard mentioned in their latest YouTube testimonial, by the way) using up their precious brain cells remembering not to use the words “brown” and “bag” next to each other in a sentence.
The world is awfully full of oppression for those folks. I wonder if it’s got any grace at all in it? Without their help, I mean?
This reminds me of something the dishy Bishop William Willimon said at the Festival of Homiletics last week. He told the story of a woman who came to talk to him after a sermon — or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that she came to confront him after a sermon. She said, “Pastor, you told us today that Jesus said we must forgive our enemies seventy times seven. Do you mean to tell me that I’m supposed to forgive my husband who abused me and made my life a living hell for ten years?”
And Willimon clutched.
“Ah,” he said. And “Well, uh, they only give us twenty minutes for these things, you know… and of course we can’t cover all the exceptions… and spousal abuse is a terrible evil.”
The woman waited.
He continued. “But, well, that seventy times seven thing. That does seem to be the kind of thing that Jesus said.”
And the woman said, “Thank you. I just wanted to make sure.”
Willimon told this story and he said, “You see, I looked at this woman and I saw a victim. Jesus looked at this woman and he saw a disciple.”
Unitarian Universalists, do I hear an “amen?”
46 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
First, when I read “do I hear an amen?” I got goose bumps! I miss that sort of stuff so much.
AND of course you hear an amen! from over hear. Our sweet UU selves are often a walking collection of good intentions gone so very badly.
This goes on my list of Lizard Eater’s story about the transgender bathroom that needs braille signs and the banning of water bottles.
Sigh.
and Amen!
Comment by Elizabeth — May 28, 2007 #
Agape does not always refer to “ah-ga-pay” love.
Right now, I am AGAPE. My mouth is dropped open.
This seems like a liberal version of those sillies in Congress passing a resolution about “Freedom Fries.”
Please, UU’s. Stop providing ammunition for the “UU’s are silly fruitcakes” file.
Comment by Lizard Eater — May 28, 2007 #
Of all the many, many stupid anti-racism/anti-oppression things I have heard in UU circles over the years, that brown bag thing is hands down the stupidest. I almost want you to say “April Fools!” and admit that it’s a holdover from the week-long snark-fest. Like, maybe Starr King didn’t go far enough: clearly the words “brown” and “bag” ought to be banned altogether. And maybe we shouldn’t use the words “train,” “conductor,” or “track” anymore because people used to have to run an underground “railroad” to escape slavery.
On the 70 x 7: it seems to me that we are asked by Jesus to forgive others not for their sake but for our own. Is that what Rev. Willimon was getting at? Clutching to hate is no way to move closer to God, no matter how justified. And we can forgive without becoming passive victims: I can forgive Bush for being an imperfect man while still working for his removal; I can forgive someone who hurt me while still recognizing that they were wrong and I need to keep them out of my life. Actually, I think that we not only need to forgive others for 70 x 7 instances of sin against us, we also have to forgive each sin 70 x 7 times. Because forgiveness is terribly difficult to achieve, and even when we offer it we often slide back later into resentment. Even after I’ve told someone I forgive them I can catch myself mentally rebuking them time and again. So I have to forgive each wrong 70 x 7 times in order to exhaust my own capacity to hold a grudge.
Comment by Jeff W. — May 28, 2007 #
Um, I hope they’re not teaching hermeneutics at this school. You know, context, authorial intent and all that. Wow.
Comment by ck — May 28, 2007 #
Goggling, I see that the “Brown Bag” story is apparently from New Orleans and used by those of color to separate themselves from those of more color. Interesting to see it now spreading around the country.
In the area I grew up in, “Brown Bag” meant you were carrying a bottle of whiskey - as there was this law against bars selling booze - but you could bring it in, and this was done usually in the same brown bag you bought it in. So in this state and of a certain age, to say brown bag, means that you’re not a teetotaler!
Comment by SR — May 28, 2007 #
2 wows before the amen.
Wow #1…..that that many people in one place actually knew what the brown paper bag test was. I’m amazed.
Wow #2…..that this same group of people thought that removing the words “brown paper bag” from a collective vocabulary was somehow going to change anything; other than show that PC can really go too far.
As to the rest…….Amen!!!
Comment by Kim Hampton — May 28, 2007 #
This is the only story I’ve found that provides any historical information about the “brown bag test,” which appears to have absolutely nothing to do with “brown bag lunches.” Indeed, it appears to have been a phenomenon of African Americans discriminating against darker-skinned African Americans.
Also worth noting: The widespread practice of UUs who are skeptical about the latest in political correctness who opt to remain silent rather than be perceived as insufficiently mobilized against oppression.
Comment by Philocrites — May 28, 2007 #
Hmm. Perhaps skin should be removed, since that the color of skin is too often the basis of oppression? Why stop at the term “brown bag”?
I do hope you follow Willimon’s blog. You do, don’t you?
Comment by Peregrinato — May 28, 2007 #
AMEN, sister, PREACH IT!!!
This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. And reading the piece that you linked to just makes me shudder even more, honestly. To me, it’s another case of “Look, look how enlightened we are!!” rather than doing REAL justice work. And yet another way to slam the door in the faces of those who aren’t in “the know” - if they’re still using those antiquated colloquialisms, they must be racists!!
ARGH.
Comment by Jess — May 28, 2007 #
Next up for Starr King students: they will no longer use the term “blue jeans” to describe denim pants. “Jean” sounds like “Gene” which is short for “Eugene McCarthy.” If you use the term “jeans” then clearly you are supporting political repression and witchhunts.
And don’t you DARE bring a brownie to the community lunch at Starr King!
Comment by Plip Plop — May 28, 2007 #
Plip - you left out: “Eugene McCarthy” often gets confused for “Jospeh McCarthy”. If you use the term “jeans” then clearly you are supporting political repression and witchhunts.
Comment by StevenRowe — May 28, 2007 #
On 28 May 2007, Plip Plop wrote:
“Next up for Starr King students: they will no longer use the term ‘blue jeans’ to describe denim pants. ‘Jean’ sounds like ‘Gene’ which is short for ‘Eugene McCarthy.’ If you use the term ‘jeans’ then clearly you are supporting political repression and witchhunts.”
Actually, you may want to suggest banning coffee (”a cup of joe”) since you’re talking about the other McCarthy politician.
Comment by Steve Caldwell — May 28, 2007 #
If brown bag lunches are now banned at Starr King, and you show up there with your lunch in a bag, how dark can it be before they will not let you in?
Comment by fausto — May 28, 2007 #
RE: Banning “brown bag” phrase
::shakes head in complete and utter disbelief::
There are no words.
Comment by Tracie — May 28, 2007 #
Gotta say, for people reading/commenting on this blog who seem to care about religion, UU, and the betterment of people, you are a very sad bunch.
If Starr King wants to experiment with trying out new approaches or looking at certain words or phrases in a different way, great for them. If you don’t agree, that’s just fine, not everyone agrees, but to make a mockery of that, well sorry but that’s not enlightened discussion.
I suggest you go back and read the words you have all written and contemplate how much better you are really trying to make the world.
Comment by C.E.J. — May 28, 2007 #
In an effort to answer Melissa Mummert’s “call to examine the silence and inaction that perpetuates oppressions”:
Wow. I’m sorry there’s so much misunderstanding about the work that Starr King is doing to train its students for ministry in the world by counter oppressions. I’m also sorry to read so many hateful, spiteful and mocking words used to demean a school that is doing it’s own best efforts to live out the Unitarian Universalist Principles and Purposes. Isn’t this what we’re all trying to do? I sure haven’t seen much effort to “draw from many sources” and “justice, equity and compassion in human relations” in this blog post or comments.
What about “the goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all”? Or am I in the wrong denomination?
Besides, PeaceBang, I think you and your commenters seem to have lost the larger meaning of the CLF sermon in favor of slamming a very particular anecdote that you don’t fully understand because you only heard the story third hand from someone else.
Did anyone actually read the full CLF sermon by Melissa Mummert? Did anyone even briefly take Mummert’s story and experiences as potentially true or worthy of consideration, or did folks completely dismiss her because what she says might have been inconvenient for them, or different than what they’ve thought of before?
To Jess, who apparently did read the whole CLF sermon: I actually think Mummert was talking about doing real justice work. Could you tell us why you don’t think she was, and what does constitute as “real” justice work? Doesn’t it take all kinds?
To quote Mummert, “talking about race can be tricky business.” We’ve obviously seen that here.
For full disclosure, yes, I’m a student at Starr King. And I’m white.
I’d like to see some real theological conversation about the larger topics that Mummert’s sermon brought up rather than spiteful rants against particular, third-hand part of the sermon.
Comment by Elizabeth M. — May 29, 2007 #
I am grateful for my Starr King education, where I am tenderly doing the soulwork necessary to see that we are all wading in racism. Since starting school here two years ago, I have learned how complex the layers of oppression are, and how I participate. This has already made me a better minister in my CPE and in my dormitory living. And every time I make mistakes and accidentally negate someone else’s reality, I know that God is forgiving, but God still seeks connection among her children.
Comment by AlexMcGee — May 29, 2007 #
The brown bag thing is news to me! But then again, I’ve only been at Starr King one year… it wasn’t part of the syllabus this year.
One of the things we seem to do here is a sort of experiential learning…. I can’t explain it very well, but it consists of leaving lots of contradictory and unresolved ideas in our brains, so we can shuffle them around, koan-like.
It seems to work… though it also frustrates the hell out of first year students (e.g. me), because there is no truth handed down– sometimes a statement is framed in a point of view so different from what we’ve experienced that it seems impossible to understand the speaker.
But, then again, that’s life in a diverse world.
I liked Willimon’s story. We used his reader “Pastor” first semester.
Comment by Charlie — May 29, 2007 #
Actually as a Brit in an American church, I never really understood what ‘brown bag lunch’ meant in any case.
?
Comment by Stephen — May 29, 2007 #
Well, I figured we’d hear from the SKSM folks soon enough, and I’m glad we have. Hi, SKSM!
Unfortunately, I also suspected that when we did, we’d be treated to emotional accusations that we weren’t good UUs, and have the Principles invoked in tearful tones, and be asked whether or not we had read the whole article, and that sort of thing. Okay, that’s par for the course among us, and I’ve certainly done my time on the other side. However, just as I suspected and feared: none of these critics has made a good case for why the dreaded expression “brown bag lunch” is in any way oppressive in a general context of “I’m bringing a brown bag lunch to class today.”
I’m sorry, brothers and sisters, I feel your emotional insult here, but none of you have made any kind of persuasive argument. Impugning the “UU-ness” of me or my readers just doesn’t cut it.
Of course I read the whole article. It was a good article in many ways and I liked it. If there was more to the story of the brown bag thing, I’m sure Rev. Mummert would have provided it. She didn’t because there was nothing else to say.
Articles that appear in our religious journals aren’t third-hand news. They are reports of our lives, and are to be trusted. I trusted that if there was more to the explanation of why we should strike BBL from our speech, she would have given it. But there isn’t one. She shared the story as it was. It stands as it is, and reactions are fair as they are.
Yes, I read her entire article. And noted that we started out with the same reaction to the announcement that there would be no uttering of the phrase “BROWN BAG LUNCH.” Difference is, I honored my reaction. She honored an explanation that, while an interesting and upsetting anecdote to be sure, was in no way a persuasive argument for the striking of the phrase from community speech.
Writers select things to write about. I could have written about a lot of aspects of the article. I would have liked to have written about how to track down a juvenile who gets lost in the criminal justice system — which I have done. I could have written a lot of things. I wrote about something that I thought was outrageous and that highlights the “UU-SVU” culture I am dead against. That’s called freedom of the mind and the pen, my friends. You have it, too. Go thou and speak, persuade, change my mind and the mind of all those whose jaws similarly dropped when reading this story. I hope you can make us see why this is meaningful response to racism. Because after reading what you’ve had to say, I remain head-shakingly baffled.
Comment by PeaceBang — May 29, 2007 #
Also, CEJ, I am all for “trying out new approaches and looking at words or phrases in a new way.”
If you consider *banning a phrase from campus* “trying out a new approach and looking at words and phrases in a new way,” well… um… I guess we have radically different ideas about creativity and freedom, and about how people actually learn things and transform.
Comment by PeaceBang — May 29, 2007 #
Elizabeth, I didn’t hear anyone dismiss the article en toto. Where did you get that idea? Nothing but the brown bag story was referenced.
Jumping to conclusions about what’s going on with people also isn’t an effective argument. Nobody “totally dismissed” the author. We’re not laughing at the author. We’re laughing at the idea that banning/frowning upon/censoring the phrase “brown bag lunch” because brown bags have been used in a racist way is an act of anti-oppression.
Dang. Nobody dismissed Melissa. She had the courage to air this in the first place!
Comment by PeaceBang — May 29, 2007 #
@Stephen. “Brown bag lunch” is a packed lunch in a small brown (kraft) paper bag. Such bags are especially sold for this purpose. I suspect many of us associate them with school lunches, which as in Britain are available for sale but often aren’t very good. I “brown bagged” it most of my childhood.
By extension an event that takes place over the lunch hour — a training, worship, meeting etc. — where you are encouraged to bring (no catering) and eat your lunch is often dubbed “brown-bag.”
@PeaceBang. Keep it up.
Comment by Scott (Boy in the Bands) — May 29, 2007 #
I have to say, I’m even more disappointed in the weak responses of the Starr King respondents last night than I am to the original silliness of banning “brown bag lunch.” They have no persuasive nature whatsoever and merely constitute an attempt to silence critics by resorting to emotionality and hypocritical reference to the P&P as some sort of dogma. What a shame.
Here we see the exact kind of danger that people concerned about the state of anti-racism work in UUism are worried about: inability to handle criticism, deep emotional investment in a dubious ideology without ability to invest others through logical argument, attempts to shut down discussion through censorship or immediate seizing of the moral high ground, assumption that those who disagree have not thought through their positions or done their homework, and maybe worst of all, self-censorship that results in silencing the individual voice of conscience in favor of receiving all authority from an outside source. Melissa’s story that she thought banning brown bagging was weird but didn’t speak up because she was afraid of being thought racist is the dagger in the heart of AR/AO and the reason why so many UUs who oppose racism find AR/AO to be profoundly misguided.
Comment by Jeff W. — May 29, 2007 #
Having recently graduated from Wonderland (AKA Starr King), I can report that I was warned by my faculty adviser during orientation week in 2003 that we were no longer having “brown bag” lunches because of the association w/ colorism. She warning reminded me of a boss who didn’t want us to refer to “grandfathing” employees when qualification requirements changed because of the association of that term w/ discriminatory voting practices.
I have no objection to being taught that certain words or phrases are offensive to some people. It doesn’t take too many of my brain cells to remember such usage.
Where I recommend caution is either ridiculing people for their language preferences/associations or playing “gotcha” w/ people because they don’t know what you find offensive.
I never remember seeing any document or guidance at Starr King about “brown bag.” The subject only came up because I was fearful of entering a linguistic mine field. A challenge of UUism, of acknowledging everyone’s “inherent worth and dignity,” is speaking respectfully to one another, even when the other is ignorantly or innocently offensive. We are here to learn from one another or we are not “here” at all.
Comment by Alice — May 29, 2007 #
I put up my previous post before I saw the new posts by Charlie and Elizabeth. Charlie’s post proves my point that not everyone is going to know what language others might find offensive. I don’t remember any discussion of BBL after 2003-4.
Elizabeth’s post shows how quickly we move from ridicule to reaction. Lord please save us from our good intentions.
Comment by Alice — May 29, 2007 #
You know, a few years ago, the social services agency where I work (which is very concerned with cultural competency and sensitivity) explicitly stopped using the word “picnic,” (substituting “cookout”) because someone believed that “picnic” was etymologically derived from “pick a nigger,” i.e., a random lynching staged for the amusement of white folks, who would bring along a lunch.
That turned out to be an internet hoax; “picnic” was derived from a 17th century French word. We still don’t have them at my workplace, though, just because of that previous uproar.
We still have “brown bag” discussion groups, though–ironically, the internal group most responsible for them is the Diversity Steering Committee. I’d be tempted to bring them this issue and see what they thing.
Comment by martinet — May 29, 2007 #
My mother can pass the brown paper bag test….I cannot.
For those SKSM students who think that those of us who read and respond on this blog are stupid enough to not read the entire article, think again. The explaination of the test was wrong.
If you are truly interested in countering oppression, stop thinking that taking the words “brown paper bag” out of the vocabulary is going to change anything and start lobbying the beauty and cosmetics industry which for many years gave us only one standard of beauty.
Color complex issues are multilayered and have developed over time. So stop doing the superficial thing and do something real.
p.s.- how many of you watched Oprah yesterday?
Comment by Kim Hampton — May 29, 2007 #
Ms Bang:
Thanks for your posting on this. I was noticing an interesting divergence in the comments. Some folks see it in a sort of amusing feature put in at the end of a newscast, a sort of “can you believe this?” piece. They are enjoying adding more silliness to the perceived silliness of Starr King. Remember “Unitarian Minister shows Pornography in Church Basement?” (Steven, maybe I didn’t get that quote right…) UUs know how this feels.
The sensitivity comes if you see what else is happening in the UUA and UU-run theological schools. May I suggest revsean.com’s post “These Are NOT Small Things” as background.
So the Starr Kingers are very worried about the future of their school (and Meadville Lombard too)… you are making fun of an institution which is much bigger than a brown paper bag. You (and Steven, Steve, Plip and others) are ridiculing an organization that needs friends right now, or at least some sensitivity.
I’m trying to understand your motivation, why you would take one thing from the past, quoted for dramatic effect, and have it apply to the entire enterprise… unless you are playing a Unitarian Universalist Geraldo Rivera (which I doubt, but I do not know you.) Cleary, something is happening here… I don’t know what it is.
Do you, mister Jones?
Comment by Charlie — May 29, 2007 #
The people mocking Starr King for making an issue out of the phrase “brown bag lunch” aren’t necessarily mocking resistance to oppression.
However, Starr King itself necessarily mocks resistance to oppression when its efforts result in glib and irrelevant gestures like banning the term “brown bag lunch”.
As for the question why some of us haven’t gone further to read someone’s sermon, the answer is the simple and easily anticipated human tendency to reach for the low-hanging fruit first — not only among those benighted masses (gasp!) feebly striggling in the darkness that prevails Out There beyond UU-dom, but even (double gasp!!) among the Enlightened Ones within it. Why should anyone look beyond the big “kick me” sign for the causes behind it, especially if wearing it is by choice?
Comment by fausto — May 29, 2007 #
Elizabeth - while I did read the whole sermon, I feel that Melissa’s use of the brown bag story, and her ensuing “enlightenment” spoke to the broader issue at stake here - these small, insignificant, hollow “victories” over insidious layers of oppression are being touted AS the real work. By opening an otherwise very moving, relevant sermon with this kind of thing, I think she almost negates the very point she wants to make.
To my mind, the only “deeper learning” in this anecdote comes from the number of people who stayed silent when this ridiculous pronouncement was made. Kudos to the student who spoke up, for sure. But for those who capitulated with this unnecessary censorship of a harmless colloquialism that accurately describes the way many people bring their lunches from home (including me!) - for shame, people.
If you Google “brown bag race” (omit quotations) you will find results for luncheon discussions all across the country about issues of race and discrimination. Isn’t that what we want to encourage? Calling attention to the “oppressive connotations” of the term “brown bag” distracts from the real purpose of justice work, and is yet another way to make people like me feel even more on the outside. I haven’t had the time while earning a living and raising a family to read the right books and attend the right workshops and “come to terms” with my own inherent “racism,” therefore I am made to feel that my contributions to these discussions are meaningless.
Comment by Jess — May 29, 2007 #
Disclaimer: I am a 2nd year M.Div student at SKSM, and am currently sitting behind the reception desk.
After reading this discussion, I decided to perform a decidedly unscientific experiment by screaming the words “Brown Bag Lunch” at the top of my lungs…loudly enough, I hoped, for everyone in our small building to hear me. (Two of whom are people of color, FWIW.) Just for good measure, I then related in context to a faculty member the old joke about arguing on the Internet and the Special Olympics. Interestingly enough, nothing terrible happened. No members of the mythical PC Police showed up to write me a ticket, no disapproving glares threatening to undermine my self-esteem…just a couple of scattered, bemused smiles poking around office doors. From this admittedly small sample, it seems to me that the meme about Starr King habitually banning or censoring or whatever scary 1st-Amendment-hostile word one wants to use to describe (or perhaps stereotype) the learning environment here fails, I think, to accurately characterize the reality in which I find myself typing this post.
This is not to say that SKSM’s counter-oppression work doesn’t veer off into the silly from time to time…it can be very, painfully human that way. Of course, the word “silly” remains highly subjective. I’d wager that the vast majority of us implicitly agree with the basic premises of political correctness, which are that language has power and that power should be used responsibly. The issue, then, becomes where to draw the line in in each moment between the authentically respectful and the probably ridiculous. Ask yourself if you’d be comfortable with a white person casually (and without malice) referring to a random black person on the street as a nigger and my guess is that you’ll find yourself drawing one of these lines.
For my incoming class, the debated phrase was “analysis paralysis”…the question being whether it was respectful to evoke a physical disability to describe a mental state. Some of us (myself included) thought this was absurd and a waste of time, while others felt the question deserved some attention, while still others weren’t sure at all what to think. I think it’s safe to say that most of us simply hadn’t considered it before, and therein is the rub: Oppression is perpetuated by many things, but ignorance and intellectual laziness are two of the big ones. NB: I would NOT characterize this discussion as a whole as proceeding from ignorance or intellectual laziness.
To provide a partial response to PeaceBang’s contention that it is laughable to promote “the idea that banning/frowning upon/censoring the phrase “brown bag lunch” because brown bags have been used in a racist way is an act of anti-oppression”…well, I tend to agree, at least in this case. For me, the operative anti-oppressive element rests in the willingness to have the conversation in the first place, what Melissa points to when she says …”because Anne asked a potentially uncomfortable question, we at least understood the intent behind the semantic switch, and at the same time we learned a shocking piece of forgotten history.”
So here’s a question for the room…assume for the moment that you are in a room with someone who, for whatever reason, respectfully objects to your use of the phrase “brown bag lunch.” (Or alternately, you are in a room with a transgender person who asks you to please use certain pronouns when referring to hir.)…to put in bluntly by way of an idiom with its own racial history: What skin off your back is it to respect that person’s preference?
Cheers,
Garrick
Comment by Garrick Linn — May 29, 2007 #
Rather than taking up a lot of space here, I have posted a response to this issue at my own blog.
I hope that those of you interested in carrying on this conversation, and hopefully taking it to a deeper level, will go have a look.
Comment by Judy Welles — May 29, 2007 #
Educating to Counter Oppressions and Create Just and Sustainable Communities is often given a bad rap for being about political correctness or “correct” action and whatever actions, words, and
beingness we can offer that shows it for the salvific, sacred, and healing message that it can be, the better off we are.
I have spent a lot of time working on the difference between language and political correctness. Language can be a place of wholiness. It isn’t always easy to understand the ramifications of language. Sometimes I see it as pendulum. Too far one way and you use language that is so specific or academic as to take out the connectedness for people and on the other you end up so broad and unconcerned that it becomes a weapon or, worse, just unimportant. Language at its best is accurate to a degree with some wiggle room for love.
Awareness of language, how it came to be used, and its’ affect on people is a very unique skill that allows for a connectedness to the divine that brings out the divinity and beloved community in us all. It is a sacred and healing act that allows to heal the wounds of the old and bring in the energy of who we are and all that we can be.
I simply hope that we can learn to use language for love and continue to understand that while we inherited language, we are the only ones who
can change it and make a difference. We need to know the history and power of the words that we speak.
Sometimes we speak of words as different from actions. “Actions speak louder than words.” Except, that speaking and writing and oratory in
general is action. Words are actions and should behave as such. As long as we continue to belittle words, we lose accountability to ourselves and one another.
May we find the words to speak and may we continue to practice healing action with them.
Help me practice and I will help you. Few of us are great at it yet, but we can help each other find the path to not the political, but the
sacred and connected beloved community.
Comment by Sunshine J. Wolfe — May 29, 2007 #
Interesting, I see that at least two people on this list lumped me in with the “Starr King students”. Once again some of the commenters here are making an assumption not to be true.
I am not a Starr King student, I am not a UU, do not live in California, never have belonged to any church, but know of UU and Starr King thru friendships and I say once again: sometimes people/schools do things to inspire discussion, right or wrong (which by the way I never said whether I agree with the banning of the term.) But when that turns into malice, sheesh, if I ever do join a church I hope none of those who were posting venom here graduate to become its leaders.
I work in NYC and am involved in transportation and work on videos, blogs and policy. I thought there was a lot of excessive mean spiritedness on those blogs. Although some of the more recent posters seem to be trying to inspire a more enlightened discussion, to see something the same kind of inflammatory language posted here is - once again - sad.
Comment by C.E.J. — May 29, 2007 #
Hi PeaceBang. I’m posting here a comment I left at Judy Welles’ blog:
Thanks for your take on the issues brought up at PeaceBang’s blog.
A correction, however. Your characterization of Starr King’s banning the term “brown bag lunch” because it is “a painful reminder for some of a skin-color test” is not what Melissa Mummert reported in “Quest.” You are being considerably and understandably more generous. She wrote: “At an all-school meeting one afternoon, a faculty member announced, “Because of the racist connotations of the phrase brown bag lunch, we will now be using the term BYOL, ‘bring your own lunch’.” Racist connotations of “brown bag lunch,” not painful memories.
The presumption that the term “brown bag lunch” is racist continues to seem a contrived non-sequitor to me. I have not been convinced by what you have written, or what SKSM students have written at PeaceBang’s blog, that this is anything else. There are indeed subtle linguistic and cultural forms of racism and oppression; this is not one.
Her point, of course, is the one you raise as well, namely, that this was an occasion that helped uncover for many an unknown piece in the history of US racism.
Mummert’s point was also that nobody questioned this pronouncement. There was no explanation offered until somebody raised her hand. Had that student not done so, presumably the linguistic change (censorship?)would have gone into effect without a discussion. How is that advancing liberation, healing, and the establishment of a just and sustainable society? How does learning take place by unexamined, unexplained directives that some words may no longer be used?
That is the issue for many of us.
Comment by Plip Plop — May 29, 2007 #
Oh Dear Peacebang, I have so enjoyed your blog and I felt virtually rather close to you until I read this post.
“The world is awfully full of oppression for those folks. I wonder if it’s got any grace at all in it? Without their help, I mean?”
Humor is lovely, but must you make us into “those people”? (As though we are so very different from you, and all the same?) I thought you were my sister.
I graduated from Starr King School this month, after a slow and steady 5 years of hard work… and I never once heard about the brown bag issue, so it certainly does not characterize the school.
Peace be with you and your readers,
janis
Comment by Janis Hall-Fuller — May 30, 2007 #
Charlie, the sermon appeared in the Quest a few days ago in my mailbox. Hence, not “old news.” I know it’s more exciting to try to cast me as a Geraldo Rivera, but 3-5 seconds of sleuthing of your own would have enlightened you. Plus, I could never grow a moustache as nice as his.
All ya’ll — blogs are not really the ideal forum for deep, serious conversation. The limitations are obvious. If you’ve felt the frustrations of the medium in this particular post, I hear ya.
Comment by PeaceBang — May 30, 2007 #
Hi,
I am a recent grad of Starr King as well. I am hurt by the Starr King bashing I have read. The blanket dismissals of the school and the people who attend it really make me sad.
Two short points. I am a white, middle class person who never heard about the brown bag association until this year. I might have used the term brown bag lunch at Starr King - who knows? That I could use this term to mean a lunch where everyone brings their own, and someone with a very different life experience and social location than me could have heard it as a painful reminder of being dismissed by the color of their skin does not seem to be irreconcilable.
Just because we are “innocent” of knowing the connotations for some of these terms does not mean that we should remain ignorant because we haven’t experienced the pain, alienation, and disappointment.
Who am I to consecrate what a term means? In this world that uses English in new ways unfamiliar to American English speakers all the time, why should my definition be the only right one?
But then, I am lead to believe by PeaceBang’s retort that this blog is not for thoughtful questions, so maybe I am out of my depth.
Comment by SGS — May 30, 2007 #
“Banning” language at SKSM is a straw man (or should it be, “straw person?” ) Otherwise, Garrick would have have certainly been busted . Given the limitations of the medium, I suggest we pay greater attention to our use of rhetorical devices (name-calling, for example).
I’ve been a student here for two years, and one of the most important things I’ve learned is, in the words of PeaceBang, that “the world *is* awfully full of oppression” (emphasis added), and that for some of us it is relatively easy to get through life without ever knowing about this suffering. One of the ways I’ve learned this is to have it pointed out how language embodies injustice. Like the criminal justice system, the education system, the health care system, etc., language is one of the institutions in need of tranformation to create just and sustainable communities. (Even though I, personally, still sometimes balk at gender inclusive language, especially when it involves pronoun number-agreement compromise.)
To Kim Hampton: I did not see Oprah this week (I did look it up on the web site), but she has done similar programs over the years, and I’ve learned a lot from them. Maybe she would take on the language issue as well! “Origins of expressions and place-names that are embedded in institutional racism.” At the very least, it would raise consciousness.
Along with cultural “sensitivity” and “competence,” in seminary I am learniing cultural *humility*. (I picked up this distinction in a class at ABSW). Not “humility” as in “door-mat,” but as in “I can’t believe how much more there is to learn!”
Comment by Pam Gehrke — May 30, 2007 #
I would like to note that the use of the word “banning” keeps coming up. “brown-bag-lunch” was not banned. It was exchanged for words that were more welcoming. A few people made the decision concerning a particular regular activity that they helped coordinate at the school five years ago (that doesn’t occur now). We don’t ban words at Starr King. I would never attend a school that believed in censorship AND I love a school that asks us to question language and life. Starr King let’s us make our own decisions from there.
Comment by Sunshine J. Wolfe — May 30, 2007 #
I have three responses: one institutional, one ministerial, and one personal.
1) A dynamic that has come up in this conversation is one that I see frequently in conversations among UUs, and one that mirrors the polarization in our country. It is a dynamic in which critique and criticism garners accusations of disloyalty. (A colleague of mine said this better than I can. “When I don’t agree with you, don’t accuse me of being against you. I’m with you even when I don’t agree with you.”) I think we take conversations like this personally, in part, because we are such a small pond. I know peacebang and many of the folks who left comments. I also know Melissa and many of the people who were in the room during the “Brown Bag” incident. It is unfortunate when discussions of ideas become about people.
2) I think a reaction on the part of those (ordained and lay) who grimaced and snickered when they read about this story has to do with some sense of profound disconnect perceived between what their church (or school or work) gatherings are like and what they are led to imagine a Starr King class is like. If I tried to ban “brown bag” or “analysis paralysis” I would expect to receive many blank stares, not to mention totally lose their ability to hear me.
3) I do feel for those who feel harmed by language. Since moving to the Midwest, I’ve encountered a particular colloquialism that I consider strongly objectionable, racially insensitive, and common. I’ve actually called some people out on it and received a strong push back from them as they’ve defended it. It still makes my skin crawl to hear it.
Comment by RevThom — May 30, 2007 #
This may not be the ideal forum for “deep, serious conversation,” but one of the cornerstones of Educating to Counter Oppression is the importance of having deep, serious conversations wherever they happen. The status quo of “waiting for the right moment or forum” to engage with these issues too often leads to setting things aside, and waiting for the right moment is too often the death knell for a deep, serious conversation that needs to happen.
I am a student at Starr King, having just completed my second year of classes. I am working towards a Master’s of Divinity as well as a Common MA in Arts and Religion from the GTU at large. I am a third-generation Universalist who grew up infused with the values, morals, and principles of Unitarian Universalism thanks to the wonderful community at First Unitarian Society in Madison, WI.
One of the large, underlying issues in this conversation we find ourselves engaged in here is the power of language. Others have touched on the importance of words, and the seductiveness of snark and ad hominem, better than I could do here. I am writing rather, in the spirit of learning and dialogue, to invite PeaceBang to visit Starr King at her earliest convenience. I invite her to see first-hand what she is so dismissive of, to experience a school truly engaged in the struggle for Beloved Community, to talk with the students and faculty here and to feel the Grace that suffuses the school and its mission.
Starr King is a laboratory. We are a community of hard workers committed to being the change we want to see in the world, engaged in the task of bringing the values of religious liberalism to the larger community. Are we then grim-faced, humorless protectors of decency? Are we joyless politically correct drudges, determined to rule the behavior and thoughts of others through fiat and executive proclamation? Are we, to borrow a phrase, Holier Than Thou?
No. While many of the posters on the comments of this site seem to make that linked set of assumptions, I can, with confidence, categorically deny each of them. We, all of us, live in a broken world. We, each of us, are broken people. But there is joy in the hard work of addressing this brokenness, and there is so much love in this world, and in the Starr King community. Are we thoughtful and careful about the implications of our actions, language included? Yes. Do we make mistakes? Yes. Do we recognize our own ridiculousness? Yes. Starr King is not the self-important bastion of self-righteousness that many here seem to think. It is a small school, but bursting with joy and laughter, tears and comfort, and most of all love for each other and the world. Our namesake, Thomas Starr King, was a small man, even in the 19th century, standing 5′, 3″, and weighing under 120 lbs. He famously said, “I may be small, but when I get mad I weigh a ton.” Anger at the condition of the world, and joy at the revelation of its beauty and its possibilities are far from mutually exclusive, PeaceBang, and again I extend open arms to you to come to Starr King School for the Ministry at your earliest convenience and discover that for yourself.
I will close with a passage from the Bible that I think is applicable to this discussion, and that should be taken to heart by those of us who feel our words to have such power and resonance that they should be shared with the world, whether from a pulpit or on the internet. Some words from Jesus of Nazareth’s Sermon on the Mount, as recounted by the author(s) of the Book of Matthew (New International Version):
Matthew 7
Judging Others
1″Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3″Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
6″Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.
Can I get an “Amen”?
Comment by Andy Karlson — May 30, 2007 #
One last thought–
I would encourage people to click over to Rev. Sean Dennison’s blog at RevSean.com (I’m gonna take a stab at the XHTML;
RevSean.com) for another voice in this conversation. Rev. Dennison is someone I respect immensely, and someone who has some powerful things to say on this issue.
Comment by Andy Karlson — May 30, 2007 #
Hi All,
What an interesting conversation. I thought it important that Starr King staff be able to weigh in on this dialogue.
This is from Rebecca Parker, President of Starr King School for the Ministry:
“Several years ago an invited guest to the school, who had been a leader of the Black Power walk out from the UUA General Assembly in 1969, asked me to change the name of the gathering at the school we were hosting for him from “A Brown Bag Conversation” to “A Noontime Conversation.” He told me why the change mattered to him and taught me something I didn’t know. I respected his reasons, made the change, and took it as a teaching opportunity for the students by making a brief announcement at an all school meeting. Subsequently, we’ve tended to call all such gatherings something other than “A Brown Bag Conversation.
It is interesting that a moment of consciousness raising and an act of hospitality to an important guest were translated in the mind of this blogger into an act of “banning.” Banning is not what we are about at Starr King. But consciousness raising and hospitality have an important place in our educational work.”
I thank Rebecca for her comments. I didn’t recall this context. In retrospect, I wish that I would have checked with Rebecca prior to the sermon being published in Quest as I think it would have been helpful.
In short, Starr King forced me and the rest of my classmates to wrestle with the complexity of hidden oppressions. In my job as a counselor at a jail, there is not a day goes by that my work is not informed by what I learned about oppressions at Starr King.
Comment by Melissa Mummert — May 30, 2007 #
And yet none of the SKSM respondents has said a word about the anecdote from William Willimon, which was the whole point.
But they sure have had a lot of air time here, and lots of opportunities to promote their school and their community, may it avail them.
Comment by PeaceBang — May 30, 2007 #