Earlier this year, I decided it might be a fun and enlightening exercise to take some time to visit other churches over the summer. The more I thought about it, I reasoned that I had been to plenty UCC churches in my lifetime, and I’ll have ample opportunity to experience other ones in the future, so this might be an excellent opportunity to search out places I hadn’t experienced before. As I continued to discern what might be the best churches to visit, I realized there was a large segment of Christianity I really had no background in at all: mega-churches. I wondered what made so many people come to these services. I really had no idea, and couldn’t accurately conjecture without any base of knowledge.
Therefore, I resolved to spend (usually) every other week of the summer to visit a mega-church somewhere in the Bay Area, with the off weeks spent at my home church, New Spirit Community Church in Berkeley. However, I didn’t know where to start in picking a mega-church, and that’s when the internet came to my rescue. I found the Database of Mega-churches after a fast Google search, and I was on my way. One can sort by Name, Denomination, State, and Size, and also search individual states. I looked at a number of candidates, and narrowed it down under the following criteria: each church should be in a different geographical sphere of the Greater Bay Area, each church should be a different denomination, and each church should be a large as possible. Through those criteria, I figured I could get a decent cross-section of what it might be like to attend a mega-church in California. Here are my selections, with date of attendance, size, and denomination included:
6 /19
Jubilee Christian Center – 10,000 (Non-Denominational)
105 Nortech Parkway, San Jose, CA
7/10
Greater St. Paul Baptist Church – 5,000 (Baptist)
1827 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Oakland, CA
7/24
Menlo Park Presbyterian Church – 3,200 (Presbyterian Church, USA)
950 Santa Cruz Ave, Menlo Park, CA
7/31
Bayside Church – 9,983 (Evangelical Covenant)
8191 Sierra College Blvd., Roseville, CA
8/14
Calvary Temple – 10,515 (Assemblies of God)
1601 Coffee Rd., Modesto, CA
Each church was different from the last, as all churches are. There was a variety in theology among the churches, none of which I can say I was comfortable with. There was also imagery and language used within each church that I was uncomfortable with. I did not feel that I could attend any of these churches on a regular basis due to these conflicts with my own beliefs. However, I did not attended these churches to discover what I could find wrong about them, but instead to see what they were doing that worked well and could be useful in a progressive church setting. As such, I found a few common themes among the churches that were informative to me about why so many people might attend the churches.
Every church had a similar order of worship. Again, there were always variations dependent on the individual church, but there was not much deviation from a simple service structure: opening music, pastoral prayer, announcements, and offering, more music, message, music, and end. Some churches dwelled on certain areas longer than others as well. Some did more music, some had more message, and some had both. But they all carried the same simple structure of worship.
Every church used technology to enhance the sanctuary and the service. All five churches had at least two screens at the front of the sanctuary, one to either side of the center/stage area. Before church, these screens contained information on upcoming events and other announcements. During church, the screens contained words for all of the music, either taking up the whole screen or running along the bottom of the screen over live video of the congregation and musicians. Also, the screens focused on the pastor during the sermon, flashing any scriptural references made throughout the sermon. Additionally, there was often a video of upcoming events, and a few words from the head pastor if he was away for the week.
Because of these screens, most churches did not have a traditional bulletin, but instead passed out informational pamphlets about the church as people entered the sanctuary. In my opinion, the screens helped to create a better sense of community in the church; people were always looking up instead of looking down when singing, and people could see how the entire congregation or certain individuals were reacting to moments in the service, especially at moments of high emotion and connection.
Every church used music that was powerful: energetic, and emotional. Every church had a band that included at least a drum kit, electric guitar, electric bass, piano/keyboard and vocalist. Others included more instruments and vocalists, some many more. The music was always the start of the service, and generally centered on up-tempo, praise-type music. At times, the music dipped to a slower pace, but would often pick up the tempo again with the next song. Music was used in some places as an emphatic response to the message, but was mostly centered on the beginning of the service. Often, there was recorded music played over the sound system before and after the service as people entered and exited, but all music within the service was performed live by the band and choir.
Every church used the structure of the service to make an emotional connection with the congregation. From the first notes of the opening music to the message to the music to end the service, there was always an effort to make a community in the sanctuary based on an emotional connection with each other and the divine, often emphasized on the divine. Each message was crafted to have uplifting effect on the people of the congregation, and the congregation responded. There were often testimonies from the pastor within the sermon to drive home the point found within the scriptural references of the day. The music at the beginning was used as an emotional introduction to the service, to make initial connections, but the message was the heart of the emotional experience. The message varied in length from church to church, ranging from twenty minutes to over an hour, but was always delivered with an overabundance of energy to complete and enhance the emotional connection to the congregation. People were most expressive during the most intense periods of emotion in the service, whether brought on by the message or the music.
It was hard for me to understand why someone might want to find themselves in a mega-church. The size of the church removes the individuality of a person in church. But I realized that the emotional connection to each other, to the worship leaders, and to the divine were of profound importance, and overrode any thought of an individual lost in a sea of people. Each church also provided community opportunities outside of a worship service through smaller bible studies and congregational groups and events, as well as excellent child care and education from infants to young adults.
So my conclusion was that the draw of the mega-church was the inspirational and emotional experience brought through energetic expression in contemporary music and message delivery. Of all the churches I experienced, I found the most informative and most desirable to be the Bayside Church of Roseville, CA.
While I did not agree with the theology of Bayside Church, I was blown away by the presentation and involvement of the service. They are 100% committed to making the service a very positive experience, best seen in the performance of the music. All music was done by what could easily be called a rock band. They were so experienced and together in their presentation, I could easily see them as a successful opening act for a popular modern alternative rock act. Each song was performed with passion and spirit unmatched in any other church I attended. The message was met with equal passion and spirit, and the congregation responded energetically to both. If I could recommend any of these churches to go to in an effort to understand my church visiting experience this summer that would be the one.
My take away from this project is that there are ways to connect to people that are independent of theology. I think the attendees of these services are looking for a place to find inspiration and acceptance in a modern context, and these churches are very good at providing that. But I also found myself in question moving forward: what would a progressive mega-church look like? In other words, how can I take my experience at Bayside Church and translate it to a church with progressive theology? That’s the next step for projects on the horizon.
This was an amazing experience for me. I learned quite a bit that I’ll be able to reference as I move forward into ministry. I want to thank most especially Riess Potterveld for support on this adventure, as well as Nate Mazur for accompanying me on the last two church visits. Also thanks to support of friends and family as I went on this journey, particularly in events surrounding some of the visits. Finally, I encourage you to all to find your own journey, and experience something opposite of how you think or feel. You might be surprised what you learn!
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Bath time and bananas would never be the same.
I'm sure you've seen the news this week. It's been all over the place, as if we had nothing better to worry about this week. Or maybe we just want to escape whatever roller coaster the stock market is sending us on?
Yes, people are getting up in arms about Bert and Ernie. Sure, quite a few of us grew up singing about our rubber duckies, but I guess we can't just leave it alone. Bert and Ernie are examples for children these days, as they always have been, and it appears we are concerned about what that example might be.
One might think, given my hefty support of same-gender loving marriage, that I would be in full support of the idea of a wedding for Bert and Ernie. But they'd be quite wrong.
It's not that I'm opposed to the idea of them getting married. Sure, if that's who they are, then go for it. But is that who they are? The good folks at Sesame Street keep telling us that Bert and Ernie aren't gay, and are instead best friends and roommates. I don't think they were created as gay characters, and if they weren't then, why are they now?
In an age where we are fighting for a revolution in gender identity, is it fair for us to project our own ideas of who somebody is or isn't onto their lived experience absent their own input? I understand they are puppets (as the folks at Sesame Street are also keen to point out) and subject to whatever character traits and thoughts created for them by human writers, but I know I didn't think about that when I was growing up. I knew of Bert and Ernie as people that are friendly with each other, because that's what they are portrayed as. Anything else added to that is our own projection of what we want to see, for better or for worse.
Should Sesame Street have gay, married characters? Well, I think an example of all forms of love, as well as an example of the different areas of gender identity would be good for an educational program to show, especially for those that might not get it in any other context. But that's a different argument. For us to decide that Bert and Ernie are gay and should be married is no better than us deciding who is gay based on how they dress, the people they hang out with, or how they speak. Same goes for gender identity. It is not for us to project our own desires and perceptions on other people. That's how we end up with stereotyping and discrimination.
So if we want to petition Sesame Street to address gender and sexual orientation topics in an educational and positive way, I'm in. But if we want to petition Sesame Street to address our own ideas of what people (or in this case, puppets) should do without respecting who they are, then I'm out. I'll have fun with Bert and Ernie over bananas and bath time:
Yes, people are getting up in arms about Bert and Ernie. Sure, quite a few of us grew up singing about our rubber duckies, but I guess we can't just leave it alone. Bert and Ernie are examples for children these days, as they always have been, and it appears we are concerned about what that example might be.
One might think, given my hefty support of same-gender loving marriage, that I would be in full support of the idea of a wedding for Bert and Ernie. But they'd be quite wrong.
It's not that I'm opposed to the idea of them getting married. Sure, if that's who they are, then go for it. But is that who they are? The good folks at Sesame Street keep telling us that Bert and Ernie aren't gay, and are instead best friends and roommates. I don't think they were created as gay characters, and if they weren't then, why are they now?
In an age where we are fighting for a revolution in gender identity, is it fair for us to project our own ideas of who somebody is or isn't onto their lived experience absent their own input? I understand they are puppets (as the folks at Sesame Street are also keen to point out) and subject to whatever character traits and thoughts created for them by human writers, but I know I didn't think about that when I was growing up. I knew of Bert and Ernie as people that are friendly with each other, because that's what they are portrayed as. Anything else added to that is our own projection of what we want to see, for better or for worse.
Should Sesame Street have gay, married characters? Well, I think an example of all forms of love, as well as an example of the different areas of gender identity would be good for an educational program to show, especially for those that might not get it in any other context. But that's a different argument. For us to decide that Bert and Ernie are gay and should be married is no better than us deciding who is gay based on how they dress, the people they hang out with, or how they speak. Same goes for gender identity. It is not for us to project our own desires and perceptions on other people. That's how we end up with stereotyping and discrimination.
So if we want to petition Sesame Street to address gender and sexual orientation topics in an educational and positive way, I'm in. But if we want to petition Sesame Street to address our own ideas of what people (or in this case, puppets) should do without respecting who they are, then I'm out. I'll have fun with Bert and Ernie over bananas and bath time:
Monday, July 25, 2011
My Surreal Sunday
It was unexpected. By that, I mean, having never been punched in the face before, I didn't recognize what was happening until after it happened. It was a touch past surreal. Maybe next time I'll know I should duck.
I have no idea how the day ended up this way. The plan: head to Menlo Park Presbyterian Church for morning service, chill out in the area for a bunch of hours, and then head back to the church for the 7 PM young adult service. As part of my day hanging around, I thought a movie would be a good time killer, so I found a big theater, drove over there after the service got out around noon, parked the car, and went looking for some food.
Ah, Redwood City, a fine downtown area indeed, if not a tad on the ritzy side. As I rounded a corner towards the "food court" area next to the theater, I passed a man on the sidewalk that seemed to give me a strange look. So it goes sometimes, I thought, and continued on. About halfway down the street, as I was checking out the many food options, I realized the man that gave me a strange look was following me, and that's when he approached me.
We had a short conversation about what I was doing and what my plans were, and I had a sense that something strange was going on. We walked into the Chipotle together, as I figured burritos were a good choice of food. Plus, it was a public establishment that might discourage any untoward action. Or so I thought. I stood in line, and he asked me if I knew what I wanted. I told him I was still figuring it out, all the while trying to figure out how to separate myself from him, for the hair on the back of my neck grew straighter by the second.
That's when I didn't recognize his fist coming at me. Like so often said, it was in slow motion. Rather than reacting, I stood confused, trying to figure out what he was doing. That was sorted out pretty quickly when he hit me, but I was still confused: why would someone want to hit me, much less someone I don't know?
I backed away with my hands in front of me, ready to try to ward of the next blow that never came. At first the ladies at the counter implored us to take it outside, not wanting violence in their fine eatery. I agreed vociferously, quickly winning them over with my consistent backing and asking for them to call the police. The man was still saying things to me, but I wasn't paying too much attention to that so much as his location and my places of safe harbor. After the ladies at the counter confirmed they were calling the police, the man left and walked down the street in a pretty normal manner.
One punch. That was it. It's hard for me to call one punch an assault, but that's where the police were, so I wasn't going to argue. Since they had him in custody due to some fast and fantastic police work, I was asked if I wanted to press charges. It took me a while to decide. All I could think about was compassion and love, and how it's so hard to love those who hate you, but that doesn't get you off the hook. So I was leaning towards no, but I then I thought some more.
I'd had some time to reflect on what happened as I waited for the police to show up, and I ran everything over in my head. I can't remember the specifics of what he was saying, but the general gist I was picking up was he didn't like me for some reason, and thought what I was doing was wrong. I don't know what that's a reference to, since I had never seen this man before in my life, and we knew nothing of each other. He didn't want my money, and he never said anything about how I might have wronged him. I was clearly targeted by him, so a quick inventory of myself told me he thought I was gay. Either that, or he didn't like my orange shirt? I still wear my rainbow bracelet every day to show my support for the LGBTQ population, and that was the only thing I could think of that might have caught his attention.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it felt to me like a hate crime. In the end, that's why I decided to press charges. If he was disturbed, or high, or I had unknowingly wronged him, I might have let it pass and let go, but there was that nagging feeling in the back of my head that there was something else to it. If he had hit me because I was gay, even if it was only a slim possibility, I couldn't let it pass. How could I look my friends or family in the eye after fighting against things like that for so long, and then when the opportunity came upon me, just letting it slide? How is that justice?
But maybe I'm just projecting an idea to understand these strange events. It's easier to think that someone won't decide today that you're the one to be violent towards. It's easier to think that everyone acts in a rational way, and that one need only show a person the "right" way to change a course of action. It's easier to think that everything has a simple reason behind it, and that if we understand that reason, if in some way it all makes sense to us, then it just gets better. But it's not easy. Even if I can fully convince myself of his possible ugly intentions, I still don't see a way to clearing up the confusion I can't shake. My mind works so hard to try to understand everything I can encounter, and it sure is working overdrive on this one, but I'm no closer to understanding now than I was as it was happening.
I never was angry at the man, and I'm still not. Whatever his reasons were, in the end he needed some kind of help, and perhaps his arrest will point him towards that help. Really, I felt sad for him. I felt sad for all the points in his life that led him to the one of violence with me. I felt sad for how his life may be so different now that he hit me. I felt sad that he didn't even see the wrong in what he had done, with they way in which he casually walked away revealing so much.
The police officer told me I would most likely never see him again, and I suppose I'm fine with that. But part of me wishes I could see him again, perhaps just in passing, just to say that I pray peace finds his life to free him from whatever led him to hit me, and that I forgive him.
I have no idea how the day ended up this way. The plan: head to Menlo Park Presbyterian Church for morning service, chill out in the area for a bunch of hours, and then head back to the church for the 7 PM young adult service. As part of my day hanging around, I thought a movie would be a good time killer, so I found a big theater, drove over there after the service got out around noon, parked the car, and went looking for some food.
Ah, Redwood City, a fine downtown area indeed, if not a tad on the ritzy side. As I rounded a corner towards the "food court" area next to the theater, I passed a man on the sidewalk that seemed to give me a strange look. So it goes sometimes, I thought, and continued on. About halfway down the street, as I was checking out the many food options, I realized the man that gave me a strange look was following me, and that's when he approached me.
We had a short conversation about what I was doing and what my plans were, and I had a sense that something strange was going on. We walked into the Chipotle together, as I figured burritos were a good choice of food. Plus, it was a public establishment that might discourage any untoward action. Or so I thought. I stood in line, and he asked me if I knew what I wanted. I told him I was still figuring it out, all the while trying to figure out how to separate myself from him, for the hair on the back of my neck grew straighter by the second.
That's when I didn't recognize his fist coming at me. Like so often said, it was in slow motion. Rather than reacting, I stood confused, trying to figure out what he was doing. That was sorted out pretty quickly when he hit me, but I was still confused: why would someone want to hit me, much less someone I don't know?
I backed away with my hands in front of me, ready to try to ward of the next blow that never came. At first the ladies at the counter implored us to take it outside, not wanting violence in their fine eatery. I agreed vociferously, quickly winning them over with my consistent backing and asking for them to call the police. The man was still saying things to me, but I wasn't paying too much attention to that so much as his location and my places of safe harbor. After the ladies at the counter confirmed they were calling the police, the man left and walked down the street in a pretty normal manner.
One punch. That was it. It's hard for me to call one punch an assault, but that's where the police were, so I wasn't going to argue. Since they had him in custody due to some fast and fantastic police work, I was asked if I wanted to press charges. It took me a while to decide. All I could think about was compassion and love, and how it's so hard to love those who hate you, but that doesn't get you off the hook. So I was leaning towards no, but I then I thought some more.
I'd had some time to reflect on what happened as I waited for the police to show up, and I ran everything over in my head. I can't remember the specifics of what he was saying, but the general gist I was picking up was he didn't like me for some reason, and thought what I was doing was wrong. I don't know what that's a reference to, since I had never seen this man before in my life, and we knew nothing of each other. He didn't want my money, and he never said anything about how I might have wronged him. I was clearly targeted by him, so a quick inventory of myself told me he thought I was gay. Either that, or he didn't like my orange shirt? I still wear my rainbow bracelet every day to show my support for the LGBTQ population, and that was the only thing I could think of that might have caught his attention.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it felt to me like a hate crime. In the end, that's why I decided to press charges. If he was disturbed, or high, or I had unknowingly wronged him, I might have let it pass and let go, but there was that nagging feeling in the back of my head that there was something else to it. If he had hit me because I was gay, even if it was only a slim possibility, I couldn't let it pass. How could I look my friends or family in the eye after fighting against things like that for so long, and then when the opportunity came upon me, just letting it slide? How is that justice?
But maybe I'm just projecting an idea to understand these strange events. It's easier to think that someone won't decide today that you're the one to be violent towards. It's easier to think that everyone acts in a rational way, and that one need only show a person the "right" way to change a course of action. It's easier to think that everything has a simple reason behind it, and that if we understand that reason, if in some way it all makes sense to us, then it just gets better. But it's not easy. Even if I can fully convince myself of his possible ugly intentions, I still don't see a way to clearing up the confusion I can't shake. My mind works so hard to try to understand everything I can encounter, and it sure is working overdrive on this one, but I'm no closer to understanding now than I was as it was happening.
I never was angry at the man, and I'm still not. Whatever his reasons were, in the end he needed some kind of help, and perhaps his arrest will point him towards that help. Really, I felt sad for him. I felt sad for all the points in his life that led him to the one of violence with me. I felt sad for how his life may be so different now that he hit me. I felt sad that he didn't even see the wrong in what he had done, with they way in which he casually walked away revealing so much.
The police officer told me I would most likely never see him again, and I suppose I'm fine with that. But part of me wishes I could see him again, perhaps just in passing, just to say that I pray peace finds his life to free him from whatever led him to hit me, and that I forgive him.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Mid-Summer
It's nearing the end of July, and I've had a busy three weeks of Introduction to Christian History class. Four hours a day in class, five days a week, plus reading homework and then papers to write. Tomorrow is the final day, and the class had been great. So tomorrow will be a great day of ending as we talk about the last 50 years of Christian history, and then I'll be (mostly) free for the month of August to do a lot of something and a lot of nothing.
Also, the Giants are having a good month. Really, they are having a good year. How do I know this? Well, aside from checking out the Giants games, box scores, and stories, I find myself already checking the standings every day. In mid-July. With well over two months to go on the season. Yowza.
What have I learned? Well, as of tonight, the Giants are a fine four games in first place, tied for the largest division lead at this point. For those counting at home, they have the same number of wins as the Evil Empire (aka the Yankees) while scoring 125 fewer runs. Who needs high-priced free agents? Or the ability to score runs? Only the Phillies have allowed fewer runs than the Giants, which should make for an interesting series come October, should both get that far.
It's the same Giants as last year, but worse. Somehow, they find a way to win those one run games (at 26-13), and that's all it takes. A win by one run counts the same as a win by twenty.
If the Giants make it to the playoffs again, I'll be happy. If they make it to the World Series again, I'll got nuts. And if they win again? Well, I wasn't sure how I'd react to the first one last year, so I have no idea how I'd take two in a row. Of course, if they fall flat and miss the playoffs, I'll be sad, but then I can remember the glory of last October, for I'm sure I'll be feeling that one for a while.
But, seriously, it's too early for watching the standings every day. So much can happen in two and a half months. Just look where the Giants were last year at this time. You never know who will come from behind to make a run at it. You never know what Cinderella will fall apart (Pirates? Indians? Diamondbacks?). So what's the use with all this scoreboard watching with so much time left.
Now, do as I say, not as I do.
Also, the Giants are having a good month. Really, they are having a good year. How do I know this? Well, aside from checking out the Giants games, box scores, and stories, I find myself already checking the standings every day. In mid-July. With well over two months to go on the season. Yowza.
What have I learned? Well, as of tonight, the Giants are a fine four games in first place, tied for the largest division lead at this point. For those counting at home, they have the same number of wins as the Evil Empire (aka the Yankees) while scoring 125 fewer runs. Who needs high-priced free agents? Or the ability to score runs? Only the Phillies have allowed fewer runs than the Giants, which should make for an interesting series come October, should both get that far.
It's the same Giants as last year, but worse. Somehow, they find a way to win those one run games (at 26-13), and that's all it takes. A win by one run counts the same as a win by twenty.
If the Giants make it to the playoffs again, I'll be happy. If they make it to the World Series again, I'll got nuts. And if they win again? Well, I wasn't sure how I'd react to the first one last year, so I have no idea how I'd take two in a row. Of course, if they fall flat and miss the playoffs, I'll be sad, but then I can remember the glory of last October, for I'm sure I'll be feeling that one for a while.
But, seriously, it's too early for watching the standings every day. So much can happen in two and a half months. Just look where the Giants were last year at this time. You never know who will come from behind to make a run at it. You never know what Cinderella will fall apart (Pirates? Indians? Diamondbacks?). So what's the use with all this scoreboard watching with so much time left.
Now, do as I say, not as I do.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Who casts the first stone?
Checking out links on Facebook today led me to this story about the "The Marriage Vow" and the willingness of Republican Presidential candidates to sign it. Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum have already signed on, and others may be on the way shortly. If you'd like to take a look, read below.
The Marriage Vow
My quick summery after a read-through: the candidate pledges to "protect" marriage through various actions and legislation if elected to office. As I am generally a liberal fellow, you are probably not surprised in my lack of support for this document.
In wandering though the experience of reading this, I was struck by two things. First, the liberal reaction is mostly vitriol. Is the left really surprised by this? Here we see on paper exactly what a number of candidates have been talking about throughout their campaigns. The reaction to this on the right, I presume, is one of affirmation. These are, after all, Republican candidates looking for ways to distinguish themselves in a race full of a lot of look-a-likes. Telling their base in no uncertain terms exactly what they want to hear when it comes to social issues, so, no, I am not surprised by the news of the Vow, or that candidates are signing it, because that's what the Republican base wants.
And that leads me to my second thought, which I find much more important. If we describe ourselves as progressive, how are we to have a conversation with those that oppose us by starting the conversation with insults and belittling. I see progressives so quick to claim the high ground on so many issues with a reinvention of moral superiority the marginalized have sought so long to eliminate. Doesn't it seem the least bit hypocritical and pretentious to tell other people they need to stop bullying and name calling and finish by calling them stupid for not getting it?
Oh, I'm could talk about the problems I have with this vow and those candidates that support it, and I could for quite some time, but that's beyond the point. We can disagree with each other on how we view the world and how we implement policy. But if we truly believe that our vision for the country is better than some other vision, we cannot start down that road by stepping backwards into pettiness and thuggery. After all, that's what it is to call someone stupid.
I was reminded in class this week that, despite a many and varied differences, we are all human. It is important to remember that we all deserve compassion. We come from different social locations, political systems, and spiritual beliefs, but we must remember that we must be compassionate for every human, not matter how badly we disagree with them. Everyone had their bias on how they view the world, but if we add compassion to that bias, we can start a conversation about moving forward without moving backward.
The Marriage Vow
My quick summery after a read-through: the candidate pledges to "protect" marriage through various actions and legislation if elected to office. As I am generally a liberal fellow, you are probably not surprised in my lack of support for this document.
In wandering though the experience of reading this, I was struck by two things. First, the liberal reaction is mostly vitriol. Is the left really surprised by this? Here we see on paper exactly what a number of candidates have been talking about throughout their campaigns. The reaction to this on the right, I presume, is one of affirmation. These are, after all, Republican candidates looking for ways to distinguish themselves in a race full of a lot of look-a-likes. Telling their base in no uncertain terms exactly what they want to hear when it comes to social issues, so, no, I am not surprised by the news of the Vow, or that candidates are signing it, because that's what the Republican base wants.
And that leads me to my second thought, which I find much more important. If we describe ourselves as progressive, how are we to have a conversation with those that oppose us by starting the conversation with insults and belittling. I see progressives so quick to claim the high ground on so many issues with a reinvention of moral superiority the marginalized have sought so long to eliminate. Doesn't it seem the least bit hypocritical and pretentious to tell other people they need to stop bullying and name calling and finish by calling them stupid for not getting it?
Oh, I'm could talk about the problems I have with this vow and those candidates that support it, and I could for quite some time, but that's beyond the point. We can disagree with each other on how we view the world and how we implement policy. But if we truly believe that our vision for the country is better than some other vision, we cannot start down that road by stepping backwards into pettiness and thuggery. After all, that's what it is to call someone stupid.
I was reminded in class this week that, despite a many and varied differences, we are all human. It is important to remember that we all deserve compassion. We come from different social locations, political systems, and spiritual beliefs, but we must remember that we must be compassionate for every human, not matter how badly we disagree with them. Everyone had their bias on how they view the world, but if we add compassion to that bias, we can start a conversation about moving forward without moving backward.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Thoughts on New York
This beginning of this story is written elsewhere on this blog, but here's the quick summary: just over eleven years ago, I sat in my government class as a senior in high school fighting back tears as I explained why I was so upset a ban of gay marriage had passed in California. It was such a moment of despair for me, and I felt so alone in that classroom, as if every one of my classmates were against me.
I have to remind myself constantly these days that laws like this were passed even though same-sex marriage was already unavailable. Maryland passed the first law banning same-sex marriage in 1973, but by 1990, 40 of the 50 states had a law against it. And, of course, in 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act outlawing federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Then Hawaii courts declared a law prohibiting same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional according to the state constitution. The reaction came quickly in Hawaii and then spread around the country: amend the state constitution to get around the possible unconstitutionality of these laws. Amendments like these have spread like wildfire, a wave sweeping the nation. Every time a measure like this had come for a vote in front of the people, it has passed.
In 2000, there was no state in which same-sex marriage was legal. In only Vermont was there even a place in which the same rights as marriage were given same-sex couples through the invention of civil unions.
And yet, there was hope. Well, at least to me, there was hope. While other nations were starting to make headway towards legalized same-sex marriage, Vermont was really that clue for me, that kernel of hope that something could come along. To borrow from my friend, Howie, that was the whisper that started the wave.
In 2004, the city of San Francisco started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Other cities followed suit, and though those marriages were all eventually nullified, the voices were growing. Just a few months later, Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage.
With last weeks amazing effort by the government of New York, there are now six states in which same-sex marriage is legal. Another eight states allow rights equal to marriage to same-sex couples. Do the math, that's thirty six states in which same-sex marriage is not legal. With the passing of Proposition 8 in 2008, California is one of those states in which marriage is not legal (though it was for a time) even though civil unions with equal rights exist. I had friends that day that found the despair I had felt in my classroom so many years ago, and couldn't see how the future contained a place in which same-sex marriage existed.
Some might look at 36 states in which there are no equal rights, or question why eight states can't bring themselves to call a horse a horse and jump to legalized same-sex marriage. But I realized so many years ago, after my experience in high school and again in college as a freshman in Nebraska, that there are outcomes that come against you. There are people who want to keep you in your place and keep that status quo. There are events that conspire to to convince you to give up. It's so hard, but you have to ignore it all and keep focused on that shining light of victory.
Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on.
That is, in sum, what I told my friends then, and what I still say today. Thirty-six states outlawing same-sex marriage got you down? Need I remind you ten years ago, there were no states in which this was legal? Need I remind you of the advance of anti-discrimination laws in the last ten years, or the parents that have adopted because of the changes in laws? No, I'm not in despair of the states that still outlaw same-sex marriage. I am overjoyed that New York has joined the other five states, and I'm ready to celebrate number seven, whenever that comes. Because it will come.
Same-sex marriage may not be the be-all, end-all of equal rights for the LGBT community, but it's another step. Things like this take time, no matter what it is. So rejoice in this step, and then take another. And then another. And when that fight is done, move to the next one, until we are all equal in the eyes of the government, and, more importantly, in the eyes of each other.
I have to remind myself constantly these days that laws like this were passed even though same-sex marriage was already unavailable. Maryland passed the first law banning same-sex marriage in 1973, but by 1990, 40 of the 50 states had a law against it. And, of course, in 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act outlawing federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Then Hawaii courts declared a law prohibiting same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional according to the state constitution. The reaction came quickly in Hawaii and then spread around the country: amend the state constitution to get around the possible unconstitutionality of these laws. Amendments like these have spread like wildfire, a wave sweeping the nation. Every time a measure like this had come for a vote in front of the people, it has passed.
In 2000, there was no state in which same-sex marriage was legal. In only Vermont was there even a place in which the same rights as marriage were given same-sex couples through the invention of civil unions.
And yet, there was hope. Well, at least to me, there was hope. While other nations were starting to make headway towards legalized same-sex marriage, Vermont was really that clue for me, that kernel of hope that something could come along. To borrow from my friend, Howie, that was the whisper that started the wave.
In 2004, the city of San Francisco started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Other cities followed suit, and though those marriages were all eventually nullified, the voices were growing. Just a few months later, Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage.
With last weeks amazing effort by the government of New York, there are now six states in which same-sex marriage is legal. Another eight states allow rights equal to marriage to same-sex couples. Do the math, that's thirty six states in which same-sex marriage is not legal. With the passing of Proposition 8 in 2008, California is one of those states in which marriage is not legal (though it was for a time) even though civil unions with equal rights exist. I had friends that day that found the despair I had felt in my classroom so many years ago, and couldn't see how the future contained a place in which same-sex marriage existed.
Some might look at 36 states in which there are no equal rights, or question why eight states can't bring themselves to call a horse a horse and jump to legalized same-sex marriage. But I realized so many years ago, after my experience in high school and again in college as a freshman in Nebraska, that there are outcomes that come against you. There are people who want to keep you in your place and keep that status quo. There are events that conspire to to convince you to give up. It's so hard, but you have to ignore it all and keep focused on that shining light of victory.
Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on.
That is, in sum, what I told my friends then, and what I still say today. Thirty-six states outlawing same-sex marriage got you down? Need I remind you ten years ago, there were no states in which this was legal? Need I remind you of the advance of anti-discrimination laws in the last ten years, or the parents that have adopted because of the changes in laws? No, I'm not in despair of the states that still outlaw same-sex marriage. I am overjoyed that New York has joined the other five states, and I'm ready to celebrate number seven, whenever that comes. Because it will come.
Same-sex marriage may not be the be-all, end-all of equal rights for the LGBT community, but it's another step. Things like this take time, no matter what it is. So rejoice in this step, and then take another. And then another. And when that fight is done, move to the next one, until we are all equal in the eyes of the government, and, more importantly, in the eyes of each other.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Have you been following this story?
A college football player, returning to campus following the death of a friend, was pulled off a US Airways flight last week for not complying with the orders of flight attendants and the captain of the plane to pull up his pants that were sagging low enough to expose his underwear. When I first read it, I thought it was a little bit of a strange story. Are we really making big deals about what people are wearing on airplanes, in San Francisco no less? I understand folks get nervous about security on flights these days, but doesn't it seem a little over the top?
Almost immediately there was a question on the motive of his removal from the flight. Were they attempting to remove him from the flight because they thought he was dressed inappropriately? Were they attempting to remove him from the flight because they thought he was a security risk based on his reaction? Or were they attempting to remove him from the flight because they stereotyped him in the first place, letting his appearance tell a story that didn't match to what was going on.
But then the story deepens with a video posting of the interaction on the plane. From the video, it's pretty clear that he is not doing anything that warrants concern beyond wanting to just get home. According to the witnesses he had already complied with the request of the airline employees, albeit delayed from the timing desired by the airline. So the police arrested him for, among other things, refusing to comply with the orders of the captain and resisting arrest. Given the video, it seems a little odd. I'm having trouble understanding why it had to get taken to the level it was. Unless, of course, you consider that racial stereotypes played a role in the matter.
And then we arrive at today, where there is a report that a man exposing more of his body (in only women's undergarments, as the picture shows) travelling on a plane, where the airline employees ignored the complaints of the customers. From the story: "A white man is allowed to fly in underwear without question, but my client was asked to pull up his pajama pants because they hung below his waist."
The airline can hide behind the company line of "he should have followed the directions of the flight crew." I think there's a certain amount of that in this, but that's not the whole truth. Not by any stretch of the imagination. While the racial motive question was brought up quickly, the evidence is building more and more and more.
This is how trust is broken. This is how peace falls apart. This is how everything that has been gain disappears in just an instance. We can say this is an isolated incident, or that we wouldn't do the same in a similar situation, or that we shouldn't let one (or a few) bad apples ruin it for the rest of us. But none of that does justice to Deshon Marman, or his family, or his friend that passed so tragically a month ago. How easily could this have turned into another situation like the tragedy in the loss of Oscar Grant, a story once again rehashed in the news even as this incident on the plane was happening?
It is incumbent upon all of us to ensure these things don't happen. It is incumbent upon all of us to stand up and say when we see injustice. It is incumbent upon all of us to recognize that this situation could happen in front of us any day, at any time, and speak the truth in those situations. Without everyone recognizing as an individual the role we each play in creating justice in the world, there is still work to do.
Almost immediately there was a question on the motive of his removal from the flight. Were they attempting to remove him from the flight because they thought he was dressed inappropriately? Were they attempting to remove him from the flight because they thought he was a security risk based on his reaction? Or were they attempting to remove him from the flight because they stereotyped him in the first place, letting his appearance tell a story that didn't match to what was going on.
But then the story deepens with a video posting of the interaction on the plane. From the video, it's pretty clear that he is not doing anything that warrants concern beyond wanting to just get home. According to the witnesses he had already complied with the request of the airline employees, albeit delayed from the timing desired by the airline. So the police arrested him for, among other things, refusing to comply with the orders of the captain and resisting arrest. Given the video, it seems a little odd. I'm having trouble understanding why it had to get taken to the level it was. Unless, of course, you consider that racial stereotypes played a role in the matter.
And then we arrive at today, where there is a report that a man exposing more of his body (in only women's undergarments, as the picture shows) travelling on a plane, where the airline employees ignored the complaints of the customers. From the story: "A white man is allowed to fly in underwear without question, but my client was asked to pull up his pajama pants because they hung below his waist."
The airline can hide behind the company line of "he should have followed the directions of the flight crew." I think there's a certain amount of that in this, but that's not the whole truth. Not by any stretch of the imagination. While the racial motive question was brought up quickly, the evidence is building more and more and more.
This is how trust is broken. This is how peace falls apart. This is how everything that has been gain disappears in just an instance. We can say this is an isolated incident, or that we wouldn't do the same in a similar situation, or that we shouldn't let one (or a few) bad apples ruin it for the rest of us. But none of that does justice to Deshon Marman, or his family, or his friend that passed so tragically a month ago. How easily could this have turned into another situation like the tragedy in the loss of Oscar Grant, a story once again rehashed in the news even as this incident on the plane was happening?
It is incumbent upon all of us to ensure these things don't happen. It is incumbent upon all of us to stand up and say when we see injustice. It is incumbent upon all of us to recognize that this situation could happen in front of us any day, at any time, and speak the truth in those situations. Without everyone recognizing as an individual the role we each play in creating justice in the world, there is still work to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)