On Ducks, Free Speech, and Religion

          The controversy over the comments made by Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson about gays and blacks has me thinking about free speech and freedom of religion in the US. I’m grateful to live in a country where we can express our opinions and religious beliefs openly without fear of persecution. But, does being reprimanded by one’s employer for making controversial remarks about certain groups of people amount to persecution?

          History in the US has shown us that people in the media can get fired for making comments that hurt the image of their employers, even if those comments are based in religious opinion. Celebrities, professional athletes, comedians, and talk show hosts are often reprimanded or canned after making controversial remarks because their employers depend on advertising contracts to make a profit…and advertisers hate controversy. It’s not good for business. Mr. Robertson is an actor on a reality TV show (Duck Dynasty is not a documentary; its purpose is to entertain, not inform), thus he is an employee of the media. The network that hosts his show believes his remarks will have negative backlash, hurting network ratings and causing loss of advertising revenue. Thus, Mr. Robertson was put on “hiatus” as a way to placate parties potentially offended by his remarks in GQ.

Think of it this way: If I work for the hypothetical Acme Incorporated, and they value X, and I devalue X in a widely public forum, and that hurts Acme’s business, then doesn’t Acme have the right to reprimand or fire me, even if I claim my opinions are based in my religious beliefs? Doesn’t Acme have the right to retain employees that promote their values and terminate employees who don’t? After all, corporations are people, right? And corporations have rights, correct?

In Mr. Robertson’s particular case, I think it’s important to consider the source. I do not know this man personally, but I gather from what little I do know of the show that he is not a highly educated man with a broad world view. I do not intend to demean his life experience. We are all products of our times and our cultures. A person who has spent most of his or her life in a small town or village, surrounded by like-minded people who look and act much like each other, will likely not have a broad world view, even if they and their family are suddenly thrust onto the world stage thanks to a quirky reality TV show that centers on them. Thus, when asked about people and issues with which they have little personal experience, they will naturally respond from their own limited perspective. Ask me how to effectively hunt for ducks in the swamps of Louisiana, and you will get a response that will make any mildly seasoned duck hunter anywhere in the world laugh out loud or cringe in disbelief.

So when political figures and other people get their knickers in a twist because Mr. Robertson’s religious and free speech rights have been violated, they need to remember that Mr. Robertson is an employee of the A&E network, and as an employee, he should respect the values of his employer and think carefully about what he’s saying, how he’s saying it, and to whom he says it. Should Mr. Robertson be denied employment because he personally believes that homosexuality leads to bestiality, and blacks in Louisiana didn’t suffer from racial discrimination? Absolutely not. But should he be reprimanded by his employer for speaking his mind in a public forum such as GQ magazine and potentially hurting his employer’s business? Absolutely!

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, no matter how ill-informed those opinions may be.  However, when we use words from texts—the Bible, the Constitution, Shakespeare, whatever—we have a moral and ethical responsibility to consider the historical, cultural, and linguistic contexts of those words, and not just their literal, face-value meaning. As a self-proclaimed Christian, Mr. Robertson most likely bases his opinions about homosexuality on words taken from the Bible. But the majority of modern Bible scholars today agree that the Christian Bible does not condemn same-sex relationships as we understand them in the US and other developed countries. And more and more mainstream Christian theologians are coming to not only accept same-sex partnerships, but celebrate the love and commitment that two people of the same gender can demonstrate to each other.

Of course not everyone in Christendom agrees with these enlightened Christians. Many Jews, Muslims, agnostics, and atheists don’t, either. This is the United States, and we have the freedom to disagree based on our personal convictions. But what we don’t have the right to do as Americans is to deny other Americans their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because of our personal opinions or beliefs, even if those are rooted in deeply held religious convictions. America is a democracy, not a theocracy. An American can be opposed to same-sex relationships—or interracial, interfaith, or May-December relationships, for that matter—and still coexist with Americans who hold opposing viewpoints. That’s one of the great characteristics of this country. Pacifists and warmongers, conservatives and liberals, Christians and non-Christians, capitalists and socialists—there is room for all of us here as long as we agree to disagree peacefully, kindly, and respectfully. Perhaps the tension held between our opposing viewpoints actually creates the common ground we all live on. Let’s just not let the ground give way beneath our feet and go tumbling down the banks of cultural entrenchment. Our diversity is what makes us strong, but we can’t embrace that diversity if all we can see are the walls of our own narrow worlds.

My Faith Tree

         The stillness of the church sanctuary on a Sunday morning is a great opportunity to open oneself to inspiration, conviction, creativity, and other whisperings of the Spirit. Or, it’s a chance to let your mind wander. Sometimes those wanderings go in nonconstructive directions: What’s coming up at work tomorrow? Did I pay that bill? I wish I hadn’t said/done that. What’s going to happen on the next episode of Game of Thrones? If you’ve ever been in church, you get the picture.

          Last Sunday, however, for some reason I reflected on my faith heritage. This weekend I will get my third (and final...maybe) tattoo, a design I created myself. It will be a Celtic cross with a triquetra knot in the middle, representing both my faith and my ethnic heritages. As a creative type, I love imagery. Maybe that’s why I have no problem perceiving the Bible’s symbols and metaphors as representations of the sometimes mysterious truths of God and the Truth that is God.

          So I reflected on my own faith history, and the imagery that came to mind was of a tree. I was raised in the Free Will Baptist church, a conservative evangelical denomination founded on Arminian principles of free will and God’s free grace, and also highly influenced by Wesleyan theology. In practice they are much like most other Baptists, but in theology they are more similar to Methodists. That church is the taproot of my tree, fed by soil composed of Wesleyan and Arminian elements.

          As I grew and became more independent, I leaned toward the Southern Baptist church. Many of my high school friends were Southern Baptists, and I got my undergraduate degree at a Southern Baptist-affiliated university. Anyone living in the central Texas area cannot help but be influenced to some degree by Southern Baptists, I suppose. So the Southern Baptist church represents the trunk of my faith tree. I was beginning to think for myself and form my own ideas about faith, and that Southern Baptist evangelicalism bolstered my maturation.

          But as I grew older and experienced more of the world, encountering people of other Christian backgrounds and non-Christian faith traditions, my mind broadened and I began to think more critically about what it meant to be a follower of Jesus and to be Christ to the world. Issues of social justice and environmental sustainability surfaced as the primary concerns for me, replacing those evangelical notions of witnessing and “winning souls for the Lord,” which in my opinion were more concerned with sheer numbers and the afterlife than with sincerely being concerned about another person’s welfare in the here-and-now. I began to look at Jesus’s life as my primary example of how to live in this world, and not the lives of Paul or Peter or any of the other disciples. Honestly, I believe some evangelicals are dangerously close to making idols out of the Bible itself and of characters in it, rather than looking to Jesus alone as the Way, the Truth, and the Life. As my spiritual explorations continued, I came to realize that much of what I had arrived at on my own in my faith journey had already actually been defined by others before me as Progressive Christianity. My faith tree was beginning to branch out from the trunk, spreading its limbs to accommodate ideals of social justice, environmental responsibility, hospitality, and intellectual knowledge balanced with more intuitive and emotional ways of knowing. And in the same way that a tree provides shade, food, and protection for other creatures, so our faith should not be simply self-serving, but rather a faith that gives to others—physical, emotional, and spiritual nourishment and protection; a place of refuge and rest; a cool respite from oppression, and a dry haven from life’s storms.

          That’s not to say that I’ve reached some sort of Christian nirvana state. I still struggle to love the unlovable…although those whom I perceive to be “unlovable” have changed through the years. Showing hospitality unconditionally is sometimes a challenge for me. I don’t always make the most environmentally friendly consumer choices. And those fruits of the Spirit that the New Testament lists? You know: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control? They sometimes rot on the limbs of my faith tree because I fail to nourish them properly through communion with the Master Gardener a.k.a. God.

          But at least I do have limbs that branch out and reach up, however feebly. Reaching toward the light that comes from God’s grace and love, those limbs know that they need to grow and spread and thrive, drawing their life not just from the roots below the trunk, but especially from the sun and rain that comes from above. My faith tree may never be a mighty oak or a towering pine, but it has withstood life’s storms and droughts for over fifty years now. Even the tiny bonsai thrives with the Master Gardener’s loving attention and tender care. So, whether I am a mighty oak or a little bonsai, may I continue to grow and thrive wherever I am planted.

The Town that Time [Almost] Forgot

          It is simultaneously comforting and disturbing to know that there is a community on this earth that changes little over time. I’m talking about my hometown, a small town of little more than 4,000 people located literally deep in the heart of Texas (and yes, the stars at night really are big and bright). I lived with my parents until the end of my sophomore year in college, and since then the only time I’ve really lived there was when I took a semester off during graduate school. Otherwise the visits have been as brief as a few days and as long as a couple of months during summer vacations. And each time I go there, I am struck at how very little the place and its people have changed.

          With the exception, that is, of the young people. Cable TV there was relatively new when I was a teenager. It did a lot to bring the world a bit closer to our little town. Those who could afford cable TV (unlike my family) had greater access to world events and popular culture. Shortly afterward came satellite TV, then in the 80’s the Internet appeared on the scene. Dial-up was slow and awkward; downloading graphics could literally take hours. Still, more information became available to those who were open to it (unfortunately, that also meant misinformation became more readily available, and to an un- or under-educated population, that can be dangerous). But when high-speed Internet became an option, the entire world was available at one’s fingertips. Many of my generation and older embraced the new technologies, and now, with smartphones, folks even in that little town in the middle of Texas carry the Information Age in the palms of their hands.

          One indicator of the changes that have occurred because of these new technologies is people’s accents. When I was young, almost everyone had that Texas drawl (you might think of the actors on the 70’s TV series Dallas, but don’t; their accents were so fake it was painful). Now I notice that most young people speak with a more general American dialect, which I believe is a result of their having more access to media through TV, Internet, and smartphones. This will help them in the future, most likely, for people with strong Southern dialects are often not taken as seriously as those with slight or no accents.

          The older generation, though, for the most part does not participate to a great deal in the Digital Age. My father, a World War II veteran, only got satellite TV a few years ago, and only has a cell phone because I bought him one to carry in the car with him in case of an emergency. He’s never used a computer or a tablet (the electronic kind, not the paper one). He’s never sent an email in his life, and the concepts of Facetime or Skype are like something from Buck Rogers or the Jetsons.

          People of his generation were defined by World War II. He was only nineteen when his number came up and he was gone with the draft. Even then, he was already a married man. But this young guy from small-town central Texas, who had never travelled out of the state (maybe even never outside of the county!) was shipped across the Pacific to New Guinea, Australia, and the Philippines. Thankfully he didn’t have to serve in direct combat, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t experience danger and hardship. He contracted dengue fever while there, and the tropical climate interfered with his sinuses in ravaging ways. And he was separated from his young wife and his elderly father for two years.

          One advantage of his service, though, was the opportunity to meet people from other places. He told often the story of the New Guinea native who scrambled up a coconut palm with machete in hand and harvested a fresh coconut for the two of them to drink. He spoke fondly of a Filipino friend he made in Manila who welcomed him into his family’s home. And he never spoke ill of the Japanese individually. He understood that those men were serving their country in the same way he was serving his, and that their militaristic government, and not the Japanese soldiers themselves, were responsible for the atrocities enacted on the people of Japanese-conquered nations and on prisoners of war. To him, the atomic bombings of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the horrific end to a horrific war, and nothing to celebrate or feel proud about.

          Another story he told less often was more emotional to him. When my father was young, there were no African-American people in the community. In fact, the first African-Americans moved into the town only in recent years. The area has the reputation for not being a very welcoming place for diversity, and in the years before World War II, little progress had been made in civil rights for African-Americans (or anybody who wasn’t a white male, for that matter). So needless to say, my dad had had little or no contact with African-Americans before the War. He mentions that the white personnel treated the African-American soldiers poorly, and he tells about driving along a road in Australia one night and picking up an African-American soldier who had apparently been tormented to the point of great fear by the white American soldiers. My dad stopped his truck and gave the young man a ride to the safety of his camp. When he tells how grateful the man was, he nearly comes to tears. I wonder if that’s his way of expressing sorrow for the long, painful history our European ancestors have inflicted on those of African descent, especially in Texas and other places in the South. He and others of his generation still use certain words to refer to African-Americans, despite my repeated attempts to correct and educate him. They are products of their times, as are we all. Still, my father rose above his upbringing to show compassion and mercy to someone who needed it. That was most certainly a risky thing to do for a young man from a small town in central Texas where that sort of compassion and mercy was not the fashion.

          My father’s story makes me wonder what it is that emboldens a person to step courageously outside his or her comfort zone and take the risk to be kind. Perhaps some do so out of a sense of religious or moral duty (i.e. God says we have to). Perhaps others express kindness in order to earn a reward, either in this life or the next (i.e. we work our way to heaven). But many, it seems, are kind to others simply because they understand that it is simply the right thing to do. They express what they desire to receive; you know, the whole “do unto others” command. Progressive Christians like me might say that it is the spirit of Christ in us serving the spirit of Christ in others. Similarly Hindus say Namaste in greeting, which, loosely interpreted, means “the spirit in me honors the spirit in you.” A person who has known suffering, either directly or indirectly, recognizes suffering in another and feels empathy for the suffering individual. While my father had never been a victim of racial bigotry in his life, he understood what that young African-American man was experiencing at the hands of racist bullies, and he did what he could to help in that moment: he offered the victim a safe passage to a safe place.

And years later, when he had children of his own, he modeled compassion and mercy to his three children in that small town in central Texas. He wasn’t a perfect model; like I said earlier, his vocabulary needs some adjusting. And he can still express some fear-based assumptions about certain people that are not necessarily true. But he never, ever advocated bullying or oppression towards others for any reason (even toward Republicans; he has some pretty strong opinions about them and their beliefs and policies, but he would never physically hurt one).

And so, as change occurs slowly—painfully slowly—in that small town deep in the heart of Texas, the comfort lies in knowing that people like my father have consistently, if not perfectly, showed kindness to others. It is a hospitality enacted in small, daily increments that accrue toward a universal community of humanity bound together by common decency and compassion. Maybe that’s why the place doesn’t change all that much through the years, because God knows we need places like my hometown to remind us both of how to be consistently nice to each other, and how much we need to keep growing and changing and not get stuck in a rut.

The Sin of Xenophobia

          Two days ago, a Florida jury acquitted George Zimmerman of second-degree murder*. Zimmerman was accused of murdering seventeen-year-old Trayvon Martin, an African-American youth whom Zimmerman perceived as a threat to his neighborhood. The Zimmerman trial points to a lingering, festering problem in this country and in most countries worldwide, and that is racism. The US is not the only nation to grapple with this issue. I lived in an East Asian country for over eight years, and some of the most racist people I have ever encountered were citizens of that country…and I grew up in a small town in Central Texas, so I know first-hand about racist attitudes. Human beings have long been fearful of strangers, of outsiders, of anyone that was a member of an out-group. In ancient times, there was some survival benefit from that fear. It caused our early ancestors to be cautious and suspicious of anyone who looked or acted differently because often the stranger meant harm to the clan or village.

            But then along comes a little Semitic tribe of people called Hebrews, a monotheistic culture that received its laws directly from its deity. And that deity commanded them to be hospitable to strangers. That must have really shaken things up in the ancient world. And so they practiced hospitality, more or less, for thousands of years until one of their own, a man we call Jesus in English (Yeshua in Hebrew, more accurately translated as Joshua) came along and expanded the command even more. Not only were they to show hospitality to strangers, but they were to love them. Yikes! Even the dirty Samaritans and the unclean Roman occupiers and those morally despicable Greeks? Yes, even them. Everyone. Some of those Hebrews (called Jews by this time) were so incensed by this Jesus guy’s teachings that they went into cahoots with the Romans and had him unjustly crucified and persecuted his followers.

            But that way of love had already taken root in people’s hearts and was spreading like wildfire, transforming lives everywhere. Suddenly those who were condemned to the fringes of society—lepers, prostitutes, tax collectors, Samaritans, the poor, eunuchs, and more—were being physically and spiritually healed, finding inclusion and acceptance and community despite their ethnicity, their sexuality, their gender, their socio-economic status, their religious tradition, or whatever caused them to be pushed to the fringes in the first place. The only requirements to be in the Jesus group were to turn back to God and love God wholeheartedly, and love others as much as you loved yourself. That’s it. No racial, ethnic, socio-economic, gender, religious, or sexual qualifiers attached. Anybody was welcome.

            Sadly, the early church did not continue this momentum of inclusion and acceptance of those who had been condemned to the fringes of society for being different. Somewhere along the line of church history, the majority of the followers of Christ emulated the old pre-Jesus exclusionary ways and began putting qualifiers on people again. Women were excluded from ministry and full participation in the life of the church, which even condoned domestic violence against women. People of different races and ethnicities were shut out and often persecuted. Church members actually owned other human beings as slaves. The poor were shunned while those who could afford penance were sold forgiveness for even the most atrocious sins. Men who did not fit the church’s definition of maleness were sometimes driven out violently, or even killed. Although these people claimed Christ as their lord and savior, emulating Jesus was completely off their radar screens.

            And sadly, today many who claim to follow Christ and proclaim Jesus as their lord and savior continue the practice of fear-based exclusion and merit-based salvation. They do not deny that God’s grace is free, but to be fully accepted into fellowship with God (or rather, their own brand of church), individuals must comply with their church’s definition of men, women, families, politics, worship, and so on. Their hearts are ruled by the darkness of the sin of xenophobia, the fear of the outsider. The Bible says “…perfect love drives out fear.” (1 John 4:18). If one’s heart truly belongs to Christ, then one’s heart is filled with the love of Christ, thus one is able to overcome fear of the other and love that person.

            That’s not to say it’s not hard. It is hard to love others—sometimes really hard—especially if the other is quite different from us. I myself have a very hard time loving certain other individuals whose political beliefs or lifestyle habits are vastly different from my own, especially when those beliefs and habits cause harm to others (“Love the sinner, hate the sin,” eh?). But as a follower of Christ, I am commanded to at least try my best, for it is in the trying that transformation becomes possible.

            We still struggle with racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, and other xenophobic sins in this country because people are afraid. They are fearful of losing their socio-political status, or their mental framework, or their wealth, or their religious convictions, or whatever, because they see “the others” as coming to take it away from them. But if they open their minds and hearts and do as Jesus’s early followers did, and show hospitality to the strangers (the fringe-dwellers) in their midst, then they might find that what they lose in the process was never worth keeping in the first place, and what they gain has great value in both this life and beyond.

* I do not want to comment on Zimmerman’s perceived guilt or Martin’s perceived innocence. I was neither present during the incident nor at the trial, and I have not seen or heard the evidence presented. I, like most other Americans, only know what the media have presented. However, I do want to comment on the enormous pressure that those six jurors must have felt to examine and weigh the evidence presented, deliberate in light of their state’s laws, and pass a verdict on a charge as serious as murder in a case that is strongly emotionally charged and in the nation’s spotlight. I’ve served as a juror, and when it comes to making decisions in that role, it is not about what the juror thinks or feels, but what the juror knows from the evidence presented. A juror’s decision is to be as humanly objective as possible, and when a human life—any human’s life—depends on that decision, it is far, far better to err on the side of caution. We are innocent until proven guilty in this country, and without credible eyewitness testimonies, any other evidence has to be solid and verifiable. What I know is this: a young man is tragically dead at the age of seventeen, and another man will carry the stigma of this incident for the rest of his life. What I believe is this: the incident might have been avoided if Zimmerman had been restricted from carrying a gun outside his home in the first place. But that is another blog for another time.

How to Contact Me

     You may (or may not) be wondering why I have not enabled comments on this blog. The main reason is that the Internet can be a nasty place. Something happens when people are anonymous. They say things that they might not otherwise say to a person's face, or if their identity is known or can be traced. I think about the words I choose when I'm driving on the freeway and another driver makes a very inconsiderate and/or unsafe driving choice. I most likely would not use that vocabulary to that driver's face because (a)my parents taught me not to use words like those, and (b)that driver might be packing some heat and make another very inconsiderate and/or unsafe choice. So it is with some people who post comments in public arenas online. They hit the "delete" button on etiquette and good manners and say the darnedest things. And I just don't want my blog to become a forum for smack talk.
     So if you would like to offer some constructive criticism, some words of praise and encouragement, an alternative viewpoint based on sound reasoning and/or personal life experience, or whatever is on your mind and heart, you can click on "view my complete profile" on the right and find a link to email me. Be it known now, though, that nasty words will get no response from me because I will not cast my pearls before swine (Matthew 7:6).

Personality, Intelligence, and Learning Style

“The only journey is the one within.” – Rainer Maria Rilke

            I have long been a fan of personality inventories and typology. Maybe it’s because I’m a people-person and fascinated by how incredibly different we all are. Or perhaps it’s due to my own natural personality inclinations. I don’t know when exactly I first discovered personality assessments, but I’m guessing it was sometime after my undergraduate years. Probably it was when I returned to college to earn my teaching certificate and took an educational psychology class. Whenever it was, since then I’ve been hooked, so I thought I would share a few of the personality, learning style, and intelligence inventories that I like.

            Probably one of the most well-known personality inventories is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, or MBTI. Devised by Katherine Cook Briggs and her daughter, Isabel Briggs-Myers in 1962, the assessment is based on the psychological theories created by Carl Jung. Since then, it has been tested and validated worldwide and has grown to become one of the most widely used personality inventories in schools, workplaces, and therapist offices. In short, the assessment identifies where in a dichotomous spectrum one’s personality lies in four areas: Introverted-Extraverted, Intuitive- Sensing, Feeling-Thinking, and Perceiving-Judging. I won’t go into detail here, but if you’re interested in learning more, visit the website of the Myers & Briggs Foundation at http://www.myersbriggs.org/. There are also lots of free, informal assessments based on the MBTI available online. While not scientifically validated, something like that would be a good way to introduce you to the concept, and later when you can take the official assessment, you can compare results. I’ve taken the official assessment at least twice, and many informal assessments, and I always show the same results: Extraverted (meaning I get my energy by being with other people), Intuitive (meaning I gather information more on a gut level than with my five senses), Feeling (which describes the way I process the information I gather), and Perceiving (think “go with the flow,” and “open-ended;” those words describe a Perceiver). The most balanced people are those who score about midway in each dichotomy, but there’s nothing wrong with being strongly one way or the other. For example, I have some Introverted and Judging tendencies, but I am almost off the charts when it comes to being Intuitive and Feeling.

            Another typology I like is the one developed by John L. Holland, who researched the fit between a person’s personality type and her career choice (to sum up, people who choose careers that are a good fit with their personality types are the happiest with their work…Duh!). I would never recommend a Wikipedia article to a student doing research for a paper, but for general information, it’s a good go-to website, so check out the article on Holland Types there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holland_codes. Most assessments based on Holland types will show the respondent’s top two or three dominant types. My top two are Artistic (the Creators) and Social (the Helpers). I’m expressing both in this blog post, using my artistic side to write, and my social side to teach readers about something I believe is useful and interesting. Teaching is a good profession for me because it engages both my Artistic and Social traits. My tertiary type is Investigative, which means I enjoy finding out things.

            In 1983 American psychologist Howard Gardner proposed that human beings actually have a spectrum of intelligences in different areas, and that everyone is intelligent in at least one area. While many psychologists have criticized Gardner’s work for various reasons, many educators have embraced it because it values variety in human thinking and reasoning. In my opinion, perhaps “intelligences” is not the best term to use, but rather “talents.” This gibes with my own spiritual beliefs that each person has at least one natural gift, or talent, which can be identified and developed. According to one assessment, my strongest intelligences are musical, social, and linguistic. Seems to parallel what I have previously described about myself in light of MBTI and Holland types, eh? Oh, and in recent years, some Gardner enthusiasts have suggested that existential, or spiritual, intelligence be added to the spectrum. I agree with them that there are some folks who are just naturally predisposed to pondering the big questions of life and connecting with the more ethereal realities of our universe. Don’t be alarmed, though; Gardner posited that all people have some degree of each intelligence. For example, my lowest intelligence is logic/mathematical. That doesn’t mean I can’t do math; it just means it’s harder and less relevant for me than it is for someone who is naturally predisposed toward it. So don’t accuse me of claiming that some people will be lost for all eternity because they haven’t been gifted with existential intelligence. It just might require more work for them to process and experience the concepts of God and Holy Spirit or whatever other cosmological philosophy they ascribe to. If you’re interested in knowing your own intelligence types, visit www.literacyworks.org and take their free online assessment on multiple intelligences, which is based on Gardner’s work.

            Finally, for anyone interested in learning (as we all should be, no matter what stage of life we’re in), it’s helpful to know about one’s learning style preferences. One common learning style model used in education is VARK, which stands for Visual, Aural, Reading/writing, and Kinesthetic. There are various free online assessments available to help you find out your own VARK preferences. Here’s one: http://www.vark-learn.com/english/page.asp?p=questionnaire. I myself learn best with reading/writing and visual cues. For example, if you’re giving me directions, what works best for me is a turn-by-turn list (reading/writing) and a simple map (visual). Most US education environments emphasize learning through aural and reading/writing means, but educators and trainers are learning how to engage various learning styles when they facilitate learning opportunities for their students. As an educator, I’m challenged by helping kinesthetic learners engage the content of lessons. It’s not too difficult in a small class or workshop, but in a room full of seventy-five people or more, it can be a challenge. One trick is to offer to let learners hold something that they can manipulate quietly while they learn, e.g. a ball of modeling clay or a squishy toy. Even doodling is a way kinesthetic learners can “move” while they learn.

            To understand ourselves better is to understand others better, and understanding others connects us and helps us build bridges instead of barriers. Knowing oneself isn’t all that hard, but it does require work, and that work, I believe, is worth the time and energy put into it. I like how Jennifer Aniston puts it: “Once you figure out who you are and what you love about yourself, I think it all kinda falls into place.”

 

Happy 4th of July

          Happy Independence Day in the USA, the day we honor those who stood up to a government that oppressed the poor, took money from hard-working people and put it in the pockets of the wealthy, demanded that people worship God its way, empowered its military to occupy the personal property of civilians, and exploited this land's indigenous people and natural resources. May we never let that be our government again. May we today stand up against that kind of oppression in our nation and strive for liberty and justice for ALL Americans!

A Letter to Right-Wing Fundamentalist Conservative Christians

Dear Right-wing Fundamentalist Conservative Christians,

            Help me understand you. Many of you believe that God’s wrath will rain down in judgment on America because we will allow same-gender adult couples to publicly and legally affirm their love, commitment, fidelity, and responsibility to each other in the same way that we allow opposite gender couples to do so. I understand where that belief comes from. I grew up in a very conservative church that viewed the Bible through a mostly literal lens, and I believe you are basing your fears of God’s wrath on the Genesis story of Sodom and Gomorrah, ancient cities which God destroyed by fire and brimstone, according to Genesis. You believe they were destroyed because they allowed homosexuality, among other things. Most modern biblical scholars and Christians who apply their critical thinking skills when they read the Bible agree that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed primarily for two reasons: first, they worshipped false gods instead of the one true God and therefore participated in all sorts of harmful and godless acts; and second, they were so inhospitable to the strangers in their midst that they performed acts of gang violence against them. However, you never, ever mention the Old Testament story of the town of Gibeah (Judges 19). A very similar situation occurred there as in Sodom, but God did not destroy Gibeah, even though an innocent woman was gang raped to death by the very same men who earlier had demanded her two male travelling companions. Historians of the ancient Middle East will tell you that gang rape of both men and women was a display of domination and superiority that occurred commonly among those cultures. That practice has absolutely nothing in common with our modern-day concept of loving and committed same-gender relationships.

            Can we agree, then, that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed not because their citizens were gay (as we understand gay to be in the twenty-first century), but because they worshipped idols and were inhospitably cruel to foreigners? Can we still expect God’s wrath to rain down on America? Perhaps. Do we not worship idols in this country, especially those of the Four F’s: firearms, flags, fetuses, and finances? How many Christians bow down to the almighty gun and stand in the way of legislation that would make our people safer by making it harder for violent and unstable individuals to acquire high-power firearms that belong only in the hands of our public safety officers and military personnel? How many Christians pledge allegiance to the flag of a country that has contributed to the genocide of its indigenous people and murdered thousands of innocent civilians in certain wars that were unjust and unprovoked, and still to this day oppresses the poor by denying them access to affordable healthcare, quality education, and decent housing? How many Christians revere the unborn child while neglecting the welfare of children already with us, and denying women safety, good health, and self-determination? How many Christians place their faith in the corporations that drive their financial investments, greedy entities that take unfair advantage of their workers, damage the environment, and manipulate our government to their own self-seeking ends? Are these all not forms of idolatry? And do we not express meanness to the strangers among us by building walls and fences to keep them out, by taunting them in their attempts to learn a complicated language that even most native speakers struggle to master, and by economically sequestering them in areas of our communities characterized by squalor and crime? Is this all not inhospitality?

            You right-wing fundamentalist conservatives also cite God’s law when you express opposition to the legal, civil affirmation of a same-gender marriage. I will not use the separation of church and state argument here, as you seem to believe America is a Christian nation (it was, in fact, founded by capitalists, not Christians, and many of the founding fathers would not have passed your litmus test for Christianity; indeed, if the Puritans were among us today, most Christians would label them a cult for their beliefs). Instead, let’s consider your meaning of God’s law. Are you referring to the Old Testament laws? If so, then please cease your hypocrisy at once. Paul said in his letter to the Galatian Christians that if they keep one law, they are obligated to keep all of them (Galatians 5:3). Assuming Paul’s words apply to us in the twenty-first century, as well, we must immediately discard our blended-fiber clothing, refrain from eating pork and shrimp, and execute our children if they disrespect us. Oh, and if our daughters are raped, we are to sell them to their rapists as long as those men offer a fair price—unless the daughter was not a virgin at the time of her rape, in which case we are to execute her. Men, if you are uncircumcised, you must cut off your foreskin immediately, otherwise you are breaking the law and displeasing God. We cannot cherry-pick the Old Testament laws to follow and to disregard. If you insist on using God’s laws in your civil arguments, then perhaps you need to follow Paul’s advice in Galatians 5:12. You’ll need a sharp knife, some gauze, and plenty of pain killers.

            From a New Testament perspective, then, you often use other of Paul’s writings (it is interesting to note that Jesus, the one all we Christians revere as Lord and Savior and model of the Way we are to live, never said a word about same-sex relationships, according to the scriptures we have canonized as the New Testament). The most commonly used one is Romans 1:26-27, in which Paul describes an idolatrous people engaging in homosexual practices. Most scholars agree that the practices were connected in some way to the idol worship, perhaps as ritualistic sex. No one knows for sure, but one thing is certain: the practice is in the context of a people turning away from God and participating in the worship of false gods’ idols.

In my own research I have found credible thoughts and opinions on all of those scriptures that represent both sides of the argument. So who’s right? Everybody? Nobody? Perhaps we are all both right and wrong? The only specific instances of homosexual activity described in the Bible are the men of Sodom and Gibeah attempting to gang-rape foreign men, and the men and women of Rome participating in sexual activities related to idol worship. If God is so vehemently opposed to the notion of two men or two women being married, then why is there no specific mention of same-gender marriage in the Bible? Of course the Bible describes the various man-woman arrangements prevalent in the ancient world: one husband, one wife; one husband, one wife, and one or more concubines; one husband, multiple wives; one husband, his deceased brother’s wife; one man, his female slaves; one husband, his wife’s female slave. We really don’t have many clear examples in the Bible of one man marrying one woman for life for no other reason than for love. Even Abraham, whom Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike revere as the father of our respective faiths, was married to his half-sister (Genesis 20:12). And after Sodom was destroyed, Lot’s daughters got their father drunk and had sex with him so they could get pregnant (Genesis 19:30-38).

So apparently God is tolerant of polygamy in various forms and incestuous arrangements, even drug rape, but gets really angry when two people of the same gender fall in love and commit their lives to each other, promising to be faithful to each other, in sickness and in health, till death do they part, and simply desire our secular society to treat their marriages equally in the context of civil law. God truly hates that? Then why don’t we advocate for polygamous and incestuous marriage in the US since the Bible seems to condone those sorts of arrangements? And if you counter-argue that the one man/one woman familial arrangement is what’s best for children, then don’t allow infertile couples to marry, since children aren’t a natural possibility for them. Historical and contemporary evidence shows that children raised by same-gender parents are just as well-adjusted as those raised by opposite-gender parents, in the same way that children raised by single parents can turn out just as healthy and well-adjusted as those raised by a mom and a dad.

Admittedly, nowhere in the Bible are same-gender relationships between two adults described explicitly. However, there are some relationships that may—perhaps, maybe, possibly—imply something more than just deep friendship between two people of the same gender. The most famous is the love shared between King David of Israel and his friend Jonathon, King Saul’s son. I won’t go into esoteric linguistic details here, but suffice it to say that some of the Hebrew language used to describe some of their interactions implies that something more than a handshake and a hug went on between them. Another is the strong bond between Ruth and her deceased husband’s mother, Naomi. I’m not sure if I buy that one or not, but what’s known is that Ruth manipulated a kinsman into getting her pregnant, then she gave her baby to Naomi to raise. Sounds like reproduction by surrogacy to me, which is common among same-gender couples for obvious reasons. And there are more: Elijah prayed for a companion, and he got a man named Elisha. Daniel was selected to be part of the court of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, and the king’s eunuch chamberlain, according to the first chapter of the book of Daniel, showed mercy and physical love toward Daniel (according to the original Hebrew used). And Jesus healed the “beloved servant” of a Roman centurion, men who commonly took their same-sex partners into Roman-occupied territories while on assignment.

Neither I nor any of the gay men or lesbians I know are gang rapists or pagan idol worshipers who participate in ritualistic sex. And frankly, I’m very tired of being spiritually bullied by fellow Christians who continually bear false witness against me and my kind (and often certain women and anybody else who doesn’t think, believe, look, or act like they do) by making us all out to be things we most certainly are not. How about we all act obediently to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and heed His words to not judge each other, but instead to love each other as God first loved us? Let’s stop picking at the specks in each other’s eyes and start working at getting the planks out of our own eyes. Only then will we be able to see each other clearly and recognize that Christ is in all of us. Then we might find it easier to love each other, and once that happens, we can celebrate each other’s joys and carry each other’s burdens more sincerely and obediently. We will sincerely want what is best not only for ourselves, but for others. After all, wasn’t it love that transformed many Christians’ viewpoint on slavery, which the Bible does not condemn? Didn’t love for women bring about their right to vote and receive equal treatment under the law, even though the Bible does not specifically address women’s civil rights? Isn’t love what motivated blacks, whites, and others to unite in the 1960’s and 1970’s to advance the cause of civil rights for all people in this country, even though the political systems in the Bible did not practice equality for all?

We all need to read and reread 1 Corinthians 13 to remember what love is all about, and we need to repent of our unloving ways and put love into practice. I can tell you this from my own experience: There are many gay and lesbian people who feel no love whatsoever from a large segment of Christian society, the part of America that is supposed to have the deepest understanding of love. Many Christians tout, “Love the sinner, hate the sin” while spouting hateful, hurtful remarks and advocating legislation that would deny gays and lesbians their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Here’s a surprise for some of my fellow Christians: We gay and lesbian Christians also espouse the “love the sinner, hate the sin” theology—we love you as our brothers and sisters in Christ, but we hate the sins of fear, bigotry, intolerance, and exclusion that you show us and many others who suffer from your unloving attitudes.

Jesus said the law is summed up in two commands: love God with your whole being, and love your neighbor as yourself. It’s time for all of us, but especially you, dear right-wing fundamentalist conservative Christian brothers and sisters, to hand our fears over to God and start living in love toward each other. It’s time for all of us to grow up spiritually and stop suckling at the teats of Biblical literalism and patriarchal political systems. Growing up can be difficult, uncomfortable, and even painful, but without growth, there is no development; and without development, there is no transforming of our hearts to be more like Christ.