New Apostolic Reformation preacher Cindy Jacobs of Generals International recently spoke at the King of Kings Worship Center in Basking Ridge, New Jersey. Right Wing Watch brought attention to her controversial comments about Jews during the event, but I'd also like to bring attention to the rest of the event's content. Jacobs spent her sermon promoting prosperity theology and making tone-deaf comments about racial and ethnic groups, as shehas donein the past.
"I'm a seer, really," Jacobs told the audience as she delivered prophesies to the congregants. Jacobs told one young man that he wanted to help people and prevent suffering, and delivered a prophesy to another congregant about their church getting a bigger facility. At the 25:05 mark, however, she expressed her desire to give a prophesy to some Asian congregants. "I want to prophesy over an Asian couple," she said. "I love these Asians. I may be part Asian. Of course, my hashtag is #whitechocolate, so I think I'm part black. I don't know."
Awkward, I thought.
At the 29:44 mark, she bragged about how she converted a Mongolian man to Christianity by name-dropping a famous Mongolian actor.
"I was just eating at the Monocle Restaurant. You know what that is in Washington D.C.? Anybody been to the Monocle? It's where a lot of the Congress people go, and a guy came up to me ... I looked at his name tag, and I said, 'Oh, are you a Mongolian?'. He goes 'yes!' 'cause nobody ever pegs him for Mongolian, and I said, 'I've been in Mongolia ... By the way, I know like the top movie star in Mongolia named Anwar.' And he said, 'You know Anwar?' I mean, he's like famous, like the president will pay a million dollars to have a picture with this guy, you know. I go 'Yeah!'. And he said, 'Did you know he was in Marco Polo?'. I said, 'Not only do I know that, but I prophesied over him in Mongolia that he would go to Hollywood and that Hollywood was going to look for him and that he was going to open the door for other Mongolians, and I'm the one that made the contact in Hollywood so he would make that film.' He is freaking out right in the Monocle.
And I said, 'And not only that, why am I here talking to you when I talk to presidents all over the world, and I was in Mongolia? Now I'm talking to you, Mongolian. God loves you." And I just started witnessing salvation to him, and he goes, 'My wife watches Joel Olsteen!' I go, 'And I'm telling you what, then you need to receive Jesus!'"
I found her story puzzling. I could find no Mongolian actor by the name of "Anwar" during a Google search. Neither the 2007 Marco Polo film nor the 2014 Marco Polo series featured a man named "Anwar" among its cast members. Did I misspell the actor's name?
Jacobs proceeded to promote the prosperity gospel, telling the audience that Christians can reach a "state of blessing" if they believe God's word and donate to charity. Christians can enjoy "abundance" in every aspect of their lives, including their financial lives, she argued, urging listeners to abandon "poverty mentality".
"Poverty in the church should be an exception, not the rule, because we are the ones that are the change agents of society," Jacobs said at the 40:37 mark. She stressed the importance of money for her ministry at the 44:26 mark.
"I have learned to both abase and abound, but I much prefer abounding. I don't have to have those things to follow Jesus, but in order to do my job description in the Earth, I need money so I can do the works I'm supposed to do. You understand this?"
As reported by Right Wing Watch, Jacobs had unsettling things to say about money and Jews. After quoting Bible passages suggesting that born-again Christians are the spiritual heirs of Judaism, Jacobs argued that the Holy Spirits empowers Christians more than Jews. At the 41:57 mark, she claimed that Christians could convert Jews by gathering wealth, thereby making the Jews jealous and demonstrating that God has rewarded them for obedience.
"What the Jews have, we have. However, we have more when we’re in Christ because the Holy Spirit is inside us, empowering us to do the good works we’re called to do ... I want to say to you that one of the things I believe that’s going to bring a great harvest of Jews is the Christians becoming so profoundly wealthy ... that it’s going to make them jealous. The wealth and the riches that we’re able to obtain is going to make them jealous. Do you think our poverty is going to make a Jew jealous? Come off it! No, we are meant to prosper. Why? Because they understand, in their culture, that obedience to God brings blessing. We're called to live a blessed life, not a cursed life."
I was stunned. Jacobs was not only promoting stereotypes about Jews as money-lovers, but making rash assumptions about Jewish culture. Somehow, I don't think promoting Jewish stereotypes and adopting condescending attitudes toward Jewish culture will earn her any new Jewish converts. I would like to remind Cindy Jacobs that people of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds are not feathers in one's cap, not storytelling elements, and especially not walking stereotypes.
Jacobs shared a childhood story of how her family lived in a tar paper house and the soles of her father's shoes had holes, despite his fervent piety. This story seemed to contradict everything she'd preached about obedience to God resulting in material abundance. Soon thereafter, Jacobs told listeners a crass story about how God wanted her to have $600 leather shoes at the 45:53 mark.
"One day I was in Hong Kong ... and somebody said, 'I want to buy you a pair of shoes for your birthday. I said 'Okay. I know what I need. I want some black patent leather flats, okay? If my feet get tired, I want to have these black patent leather flats.' So we went shopping, and we got home, and I didn't know what the exchange rate was, you know. She said, 'I want to buy you these,' and she chose them. So I go back to the hotel, and I looked, and those were $600 shoes. I was like [gasps]. I mean, I'd never had $600 shoes before.
Actually, this poverty thing came in and said, 'I'd better sell those shoes and give that money to the poor.' And the Lord said, 'That's scarcity thinking! Don't you think I can give you what I want to give you and help you feed the poor too? You think I have a limited budget? Come on! We're not of this world!'
And then the Lord said to me, "Your daddy died when he was 49. Don't you think I saw your daddy's shoes and don't you know I knew he couldn't buy you shoes? Wow. Don't you think I want to give good gifts to my children? If I want to buy you a pair of $600 shoes, you'd better wear those shoes!'"
Why the Almighty couldn't provide Jacobs and her loved ones with shoes when she was a child was unclear. For that matter, why her God, who supposedly wants to give "good gifts" to his earthly children, allows poverty to afflict anyone was unclear.
At the 50:09 mark, Jacobs speculated that poverty exists because Christians have a "poor church". God expects Christians to address poverty in their communities, she explained.
"Maybe there's a reason there's so many people poor, because we have a poor church and we're not doing our job! ... There's a problem with food poverty, systemic poverty. Children in America go to bed hungry, no food in their bellies, and there's a church in America? What is wrong with that picture? That makes me upset. It should make you upset! I hope to upset you! Prophets kind of do that."
Why Jacob's desire to lift people out of poverty was admirable, a sound blueprint for ending poverty has no room for prosperity theology nonsense. Furthermore, her statements do not paint a picture of a compassionate, reassuring God. If the Creator can provide Jacobs with overpriced shoes, why can't he feed "children in America [who] go to bed hungry"? Many people cultivate faith in their God, but they remain poor.
Jacobs may hope to draw people to her version of Christianity by promising prosperity in exchange for piety, but these promises are empty. Prosperity theology might sound seductive to people who have suffered hardship, but they will soon discover that religiosity does not bring wealth.
Since Trump's election night win, and especially since his inauguration, news sources have been brimming with reports of hate crimes, including anti-Semitic incidents, threatsagainst mosques, and attacks on LGBTQ centers. The problem has become so pressing that a coalition of news organizations, educational institutions, and civil rights groups now seek to create a database of hate crimes via ProPublica's Documenting Hate project.
Three watchdog groups have released new reports on the spike in hate crimes in the U.S., which are must-reads for anyone who is concerned about the cultural climate in Trump's America.
The SPLC examines the implications of the radical right entering the political mainstream, "electrified" by Trump's presidential campaign and his selection of appointees with anti-Muslim and white nationalist attitudes. The report also observes that a wave of hate incidents took place shortly after Election Day, with 1,094 incidents coming to the SPLC's attention in the first 34 days. More than a third of these incidents referenced Trump, "Make America Great Again", or his misogynist comments to Billy Bush.
Against the backdrop of Trump's ascent, hate groups operating in the U.S. are proliferating. The SPLC counted 917 active hate groups in 2016, an increase from the 892 groups counted in 2015. In particular, anti-Muslim hate groups demonstrated a 197% increase from 2015 to 2016, likely due to Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric and recent Islamic extremist attacks.
SAALT's latest report observes, with disappointment, that some members of American society continue to imagine members of South Asian, Middle Eastern, Arab, Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu communities as monolithic and pernicious. Trump's xenophobic and anti-Muslim rhetoric during the 2016 presidential election only inflamed these attitudes. SAALT argues that the increase in hate crimes against these communities over the past year is connected to the inflammatory rhetoric of the 2016 election and its aftermath.
In November 2015, SAALT established an online database of hate incidents directed at South Asian, Middle Eastern, Arab, Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu victims. From its creation to November 15, 2016, SAALT documented 140 incidents of hate violence, 94% of which were anti-Muslim in nature. The report also highlights the use of xenophobic and anti-Muslim rhetoric by Donald Trump and explores its correlation to discriminatory policies.
SAALT urges political leaders to address hate crimes by improving policies, legislation, and reporting mechanisms related to profiling and hate crimes. Additionally, the report encourages Americans to support civic engagement and political education both within and without South Asian, Middle Eastern, Arab, Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu communities.
While far-right violence cannot be ignored in these times, many forms of extremism festered even before the election. Domestic Islamic extremists and black nationalist extremists, as well as right-wing anti-government, anti-abortion, and white supremacist extremists, were responsible for acts of violence in 2016, according to a new ADL report.
The shadow of the 2016 Pulse massacre in Orlando hung over ADL's latest report on extremist violence. The Anti-Defamation League's preliminary tally of murders committed by domestic extremists in 2016 was 69 known killings (49 victims killed by Omar Mateen during the mass shooting at Pulse nightclub and 20 victims killed by other extremists). The death toll of the Pulse shooting allowed 2016 to exceed 2015's tally of
domestic extremist killings.
The ADL reminded readers that while extremist murders make up a small percentage of all killings in the U.S., they signify the presence of extremist networks that perpetrate other crimes.
"It is important to note that the
number of Americans killed by domestic extremists is small compared to the total number of murders in the United States or even the number of those who die from gun violence each year. But these deaths represent merely the tip of a pyramid of extremist violence and crime in this country. For every person killed at the hands of an extremist, many more are wounded or injured in attempted murders and assaults. Every year, police uncover and prevent a wide variety of extremist plots and conspiracies with lethal intentions. And extremists engage in a wide variety of other crimes related to their causes, from threats and harassment to white collar crime."
Americans must address this increase in hateful rhetoric and hate violence. Now more than ever, it's important to stay informed about hate crime trends, take stepsin our communities to promote inclusion, help victims secureservices, and call out hate speech.
In the 19th and 20th century, many Native American and First Nations children were compelled to attend Indian residential schools in the U.S. and Canada. Administered by Christian churches, the residential schools were boarding schools intended to assimilate indigenous children into white culture and Christian religion. At worst, residential schools were attempts at ethnocide that disrupted indigenous families, subjected children to abuse and neglect, and leftmanystudents withlifelong trauma.
Despite ample evidence that the Canadian residential school experience was harrowing for many children, one Canadian lawmaker thinks that the public should focus on the good that the schools supposedly achieved.
According to CBC News, in a March 7th speech to Canada's Red Chamber, Conservative Senator Lynn Beyak defended residential schools as institutions run by "well-intentioned men and women" that performed "remarkable works" and "good deeds." In a recording to Beyak's speech, she lamented the fact that child abuse reports have overshadowed the "abundance of good" performed at residential schools, saying that "mistakes were made".
"Honorable senators, I rise today to address Inquiry 19 of Senator Kim Pate, the knowledgeable and thoughtful inquiry that she issued here a few weeks ago. I want to present a somewhat different side of the residential school story. Far too many indigenous people, especially women, are incarcerated in Canada today, and like everyone in this chamber, I seek to find solutions. Today, I will take a broad look at several timely indigenous issues that are before us.
I speak partly for the record, but mostly in memory of the kindly and well-intentioned men and women and their descendants — perhaps some of us here in this chamber — whose remarkable works, good deeds and historical tales in the residential schools go unacknowledged for the most part and are overshadowed by negative reports.
Obviously, the negative issues must be addressed, but it is unfortunate that they are sometimes magnified and considered more newsworthy than the abundance of good.
It is because of the less partisan nature of the Senate that we have the ability to look at issues a bit more objectively, to take that second silver look that sometimes gets missed in the theatrics of politics. Honorable colleagues, I want to first acknowledge the excellent work undertaken by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Mistakes were made at residential schools, in many instances horrible mistakes that overshadowed some good things that also happened at those schools."
Beyak's comments come after she made an equally controversial statement at a January 31st meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, of which she is a member. While addressing Professor J.R. Miller of the University of Saskatchewan, Beyak expressed disappointment that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission "didn't focus on the good" in residential schools. She also claimed that her First Nations friends who supposedly bask in "positivity and happiness" were Christians, but why she emphasized this fact was unclear.
"I live in a riding that has 52 First Nations around us in our catchment area, and I have many friends there, and they have sent me testimonials about many good experiences. The best example is the playwright Tomson Highway, who credits his success to going to residential school. He acknowledges the atrocities but says there were good people doing good things, who taught him language and how to play the piano ... I was disappointed in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report in that it didn't focus on the good. The people I talk to are Christians. They belong to Spirit Alive, a group in Saskatchewan, and Tribal Trails. They look through the windshield rather than the rearview mirror. They want to move ahead in positivity and happiness and not focus always on the past."
Beyak's comments are not going over well with other leaders. The Globe and Mail reports that the Conservative Party is distancing itself from Beyak's remarks and emphasizing that her comments do not reflect the party's views. CTV News reports that New Democrat Senator Romeo Saganash (himself a residential school survivor) called the residential school system "genocide" and has called on Beyak to resign. Indigenous and Northern Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett called the comments "ill-informed, offensive and simply wrong."
While some students at Canadian residential schools did report positive experiences to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, these do not erase the negative experiences of many other students. The positive experiences of some students do not excuse acts of colonization, family disruption, physical abuse, sexual assault, and neglect reported by others.
If we are to avoid repeating historical mistakes, we must take an honest look at those mistakes instead of dismissing them as "theatrics" or "rearview mirror" gazing. Canadians (and Americans) must acknowledge all aspects of the residential schools that people in power imposed on indigenous children. If that legacy causes some people to feel uncomfortable, they should not soothe that discomfort by white-washing the actions of their historical predecessors.
Kevin "I'd Sit in Cow Manure" Swanson weighed in on last month's Women's March on Washington and its sister marches. The marches could have been an opportunity for Swanson to learn about the concerns of women around the world. Instead, he used the marches as another excuse to denigrate women and spout paranoid theories about Marxist liberals.
During the January 26th edition of Generations Radio, Swanson admitted that turnout for women's marches around the world was "amazing". At the 11:34 mark, he wondered aloud why women marched on January 21st.
"Why the women's march? Why were women marching? Why not the blacks, why not the liberals, why not the socialists? Why is the issue centered around women, and why did the women show up over the weekend to address and represent the greatest divide in this nation's history since the Vietnam War era? Why women?"
Swanson forgets that one can be African American and female. The Women's Marches were organized and attended by women of many racial and ethnic backgrounds, so yes, Kevin, "the blacks" were in attendance. Swanson could use a crash course in intersectionality!
At the 15:19 mark, Swanson wondered why men did not take part in the marches, despite ample evidence that menattendedthe marchesin droves.
"The reason men aren't there is probably because men are too busy playing computer games, unfortunately ... while Rome burns. Men are disengaged, more or less. Men are not as concerned as women are because men are disengaged and they just don't care."
News flash, Kevin: plenty of men do care about the state of the world. Plenty of men are engaged in activism. Believe it or not, some men do respect women, unlikeyou and your ilk.
Swanson described some of the signs at the Women's March on Washington, such as a sign that read, 'Gender justice is racial justice is economic justice". Cynically, he claimed that racial justice was included in the march "so they'll increase their numbers somewhat". The idea that women's issues and race issues can intersect escaped him.
At the 16:06 mark, Swanson claimed that the Women's March was rooted in a Marxist ideology that seeks to destroy the family unit so that women can enjoy "freedom from marriage and freedom from family". Apparently, he failed to consider that women might have legitimate grievances about everything from President Trump's misogyny to reproductive rights to violence against women to poverty.
"I think the key issues are gender justice, economic justice, which means what? Which means that socialism and egalitarianism -- that is, the freedom from marriage and freedom from family -- is interconnected and has been since Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto. The Communist Manifeso insists upon a gender egalitarianism of sorts, but also an economic egalitarianism, so these things have been interconnected since the 19th century. So ideologically, this is a no-brainer. Of course, of course, of course the largest socialist voting block in America [is] single women ... You absolutely must have the dissolution of the family in order to bring about the socialist revolutions of the day."
Swanson accused Marxist "gender justice" and "economic justice" activists of striving to destroy the family, redistribute wealth, and cement women's loyalty to the state rather than "stinking husbands and stinking fathers". Swanson seemingly could not imagine women as anything but dependent, so if they are no longer dependent on husbands and fathers, they must be dependent on the state.
"Security must come from the state and not from the family. It's essential, oh so essential, to the social revolution of the day ... Gender justice, economic justice absolutely are connected, and they're fighting for their lives. If they've destroyed the family, if they've destroyed marriage, if there's no longer security found in the family, they absolutely must have it by "economic justice" and the redistribution of the wealth and the social [benefits] and Obamacare, the redistribution of wealth such that security comes from the state and not from the family, not from the stinking husbands and the stinking fathers."
Swanson's facile caricature of "economic justice" ignores the economic struggles of many women, such as poverty, food insecurity, health care costs, the need for affordable childcare, and the struggle for affordable housing.
In his usual paranoid style, Swanson claimed that calls for reproductive rights were merely a means of destroying the family at the 20:22 mark. As usual, he ignored the importance of contraception and abortion to women's empowerment and health in favor of a feverish theory.
"The most core element of the liberal agenda, irreduceable essence of the modern rebellion against the old social order is the independent women must have their abortifacients and their government security. They must have their funding for contraceptives ... We have finally arrived at the core of the social revolution of the liberal agenda of the day, and this is it. This is the ultimate sacrament of the liberal left and without this, you have no liberalism ... You absolutely must dissolve the family ... Women must fight tooth and nail for government funding for their contraceptives. Of course, the dissolution of the family, the dissolution of the family economy is essential in this ... This is why 3.2 million women are going to show up after the inauguration of the president of the United States."
Swanson and his co-host chuckled about a counter-demonstration with 3.2 attendees compared to the 3.2 million at the Women's March on Washington, and I couldn't tell if they were joking or being serious. They joked about signs that read, "I'm content to be at home", "I'm happy with what I have", "I'm taking dominion as a helpmeet for my husband", "I don't need no stinkin' Social Security", and "I call my husband Lord".
If you can't figure out why THAT demonstration had three attendees and the Women's Marches had millions, there's no hope for you, I thought. Their comments remind us that the Christian Patriarchy Movement has nothing material or spiritual to offer women, in that it consigns women to servitude, humiliation, and dependence on men.
Swanson resorted to paranoid theories about the Women's Marches because it was easier than stepping outside of his Christian Patriarchy bubble and learning about the real motivations behind the marches. He mocked feminist struggles because it was easier than respecting women as equals and educating himself on women's issues. Kevin Swanson, your sexism and intellectual laziness are showing.
It should be obvious that Donald Trump would be incompetent and dangerous as president of the United States. His history of hateful rhetoric and foolhardy proposals should convince us that he is unsuited for one of the world's great seats of power. Hillary Clinton, while imperfect, is the much more competent and experienced choice.
Recent polls give us reason to be optimistic. Most election polls show
Hillary Clinton with a substantial lead over Trump, according to the New York Times. A recent Gallup poll
found that 69% of respondents were dissatisfied with the Trump
campaign. Ultimately, though, polls mean nothing. Votes mean everything.
The candidate we Americans choose for president tomorrow will wield immense power over policy, foreign relations, military deployments, Supreme Court justice appointments, and the image of the U.S. across the world. As voters, we have a responsibility to choose our next president wisely. Our collective decision will have massive ramifications for the U.S. and world.
