A Letter to Religious Conservatives

A letter to religious conservatives, especially Christians, concerning the recent ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States overturning state bans on marriage equality for same-sex couples:

          As I and other supporters of marriage equality celebrated the Court’s decision, you reacted with a wide range of emotions, from indifference, to disappointment, to sadness, to outright anger. Most of your emotions are fear-based. We expected that of you because fear seems to be the modus operandi of most conservatives.

          However, let’s take a moment to play the “what-if” game. I’ll go first. What if you’re right, and I’m wrong. Come to find out, sexual and affectional orientation is, indeed, a choice, and I have chosen wrongly. On judgment day, when I stand before my Maker—who apparently creates everyone with the capacity for this choice—I will be judged for having chosen to spend my life with a member of my own sex; for having loved and cherished him until death separated us; for enjoying life’s ups and enduring its downs as equal partners in the journey. I will be judged for believing those verses in the Bible (which we both respect and revere, by the way) a bit too literally. You know, the ones that say “Two are better than one…” and so on (see Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 for the whole bit). I will be judged for having forced a good man into my family and having adopted his family as my own. You know, like Ruth did with Naomi. I will be judged for advocating politically for the same rights and responsibilities as opposite-sex couples, so he and I could share our resources more completely and not have them taken away by the state or by greedy family members (not that either mine or his would; they are not like that, thank the Lord) in the case that one of us predeceases the other, and so we could make medical decisions for each other and have hospital visitation rights like opposite-sex married couples. I will be judged for having kissed him hello and goodbye and sometimes for no reason at all. I will be judged for having held his hand and hugged him close. And yes, I will be judged for having had some fantastically fulfilling monogamous sex with him despite the fact that neither one of us could make the other pregnant without a miracle even greater than the Virgin Birth. God will say, “Depart from me, ye worker of iniquity! I never knew you!” Because that’s what God says to everyone who goes to hell, right? Am I on track here? That is what you conservatives believe, right? I should know; I spent the first quarter century or so of my life surrounded by the likes of you.

          OK, your turn. Let’s pretend I’m right and you’re wrong. Sexual/affectional orientation is not a choice; gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people are, indeed, born that way, and God loves us just the way we are. God is much more concerned with how well we’ve loved than with whom we’ve loved, and the Bible does not, after all, forbid same-sex marriage. What will you be judged for? You will be judged for your part in perpetuating centuries of exclusion of LGBT people from your religious communities. You will be judged for lumping them into the same categories as idol worshippers, child molesters, and animal rapists; I’m pretty sure that violates the ninth commandment. Remember those? You like to post them on public property and then forget the ones about stealing and adultery and coveting and so on. You will be judged for your complicit participation in the violence that your less self-controlled counterparts have inflicted on LGBT people because they saw your vitriol and took that as permission to commit horrendous acts against LGBT folks. You will be judged for the thousands upon thousands of LGBT youth who found themselves on the streets after their families learned who they were because those families believed their precious children were an abomination. The blood of LGBT children and teens who killed themselves rather than endure the constant bullying at school and at home will be on your hands. You will be judged for having believed a lie based in misogyny perpetuated by patriarchal religious hierarchies. You will be judged for not having loved others as Christ first loved you. You will be judged for having judged others with often very harmful consequences.

          Remember, this is just a game. And let us heed the words of the Apostle Paul and remember that “…now we see through a glass, darkly.” The fact is that probably neither side of this argument is completely right or completely wrong. Maybe God does like opposite-sex marriage only, or maybe God likes it better than same-sex marriage, or maybe God doesn’t give a rat’s ass about marriage. Jesus did say in Matthew 22 that, like the angels, people won’t be married in Heaven. If marriage is such a big deal to God, then why won’t there be marriage in the afterlife?

          Allowing same-sex marriage will in no way whatsoever affect opposite-sex marriages. The United States is the twenty-second country on the earth to extend civil marriage equality to same-sex couples. None of the others have burned in fire and brimstone. Does that mean that God only cares about American politics? How arrogant to presume so! God doesn’t love America! God loves Americans…and Chinese and Koreans and Japanese and Brazilians and Kenyans and all the other people of all the other countries on this planet we all share. God loves people. And gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals are people loved by God and worthy of dignity and respect.

          Those of us who profess to follow Christ will be judged according to how we have treated “the least of these” (Matthew 25:40). We will also be judged for how well we’ve loved our neighbor as we’ve loved ourselves. Aren’t people who are excluded and reviled among the least of these? Aren’t LGBT people your neighbors? Aren’t we all called to love one another, without condition or exception?

          If fear truly is your modus operandi, then you need to let the love of Christ into your heart. Christ’s love is perfect, and “…perfect love drives out fear.” (1 John 4:18). If, however, you claim to “love the sinner but hate the sin,” then I challenge you to really get to know a same-sex couple. Visit their home. See how they live. Hear their stories. Eat with them. Laugh at jokes together. Play some board or card games. Attend movies and sporting events and concerts and plays together. Meet their families. Maybe even visit the churches and places of worship they attend and see how their congregations worship and fellowship.

Beware, though: conversion and transformation are likely to occur, and you might be surprised at whose heart will be changed.

Marriage Equality

          June 26, 2015 will go down in history as the day that the Supreme Court of the United States declared that states do not have the right to deny marriage to same-sex couples. There was much celebrating across the country by people who labored, prayed, and waited for this decision. There were also expressions of disappointment, sadness, and even anger from those who do not support marriage equality for all couples, most of these coming from Republicans and the Religious Right.

          Whatever one believes about marriage personally, this occasion will someday be merely a note in a history book, much like Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case of 1967 which resulted in the abolition of state laws banning interracial marriage. At that time, conservatives and others (mostly Christians probably) expressed the same type of disapproval of the Court’s decision. In fact, the last state to strike anti-miscegenation laws from its books was Alabama, in 2000—more than thirty years after the Court’s ruling. Today, most people take interracial marriage for granted, with even most conservative evangelical Christians hardly batting an eyelash at a marriage between two people of different races. In the same way that most of today’s children and teens find it hard to believe that two people of different races were once prohibited from marrying in the United States, young people in years to come will wonder why two men or two women who loved each other were once prohibited from marrying. What is now the new normal for us will be simply normal for them.

          Even the one man-one woman model of marriage is a relatively new concept in human history. In most cultures around the world throughout time, men have been allowed to have more than one wife, either through formal marriage arrangements or through having concubines. In a few cultures, women were allowed more than one husband. In one traditional culture of China, marriage doesn’t even exist. Women may be with any male they prefer, and if a pregnancy results, she raises the child with the support of her parents and siblings. The father usually visits the child and participates in the childrearing, and may even come to live with the mother and her family, but marriage as we understand it isn’t a part of their tradition.

          The Old Testament of the Bible shows us lots of alternative marriage arrangements. Abraham was married to his half-sister, Sarah, with whom he fathered Isaac, but he also fathered a son, Ishmael, with his concubine, Hagar. It was common practice for men to take a concubine if their wives were unable to conceive a son. Isaac’s son, Jacob, had at least two wives. And Old Testament law provided for marriage arrangements that we today would find appalling: for example, if a woman was raped and her rapist agreed to pay her bride price, she was forced to become his wife; if a woman’s husband died before giving her a son, his surviving brother was to take the woman as his wife and impregnate her. Women were usually given in marriage to the highest bidder as soon as they reached childbearing age (a practice still done in many countries). And Ruth seduced a male relative of her deceased husband (because he had no surviving brothers), got pregnant by him, then gave the child to her mother-in-law to raise. All of this sounds like fodder for modern reality TV, but I suspect the motivation for these laws was the care that sons provided to elderly parents, especially mothers. No son, no retirement plan.

          The point I’m trying to make is that marriage has always been more of a civil contract than a religious sacrament. In fact, the Christian church didn’t institute marriage as a sacrament until around the twelfth century. Up until that time, Christian communities abided by local traditions and laws when it came to marriage. When it comes to marriage as a sacrament, there are as many widely varying opinions as there are religions. In a secular nation, there is separation of church and government, at least to the point that no one church or faith governs the state. If religious freedom is valued, then all religions must have equal protections under the law of that nation. To define marriage from a religious perspective is to inject religion into government, which is actually a threat to religious liberty, the freedom to practice—or not practice—religion as one chooses.

          From a purely secular and civil perspective, the rights and responsibilities of marriage should be extended to all persons in the nation regardless of age, race, gender identification, sex assigned at birth, sexual or affectional orientation, physical ability, or other traits or characteristics which are innate to the individual. If two consenting adults want to enter into a marriage contract, then so be it. Religions that disapprove of same-sex relationships do not have to conduct same-sex marriages in their religious houses. Nor do they have to conduct interracial marriages, or second (or third or fourth or--) marriages, or marriages between infertile couples, or interfaith marriages, or any other marital arrangement their religion forbids.

          No religion, however, can dictate how one treats others outside of one’s religious house of worship in a secular nation. No religion gives anyone the right to be racist, sexist, faithist, heterosexist, or a bigot of any sort. NONE. Period. You don’t believe in same-sex marriage? Fine. Don’t marry someone of the same sex. Disapprove all you want to. But do NOT stand in the way of another citizen of this nation striving for the same rights and responsibilities you have. Religion does not give you that right. If you work for the government or serve the public in some way, neither does your religion grant you the right to discriminate against those with whom you disagree. Can you imagine the outrage that would ensue if I refused to teach a Republican student on the grounds that that student’s conservative lifestyle choices offended my religious sensibilities (which they do, by the way)?

          As a gay follower of Christ, I celebrate yesterday’s decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, but I will not marry simply because I now can. I will marry when it is the right decision for me and my partner. A civil document guarantees certain rights and responsibilities to each other, so marriage is a serious decision to make with much prior thought and (for us) prayer. It represents a union of two lives becoming one, of the creation of a new family—be that a family of two or a family of ten—and a partnership where two are better than one. Sacrament or not, marriage is serious business, not to be entered into lightly.

          It will be interesting to note in the coming years how the same-sex couple divorce rate compares to that of opposite-sex couples. Opposite-sex couples’ current divorce rate is about fifty percent, so they aren’t exactly the standard bearers for traditional marriage values. After so much hard work to gain marriage equality, could it be that same-sex couples will become the new bastion of family values and sticking together through thick and thin, for richer and for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do they part? Only time will tell.

Why are we so uncomfortable with transgendered individuals?

          Anybody who watches any television at all, or looks at the Internet even occasionally, or even pays attention to what other people are talking about, has most likely heard of Caitlyn Jenner by now. The former U.S. Olympic gold medalist Bruce Jenner recently identified as transgender and has completed her transition to female. Caitlyn debuted her new look in a recent preview of Vanity Fair’s July issue.

          Responses have been mostly supportive, but those that aren’t are often cruel and ignorant. Sadly, many of these are from people who claim to be followers of Christ. They say God doesn’t make mistakes, that if a man is effeminate or a woman is masculine, it’s because that’s the way God intended them to be. This argument is rubbish. If a child is born with her heart outside her body, do we glibly say, “Well, that’s God’s will, so be it”? Of course not! We live in a day and age where medical science can correct this defect so that the child can grow up healthy. We turn to medical science to correct all sorts of defects and impairments and incongruencies so that we can be “normal,” whatever that means to us. Even in the case of accidents, when one loses a limb or an organ, we seek ways to restore the lost or damaged appendage and to be whole again. Few criticize such efforts, and most praise the science that makes restoration possible.

          Yet when gender or sexuality are involved, many among us express disgust and even anger, purporting to defend God and God’s ways. How arrogant to presume that God has appointed us God’s mouthpiece! Isn’t God perfectly capable of speaking for God’s self? Perhaps our yapping and trolling and posting and criticizing and judging keep our brains and mouths busy enough so our hearts and ears don’t have to listen to what God is trying to say to us through the lives of the very people we are beating up with our words.

          Any patriarchal society—including most in Christendom—honors, reveres, and even worships the phallus. Many of my fellow Christians will be angry at this statement, because they don’t bow to a phallus statue like our ancient ancestors once did. But we do put humans with penises above those who don’t have them. How many Christian denominations still don’t ordain women for the ministry? Or allow women to teach in church? Or exclude gay men? Or deny women the use of birth control? Some fringe Christian sects even treat women as little more than baby factories and live-in domestic help.

          Most Christians will turn to the creation stories in Genesis to explain their viewpoint: “Male and female, he [God] created them.” (Genesis 1:27 and 5:2). Yet they ignore the New Testament reference to God’s opinion about gender, among other things: “…there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28). If we are all one in Christ Jesus, and God doesn’t discriminate on the basis of gender, then why do we, as followers of Christ, continue to do so?

          Let’s get something very clear: your sex is between your legs, but your gender is between your ears. For most of us, the two match up just fine. But for some, they don’t. And that incongruence can make life miserable for people who live in a society that places so much emphasis on sex roles and gender conformity. Instead of looking at a person’s spirit, we evaluate what sort of genitals we think they have and then expect them to live up to certain expectations merely on the basis of whether they have a penis or a vagina (God help the intersexed, who are born with both!).

          In the ancient world, men who identified as female and women who identified as male were often allowed to live their lives as they identified. In many Native American tribes, such people are referred to as two spirit, or berdache. These ancient cultures understood something that we seem to have a hard time grasping, that sex and gender are two different things.

          And why do we, as believers in the God of Abraham, have such a hard time with gender fluidity and non-conformity when the very God we worship has no gender? We call God “he” simply because the English language doesn’t have a gender-neutral pronoun appropriate for a person; calling God “It” seems disrespectful. Some languages in the world have no gender-specific pronouns at all, and they don’t adopt English pronouns when speaking about God. And if we examine Biblical references to angels and the souls of people in the afterlife, we can surmise that neither angels nor we will have gender once we depart this earthly plane of existence (see Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25). At least, at that point, gender and sex will be irrelevant.

          So why do we berate and criticize and judge people like Caitlyn Jenner and Chaz Bono and countless others around the world who seek medical assistance to help their outsides match their insides when the Bible is clear that gender is not such a big deal? I’ll tell you why. It’s because it upsets the status quo and makes males and male-worshipping females feel a loss of power and control, and perhaps even question their own gender-based biases and assumptions. Because it forces us to confront God’s very own feminine characteristics (there are many references in both the Old and New Testaments that use feminine pronouns in the original Biblical languages to refer to God, and use female metaphors for God; just look them up, if you dare). Acknowledging these aspects of God’s nature compels us to reflect the same in the world we live in, a calling that truly terrifies many Christians because it makes them vulnerable to the same judgment and derision that they may have doled out themselves.

          I personally believe we are so uncomfortable with transgendered individuals—especially male-to-female individuals—and with effeminate gay men and masculine lesbians, as well, because at our core many of us are misogynistic. For thousands of years we have demeaned and exploited and abused and neglected God’s pinnacle of creation (if you are a creationist, you cannot deny that God wasn’t done until God made woman!). Men who identify as women, effeminate gay men, and even straight men who display personality traits that are perceived as feminine (sensitivity, creativity, a caring heart) have been the objects of derision because of their feminine qualities. Aren’t all people made in the image of God? Does God make mistakes? No? Then how hypocritical of us Christians to demean people for simply trying to be who they are in as authentic a way as possible.

          It is easy for me to write these words because I do not identify as transgender, and because I do not personally know a transgendered individual (at least, not to my knowledge). No one in my family or immediate circle of friends is transgendered. No one in my church or workplace is transgendered that I know of. I certainly know men who display feminine characteristics, as well as women who possess masculine traits, but none of them have come out to me as transgendered. I even hesitate to use those words “masculine” and “feminine” when talking about one’s characteristics, because all of that is merely a social invention. There is no biological basis for being strong or sensitive or caring or authoritative. These are all just human qualities that we are all capable of possessing and cultivating and fine-tuning as we grow and develop. But when the day comes that I am privileged to be in the company of a transgendered individual, I pray that I can respond with the grace, compassion, and dignity that my Lord Jesus would have shown that person, and that I can show them the love of Christ and accept them as they are, which is how I am accepted by the God who made me.

Learn How to Learn

          When do you think learning begins? When you start school in Kindergarten or preschool? When you are a toddler at home, learning to walk and talk and beginning to explore your world more independently? Maybe even at birth, as you learn your parents’ faces and what your fingers and toes are all about? Some researchers say that we begin learning even before we are born, while we are in our mothers’ wombs. And an unproven yet widely held theory holds that human beings actually inherit learning from our ancestors, that certain memories (and learning is all about memory) are present in our DNA!

          Learning is a process, then, that begins in the womb, at least, and continues throughout our lifespans…and perhaps beyond. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11^th edition) defines the verb to learn as “…to gain knowledge or understanding of or skill in [a topic] by study, instruction, or experience.” Harold D. Stolovitch and Erica J. Keeps, authors of Telling Ain’t Training, define learning as simply adaptation and change. To them, learning is transformational. We are different after we emerge from a learning experience. We know or understand more or differently than we did before the experience, and perhaps we are able to do something that we weren’t able to do before. Learning changes us.

          We can choose two different perspectives on how we approach a learning situation. If our locus of control is external, then we hold others responsible for our learning. If we learn something well, then it’s because we had a good teacher. If we don’t, then it’s the instructor’s fault. However, if our locus of control is internal, then we take responsibility for our own learning. We can learn something well both because of and in spite of the aptitude of our instructor, because we are in control of our learning. Of course, learning is a shared responsibility. The subject matter experts—those who possess the knowledge, understanding, or skill to be learned—are responsible for providing true, accurate, up-to-date knowledge and skills to the best of their abilities, while the learners—we who desire to be changed by the learning experience—are responsible for receiving what the subject matter expert has to offer and accommodating that into our learning framework, or schema, to the best of our abilities.

          As a partner in this teaching-learning process, we students can improve our performance by becoming aware of our own styles and preferences. First, it’s important that we have a good understanding of our innate personality types and preferences. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, or MBTI, is a descriptive system for identifying how individuals perceive the world and make decisions. The MBTI utilizes four dichotomies:

• Extraversion (a preference to act, then reflect, then act again) and Introversion (a preference to reflect, then act, then reflect again);
• Sensing (gathering information using the five senses) and Intuiting (gathering information intuitively based on prior learning or on holistic analysis, or how something fits into the “big picture”);
• Thinking (using logic and reason to make decisions; using one’s “head”) and Feeling (making decisions based on how it makes oneself or others feel; using one’s “gut”); and
• Judging (logical, empathetic, like to bring matters to a close) and Perceiving (concrete, abstract, keeping matters open-ended).

        Another assessment often used to help individuals describe their personality preferences is the Strong Interest Inventory, widely used in career counseling to help individuals create a career path that best suits their preferences in the workplace. The types used in the SII are based on the six personality codes developed by psychologist John Holland:

• Realistic types prefer the world of things and processes more than ideas or people.
• Investigative types are often intellectual and introspective, preferring to solve problems or conduct research.
• Artistic types are creative and expressive, often preferring unstructured environments where they can freely express their feelings and use their imaginations.
• Social types enjoy working with people and helping others in some way.
• Enterprising types are often outgoing, adventurous, and readily take risks, preferring to lead, persuade, and compete.
• Conventional types tend to be conservative, organized, and practical, paying close attention to detail and going by the rules.

         Second, a good understanding of our intelligence will indicate what we may be naturally good at learning, and where we might need some additional support when learning. A currently popular theory of intelligence is Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. Gardner proposes that there are eight basic abilities where intelligence is displayed, and that all people have a strength in at least one of these areas, and can gain intelligence in any area with proper support and opportunity. These eight abilities are:

• Musical: sensitivity to sounds, rhythms, tones, and other aspects of music.
• Visual-spatial: ability to visualize, or picture things in one’s mind, and relate well to spaces and the things in them.
• Verbal-linguistic: aptitude for words and languages.
• Logical-mathematical: talent for using numbers and data to perform tasks requiring critical thinking and analysis, often identifying cause-effect relationships.
• Bodily-kinesthetic: controlling one’s body and manipulating objects well.
• Interpersonal: ability to sense others’ moods and feelings and work well in a group.
• Intrapersonal: knowing oneself well; introspective and reflective.
• Natural: sensitivity to the natural world of plants, animals, the environment, and nature.

        Many proponents of Gardner’s theory promote the existence of a ninth mode of intelligence, existential, which is a sensitivity to religious and spiritual experiences.

        Finally, knowing one’s learning style preferences can be helpful when receiving new information and knowledge. Many educators subscribe to the VARK theory of learning preferences:

• Visual learners prefer to take in new information through the eyes, by watching demonstrations and videos, and by reading literature with many illustrations.
• Auditory learners prefer to hear the new knowledge or information, taking it in through the ears.
• Reading/writing learners prefer the written word for receiving new knowledge and information.
• Kinesthetic learners like to move and manipulate things, using their hands and bodies while learning.

        Some learning experts discount this theory, claiming that there is no solid research to prove that individuals have one style preference over another. The fact is that human beings learn in all of these ways to some degree, and some learning experiences might require one mode more than the others. You, the learner, can decide for yourself what your preferences are and adjust your learning habits accordingly. A multimodal approach is probably best for all involved in the teaching-learning experience.

        Once you are familiar with your personality, intelligences, and learning style preferences, you can better adapt yourself in order to make the most of your learning experiences. For example, if you are an Extraverted and Social type with Interpersonal intelligence, you might learn best in groups. You could form or join a study group and look for classes that provide lots of opportunities to discuss the material to be learned and/or work in groups. On the other hand, if you are more Intraverted and Investigative with a Logical-Mathematical intelligence, you might prefer learning experiences that are more individualized, tasks that require analysis and problem-solving, and classes that provide opportunities for independent study and learning. In either case, you can capitalize on your learning by understanding what your personal input preferences are and looking for modes of delivery that match those preferences. If your instructor doesn’t already provide multimodal opportunities, ask her to direct you to websites and other resources where you might find material that does match your personal preferences.

        If you’d like to learn more about MBTI, Holland Codes, multiple intelligences, and personal learning style preferences (especially VARK), just type in these terms in your favorite Internet search engine. You’ll even find free, online assessments. Be careful, though; some of these assessments have not been scientifically validated, and the websites might actually be “phishing” for your information so that they can send you junk email. It’s better to look for websites that are linked to your school’s or workplace’s own website because those have been vetted by professionals at your school or workplace. For starters, try the California Career Zone [www.cacareerzone.org] for some free online assessments, and the VARK Questionnaire [www.vark-learn.com]. If you’re attending a school, college, or university, see a counselor, academic advisor, or career specialist for more information and guidance on how to be a better learner. If you’re already in the workforce, your human resources office might have learning resources available to you.

        You might believe that you aren’t and never have been a “good” student, but if you’re able to read and understand this blog, you’re able to learn, and that means that you are able to learn how to learn. Remember, you started learning before you were born, and no one knows for sure when you’ll stop learning. No matter how old you are, it’s never too late to learn how to be a better learner.

Sources:

1. Carey, Benedict. (2014). How We Learn. New York: Random House.
2. Holland Codes. (2015, March 16). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:56, March 16, 2015, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holland_Codes&oldid=651668506
3. Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. (2015, March 16). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:55, March 16, 2015, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator&oldid=651626380
4. Stolovitch, Harold D. and Erica J. Keeps (2011). Telling Ain’t Training. The American Society for Training and Development.
5. Theory of multiple intelligences. (2015, March 16). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:57, March 16, 2015, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theory_of_multiple_intelligences&oldid=651668282

A note from Wikipedia.org about citing their articles:

        "Most educators and professionals do not consider it appropriate to use tertiary sources such as encyclopedias as a sole source for any information—citing an encyclopedia as an important reference in footnotes or bibliographies may result in censure or a failing grade. Wikipedia articles should be used for background information, as a reference for correct terminology and search terms, and as a starting point for further research. As with any community-built reference, there is a possibility for error in Wikipedia's content—please check your facts against multiple sources and read our disclaimers for more information."

Wearing Our Faith

          It being a warm, sunny day yesterday, I opted to eat my lunchtime sandwich while sitting on a low wall near a parking lot of the community college across the street from where I work. There was a light amount of foot traffic passing by, mostly the late-teens and twenty-somethings that comprise the majority of the college’s student population. From a distance I could see two figures who did not represent that population, though. Their distinctive white shirts, short-cut hair, and name tags gave their identity away, along with the fact that there were two of them. They’re always in pairs.

          I watched as they greeted students who walked past, asking if they could give them a brochure. Of course they stopped to chat with me. One asked if I was having a good day. “So far, so good,” I replied. Then the other asked if I was a student or teacher at the college. Good tact, I thought. Being mistaken for a student always makes me feel a little good about myself, even if that’s not what the speaker intended. I replied that I worked at the language school across the street. He then informed me that they worked at a school across the street, too, pointing to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints training facility on the other side of the parking lot.

          The young men were very friendly and pleasant, although one of them did most of the talking. Of course the conversation quickly steered toward “the prophet.” The chatty one asked me if I thought it was possible for God to call a prophet for our modern times. I replied that I believe it is possible for God to call whomever God wants and whenever God wants for whatever purposes God decides. They seemed to like that answer. When they inquired more about my faith, I explained that I am a deacon in the Presbyterian church. We talked about Presbyterian missionaries and their terms of service. We talked a little bit about what Presbyterians believe and so on. They invited me to a meeting where I could learn more about “the prophet.” I politely declined.

          By that time I had about ten minutes left before I needed to be back at work, so we amicably parted. Later, as I reflected on the conversation, I wished that I had thought to ask these young men some questions: Why does only one of you do most of the talking? How often do you get to call or write home to your family? Why don’t I ever see black or brown-skinned Mormon missionaries? Or overweight Mormon missionaries, for that matter? Why does your church hate LGBT people so much? And why do you keep talking about “the prophet” when your church is called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? Why not talk about Jesus and His message more? And do you really wear special undergarments that have been blessed by your church’s leadership?

          Then my thoughts turned to other religious people practicing their faith—or obeying their religion’s mandates—in public places: the Salvation Army in their pseudo-military getups; the Muslim men wearing beards and robes and head dressings, tabling on the sidewalk on the campus; the Jehovah’s Witnesses, looking like the rest of us until they whip out those Watchtowers; there are even a few bare-headed, robed, tambourine-shaking Hare Krishnas leftover from the 1970s here and there, at least in California. There are no pretenses with all these people. You know who you’re talking to when you see them, or at least once you see what kind of literature they’re holding in their hands. And while I don’t personally agree with all of their religion’s precepts, as long as they proclaim a message of peace and love, I can tolerate them as long as they tolerate me.

          It’s when the messages stray from peace and love to practices of exclusion, thought control, domination and submission—an “us vs. them” attitude—that I begin to have a problem with these or any religion’s practices. This morning there was a story online of the Salvation Army’s public service campaign in South Africa to raise awareness of domestic violence. The ad showed a pretty white female model wearing the now-famous white and gold/blue and black dress of recent internet popularity. The model was covered with bruises, and the caption asks why it's so hard to see black and blue (you can see the ad here). I inwardly applauded their noble efforts to help put an end to this detestable practice, but I quickly stopped my clapping when I saw a related story about how the Salvation Army had possibly denied long-term shelter to a homeless transgendered woman. Where’s the love of Christ there? Are attractive white females more worthy of God’s grace than homeless individuals who don’t fit the Salvation Army’s definition of womanhood?

          My finger of blame may be pointing to the Salvation Army, Mormons, and other groups who claim to be a part of the body of Christ, but there are three other fingers pointed right back at myself. I grew up in a strict, predominantly white, Southern-rooted Christian denomination that still doesn’t ordain women as pastors or deacons, still doesn’t allow a divorced man to serve as a pastor or deacon, still condemns dancing, drinking alcohol, and playing cards, and would not tolerate a “practicing homosexual” to worship in their midst (Lord only knows what they’d do with a transgendered individual). This denomination is very male-dominated, patriotic, and focused on the avoidance of sin. I was taught that if a person died before asking God to forgive them of a particular sin, that person would go to Hell. Although I have traveled far from that black-and-white, rules-bound upbringing in my own faith journey, the evil spirits of judgment and labeling, of the “us vs. them” mentality, are hard to exorcise. It’s just that now my “them” are the people whose practices show disrespect for diversity, disregard for the environment, ostracization of the outcast, idolization of country and military might and weapons—basically all the things I am now against. But I know in my heart of hearts that I have such a problem with “them” because I was once them, ignorant and living in spiritual darkness, and inside my soul some of that darkness still struggles against the Light.

          Jesus, the model for my faith, loved everybody, even—and perhaps especially—those who persecuted him. And therein lies my struggle: it’s easy to love those who are like me, who agree with me socio-politically and theologically, who follow lifestyles similar to my own. It’s much harder to love those who are different from me, and the more different they are, the harder it is to love them. The labels for them come just as easily as those in my more conservative days: before, the terms “non-Christian” and “non-believer” encompassed anybody who didn’t fit my worldview, from Communists to liberals to feminists to gays to pacifists; now the labels are Islamophobes, homophobes, misogynists, gun worshipers, nationalists, warmongers, capitalists, and anything else that doesn’t fit my current worldview. I’m just as judgmental as before; it’s just that now I’ve stepped over the line and turned my lens back on the ones I used to stand with, years ago. What I really need to do is turn that lens on myself, get the “plank” out of my own eye in order to better see the “splinter” in my fellow human being’s eye.

          I posted a meme on my personal Facebook page recently, but I posted it as private because I was afraid that many of my conservative Facebook friends would judge me (How ironic, the judger is afraid of being judged!). It stated, “Buddha was not Buddhist. Jesus was not Christian. Muhammad was not Muslim. They were teachers who taught love. Love was their religion.” I liked this meme for several reasons: First, Jesus was not a Christian. He was a Jew. Many Christians throughout history and today conveniently ignore that fact. He worshiped in Jewish synogogues and temples, appointed a rough-around-the-edges Jewish fisherman to be the cornerstone of His community of followers, yet welcomed Gentiles, tax collectors, prostitutes, diseased people, and anybody else into His community, never once telling them that they had to become Jews, or even addressing the religious beliefs of those individuals. His message was all about simply turning to God and living in loving relationship with God and other people. In Jesus’ definition, sin was anything that kept one from loving God, loving others, and loving self completely. Yet like many of our Jewish spiritual forebears, we Christians (and many Muslims, too) became focused on identifying the particular sins of others; we became like the Pharisee in Jesus’ parable, publicly proclaiming how thankful he was that he was not like the nearby unrighteous tax collector. We became self-righteous by deflecting our unrighteousness onto those who did not conform to our own unrealistic expectations of righteousness. Like me, we judge others because we are too uncomfortable judging ourselves—or perhaps because we judge ourselves too harshly and can’t handle the resulting burden of guilt?

          Second, I feel that Christians have misjudged Buddha and Muhammad throughout the years. Buddhists are labeled as idol worshipers, while Muslims are labeled as expansionists and terrorists. Think about how Christians are labeled in many countries and cultures around the world based on the actions of some of those who profess to follow Christ. We are called warmongers, imperialists, and murderers because of what we have done in the name of Christ. What blasphemy against Christ’s name we have committed and continue to commit!

          I do not want to end this blog without acknowledging the Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Salvation Army members, and others around the world who are united in their efforts to expand their particular group’s views into a more loving embrace of God’s people everywhere. These are the people who advocate for worldwide peace and nonviolence; who work for equity and fairness for the working poor and charity for those who cannot work; who not only invite members of the LGBT community into their fold, but affirm their identities and marriage commitments to each other; who seek to learn from, and not fear, other religious traditions; who respect all gender identities, all sexes, all races and nationalities and ethnicities and intellectual and physical abilities as being of equal value in God’s sight; who simply seek to love God with their whole being, and love others as they love themselves. I want to be like that. I want my only label to be “kind and loving person.” For if God truly is love, as 1 John 4:8 proclaims, then those who fit the label of kind and loving person must surely be a child of God.

The Stampeding Beast

Modern North Americans are not reluctant to discuss their health conditions. Indeed, the standard greeting in American English is “How are you?” Of course it is a rhetorical question, in most cases, with the usual “Fine thank you, and you?” response expected and offered by most. Still, the topic of one’s aches and pains and maladies is not taboo, especially amongst our aging population…of which I am now officially a member, according to the American Association of Retired Persons. And I am no different from most other people on the downhill side of fifty. I don’t mind sharing about my past surgeries, my routine medical procedures and exams, and how I creak and pop a little more than before whenever I get out of bed in the morning. While I wouldn’t share every detail of my entire medical history with just anybody, my mundane physical ups and downs are more or less an open book.

          But there are other medical struggles that many—perhaps most, if not all—human beings experience regularly, yet we hesitate to admit them. These common afflictions are less visible than the others, sometimes manifesting no outward signs or symptoms at all. But they take their toll nevertheless, leading to stress-induced illnesses that weaken our hearts, mess up our intestines, and affect our capacity to enjoy meaningful relationships with other people. I’m referring to mental illness.

          There is still such a strong taboo associated with mental illness in North America that many people would rather suffer in silence than admit their struggles. Look at how loosely we use the word “crazy” in our language, in both good and bad contexts: “You’re crazy, man!” “That cake was crazy good!” “I was crazy busy at work today.” With such a flippant attitude toward the concept, no wonder people hesitate to articulate that which afflicts them from within. It takes more courage to admit a struggle with mental health than it does to admit a physical ailment, no matter how serious. When someone suffers a physical problem, we blame the problem and empathize with the victim. When someone suffers a mental health struggle, we so often turn the blame on the sufferer. Why is that?

          In centuries past, people with physical deformities or birth defects or chronic illnesses were often said to be punished by God for their sins, therefore they were “unclean,” like the lepers and the hemorrhaging woman in the Bible’s New Testament. And people suffering from mental illnesses were said to be possessed by demons. Those were superstitious explanations for things the ancients couldn’t understand. While there is a remnant of people today who cling to such dark ignorance, even the most religious among us have accepted medical science’s explanations for the things that make us less than healthy. But the specter of that ancient stigma sticks like a tattoo that cannot be erased, thus we often label people suffering from mental illness as unclean. It is no wonder these victims so often keep their battles to themselves…all too often with tragic consequences.

          So it is not easy for me to state that I have struggled with a recurring mental health issue since childhood. It has vexed me for as long as I can remember, never becoming serious enough to interfere with my schoolwork or my jobs, never keeping me from doing the things that I really wanted to do, and never leading me down paths of addiction or self-medication with drugs and alcohol. And yet, it wakes up from dormancy occasionally and goes on a rampage, sort of like that herpes virus I somehow got on my lip in second grade that pops up as a cold sore sometimes when I get sunburned or have a fever.

My anxiety attacks, however, come more frequently than the cold sores. I’m not sure what triggers these episodes; anything and everything, I suppose. This month, August 2014, has been awful: the death by suicide of Robin Williams; the barbaric execution of American journalist James Foley; the suffering of thousands of Christians and other minorities in Iraq at the hands of a brutal extremist group. And these are just a few of the news-worthy items. There are the ongoing stressors, too: my dad is almost ninety; his house has been on the market for a year now; I’m living on my savings as I transition my career; I’m learning technological things many Americans now learn in middle school; the demands my church makes on me increase the longer I attend there; the inescapable contact with people who stress me out. And then there are stressors that I actually volunteer for, such as participating in my church’s drama performances, and taking online classes. There is no single stressor that sets me off, but a collection of small, everyday events and circumstances and people in my life that just pile up on my back until I feel I’m at the breaking point.

          Sometimes it literally feels like a pile of bricks on my back, squeezing my neck and shoulders until they hurt. And the constant feeling of dread in my stomach creates mild gastro-intestinal distress that is annoying and depletes my energy. I have no doubt that my condition affects my blood pressure adversely, and that it causes disturbances in my sleep patterns and affects my metabolism.

          So now that I’ve “come out” as an anxiety sufferer, many concerned friends and relatives will ask, “What can I do to help?” If I knew the answer to that question, I would have already helped myself. And I have a master’s degree in counseling, so I already know what therapists would recommend. I know that exercise, rest, good nutrition, hydration, prayer and/or meditation, and other healthy practices are beneficial for coping with anxiety and other mental health issues. But if you really want to know, here are some suggestions:

1.     Please don’t tell me what I should be doing. I already know that, and when you tell me what I should be doing, it reminds me that I’m not doing it, which sends me into an even deeper tailspin and makes me feel all the worse about myself. Instead, ask me, “What are you doing to cope with your anxiety?” Then if I give you a positive response, you can ask, “How can I help you with that?”

2.     If you sense that I am stressed, please don’t make more demands of me. People like me have a hard time saying no, and that contributes to our stress. Ask me what you will, but don’t expect an immediate response. Give me some time to reflect and respond later. If you must have an answer now, then the answer is “no.” Accept that and please don’t try to convince me otherwise. That will just make me feel more pressured, then I will feel angry, then I will blame myself for feeling angry, then I will retreat and the tailspin will continue.

3.     There are some situations, people, and environments that I find stressful, even under healthy circumstances. Noisy, crowded places are an example of a stressful environment. Boredom, monotony, and repetition stress me out. Whining, complaining people set me off. Of course I recognize that many people whom I find to be stressful are themselves experiencing some sort of mental distress. But when I am feeling vulnerable, I am not the best company for them. That’s not beneficial to them or to me. Please understand when I need to separate myself from these stressors during a time of vulnerability.

4.     My quirks and eccentricities will be magnified during an anxiety episode. For example, I naturally get bored with repetitious activities, so when I’m feeling stressed, I may have even less focus than when I’m in a less anxious state. Please be patient. I may not do things in the most efficient or logical way from some viewpoints, but they will get done, in my way and in my time.

5.     I slip into the grip of my inferior function when I feel stressed. This is Myers-Briggs Type talk, but what it means is this: I am naturally an intuitive-feeling-perceiver (NFP), which means I take in information intuitively, express it emotionally, and act on it holistically and spontaneously. My inferior function, however, is sensing-thinking-judging (STJ). That means if I feel stressed, I will hyper-focus on only that which I can perceive with my five senses, overthink the hell out of it, and then be all anal-retentive about organizing the details to absolute closure. Not me at my best. If you see me doing that, just ask me simply, “Inferior function?” Then help me get back on track to doing what I do best as an NFP: trusting my gut, feeling things out, and going with the flow.

Talking about what’s going on in one’s head is good therapy itself. Some people pay hundreds of dollars per hour to a counseling psychologist for that, others much less getting their hair done or having a margarita. [Note: a competent counseling psychologist is trained to guide the client with effective questioning techniques and insightful comments, so they are worth what they get paid]. Journaling or blogging about it is helpful, too; I feel better just by writing this and explaining about my struggles, what helps and what doesn’t, and what it’s like to experience anxiety on a semi-regular basis.

I know I’m not alone in my struggles. Anxiety is as common as cold sores. Just about everyone gets it to some degree or another. And hundreds of millions of people around the world have circumstances in their lives that are much, much more stressful than mine, so I acknowledge that I am blessed and I am grateful for those blessings. Yet gratitude and humility and concern for the deeper suffering of others won’t completely eradicate my own bouts of anxiety. This may well be something that will afflict me my entire life, as it has some people very close to me. But it doesn’t have to control me. I can corral this beast and keep it contained as much as possible. And perhaps in discussing my own struggles, I can encourage someone else who is suffering in silence to name their beast, face it head on, and ultimately contain its tendency to go on a rampaging stampede through their inner landscape.

Side Trip or Sidetrack?

          In 1988 and again from 1991 to 2002, I taught English as a second or foreign language in South Korea and in various places in the U.S. I enjoyed teaching the English language. It was satisfying to get to know a group of students over a semester or an eight or ten week term. I liked creating learning experiences that were both useful and enjoyable. The conversations with students outside of class time were often stimulating and entertaining, and the cultural excursions were exciting. Put quite simply, it was fun. And for me, it’s important that my work be fun.

          So why did I leave teaching for advising and counseling roles? There were several reasons. Teaching jobs were term-to-term in most cases, not permanent, and although that was more or less in my comfort zone, I felt that the job insecurity caused stress on my relationship with my significant other of that time. There were also no included benefits with the jobs in the U.S., so I had to depend on my significant other’s employee benefits for domestic partners. And the pay wasn’t great. While it would have been enough for me to support myself alone, it wasn’t enough for me to contribute to the lifestyle that seemed important to my significant other. So I sought permanent, full-time jobs with benefits. And, I did have an interest in advising and counseling that pre-dated my relationship with my significant other, so I willingly made the career shift.

          Now I’m more or less done with counseling and looking forward to a new chapter in teaching, this time incorporating more e-learning and multimedia technologies in my practice. I am both excited and nervous, with all sorts of questions spinning in my mind: Will I be able to successfully facilitate learning in my students, helping them reach their educational goals while also fulfilling the expectations of my employer? Will my methods and approaches be outdated? Will I be able to capture and hold the attention of these millennials who have grown up with smart phones and tablets in hand? Will I look like a dinosaur next to the veteran teachers?

          And some of the old concerns have crept back: the insecurity of continued employment from one term to the next; the lack of benefits; the relatively low pay.

          Yet despite these questions and concerns, I wouldn’t go back to counseling unless I absolutely had to. Sitting at a desk in an office all day long; working with students individually one after the other, having the same conversations over and over again; dealing with the stress and drama of departmental and institutional politics; all of that was not for me, no matter how secure the position or how high the pay or how good the benefits. Counseling just didn’t feed my soul. It wasn’t fun at all.

          My faith in God drives me to trust that my Creator loves me and has a plan for me, a plan to prosper me and not to harm me, a plan of hope for my future. Sure, doubts and insecurities sometimes cloud that faith. But if they didn’t, it wouldn’t be faith; it would be certainty, which doesn’t require much faith at all. And without faith, there can be no meaningful relationship with God.

          I believe that in all things, God works for my good. There is good to be found from my years counseling and advising; good that I can bring to the table of my new life as a teacher. A side trip isn’t the same as a sidetrack. I’ll need some time to get back on the teaching track again, for sure, but this time it will feel like a new experience because of the new knowledge I’ve gained. I believe that good awaits me because I’ve consistently encountered good all along my life’s path. In spite of my neurotic anxieties, I don’t expect the path that lies ahead to be any different.

Note: Of great inspiration to me in my decision to return to teaching was Parker J. Palmer’s The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher’s Life, 10^th Anniversary Edition (2007, Jossey-Bass).