Elizabeth Esther

Experiments in Relentless Optimism

2012-02-21T03:20:51Z

Me and Mine at Huntington Gardens

As I pursue happiness, I’m struck by how many lies there are about happiness. In the past couple of weeks, I’ve made a brief mental list of the commercials, ads and ideas I’ve heard that supposedly make you happy in America. Here they are.

You will be happy if:

you are rich
attend the right schools
what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas
you make the sale
you are skinny/physically attractive
you drink the right alcoholic drink
you own a home
you are successful at your job

Can you identify the common characteristic in these measurements of happiness?

They are all EXTERNAL.

Happiness in America is largely defined by external success.

Here’s what I’m discovering: external success is not indicative of true, long-term happiness.

I remember the first time I had an article published in a national magazine. I was happy. For a day. And then it went away. It literally just disappeared. Why? Because all I could think about was: when/where will I get published again?

I was forever moving the external goal post of happiness beyond my current state of being.

This is no way to live. This is no way to pursue happiness.

Alternatively, as I’ve been studying happiness experts and working on a sustainable theory of happiness for myself I’m realizing something HUGE:

True happiness is an internal state of being.

I don’t care if I have to trick my brain into a state of happiness, I’m going to do whatever is necessary to create a positive, happy brain.

My 5-Pack of Kiddos--they are my life's greatest joy!

To this end, I’ve coined a phrase (because I use my words to help me in every area of my life).

Relentless Optimism

Relentless optimism is my new way of seeing the world. It’s a way of filtering everything that happens. It’s a way of seeing. In other words, I put on the glasses of relentless optimism and everything that happens, I view positively.

I realize this sounds TOTALLY cheesy. But I don’t care. You wanna know why?

BECAUSE IT WORKS.

Let’s take exercise, for example. Since starting bootcamp, I’ve committed myself to 60 minutes of physical pain each day. It is very hard work. It is painful. BUT! BUT! I’ve discovered that it is good, efficacious pain. It is not bad pain.

This pain works for me an eternal weight of glory. Or, at least, a rockin’ body. Now, the trick is getting through the pain of the workout. Here’s how I do it:

I think of how I’ll look in a swimsuit this summer
I remember: better sex!
I tell myself that I can enjoy my dinner tonight without guilt
I give myself little pep talks
I set tiny little goals to keep myself going; ie. “just 2 more minutes!” or “just 5 more leg lifts!”
I crack jokes in between sets
I workout in a group—doing hard stuff TOGETHER in COMMUNITY eases the pain of the task

And when I’m done, I feel fabulous for the rest of the day. Exercise substantially increases my happiness which makes it easier for me to view everything else in life through a positive lens.

I’m also listening to myself. What words come out of my mouth? If words shape reality, why am I allowing myself to utter words that foresee doom instead of glory?

One phrase I seem to say a lot is: “I can’t do this!”

So, here’s my first sacrifice in the pursuit of happiness and relentless optimism. From now on I will say: I CAN DO THIS!

Someone sent me a link to this TED talk on happiness and I thought I’d share it here with you. It’s absolutely fascinating!

What Does Jesus’ Silence on Homosexuality Really Mean?

2012-02-20T01:46:16Z

I’ve heard it suggested that Jesus’ silence on homosexuality is a kind of defacto consent. Or, perhaps, that since homosexuality wasn’t a topic He found worthy of commentary, Christians ought not take a strong stand against something which even Jesus did not publicly stand against.

I have trouble with these explanations. For one thing, I find them anachronistic–inserting our postmodern sensibilities into an ancient context does not necessarily yield an accurate reading of how Jesus perceived this issue.

What was so controversial about Jesus was that He often refuted the religious establishment of His day. In that regard, it seems to me that if Jesus had something to say on homosexuality that would have directly refuted the devout Jewish view, He would have said it.

But He didn’t.

If we’re going to suggest that Jesus’ silence is a kind of consent then don’t we also have to accept the possibility that Jesus’ silence suggests He accepted the Judaic view? To me, that seems only honest.

Even so, I’m not sure either side can claim sole ownership of Jesus’ View On Homosexuality. But I do think both sides must consider the overarching context of what Christ called the Greatest Commandment: to love God with all your being and to love your neighbor as yourself.

My perception is that Christians have been so narrowly focused on defining exactly which particular sexual acts are sinful that we’ve felt justified in heaping shame upon sin and sinner alike.

It is understandable, then, why Christians like myself have stepped back from such specific condemnations and tried to take the Big Picture approach–asking ourselves what it means to love our neighbor? This has led me to believe I cannot deny basic rights to another human being–rights I would not stand to be deprived of myself.

However, I am still unwilling to go so far as to say Christianity is wrong to prescribe any boundaries on sexual activity. Scripture and Christian Tradition are both consistently clear that there are sexual boundaries–regardless of orientation.

As a Christian, I submit to the sexual boundaries placed upon me by my religious beliefs and recognize that these boundaries supersede my particular sexual orientation. In other words, there are sexual obligations and boundaries I am constrained to honor simply because I am human.

As I see it, the Christian perspective on sexuality is informed by several foundational beliefs: 1. that our bodies are temples, that it does matter to God what we do with our physical bodies and as such, it is possible to sin against our bodies. Additionally, Christians believe that while we are living, our bodies are knit together with our souls and spirits. To sin against the body–whether sexually or otherwise–harms us physically, emotionally and spiritually.

The second foundational belief is that God gave us the gift of sexuality not simply as a means to an individual orgasm but for procreation and mutual pleasure. From a Christian perspective, then, sexuality is never solely isolated to “it’s all about me and MY body and I can do whatever I want with it.”

Rather, sexuality is a human being’s most powerful creative source because by it, a man and woman cooperate with God in the creation of eternal souls.

And as a Christian mother, it’s also difficult for me to assert that all familial arrangements are equally beneficial and ideal for children. I still believe children need both a mother and a father. Yes, we live in a broken world where children can be raised (and raised well) despite not having both. However, can we truly assert that any other familial arrangement is more ideal for the well-being of children than being raised in the home of a happily married mother and father? I don’t think so.

Which is why I don’t believe the Christian church ought to retrofit our boundaries for sexual activity; ie. by ordaining openly gay clergy. But I do believe we should work on extending the same legal and civil benefits we enjoy to those who may not hold our own religious beliefs. And mostly, we should welcome any and ALL people to the merciful love of God knowing that only through Him we live and move and have our being.

Still, I remain open and if I’m missing something or not seeing this issue clearly, I welcome your thoughts and comments. I realize that I may have a yet unrecognized bias regarding same-sex issues I’m willing to see this issue differently.

Will you kindly share with me your thoughts? As always, let’s keep the discussion respectful–and especially no personal attacks other commenters you may disagree with, OK?

Around the blogosphere…

2012-02-18T17:14:52Z

Some posts I’ve read in the last month that I found particularly interesting and thought maybe you’d enjoy them, too:

7 Big Relocation Mistakes: Penelope Trunk’s insightful list of things we often overlook when considering a move to a different city or state. It’s true what she says about living in Los Angeles–BMWs are very common here because Southern Californians have to drive everywhere.

Learning to Sin: an Orthodox priest explains sin within the context of our “culture of death.” Fascinating.

Tweeting Politics. “The idea that talking about politics…is rude, is something I’ve never understood. Are we all completely incapable of having civil discussions about issues that matter most?”

Annunciation of the Theotokos: Scott Morizot has been writing a fascinating series on the Virgin Mary. Here he addresses the immaculate conception of Mary as seen from Orthodox and Catholic viewpoints. Despite being Catholic, I personally lean more toward the Orthodox view–mainly because I, too, believe with the Orthodox that infants are born blameless and without guilt. “If Jesus is important to us, then Mary has to be.”

“It’s only time, it will go by.” I’ve been reading Dooce since her first daughter was a baby. I’ve loved her and disagreed with her and been annoyed with her–but I always keep reading her. It’s weird, but I love her like a friend. So, when she announced that she and her husband are separating, I actually cried. For her pain, for his pain, for the kids’ pain. And then she posted this song and I felt like I could touch the pain she was feeling; so amazing how music can do that, bring us together. I so hope things work out between Heather and Jon–or if they don’t, that they can find a measure of peace.

Love Lifts Us Up Where We Probably Belong. An interesting piece on relocation, the changing roles of a marriage and how some fathers just don’t like being the stay-at-home parent.

Are We Ready for Change? My agent, Rachelle Gardner, shares some insightful thoughts about needing to remain flexible and open to change. As I’m reworking and tweaking my book proposal, these thoughts ring truer than ever.

Shunning, shaming & other unnecessary fundamentalist scare tactics

2012-02-17T00:44:22Z

My twins were baptized last Saturday, February 11th. It was a gloriously beautiful day in Southern California–clear, sunny skies. A light breeze. My girls were full of laughter and joy. The ceremony was lovely–there were readings and prayers, blessings, anointing with perfumed oil and of course, Daddy cradling his little ones over the baptismal font while the holy water was poured over their giggly heads three times. Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

But the joyous occasion also bore its full measure of pain. My parents refused to attend. My fundamentalist father said his conscience wouldn’t allow it. My mother, who originally said she would attend, backed out a couple days before the baptism in deference to my father’s objections.

A few days before the baptism, we met for lunch and my father tried to issue a compromise: would I be willing to let him personally dedicate the twins to the Lord in lieu of baptism? I demurred. He started in on the finer points of ‘unbiblical’ Catholic baptism. To close our conversation–which happened in a public restaurant–he urged us all to bow our heads and join in prayer. He prayed at full-pulpit volume.

I felt the old, familiar, hot shame wash over me as we made a spectacle of ourselves there in the restaurant. This is how it’s always been.

It’s always been very Thus Saith The Lord and bursting into hymns on street corners. It’s always PRAISE THE LORD! and spontaneously busting out a Gospel message to any passing waitress. My father’s numerous dictates of conscience have always come with a side of bombastic braggadocio.

But here’s the thing: I wasn’t asking my dad to deny his conscience. I wouldn’t ask that of anyone. We all must abide by the dictates of our moral compass and I fully respect that. I even said I would understand if he chose not to attend. I simply asked that he respect our decision and not provoke an argument.

Well, he disregarded my request and not only made a scene in the restaurant but also laid out an ultimatum: unless we made a compromise according to his specifications, he wouldn’t attend.

This is precisely the kind of drama I have tried to avoid in the nine years since leaving the fundamentalist church of my childhood. I have respectfully avoided contentious topics of conversation, I have encouraged my parents to maintain active involvement in my children’s lives.

I guess I thought nine years later, things would have changed. But I was mistaken.

Again, it’s not like I wanted my father to deny his conscience. It’s just that….my father’s conscience has so many objections to so many things. Ever since I was a child, there’s never been a theological hill he’s not ready to die on, no point of doctrine he’s not eager to hash out in long-winded arguments.

And here’s the difference between my father and me: I think it is possible to hold differences of belief and still show up for your family’s important events. I’m also wholly weary of theological arguments.

My Dad, however, still finds value in the practice of shunning. Back when he was the second-in-command pastor, our fundamentalist church shunned people all the time. Anyone who left the church or was excommunicated, we treated as dead. It’s an abhorrent practice to me now, a practice I find most graceless and hurtful.

After I was diagnosed with PTSD shortly after leaving our church, my therapist asked me why I always expected people to abandon me or withdraw their love. Hello, threat of shunning.

When we were growing up, Dad loved the Broadway musical Fiddler on the Roof. Dad’s favorite character was Rep Tevye. When one of the daughters marries outside the Jewish faith, Rep Tevye refuses to speak to her and tells the family to consider her dead. Dad found this highly admirable.

At the time, I agreed. But now, maybe because I’ve been on the receiving end of rejection, I see Fiddler on the Roof differently. Mostly, I can’t imagine pretending like my child is dead just because they make choices I don’t agree with.

As an adult, I don’t see Rep Tevye’s actions as admirable, I see them as evidence of his tragic flaw. You don’t have to agree with all the choices your kids make but I believe you should still show up for the important events. You attend the wedding, you attend your granddaughters’ baptism.

Or, at the very least, you refrain from making a scene.

As an adult, I accept who my parents are and I love them dearly.

But I didn’t foresee how my parents would affect my children. I didn’t realize how the long shadow of fundamentalism could reach past me and hurt my own children on one of their most special days.

My twins were upset that Papa and Grandma didn’t attend their baptism. My older kids asked questions and wanted to know why. There were tears all around.

My whole goal in parenting my children has been to show my children unconditional love.

I feel like I’m failing at that because my parents were able to hurt me and my children. My children’s hurt has ripped open a hole in my chest I thought had healed up. I feel responsible for their pain because maybe I should have enforced stricter boundaries, not allowed my parents to remain so close? Or maybe…maybe I should have brokered a compromise?

My father has made his disapproval very clear. Although this is nothing new, I didn’t expect it to still hurt so keenly. I feel the old, awful sense of shame and rejection.

I keep looking at these pictures and wondering: why wouldn’t they want to be here? Who wouldn’t want to be a part of this?

Can’t my parents appreciate the stark, uphill battle it has been for me just to maintain some semblance of Christian faith? Aren’t they proud of me for at least trying to raise my children in the faith–even if it’s a different branch of the Christian family?

But no, it is as it’s always been: no matter how hard I try, I’m never good enough.

Tonight as I tucked my twins into bed I kissed their heads and the lingering scent of perfumed oil filled my nose. It was such a sweet reminder.

Maybe shunning is the price I have to pay to see my babies baptized and wholly safe. Maybe someday when we’re all rejoicing in Heaven together, these tears will be wiped away.

[COMMENTS OFF]

Who says kids outgrow naps?

2012-02-15T23:36:43Z

There are very few problems that can’t be solved by taking a nap. Chronically grumpy kids? They’re sleep deprived. Irreconcilable differences with the husband? Go to bed early and deal with it in the morning. Having trouble solving that algebraic equation? Take a nap, baby. Take a nap.

Napping is pretty much my go-to parenting advice. When my children were really young, I adhered to a strict napping schedule. I planned my entire DAY around their naps. Nothing–and I mean nothing–preempted of the inviolable law of napping.

There’s this hugely popular parenting idea that kids outgrow naps. Who thought of this crap? Kids don’t outgrow naps! Heck, I haven’t even outgrown them! The only people who think kids outgrow naps are….kids.

Now, that said: I do have a kid who is not a Good Napper. Meaning, he’ll climb in bed and read quietly for an hour. But he can’t really sleep during the day. Which is fine. He has learned to respect the rest of us who ARE good nappers. And after an hour of downtime, he’s much calmer and more well-behaved.

I’m also a firm believer in early bedtimes for children. I have this sneaky suspicion that many behavioral problems can be directly attributed to late bedtimes. I’m always stunned to hear how many young kids stay up past 9pm. My little ones were always in bed by 7:30pm. Even now, my older kids are in bed by 8pm and can read until 8:30pm (my oldest sometimes stays up later to finish homework after ballet).

But the point is, children are not little adults. If children don’t get enough sleep, they explode all over the place the next day.

Here’s the thing: nobody thinks you’re cool if you believe in napping. In fact, it’s COOL to skip napping, to be all revolutionary and FUN and not sleep. Don’t believe me? Just try it.

Start adhering to a nap schedule and notice how many times adults (not to mention your kids) think you’re a loony bin. If you really want to kick it up a notch? Start going to bed early and notice how many people still text you at all godforsaken hours of the night.

Nobody writes songs about how going to bed early is awesome. Heck, right now Snoop Dogg has a song out wherein he literally CELEBRATES not going to bed! So what we go out! So what we don’t sleep! We’re just havin’ fun! We don’t care who sees!

Confession: I love that song way more than I should. ALSO: I hate that song.

Basically, I think there’s a conspiracy against a good night of sleep. It starts with this underlying idea that sleep is Wasted Time. It is fed by another idea called: I’ll Sleep When I’m Dead. Thirdly, it assumes that being sleep deprived is fun.

Maybe I’m just an old lady now but I can assure that being sleep-deprived is not fun. I mean, sure, it sounds all fun and exciting to stay up until 3am–but only if I can sleep the whole next day. Problem is, I have kids.

Maybe I need to move to a country where taking a nap isn’t just normal, it’s expected.

Clearly, I need a siesta.

On becoming a runner-ish person

2012-02-13T18:01:06Z

My reward after morning bootcamp: getting to watch the sunrise on the drive home

I’d like to begin by saying: I suck as a runner. I was not born with whatever genetic component makes a runner a runner. On the other hand, I can kick ass in the swimming pool. [Disclaimer: in highschool, I kicked ass in the pool. I'm still milking the ol' glory days.] But running? Imagine a whale. Running.

I don’t think you can even fairly call it running. What I do is more like huffalumping. Or shlumping. Shuffle-limping. And it includes lots of dry heaving, groaning and yes, actual crying. I pretty much cry every single time I shufflelump. I also mutter.

Running seems to dredge up all these emotional issues and I find myself muttering through conversations from 1997, talking smack to that Bible camp counselor who abused me in 1985 or telling off that boy who broke my heart in 1996. It’s weird. I don’t know if this happens to anyone else, but I seem to run with a pack of motley ghosts from my past.

Today, this bully from my childhood showed up and all her mean words started ringing in my ears. But I’ve been running now for a month and I just shut her down: “Back off. You can’t say crap to me now because I got an agent. You hear me? I GOT AN AGENT, SUCKAH!”

She backed off.

And then I pep-talked myself: “Come on, Double E. Come on, baby. Sprint to the end.”

And I did. Sort of.

Still, I’m better now than I was 30 days ago. 30 days ago, I couldn’t run more than half a block without needing to stop and walk. I could only do 15 leg lifts. I had to do a modified side-plank. Today? I can “run” a full mile without stopping, can do 50 leg lifts and a full side-plank. I’m still the slowest long-distance runner in the pack–my fastest mile time was 10:10–but I’ve discovered I can sprint. Sort of.

My blogging friends, Carrie and Kelly, got me into this whole 5:30am bootcamp thing and if it weren’t for their constant barrage of encouragement, I’d probably give up. But every time they lap me–because they actually RUN–they shout things like: “Lookin’ good!” or “Keep it up!” or “You’re doing awesome!”

Which MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE (only chicks in Nike commercials look good while they run), but it still helps. As much as I would like to think I can get in shape on my own, my fitness history says otherwise. I’m a social creature. Exercising in isolation depresses me. I need community to help me get in shape. I need to be able to crack corny jokes in between sets.

The best part is that if I commit myself to 60 minutes of pain in the morning, the rest of the day I feel fabulous. I have so much more energy. I’m happy without trying to be happy. Exercise has improved every area of my life. Including sex. Yeah, I said it. SEX, baby. And yeah, um, SEX? Who knew SEX could be better once you start exercising? I didn’t know that! Had I known, I would have gotten back into exercise a loooooooong time ago.

Which is to say, my husband is a pretty happy guy these days.

I’m sexy and I know it. And here’s a picture to prove it. (I’m the one in the middle wearing a white T-shirt and a freakazoid grin).

That's me in the middle, that's me in the spotlight losing my...dignity!

Some exciting news!

2012-02-11T15:59:13Z

I officially have a literary agent!

Last week I was contacted by the lovely Rachelle Gardner–she represents other fine like writers Rachel Held Evans and Sarah Bessey. Rachelle had been reading my blog for awhile, told me she loved my writing (insert my gasping-heart-attack-of-joy right here) and was wondering if I still needed an agent.

My reply to her was pretty much ALL-CAPS OMG-IS-THIS-REALLY-HAPPENING-AND-DO-YOU-KNOW-HOW-MUCH-I-LOVE-YOU? Because Rachelle Gardner is the agent I’ve wanted for like 2 1/2 years-ever since I first started working on my book.

Anyway, we talked on the phone the next day and turns out, we attended the same college here in Southern California. She lived in Orange County for many years and still has family here. We hit it off immediately and within a couple of days, she had my sample chapter and book proposal.

This past Thursday afternoon she called me again and we made it official. Rachelle Gardner is now my literary agent! I couldn’t be more thrilled!

If you’re curious about the book publishing process, go read Rachelle’s blog. It’s just full of amazing, helpful information. Start with this: How to Get Published.

And don’t forget to check out her client blogroll! I’m the newest addition to that list! WOOT! You can also find Rachelle on Twitter and subscribe to her Twitter List of current clients–it’s always fun to read her tweets and the tweets of her authors.

Oh, friends! I’m just so happy and thrilled. My dream of writing a book is coming true! Squuuuuueeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Obama compromise on birth control is commendable

2012-02-10T22:25:31Z

I was relieved to hear that President Obama has shifted his stance a bit and stated that “religious organizations won’t have to pay for [contraceptive] services.” Instead, the onus is now upon insurers to offer those services to women employed by Catholic-affiliated organizations.

I think this is a commendable compromise. The original ruling required Catholic-affiliated organizations to pay for the contraceptive services of its employees.

Mandating Catholic organizations to fund actions that directly contradict deeply held religious beliefs is certainly an impingement on religious freedom and was an overstep by the Obama administration.

The issue at stake, here, is religious freedom. This is not about whether the majority of Americans have no moral qualms about contraceptive use. This is also NOT about the fact that many Catholics use birth control. It’s also not about whether the Church’s stance on birth control is outdated, ridiculous and ‘unfair.’

The real issue is this: the Constitution of the United States protects freedom of religion and no governmental entity is allowed to force private, faith-based groups to act against their religious beliefs.

Nobody is forcing anyone to work for a Catholic-affiliated organization. If you choose to be employed by a Catholic hospital, your Catholic employer is not going to pay for your birth control pills. As President of Ave Maria University in Florida stated:

“Our non-Catholic students and employees understand fully that the University must adhere to Catholic teaching and they do not expect us to provide such services.”

Like it or not, the Catholic Church’s stance on birth control is a deeply held religious belief. We can argue all day long about whether or not we agree with it–but that doesn’t change the fact that this is a religious belief and the government has no business strong-arming faith-based groups into funding actions that directly defy those beliefs.

I also heard the argument that if Catholic-affiliated organizations are receiving federal dollars then they are beholden to the will of the taxpayers and must provide the services the public demands. Really? How about considering that maybe Catholic organizations would rather stop taking federal funds than change their religious beliefs? I’m guessing the Church is more concerned about answering to a higher authority–and that authority is NOT the American President or even the almighty American taxpayer.

But thankfully, this situation didn’t come to a stand-off. I admire the President’s willingness to rework the ruling and take into account the sincere objections of faith-based organizations. Because as the archbishop of New York stated, “To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable.”

A special thank you from my ballerina (plus a clip of her dancing!)

2012-02-09T17:47:14Z

Dear Readers,

This is Jewel, Elizabeth Esther’s oldest daughter. I’m writing this today to offer my deepest thanks. I don’t know where I would be without you. Due to your financial support, I am able to attend American Ballet Theatre’s summer intensive in Irvine, California.

This audition season has been a rollercoaster with its ups and downs that never seemed to end. But now I’ve been accepted to ABT and can get off this ride. I can start living my dream thanks to all of you!

Lovingly,
Jewel

Thank you to the following friends whose generosity made this possible (names listed in order of donations received): Theresa, Pedro, Katherine, Barbara, Daphne, Dallas, Mark, Patricia, Jennifer, Alexandra, Richard, Rushia, Joshua, Jessica, Sarah, Clare, Natasha, Leah, Dina and Emily.

Thanks to these generous friends, Jewel received $422.00 toward her ABT tuition and we were able to make our initial deposit, reserving her spot in the intensive. Our next payment of $700 is due on May 1st. I am leaving the donate button up on the right-hand sidebar until then. Thank you all again so much!

As a small thank you, here is a short clip of Jewel during one of her pointe classes. She didn’t know I was recording her on my iPhone. I especially love the spontaneous little turns she does at the end–just pure joy and love of dance. Enjoy, friends. And thank you so much. xo.

I voted yes on Prop 8. Today, I’m thankful Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional.

2012-02-08T04:10:14Z

I voted yes on Prop 8. I lived to regret that vote and I wrote about it here. I also ended up apologizing to my gay neighbors. In my case, loving my neighbors as myself really meant loving my literal neighbors.

Today, a California appellate court ruled that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. I’m thankful for the appellate process which is, as one of my lawyer friends noted, “luxuriously embedded in hindsight.” Ah, if only there were an appellate process for every area of life (for one thing, I’d like to appeal this piece of pie I just ate–can’t we rule calories as unconstitutional?).

The great thing about hindsight is that it gives you a chance to fully re-examine the ways your actions affected other people. For many Californians, loving our gay neighbors as ourselves isn’t an abstract idea. It’s real. It’s here. It’s right next door.

There’s nothing like the immediacy of an idea to drive its meaning home. Which is to say, when I vote to deny someone else the same rights I enjoy, there’s nothing quite like seeing that person every day to realize what exactly it is I’ve done.

Quite honestly, I was unable to reconcile my voting yes on Prop 8 with Jesus’ command to love my neighbor as myself. Ultimately, I had to ask myself this question: is it spiritually consistent for me to vote on a measure that would deprive my neighbors of rights I wouldn’t dare be deprived of myself?

For me, that answer is no, it’s morally inconsistent to deny others the same basic rights and freedoms I enjoy as an American citizen.

I appreciate what Daniel Kirk, a professor at Fuller Seminary, wrote in his new book Jesus Have I Loved, But Paul?

“It is incumbent on us to show the homosexuals in our communities that we will work tirelessly for them to have what we would never stand to be deprived of ourselves…Have we loved and served the people around us, have we worked for their good, with sufficient passion that someone who is not part of our community would come to us and ask for help? Do we show the world that our deepest concern is to spread abroad the love of God?” (p.190)

When it comes to loving our gay neighbors as ourselves, it’s not enough to simply do no harm. Kirk points out that it’s not a “sufficiently faithful enactment of the Christian story to refrain from going out with the ‘God Hates F*gs’ sign.”

In other words, Christ calls us to positive action on behalf of our neighbors, particularly those who are disenfranchised members of our same society.

The sad truth is that the Christian church has done a very poor job of loving our gay neighbors. Indeed, not only have we failed to show God’s love, we’ve done substantive harm. Christians have often withheld love and community. We’ve condemned and excommunicated. We’ve shunned and cast out.

Regardless of our religious beliefs about the sanctity of marriage, I daresay Christians have much to answer for in how we’ve treated our gay family members and neighbors.

I want to live a better, more faithful enactment of the Christian story than one that majors in shunning and minors in positive actions of inclusion and love. All I know is that I can’t truly love someone while simultaneously condemning them.

“Love the sinner, hate the sin” sounds like a nice little Christian-y loophole, but in my experience it simply doesn’t work. Mainly, it sounds like a good excuse for keeping far, far away from the difficult work of actually loving others.

And loving others is precisely my mission in life. I’m starting small. My gay neighbors just had a baby girl. I think I should take them a pie to celebrate.