Jesus the Socialist

"Jesus was a socialist". I have seen this meme and heard this argument many times. At one time, I would have agreed. How could he not be? He lambasted the rich, called on his followers give up their earthly wealth, and was a poor man himself. Cloaked in the finest fabrics he was not. At a superficial glance, it seems clear he was indeed a socialist. Many Christians agree--enough that they founded their own Christian Socialist movement called "The Christan Left". But are they right?

Yes. And no. Jesus definitely had a heart for the poor and downtrodden. He was not a fan of taking advantage of people, and saved a lot of his harshest criticism for both the social elite and the wealthy. His followers lived in community and shared everything. They were the embodiment of the total community of Christ--both in spirit and in the world. They did that because that is how Christ instructed us to live. It was a way to support each other fully, and to be different from the world around them. They shunned the world, so to speak, in order to be closer to Christ. We have a modern day example of this--the Amish.

Sounds clear enough, and Socialism appears to be the solution.  But the similarities between Christian community and Socialism are just that--similarities. Socialism is compulsory sharing at the State's whims. Christian community, in any form (intentional communities like the Amish, or simply being a good neighbor that volunteers at a soup kitchen or animal shelter) is done at God's urging upon our hearts. It is done because we love God and serve him. He blessed us, so we bless those around us. When we share and give our time according to spiritual leadings, the spirit of giving is genuine and in love. When we give because the State took from us and gave to a cause we might not agree with, it breeds contempt.

It's only when I truly contemplated the implications of personally living generously that I realized his commandments were meant for his followers, not the State.

Heartbreak--and hope--for a barista...

I went to my favorite indy coffee shop today,  for like the hundredth time this week. Instead of chatting up the owner,  as I frequently do, I got into a conversation with the barista. What I gleaned was eye opening,  both in a sad and hopeful way.
Barista guy is 26. He is intelligent,  thoughtful,  and open to other's ideas. He is also frustrated and has very little hope that he'll have the things so many of us have: a home of his own, enough income to be able to do more than just pay the bills, and other "luxuries".
Here's some of the fascinating things he told me:
He is a college grad earning more than the minimum wage, but can't move out of his parent's house. At 26 (so young, but old enough to be worried about what's ahead), he thinks he'll never make enough to buy his own home--by 35, which is the number he tossed out.  I disagree, and told him so. I pointed out that a lot can--and probably will--happen between 26 and 35.
When I was 26, I was going back to college, making very little money.  How little money? So little that I easily got several need-based grants for college, was getting money and groceries donated to me by my loving,  generous friends at church, and in order to get the cheapest cell phone in existence,  I had to have a friend co-sign in case I failed to pay my bill.
Barista guy told me that he couldn't believe the stuff rich people, such as Elon Musk, do with money. Like Musk launching a car into space. He saw no value--and rightly so, I think--in investing in such a useless project.  We have problems on earth that need solving.  And I think that that sentiment is probably at the heart of what millennials are angry about.  The 'adults' are throwing money at dumb projects that serve no one, when instead we could be trying to help people and places right around us. Now, I am older and less critical of such projects,  but I am open minded enough to know that what he says is important to his generation,  and we should consider that.  He has a big heart, and in addition to his own fears about his future,  he is concerned about what will happen to others.
Politically,  he feels at home with libertarians and anarchists,  but would have voted for Trump if he'd voted. Before you laugh and judge his seemingly inconsistent views, remember,  this is someone who wants to see people succeed,  but also wants them to know how to take care of themselves.  When I was 26, I was a liberal who worried about others,  but also didn't want to be stuck in a job I hated, living in a crappy apartment and driving an old, beaten up car. My political views weren't always consistent.  And at 40, they are quite different than they were at 26. And at 35, for that matter.
Barista guy makes me sad because, at 26, he lacks optimism about his future. I never lost hope about how my life would be, and remain optimistic to this day. I still have things I want to do and accomplish,  milestones I want to achieve. I always expect that things will get even better as time goes on. I wish this optimism for my new friend,  and all millennials. They are still so young, and have so much ahead. It's too soon to give up. Their lives haven't even really begun yet.
Barista guy gives me hope because he and his cohorts care about others, and about the planet. They see the idiocy in launching a car into space,  when instead,  jobs could have been created.  Houses for the homeless could have been built.  The cure for cancer could have been found.  To be sure, he wasn't saying that Musk shouldn't have been allowed to do that,  but rather,  that we shouldn't be so impressed at such reckless squandering of money.
I think Barista guy is gonna make it. He doesn't know it yet, but life will get better. He'll buy a house, and he'll succeed. And I think he'll use his resources to help others, and our community will be stronger because of him and people like him. And his political views will change and become clearer,  and one day, he might roll up to get coffee while working his dream job,  and talk to a 26 year old who is worth listening to.

Cakes and dogs

I still can't believe that someone sued a bakery over not making a cake for them. When I was planning my wedding,  I asked each business I needed to hire if they were ok with doing a gay wedding--from the venue to the DJ. I had no agenda.  I just wanted to hire a business that wanted to work with me. I would never dream of suing someone for not being comfortable doing business with me or my wife. There are plenty of companies that want my money.
These activists were looking for a case. That's all there is to it.
And before folks get on a tangent about the problems with legal discrimination,  just remember that your beliefs can be challenged at any time. I own a small business and refuse to do business with people who don't spay or neuter their animals.  I suppose someone could get a bee in their bonnet and sue me for discrimination.  Justice Kagan asked the baker why, if he couldn't make cakes for gay weddings,  didn't he just stop making wedding cakes altogether. I could see a short sighted activist judge asking me why, if I can't sit for unaltered pets, I don't just stop sitting altogether.  Well,  for the same reason that baker doesn't want to stop making wedding cakes. It's the way I make a living.  It's what I am good at and passionate about.
I hope that little bakery wins their case. I wouldn't do business with them (I have my beliefs too), but I don't want them to fail because of their beliefs.

Does Pride in One's Heritage Even Make Sense?

Any honest discussion about pride probably should contain the definition of the word. According to Google, pride is

A feeling or deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one's own achievements, the achievements of those with whom one is closely associated, or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired.

So, based on that definition,  does it really make sense to be proud of your skin color or ethnic heritage? What about sexual orientation? If pride results from one's accomplishments,  then no. Your skin color, ethnic background,  and sexual orientation are a result of the biological lottery. You, dear reader, had nothing to do with that. Neither did I.

Now, I get the whole premise of pride. I am gay. And like any member of a so-called marginalized group,  I understand that pride was born out of the deep shame and other trauma inflicted on folks like me. But, I think the notion of pride is flawed. A better concept would be to celebrate. As in, I celebrate the struggles and accomplishments of the gay community.  I celebrate the people,  art, even stereotypes of gay people.  I have a sense of humor and absolutely laugh at ongoing jokes about gay people: that gay men have a great sense of style, or that lesbians like cats (in my case, that's true).

I also celebrate my southern heritage.  I love the south,  some of the traditions and tendencies,  the food, the landscape. I love southern literature.  I love southern TV shows,  even  (perhaps especially) the ones that parody our stereotypes.  I take the good and leave behind the bad. That's called progress. 

But am I ever proud? Not really. I am proud of particular accomplishments,  but in general,  I celebrate my culture and heritage.  And there's nothing wrong with that. Everyone should be given the freedom to celebrate who they are. To celebrate their history,  and to celebrate where they are going. To do those things without opposition or even guilt.  

So what happened in Charlottesville yesterday came as no surprise to me. To be sure, I am not a supremacist of any kind. I won't claim to know the hearts of individuals on either side. But I see a trend that is dangerous: everyone is encouraged to engage in self pride (again, I think that's a mistake), self love, and pride in one's ethnic heritage.  All groups except one. And consistently denying that group the freedom to celebrate who they are and where they came from, even denying them the opportunity to take the good and leave the bad from their cultural past, creates a dangerous situation.  It causes them to fear and even to hate, and that is dangerous for them, and even more so for the rest of us. 

A misguided "guide" for women

We often talk about the impossible demands that are put upon women. Demands from the world that expect women to be thin, pretty, always young. The list goes on and on.
But today I discovered the impossible expectations put upon women of the church. Well, maybe not all churches (certainly not mine), but a segment nonetheless. I listen to a Christian radio station on occasion. It is mostly "talk format" with a lot of sermons and recorded workshops. Today's sermon was for women, given by a woman that I suspect has never looked at how hard it is to raise a family in today's world.
She had lots of advice for how to keep a Godly home. Emphasis was put on cleaning and cooking creative meals that husbands and kids will eat. I thought about how much I love to cook, but never have enough time after working a long day. Day after day...
She talked about how a woman has no need to work outside the home; her job is to keep her family happy. I wondered if this speaker had ever met a woman that was either divorced or widowed in mid-life with absolutely no job skills and thus no way to support herself.
The speaker talked about wearing clothes that were fashionable and interesting so that "your husband will be proud to show you off". I thought of the busy moms I know who have too little time and money to bother with fashion for themselves.
An emphasis was placed on a woman's responsibility to raise well-adjusted, happy children. I thought about my own mom who had me--a child that battled depression for years. No amount of creative cooking could fix my depression. It's a medical condition and must be treated as such.
A clean home. A woman with no desire--and no financial need--to work outside the home. A mom who is always making great food, and a wife who is there to support and inspire her husband. A woman that looks great, too. Kids with no issues that are perfectly well adjusted.
Wow. And I thought the entertainment industry was tough on women...

Hamilton

Lin-Manuel Miranda's Hamilton is the latest musical rage. I have heard about it--including the uproar over the recent proposal to replace Hamilton's image on the $10 bill with that of a female one (ironic, given that the recent interest in Alexander Hamilton is due to a play that deliberately depicts him incorrectly). As you can guess, I am about to pick a gargantuan bone with Hamilton. But, before I do, I want to give praise where it is due. It takes a lot to get kids excited about history, and probably even more to get them to watch a musical. The play absolutely does both.

But Hamilton is not without some glaring problems. The most obvious is the cast. Miranda explains that the cast--which audition announcements made clear that only non-white actors were wanted--reflects what America looks like today. That is OK, except that America today includes white folks. I understand wanting to have a play that reflects our country's diversity. Miranda points out that he wants non-whites to feel included. But should inclusion of non-white actors come at the total exclusion of white actors? Isn't exclusion what we have been trying to get away from? This hardly seems like the right approach. Instead, the roles should have been open to all who wished to audition, and then the best actors chosen. You might say I am missing the point--that really, Hamilton is about revisioning history in a more inclusive context. That it's an opportunity for non-white folks to see themselves on stage. Well, I get that. I am gay. I haven't seen too many historical characters--real or imagined--that looked or loved the way I do. But I am OK with that. I understand that our past isn't how I might have chosen it to be. It's simply our past. I must learn from the past and allow it to inform my present and future. Hamilton also has the misfortune of being presented as history. Casting issues aside, it is not an accurate depiction of Hamilton's life. There are creative liberties taken. To tout it as an historical drama is misleading at best.

Kids should learn about and get excited over our history. But is our history so awful that we have to dress it up with creative liberties and deliberately leave out the race of the historical people being portrayed? Wouldn't it be better to be honest? To admit that women and non-whites were left out of a lot of our early history? Of course, they were there, but not Hamilton there. And that's OK, because we now see the error of that, and we've come a long damn way in opening all kinds of opportunities to all Americans. To deny that we have come so far is to deny history itself.

Playing Trump's card

 Once again, Trump was the topic of discussion on NPR. In particular, it was his campaign  slogan,  Make America Great Again, that "black and brown people" find offensive (I am so tired of NPR's obsession with all things race-related). They claim it harkens back to a time when America was [perceived as] great because it was mostly white; that "great again" is a dog whistle for racist whites.

Whether or not his slogan is a dog whistle is a matter of perception.  For example,  I love the Sonic commercials that feature two guys in a car enjoying the array of products available there.  As a gay person,  I see a funny gay couple frequenting their favorite establishment.  A straight person likely sees two buddies, perhaps escaping the demands of a wife, kids,  and household chores, out shooting the breeze at their favorite establishment.  See? Same commercial, different understanding based on what we perceive. 

Is the slogan "Make America Great Again" a racist dog whistle? Well,  yes, if you're a white supremacist.  But for others--I would argue a majority of others--it's not a dog whistle.  Instead, it's about job opportunity  (real opportunity,  not minimum wage jobs with a higher minimum wage), safer communities  (ones where police are allowed to do their jobs effectively and safely,  and where people can legally have a firearm to protect themselves), where all of us have a chance to live a peaceful and comfortable life if we choose to do that (because no matter how hard we try,  or how many government benefits we allot,  some people will choose to forgo such things), and a country that is a real player in world affairs. It's about what many perceive as eight years of community unraveling--race relations are worse than they have been in decades, crime is increasing, and everywhere we look, we see violence.  Cities are broke, we still have a substantial number of people addicted to drugs, and thousands of veterans and civilians are homeless.  

When you look at things from that perspective,  it's easy to see that "Make America Great Again" isn't a call for going back to a time when straight, white people held a majority.  Rather,  it's a desire to see our country as she can be if better decisions are made.