Existential Punk

Sin & Salvation

HT Jesse Turri for leading me to Dr. Richard Beck's explanation of sin and salvation to his son at Experimental Theology. THIS is the BEST explanation i have EVER heard and very succinct! As a Christian agnostic i deeply resonated with his explanation! THANK YOU Dr. Beck!

Here it is:

"Son, sin isn't just about having a guilty conscience, feeling guilty for doing bad things. Sin is about how the whole world seems broken, shattered into a million tiny pieces. And all those pieces fight against each other. Us against Them when we fight or kill. Humanity against Creation when we litter, pollute or make animals go extinct. Creation against Men and Women like we saw in Haiti. Us against God and God against us. And, finally, a man against himself...that guilty conscience and feeling that you are a bad person or a failure.

And if that is what sin is, all these sharp broken pieces cutting each other, then salvation is trying to put those pieces back together again. When you pick up your litter. That is salvation. When you befriend a lonely kid at school. That is salvation. When you praise God rather than curse him. That is salvation. When you forgive people, yourself included. That is salvation.

Salvation isn't just about 'going to heaven.' It's about finding these two broken pieces in life, wherever you find them, and putting them back together again. That is salvation."

'i Don't Get It'

A brutally honest comment from Lynn over at nakedpastor really resonated with me and her words are things i have expressed inside my mind and out loud before. In light of my recent posts where i have been wrestling with existential issues of the existence of G-D, i asked her permission to post her comment here as a reflection.

'The relationship with God that I attempted never felt very real. He never talked to me. I talked to him, but he was always silent. I had to just trust that he was really there and really listening.

I found what he said in the Bible very confusing and contradictory. It made me crazy trying to figure out which verses applied to which situations. Other people never seemed to have a problem with that. God never helped me to understand.

I finally gave up and decided this whole relationship was an imaginary thing inside my own head.

Aren’t there bare minimum standards for something to be considered a “relationship?”
What are those standards?

I also heard that in Islam, they are not trying to have a relationship with Allah. They revere him and submit, have certain duties, etc., but it’s not a warm and fuzzy thing like in Christianity. Hopefully I’m not misrepresenting anything here. I’m sure you see what I’m trying to get at.

Oh yeah, and would you want to have a relationship with someone you fear? Like they might throw you in hell if you’re not of the elect?

And God TELLS us to love him. Can you love someone just because they tell you to?

I don’t get it.'

What do you think? Have you wondered these same things but maybe you never expressed them aloud? Or, maybe you did ask them outside your own head? Do raw and honest expressions resonate with you or scare the shit out of you? If it scares you, why? - Existential Punk

Picking And Choosing

Over at my friend Peter's blog, Emerging Christian, Joan and Jen had this to say in response to this post:

'Here's my challenge - if I start picking and choosing what is and is not okay from the Bible, then I can pick and choose whatever I want from it. Maybe others aren't as prone to scamming themselves, but I have a long history of it that I do my best to battle every day, one day at a time.

For that reason, I tend to be willing to believe and follow any and all of what's in there - even the seemingly archaic stuff - trusting a combination of scripture, conviction, tradition, teaching, etc. as my guide. Why don't I wear a covering on my head when I go to church? Because so far I have not been convicted to do so and tradition seems to have moved away from it. That said, if I woke up tomorrow morning convicted that I should wear a covering on my head or never speak in church again I would do it.

Not saying anyone else has to do it that way, and my approach may change as I continue to wind my way through a life-long spiritual journey, but that's just how I roll. '

    - Joan

________________________________________________________________________________

'The challenge Joan put forth about picking and choosing is interesting to me.

Mostly, in a kind of ironic way because the canon itself was “picked” and “chosen” by function of political power. What we accept as the complete canon today is the product of the dominant views of a particular time and culture (often at the expense of the marginalized).

Scripture is both memory (ancient witness) and present word, and the tension between the two can be tricky. Authority is contextual, and what was once understood in ancient communities as the authoritative word of God does not and should not always translate into modern society. It is possible to read the word of God and get it wrong, because Scripture is not meant to be read as timeless, transcultural principles. Divorced from social ethics, theology can be incredibly harmful and traditions of slavery and oppression attest to that truth.

While Scripture is bound to the past it represents – God is not, and one must not confuse the authority of God with the authority of the Bible. Phyllis Bird writes, “The Bible’s authority is intimately connected with its character as a bridge between the past and present activity of God.”

I think the beauty of Scripture is that it has always been meant to be engaged in community. We cannot interpret Scripture outside of the tradition and community that created Scripture, but together we can wrestle with how the written word speaks to a modern context.

I would argue that the foundation of Biblical authority is found in past experiences, which provide insufficient answers for a dynamic present and future. But for me, the importance and value of Scripture revolves around the witness it bears to the Creator – and it is ultimately insufficient in and of itself to represent the truth of God. Interpretation and degree of authority given to this piece of ancient literature must not occur without acknowledging the time and culture (however painful) in which it was written, the agenda of the authors, and the understanding that truth cannot be contained in written word.

Thus, while tradition is intricately linked to understanding Scripture, it does not mean that we should rest on the conclusions of tradition. We must be willing to engage with the authority of a dynamic Creator.'

    -Jen
_____________________________________________________________________________

i have been mulling ideas around like the ones Jen expressed above for several years now. When the canon came into being, there was a political structure in place that was extremely powerful and into a major power trip. i think power and manipulation played a HUGE part in the formation of the canon. i believe there were other books that possibly should have been included.

To Joan, i responded with this:

'i agree so that is why so many of us advocate doing this together in community through living life together and through prayer and the leading of the Holy Spirit. It's those who hold so tightly on to their beliefs and think anyone who thinks/believes differently from them is wrong and going to hell that i have a problem with personally.

i think blindly following what was written so long ago in a different cultural and historical context without testing, questioning, etc. can be dangerous.'

Joan is a friend of mine and i appreciate her child-like faith. She is so good not to put her fences (convictions) onto others. i think she feels we are each responsible for listening to the Holy Spirit and doing as the Holy Spirit leads us individually and in community. It is not up to us to judge what G-D reveals to each of us. i think if we are convicted of something, then it is our personal responsibility to act. If we are not convicted about something, then we should not worry about it and neither should anyone else. Also, community is the best place to discern the Holy Spirit and where iron sharpens iron. A trusted and deeply connected group of people who have the common goal of bringing about the Kingdom (Love and work) of G-D and being transformed by our Creator is where and when scripture comes alive and we wrestle with it.

What do you think?

Starting With Our Weakness: Peter Walker

STARTING WITH OUR WEAKNESS
BY Peter Walker
www.emergingchristian.com/

(CO-OP BLOG POST PART 1)

I have a lot of weaknesses.  It’s amazing how “okay” you can think you are, until the relationships in your lives (like little mirrors) reveal the truth.  I had no idea how selfish, impatient, emotionally needy, insecure and quick-to-react I was until I got married.  For my friends who tried to tell me beforehand: sorry I wasn’t listening.

As Adele and I approach the subject of being transparent about our weaknesses, there are a lot (I mean a lot) of ways we could go and angles we could approach from.  We’re human; there’s a lot to own up to!

* * *

Peter Rollins said:
“…What I really want to do is to enter into dialogs where I can talk about the weakest part of my argument and you can talk about the weakest part of your argument. and I can accept and celebrate the strongest part of your arguments and visa-versa.”_
_- from a Nick and Josh Podcast interview

* * *

An anonymous blog visitor recently commented:

“You want to cherry pick what you want to believe and then mandate we trust our gut feelings for authority. And you really can't see the inconsistent notions you put forth in the midst of all this. But, I guess in a postmodern worldview you don't really have to worry about those little contradictions.”

 

Good timing Anonymous, because that’s just the sort of thing I want to own up to.  For example, 2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,” but I’m not sure I believe that… unless “useful for teaching” can mean showing some Scriptures as bad and even wrong examples of what God isn’t, and of what isn’t true – perhaps of how wrong well-intentioned, God-fearing people can be.  But objectively true and correctly interpreted by the biblical writers?  I don’t buy Paul’s assertion in 1 Timothy 2:15, that “Women will be saved through childbearing,” or that God would randomly strike folks dead for deceit, as in the Acts 5 story of Ananias and Sapphira.   Just as I’m often accused of picking and choosing “convenient” Scriptures to make my point (oft-lamented proof-testing!) it seems a terrible abuse of Scripture to suggest that God really strikes people dead at random, for the sorts of sins all of us are guilty of, regularly.  Shouldn’t we all be covering our heads and ducking low, every day?  Yeah, probably…

So I don’t really believe a coherent, consistent narrative of God can be easily constructed utilizing the entirety of Scripture.  To really do so, we have to extract what resonates as true, and sort of ignore or gloss over the inconvenient texts that don’t fit our theses.  Proof-texting.  I don’t like it.  Neither should you.  And we’re all guilty of it.  To avoid proof-texting to validate our beliefs, we have to go to a different core/foundational source from the Bible.  I would argue, we have to go to a superior source: the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the helper sent from God, through Christ, who is God, who is Christ – each equal and co-existent in the Trinity.  The weakness of this belief, is that we cannot prove the truth or validity of the Spirit’s work in us.  I cannot convince you of what the Spirit has told me.  And if I’m really honest, I can’t entirely convince myself.  There will always be that spec of doubt.  This is where faith is a necessity that carries me beyond certainty.  This sort of ambiguity is terrifying for folks who are used to concrete answers.  And I am ideologically and theologically weak, because I am ill equipped to answer many of the questions and protests from those who see such ambiguity and relativism in themselves as weakness, heresy, immaturity, rebelliousness, or foolishness.

I am weak because I have begun to open my hands from the fists they were clenched in.  Those fists were clenched to certainty and “Evangelical orthodoxy.”  By following what I believe to be the Holy Spirit, I am in danger of simply following my heart.  And my heart may be wrong.  And I understand the risk…

As I said before, I am selfish, impatient, emotionally needy, insecure and quick-to-react.  I am also arrogant and sometimes angry.  When people disagree with me, my first gut-response is anger: “How dare you question my opinions!”  Then it’s insecurity: “What if people think I’m a fool?”  Then it’s insolence: “I’ll SHOW them!”  Then, hopefully, Christ breaks through all of the ego, and I can say: “I am sorry.  I am weak.”

I want to grow.  I want to be more like Jesus Christ.  I’m less interested in thinking correctly.  I want to be.  I want my very instincts to be conformed to the selfless goodness, love, peace and faithfulness of Christ.  I have to start this process by telling you all that I am weak.  If I had a better argument, if I had a quicker wit, if I had a PhD, I might be able to convince you otherwise.  Thank God I cannot.  I am weak.  Adele, I am weak. 

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Peter Walker is an M.Div student at George Fox Seminary & a freelance writer (his day job is finance). He is a contributing writer in several books: Out of the OOZE through NavPress, & Church of the Perfect Storm through Abingdon Press.  He lives in the Portland area with his wife Jen a theological student at GFS.

SEX-CRAZED: America's Christian Subculture

i have my first published piece at The Ooze. Check it out and join the conversation! Here's a teaser:

Why does the Evangelical community seem so preoccupied with pointing out what they perceive to be the sins of others?  Why this commitment to the role of morality police, lambasting everyone with their narrow interpretations of Scripture?  It seems their selective view of holiness is far more important than how we actually treat our fellow human beings.  Maybe if we worked harder on our own lives, focused on how we are treating others, a more holistic holiness could finally exude from our lives.

Sadly, this is my thesis: Evangelicals are nothing less than sex-crazed.

READ THE REST HERE!

The Lezzys

"Beginning in 2006 TLL began to award The TLL Lesbian Blog of the Year Award. TLL has been around since 2004 and we pride ourselves on having over 250 registered authors and over 800 posts that contain the stories of our lives. In 2009 TLL will add more categories and a new and improved nomination and voting system. The new TLL Awards will be renamed The Lezzys."

Please NOMINATE Existential Punk for the Lezzy Awards in the following categories:
1. Culture/Entertainment
2.Feminism/Political
3. Personal
4. Blog of the Year

YOU CAN NOMINATE AND VOTE ONCE PER DAY EVERYDAY UNTIL NOMINATING AND VOTING CLOSES! SO NOMINATE AND VOTE FOR EXISTENTIAL PUNK!

THANK YOU!

2009 Lezzys Time Line

Nominations: Monday February 2nd from 9:00 am EDT through 11:00 pm EDT on the 9th
Voting: Wednesday February 11th 9:00 am EDT through 11:00 pm EDT through the 18th
Winners Announced: Monday February the 23rd at 9:00 am

The Lezzy Rules

• The nominated blogs must be written by a lesbian or contributed to by a lesbian.
• The nominated blogs must be current and new content must be continually published.
• A blog may be nominated, and may win in more than one of the 9 categories.
• Blogs that have won in previous years may win again.
• Vote totals are subject to periodic correction for identified cheating.
• In the event of identified cheating, the decisions of  TLL’s Managing Editor as to the manner of correction is final.
• Everyone will be allowed to make 1 nomination in each of the 9 categories within a revolving 24 hour period. Everyone will be allowed 1 vote per category within a revolving 24 hour period. We will be tracking the nominations and votes via email addresses.
• Using throw-away email services is prohibited. The nominations and voting submissions will be reviewed for these sort of emails.
• TLL’s Managing Editor has the right to disqualify a blog from any category if said blog blatantly does not fit into said category.

How the nominations work: The nomination system will allow you to nominate 1 blog per category. You will be able to nominate your favorite blogs once every 24 hours. You will nominate the blogs of your choice by adding the URL of the blog to the nomination field. Nominations will last from February 2-9 and will be tallied on February 10th. The top 3 nominated blogs will then go on to the final voting round.

How voting works: As with nominations you will be allowed 1 vote per category within a 24 hour period. This is being tracked by email accounts so that more than one person can vote from the same computer/IP address. Voting will go from February 11-18. Votes will be tallied and the winners of all 9 categories will be announced on Monday February 23rd.

(I Can’t stress the following enough. Many nominations are currently not being counted due to lack of email confirmation) IMPORTANT: A confirmation email will be sent to the email address you provided for the nominations and voting form. Please make sure to click the link in the confirmation email to make sure your submissions count. If you do not receive a confirmation email please check your email filters and spam folder. The email will be sent from awards @ thelesbianlifestyle.com

If you have any questions or have any concerns with the nomination or voting system please contact TLL’s Managing Editor

Thoughts On Why I Call Myself A Christ-Follower . . .

HT to Finding Rhythm for posting this eloquent piece that i found to be an offering on why i call myself a Christ-Follower and where i am currently at in my journey. It is from Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish , spoken so beautifully in his book, The Conservative Soul:

“The reason I call myself a Christian is not because I manage to subscribe, at any given moment, to all the truths that the hierarchy of my church insists I believe in; let alone because I am a good person or a “good Catholic.” I call myself a Christian because I believe that, in a way I cannot fully understand, the force behind everything decided to prove itself benign by becoming us, and being with us. And as soon as people grasped what had happened, what was happening, the world changed for ever. The Gospels – all of them, including those that were rejected by the early Church – are mere sketches of a life actually lived, and an experience that can never be reduced to words or texts or doctrines. And the world as it was – as it still is – was unable to tolerate this immense occasion; and so Jesus was executed and the life more in touch with divinity than any other life was ended abruptly, when it was still achingly young. The existence of such a life was both so wondrous that it changed everything; and also so terrifying it had to be snuffed out.

The point of this incarnation was surely not to construct a litany of offenses by which we are to judge our own lives at any moment, to force us to thrash and writhe in a constant ordeal of self-criticism and guilt. The point was merely to be with us; and by being with us, to show us better how to be human, how better to embrace our lives by accepting the divine around us and inside us. By letting go, we become. By giving up, we gain. And we learn how to live – now, which is the only time that matters.”

A Significant Blog Post From 2008

Andrew Tatusko started following me on Twitter. i checked out his blog and enjoyed it. So i began following him on Twitter. He seems to be a really kind and cool guy and we share the same illness, Lyme Disease. So, when i found a post he had written at Queer Messages, my respect grew even more for this great guy! His vulnerability in sharing his journey and how he came to his conclusions make a poignant story. This is beautiful and gives me hope for people, even Rick Warren! i certainly could relate to what he said his sister went through with finding healing and peace! Thanks, Andrew!

"Why I Am Gay Friendly"

I hated gay people.

This was a sentiment often covered up by statements like, “I am being compassionate for their eternal status with God”, or “Hate the sin, love the sinner”, or “God did not create us to have sex with people of the same gender”. I was a harbinger of repentance, of purity, and of chastity for those who had succumbed to the whims of desire, a fallen culture, and the poor misguided choice of the psychologically needy to seek out someone of the same gender to fulfill their dark sexual desire. I had a very clear and indubitable assumption that a “practicing” homosexual could not receive Christ and those who believed they had, were deceiving themselves. After all did not John say, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us”?

But these were statements to absolve me of my own guilt. The truth is that I hated gay people because they were a disease to the world and the the Church. Gay people were pedophiles, sexual addicts, and the source of the AIDS epidemic - something God must have brought upon us to make us aware…of them.

Then my sister came out and everything began to change.

As with many in my position, there was a clear period of mourning. At first it was because my unconditional love for her was in clear conflict with what I believed to be the Truth of the Bible and what God had clearly revealed to humanity regarding our behavior, and how we ought to respond to the act of salvation that Christ performed. Her lifestyle did not fit within my picture, and I had to find a way to resolve the conflict.

It took me a while to reach the point where I could even say that I still loved her, but I did not love her lifestyle and could never affirm it. Homosexuality to me was no better than an addiction. Sure addiction is a disease and no one chooses to be addicted to anything. But a choice has to be made at some point to engage in behaviors that lead to addiction. And addiction comes as a result of a lot of environmental variables that make it more likely. However, it is this very connection between addiction and homosexuality that caused me to doubt my idea of what homosexuality was for me at the time.

You see, my sister was a recovering alcoholic and drug addict. My family is loaded with people who have self-medicated in order to compensate for chemical imbalances and too much stress probably as a result of mild OCD issues and clinical anxiety. I literally watched her walk the path of self-destruction and pain as an addict. What I did not know is that her own struggles with her sexuality were participating in her sense of pain and not helping her situation at all.

Her recovery from addiction was accompanied by her coming out. Learning that these two events were irreducibly related was not easy and was very hard for me to visualize. Her own psychological well-being depended in large part on her reconciliation of her sexuality with her identity. Rather than her coming out being a sign of self-destruction, it was a sign of healing - evidence that she was OK with the world. I could either reject that evidence even though it was obvious and clear, or accept that evidence as valid and change my picture of Truth. The latter would allow me to love my sister unconditionally, the former would constrict my love for her with self-imposed conditions.

I had to reconcile my understanding of unconditional love with the conditions that lead to my sister’s own healing process from years of pain and addiction. So the question slowly moved from How can I love her and hate her sin?, to How can I love her for who she is? And it was this question that forced me to accept and radically change my world-view to see that homosexuality is not a sin, but a gift.

If God truly is love, and if my sister could find love, is not God an active participant in that love too? If my sister could receive Christ, truly and only after coming out, does that not suggest that homosexuality is not an aberration of nature, but as integral to the fabric of our world as heterosexuality? See, the evidence that the love of God can be released in the context of homosexual love, or what I now prefer to call gender-neutral love, forced me to change my ideals just as the clear evidence that evolution is real and the universe is 13.5 billion years in the making forced me to change my ideas of what Genesis really must mean.

After 10 years of struggling with the question, my sister is now entering her candidacy to be a minister of Word and Sacrament in the Episcopal Church. She asked my wife and I to participate in her exchange of vows with her partner as witnesses. My wife and I are the only ones in either family to have been there for that ceremony in Toronto. Her sexuality has been a witness to the redemptive power of God’s love, not the myth of a God who will punish persons who have sexual orientations other than heterosexual.

Not to affirm the presence of God in her relationship, is to deny the very existence of God for if God is love, God is with them and creating them to be better servants of the Kingdom now, that it may become fulfilled in our midst.

__ __ __ About The Author:

Drew Tatusko is an academic administrator and instructor at Mount Aloysius College in Cresson, PA. He has an M.Div. (1999) and a Th.M (2000) from Princeton Theological Seminary. He lives with his wife, two sons, two dogs, two cats, and the occasional foster dog in Duncansville, PA. He graduated from Westminster College (PA) with a B.A. in religion (1996). He is completing his Ph.D. in Higher Education from Seton Hall University and posts frequently to his blog Notes From Off-Center. He is currently an elder at his church, an affiliate with the PC(USA).

"No More, No Less: Stop The Competition"

At the recent LGBTQ blogger summit i attended in D.C. the topic of equating the LGBTQ equality fight with the Civil Rights movement of the African American community came up in a panel discussion on Prop 8. i have been one equating it but started to question myself after an African American person brought up that it really is not similar. So, today i read this thought-provoking article on a blog of a person i met at the summit. He is from North Carolina and has a heart of gold. i think he makes valid points and is balanced in his view of the situation. i personally have experienced homophobia and rejection from people who don't like gays or think i am going to burn in hell. It hurts and cuts deep.

HT and thanks to Matt Comer for his provocative post on African American & LGBTQ competition:

It seems as though, after Prop. 8, there’s been a whole lot of conversation on the intersections between race and sexuality.

I wonder if we’ve learned anything. Or, maybe we’ve all be foaming at the mouth with absolutely zero listening capacity.

In a recent Bilerico post, “No on ‘Gay is Black,’” I wasn’t surprised to see the conversation very quickly turn into a competition of which group has suffered the most. It’s as if civil rights should be doled out on the basis of the pain inflicted rather than on the basis of what is actually right and wrong inside the legal and moral framework of our Constitution and national ideals.

Addressing activist Lane Hudson’s assertion that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be amended to include LGBT people, former Washington Blade editor Chris Crain wrote, “The fact is that the significance of such legislation would be largely symbolic. No one is marching in the street because we’re refused rooms at hotels, service in restaurants and lunch counters or seats at the front of the bus. Has anyone ever seen a “queer-only” water fountain?”

In a late-November post here in response to Crain, I wrote:

There might not be “queers-only” water fountains, and city governments might not be spraying my children down with firehouses, and my ancestors might not have been slaves, but that doesn’t mean the discrimination I face is any less unequal and un-American.

There are straights-only jobs. There are straights-only homes and hotels. There have been attempts to create straights-only counties. There are straights-only schools. There are straights-only youth services. There is a straights-only military, and a straights-only, government-sponsored institution of marriage.

The title of the post was “My suffering no more, no less - just different.”

Since Prop. 8, I would have hoped our community had seen the light: We must, like really, really MUST, reach out to communities of color. And, I’m not just talking about the ones who don’t like us. I’m talking about ALL communities of color, especially those inside our own LGBT community.

In fact, we should be reaching out inside our community before any movement for outreach in straight communities of color. Remember: “If you can’t keep your house clean, you certainly can’t be the one to clean up anybody else’s.”

I don’t like the arguments based on who has suffered most, or who has faced more bigotry. We’ve all faced it, to some extent. Some of us have experienced more and some of us less, but the pain and hurt, along with the real world complications, caused by discrimination and prejudice affect us all equally. You can’t put a measure on human pain and heartbreak.

I’ll admit history holds truly different and unique stories for the African-American and LGBT communities. That’s a fact we all have to face. But, at the same time, I know that while I haven’t been lynched, I’ve experienced more pain than any American should ever have to experience.

I think we have to start realizing that our pain as LGBT people and the past and current experiences of people of color are all tied to the same source.

Charles Merrill stated in the “No on ‘Gay is the New Black’” post:

The oppression of all three groups Jews, African American and LGBT’s stem from the same source, passages in the Old and New Testament of the Bible.

I blame main stream religious denominations for not speaking out against other Christian denominations. Faith is considered “private” and not a topic for dialogue. This is how the extremists gain control.

Even when it is discussed, it is one passage against the other passage. Not a free thinking dialogue pertaining to modern society and scientific findings.

Would history have treated African-Americans any better in the absence of “religious” support for their bondage? I don’t know, but it might have. And I’m more than certain that LGBT kids wouldn’t be killing themselves if radical fundamentalists didn’t demonize them, turning them into walking zombies who think, at ages as young as 11 or 12, that life and love are meaningless and worthless.

Our oppression stems from the same source. Why does it seem we’re fighting among each other for the “We’ve had it worst” trophy, instead of working together to grant equality for all?

If the LGBT community - including our own communities of color - want to succeed in our movement for life, liberty and happiness, we’ll have to start treating each other a whole hell of a lot better. I mean, if we can treat each other like shit, why can’t the fundamentalists, right?

It’s time to stop the competition. There is no trophy to be gained. No one has to be “first in line.” We can work together and accomplish equality for all. Just imagine what kind of coalitions we can build. Just imagine.

Is Controlling Anti-LGBTQ Sentiment One Of Our Primary Jobs?

As a Christian queer woman i often find myself angry and frustrated with the Religious Right and their often vile reactions to the LGBTQ community. i write here often that we must agree to disagree with regard to LGBTQ issues and the Religious Right. The same circular arguments take place with a Stepford Wife-like mantra and no real conversations take place where we really listen to one another. i believe those who are on the fence, who are open to learning about our community or are open-minded enough to say they might be wrong, are those who we can have REAL conversations with. It is with these people, i believe, that we can effect change in mindsets and opinions. We do need to get thicker skins and realize we do not have to have everyone love us. We just want to be treated equal under what the Constitution affords ALL CITIZENS AND HUMAN BEINGS OF THE USA and that INCLUDES EQUALITY!

HT and thanks to Autumn Sandeen at Pam's House Blend for this informative piece:

"When discussing civil rights for LGBT people, I'm more than occasionally found referencing Bayard Rustin's take on what "our job" is as LGBT people and/or civil rights activists:

 "[T]he job of the gay community is not to deal with extremists who would castigate us or put us on an island and drop an H-bomb on us. The fact of the matter is that there is a small percentage of people in America who understand the true nature of the homosexual community. There is another small percentage who will never understand us. Our job is not to get those people who dislike us to love us. Nor was our aim in the civil rights movement to get prejudiced white people to love us. Our aim was to try to create the kind of America, legislatively, morally, and psychologically, such that even though some whites continued to hate us, they could not openly manifest that hate. That's our job today: to control the extent to which people can publicly manifest antigay sentiment."
--Bayard Rustin; From Montgomery to Stonewall (1986)

In other words, for those of us who define ourselves as LGBT people and/or civil rights activists, our job in large part not to change the minds of people such as James Dobson (Focus On The Family), Donald E. Wildmon (American Family Association) or even Peter LaBarbera (Americans For Truth About Homosexuality) regarding LGBT people. It is instead to make sure that those who express anti-LGBT sentiments in public feel a sorrow-for-getting-caught expressing their homophobic and/or transphobic feelings, or an unwanted price for expressing those feelings.

At least, that's how Bayard Rustin seemed to be describing "our job."

The grassroots LGBT Civil Rights movement seems to instictively do just that regarding perceived anti-LGBT sentiments. Look at what happened to Tim Hardaway a couple of years ago, and more recently to the Manhunt Chairman, the non-profit theater director from Sacramento, the L.A. Film Festival director from Los Angeles, and now the recent news of how the manager of the El Coyote restaurant has resigned -- sentiment perceived to be anti-LGBT has been getting harder and harder to publicly express without significant consequence.

This quote seems an interesting quote by an African American and gay civil rights leader on one of the goals of civil rights movements -- I know it's a thought I more than occasionally push into the marketplace of LGBT, civil rights ideas.

So, do you think controlling anti-LGBT sentiment is one of our primary jobs as LGBT people and/or civil rights activists? Do you think that the ways by which it's being done by LGBT people now is what Bayard Rustin had in mind?"