CJ Guardian News

Every June, like clockwork, a familiar outrage rises from parts of the Christian community. Rainbow logos appear. Pride events are announced. Social media timelines fill with celebrations of LGBTQ+ people living openly and authentically. And then comes the backlash.

Some Christians speak of Pride Month as though it is a direct attack on their faith. Others lament the “fall of society” or complain that Pride is being “forced” on them. But I find myself asking a different question:

Why are so many Christians upset about Pride Month in the first place?

If Christians truly believe that God is sovereign, why does the existence of LGBTQIA+ people celebrating themselves provoke such anxiety?

After all, Christians live in a world full of things they consider sinful. Greed is celebrated. Wealth is idolized. Dishonesty is rewarded. Exploitation is normalized. Yet few churches spend an entire month posting daily condemnations of corporate greed or economic injustice. There are no annual boycotts because a company celebrated excessive wealth. Somehow Pride Month consistently generates a level of outrage that many other issues never do.

Part of the tension may be that Pride Month is not simply about sexuality. It is about visibility.

Historically, LGBTQ+ people were expected to hide. Many were forced to live double lives, conceal relationships, deny their identities, or endure rejection from their families and faith communities. Pride emerged as a response to that history. It was not originally about demanding approval from everyone. It was about refusing shame.

And perhaps that is where some Christians become uncomfortable.

If the gospel is truly good news, it shouldn’t be so fragile that it is shaken by a rainbow flag.

And if Christian love means anything at all, it should be strong enough to coexist with people who do not fit neatly into someone else’s theological framework.

So whether Pride Month makes you uncomfortable, indifferent, supportive, or celebratory, it might be worth asking yourself why. Is your response rooted in genuine conviction, or is it rooted in fear of people who are finally refusing to be ashamed of who they are?

At the end of the day, LGBTQ+ people are not going anywhere. They are our children, siblings, parents, friends, neighbors, coworkers, and fellow human beings. They deserve the same dignity, respect, and humanity that all of us seek.

And for those who have spent years hiding, shrinking themselves, or carrying the weight of rejection, may this month be a reminder that your existence is not a problem to be solved.

Happy Pride Month to everyone celebrating. May you continue to walk in authenticity, freedom, and the courage to be fully yourself.

Click the link to read the entire article:

I recently had a Christian tell me that people who follow a political party are sheep. I immediately laughed and replied, “Excuse me, but most Christians are sheep.” The irony was too obvious to ignore.

It is the ultimate case of pot meeting kettle

Now before anyone rushes to be offended, this isn’t an attack on Christianity. It’s an observation about human behavior. The truth is that blind loyalty is not unique to politics. It exists in religion, social movements, organizations, families, and virtually every institution humans create. What struck me wasn’t simply the comment itself. It was what happened as the conversation continued.

The longer we talked, the more ironic the exchange became. Here was someone confidently labeling other people as sheep, yet when I asked questions about some of his own beliefs, he struggled to clearly articulate why he held them. His answers often sounded less like conclusions he had thoughtfully arrived at and more like statements he had inherited, repeated, and accepted as fact. The deeper we went, the more it became apparent that he had spent a great deal of time criticizing the beliefs of others and very little time examining his own.

That experience reminded me that many people mistake certainty for understanding. They assume that because they have strong convictions, they must also have strong reasons for holding them. But conviction and examination are not the same thing. A person can be absolutely convinced of something and still be unable to explain how they arrived at that conclusion. In fact, one of the clearest signs that a belief has never been critically examined is when someone becomes uncomfortable the moment they are asked to explain it beyond a memorized talking point.

What concerns me is how often some Christians assume their beliefs are the result of independent thought while everyone else’s beliefs are evidence of manipulation or ignorance. That assumption alone deserves scrutiny. Most people inherit many of their beliefs before they ever evaluate them. We inherit religious beliefs, political beliefs, cultural assumptions, and social norms from the environments in which we were raised. The question is not whether we inherited them. The question is whether we have ever examined them.

Sometimes the people most eager to identify blind loyalty in others are completely unaware of the blind loyalty operating within themselves. If you can recognize manipulation in a political movement but not in a church, that’s a blind spot. If you can recognize conformity in others but never in yourself, that’s a blind spot. If you can question everyone else’s beliefs except your own, that’s a blind spot.

Click the link to read the article:

There is a difference between being a peacemaker and being a people-pleaser. There is a difference between staying out of drama and quietly participating in it. And there is definitely a difference between neutrality and duplicity.

One of the most frustrating experiences many of us have is dealing with people who claim they are “just trying to keep the peace” while actively carrying messages, shifting stories, or presenting different versions of themselves depending on who is in the room. They want the benefits of loyalty without the responsibility of integrity. They want to be seen as everyone’s friend while avoiding the discomfort of taking a principled stand.

Peace doesn’t require two faces.

Real peace is built on honesty, transparency, and accountability. It does not require telling one person one thing and another person something completely different. It does not require secret conversations, selective storytelling, or carefully crafted narratives designed to keep everyone happy. Those behaviors don’t create peace; they create confusion.

There is nothing wrong with having relationships across different groups, perspectives, or communities. In fact, that can be a beautiful thing. The issue arises when being friends with everyone becomes an excuse for standing for nothing.

Character is revealed when friendships and principles collide.

There will be moments in life when fairness demands that we speak up. There will be situations where silence protects the wrong people. There will be times when neutrality benefits the powerful while harming the vulnerable. In those moments, remaining comfortably in the middle is not wisdom. It is avoidance.

Being a peacemaker is honorable. Being a bridge-builder is valuable. But peace without integrity is just image management.

Because in the end, people may forget what side you stood on, but they rarely forget whether your words matched your actions.

And integrity has a way of speaking for itself.

Click the link below to read the article:

In honor of Mental Health Awareness Month, it’s important to recognize that mental health in the Black community has often been misunderstood, dismissed, or reduced to stereotypes. For generations, Black people have carried layers of trauma while also carrying the expectation to “stay strong,” “push through,” and survive systems that were never designed with their well-being in mind. The result is that pain is often normalized instead of treated, hidden instead of healed, and spiritualized instead of supported.

There’s actually a term that researchers use to describe the unique emotional and psychological harm caused by racism: Race-Based Traumatic Stress (RBTS). Psychologist Dr. Robert T. Carter helped develop this framework to explain how repeated exposure to racism, discrimination, prejudice, and systemic inequality can create trauma responses that closely mirror PTSD.

The symptoms are real and measurable. Hypervigilance. Anxiety. Depression. Emotional numbness. Exhaustion. Panic attacks. Avoidance behaviors. Sleep disturbances. High blood pressure. Chronic stress. Flashbacks connected to racial incidents. These are not signs of weakness. They are often survival responses to living under prolonged racial stress.

The Black community also carries collective trauma. Trauma is not only personal; it can be historical and generational. The effects of slavery, redlining, mass incarceration, police violence, educational inequities, economic instability, and medical racism do not disappear simply because laws change. Stress accumulates across generations. Communities absorb grief collectively.

Mental health in the Black community also deserves to be discussed beyond pathology. Blackness is not a disorder. The problem is not that Black people are “too emotional,” “too angry,” or “too sensitive.” Often, people are responding normally to abnormal levels of stress, discrimination, instability, and inherited pain.

And yet, despite all of this, Black joy still exists. Black creativity still exists. Black love, laughter, spirituality, brilliance, and community still exist. Healing is not about pretending racism and trauma do not exist. It is about refusing to let trauma be the only story.

This Mental Health Awareness Month, may we move beyond simply celebrating survival and begin prioritizing healing. Black people deserve more than merely making it through. They deserve safety. Rest. Softness. Emotional honesty. Access to care. The freedom to heal without shame.

Because surviving oppression is not the same thing as living whole.

Click the link below to read all:

One of the most quoted phrases in Christianity is: “His thoughts are not our thoughts and his ways are not our ways.” People say it when life doesn’t make sense. They say it when tragedy happens. They say it when they want to remind you that God is beyond human understanding.

But here’s my question:

If his thoughts are not our thoughts and his ways are not our ways… then how are so many people so absolutely certain about what God thinks?

How are people confidently speaking for a being they simultaneously describe as mysterious, infinite, and beyond comprehension?

That contradiction has always stood out to me.

On one hand, we are told God is too vast for human understanding. On the other hand, people somehow know exactly who God approves of, who God hates, who God is angry with, who God is punishing, who God is voting for, who God is excluding, and who God is sending to hell.

People have justified slavery, segregation, misogyny, homophobia, abuse, colonization, and oppression all while claiming certainty about the mind of God. Every generation seems to produce people who are completely convinced God is endorsing their worldview specifically.

Yet history keeps exposing how wrong humans can be.

Maybe faith was never supposed to be about mastery. Maybe it was supposed to be about mystery.

Maybe the point was never for humans to act like we have God completely mapped out, categorized, explained, and weaponized. Maybe the sacred was always meant to humble us, not inflate our certainty.

Because once people believe they have mastered God, they usually stop listening, stop learning, and stop making room for humanity. Mystery requires humility. Mastery often creates ego.

Click the link to read the entire article:

It's been many years since I've participated in harmful/toxic theology but...

I apologize.

I'm sorry that at times my voice contributed to your shame.

I'm sorry that at times my words taught you to fear God instead of trust love.

I'm sorry that I taught you to bury parts of yourself in order to belong.

I'm sorry that my words became one of the reasons your faith turned into a wound instead of a refuge.

I was not trying to harm you. But intention does not erase impact.

I taught what I learned. I repeated what was handed to me as truth, often without the freedom to examine it fully. I regurgitated doctrines I myself had questions about; questions that were met not with curiosity, but with condemnation. When I asked for clarification, I was told my doubts were dangerous, my questions rebellious, my need for understanding a sign of weak faith.

So I learned to silence myself.

And then, tragically, I taught others to do the same.

I participated in a theology that valued certainty over compassion, obedience over honesty, and control over care. I passed along language that sounded sacred but carried shame. I upheld systems where belonging required self-erasure, and where faith was measured by how well you could suppress your humanity.

For that, I am deeply sorry.

If my voice once helped cause harm, I am committed to using it now for healing.

If my theology once closed doors, I am committed to opening them wider.

This is my apology.

And this is my commitment: to never again mistake fear for faith, control for holiness, or harm for truth.

Thank you for holding space for my growth, for reading Blacklisted Saint, and for being part of a community that chooses healing over harm.

Click the link to read the entire apology:

Somewhere along the way, people started saying “God first, family second” as if it was a divine ranking system handed down from heaven itself. But when you really sit with it, you have to ask: why would an all-powerful God need to compete with your spouse, your children, your parents, or the people you love?

That idea feels less like spirituality and more like institutional conditioning.

Because for many people, “God first” doesn’t actually mean compassion first, love first, humanity first, or integrity first. What it often translates to is church first. Ministry first. Religious obligation first. Attendance first. Service first. Sacrificing your emotional availability, your relationships, and sometimes even your mental health in the name of proving devotion.

Somewhere along the way, people even expanded it into “God, family, country” as though loyalty itself became the highest form of holiness.

But the entire love hierarchy itself is man-made.

Humans are obsessed with rank, order, titles, chains of command, and power structures. We build ladders for everything. Who is greater. Who comes first. Who deserves submission. Who deserves loyalty. Then we project those same systems onto God.

But if God is truly sovereign, eternal, and all-powerful, why would He need a hierarchy to establish His authority?

God doesn’t need a throne to prove He matters. People do.

If God created family, community, love, and connection, why would those things suddenly become “less than” once religion enters the picture?

The truth is, the phrase “God first” has often been used as a control mechanism. A way to keep people loyal to systems, institutions, and leadership structures. Because once someone believes that questioning church equals questioning God, they become easier to manipulate. Their exhaustion becomes sacrifice. Their neglect becomes obedience. Their silence becomes faithfulness.

That’s dangerous.

Maybe God was never asking to be placed above family in the transactional way religion teaches. Maybe the deeper question is: how do you embody love within your family, your relationships, your community, and yourself?

Because if your version of “putting God first” consistently harms the people closest to you, isolates you from authentic connection, or turns religion into performance, then maybe what’s being protected is not God at all.

Maybe it’s the institution.

Click the link to read all:

The irony flooding my social media today from the National Mall was nothing short of preposterous. As thousands of Christians gathered under the banner of "Rededication 250" to sing praises and claim spiritual renewal, they did so by reinforcing a myth. You cannot "rededicate" a nation to a set of exclusive Christian values it was never actually built upon; this country was constructed on the backs of enslaved people and on land systematically stolen from Indigenous nations.

It was church as a political pep rally, staged perfectly for the cameras. But while the melodies carried across the Mall, the cries of those with urgent, real-world needs were effectively drowned out. Ironically it was done under the symbolic blessing of an administration that weaponizes faith while embodying the antithesis of Christian humility and grace.

Christians gathering at the Capitol praying for America to be “returned to God.”

But I keep wondering something.

What God are we returning to if people are sleeping under bridges while churches sit half empty six days a week?

What does it mean to “take the nation back for God” while children go hungry in the richest country on earth?

What exactly are we restoring?

Because if faith does not move us toward people, then maybe what we are protecting is not faith at all. Maybe it is power. Maybe it is nationalism wrapped in scripture. Maybe it is the comfort of feeling morally superior while ignoring human suffering that exists right outside the sanctuary doors.

If American Christianity wishes to find its soul again, it must stop looking for validation in the halls of political empire. It must step off the stage, cross the barricades, and re-learn how to see, hear, and serve the very people it so easily leaves behind.

Rededication 250? Sorry, not sorry!

Let’s be honest, we will do absolutely anything before we do the actual, messy work required to reflect a truly just, compassionate society. Facing the ugly truth of our history and actively tearing down systems of oppression? That requires real sacrifice. That demands a shift in priorities. Instead, we settle for the cheap substitute of political pageantry, proving that we’d much rather perform a faith than live out a gospel that actually serves the broken.

Click the link to read in its entirety:

There’s something almost magical about profanity, how a simple collection of letters can instantly shift a room, raise eyebrows, or make people clutch their pearls. But here’s the real question: who decided certain words were “bad” in the first place? And maybe more importantly, why do we still let them be the authority on it?

Profanity isn’t universal. What’s considered offensive in one culture might be meaningless or even ordinary in another. That alone should tell us something: these rules aren’t divine. They’re constructed. Agreed upon. Enforced. And like most constructed systems, they often reflect power more than principle.

Who gets to define “proper” language? Usually the people with social power, academic influence, religious authority, or economic privilege. They create dictionaries, grammar rules, educational standards, and broadcasting regulations. Then those standards become normalized as if they were objective truth instead of human preference shaped by culture and class.

That’s why language discrimination is often hidden in plain sight. A person can say the exact same thing in two different dialects and one will be viewed as professional while the other is viewed as uneducated. Not because of the message, but because society assigned value to one style of speaking over another.

And let’s be honest: sometimes profanity communicates emotion more honestly than “appropriate” language ever could. There are moments when a polished sentence simply doesn’t carry the weight of what you feel. A well placed expletive can express pain, frustration, joy, or emphasis in a way that sanitized language just can’t.

That doesn’t mean all language boundaries are useless. Context matters. Audience matters. There’s a difference between expressing yourself freely and using language to harm or demean others. But that’s a different conversation. That’s about impact, not arbitrary lists of forbidden words.

Maybe the real shift isn’t about throwing out all ideas of “appropriate” language, but about questioning why certain words carry the weight they do and whether that weight still serves us.

Because at the end of the day, a word only has as much power as we collectively give it.

Yes, I watched the Kevin Hart Roast and have a variety of thoughts about it. But for those who seem to question the racist rhetoric…Here’s why the George Floyd joke was in bad taste for many of us - especially from white writers. 

George Floyd’s murder was not some distant historical moment detached from real human pain. It was a public execution witnessed around the world, one that traumatized millions of people, especially Black communities who already carry generations of grief tied to racism and state violence. People watched a man beg for his life while calling for his mother. His family has had to live with that memory being replayed endlessly across television screens, social media feeds, and public discourse. Turning that into a punch line is not “dark humor.” It is desensitization to Black suffering.

Black suffering and pain should never be a reliable punch line for white comics. There is nothing edgy, revolutionary, or harmless about turning generations of trauma, racism, violence, and systemic oppression into entertainment for applause and profit. Humor does not exist in a vacuum. Jokes carry history. They carry power dynamics. They reveal what a society has normalized and whose humanity it is willing to minimize for comfort or laughter.

Too often, Black pain becomes comedic material while Black people are still actively living through the realities being mocked. Racism is not historical fiction. The wounds are not ancient. Families are still impacted by discrimination, police violence, inequity, generational poverty, cultural theft, and dehumanization. When that suffering becomes stage material for people who have never carried the weight of it, it stops feeling like comedy and starts feeling like exploitation.

People love to say “it’s just a joke,” but jokes shape culture. They teach audiences what is acceptable to laugh at and who is acceptable to laugh at. And when the punch line consistently depends on degrading Blackness, mocking Black trauma, or trivializing Black experiences, it reinforces the very systems many claim no longer exist.

Comedy can challenge power, expose hypocrisy, and push conversations forward. But there is a difference between punching up at systems and punching down at people already carrying the burden of those systems. Black suffering is not a prop. It is not seasoning for someone else’s career. It is not material to mine because empathy failed to arrive before the microphone did.

For many, the belief that the Bible has been perfectly and faithfully preserved across time is foundational. It offers a sense of certainty, stability, and divine protection over the text. But when we step outside of tradition and examine history, that claim begins to unravel. Not because the Bible has no value, but because its journey to us is far more human, complex, and edited than many have been taught.

The Bible is not one book. It is a collection of writings composed over more than a thousand years, by different authors, in different languages, and in different cultural contexts. These texts were not originally bound together. They existed independently, circulated, copied, translated, and interpreted within various communities long before they were ever gathered into what we now call the Bible.

That alone challenges the idea of a single, untouched, perfectly preserved document.

Another uncomfortable truth is that the Bible as we know it did not fall from Heaven fully formed. Human beings made decisions about which books would be included and which would be excluded.

In the early centuries of Christianity, there were many writings circulating, gospels, letters, apocalypses. Some communities read texts like the Gospel of Thomas or the Shepherd of Hermas alongside what we now consider Scripture. It was not until centuries later that church leaders began to formalize a canon, a process influenced by theology, politics, and power.

Councils and influential figures helped shape what was considered orthodox and what was rejected as heretical. Those decisions were not neutral. They reflected the beliefs and priorities of those in authority at the time.

If a text has been copied, edited, and expanded over centuries, it cannot honestly be described as unchanged.

What if faith does not require pretending the Bible dropped from Heaven untouched?

What if it is strong enough to hold complexity, history, and even contradiction?

Recognizing that the Bible has been edited, compiled, translated, and debated does not strip it of meaning. If anything, it reveals something more profound, that people across generations found these writings worth preserving, even in their imperfection.

The real question is not whether the Bible has changed.

It has.

The question is what we do with that truth.

Do we cling to certainty at the expense of honesty?

Or do we step into a more mature, nuanced faith, one that is not afraid of how the story actually unfolded?

Click the link to read all:

Mother’s Day is often wrapped in flowers, brunch reservations, greeting cards, and carefully posed photographs. But beneath all the commercial language is something far more profound: women have been carrying worlds on their backs for generations.

Motherhood is not just biology. It is labor. It is emotional architecture. It is sacrifice that often goes unnamed. It is staying awake while everyone else sleeps. It is holding families together while quietly falling apart inside. It is being expected to nurture others while learning, sometimes far too late, how to nurture yourself.

And for many women, Mother’s Day carries complicated emotions.

Some women are grieving mothers they lost. Some are mourning children they never got to hold. Some are exhausted from raising children with little support. Some are healing from mothers who wounded them. Some are “mothers” to communities, classrooms, churches, nieces, nephews, clients, and friends without ever giving birth.

All of it counts.

So, Happy Mother’s Day to every woman who has loved, nurtured, protected, sacrificed, guided, comforted, rebuilt, and continued showing up even on the days she felt empty herself. Whether you are a mother by birth, by choice, by circumstance, or simply by the love you pour into others, your presence matters.

May today remind you that you are worthy of the same care, tenderness, grace, and celebration you so freely give to everyone else. You are seen. You are appreciated. And you are deeply loved.

Click the link to read the entire article celebrating women and all forms of motherhood:

Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because people were gay. That’s a lie that’s been weaponized for centuries to justify hate, exclusion, and spiritual violence. It’s a distortion of scripture that has caused deep harm, and it’s long past time we set the record straight.

A lot of people, including me, inherited that teaching without ever being encouraged to actually study the text for themselves or examine the historical and cultural context. And unfortunately, that narrow interpretation has caused real harm to LGBTQ+ people for generations.

When you actually read the text in Genesis 19, what you see isn’t a story about same-sex love; it’s a story about power, violence, and inhospitality. The men of Sodom didn’t seek intimacy; they sought domination. Their actions weren’t rooted in desire, but in the abuse of power and the intent to humiliate strangers. That’s not sexuality. That’s violence.

But over time, fear-based theology twisted this story into an anti-LGBTQ weapon, reducing it to a false morality tale about sexuality instead of systemic sin. It’s easier, after all, to scapegoat people than to confront greed, arrogance, and apathy.

So if you really want to talk about what destroyed Sodom, talk about the sin of neglecting humanity. Talk about what happens when a society loses compassion. Talk about what happens when comfort becomes more sacred than justice.

The message of Sodom isn’t “don’t be gay.”

It’s don’t be heartless and stop dehumanizing people!

Click the link to read all:

Sometimes people don’t mistreat others because they’re inherently cruel. Sometimes they’re simply repeating what was done to them.

Harm has a way of traveling. It moves quietly through families, workplaces, communities, and institutions, often disguised as “normal.” What was once endured becomes what is later enforced. And without even realizing it, people can become the very thing that once hurt them.

A supervisor belittles their team because they were once humiliated by theirs. A parent disciplines with harshness because gentleness was never modeled. A leader demands loyalty through fear because they were taught that respect and intimidation are the same thing. An OG belittles a newbie because it toughens their skin. The pattern isn’t always intentional, but it is powerful.

There’s a kind of logic people adopt to survive mistreatment: If I had to go through it, so should you. It’s not always spoken out loud, but it lives underneath behaviors and decisions. Pain becomes a rite of passage instead of something to be interrupted. And in that way, suffering gets passed down like an inheritance no one asked for.

At its worst, this mindset turns into a form of hazing.

Good mentors understand their role isn’t to prove superiority. It’s to transfer knowledge, build confidence, and help someone become more than they were when they started. That requires patience, emotional intelligence, and restraint, the kind that says, just because I have the power to break you down doesn’t mean I should.

The truth is, you can’t control how you were treated. But you can absolutely control how you treat others.

Not everything that shaped you deserves to be passed on.

Some things, especially the harmful ones, are meant to stop with you.

Click the link to read all:

Somewhere along the way, we started calling buildings “God’s house,” as if the Divine needed a mortgage, a steeple, and office hours. We point to stained glass, pulpits, large auditoriums, and sanctuaries and say, “This is where God lives.” But that idea says more about people’s need for structure than it does about the nature of God.

Because if God is who we claim God is; limitless, omnipresent, uncontainable, then reducing God to a physical location isn’t reverence. It’s restriction.

The church is not God’s house. It’s a meeting place. A gathering space. A container humans created to organize worship, community, and tradition. And while there’s nothing inherently wrong with that, confusion happens when we start treating the container as if it is the presence.

That’s when the building becomes sacred, but the people inside it don’t. That’s when rituals matter more than relationships. That’s when protecting the institution becomes more important than embodying the love it claims to represent.

And let’s talk about the contradiction we’ve normalized: we tell people to “respect God’s house.” Lower your voice. Watch your language. Act right in here. But somehow, the moment we step outside those doors, all bets are off. We can gossip, judge, harm, and dishonor people without the same urgency to “respect God.”

The church can be a beautiful place when it remembers what it actually is: a gathering of people seeking connection, meaning, and community. But the moment it claims ownership over God, it steps out of alignment with the very essence it claims to honor.

God doesn’t live in buildings.

God moves in people. God breathes in creation. God exists in every act of love, every moment of truth, every expression of grace.

So no, the church is not God’s house.

And maybe it was never meant to be.

There are moments in life when something shifts in the atmosphere, when a room, a crowd, or even a congregation seems to breathe as one. The energy rises, barriers fall, and suddenly you aren’t just you anymore. You are part of something shared, something alive. That feeling has a name: collective effervescence.

Coined by sociologist Émile Durkheim, collective effervescence describes the heightened emotional state people experience when they come together in a group around a shared purpose, belief, or moment. It is that electric surge you feel at a concert when the whole crowd sings in unison, in a sanctuary when the spirit feels thick, or during a protest when voices rise together in defiance and hope.

Nowhere is collective effervescence more recognizable than in religious spaces.

The music swells. The room fills with voices singing the same words. Hands lift. Eyes close. Someone shouts. Someone cries. The preacher’s cadence rises and falls in rhythm with the crowd. The energy builds until it feels almost tangible, like you could reach out and touch it.

In these moments, what people often describe as “the presence of God” can also be understood through the lens of collective effervescence.

That doesn’t mean God is absent. It means we must be honest about what is happening.

Human beings are wired for emotional contagion. When enough people focus their attention, align their emotions, and surrender to the moment, something powerful is created. It feels transcendent. It feels holy. It feels undeniable.

The same force that creates connection can also be used to create chaos.

A sobering example is the January 6 United States Capitol attack.

What began as a gathering quickly became a unified emotional surge. Shared beliefs, heightened rhetoric, and group energy fed off one another until individual judgment gave way to collective action. People who might never act alone found themselves swept up in something larger, louder, and more volatile.

This is the other side of collective effervescence.

It doesn’t discern between good and harm. It amplifies whatever is present.

In a world that often pushes individuality to the extreme, many people are quietly starving for connection. We are hyper connected digitally, but emotionally fragmented. Collective effervescence offers something different. It invites us back into embodied togetherness.

It serves as a powerful reminder that we are never alone, that our emotions are both valid and shared, and that there is true strength to be found in unity.

And perhaps most importantly, it gives us a glimpse of what is possible when we move as one.

Like any powerful force, collective effervescence can be used for both good and harm. The same energy that fuels healing and liberation can also be manipulated to spread fear, division, or blind allegiance.

That is why awareness matters.

Not every charged space is sacred. Not every unified crowd is safe.

Collective effervescence is more than a sociological concept. It is a lived experience. It is the goosebumps, the tears, the laughter, and the unspoken understanding that passes between people when something real is happening.

It is what reminds us that we were never meant to do life in isolation.

And when we tap into it intentionally, mindfully, and with love, it becomes more than a moment.

It becomes a movement.

For years, we heard it over and over again: “The country just isn’t ready for a woman president.”

That was the line. Too emotional. Too unpredictable. Too soft. Too much. Not enough. Every version of the same excuse wrapped in different language.

But then came the contradiction.

Because the same people who said they weren’t ready for a woman turned around and chose Donald Trump…AGAIN! A man whose leadership style has been defined by emotional reactions, public grievances, and a constant need to respond to criticism in real time.

Let’s stop pretending we don’t see it.

He is emotional. He whines. He complains loudly, repeatedly, and often. When things don’t go his way, the response isn’t measured strategy; it’s reaction. It’s personal. It’s immediate. It’s loud.

And yet, somehow, that didn’t disqualify him.

But a woman?

That was the dealbreaker.

And here’s the part people don’t like to say out loud:

The traits that disqualify women are often the same traits that get excused, or even rewarded, in men.

A woman raises her voice? She’s unstable. A man does it? He’s passionate.

A woman stands firm? She’s difficult. A man does it? He’s decisive.

A woman shows emotion? She’s unfit. A man complains, lashes out, and centers himself in every situation? Suddenly that’s just “how he is.”

So when people say they weren’t ready for a woman president, what they’re really admitting is they weren’t ready to confront their own bias about what leadership looks like.

Because if the standard had been applied evenly, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

This was never about readiness.

It was about permission…who we allow to be flawed, who we expect to be perfect, and who we refuse to see clearly no matter how obvious the contradiction becomes.

Click the link to read the article: