On The Bizarre Intimacy of Hatred

SERMON   “The Bizarre Intimacy of Hatred” Rev. Dr. Victoria Weinstein

I got a message through social media from someone I knew in childhood. He lived on my street and we took the same bus to school. The message said something like “Hey Vicki, how are you, great to see that you seem to be doing well…”

My first thought was to type back, “Why are you contacting me? I hate you!”

I did hate Andy. He was a vicious child who bullied me, calling me the worst anti-Semitic names that I won’t repeat here, putting a swastika on my locker, throwing a sharpened pencil through a bouquet of balloons I got for my birthday, spitting on construction crew that we passed by. He practices law in Quincy now.

Just seeing his name made my face burn. So I took to my prayer chair and checked in with myself. What is this emotion? do I need something, if so, what? I decided that I needed a few minutes off and a walk. So I did that. As I walked I checked in on the health of my reaction. Was it fair, was it true, and did I need to do anything about it? 

I decided that my reaction was fair, that it was kind of true (because I don’t think I have a strong enough bond to Andy to hate him anymore), and I decided that I didn’t need to do anything, because crafting a response to would take emotional bandwidth and time that I didn’t feel obliged to give.  Just coming to that conclusion was somewhat demanding, and reminded me of how strong a bond hatred is between people; it is a cage. Sometimes love and understanding opens the cage, sometimes time opens the door, sometimes part of us remains locked away in it. If Andy was getting in touch to apologize, he should have stated that right away. Because he didn’t, I couldn’t trust that he even remembered his behavior (how could he not!, but many people have a talent for blocking out their viciousness or blaming others for it). I would not be the one to start the conversation on an honest footing. 

When the subject of hatred comes up, well-behaved people – who have learned what they are supposed to say to the extent that they often do not know how they honestly feel or believe – will say, “Hate is a very strong word.” We start saying this to our children very young: “We don’t say hate in this family.”

I have no argument with either of those statements:  hatred is a strong word, and it is up to every parent and guardian to set language boundaries in the household. But hatred is not easily waved away and should not be avoided. It is a reality, and children need to know that and adults to face it. 

We wish it wasn’t so, but it is, and the inclination is within all of us. The Father of American Unitarianism, William Ellery Channing, said that our “true religion consists in a growing likeness to the Supreme Being,” whose divine nature was argued to be loving, benevolent and akin to the best version of parental love ever enacted upon the earth, but in heaven. 

So Unitarians and Universalists both have focused for centuries on the goodness and loving nature of God, and on the potential for goodness among God’s people, in whose moral image they believe humanity to have been created. This has led to some measure of denial, avoidance or excuses for hatred, and has left us and other religious liberals on shaky legs in acknowledging and confronting it. 

Hatred is having a big moment right now, it is almost a winter fashion. Watching its emergence and bold expression I am left fairly dumbstruck although not surprised. 

Here is one example, and this was big news:  Bishop Mariann Budde, Episcopal bishop in Washington DC, gave a very lovely and straightforward gospel message at the National Prayer Service. In that sermon, she addressed top officials and asked them to have mercy on their constituents. 

Every word out of Bishop Budde’s mouth was directly from Jesus’ teachings, delivered in the mildest of tones to supposedly Christian leaders. The House of Representatives promptly drafted a resolution condemning Bishop Budde, calling her sermon a “display of political activism, and condemning its distorted message.” The conservative news outlets called her gentle sermon a “rant” and subjected her to a barrage of insults and name-calling. 

Getting right to the subject at hand, a man named Ben Garrett, a deacon in his church, posted, “Do not commit the sin of empathy. This snake is God’s enemy and yours too. She hates God and His people. You need to properly hate in response.”

“You need to properly hate in response.” Let’s look at that, since it is advice given in explicitly religious terms and deserves a considered religious response.

Is there a way to properly hate? 

No. No, there’s really not.

And not because hatred is never justified, but because our respected prophets have instructed us that to hate is like setting your own house on fire and expecting someone else’s to burn to the ground. This guy’s version of Christianity is unrecognizable to Jesus, but that doesn’t stop him and those like him from claiming to be the righteous ones among I don’t know, blasphemers. Whether or not those they accuse of destroying our godly nation are religious or not isn’t the point, it is simply important for all of us on the receiving end of their spittle-strewn condemnations to know that they think their worldview is grounded in a legitimate religious position. For a thousand reasons, they are not. You know that, and I don’t think there is much need to argue it with anyone, as those who agree are lost to zealotry. Leave them where Jesus flang them* and save your energy. 

Hatred is powerful, it is intense, and its fire may illuminate important truths. But it undeniably dangerous and does equal harm to the one hating as to the object of their hatred. Hence Martin Luther King’s comment,“I have decided to stick to love…Hate is too great a burden to bear.” 

I wish us to develop strength to see hatred, to face it, and to not try to explain it or excuse it, because we do not have time for that, and every effort to analyze or investigate hatred directed at us is a theft of our time and mental energy. James Baldwin said,
“We are capable of bearing a great burden once we discover that the burden is reality and arrive where reality is.”

It can be demoralizing or frightening to know that we are being spoken of with contempt and attacked, perhaps as individuals, perhaps as UUs, perhaps as Americans, perhaps as people of a certain race, nationality or sexual orientation or gender.  It is important in those moments and seasons to gather support around, to keep good company, to nourish one another with food, song, laughter, rebellion, beauty, creativity, the solace of nature, and to bar the door of the soul against incursions of those vile sentiments and ideas being lobbed at the window and door of our psyches.  In the name of God, the angels and the ancestors, the guardians of earth, air, fire and water,  this hatred shall not have purchase on your spirit. 

The energy that hatred generates is exceedingly dangerous when organized, but if we are to survive, and resist, and advocate for ourselves or others, we must invoke that prayer of protection around us so that the hatred cannot erode our hearts, which is exactly what the opponent wishes. Their hearts are eroded, they operate on fear and shadow, and they want company in their tormented condition.  We will not provide it.
“When love prevails on heav’n and earth, how can I keep from singing?”

I have a few practices and teachings that I hope will help you in standing with grace, pride and self-regard in the face of hatred:

First, remember that we are all capable of hating and that it is likely we all harbor warm and active hatreds deep within ourselves. Any monster whom I behold expressing hatred toward me and mine, I must acknowledge that I can be that monster as well. I do not want be, and make efforts to avoid becoming so, as I find hateful people pathetic and boring. Perhaps you can find within yourself an equally dismissive attitude that helps you brush off animosity.

Second: hatred is a form of intimacy. You may have noticed that when you have hated someone, they have taken up residence in your thoughts, sleeping dreams and waking fantasies. That is how it is for the ones hating you or me, too. We live rent-free in their heads, they are obsessed with what they think we are, what we do, and how we supposedly threaten their perfect world. 

That’s bizarre, and sad. There are many psychological and developmental and sociological reasons for it, but you don’t have to spend a moment thinking about it, nor should you bother. Know that the relationship is one-sided and pray that the universe will use that fiery energy for other purposes. Redirect it, like Xena the Warrior Princess. 

There is plenty to do focusing on those you love and care about, and those with whom you share common values.  Beyond that may be, we hope, opportunities to build relationships between those who have significant differences in opinion, belief and priorities, but who are not entirely lost to pure hatred. We want our energy for things like that.

Those who are deeply invested in hate as their primary unifying and bonding principle are lost and may eventually experience a conversion.  I hope that for them. I pray that God will work in their hearts through human beings to lead them out of the hell they have made for themselves and others. But that is their path, and that is in God’s hands, not mine. 

We arrive at reality. We arrive and see it, and assess it and we can also shape it. We will continue to shape it, together. And finally, we remember this: where hostility is present, so ever is there the love and regard of friends and allies, not only here and yet to be met, but also in the ancestors whose very hope you may be the culmination of. Together, past and present, here and at a distance, we also generate a fire that warms and does not burn.

“Barbie” Isn’t As Feminist As They Want You To Think

Okay, friends! Let’s get into BARBIE!

There will be spoilers, so if you haven’t seen it and don’t want the plot twists revealed, move along! Although I don’t think it will ruin your experience of the movie if you do know what happens: it might even enhance it. You decide.

“Barbie” is a visual FEAST! I loved the design, I squealed at the costumes and set, hair, makeup, and fun of it all. The dance numbers are bangers and the whole production is good summer fun. Margot Robbie was adorable and funny and perfect (literally), and I honestly think that Ryan Gosling should get an Oscar nomination for his work, although he won’t. Comedic roles are rarely recognized.

But “Barbie” is not the feminist statement the mainstream media and many viewers want to think it is.

I loved the pink Girl Power world of Barbieland, and I appreciated that Gerwig/Baumbach broke open the Barbie-verse to include a diversity of Barbies. Issa Rae was terrific as President Barbie, and it was wonderful to see women characters cheer each other on and to have the one celebrated respond with “thank you, I worked hard and I deserved it!” No false modesty, just big glowing smiles. We can dream, can’t we?

I was thoroughly enjoying myself until my critical radar was activated by a little blip in the screenplay and the appearance of cellulite on Barbie as she became to mesh realities with the Real World. Waitaminute. If Barbie & Co. are really existing outside of patriarchal society and do not exist for the male gaze, she (and the other horrified dolls) wouldn’t give a flip about some bumpy skin, which is associated with age. Imagine a matriarchy. Would a society of women see sagging or dimpled skin as something to be horrified by? Up to that moment in the film, I was delighted by the premise that all of the dolls were, well, dolled up in gorgeous outfits, hair, make-up and overblown aesthetic of traditional femininity because it’s PRETTY. Because we love sparkles and rainbows and pretty dresses, not because these trappings make anyone attractive to Kens/men.

That’s how I was when I played with Barbies. I had no inkling of wanting or needing male attention, I just loved make-up, wigs, puffy princess dresses and shiny shoes.

Suddenly I noticed that that, despite the diversity of Barbies in Gerwig and Baumbach’s vision, there were no old Barbies. Someone on TikTok suggested Jennifer Coolidige for the inevitable sequel, which is a brilliant idea. Why the absence of elder Barbies? Why were old women only allowed representation in the Real World? If there can be fat Barbies, another body that is rejected and reviled under patriarchal beauty standards, why no old Barbies?

They had Helen Mirren RIGHT. THERE.

But I filed that small concern away in my mind and continued to enjoy and appreciate the movie (even though I am not a fan of “Closer To Fine”). America Ferrera did a great job as Gloria, the frustrated mother of a surly tween. I loved Will Ferrell as the CEO of Mattel — his scenes were a wonderful satire of patriarchy, which is what I think Gerwig and Baumbach wanted to accomplish. Did you catch “Tooth Guy” (hilarious Jamie Demetriou) from “Fleabag” as one of his corporate minions? All the Mattel scenes were gold.

Ken’s whole bonkers discovery of patriarchy (horses!) was sly, clever and effective. The audience guffawed at his overwrought conversion but watching the Kens take down Barbieland was genuinely upsetting. I would like to acquire the screenplay and read it because I did not quite follow the plot device of the Barbies being brainwashed into pandering to the guys. I could understand how they were eventually snapped out of their bad enchantment but not at all sure how they were bamboozled into it. The scene where Kens make Barbies listen to them play guitar and sing “Push” by Matchbox 20 brought forth great howls of laughing solidarity from the many women in the audience who have suffered through similar displays of masculine ego by men trying to impress and seduce in insulting ways. It is a brilliant scene, and the movie at its very best.

Close to the end of the film, though, I thought the screenplay committed a serious betrayal of its supposed girl-power message. I have not heard one reviewer — not famous white feminist Susan Faludi — and not any of the Black women I follow on TikTok who had a lot to say about the film’s attempts at intersectionality — mention this moment, let alone hold it up to scrutiny.

Here it is:

When Barbieland has been restored to a woman-centric land and the Constitution has been restored (the Kens had a plan to OVERTHROW THE CONSTUTION, a plot point that hit too close to home for this American woman to be able to find humorous), Barbie finds the deposed Ken and apologizes to HIM.

“I’m sorry I took you for granted.”

She apologizes to the man who destroyed her home, installed a hostile government in her land, and did all of that because she was daring to live in a way that did not center his desires and needs (particularly for a romantic relationship with her).

This film teaches girls to apologize to their male oppressors. Note that. This is not a feminist film. Nor is it an anti-oppressive film. White Barbie apologizing to white Ken for leading a movement that, among other things, illegally removed a Black president from office? Miss me with that, Greta and Noah. You failed at intersectionality.

I will not stop hammering home this point. According to the logic of “Barbie,” when men destroy women’s spaces because they are not centered, not mollified and not granted romantic attention and access to women’s bodies (whether plastic or not!), they’re just doing this because WOMEN WERE TAKING THEM FOR GRANTED. It’s our fault.

You can bet that as soon as the lights came up, I addressed the row of young girls who were in front of me and said, “You guys, you know that if boys get upset and hostile because you decide to focus on yourself and your girlfriends, you don’t need to APOLOGIZE TO THEM, right?” They immediately said, “YEA!! What WAS that? And the women sitting to my right and to my left chimed in, which was very gratifying. Take that, Hollywood.

What I wish Barbie had said to Ken instead of “I’m sorry.”

Ken, you need to get a life.

Ken, if I want to have Girl’s Night every night until the end of time, I will do just that. Go make your own night. I’m not interested.

Final thoughts:

I have a mixed reaction to the last scene in the movie, which was cute but also could be read as a reduction of Barbie to her new reproductive organs. Lots of ways to interpret that. I thought the scene with Rhea Perlman was over-long and took itself far too seriously and overall I think the film suffered from inconsistency of messagea and the involvement of Noah Baumbach, whose work I have always found to simmer with misogynist resentment.

Michael Cera and Simu Liu are national treasures.

Remember that comments like, “it’s JUST a MovIe, RelAx” or “YoU musT Be fUN at ParTies” are will be deleted with maximum scorn. If you don’t understand the cultural importance and influence of the medium of film, that’s not my problem.

And yes, I had a Weird Barbie. My cousins and I also made Ken and G.I. Joe into lovers. It just made sense to us.

AI And Sermon Prep

My co-worker asked me today about using A.I. as a resource in preaching. Great question.

I did this once, and I don’t see myself doing it again, and here’s why:

When I entered a bunch of my writing into ChatGPT in April 2023 and asked it to generate a sermon about stewardship of the earth, it spewed back a nicely organized set of sentences and paragraphs that kind of sounded like me. It was certainly readable prose. But was it deliverable prose? Was it sermonic? No. Nope.

That is because Artificial Intelligence is not alive, and a sermon must come from the life force: the preacher’s living connection to their body, their life in relationship to the Holy Spirit, the ruach hakodesh, the cosmos, creation. I cannot deliver something that was not born but generated. Jesus said that thing about not feeding our children stones when they ask for bread. Stones actually have a lot more life force in them than does AI.

What do you believe about the transmission of life, hope, love and wisdom-giving energy through the generations, through the natural world, the sacred realm and through and among human beings? The way you answer that question will inform your decision to use or not use AI as a resource in your preaching. For myself, I do not want to begin with something dead and inert and have that enter my brain and creative process. It felt to me like gulping a meal of concrete. After reviewing my ChapGPT-generated sermon, it took considerable time and intention after that consumption of cement to get a sense of the blood flowing through my veins and the creative channels opening. Such a strange sensation, to feel a sense that I need to recover from ingesting inert reproduction of my own syntax and ideas.

I want to explore the fantastic potential of AI but I will not be using it as a resource for sermon preparation.