CELEBRATING PRIDE

June is Pride month, celebrating LGBTQ+ heritage, identity, and love. While much partying and positivity happens, it is also a time to pause and reflect on who we are and where we’ve come from.

Note: I use the terms queer, gay, homosexual, and LGBTQ interchangeably to refer to any person who is not heterosexual or cisgendered.

Time to read: 6:09

I am an out and proud gay man.

            It took me most of my life (and I’m fifty-seven) to be comfortable enough to say that in public. It still feels awkward. Not because I’m not proud of who I am, but because I’m still unsure of how people might react. As adults, we’re not supposed to care about what other people think about us, but we do, especially when the opinions come from people we care about, have to interact with regularly, or who have power over us. Or when we fear for our safety and security.

            There were places and times in world history where same-sex love was accepted as a simple variation of the human experience. While marriage between two people of the same sex may not have been common or even allowed, same-sex relationships still existed openly. I reckon people who did not fit the heterosexual, cisgendered expectations of their times were more or less left alone in those cultures.

Then along came the Jews, followed by the Christians, and then the Muslims, who brought a violent attitude toward any sort of love that wasn’t between a man and a woman (or women; Judaism and Islam both practiced polygamy, and many Muslims still do). Not the religions as a whole, mind you, but the patriarchal power-mongers who wielded religious laws like weapons to subjugate women, children, the poor, slaves, and homosexuals and transgendered people. The latter two, in particular, were seen as worthy of nothing but death. And woe to the homosexual or transgendered person who did not benefit from the privilege of color or socio-economic status.

            The U.S. especially has a complicated history with how it treats queer people. I don’t know if anyone has ever received the death penalty for simply being queer, but plenty of queer people have been murdered simply for who they are. The struggle for gay rights has long existed, but one of the first organized approaches began in December 1924, when Henry Gerber founded the Society for Human Rights in Chicago. Sadly the Society soon disbanded “…due to political pressure.” (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/stonewall-milestones-american-gay-rights-movement/).

            More than twenty-five years later, Harry Hays founded the Mattachine Society in Los Angeles to change public perceptions of homosexuality, especially to “…cultivate the notion of an ethical homosexual culture.” (ibid).

            The 1950s were fraught with anti-homosexual policies and practices. Almost 5,000 gay men and women were discharged from the military or fired from their government jobs for being gay. The American Psychiatric Association classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. Homosexuals were banned from federal government employment by executive order.

            But not everything from the 1950s was bad for queer people. A paper written by psychologist Evelyn Hooker convinced many clinicians to change their views toward homosexuality. And the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the First Amendment rights of a queer-centric publication, One: The Homosexual Magazine.

            Queer people began to feel more emboldened to express their identities in the 1960s counter-culture movement. But it was the Stonewall Riots in June of 1969, when angry gay youth and drag queens protested police brutality and harassment toward queer people, that brought the gay rights movement to national attention. And that’s why we celebrate Pride every June.

            A lot has happened since then. Queer people advanced in civic leadership positions, states passed anti-discrimination legislation, mainline churches began to welcome queer people, the U.S. military abolished their “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, and finally, in 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to prohibit marriage rights to same-sex couples.

            We’ve come a long way in gay rights and inclusion, but we still have a long way to go. There are many communities in the U.S. where gay people are harassed, stigmatized, and ostracized. Many businesses and schools discriminate against queer people. LGBTQ people are victims of hate crimes. Trans women of color are murdered at horrifying rates. Families still kick their queer children to the curb. Many faith communities still refuse to include queer people in the full life of their congregations. And the list goes on.

            We might compare the struggles of the LGBTQ community to those of BIPOC (black, indigenous, and people of color) communities. While there are certainly similarities that help LGBTQ and BIPOC people empathize with each other, the struggles of LGBTQ folk are unique. I doubt any black people have been kicked out of their families simply for being black. I don’t think any brown people have been excommunicated from their faith communities for simply being brown. Have any people of Asian descent been discharged from the military or fired from their jobs for simply being Asian?

            And how many black religious leaders have called for the death penalty for homosexuality? How many brown priests have put gay people in the same category as those who sexually abuse children and animals? How many Asian and Latino families have rejected their LGBTQ children? How many minority business owners have denied employment to a well-qualified candidate just because he or she was queer? How many BIPOC people have used an anti-gay slur or told a mean-spirited joke about gay or trans people? What about anti-gay rap lyrics?

            And to be fair, the LGBTQ community’s treatment of our BIPOC brothers and sisters hasn’t been stellar. We have discriminated based on color, gender expression, and sex; we have fetishized black men, Latinos, and Asian men. I can only speak from the gay man’s experience, but I assume the lesbian community has had its share of discriminatory practices, as well.

            But now is not the time for oppressed people to oppress each other. Now is the time for all people—gay and straight; white and BIPOC; Christian and otherwise; able-bodied and differently abled; men and women and nonbinary folk; everyone—to come together and stand with and for each other. The horror of police brutality against black people must end. The imprisonment of brown people seeking life and safety must end. Allowing poor homeless people to suffer a long, lingering death on our streets must end. White supremacism must end. Toxic masculinity must end. Ethnocentrism and xenophobia must end. The hoarding of wealth acquired by the labor of the poor must end.

Rights for one is rights for all. Justice for one is justice for all. Empowerment for one is empowerment for all. United we stand; divided, we all fall.

            So this June, let’s all take pride in who we are: our beautiful, polychromatic colors; our many gender expressions; our infinite varieties of abilities and talents; the different ways we all make efforts to connect to the loving Divine; the many sizes we represent; and the people we love, and our efforts to love them to the best of our abilities. Pride is a celebration, and while we still have struggles and battles ahead, let’s honor who we are and what we’ve accomplished.

DISMANTLING PRIVILEGE THROUGH DESIGN THINKING

Systemic privilege is a wicked problem to address, but maybe the process of design thinking applied in the context of universal design could be one way to dismantle systemic privilege and create a society that is fairer, more equal, and more just—more usable, if you will—for all.

Time to read: 8:30.

            When the topic of systemic privilege gains the attention of the masses—most notably these days, white privilege—the conversations usually occur in the contexts of history, sociology, politics, ethics, law, and theology. One context that I haven’t seen in my news and social media feeds, however, is design. Clearly our systems are highly problematic for those who do not represent the status quo. These systems have been designed by those who hold, and wish to maintain, power and control. On a very wide scale, these dysfunctional systems are not only problematic, but they are always detrimental and, tragically, often deadly for those pushed to the margins of society.

            It is right and good to have difficult conversations in the aforementioned contexts. It helps us wrap our brains around the causes and effects of the suffering experienced by marginalized communities. That helps us build empathy for them. But following knowledge and empathy must come action. Protests and demonstrations are effective to express emotion and build awareness, but those actions are not sustainable over time. Let’s face it: a few days of protests are helpful, but weeks or months of protests result in exhaustion, desensitization, annoyance, or even anger, which then make protesting counterproductive. Flooding social media with images and posts also helps to build awareness and express feelings, but eventually people go back to their previous online habits, letting memes and quotes languish until the next traumatizing event. Heated, emotional conversations cool down. Classrooms move on to other topics. The news media hyper-focuses on the next big story. And while some progress may be made for the benefit of the suffering, little real systemic change is effected because so many disagree on what to do. History cannot be undone. Culture does not change overnight. Ideologies are entrenched in deeply held beliefs. Hearts remain hard. And many of those hard hearts belong to the very people holding the power of privilege.

            But what if we could convince them that creating a society that works for everyone, benefits everyone? What if they could see that sharing power is powerful? What if they realized that the good of the other is, in fact, their good, as well? I believe design thinking might help us get there.

            Design thinking is a creative process of ideation, creation, and implementation that begins with identifying what designers call a wicked problem. The Austin Center for Design defines a wicked problem as “…a form of social or cultural problem that is difficult to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements.” (https://tinyurl.com/ydeyswqe). They go on to explain that poverty, sustainability, equality, and health and wellness are examples of such problems. I would assert that racism, sexism, classism, ableism, heterosexism, cisgenderism, and all other “-isms” are the root causes of these wicked societal problems and are the manifestations of those in the status quo clinging to their privilege for fear of losing it.

            So how would design thinking contribute to the dismantling of privilege to create a society that is, in a design context, more usable for all its users (I’ll use the term users to refer to anyone living in a society)?

            After identifying a wicked problem to address, designers begin formulating a solution by empathizing with users. The Oxford dictionary defines empathy as “the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.” Protests, demonstrations, and news and social media feeds—especially personalized ones in which the names of victims are called, and their lives highlighted—are effective in building empathy.

            After building empathy for users, designers define the problem to be addressed. The more specific the definition, the more actionable the solution. It is at this stage that dysfunctional beliefs must be expunged by reframing them into functional, actionable beliefs. “I’ve got three master’s degrees; I know so much” is a dysfunctional belief; “I’ve got three master’s degrees, but I’ve still got so much to learn, and I’m happy to keep learning and growing” is a reframe of that dysfunctional belief. “Some people are set in their ways and will never change” is dysfunctional; “If people are alive and have a working brain, they can learn and evolve personally and socially” is that belief reframed.

            The next stage in design thinking is to ideate possible solutions to the identified problem. At this stage, any and all judgment is suspended. The best ideas come from the freedom to express and explore. Of course, there have to be some guidelines. Calling for a revolution in the style of late eighteenth century France, where revolutionaries imprisoned and cut off the heads of the rich and powerful, would not be a good idea to toss out. However, taxing the rich to pay for programs and services for the poor and marginalized may seem insurmountable, but it is certainly specific and doable. (Passing such policy would be a wicked problem of its own).

            Once a solution is decided upon, the next stage of design thinking would be to develop a prototype. In design thinking, rapid iteration is key. While social policies and actions rarely happen rapidly at the national or state level, they can certainly happen more quickly at the local level, which can be very effective over time. Just look at the issue of same-sex marriage. Cities and towns started allowing same-sex couples to marry. Some states followed. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for states to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. Does that mean that same-sex marriage is widely accepted by individuals everywhere in this country? Not in the least. There are still places in the U.S. where same-sex couples do not express affection with each other for fear of their very lives. There are still even places where interracial couples are not welcome. But interracial and same-sex marriage is legal everywhere in the U.S. As I previously stated, cultures do not change overnight, but rather in small increments, over time.

            After a prototype is developed, it is tested for its effectiveness. This is where ethical data analysis is key. Data can be manipulated by anyone to prove almost any point, so policy makers and those who implement policy must be ethical, fair, and honest in their assessments. If a program or service isn’t working, it must be redesigned and tested again. Sometimes that requires going all the way back to stage one, empathy, and reassessing the needs of users.

            Throughout the design thinking process, the concepts and tenets of universal design should be the lens through which empathy, definition, ideation, prototyping, and testing are seen. Universal design is a philosophy that holds that the best design is the one that removes the most—ideally, all—barriers for users. It comes from the fields of architecture and city planning, but has been applied in business and educational contexts. Universal design can be explained with a simple example. We’ve all traversed city streets and noticed the cut curbs at intersections. We know those were built to better assist wheelchair users to safely cross the street. But when we are toting heavy luggage with wheels, or pushing a baby carriage, or using a walker, or riding a bicycle, skateboard, or scooter, we, too, benefit from the cut curbs. In fact, no one in their right mind would complain about a cut curb. It benefits everyone, not just those in wheelchairs.

            Similarly, universal design for social change would keep in mind not just the good of the oppressed, but the good of everyone. Think about it: if poor people are empowered to make more money, they will both spend and save it, practices that are good for the economy. Universal access to quality, affordable healthcare means a healthier population, which results in—you guessed it—more people buying things, going on trips, and dispersing their money more broadly across the economy, and not just to expensive health insurance and medical bills (which are paid for by public taxes anyway, since poor sick people don’t have the money to pay such bills). Prison reform means reduced crime, which means safer spaces, which means happier people, which leads to—yep, right again—people spending their money. A more highly educated population results in more fairness and equity, with study after study confirming that people who hold a bachelor’s degree make more money over their lifetimes than people who don’t have a degree. Empowering blacks, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) to be happier and more successful just sows seeds of happiness and success for everyone. You don’t need a degree in sociology or economics to understand that. Elevating women to equal status with men in our work spaces and public spheres brings more talent to the pool, creating healthy competition, bringing more creativity, and resulting in fresh ideas. Affirming LGBTQ family structures renews emphasis on the value of family and kinship ties when it comes to mental and physical health. I could go on and on about how the good of the few is the good of the many.

            I am not a sociologist, or a political scientist, or an economist, so much of the aforementioned claims are just my opinions. Nor am I an ethicist or a theologian or a lawyer. I may be naïve and idealistic. But where would this world be without people who were ignorant of their own naivete to the extent that they dreamed and acted without reservation? I believe all things are possible—well, almost all things; transporters and warp drives may never exist in reality, as much as I hope for them—but with creativity, imagination, and above all else, empathy, we can design a society that works for everyone in it.

            To learn more about Design Thinking, visit https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/design-thinking and https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/design-thinking-explained.

To learn more about Universal Design and usability, visit https://www.washington.edu/doit/what-universal-design-0 and https://www.humancentereddesign.org/inclusive-design/principles.

For a brief, easy-to-digest essay on kyriarchy (systems of privilege and power), visit https://www.mtholyoke.edu/~haydo20s/classweb/world_politics/kyriarchy.html#:~:text=Kyriarchy%20is%20a%20term%20that,%2C%20ableism%2C%20capitalism%2C%20etc.

#Design #DesignThinking #UniversalDesign #Privilege #Justice #Oppressed #Poor #Marginalized #Kyriarchy

My Social Media Divorce

I’m 57 years old, and I cannot remember a time when this country was more divided than it is now. It probably has been, maybe even more so, but I was either too young or too disconnected to be aware of it. I have a visceral response to conflict and discord anyway, so in this age of constant media streams, it can be overwhelming.

In my opinion, the greatest contributor to this division is social media. In the 1980s, -90s, and early 2000s, if you wanted to share an opinion publicly, you wrote a letter to the editor of a magazine or newspaper. This required time and effort, which facilitated more thinking. I’m not saying all public opinions shared in writing then were well thought out, but the process of writing the opinion, printing it out, and sending it to the publication—or even emailing it—did involve some degree of reflection on your choice of words.

Now it’s too easy to hit “like,” “comment,” and “share.” We can read or watch something that stimulates a thought or feeling, and within seconds our opinion is out there for others to see. Some people are able to self-manage and regulate their liking, commenting, and sharing. Most are not. We have become a more uncivil society because we all now think that our opinion is worthy of other people’s consideration.

But opinions are not evidence-based claims. They are the tools of influencers and trend-setters, many of whom are nothing more than self-indulgent narcissists obsessed with likes and followers. I should know, because I’ve been just as guilty as that narcissist-in-chief currently residing in the White House who seems more concerned with self-promotion than the welfare of all the residents of this country he has been elected to lead. Shame on him, and shame on me.

Therefore, I am deciding to greatly reduce my usage of Facebook and Twitter. The former has done little to regulate the flow of misinformation and hate through its channels, and as for the latter, I never really saw the point of “microblogs” anyway. Nobody can say anything of substance in 280 characters or less.

I will continue to participate in Facebook groups which align with my values of social justice and environmental responsibility. And Star Trek. I thoroughly enjoy the Star Trek groups. I’ll continue to be a part of family groups I’ve created, as well. And Facebook Messenger is an efficient method of communicating in real time. And I do value reconnecting with individuals I knew and loved in years past, whom I haven’t seen in decades. But I won’t be looking at my Home feed. Too much shit comes through and stinks up my world. And Facebook makes it too hard to regulate that flow.

Part of my voluntary estrangement from Facebook is also the fact that they continue to give a voice to groups that promote violence and hate. I’ve seen the posts and shares of some of my own family members, and they not only sadden me, they anger me and make me feel ashamed to be affiliated in any way with such people. It’s one thing to be an advocate of responsible gun ownership; it’s another to express sentiments in which you would shoot first and ask questions later. It’s one thing to be fiscally and socially conservative; it’s another to promote attitudes and actions that not only demean other human beings—beloved creations of God—but do so with a violent tone. Jesus told His disciples to go forth and make disciples of every living creature. He also told them if a village or town refused to receive that Gospel message, they were to “…shake the dust off their feet” and move on. So here I am, shaking the digital dust of those godless virtual villages off my feet and moving on. Your hearts are hard, and you seem to have no desire for a heart of flesh. You refuse to receive the Gospel, that God loves everyone and not just those who look, sound, pray, and love like you, so I am done with you. If you desire to have a heart of flesh, then I will meet you halfway and do what I can to help you have it. But I will not tolerate your spiritual darkness, and I will no longer tolerate Facebook and Twitter contributing to your lack of light.

To Facebook: you need to do better. You were originally intended as a way for college students to connect. College students aren’t even interested in you anymore. Instead, you have become a forum for all voices, but you won’t take responsibility for regulating the voices that sow seeds of discontent and misinformation, because that’s not profitable. Shame on you.

To Twitter: shut people up. You’ve done nothing at all to encourage civil discourse because that’s not profitable, either. You should have blocked that hater-in-chief a long time ago. I’m not just going silent on you; I’m disabling my account.

I’ll stay active on LinkedIn, which seems to be doing a much better job at ensuring professional, mature communication. And I’ll post dog, trip, and food pics on Instagram. I’ll post vidoes on YouTube that align with my personal mission to inform, inspire, and entertain, and I will do so with social responsibility in mind.

And I will commit to blogging more often, to force myself to think about what I am writing and sharing, and to encourage readers to respond to me directly and personally via email so that they, too, can think more carefully about what they write. I ask that any communications be respectful and civil, and that you back your opinions with evidence from credible sources. Anything less will be met with silence on my end.

A Sunday Reflection on Micah 6:8

This blog post is a little bit stream-of-consciousness, so it’s not my best writing. But if the Spirit has something instructive or enlightening for you in it, then praise be to God. And if it makes you uncomfortable, or even angry, then praise be to God.

“He has told you, O mortal, what is good;
    and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
    and to walk humbly with your God?”

These words from Micah 6:8 are often quoted by progressive Christians like me as the benchmark for godly living. It’s easy enough to take the words at face value: “do justice” means to treat everyone fairly and equitably; “love kindness” means to be sincerely nice to everyone; and “walk humbly with your God” means to not think of oneself too highly. But is that all there is to it? Taking the words of the Bible at face value is a dangerously simplistic hermeneutic that results in cherry-picking relativism. According to Roger Wolsey, author of Kissing Fish: Christianity for people who don’t like Christianity, progressive Christians apply a hermeneutic of compassion, love, and justice to scripture. He asserts that this is the hermeneutic that Jesus Himself applied to the scriptures He had at hand in His day, that Jesus allowed for the spirit of the law to trump the letter of the law if that application resulted in God’s love and justice prevailing and drawing the individual into closer relationship with God.

         I’m not a theologian. I don’t understand the ancient Hebrew language. I don’t know much about the history and culture of that people. Like thousands upon thousands of early followers of Christ, I am a Gentile with a very different history and life story. Unlike orthodox Jews, I eat pork and other “unclean” foods. And while I was circumcised as a baby, it was not for religious reasons. So I am baffled as to why so many modern-day Christians are so obsessed with the Old Testament laws, especially when the issues pertain to topics such as marriage equality and women’s rights. If Jesus was the fulfillment of the law, then why not look to Jesus’s own words and actions as our authoritative lense as followers of Christ? Shouldn’t our first questions be “What did Jesus say?” and “What did Jesus do?”

         Let’s consider how Jesus treated women. For thousands of years, women have been easy targets and scapegoats. Even Adam blamed Eve for his own disobedience to God. Women had a pretty low status in Jesus’s day. It was easy for a man to divorce his wife then; he pretty much just announced publicly that he no longer wanted her as a wife, and threw her out of his home. A divorced woman often had no place to go. Her own family most likely wouldn’t take her back because it would have been nearly impossible to find another man who would take her as a wife. And since women had no social status, it was virtually impossible for a woman to become independent. Most divorced women, forced to do whatever was necessary for their survival, thus turned to prostitution or, at best, begging. So Jesus had a lot to say against divorce. If we take His words at face value, then we assume that Jesus hated divorce. But I believe that when we look at His words through the lense of justice and compassion, Jesus was actually being a radical feminist for His time. He was concerned about the welfare of these women and telling men to take responsibility for their commitments to their wives. In that culture and in that period of time, Jesus’s words would have been radically different from what those people would have accepted as “normal.” Needless to say, it pissed off a lot of the men around Jesus.

         One of the singular driving forces behind many conservative Christian voters is their staunch “pro-life” position (I use quotes around “pro-life” because I do not think most of these people are “pro-life” at all, but rather “anti-abortion.” If they were truly pro-life, they would be against the death penalty and against war, and most are not. I respect those in the minority who are anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, and anti-war). It is a historical fact that abortion has been practiced in cultures around the world for thousands of years, including in ancient Israel. Jesus would have known about the practice, and He would have most likely adhered to the commonly accepted beliefs about it. Yet according to the Gospels, He never once said anything about it. Was it because it wasn’t widely practiced? Or because it wasn’t a controversial issue in His time? We cannot know for sure. All we know is, Jesus didn’t say anything about it. So if we use the hermeneutic of love and justice, we are left to consider what is in the best interests of both the woman and the fetus. Let’s remember that in Jesus’s time, they didn’t know about eggs and sperm. They only knew that a man deposited his “seed” into a woman’s womb, where—if the woman was fertile—that “seed” germinated and grew into a person in about nine to ten months’ time. Children were the product of the father and thus his property. Male heirs carried on the family name, inherited property, and cared for the parents in their old age; females were sold off as wives or slaves, or kept at home as caregivers. A woman who wanted to terminate a pregnancy would have been denying a man his rightful property, but there were provisions in place for consideration of the mother’s health. Instead of focusing on the unborn fetus, I believe Jesus would have focused instead on the well-being of the mother. Jesus, being the Son of God, would have understood the biological processes involved in reproduction, I imagine. But since He did not come to teach science, He would not have wasted his precious time on Earth to teach such things to people, many of whom already believed He was a heretic. On this topic, we’re left to our own interpretations. And if we apply Jesus’s hermeneutic, then we look through the lense of love and justice; what is most loving toward the mother and the unborn fetus, and what is just toward them both? As for me, I believe abortion is a sad and painful choice to make. But ultimately, it is not my choice to make for a woman who is pregnant. It is her body and thus her right to choose what she deems best, and whatever choice she makes, she deserves my compassion and not my condemnation.

         Another pet topic of conservative Christians is that of same-sex relationships. So many of them seem so intent on keeping people who love each other apart. Admittedly I am biased on this topic, being a gay man myself who has come on that long journey of self-acceptance to the place where I can “…love [my] neighbor as myself.” Yet this is another topic on which Jesus had nothing to say. It would be stupidly naïve to assert that this topic didn’t exist in Jesus’s time. The culture of ancient Palestine was strongly influenced by ancient Greece and Rome, and we all know that there are historically documented instances of same-sex relationships in those cultures and in neighboring ones (I understand some of the best ancient same-sex love poetry comes from ancient Persia, which also had a strong influence on ancient Hebrew culture). Now I’m not talking about pagan temple rituals involving homosexual orgies, or about the ancient practice of males publicly raping other males to assert dominance, or about pederasty (the practice of older males taking a young boy as a lover). I’m talking about one person loving another person of the same sex. People have expressed same-sex love in cultures around the world and throughout time, so it wasn’t an unknown phenomenon in Jesus’s time. Yet He didn’t say anything about it. So when we are faced with the issue of blessing same-sex relationships, which really means honoring the rights and responsibilities of the two people in the relationship, we must consider what is the compassionate and just attitude if we use the same hermeneutic as Jesus. Conservative Christians hold up the “Biblical model” of marriage as God’s standard, but the fact is that there are multiple models presented in the Bible: one man, one woman; one man and as many wives as he could afford; one man, his wives, and his concubines; one man, his wife or wives, and their female slaves; one man, his wife or wives, and his deceased brother’s widow; one man and his rape victim (if he is willing to pay her bride price). Even Jesus told a parable about one groom with many brides. Clearly the “Biblical” standard for marriage is polygamy, right? Of course, the counter-argument is, “Where are the examples in the Bible of men marrying men, or women marrying women?” In ancient times, marriage was more about property and inheritance and social obligation than it was about love. In fact, marriage on the basis of love is a relatively new concept in human history. We’ve made the Bible fit our paradigm of one man-one woman marriage rather than letting the Bible shape our paradigm of what marriage means in our day and time. Jesus didn’t address anybody’s reasons for getting married. He only addressed divorce. So either He didn’t care, or it simply wasn’t an issue worth addressing. If we apply His hermeneutic of love and justice, then we let the spirit of the law trump the letter of it, and we think of what is right and just for the couple desiring to be married, and not what is right or just for the people uninvolved in the marriage.

         Conservative Christians also seem to be very selective in their interpretations of scripture concerning war, the welcoming of strangers (foreigners), care for the earth, caring for the poor and destitute, and other politically controversial topics. What did Jesus say and do, if anything, in these matters? How did Jesus treat foreigners? How did Jesus treat the poor? The sick? Women? Children? The outcast and those who were “unclean” by their culture’s standards? And I broaden my scope to include any follower of Christ, not just conservative Christians, for we all fall short of living up to the standards set for us by Jesus. But having come from the conservative Christian background myself, I know from my own experience how hypocritical and how selective conservatives can be in their interpretation and application of scripture. And sadly many well-intentioned followers of Christ have been led astray in recent decades by the false doctrine of the prosperity gospel. This wrongful teaching has become the political tool of greedy capitalists and power mongers whose sole motivation is the perpetuation of their own patriarchal power structure. They lead the sheep astray with their false teachings and divisiveness, waving their pro-life and anti-gay banners to rally support from followers and deflect attention away from their own sin of greed and lust for power and domination. These were the people Jesus most harshly criticized—the Pharisees, Scribes, and other power-holders of his day who misused and misapplied the Law in order to control the people and maintain the status quo.

         The writer of 1 John in the New Testament proclaims that anyone who loves is born of God, and those who do not love do not know God, because God is love. We’re all capable of love; it is a choice, not an ability that we either do or do not have. For some it comes more easily than it does for others. Theology is a fascinating, complicated, messy field of study, and knowing one hermeneutic from another requires more time and effort than many of us have or are willing to expend. However, the one hermeneutic that we are all capable of practicing is the lense of love and justice. We all are able to love, and we all know, in our hearts, what is just if love is our guide. One needn’t be a biblical scholar, knowledgeable in ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, and an expert in the cultures of the time, to follow Christ. One needn’t even be literate in any language. One needn’t understand the concept of God in any great depth. Jesus was a simple man with a simple message: God loves you, and God wants you to love each other. Love trumped the Law in the person of Jesus. So instead of asking whether something is right or wrong, perhaps we should be asking “What is most loving? What will bring this person into a closer relationship with God, who is love?” And instead of judging others by what they believe, maybe we should judge them by how well they love others. For those who love are born of God, and know God (perhaps whether they realize it or not). Love is at the root of doing justice, loving kindness, and walking humbly with our God.

The Christ Way of Love

           I am a follower of the Christ Way as it was modeled by the words and actions of Jesus as we understand them from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Most people call us Christians (although that moniker has been and is diluted and corrupted by many very un-Christlike people). Some modern-day followers of the Christ Way call themselves red-letter Christians because they look primarily to the words of Jesus for their doctrine, words which are traditionally printed in red ink in the aforementioned Gospels. I also look to the writings of Paul, Peter, and other early followers of the Christ Way as inspiration and insight for my own faith development. My sole authority, however, remains those red-letter words and actions of Jesus.

           While I may often stumble in adhering to those words, pretty much every attitude of my life is influenced by my faith. My understanding of the Christ Way influences which church I attend; what kind of people I associate with; my career choices; how I interact with my partner, my family, my friends, my colleagues, my students, and strangers; how I spend my money; how I treat animals and the environment; what I read and what I watch on TV; how I care for my body; and more.

           And it influences my politics to a great degree. I vote for candidates who advocate for the poor because Jesus was greatly concerned about the poor (Luke 3:11, 4:18, 14:13; and many more). I support politicians who uphold the rights of women and children because Jesus cared for women and children (John 4:1-26; Luke 8:43-48; Luke 7:36-50; Mark 10:13-16). I am against war and violence because Jesus was against war and violence (Matthew 26:52). I am critical of the rich and powerful because Jesus criticized the rich and powerful (Matthew 6:19-21, 24; Luke 18:25; Luke 16:19-31; and many more). I welcome foreigners because Jesus welcomed foreigners (John 4:1-26; Matthew 8:5-13; Matthew 25:35). I support programs of learning and education because Jesus was a learned person who practiced critical thinking (Luke 2:46-47; Luke 4:17; John 3:1-21). Jesus healed the sick without asking for anything in return (Luke 17:11-19; Matthew 9:1-8; Luke 8:43-48; and too many more to list here); that’s why I support universal healthcare. Jesus fed the hungry with the bounty shared by those who had food (Matthew 14:13-21), thus I support programs that offer public assistance to those in need.

           We can help the poor by providing financial assistance to those who cannot work, and opportunities to those who can. We can feed the hungry without anyone else starving because we discard shameful amounts of food every day. We can offer affordable, quality healthcare to all because we are one of the wealthiest, most technologically advanced nations on the planet. We need to remember that all good things come from God, and much is expected from those to whom much is given (Luke 12:48).

We can uphold the rights of women when we acknowledge that God is neither male nor female (John 4:24), and that all people—male, female, transgendered, all nationalities, all socio-economic levels, all physical abilities, gay, straight, everyone—is created in God’s image (Galatians 3:28). This acknowledgement helps us affirm civil rights for oppressed populations. It motivates us to welcome refugees and to be kind to the stranger (foreigner) among us.

           Some scholars even believe that Jesus may have blessed a same-sex relationship (Luke 7:1-10). Philip, a leader in the early church, ministered to a eunuch (and a black one, at that), a man who formerly would have had no place in the Jewish community but who was welcomed into the community of Christ (Acts 8:26-40). Some scholars assert that the term eunuch was applied not only to men who had had their genitals removed, but also to men who displayed no sexual interest in females. If this is true, then shouldn’t followers of the Christ Way support the rights of LGBT individuals to be who they are without persecution and to marry the individual of their own choice?

           In a secular nation where (presumably) a separation of church and state is upheld, I cannot expect all Americans to believe and do as I believe and do. However, I can challenge those who call themselves Christian to hold up Jesus as their example of the best way to think and act in the world. Jesus never judged a person of another religion; He did, however, often criticize the establishment of his own religion (Matthew 23:13-26; plus other references). He never turned away foreigners; in fact, He urged His followers to show hospitality to all (Luke 14:13-14). He associated with tax collectors, prostitutes, and other “unclean” people of His day (Matthew 9:10). And who are the “unclean” people of our day but the poor and homeless, the refugees, the physically and mentally disabled, the un- and under-employed, the un- and under-educated, those who talk and move and think and learn and love differently from the mainstream?

           Jesus urged the rich to share what they had been given with those who had nothing (Mark 10:17-27). How many pastors of Christian mega-churches live in mansions and drive expensive cars and fly in private jets to exotic locales while people in their own communities go sick and hungry and in need? These false teachers promote the blasphemous doctrine of prosperity and deflect attention from their own sins by pointing out the “sins” of the “unclean”? And how many wealthy Christians hoard their wealth while non-Christians—atheists, even—share their wealth and donate generously to help those in need because their hearts are full of compassion and not greed? Tell me, whose heart is more like the heart of God? Romans 2:14-16 explains that people will be judged according to what they have done, not by what they have believed.

           The first-century church didn’t have the Scriptures we now call the New Testament to use as a reference for their lifestyle. Hell, many of those early believers had never even read the Hebrew Scriptures and couldn’t speak Hebrew at all—or read and write in any language, for that matter. All they knew was either their own experience with Jesus, or their experiences with those who had known Jesus, or the experiences of those who knew someone who had known Jesus. Their “religion” was simple: show love for God through worship, praise, and caring for others…especially to “…the least of these” (Matthew 25:40). They were known as followers of the Christ Way by their love, not by their doctrine or their material blessings or their moral superiority. They had received the Gospel, the Good News: God loved them and wanted to be in relationship with them, and God wanted them to love each other in healthy relationships marked by equality, compassion, and respect (just read virtually the whole book of Acts). That’s it. No complicated doctrine. No scriptures to memorize. No magical incantations to say or miraculous works to perform. Just people living together in love and trying to understand God through love. In the first century C.E., their movement was revolutionary because it was radically inclusive and egalitarian, something that few, if any, cultures of the ancient world had achieved. It was what many so-called Christians today would condemn as socialist or even communist.

           If God is love, then all true love comes from God. The love of a parent for a child is often used in the Bible as a metaphor for God’s love for us. The sacrificial love of one friend for another is upheld as the greatest form of love. The love shared by two spouses or partners; the love one feels for one’s pet; the love one feels for the environment; the compassion a person feels for those who are suffering; in my opinion, the love one feels for any and all living things is of God, and those who love are of God (1 John 4:7-8).

           But love doesn’t mean ignoring or overlooking the shortcomings of another. We are told to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). When a parent corrects a child; when a teacher corrects a student; when a friend has a heart-to-heart talk with another friend about a hurtful thing that friend has said or done; and when people point out the greed and corruption of their leaders, they are speaking the truth in love. When another’s attitudes and behaviors are hurtful, we are expected to speak the truth in love and tell the perpetrator to stop. Standing up to bullies who are using their wealth and power to inflict harm is not being rebellious or disrespectful or judgmental or self-righteous; it is speaking the truth in love so that the people causing the harm can see the error of their ways and turn their hearts toward love, and thus, toward God.

           As we enter the year 2017, my prayer for myself is to love God and others more perfectly and boldly, to replace fear with love, and to bravely speak the truth in love when I see how another’s words or actions are hurtful. And I pray that when someone else speaks the truth in love to me, I can accept their words, ponder them in my mind and heart, and ultimately trust God to enlighten any and all truth—as well as any untruths—their words contained and incorporate that truth into my own practice of love in this world.