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.

Top Ten Favorite Bible Verses, and Then Some

Recently I was tagged by a Facebook friend to post my top ten favorite verses from the Bible, one verse a day for ten consecutive days. Knowing how I am about such things, I decided to post my top ten verses here with some commentary, then share it to my Facebook page and tag my friend. So here they are, in no particular order:

1. “I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; that I know very well.” (Psalm 139:14) This verse reminds me of one of my favorite nonbiblical axioms: Who you are is God’s gift to you; whom you become is your gift to God. We are all made just as God intends us to be.

2. “So we have known and believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them.” (1 John 4:16) Ironically, some who claim to know God aren’t very loving, and some who doubt the existence of God are very kind and loving individuals. All I know is this: If I were God, and I were faced with welcoming a kind, loving atheist into my presence or a hateful, so-called “Christian,” I think I’d be inclined to welcome the atheist and spend a jolly time convincing him or her that I’m real.

3. “Like good stewards of the manifold grace of God, serve one another with whatever gift each of you has received.” (1 Peter 4:10) I firmly believe that every individual has something good to offer the world while they’re in it. I hope in my lifetime I can be the kind of advisor/counselor/teacher who helps others find their gifts to share and make the world a better place for everyone.

4. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” (John 3:16-17) One of the first verses a new Christian of any age learns is John 3:16. But we should be including verse 17, too. Not only is it joined to verse 16 by the conjunctive adverb “indeed,” but also it is essential for the full meaning of verse 16. The saving of the world has been accomplished. Jesus’s own last words on the cross were “It is finished.” We’re all saved. We’re all included in God’s realm. That’s the Gospel, the Good News.

5. “Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.” (1 John 4:8) See my comments in number 2.

6. “You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 22:21) This world is not ours; it’s God’s. This country is not ours; it’s God’s. In fact, I don’t think God really intended for people to even divide themselves into countries (I get this impression from the story of the tower of Babel, and the story of how God seemed reluctant to give the Israelites a king). Borders are drawn by people, not God. We are called to be kind to the strangers among us, because we, too, were once strangers somewhere in time. And we may be strangers in a strange land someday. Thus you can probably guess my opinion about building walls and rejecting refugees.

7. “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28) God doesn’t seem to care about our race or nationality, our socio-economic status, or our gender. All are equal in God’s eyes. All should be equal in our eyes, too. (See my bonus verses at the end of this post for more on God’s inclusive love).

8. “For surely I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope.” (Jeremiah 29:11) My security is in God and God’s plan for my life. It is not in a government or the things that represent that government, like flags and patriotic songs; it’s not in a savings or retirement account; it’s not in a wall or fence along a border; and it’s not in firearms or bombs. It’s in God’s love and concern for me as well as every other person on this planet, all of whom God knows and loves intimately.

9. “…but those who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall mount up with wings like eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint.” (Isaiah 40:31) This is a good verse for someone like me who has a mild anxiety disorder, which can sometimes make me feel quite tired and overwhelmed. The feelings always pass, and these words give me hope.

10. “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?” (Micah 6:8) Want to make God happy? Do these three things consistently throughout your life: Be just, be kind, and be humble. Easy to say, yet hard to do, right?

I’m throwing in these last few verses from Acts as a bonus:

“As they were going along the road, they came to some water; and the eunuch said, ‘Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?’ He commanded the chariot to stop, and both of them, Philip and the eunuch, went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.” (Acts 8:36-39) This story is significant because, for many generations, people like this eunuch were excluded from the Jews’ holy places because of who they were. But after Jesus came with a new way of relating to God, people like this eunuch were welcomed into fellowship with God. This tells me that all are welcomed into the universal church of Christ regardless of who they are. Now that, my friends, is Good News!

The Social Truths in Art

          The arts have long—perhaps always—been a platform for expressing often dissenting opinion on social norms of the time. No doubt when the first ancient Greek or Roman sculptor chiseled a statue that did not represent the ideal human body of the time, mainstream society expressed its disapproval by smashing the work to pieces and throwing the offending artist to the lions. Meanwhile, those segments of society who themselves did not represent the ideal form celebrated their martyr and vowed to continue the rebellion in the name of equality and freedom of self-expression.

           Even Jesus, that master storyteller, conveyed his teachings in the form of parables which only those who had “…ears to hear…” could comprehend (Mark 4:9). Medieval and Renaissance paintings often expressed commentary through satire, veiling political and religious statements with color and form and imagery, and sometimes even humor. Many 18^th century nursery rhymes we learned as children are actually criticisms of the royalty and ruling classes. For example, “There was an old woman who lived in a shoe…” refers to England and the way she ruled her colonies (http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2012/04/political-meaning-in-18th-century.html). Commonly known works of fiction such as Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Animal Farm, and To Kill a Mockingbird offered social commentary in the form of novels.

           Cinema, too, is a work of art. So it should come as no surprise that people who create cinema—the screenplay writers, the producers and directors, the actors who bring the stories to life—often use their craft as a vehicle for expressing their concern on those issues that are important to them. Civil rights, climate change, equality for women and sexual minorities, domestic violence, the immense social and spiritual costs of war, access to quality healthcare, and other compelling issues of our time are present in the stories told through cinema. Why, then, should people act surprised or even offended when these artists comment on the views expressed in their own creations?

           People who are disturbed or irritated by the social truths expressed in film and other contemporary works of art are usually those who deny the truth. It makes them uncomfortable; it upsets their status quo; it threatens their social position or power. Or perhaps it is because they themselves have lived that truth but are not yet ready to confront it because their wounds have not yet healed. Going there is a journey back to a place of hurt, and they aren’t ready to revisit that which caused them harm.

In any case, the very fact that a social issue raised by a film or by one of its makers or actors causes someone to feel disturbed is evidence that that person needs to confront that issue. If we feel uncomfortable with the film Straight Outta Compton, then perhaps it is because we still carry a spark of racism in our hearts. If The Danish Girl makes us squirm, maybe it’s because we haven’t reconciled our minds to the fact that some people’s gender and physiology don’t match up. If we were irritated by Carol, it’s probably because we’re homophobic to some degree. If we didn’t like the strong female characters of Mad Max: Fury Road, could it be because we harbor sexism?

The list goes on: An Inconvenient Truth angered climate change deniers; Brokeback Mountain offended opponents of gay rights; The Passion of the Christ managed to rile up both devout Christians and atheists. The point to remember is this: You don’t have to agree with the message of a film or with the message of the filmmakers to think critically about a topic presented in the film. All art is meant to make us think about something. Even when we go to the movies for pure entertainment, we think about what we see and hear in those films. The 2016 winner for best animated film, Inside Out, made us think about how we process our emotions, and how important it is to embrace both the negative and the positive feelings we all have as human beings. I love the Star Trek films, television shows, and novels because not only do they offer good science-fiction adventure, but also their various human and alien characters and the worlds they inhabit make me relate their experiences to those of real life people and places. When I think of people whose lives are different from my own, whose stories are not like mine, I come to understand them a bit better. Saint Francis of Assisi prayed, “O divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek…To be understood as to understand…” I’m grateful to filmmakers, authors, painters, photographers, and other artists who help me understand those who are different from me. I may not always agree with the message they state, but the dissonance I feel can broaden my mind—and thus my heart—to be more inclusive, compassionate, and understanding. And doesn’t anything that helps us become more of these things bring us closer to the heart of God?

The Glad Path

          A few years ago, while visiting the Royal British Columbia Museum in Victoria, I saw a quote on the wall of one of the First Nations exhibits that I have remembered to this day. I can’t remember the exact wording, but it was something like this: “Share everything, and follow the path that makes your heart feel glad.” While the entire quote is open to interpretation, it was that second independent clause that impacted me most, “…follow the path that makes your heart feel glad.”

           So many times in my life, I have made good decisions for all the wrong reasons. I have let the fear of rejection, of disappointing others, and of falling into a state of poverty guide my process of deciding who I would be, what I would do, and where I would go. I have chosen the practical and common-sense option when I should have followed my heart. I have chosen my parents’ or partners’ preferences over my own. I have lived to please others rather than myself. None of these choices resulted in disaster; on the contrary, I did well in all of my educational pursuits and jobs. Yet they all left me with an emptiness inside that was hard to explain. I have always felt unfulfilled and restless despite my successes. I constantly felt there was a part of me that was unexpressed, a fetal persona that had been gestating for far too long and was at risk of dying before seeing the light of this world.

           That feeling fueled a self-defeating cycle of depression and anxiety. Impostor syndrome sneaked in on me in almost every professional role I assumed. “You’re a fake!” it whispered in my ear. “You don’t belong here!” Its words brought me down and made me feel unworthy. Then the anxiety set in. “What if somebody finds out I’m an impostor?” I asked myself. “What if I become irrelevant?” And the most frightening question of all, “What if I get stuck in this role until I’m too old to work, or until I die?” The coin then flipped to the depression side, and the cycle started all over.

           I began to realize that my choices have been largely motivated by fear. I have neglected to follow the path that makes my heart feel glad because that path is scary. It’s risky. It’s not practical or common-sense. There are no guarantees along its way. It is sometimes dark and twisted. Others will criticize me for taking it, or shake their heads in disbelief. Some will try to dissuade me. A few may even try to sabotage my future success, just to teach me a lesson, or to advance their own agendas. To all of those people, I kindly yet firmly now say, “Support me, or get out of my way.” Either travel this path with me, or cheer me on from the sidelines, or just get the hell away from me. I don’t need your negative critiques and opinions. I reject your arrogance. I refuse to receive the projection of your fears.

           So what are the paths that make me feel glad? I have worked with ESL and international students in higher education since 1988. I love working with these students, and I hope to continue a connection with this particular population in some way for as long as I can. But that is not the career I now desire to pursue with my passion. Ever since I was a small child, I have loved performing. Before I could even read, my mother taught me a simple song, told me I was going to stand in front of the entire church on a Sunday, and sing it. And I did. Later I memorized lines for Christmas plays at church, and then in high school for the drama club. In college I minored in drama and radio/TV production, making my stage debut as Linus in “You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown” (Typecasting? Probably) and acting in a TV variety show that we students produced. Now I participate in my church choir and in its drama group.

           I am no fool. I know how difficult it is to make a living in the performing arts. But there is one segment of the industry that does offer the potential for steady income, and that is voice acting. Voiceovers are everywhere: parking garage kiosks, smartphone apps, video games, online trainings and classes, phone tree answering systems, and more. And of course there are the obvious sources of disembodied voices: TV and internet commercials, radio announcements, video documentaries, cartoons. There is work to be had, and there are people doing that work for pay. Some of them are phenomenal voice actors. Some of them are not. I am somewhere in the middle of that spectrum. I see that as giving me good prospects for employment while having a goal to work toward. I have been using my voice to inform, inspire, and entertain others almost all of my life. I can do this! And I will do it!

           But the path, as I said earlier, is scary. There are many unknowns. It is dark and winding. I can only see one step at a time. Yet my faith tells me that if I take that first step, the one I can see clearly, then the second step will be illuminated. And when I take it, the third will become apparent. And so on and so on as I travel down that path. And because it is the path that makes my heart feel glad, I will walk it more bravely and confidently. I will be scared as hell, and there will be times when I will want so badly to take an alternate route or turn around completely. But I will have companions and cheerleaders along the way to keep me on track. As Taylor Swift said in her recent Grammy acceptance speech, I will arrive at my success knowing it was me and the people who love me that got me there.

           And that, dear loved ones, is where you come in. I need your help to travel this path, to help me realize my dreams and achieve my goals. Anyone who says he is a self-made man is a liar. No one, and I mean no one, is self-made. We all get to where we are with the help and support of people who love us and believe in us. So I ask those who love me to help and support me in my journey. Cheer me on. Provide me some positive feedback followed by a note to help me improve. Introduce me to people you know who might be able to help me to that next step on the path. If you work in the industry, or have a project needing voiceover, give me a chance. Right now my rates are extremely reasonable, so catch me while you can afford me, LOL.

           If you want to hear some samples of my voiceover work, visit https://www.voices.com/people/mjisham#demos. If you’ve got some work for me to do, email mjisham62@yahoo.com.

UPDATE: Thanks to Mr. Michael Barnes, Head of Exhibitions, Collections, Knowledge & Engagement at the Royal British Columbia Museum in Victoria, for clarifying the quote's source and exact wording: "We are guided by our culture and the advice of our elders to share and 'always try to follow the road that makes your heart feel good.'" Attributed to the Nisga'a Lisims Government.