Anti-LGBT Politicians? The Power of Christ Compels You!

One of the best known, most often repeated, and frequently lampooned lines in all of cinematic history is from The Exorcist.  I bet you already know it just by the title. 

“The power of Christ compels you.”

It’s the line in the film that the priest uses to exorcise the demon out of head-spinning-pea-soup-spitting Linda Blair.  The idea, of course, being that by invoking the power of Jesus Christ the priests will be able to cast out demons.  They’re modeling behavior the writers of the biblical gospels record of Jesus exorcising demons out of what the Bible calls “people tormented by spirits/demons.” 

Hold onto that thought for a while.

In recent weeks we’ve seen a lot of anti-LGBT legislation being pushed by politically conservative politicians in a variety of states.  As I’ve written before, this has absolutely nothing to do with legitimate issues and everything to do with election year politics.  Because of the supreme court ruling on marriage equality Republican politicians have tried to come up with a new way to demonize LGBT people and dehumanize them for their political ends.  Zeroing in on transgender people, states like Mississippi and North Carolina have passed legislation requiring transgender people to use the public restroom that matches their birth gender.  The idea of course is that those “sick, perverted crossdressers” want to get into the women’s bathroom and ogle your daughter while she uses the facilities.  As I wrote last week, though, there is no evidence of such a thing happening and, in fact, there is a considerable history of Republican politicians behaving in a lewd and perverted manner in public restrooms.

Tennessee is poised to enact a law which allows counselors and therapists the right to openly discriminate against LGBT people on religious grounds.  The problem is, of course, that this is completely unethical.  It is a violation of the American Counseling Association’s Code of Ethics which professionals are obliged to abide by.  But, as I said, Republicans like to make something out of nothing for their political ends. 

All of these bills are cleverly couched in religious language.  It’s what Republicans do to get people to vote for their stuff.  Remember “The Patriot Act?”  Or “Defense of Marriage Act?”  The rhetoric that surrounds these bills becomes quite incendiary.  “Can you believe Senator So-and-So doesn’t support the Patriot Act?  What kind of American is she?”  Or “Can you believe that Representative So-and-So is anti-marriage?  He can’t even put his name to a bill to defend the institution of marriage.  Makes you wonder if he has a mistress on the side or something.”

The worst is when politicians play the God card, trying to convince people that they are actually supporting this law because of their fear the Christianity and Christian principles are under attack.  These are the same people that celebrate the annual “war on Christmas” and bemoan the fact that teachers are no longer allowed to lead prayer time during class time.

Here’s what I know.

About two thousand years ago a guy by the name of Jesus of Nazareth spent about three years confronting the “Republicans” of his day.  These religious leaders were doing what they thought was right based on their understanding of the religious traditions.  They weren’t the bad guys.  (You can read more about them here.)  They truly believed they were being faithful people, abiding by their holy heritage and protecting the people entrusted in their care.  The problem?  They were so focused on enforcing “the Law” that they forgot all about seeing the person at the end of the Law.

In Hebrew, our English word “justice” means more than “punishment.”  In fact, our English word “punishment” comes from a Greek word which means “revenge.”  In Hebrew, in the language of the Old Testament, “justice” was more about ensuring people received what they needed rather than punishing them for suffering through the absence of a needed thing.  For example, justice to the ancient Hebrew people, as explained in the Old Testament, would be to make certain people had food.  If people don’t have food, they would steal food.  In our modern system of justice, the State enters in at the point of theft to punish the victims of society’s failure to provide.  Do you see the difference?  The Hebrew word “justice” is more about giving what is needed than dishing out arbitrary consequences to wrong doers. 

Even 2000 years ago the Jewish people had lost track of this fact.

And so we read about this Jesus guy confronting the leaders, feeding hungry people, healing sick people, hanging out with sinners, and so on.  Why does he do this?  Apart from the physical restoration Jesus offered through his “healing miracles,” Jesus offered a restoration to community.  Each time he reached out to an “outsider” whether they be ill, a non-Jew, a woman—Jesus’ actions were a profound statement against the prevailing mentality of his time.  “No matter what these leaders say the law says or how they weigh you down with their legal interpretations and enforcements, know that God loves you and considers you apart of God’s community.” 

That is the message of Jesus Christ. 

That is precisely what modern Republican politicians ignore.

And it’s not that they ignore this truth because they’re evil people.  They’re trying to be faithful to their religious understanding.  The problem is that when they cite biblical passages from Leviticus or Romans to condemn LGBT people, they do so ignoring the fact that it’s precisely these very same laws Jesus spoke against as he tried to erase manmade boundaries in bringing the kingdom of God into the here and now. 

Galatians 3.28:  “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”  That is to say:  If you are a Christian, a legitimate follower of Jesus, then these distinctions of who’s in and who’s out, who’s worthier than others, etc.—all of these distinctions are meaningless.  This passage can easily be modernized and contemporized by inserting “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, nor gay or straight, for you are all one in Christ.”

Interpreting the Bible, if you are a Christian, begins and ends with Jesus.  If you’re ignoring the message of Christ in favor of the law of Leviticus or the opinions of the author of Romans, then you’re not being true to your calling as a Christian.  You’re a Biblicist.  Christ frees people.  The Gospel frees people from laws that strip people of their humanity and their dignity.  It allows people to be seen and drawn back into community where they belong. 

There’s nothing more dehumanizing than stripping a person of their equal standing in a community because they fail to meet arbitrary or impossible criteria. 

This is where these religious lawmakers in Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kansas, and so on miss the mark every time.  The point of the law shouldn’t be to dehumanize people—especially if you’re going to invoke your Judeo-Christian heritage.  The point of the law should be to improve people’s conditions and thereby improve the state of the community.  There’s that old saying “To save a life is to save the world.”  I think a Christian analogy to this saying would be “To recognize a life—to actually see a person and hear their story—is to save the world.”

But of course to do that, to see people and understand people, you would have to acknowledge that they are people.  Politically conservative politicians aren’t good at this.  After all, “Why waste your time with those people?  They’re ne’er-do-wells living off the system, threatening our way of life.  You just need to look at them to know all about them.”

Today I was listening to This American Life.  It was a podcast of last weekend’s episode.  The first act dealt with a study in which researchers discovered what many of already knew:  To change people’s minds (about marriage equality, LGBT rights, etc.), it takes individuals reaching out and sharing their stories.  In a noncombative, nonconfrontational way, it takes people engaging with others to share how prejudice and intolerance affects them.  It’s empathy that makes the difference. 

There are too many people in our culture, most of whom unfortunately claim that moniker “Christian,” who refuse to listen to others’ stories.  Which is ironic because of how often Jesus listened to people’s stories in the Bible.

This brings us back to The Exorcist. 

The best way to understand the exorcisms we read about in the Bible is not to take them literally.  This was a superstitious, unsophisticated culture in which the presence of demons and the eventually casting out of demons was highly symbolic.  It’s best to think of an exorcism as a metaphysical healing with the goal of allowing the individual to rejoin the community.  Sick people, devil possessed people, blind people, etc.—these people were all seen as sinful and made to live outside of the community—literally outside of town, often in graveyards.  Once healed, they would be allowed to come back into community, to have the support of the community, to be recognized as one of and one with the community.

That is what the power of Christ compels the Christian faithful to do.  It has nothing to do with “religious protection laws” so transgendered people can’t use the bathroom of their actual gender or so therapists who think LGBT people are damned by God don’t have to provide services to LGBT people.  That’s not Christian.  Not in the least.

So, self-professing Christian politicians who are voting for these hate bills and laws of ignorance and intolerance, my advice to you?  Take a long look at the gospels.  I guarantee you’ll see a striking difference between Jesus’ actions and yours. 

No Counseling for You!

I’ve written quite a bit about Minnesota nutcase and member of the State House of Representatives Glenn Gruenhagen.  Mr. Gruenhagen, who has opposed LGBT rights and equality since being elected in 2010, has recently introduced a bill which misuses and misinterprets the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA’s) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-V) to draft a law referring to LGBT people as “mentally ill” and “in need of treatment.”

Today I read an article originally run in the Associated Press and picked up by LGBTQNation about a Tennessee bill giving counselors and therapeutic care givers the right to refuse service to LGBT individuals based on the provider’s religious beliefs.  The bill is on its way to the governor’s desk as we speak. 

You would think that the Republicans could be on the same page with their regressive tactics.  Are LGBT people “sick” and in need of “healing?”  Or should we just deny their humanity and hope they all succumb to depression and anxiety by refusing them treatment?

But, then again, logic isn’t really a character trait most people associate with fear mongering and Republican political tactics.

This is what I can tell you about this Tennessee bill that should encourage you.

First off, if you are a licensed professional counselor in the United States, you must abide by the American Counseling Association’s  (ACA’s) Code of Ethics.  This ethical code adopts that old medical mantra to do no harm.  This paper from 2012 summarizes this ethical mandate:

The ACA Code of Ethics clearly states that counselors encourage client growth and development in ways that foster the interest and welfare of clients, and that the primary responsibility of counselors is to respect the dignity and to promote the welfare of clients (ACA, 2005, p. 4). In fact, it is a fundamental assumption of the ACA Code of

Ethics, as well as other ethical codes within the mental health profession, to “avoid harm to clients . . .and to minimize or to remedy unavoidable or unanticipated harm” (p. 4). In other words, the needs of clients, not counselors, are the priority. Ethical codes and practice regulations exist to assure the welfare of clients, not accommodate the personal beliefs of providers. “Convictions of conscience” clauses imply that self-interest rather than devotion to client welfare can be the counselor’s priority.

The idea behind this, of course, is that simply refusing a client or patient based on an “ookiness” factor (the client is gay, the client is homeless and smells, the client drools when he talks, etc.) completely undermines the client’s dignity and more often than not compounds the very reason the client is seeking therapeutic services (addressing anxiety, identity, self-worth and self-concept, etc.). 

That being said, in order to appropriately treat a client or patient while understanding that a single individual cannot be all things to all people, the ACA Code of Ethics does provide a way out for providers who aren’t comfortable treating a client or patient for whatever reason.  Usually it’s invoked when the provider understands that the client’s needs lie outside of the provider’s capabilities.  In the scope of the current conversation it would amount to the provider doing the referral not because they find the LGBT client morally or religiously repugnant but rather because the provider does not feel competent to provide treatment.  The referral is always done respectfully, pointing to the fact that the current provider is not equipped to meet the client’s needs.  The responsibility, though, is for the current provider to facilitate the connection to the next, more qualified provider, so that the client is not left without care.

Leaving a client or patient without care, whether it’s a medical issue or a psychological issue, is not ethical no matter what your governing body is or what your professional organization’s code of ethics are.  “Do no harm” undergirds nearly all care giving vocations.

And, really, if you were an LGBT person, wouldn’t you want to be referred on to someone who’s more equipped to help you than to sit in an office with a closet homophobe who sees you as condemned because their interpretation of religious text declares you as “abomination?”  The point I’m driving at, however, is that the care provider has a professional responsibility to refer a client without any form of evaluative judgment on the client’s needs or condition that might affect the client’s well-being.

This Tennessee law defies this professional responsibility and gives homophobic individuals the power to do just that.  Imagine being the teenage child of a parent who has dragged you into counseling because you’re gay or lesbian.  You’ve (rightfully) dug in your heals and declared that this is who you are and there is no “cure” for it.  However your parent has brought you to the one therapist in town and, upon the initial consultation, the therapist pulls your parent into the room and says, “I can’t treat your child.  My religious convictions do not accept your child’s choice.” 

How many things can you count as wrong in that statement?  And yet you know it will happen because it does happen and has probably happened to you. 

We need to do better.

But here’s the thing.

For a party of “smaller government,” the Republicans have a habit of shoving their noses in where they don’t belong and then creating a bureaucracy to enforce their opinions.  As I’ve reminded you for the past few weeks it’s common for the Republicans to do this in an election year, to make something out of nothing in order to motivate their base.  There is no actual need for a law like this but what it does is gives the Republicans a talking point that can easily sidestep reason and abandon logic.  And, remember, this isn’t about the truth.  This is about creating truth by repeating a story often enough that people believe it’s truth. 

Though there isn’t an actual need for a law like this we can clearly see why the Republicans would endorse a law like this.  Or a law like the heinous bathroom laws.  Or any law that legalizes discrimination.  Such laws dehumanize people and, when it comes down to it, the Republicans work best when they have a group of people whose rights have been denied but continue to struggle for equality.  The Republicans have always and will always point to that struggle for equality and play on people’s fears with it.

The ACA’s Code of Ethics underscores the dignity and welfare of the individual.  This law and others like it, like one passed in Mississippi not too long ago, completely ignores and even reverses what years of professional research and observation have accomplished.  It’s another case of law makers, who don’t have a clue about what it is they’re actually talking about, pretending that they are doctors or teachers or scientists and know more than the entire profession they are trying to micromanage through the implementation of laws.  Laws, by the way, that are underwritten by special interest groups and financed by lobbyists.  It would be interesting to see what groups are backing this Tennessee law because, I guarantee, it’s not the ACA or any other credible professional organization. 

One last thing.  If you’re an LGBT teen in Tennessee or Mississippi or any of these other states in which politicians are literally playing games with people’s lives, including yours, and you’re not getting the help you need, please talk to someone safe.  I’ll leave contact info for The Trevor Project below.  I worry about all LGBT people facing such hateful resistance to common sense and decency, but I think LGBT teens are at a much higher risk and the world needs you.  Without you, how are we going to change the world?

www.thetrevorproject.org

866-488-7386

TrevorText -  Available on Thursdays and Fridays (4:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. ET / 1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. PT). Text the word “Trevor” to 1-202-304-1200. Standard text messaging rates apply.

TrevorChat—Here is a link to chat online with someone from The Trevor Project:  

A Legitimate Bathroom Concern

I love doing research.  Knowledge is my drug of choice and I just can’t get enough of it.  So when I see something on social media or catch something in the news, odds are I’m going to be hitting the internet or pulling out one of the many textbooks or resource books I have lining the walls of my office. 

So when all of these so called “bathroom laws” starting popping up and I became more and more aware of Republican lawmakers trying to take advantage of people’s fear and ignorance to create the latest crisis-for-votes, I began pulling together facts.

Now that marriage equality is the law of the land, Republican law makers have been looking for the next non-issue to make huge to draw out their base.  This is what they’ve always done.  Every election year we are overwhelmed by abortion talk, gay talk, gun talk, and God talk.  “Liberals want to kill your unborn babies!”  “Gay marriage is going to undue civilization as we know it!”  “Obama’s coming for your guns!”  “We have to get back to biblical principles and be one nation under God again!”

This year, because of the Supreme Court’s ruling, one of their hot button issues has been taken away from them.  Apparently, in place of their opposition to marriage equality, Republican politicians are using the lives of transgender people as their cannon fodder. 

By now you’ll have heard about North Carolina, Mississippi, and Tennessee.  Other states are trying to do the same including Kansas where…

… transgender students are apparently such a threat to their peers that these lawmakers believe anyone who has to be in a restroom for them should have grounds for a suit. If a student encounters someone “of the opposite sex,” they have a private cause of action against the school. The aggrieved student is entitled to $2,500 for every time they saw someone transgender in the restroom, plus “monetary damages for all psychological, emotional and physical harm suffered as a result of a violation of this section.”

So being the responsible and intelligent person I am, I began looking into this.  I mean, after all, if there’s a real issue, a real concern here, I want to make sure I’m supporting the right side.  It’s too easy to let things like institutionalized superstition and emotional religiosity get in the way of facts and, thus, doing the right thing.

Do you know what I found?  There have been absolutely zero incidents of transgender people assaulting non-transgender people in public bathrooms.  In fact, lawmakers sponsoring these bills have been asked repeatedly by journalists, including Mic, for statistics to support their case against bathroom accommodations for transgender people but can’t seem to provide any.

On the other side of the issue there are states that have passed laws providing suitable accommodations to transgender individuals.  Do you know what they report?  Absolutely no problems.  Across the board.  No assaults.  No rapes.  No questionable activity

Zero incidents of transgender people preying on children.  No incidents of “cross dressing men” raping women in the ladies’ restroom.  No accumulation of data to support these legislative movements apart from the lawmakers’ personal conviction that transgender people are “confused” and “are intent on confusing the rest of society.” 

But, as I said, I like facts.  I like numbers.  And there were some facts and numbers rolling around in my head.  So…I did some more research and discovered:

Zero incidents of trans people assaulting restroom patrons.

Three incidents of Republican lawmakers being arrested for attempting to assault restroom patrons.

Jon Hinson:  In 1981, this Mississippi congressman was arrested for engaging in oral sex in the House of Representatives bathroom with a Library of Congress clerk.

Larry Craig:  The Idaho Republican was famously arrested in 2007 for lewd conduct in a men’s room at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

Bob Allen:  That same year, Florida state Representative Bob Allen was arrested after allegedly agreeing to pay $20 to perform oral sex on an undercover police officer in the men’s room of a public park.

You can read more here.

So the score, again, is:

            Questionable Conduct by Transgender People in Public Bathrooms:  ZERO

            Questionable Conduct by Republican Politicians in Public Bathrooms:  THREE

I don’t know about you, but I’m a little creeped out by this.  I think some sensible legislator who has the best interest of the public in mind needs to introduce legislation to ban Republicans from public restrooms.  I just don’t think it’s safe for our children to be subjected to these sex crazed fiends intent on victimizing innocent people while they’re trying to pee.  The numbers are there to support the action.  This isn’t anecdotal evidence shared at the corner bar but hardcore, empirical evidence. 

I think we would all be able to pee a little safer if something could be done about Republican lawmakers being able to use public restrooms.  

Share it forward!
Follow me on Twitter @TroyComets

Get Real, One Million Moms

I am so tired of reading news releases like this.

The group, One Million Moms, has been attacking the television comedy The Real O’Neals since before the show even aired its pilot episode.  The social activists, on their website, loudly declare:

"The Real O'Neals" mocks Christianity and insults Catholicism. 1MM recognizes this show ridicules people of faith, and Christians across America are offended by it.

You can read more about the group’s most recent attack and attempt to bombard sponsors of the show by clicking here. 

Here’s the thing that certain people don’t understand:  Just because you don’t agree with a thing and just because you find it offensive doesn’t mean everyone needs to agree with you and find the thing offensive.  I know this might come as a surprise to some members of the Church considering you’re still operating under the faulty impression that the Church is the center of the universe, but it’s not.  It hasn’t been since the collapse of colonialism and the end of Christendom.  Which, by the way, as a Christian, I find to be a most happy circumstance because now the majority of people connected to the Church are connected because they feel called to be and not because someone with power and authority is forcing them to be.

It’s the same thing as this article about the Benham brothers in North Carolina claiming that

““the newest fruit of the vine of Sodom is the sexual revolution — and it’s poisoning our land. It has nearly taken over everything and is forcing itself on everyone.”

Again, this might shock some people, but a minority group struggling for equality has been labeled as “the end of civilization as we know it” since the very beginning.  Giving women the vote was going to destroy our country.  Civil rights was going to destroy our country.  Freeing slaves was going to destroy our country.  Letting the Irish into the United States was going to destroy our country.

Do you know what’s going to destroy the United States?  Ignorance.  And it seems that anti-LGBT groups have a surplus of ignorance.

Look at the press release from One Million Moms listing the complaints over The Real O’Neals.

·        Brothers view p-rn on laptop. Gay p-rn made to appear normal and acceptable. Comments between brothers and between father and sons show no form of guilt in watching p-rn. Jokes and other references such as p-rnado and p-rnward are made.

·        Gay character and his brother observe that "10 percent of the population is gay," and suggest that most of those who object to gay p-rn are h-mophobic. In reality, The Centers for Disease Control reports that 1.6 percent of the population is h-mos-xual. That is a far cry from 10 percent, but since a big part of the show's agenda is to normalize h-mos-xuality along with other sins, it makes sense for the show to lie.

·        Student at Catholic school holds up middle finger, which is pixelated.

·        The daughter skips church, doubts God, disrespects priest as she verbally backs him into a corner, and he (the head of their church) fails at answering her questions.

·        ABC network refers to this highly dysfunctional family as "the perfect Irish-Catholic family."

·        Foul language (purposely uses every word imaginable).

·        One of the show's producers is anti-Christian b-got Dan Savage, and the show is said to be loosely based on his life.

I watched this episode (found here on Hulu) and thought it was one of the best.  I recognize that’s just my opinion.  So let’s look at 1MM’s points and direct them to some facts.

1.     According to a survey conducted in Canada (and remember a survey is self-report and will always skew conservative in its results as people doing the self-report will never be completely honest—especially a survey of kids), 40% of boys between grades 4 and 11 frequently look at porn online.  Now, I’m not going to argue the pro’s and con’s of the porn industry.  I have an opinion and I can share that opinion elsewhere.  It’s enough to say that this is the REALITY of the world we are living in being reflected back to us on our television screens.  Gone are the days of Donna Reed wearing pearls and cleaning the house and cooking dinner with a smile on her face and a song in heart while women at home knew a completely different story.  Television—the best television and the most compelling television—holds life up in front of us to be ironic, comedic, or to make a statement.  I would like to think in this scene The Real O’Neals is doing all three. 

And, seriously, if you can’t even be adult enough to write the word “porn” or “homophobic” or even “bigot” without leaving out a letter, maybe you shouldn’t be allowed access to the internet.

2.     I actually agree with 1MM on their point regarding “10% of the world’s population is gay.”  1MM cites this report from the Centers forDisease Control that uses data collected in a separate study in 2013.  This report does indicate that 1.6% of the respondents to the survey identified as gay.  The problem is, of course, two-fold:  The report relies on self-report data from a survey taken of adults ages 18 and over, the majority of which are from a time in which they could not be LGBT and were forced into a non-LGBT lifestyle (something I’m most familiar with).  The second problem is that the report is using collateral data from a completely different study.  What this means is that the method of collection for the data leading to the CDC report was not designed to procure accurate data for a report of this nature.

A more appropriate report, doing what it was designed to do and reporting a much more accurate picture of the LGBT demographic, would be this one.  Again, self-report is problematic but it is the only way we can determine these things.  But this survey reports that 52% of school kids between the ages of 13 and 20 identify as LGBT. 

Or here’s another report I used in this post on suicide in the LGBT community.  The study was conducted by the National School Climate Survey in 2013 and of the 8,000 students surveyed randomly, 60% identified as LGBT.  The survey then moves forward to highlight the struggles that LGBT people face because groups like 1MM want to ignore the REALITY that LGBT people exist, are normal, and have every right to see LGBT people on TV whether 1MM’s think its “decent” or not.

3.     OMG!  A student in a Catholic school flipped the bird and the nuns didn’t come running with their rulers!

4.     I want to take a minute and talk about “doubting God.”  EVERYONE doubts God.  The opposite of faith is not doubt.  The opposite of faith is certainty.  Faith is belief in what is unseen.  Certainty is created by empirical evidence. 

This is again the problem with Christians who don’t know what it actually is they’re reading.  One of the Greek words translated as “doubt” is diakrinō but doubt (as in “disbelief”) is not what the word means.  It means to oppose.  So in Matthew 21.21 when Jesus says, “Jesus answered them, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ it will be done.” The word “doubt” there?  Yeah, that means “oppose” or “make a distinction against.”

Doubt gets a bad rep from Bible thumping Christians.  If you’re not doubting your faith, you’re not growing your faith.  If you’re so certain your faith is right, then your faith is stagnant and you’re not growing.  You’ve got a system, not a faith.

5.     “The perfect Irish family?”  Yeah, I don’t think 1MM knows how comedy works. 

6.     Foul language “purposefully uses every word imaginable?”  I don’t know.  I can imagine quite a few that haven’t been said on the show.  A lot of them people can hear at 1MM rallies outside of Planned Parenthood clinics. 

So, here it is in a nutshell, One Million Moms and Benham Brothers and anyone else who thinks that a majority group can be oppressed by a minority group in its fight for equality:  You can have your ill-informed, ill-formed opinions but the rest of the world is not required to adopt your line of thinking no matter how “God-inspired” you think your opinion is.

Are you listening, Kim Davis?  Or is the hypocrisy in your life too loud?

Feel free to hold onto your outdated, outmoded, consistently proven as implausible and inaccurate convictions in order to combat the tides of change that are about to overtake you.  But remember, One Million Moms, if your name is any indication of your true numbers and each of you is the mother of say two children (on average), that’s two million kids.  That means, according to the survey I cited about, 1,040,000 of your kids are LGBT.  You are NOT doing them any favors with your rhetoric and your campaign to remove a role model—albeit a comedic one—from their lives.

Seriously.  It’s time to get real. 

Share it forward!

Follow me on Twitter @TroyComets

The Truth Behind Anti-LGBT Research

Last week I was introduced to MN State Representative Glenn Gruenhagen.  I immediately shared what I learned about Mr. Gruenhagen with all of you, paying particular attention to his anti-LGBT stance and his attempts at legalizing discrimination by pretending to care for the mental health of LGBT people through a misrepresentation of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). 

I have spent considerable time since researching Mr. Gruenhagen and his colleagues.  I’ve reviewed his website and have been in contact with a few media outlets who shared with me their experiences and findings with regard to Mr. Gruenhagen. 

Before I continue I want to point out the obvious.  I know the vast majority of my readers don’t live in Minnesota.  Heck, I know a lot of you don’t even live in the United States.  The reason why I’ve decided to devote attention to Mr. Gruenhagen’s attempts is because his tactics are universal.  Face it, a fear-monger only has one play:  Be afraid of those people.  The only thing that ever changes from fear-monger to fear-monger is who the those people are.   Mr. Gruenhagen has a few different those peoples to choose from; I’m simply going to focus on the LGBT community because of his recently introduced bill and the heinous actions of politicians in North Carolina.  This is becoming a theme again for this election cycle:  Be afraid of the gays because they’re going to corrupt you with their illness!

You would think that we could start moving past this considering recently court rulings but some people simply cannot abide progress or inevitable judgments that permit that progress. 

So according to Mr. Gruenhagen’s website, designed to get him elected every two years, there exist…

over 2500 studies in the social sciences that confirm the economic and social benefits of traditional marriage, for both men and women. Studies also confirm that children especially benefit in numerous ways when raised by a mom and dad.

It was a bibliography of these studies I had requested from Mr. Gruenhagen.  My request was ignored.  So, though I can’t speak directly to these individual studies, their methodologies and institutions of origin, I can speak to what I know and what I know is this:  Absolutely no legitimate institution of research or higher learning within the educated, academic psychological and psychiatric community within the United States (and perhaps the greater western world) would have published such a study within the past two decades for the simple reason that it defies the science behind identity and sexuality.  What this means is that, if these 2500+ studies Mr. Gruenhagen is talking about actually exist they were authored by pseudo-scientific organizations that are more religion than science, institutions like the Family Research Council.

The interesting thing about the Family Research Council, however, is that they actually don’t do any research.  If you review their list of so called experts you won’t find a single psychiatrist or psychologist in the bunch.  What you will find, however, is a bunch of marketing gurus and lawyers.  If you review their literature on topics like “marriage” and “sexuality,” you’ll find a few briefs that support their political position some policy publications promoting that position, and a number of op-eds advocating for that position.  There’s a gaping hole in the area of actually providing research that support their position and here’s why:

It doesn’t exist.

At least authentic, scientific research conducted morally, ethically, and appropriately away from underlying bias does exist.  It hasn’t existed since the 1970’s when the scientific community, namely the American Psychiatric Association (APA), removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973.  In their determination the APA indicated that support for the traditional mentality that an LGBT sexuality was reflective of disorder, disturbance, or any similar pathology.  In short there is nothing to be addressed here; take your medieval ideas of prayer and healing elsewhere.  Science does not support it.

But as anyone with a Republican uncle knows after the topic of global climate change comes up at Thanksgiving Dinner, some people just can’t integrate actual science into their belief system.  Typically in such cases we see one of two reactions: 

1.     That’s just liberal nonsense trying to figure out how to run people’s lives and tax the bejesus out of them by using made up facts that happen to support the views of their campaign donors.

2.     But I read on the Family Research Council’s website and heard on Focus on the Family or saw on The Seven Hundred Club that that’s not even true.  It’s just part of the liberal gay agenda to let perverts near our children.

Reaction number one ignores scientific evidence.  Reaction number two counter scientific evidence with religious based pseudo-science. 

Why do you I say it’s religious based pseudo-science?  Look at the institutions that produce these so called studies.  How many of them are connected to current or former televangelists?  How many of them are connected to institutional denominations running ad campaigns in neighboring states to beat marriage equality? 

Here’s the other source for anti-LGBT propaganda:  Other scientific disciplines.   For example, two sociologists who have become champions of the conservative anti-LGBT campaign are Dr. Mark Regnerus, a sociologist from the University of Texas, Austin, and Father Donald Sullins, a Roman Catholic Priest and Sociology Professor at Catholic University of America in Washington, DC.

Just to be clear, let me offer simple definitions of the disciplines we’re discussing here.

Sociology is the study of social behavior or society, including its origins, development, organization, networks, and institutions. It is a social science that uses various methods of empirical investigation and critical analysis to develop a body of knowledge about social order, disorder, and change.

Psychology is the study of behavior and mind, embracing all aspects of human experience. It is an academic discipline and an applied science which seeks to understand individuals and groups by establishing general principles and researching specific cases.

Psychiatry is devoted to the diagnosis, prevention, study and treatment of mental disorders. These include various abnormalities that are affective, behavioral, cognitive and perceptual.

Do you see the difference here?  Whereas psychology and psychiatry focus on the inward processes of health and well-being and the behaviors that may stem from the internal, sociology focuses on the outward behaviors of society.  So when an individual looks at a sociology study that may seem to indicate that children in the home of two non-LGBT parents are more successful than children in the home of two LGBT parents, the factors that contribute to this success lie outside of the individual and within society itself.  We are no longer talking about mental health and identity.  We are now talking about the ability of an individual to matriculate into society without prejudice.  Contrary to the opinions of Dr. Regnerus and Father Sullins, there are far too many variables in such research to make conclusive arguments.  Which, of course, they should know since they are sociologists whose job is to remark on the behavior of society and not identify the development of individual identity and how to influence it. 

If sociology discovers that social behavior and society struggle with the integration of LGBT individuals with regard to respect and equality and even fundamental human rights, their discovery does not indicate something faulty or defective with the LGBT mind and/or development.  That is not their area of expertise.  If the psychiatric community, in 1973, determined there is nothing detrimental to the quality of life of an LGBT person when that LGBT person embraces their identity, a sociologist cannot come back, fifty years later, and declare that the whole field of psychiatry is wrong because our study of society shows society can’t deal with LGBT people.

It should be noted as well that these two scholars along with their work have been soundly criticized by their colleagues. 

So why am I sharing this with you?  I mean, it’s not like you’re ever going to have a conversation with that uncle at Thanksgiving Dinner and convince him that science is real and that there is a right way and a wrong way to do it.  Ours is not a society in which we have conversations that lead to change anymore.  Ours is a society in which we don’t have conversations, we no longer seek to learn as much as to teach, to be changed as much as to change. 

The first reason I share this with you is so that you know that when someone like Glenn Gruenhagen, an elected official of the State of Minnesota, stands up and tries to convince you of certain facts based on 2500+ studies that he’s apparently unwilling to share—you need to know where those facts came from and how they are interpreted.  People like Mr. Gruenhagen have anchored their arguments in a body of work but the body of work is as accurate and appropriate as the user’s manual from an old VHS player.  I could make a sound argument for forcing women into subservient roles, too, but it would mean taking the Bible out of context and relying on archaic research and cherry picked contemporary studies.  Not unlike Mr. Gruenhagen and his colleagues have done with LGBT equality. 

The second reason is more difficult than the first.  Armed with the knowledge that homophobes like Glenn Gruenhagen use bad science and no science to bolster their argument means that the people who fight for LGBT equality need to be equipped with actual facts and research for when they find themselves in a position to have legitimate conversation.  Google advocacy and support groups and learn truth to combat misinformation and ignorance.

The third reason is:  I don’t want you to feel bullied by law makers, teachers, or parents when they throw this pseudo-science at you while you struggle with your identify.  Do not let anyone ever tell you that because you identify as LGBT or question whether you identify as LGBT that you are somehow inferior or sick or that you need to change to integrate better with society.  You are a gift to this world—absolutely everything about you.  Don’t let others zero in on one thing that in the grand scheme of things is just one part of who you are and let them destroy you because of it. Again, the problem isn’t within you.  The problem is with how society might see you and that never going to change until society gets to know you.

Share it forward!

Follow me on Twitter @TroyComets

Boy George, Troye Sivan, and Me

I spend a lot of time puttering around on the internet.  Every morning I get up and start googling random crap and cruising through YouTube subscriptions and trendings.  It inevitably happens.  At some point a search for one specific thing will lead me to something completely different and it will be that something completely different that will unexpectedly educate and inspire me.

Today I ended up on this video on YouTube.  It’s an interview from 1984 between Johnny Carson and Boy George. 

History lesson time.  Before James Corden rode around in a car singing with superstars and Stephen Colbert lampooned newsmakers with mock earnestness, there was an old white guy who sat behind a desk and did some interviews and cracked some jokes.  In the interest of full disclosure I wasn’t a fan.  But a lot of folks tuned in because, really, he was the only game in town until folks like Joan Rivers and Arsenio Hall brought life and variety to the late night talk show arena.  But Carson was kind of the godfather of it all. 

So, picture it.  1984.  The AIDS crisis is evolving.  Ronald Reagan is president and neither he nor his First Lady, Nancy, will acknowledge the crisis because they don’t even want to be associated with the dirty word “homosexual.”  That doesn’t stop religious leaders and conservative politicians from making hay on the suffering of others by demonizing the victims of the disease while declaring “God’s judgment” on “sinful and deviant lifestyles.”

In the midst of this ignorant morass of silence and blame and fear comes…Boy George.

That picture is a screen capture of Boy George from the Johnny Carson interview.  It was the second time he had appeared on Carson’s show but the first time with Carson.  The first time he had appeared the iconic Joan Rivers was hosting.  This is a fact that Boy George jokes about in the interview with Carson by commenting, “The last time I was here you were in drag.”  Carson quickly distanced himself from the joke, clarifying that it had been Joan Rivers and not Carson with whom he had appeared.  If I’m right, this is a picture of Boy George and Joan Rivers from that first appearance. 

So, back to the video of Carson, the old White guy with his sense of humor that seems to ignore other people’s senses of humor, and Boy George sitting on the opposite side of the desk in all of his Boy George glory.  In 1984.  Amidst fear and ignorance.  And remembering that the culture of the UK is usually about 20 years ahead of culture in the US.  So, for Boy George, the smallest things he said or did at home were met with raised brows and anxiety here in the United States. 

Carson introduced Boy George, who comes in and makes the joke about Carson being in drag that Carson finds so repugnant, and then the interview begins.  It’s clear where Carson wants to go with the interview. 

Not long before this appearance Boy George attended the Grammies and made a joke about wondering when they music industry would see a real queen dressed as a drag queen.  Carson brings up the controversy his comment caused and Boy George brushes it aside, pointing out that in the UK you can say things like that and people laugh but in the US it’s basically a big scandal.  This brings up a conversation about “all of the stupid questions” Boy George had been answering since his arrival in LA from LA radio personalities. 

“What are some of the dumb questions they ask so I know which ones to avoid.  I mean, the first one has got to be,” and Johnny Carson makes sweeping gestures with his hands.  “Why do you dress like that?”

You can hear Boy George’s eyes rolling in his answer.  “I’ve answered that one so many times I’m going to avoid that one.”

“Okay, so what are the other questions?”

“Well, basic things like ‘How long does it take to do my makeup?’ you know and just boring things about my childhood.  Which was just the same as anybody else’s really.  Pretty dull.  Pretty boring.  So, Father Christmas, you know, and grazed knees, that kind of stuff.” 

“Yeah, but you can’t blame them, can you, Boy George, for asking those kinds of questions.  Because you are rather controversial.  It is something new that—“

“But after like three years of seeing me you would think people would be a bit used to me by now, you know.  I mean, in a country that has Liberace, I am hardly revolutionary, am I?

And the audience cheers.  But see the difference between Boy George and Liberace is that Liberace’s glam was still masculine.  He still wore tuxes and suits while performing.  So what if they were covered it glitter and sequence?

Johnny Carson continues.  “I’m trying not to be square you see.  I come from the middle of the United States.  State called Nebraska, which is right out in the middle of the country.  Rather conservative.  Now if I was your dad and you came home one day and I didn’t know it and I walked in and saw you as a young man—I guess you were about fifteen or sixteen when you started actually….wearing the make up and the costumes—I wouldn’t know how to react myself.  I think I would be adult enough myself to try to handle it but—“

“What do you got to handle?”

“Well, the effect that you walk in and you see your son dressing with makeup on.  The average person….”

“Okay, well, you’re going to have Halloween in a couple of weeks, you know.  What’s the difference between somebody dressing up for Halloween?  It’s only because people think it’s serious that they get frightened.  They look at me and they say, ‘Well, it’s not a Halloween party.’  So you have to have a reason to dress up.  There is nothing wrong with being different.  Why do you have to have an excuse to enjoy yourself?  You know there are people out there taking drugs, killing each other, fighting.  And like I just don’t see that you have to wait once a year, Christmas or Halloween, to enjoy yourself.  I think it’s a load of rubbish.  I think there is nothing wrong with dressing up and enjoying yourself if you want.”

“I think you’re right.  I think what you said before though…people are probably uncomfortable though with some things they don’t quite understand or something that’s different from them and they get uptight about it.”

I’ll leave the transcript there because it speaks to the points I want to make. [Go and watch the video, though.  It’s fascinating. ]

In 1984, when Boy George was being interviewed by Johnny Carson, I was in the sixth grade.  I remember my class’s Halloween party.  We still dressed up “back in the day” and spent the afternoon munching candy and watching movies.  One of my classmates dressed up as Boy George.  I knew it was a Boy George costume because she had obviously done the makeup and hair thing but she had written “Boy George” on her t-shirt.  My teacher, who was about the age of Johnny Carson, had a conniption.  He ranted about the costume being inappropriate and offensive.  And it was a female classmate dressed up as Boy George.

Of course this was the same teacher who demanded a male student remove his earring.

This was the mentality of the time.  It’s gotten better, to be sure, but we still have such a long way to go.  Someone I follow on social media just tweeted today that if people fought as hard for the poor as they fight against equal rights and protections, poverty would be history. 

But Johnny Carson, in this interview, actually makes a point.  He pointed out that people are uncomfortable with things they don’t understand or things that are different from them.  And make no mistake about it—Johnny Carson and Boy George and a significant segment of the audience knew that this conversation had nothing to do with make-up and clothes.  This was about identifying as something other than straight (on Boy George’s side) and the fear of validating something that not even the president would even speak about (on Johnny Carson’s side). 

I don’t know what the conversation was like in the UK or other parts of the world, but in the United States, at this time, coming out wasn’t an option for many artists and actors.  For example, George Michael at this same time was making it big with Wham!.  And speculation was just as bad.  If I had a dime for every time I heard a story about the members of New Kids on the Block having their stomach pumped to find gallons of bodily fluids, I could have retired at age 20.  I even remember watching some awards show with my folks one time and hearing my mother comment about how masculine Grace Slick from Jefferson Starship was trying to be while performing “We Built This City.” 

More and more I find myself stopping in my tracks to take stock of how far we’ve come, not just in the LGBTQ community but as a society.  Sharing our stories, when we can and how much we can and in whatever overt or veiled language we can, changes things.  It started somewhere.  It didn’t begin with Boy George on Johnny Carson and it’s certainly not going to end with marriage equality or the overturning of North Carolina’s disgusting law.  We all play our parts, when we can, how we can.  We show our faces with courage.  We move in small circles for our own safety.  We speak from behind the curtain of the internet to protect the people who love us. 

I’ve written before about Troye Sivan.  Last week Troye Sivan tweeted, “I am forever indebted and so so so grateful for the LGBTQ+ people who have come before me.”   This hit me for a variety of reasons but the truth of it is so poignant.  Troye Sivan, global recording superstar, gay, out at 20, changing the world.  But not just him.  Jordan Gray (@TallDarkFriend), trans contestant on The Voice UK, sharing her powerful story.  Noah Galvin on TV—a gay man playing a gay teen on The Real O’Neals.  YouTuber stars from all over the world, out and proud and sharing their stories, continuing the fight for equality so that the next generation of LGBTQ people won’t have to struggle so hard.

Just as Troye Sivan, still fighting with his beautiful spirit and his powerful words (“Without losing a piece of me, how do I get to heaven?”), doesn’t have to fight as hard as Boy George did. 

But here’s the flip side of Troye Sivan’s grateful statement.  My response:  “The ones who came before are grateful to the ones who come after; you’re still changing the world & us.”

You see, this is the reality in which I live.  The world has yet to open for me.  The light of peace and acceptance (of the world toward me and me toward the world, for that matter) hasn’t reached the dark recesses of my “closet.”  But I celebrate these rewards that have been hard won and the ability of those who can live in that light.  I am thrilled when I see Troye Sivan changing the world with his music.  I am thrilled when I read about Cole Ledford’s “Fifty States of Gay” project.  I am thrilled when I see someone like Jordan Gray on a national/international platform like The Voice, not only sharing her gift and her story, but doing it with Boy George himself watching and tearing up for each of her performances.

And all of these and more give me hope that maybe the world will change enough for me and this light will break open my prison door.  You see, in a place where teachers flipped out over girls dressing like Boy George and students assaulting other students just because they might be gay all with the blessing and support of a Church that loves Jesus but not enough to actually listen to the things Jesus says—for people who lived in these places, people like me, then and now, people like Boy George and Troye Sivan mean nothing.  They could be from a completely different world, somewhere over the rainbow (if you’ll pardon the expression). 

But from within my closet, I hear their words coming to me from that magical place of hope.  They inspire me, the one who came before who, from the shadows, fought and still fights,   It’s a cycle, I suppose.  An enormous wheel.  Where does what one generation give to the next begin and end? 

I hear their words and they tell me of a time I will be able to be me without causing the people I love and who love me a pain they don’t deserve for something not in their control anymore than the pain I’ve suffered for things outside of my control.  I’ve lived as a victim of the world’s ignorance for this long.  With these glimpses of hope, I can wait.  I will not victimize others to escape my lot. 

So I keep watch.  I listen.  I write and I speak what I can, when I can, how I can.  And I hope I make a difference.  Probably not as big of a difference as Boy George, Troye Sivan, or Jordan Gray.  But hopefully a difference, if only to one person.  Because that one person still has the potential to change the world.

Addendum:  About 30 minutes after posting this entry I found the interview of Boy George with Joan Rivers.  An astounding difference.  Night and day.  Whereas Carson backs away from Boy George, Joan Rivers sings his praises, calling him "cute and sexy."  

Share it forward!

Follow me on Twitter @TroyComets

Easter and Ignorance

Okay.

I’ve debated long enough on this topic and I’ve decided to write about it.  I went back and forth on it not because I didn’t feel competent and comfortable writing on the topic.  If anything I’m too comfortable and competent to write on it.  I was hesitant because I try very hard not to focus on religion in my blogging because religion has hurt too many LGBTQ people, including myself,  and I don’t want to keep rubbing salt in the wounds. 

I also didn’t want to “tip my hand” and maybe show too much non-Troy Comets knowledge through my Troy Comets activity.  What I mean is this:  Troy Comets has never disclosed what he does off of the internet or what the person behind Troy Comets has actually studied.  I’ve hinted that if you look at my writing you can probably figure out what I’ve studied and how much time I’ve spent in those studies.  After reading this post you may have a more complete idea.  I’m not 100% certain that’s a good thing…but I’m 100% certain it’s not all a bad thing either.

But, here’s the thing.

1.     Trying to avoid talking about religion because of the pain it has caused us isn’t going to make that pain go away.  Maybe I’m wrong to avoid the topic the way I do.  Maybe I should acknowledge religion’s role in the oppression of the LGBTQ community more.  Maybe I should acknowledge our pain—my pain—more in my writing.  Maybe it could be more a part of the healing process than I’ve previously imagined it could be.  All I know is that I don’t want this blog to become “Troy Comets’ Ongoing Commentary about How Messed Up the Church Is.”  Though I know there’s MORE THAN ENOUGH to talk about there, there’s more for us, LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ people alike, to worry about and talk about.

2.     Sometimes I can’t turn off the things I know.  It would be nice.  Believe me.  Sometimes I can’t think of anything that would bring me more peace than to forget half the things I know.  But, as I write this, it’s Holy Saturday.  Tomorrow is Easter.  We’re ending Holy Week….and, as a Christian person of faith, religion is all around me right now and I can’t escape it.  Add to that the fact that I’ve wasted an hour and a half of my life today by watching Tyler Perry’s “The Passion Live” and I’m more than a little angry about how ignorant the Church is about its own heritage and its own story.

I just tweeted a comment that to understand the Passion of Jesus, the whole story that’s told between what is usually referred to as “The Triumphal Entry” (Palm Sunday) through the Last Supper, the trial and execution, and ends with the Resurrection—to understand any of this, a person needs to understand politics in first century Palestine.  Let me explain why.

The Jewish leaders get a bad rap in traditional Christianity.  As they’re portrayed in biblical interpretations throughout history they are the antagonists to our hero, Jesus.  They try to shut him down.  They want to argue with them.  They appear clueless and obstinate.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The fact of the matter is that these were faithful men of God.  They were not only adhering to the interpretation of Hebrew Scriptures that had been handed down to them but they were also trying to protect their people. 

Judea, where the bulk of Jesus’ ministry takes place in the four biblical Gospels, was an occupied territory.  Since its fall in “Old Testament Times” it had changed ownership a number of times.  It was prime real estate.  You couldn’t travel anywhere in the region without moving through Israel and Judea.  At the time of Jesus, it’s Rome that holds the deed to Judea and Rome wasn’t known for its kind and gentle ways when it came to occupation.

Within living memory of most of the elders of the Jewish people at the time of Jesus there was at least one revolt that was stamped out tragically by Rome.  What the leaders understood was that there was going to be no uprising as long as Rome was a factor.  There would be no independence until God’s anointed appeared, the “messiah” or “Christ,” who would lead God’s chosen people back to their chosen status in the world.

So when Jesus, who overtly and tacitly claims to be this messiah, begins to amass a following, who challenges the status quo, who attracts people like Judas the Zealot to his cause—when the leadership begins to see this, it makes them worried.  They see the makings of another revolt and, remembering the last revolt and how Rome dealt with it, they begin planning ways to get Jesus out of the picture before it’s too late.  Why do you think one of the charges the Jewish leaders argue in front of their Roman rulers is, “He’s no friend of Caesar’s?”  He’s a traitor and you need to deal with him.

So, of course, he’s dealt with.  There’s a trial in which Pontius Pilate famously gives the people a choice between two prisoners—Jesus or Barabbas.  Never mind the fact that no such tradition even existed.  Our English Bibles tell us that Barabbas was a criminal/murderer.  The actual word in Greek which describes him is “zealot.”  Like Judas, Barabbas was a freedom fighter.  He was a patriot.  He probably would have been considered a “terrorist” by today’s standards.  Which would you choose if you were under occupation?  Someone who just a few days ago came to town with under the auspices of being the messiah who would kick Rome out but the most he could do was throw a tantrum in the Temple?  Or the guy with the proven track record of undermining the occupational forces?  The gospel author is making a point here—not giving us a history lesson. 

If you watched “The Passion Live” on FOX you might remember Tyler Perry’s explanation of what crucifixion was like and then what was done with the body.  According to Tyler Perry’s script, Jesus was buried in a tomb which was sealed with a boulder and guarded by Roman soldiers—all under Pilate’s orders.  Of course nothing like it happened.  The earliest Gospel we have is Mark.  Mark tells us that it was the day of preparation.  We already know it’s late in the afternoon so the pressure’s on under Jewish religious law to get things done before Sabbath begins.  Joseph of Arimathea, who is identified as a Jewish leader, comes to Pilate and asks for the body.  Pilate gives it to him and Joseph of Arimathea quickly buries Jesus in Joseph’s own tomb.  It really was a “hurry up and get it done” affair.  Sabbath was hours and minutes away.  This is why later in the story the women return on the first day of the week (Sunday) to do the burial rituals after Sabbath. 

What Tyler Perry’s scriptwriter and the majority of Christians fail to understand here is the process of developing what Christian theologians call “a high Christology.”  What this means is that years and years after the fact, followers of “The Way” (which is what this sect of Judaism was initially called) struggled to make the story of Jesus flow out of the story of God as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures.  We see the beginnings of the development of this Christology in Mark, with its use of the terms “Christ” and “Son of God.”  Mark, remember, was written about 35 years after Jesus’ death.  But this Christology advances again by the time Matthew and Luke are written, roughly 20 years after Mark.  Matthew and Luke begin to answer questions that the earliest Christian community started asking.  Questions like “Where did Jesus come from?”  In reply, Matthew and Luke give detailed birth narratives.  They also address the arguments of skeptics.  “Maybe Jesus wasn’t really dead.”  This is why in Matthew one of the Roman soldiers impales Jesus’ through the side with the spear.  “Maybe someone stole Jesus’ body and created the whole resurrection story.”  Again, this is why Matthew has Pilate setting guards on the tomb. 

But Christians have done  exactly what Tyler Perry’s scriptwriters have done throughout history.  We don’t pay attention to what is written or ask why it’s written the way it is.  Instead, we harmonize the stories and stupidly recite them during the most holy times in our religious calendar.  Like Christmas.  All of a sudden we have Mary and Joseph having a child in a barn (because there’s a feed trough being used) and we simultaneously have angels (which, by the way, are messengers from God and not divine beings with wings.  The whole angelic cult is developed later.) and wise men from the East showing up all at the same time.  Never mind the fact that the wisemen (of an undesignated number, by the way.  Scripture never tells us three beyond three gifts which are symbolic in their own right) show up YEARS after Jesus’ birth.

This is what makes me so freaking angry about my fellow adherents to the Christian faith:  Too many people are comfortable in their ignorance, blindly accepting the watered down, dumbed down, Christian message that generations of preachers and pastors and priests have massaged to diminish its power and “teeth.”  Again, for an example, I turn to “The Passion Live” in which the song performed to capture the spirit of this “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem is “Love can Move Mountains” by Celine Dion.  The triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem was not “lovey dovey, love conquers all” nonsense.  It was a protest.  It was desperation.  The crowd was shouting “Hosanna!”  Hoshi’ana!  “SAVE US!”  People were flocking to the person who was supposed to be their liberator crying out in pain and anguish! 

How many congregations capture that spirit in their annual Palm Sunday parades of palm waving and Sunday School children singing?

But this is the issue:  All of these biblically conservative Christians who, like the people they vilify in the gospel stories, may mean well.  But unlike the people they treat as antagonists in the Jesus story, they are completely oblivious to what it is they’re reading, where it came from, and how it’s been transmitted.

And it drives me nuts.

This brings me back to “The Passion Live” once again.  This feel good, for club members only, overly produced, poorly researched and written spectacular dumbed the story down still further and didn’t pause to consider the full implication of the music they chose to accentuate the story.

For example.  Trisha Yearwood as Mary singing “In the end only kindness matters.”  Really?  See, the biblical message claims that in the end it’s the love of God that matters.  Or Jencarlos Canela  as Jeuss singing “I won’t give up if you don’t give up.”  Really?  The commitment of Jesus Christ is dependent on my commitment?  Then we’re all screwed because, newsflash, human beings are fickle creatures incapable of commitment.  That’s why the biblical message highlights God’s commitment to humanity trumping humanity’s commitment to God.

What’s worse than picking songs with bad theology?  Picking songs that capture good theology and thinking that the people singing the song will embody the meaning of the song.  I’m referring to the song used by “The Passion Live” at the climax of the performance:  Unconditionally  

Come just as you are to me
Don't need apologies
Know that you are all worthy
I'll take your bad days with your good
Walk through this storm I would
I'll do it because I love you, I love you

This!  This is the message that so many people, so many people in so many subsets of our society, not just the LGBTQ community--but SO MANY PEOPLE need to hear.  It's the message of the story of God told through the pages of the Christian Bible.  It's the power behind the Hebrew word chessed and the Greek word agape.  It's unconditional love--it's love poured out without qualification, without prerequisite, without the receiver moving himself or herself to a place in which they might "fit in better" or "conform more appropriately" the beliefs and behaviors of any particularly community that holds power and domination.  It's a love that says, "You.  Just as you are.  You are special.  You are loved.  Just the way you are."

The Church will join Jencarlos Canela. It will sing this song, add it to its repertoire of “contemporary hymns” and then it will turn around and, as a rule, insist gay people should be straight, people in poverty should pull themselves up by the bootstraps, that women should be obedient to their husbands…..you get the idea.

Which makes me wonder how Katy Perry feels about the Church coopting her song.

Look, I get it.  The Church, like every other human institution whether religious or secular, is flawed.  It’s broken.  It’s far from perfect.  That’s what happens when human beings enter the picture and try to take something as powerful as a movement like civil rights or Christianity and make it a system.  It’s going to lose momentum, power, and even sight of its mission and purpose.  That doesn’t mean we can use that as an excuse.  That doesn’t mean we can ignore the damage we’ve done and continue to do.  That doesn’t mean we forgive our own blatant ignorance and hypocrisy when we sing songs like “Unconditionally” but turn around and tell people to “give up your sinful ways and be something you can’t possibly be and then God will love you.”

The reason I’m rethinking my approach to religion and the Church, at least for this post, is that it’s Easter in the Western Church.  It’s the season of resurrection, renewal, and hope.  Traditionally and historically it’s understood as a moment of profound change where God alters the rules and breaks down barriers that seem unbreakable.  It’s a season of forgiveness.  It’s a celebration of how far God is willing to go to demonstrate God’s love. 

For people reading this who are solidly inside the Church, maybe the barrier that God is breaking down is the barrier that keeps you from exploring and even challenging the theology that has been handed to you.

For people reading this who are outside of the Church because it is where you have been placed by people within the Church or where you have placed yourself for your own protection and self-preservation, maybe the renewal that God is offering you is the renewal of God’s promise of unconditional love—whether the institutional Church is willing to offer it to you or not.  If it’s one thing that has been made abundantly clear:  God does not need the participation or approval of faith institutions to love God’s children. 

For people reading this for whom faith is not a part of your life, I hope I haven’t offended or bored you.  Thank you for giving me the space to share these thoughts.

As always, feel free to share these thoughts forward.

Follow me on Twitter @TroyComets