It isn’t timidity. It’s a complete reconstruction of what is acceptable rhetoric, and it makes gentler more collegial conversation and work impossible.
Whether itβs bloodshed at Glastonbury or starving people on benefits, their βirony poisoningβ seeps obscene ideas into the range of the possible
Illustration: Nate Kitch/The Guardian
Imagine the furore if a Guardian columnist suggested bombing, say, the Conservative party conference and the Tory stronghold of Arundel in Sussex. It would dominate public discussion for weeks. Despite protesting they were βonly jokingβ, that person would never work in journalism again. Their editor would certainly be sacked. The police would probably come knocking. But when the Spectator columnist Rod Liddle speculates about bombing Glastonbury festival and Brighton, complaints are met with, βCalm down dear, canβt you take a joke?β The journalist keeps his job, as does his editor, the former justice secretary Michael Gove. Thereβs one rule for the left and another for the right.
The same applies to the recent comments on GB News by its regular guest Lewis Schaffer. He proposed that, to reduce the number of disabled people claiming benefits, he would βjust starve them. I mean, thatβs what people have to do, thatβs what youβve got to do to people, you just canβt give people money β¦ What else can you do? Shoot them? I mean, I suggest that, but I think thatβs maybe a bit strong.β The presenter, Patrick Christys replied, βYeah, itβs just not allowed these days.β
You could call these jokes, if you think killing people is funny. Or you could call them thought experiments. Liddle suggested as much in his column: βI am merely hypothesising, in a slightly wistful kinda way.β This βhumourβ permits obscene ideas to seep into the range of the possible.
Academic researchers see the use of jokesΒ to break taboosΒ and reduce the thresholds of hate speech as a form of βstrategic mainstreamingβ. Far-right influencers use humour, irony and memes to inject ideas into public life that would otherwise be unacceptable. In doing so, they desensitise their audience and normalise extremism. AΒ study of German Telegram channelsΒ found that far-right content presented seriously achieved limited reach, as did non-political humour. But when far-right extremism was presented humorously, it took off. (snip-MORE)
Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island gives 300th climate speech on the US Senate floor
Sheldon Whitehouse at a Senate confirmation hearing on 6 February 2025.Β Photograph: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images
The Democratic party and the climate movement have been βtoo cautious and politeβ and should instead be denouncing the fossil fuel industryβs βhuge denial operationβ, the US senator Sheldon Whitehouse said.
βThe fossil fuel industry has run the biggest and most malevolent propaganda operation the country has ever seen,β the Rhode Island Democrat said in an interview Monday with the global media collaboration Covering Climate Now. βIt is defending a $700-plus billion [annual] subsidyβ of not being charged for the health and environmental damages caused by burning fossil fuels. βI think the more people understand that, the more theyβll be irate [that] theyβve been lied to.β But, he added, βDemocrats have not done a good job of calling that out.β
Whitehouse is among the most outspoken climate champions on Capitol Hill, and on Wednesday evening, he delivered his 300th Time to Wake Up climate speech on the floor of the Senate.
He began giving these speeches in 2012, when Barack Obama was in his first term, and has consistently criticized both political parties for their lackluster response to the climate emergency. The Obama White House, he complained, for years would not even βuse the word βclimateβ and βchangeβ in the same paragraphβ.
While Whitehouse slams his fellow Democrats for timidity, he blastsΒ RepublicansΒ for being in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry, an entity whose behavior βhas been downright evilβ, he said. βTo deliberately ignore [the laws of physics] for short-term profits that set up people for huge, really bad impacts β if thatβs not a good definition of evil, I donβt know what is.β (snip-MORE)
that according to my email from WordPress on 7/10/24, I was added as an author on Scottie’s Playtime. My mission, as I understood it, is to post some posts often to keep the blog lively while Scottie recuperated from a thing, to keep track of and acknowledge/reply to comments, to thank other bloggers who link to us, and to make sure that readers who feel marginalized know we see them and want to see them here at Playtime. Scottie has the blog mission statement linked up above. I hope I’ve been doing that, and I’m so complimented by Scottie’s continuing support of the stuff I do here. I always want to make sure everyone knows I’m an old woman ally who has plenty of free mom hugs, and I also make some excellent chocolate chip cookies that are not only excellent, but healthful, and I love to share. All are welcome here.
I am up for suggestions on material, too! I’ve been posting the Peace & Justice newsletters here for a year, so they will be becoming redundant. I’m wondering about culling a little something from each one, and maybe posting them weekly, though I’m not adverse to continuing as I am. The one thing about it, some of their links are no longer active, so I’m able to search for newer info and use those links, but otherwise, the newsletters are much the same each year. (I’ve been reading and sharing them since 2002. Not here since then, but other places.π)
I’ve really been enjoying the Queer History Substacks! I like some lusty language with my facts. However, is there something I can do to make those easier on readers? Let me know!
So, again, I’m humbly pleased that Scottie lets me post here on his blog, and is so supportive of it. I hope to continue for at least the upcoming year, and am always up for suggestions. And comments. And chocolates.
I cannot add up the number of times I’ve been told by good, liberal Dems that these issues won’t float. And that was back in the 1980s and 90s, not to mention the 2000s. Anyway, take a look!
Mamdani And The Left Are Moving The Window β Good by Oliver Willis
What if everything you believed since you have been politically awake is wrong? It isnβt that you have bad intentions or youβre fundamentally stupid, but what if instead you believed for so long that the existing menu of political options was one group of beliefs but in reality, that was a really limited menu that excluded some really tasty items you never considered before?
When a rising progressive figure like Zohran Mamdani makes bold statements about what he wants to achieve, it can make regular old mainstream Democrats/liberals like myself wince. Government supermarkets? We shouldnβt have billionaires? Immediately that kicks in concerns about how Democrats are perceived. It isnβt just Mamdani. Ideas like defunding the police, universal basic income, free health care, etc.? Sure, we say, they may sound good on paper β but they also sound like left wing fantasyland, theyβre just not βpractical.β
And maybe they are impractical, unworkable, and election losers. But β what if not? We should at least have the conversation, I think.
Because for decades now American political discourse has been operating within the parameters set by the right wing, not the left. Since 1980 we have had 20 years of Democratic presidents and while I think they did a decent job of domestic politics between the three of them (Clinton, Obama, and Biden), much of what they did was within the narrow paradigm of what was acceptable behavior.
Clinton frequently talked about cutting the size of the government, Obama spoke about lowering the deficit, and Biden also used the language of βfiscal responsibilityβ as the right envisions it. All three men accepted the existence of billionaires and even pushed policies that would theoretically create even more of them. None of them would argue that the police needed to be defunded, and in fact they all oversaw federal spending that sent billions to police departments.
I was among the millions who supported these three presidents, along with other Democrats who ran for office with a similar world view both at the presidential and congressional level to varying degrees of success.
But these people have all been operating within the rightβs paradigms. Collectively we never openly debated how we could have it all wrong. Maybe the prison system should be abolished? Maybe billionaires should be taxed out of existence?
Even if we donβt ultimately reach those conclusions, these are debates worth having.
Because while we have been limiting ourselves, the right hasnβt. Since Barry Goldwater in 1964, the right has been shifting the Overton Window β what is considered acceptable public discourse β steadily to the right. We have gone from Republicans like Nixon creating agencies like the EPA to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush cutting funding for vital agencies to Donald Trump trying to completely destroy agencies like the Department of Education.
Things that Trump treats as uncontroversially right-wing today would have been laughed out of the room as the ravings of lunatics in 1958. The right has mounted serial challenges to what was the liberal orthodoxy (not on every issue but most issues) in the 1960s and they have molded public perception of what acceptable dialogue is.
We are worse off for this. One can praise what Democratic leaders have accomplished in a progressive manner (health care, infrastructure, overall policy) and still admit that the thinking has been severely limited and inhibiting.
Voters are making this clear to the party. They keep showing in multiple federal and state elections that they are unhappy with the status quo and in some instances, like with Trump, they are far too eager to flirt with fascism versus maintaining the system as-is.
Think about the world that millennials and Gen-Z have lived in for their entire lives. Not only has it been shaped by Reaganism and Trumpism, but it has also been peppered with Democratic leaders like Obama, Clinton, and Biden who didnβt fundamentally challenge the bedrock of what the right laid but instead focused on (well needed) nibbling at the edges.
It has been a very long time, probably not since the Great Depression, where Democrats articulated the notion that something beyond the acceptable was possible. When Franklin D. Roosevelt first took office, the consensus was that bad stuff just had to happen and that the government had to lie back, helpless. Herbert Hoover couldnβt truly conceive of a universe where the government swooped in and actively combated the forces making things worse for ordinary Americans. Roosevelt shifted the window and set up the infrastructure of the safety net that still exists today (for now). (snip-MORE, + Kal El photo. Click through!)
The Advance prides itself on attracting superior talent to our pages, and Clay Jones may well be at the top of the totem pole if awards are the measure. In 2022 he won the Robert F. Kennedy Award, and he has been a finalist for the Herblock Prize. What makes a great political cartoonist? Thatβs tough to say, but certainly the ability to make connections that others miss, and that force us to both laugh and think about issues in ways we may not have previously imagined β even (perhaps especially) when it makes us uncomfortable. Thatβs precisely what Jones has accomplished today, building off this weekβs seemingly unrelated stories about geese and the endless struggle in our community over the homeless.
Dawwwww. Thank you, guys. Thatβs super nice.
I was just being silly with this, but proofer Laura said it was βsilly, but kinda accurate.β I was afraid my editor would hate it because it was so weird.
Creative note: I wrote this Thursday night, and drew at home Friday night at the end of a long day. I wanted it to be finished before Saturday so I could focus on all the DC stuff.
Music note: Dammit, I donβt remember because I drew it two nights ago.
Iβm sorry I made you wait for todayβs blog, but I thought it would be more interesting to write the blog about Trumpβs birthday parade after I actually attended his birthday parade.
And letβs not make mistakes about this. This military parade was not for the Army, but for Donald Trump.
Hereβs the funny thing: I didnβt make it to the parade. Yes, I got a hotel room, and I planned to attend the parade, but three things happened. There were fences. Long long long fences. There was not a huge crowd, but it was tough to get through the snake of fences. Then, there were lines. But didnβt I just say the crowds were not huge? They werenβt, but the Trump organization likes to make people wait because it gives the impression that the crowds are large when theyβre not.
And they must have expected much larger crowds because there were MAGA merchants everywhere. Yet, it didnβt seem like they were having a lot of customers. The street vendors selling ice cream had longer lines. I bought a cone.
If you want a huge crowd, go back to President Barack Obamaβs inauguration. That was a huge crowd. Go back to Kamala Harrisβ speech last November. That was a huge crowd. Or, go back to the last time I went to a Washington Capitals game. It was incredible if you could find a seat on the metro because the crowds were so large. But today, I took a metro at 5 p.m. and it was easy to find a seat. It wasnβt packed. And it wasnβt packed after the event either.
The parade started early because they wanted to beat the rain that never came. There were sprinkles, but nothing that should be able to stop a tank.
I said there was a thing that kept me from making it to Constitution Avenue, where the parade was held. The first were the fences, the second were the lines, and the third were the protests. The protests distracted me.
The official No Kings protests did not happen in Washington, DC. They didnβt want to start a fight. But, that didnβt stop independent protesters who did outnumber the MAGAts in my opinion. And readers, I feel bad because I wasnβt very nice to the MAGAts. Youβll see.
The closest thing I saw to violence was when a woman took a wild swing at a man holding a sign. They crossed paths, and she took a swing as they passed each other, which I donβt think she intended to connect. But he turned around and said, βDid you just take a swing at me?β She did not turn around, so he yelled, βFuck Trump.β Yes, she was a MAGAt. And no, the man didnβt try to do anything violent. He kept on his way after yelling, βFuck Trump.β
I had to know what was on his sign that made her want to take a swing, and here it is.
In a telephone interview this morning with ABCβs Rachel Scott, Donald Trump said he βmayβ call Minnesota Governor Tim Walz about the targeted attack in Minneapolis that killed Melissa Hortman, a state legislator, and her husband.
In a moment that needs bipartisanship, empathy, and for a president to actually act presidential, Donald Trump said, βWell, itβs a terrible thing. I think heβs a terrible governor. I think heβs a grossly incompetent person. But I may, I may call him, I may call other people too.β
He just canβt do it. He gave it a shot yesterday, issuing a statement someone else obviously wrote, βI have been briefed on the terrible shooting that took place in Minnesota, which appears to be a targeted attack against state lawmakers. Our Attorney General, Pam Bondi, and the FBI, are investigating the situation, and they will be prosecuting anyone involved to the fullest extent of the law. Such horrific violence will not be tolerated in the United States of America. God Bless the great people of Minnesota, a truly great place.β
Forgive me if I donβt put a lot of faith into the investigative skills of Pam Bondi and FBI Director (sic) Kash Patel.
Trump blamed βhateful rhetoricβ from the left when an assassin took aim at his ear. Youβre not going to hear the term βhateful rhetoricβ from Trump over the assassination of a state legislator in Minnesota.
Weβre going to hear a lot of hypocrisy this week coming from MAGA Land.
For Trump, it was βhateful rhetoricβ that got his ear shot, but the βtargeted attackβ on the left is a mystery.
I wanted to give you a long and in-depth blog on this, but I totally forgot while waiting at the airport. The worst part is, my flight was delayed for over two hours, so I had time to write it. Now, my flight is boarding and Iβm still typing.
The next time you hear from me, Iβll be in California.
The view from my room:
Iβm staying at the Sheraton by the Pentagon. Hereβs the view I took yesterday afternoon. (snip-MORE)
TOPEKA β State troopers are on standby in Kansas as demonstrations against federal immigration raids crop up around the country following an increased military presence in response to protests in Los Angeles.
The Kansas Highway Patrol is aware of Kansas City-area protests this week, said April McCollum, a spokeswoman for the agency.
Protests in LA began Friday, mostly in downtown and central parts of the city, in opposition to targeted, sweeping raids from federal immigration officials that result in the arrest and detention of immigrants lacking permanent legal status. The demonstrations escalated once President Donald Trump ordered thousands of members of the California National Guard to the cityβs streets, against the wishes of state leaders. Protesters in dozens of other cities joined their LA counterparts Tuesday.
Col. Erik Smith, superintendent of the state highway patrol, told legislators Tuesday that a protest similar to those in LA was planned in the Johnson County area, but the agency did not disclose specifics when asked. The only report of a protest in the area Tuesday occurred in Kansas City, Missouriβs downtown and Westside, drawing hundreds of attendees, according to reporting from The Kansas City Star.
A slate of more than 1,800 protests are scheduled across the nation for Saturday. More than a dozen of them are set to occur in Kansas cities, from Garden City to Hiawatha to Arkansas City to the Kansas City area.
βWe encourage those involved to maintain civility while exercising their First Amendment rights,β McCollum said. (snip-MORE that diverts into interesting conversation about immigration sweeps and our gubernatorial race later on.)
Democratic donors are about to spend $20 million on a βstrategic planβ called βSpeaking with American Menβ to figure out their problem with men, and mostly White men. The plan includes βstudy(ing) the syntax, language, and content that gains attention and viralityβ in male βspaces.β
Iβm non-partisan, but I will offer to help the Democrats figure out their White dude problem for half the price. While I wait for my $10 million check to arrive, Iβll tell you what the Democratsβ problem with men is. Are you ready?
The Democratsβ problem with men isβ¦.drumroll pleaseβ¦β¦women.
More specifically, the men of this nation donβt want a woman president. They would rather vote for a mentally unstable racist moron who committed treason against this nation and is a rapist felon.
Democrats lost men when they nominated Hillary Clinton in 2016. It didnβt matter that she was a hundred times more qualified for the presidency than a mouth-breathing, Putin-controlled, knuckle-dragging gameshow host with a bleached skunk for a combover. The Democratic Party had a better candidate, a better campaign, a better message, and more money, but Americaβs men said, βNope! She cackles.β
Then the Democrats nominated Joe Biden in 2020, whose only exciting feature is that he wasnβt Donald Trump. Honestly, thatβs what got me excited.
And last year, Trump won again when the Democrats didnβt just nominate a woman, but a Black woman. Even the percentage of Black male voters dropped.
Women’s support for Kamala Harris was at the same level that they supported Joe Biden in 2020, but the share of men backing Democrats dropped from 48 percent in 2020 to 42 percent in 2024. (snip-MORE; hang with it)
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered that the USNS Harvey Milk, a ship in the US Navy, be renamed. The ship is named after the Navy veteran of the Korean War and San Francisco politician who was assassinated in 1978.
Hegsethβs office issued a very brief statement, saying, βSecretary Hegseth is committed to ensuring that the names attached to all DOD installations and assets are reflective of the Commander-in-Chief’s priorities, our nation’s history, and the warrior ethos,” said Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell. “Any potential renaming(s) will be announced after internal reviews are complete.β
Other ships the bigoted regime is looking to rename include USNS Thurgood Marshall, the USNS Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the USNS Harriet Tubman, the USNS Dolores Huerta, the USNS Cesar Chavez, the USNS Lucy Stone, and the USNS Medgar Evers.
Honestly, Iβm shocked this fascist gaslighting racist regime isnβt renaming every ship after Trump.
Nancy Pelosi said, βThis spiteful move does not strengthen our national security or the βwarriorβ ethos. Instead, it is a surrender of a fundamental American value: to honor the legacy of those who worked to build a better country.β (snip-MORE)
Before we get too giddy about this, remember that once upon a time, Kim Jong Un called Donald Trump a βdotard.β At any time, Trump and Elon can kiss and make up, gaslight the entire GOP into believing this feud never happened, and Trump will get mad at reporters for bringing it up, like the TACO, which is another thing Trump keeps changing his mind on.
And as my pal Rob said, Trump knows that deep down, Elon has $400 billion. Well, maybe not now after dancing around with Trump and destroying his credibility. And his feud with Trump has reportedly dropped shares of Tesla to the point that Elon has lost around $27 billion.
But Trump Always Chickens Out. T.A.C.O.
Who could have predicted that this love affair between two narcissistic, stubborn, racist, bullheaded billionaires was going to collapse in such sensational fashion? Everyone who is not a MAGAt. So, how did this start? Elon called the βOne Big Beautiful Bill,β calling it a βdisgusting abomination.β I guess he felt free to say that after he βleftβ DOGE to re-focus on his businesses. What does Stephen Millerβs wife think of all this? Who wants to hear that pillow talk? (snip-MORE)
βQueerβ is not about who youβre having sex with (that can be a dimension of it), but βqueerβ as being about the self that is at odds with everything around it and has to invent and create and find a place to speak and to thrive and to live.β βbell hooks
Iβve always been queer, but it took me a while to realize it. Even after coming out as gay, I still struggled with the language of βqueerβ because I grew up hearing it used as a slur. In many places, it still is. I remember the shocked look on the faces of a lecture audience in rural England when I said βqueerβ β as if I had uttered a curse word.
This is how the word sits with many people β even within the LGBTQIA+ community. But over the years, as Iβve wrestled with my identity, learned the history of LGBTQIA+ liberation, and developed my beliefs, Iβve come to resonate deeply with being queer, just as much as with being Christian.
In fact, for me, to be an authentic Christian β one who seeks to follow the life and teachings of Jesus β is to be queer. Let me explain.
To be queer generally means one of two things. First, itβs a catch-all phrase for the LGBTQIA+ community β those who embrace a non-heterosexual orientation and/or non-cisgender identity. Second, queer also means to disrupt arbitrary norms, making space for diverse, often marginalized, expressions to flourish.
To be queer means resisting the repression of our true selves and the forces that demand we conform to othersβ ideas of who we should be. Itβs a declaration of our commitment to live authentically β who God created us to be β not who society or religion says we must become.
In this sense, queerness is holy. It affirms that God doesnβt make mistakes β that our unique expression reflects Godβs creativity β and refuses to blaspheme the Creator by suppressing that divine image. When seen this way, queerness is a calling every person should aspire to.
To follow Jesus is to refuse conformity, as Paul wrote: β[to] be transformed by the renewing of your mindβ (Romans 12:2). This means shifting how we see ourselves and others β removing the masks we were taught to wear, the roles we were conditioned to play. In this way, queerness is deeply aligned with the way of Jesus.
bell hooks defines queerness as βbeing at odds with everything around it.β That feels exactly right. We live in a world shaped by systems built to benefit particular people. Whatβs considered βnormalβ is often an invention β crafted to maintain control and marginalize difference. Nothing has always been the way it is, and it shouldnβt remain the same.
Today, thereβs a rising awareness of the value of diversity and pluralism by many in society (while diversity is also demonized by many). More people are becoming suspicious of those who demonize difference and cling to the status quo. The past century has shown us that the status quo is often built on lies that lead to oppression.
Our society was set up by people who established norms to benefit themselves. But as the world grows more connected and aware of diverse ways of being, movements of resistance have chipped away at this conformity and demanded a new, inclusive path. These movements are βqueeringβ society β questioning and resisting whatβs been called normal β and theyβve made the world more just and diverse.
One of the most resistant institutions to queering has been Christianity. This isnβt surprising. Religion resists change, and Christian institutions have fought nearly every cultural shift from desegregation to womenβs voting rights to rock music. Those willing to reform are often labeled heretics and excluded from church power. But every so often, resistance sparks reform in the church. The Protestant Reformation, the abolitionist movement, and the fight for womenβs rights have all queered Christianity by disrupting norms and pushing forward new expressions of faith.
The inclusion of queer people in Christianity is another such movement. Today, nearly every mainline Protestant denomination in the U.S. officially affirms queer people. We can serve as clergy, marry, and be fully embraced. While there are many local congregations in each denomination that resist these changes, the movement for inclusion is well underway. This is a remarkable shift.
Just last year, Pope Francis announced that Catholic priests may bless same-sex couples. A few months before, he said transgender people could be baptized and serve as godparents. Though these donβt change Catholic doctrine, they marked major steps forward that made many lay queer Catholics feel more included in their churches.
Still, there is much work to do. The truth remains that most Christians worldwide still uphold anti-queer theology. Many still preach that homosexuality is an abomination. Many still teach that women must submit to men and cannot lead.
Progressive Christians sometimes believe the church is rapidly changing, but thatβs often just the view from our bubble. Most Christians still cling to rigid, patriarchal theology. And Iβve come to believe that the only way to challenge that resistance is through queering.
Not every LGBTQIA+ Christian agrees with this strategy. There are many queer Christians who would prefer to simply shift the churchβs understanding of the six clobber passages and be accepted into the traditional Christian institution with its traditional sexual ethics, understanding of relationships, and devotion to conservative theology otherwise. I understand that desire; I once had it too. But Iβve come to believe itβs actually counterproductive to our flourishing as queer people.
The more Iβve studied Scripture and listened to queer stories, the more convinced Iβve become: The issue isnβt a few misinterpreted Bible verses β itβs that Christianity was institutionalized. A few hundred years after Jesus, his radical movement was merged with the Roman Empire and transformed into rules, dogma, and rigid orthodoxy.
Other perspectives were labeled heresy, punished, and driven underground. What remained became dominant: a version of Christianity that, frankly, looks nothing like Jesus.
When I became a Christian, it was because I wanted to follow Jesus β not an institution. But I was quickly taught that faithfulness to Jesus meant faithfulness to the church. I learned the doctrines and ethics of my church and saw that the more I conformed, the more I was accepted β and even celebrated.
From adopting the politics of my pastors to unquestioningly espousing conservative theology, to even dressing in ways that mirrored the evangelical subculture, I learned that through conforming and contorting myself to look, believe, vote, and act like what was seen as normative for evangelical Christians, my inclusion would be solidified.
I gained status and privilege. I was affirmed by my church and I believed that this meant I was close to God. But I felt uneasy, even early on. As I read Scripture, I struggled to see our theology or ethics reflected in Jesusβ life. Jesus lived on the margins of religious and political power. He constantly challenged the status quo and resisted exclusionary doctrine.
I came to see that neither I nor my church looked like Jesus. That realization was unsettling. Eventually, it led me to believe that queering Christianity wasnβt just permissible β it was necessary. Not only for LGBTQIA+ inclusion, but for everything and everyone.
Rather than blindly accepting church authority, I began to pursue truth wherever it led and invited others to do the same. My ministry became about queering Christianity, not just including queer people in the traditional frameworks of the church.
That meant challenging every theology and ethic that doesnβt reflect Jesusβ ethic of love. It meant reimagining how we follow Jesus β beyond traditional Christianity.
This is, I believe, the most faithful path. But itβs also the hardest. It requires us to stop seeking the affirmation of and inclusion in the old structures and instead focus on building subversive, queerly spiritual communities that reflect the Spirit of Christ.
It means being open to truth from everywhere and everyone β because all truth is Godβs truth β and letting it shape our spiritual journeys.
It means getting used to being called heretics. Excluded even from some so-called affirming churches that find our vision too radical. But our goal isnβt to be welcomed because we conform β itβs to create a community that welcomes all expressions and beliefs, grounded in the love and example of Jesus in whatever form that takes.
Our goal isnβt even to be βChristians,β really. Jesus never used that word. Never spoke a Christian doctrine. Never stepped inside a Christian church. So inclusion in the traditional institutions of Christianity isnβt the point.
The point is a truly queer revolution of faith that liberates us all to show up authentically, that remains open to the voice of our still-speaking God in the most unlikely people and places, and that understands that the Kingdom of God that Jesus preached and embodied can never be contained in the rigid boundaries of any institution, but is found among the diversity, complexity, and beauty of all of our human experiences.
Editorβs note: This essay is an adaptation from Queer & Christian: Reclaiming the Bible, Our Faith, and Our Place at the Table. It has been adapted with the permission of St. Martinβs Essentials.