Friday, Paramount+ released the first of their Star Trek movies, Section 31. In the Star Trek universe, Section 31 is a nefarious group introduced in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine when they tried to recruit Dr. Julian Bashir. Since its first introduction as an autonomous shadow organization tasked with protecting the Federation at all costs, the organization has appeared in Star Trek Into Darkness, Enterprise, and Star Trek: Discovery. The organization has always been portrayed as an evil organization that would stop at nothing to fulfill what it believes its mission to be. Some Star Trek fans hate the idea of Section 31 because they say it goes against Gene Roddenberry’s utopian ideals for Star Trek, but let’s face it, while the Star Trek universe gives us hope for a better future, the Federation has never been a perfect society. Even Gene Roddenberry understood that utopia would have its cracks in its foundation.
Since Michelle Yeoh departed Discovery there had been rumors of a Section 31 series. Then, Yeoh won an Oscar for Everything Everywhere All at Once, I assumed the series development had been cancelled. I did not believe an Academy award winning actress would headline a Star Trek series. So, I was surprised when they announced that Paramount+ would be making what they called an “event movie” about Section 31 starring Michelle Yeoh.
Every new version of Star Trek since the original series has had a love/hate relationship with Trekkies. Many Trekkies hate anything that is not the original series. Even Next Generation which has become a much beloved show was hated when it began. Deep Space Nine was basically hated through its entire seven seasons, Voyager always got a mixed reception, and Enterprise seemed to put a death knell in Star Trek spinoffs when it only lasted five season. Then, Discovery was released on CBS All Access, and the hatred truly began because it introduced an African American female as the lead character, had a gay couple, transgender and non-binary characters, and a host of other perceived faults. There are many Star Trek fans who never understood the social commentary that Roddenberry established in Star Trek back in the 1960s. It was always groundbreaking, but even Star Trek fans are not immune to the racist, the homophobic, and the ignorant, no matter how much those beliefs go against all Roddenberry’s utopian ideals for Star Trek.
So, it’s no surprise to see Section 31 get terrible reviews from some of the fans. Plus, internet trolls are everywhere including among Trekkies. They are going to be critical and hate everything and never give anything new a chance. I won’t claim that I thought Section 31 was a masterpiece. I believed that it would be a good movie because I really didn’t think at this point in her career Yeoh would be part of a project that she didn’t believe would be good. There were certain surprise elements to Section 31 that I enjoyed, but I knew from the beginning that this would be a darker version of the Star Trek universe. All in all, I was entertained by the movie. I always like seeing anything Star Trek. I even gave Prodigy a try, and it’s the only entry in the series that I could not watch. When it was on Paramount+, I watched it, but I never enjoyed it. That might have had to do more with it being a show for kids than with anything else. I certainly was not going to resubscribe to Netflix to watch it.
So while Section 31 was not my favorite of the Star Trek franchise, it wasn’t too bad. I was entertained, and that’s what really matters to me. So, if you are skeptical, I suggest you give it a try. If you have already seen it, what did you think?
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
— Galatians 3:26-28
Paul’s words to the Galatians remind us of the radical inclusivity of the Gospel. In Christ, every barrier that divides us—ethnicity, status, gender—is broken down. Through faith, we are all equal before God, equally loved, equally valued, and equally welcomed into the family of God. This profound truth extends to LGBTQ+ individuals. The same grace that clothes us in Christ’s righteousness calls us to embrace our identity as beloved children of God. No one is excluded from the promise of God’s love, and no one is outside the reach of His saving grace.
Some religious leaders argue that this passage does not directly adSome religious leaders argue that this passage does not directly address LGBTQ+ individuals because the text specifically addresses divisions based on ethnicity (Jew and Gentile), social status (slave and free), and gender (male and female), without mentioning sexuality. Some view it as a commentary on unity in Christ rather than a statement about sexual orientation. These same individuals also claim that the passage’s primary intent is often interpreted as a call to remove barriers to salvation and inclusion within the Christian community, rather than addressing specific questions of sexual ethics or identity.They want us to believe that the mention of “male and female” in the context of unity in Christ is sometimes framed as reinforcing traditional binary gender roles rather than deconstructing them. This interpretation can lead to the assumption that the passage does not pertain to issues of sexual or gender diversity. Sadly, some scholars only see the passage as emphasizing the unity of specific groups that comes through baptism, rather than a broader affirmation of diversity in sexual orientation or gender identity. However, while Paul was trying to heal division within the church, those who exclude LGBTQ+ people from the meaning of this passage only want to sow division.
The passage’s emphasis on breaking down social and cultural barriers can and should be extended beyond the specific examples Paul lists. If Christ eliminates divisions based on ethnicity, class, and gender, it logically follows that other forms of exclusion—such as those based on sexual orientation or gender identity—are also contrary to the spirit of the text. Paul was addressing specific forms of discrimination relevant to his audience, but his broader theological point is about the radical inclusivity of the gospel. LGBTQ+ inclusion can be seen as a natural extension of this principle in modern contexts. The phrase “neither male and female” may challenge rigid gender binaries. This could open the door to understanding the text as inclusive of non-binary or transgender identities, as it undermines the idea that gender distinctions define our standing before God. While Paul did not address LGBTQ+ identities directly, the underlying theology of unity and inclusion can apply to marginalized groups in every era. To limit the passage’s meaning to its immediate historical context would overlook its broader implications. The passage asserts that identity in Christ transcends human categories. This resonates with the experiences of many LGBTQ+ Christians, who see their faith as central to their identity and as a rejection of societal judgments or exclusions.
Galatians 3:26-28 is not the only place where Paul states a message of inclusion. In Ephesians 2:14-16, he wrote, “For He Himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility… His purpose was to create in Himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace.” This passage echoes the message of unity in Galatians, affirming that Christ breaks down barriers and creates one united family. In Colossians 3:11, he told the Christian community in Colossae, “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.” This reinforces the idea that Christ is the foundation of our unity and identity.
The message of Galatians 3:26-28 is echoed throughout the Old and New Testaments. Isaiah 56:3-5 says, “Let no foreigner who is bound to the Lord say, ‘The Lord will surely exclude me from his people.’ And let no eunuch complain, ‘I am only a dry tree.’ For this is what the Lord says: To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant—to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will endure forever.” This passage demonstrates God’s heart for inclusion. Eunuchs, who were often marginalized and excluded in ancient times, are promised a place of honor in God’s house. It reminds us that God welcomes and affirms those whom society might cast aside. In 1 Samuel 16:7, the prophet says, “The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” God sees us for who we truly are—our hearts, our faith, and our desire to follow Him. Our worth is not determined by societal categories or labels but by His unconditional love. And in John 13:34-35, John writes, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Jesus’ command to love is the defining mark of His followers. This love is not conditional or limited—it embraces all people, regardless of their background, identity, or orientation.
Unity in Christ is a message taught through the ages. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, once said, “Though we may not think alike, may we not love alike?” This echoes the truth of Galatians 3:26-28. Diversity in thought, experience, or identity does not diminish our unity in Christ. Wesley’s words challenge us to prioritize love and understanding over division. Similarly, 20th-century civil rights leader Bayard Rustin, an openly gay Christian, demonstrated how faith and identity could coexist powerfully. He said, “We need, in every community, a group of angelic troublemakers.” This call to advocate for justice, rooted in love and courage, reminds us that living out our faith means creating a world where all are treated with dignity and equality.
While these passages may not explicitly mention LGBTQ+ individuals, their messages of radical unity and inclusion supports the view that Christ’s grace transcends human divisions, including those based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The restrictive interpretation risks ignoring the broader implications of Paul’s theology, which seeks to affirm the full dignity and equality of all who are “in Christ.” Galatians 3:26-28 is a powerful reminder that the Gospel is for everyone. It calls us to embrace our identity as children of God, break down barriers of division, and live in unity and mutual love. In Christ, all are welcome, equal, and valued. As we reflect on Galatians 3:26-28, consider the following: Are there ways you’ve excluded yourself or others from God’s grace? How can you live in a way that reflects the unity and equality found in Christ? How can you be an advocate for inclusion and justice in your community? For LGBTQ+ individuals, this passage affirms your belonging in God’s family. You are clothed in Christ, and nothing can separate you from His love.
It’s Friday, and I’m back on my regular schedule of working from home today. It is so nice to be able to log into my work computer with my cup of tea in hand, in sweats and a t-shirt, knowing the weekend is just around the corner, and I don’t have to get out in the cold this morning. Working from home is more than just a shift in location, it’s a chance to set the tone for a productive yet relaxed day. It’s easier to focus without the buzz of the office, and the flexibility means I can finally tackle the laundry piling up. Mostly though, I will spend the day preparing for next week’s classes. I’m just glad I can do it while being more relaxed from home.
I feel bad for all the government workers out there who have lost the privilege of working from home. In this first week, the new administration in Washington has already begun to dismantle America, whether it’s revoking job offers and laying off all government employees who have worked less than a year to allowing ICE agents to invade schools to take away students. In the United States, don’t kids have enough to worry about with school shootings and not feeling safe in school, but now worrying that armed agents of the government are going to burst into classrooms and drag them away?
You haven’t heard much about the new administration on this blog because I find it so disheartening and depressing. It’s not like there isn’t a lack of things to say. Since a fascist oligarchy has assumed office on January 20, the new administration has enacted several policies that have raised concerns about the erosion of human rights and democratic principles:
Terminating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Programs;
Banning non-U.S. flags at embassies preventing the display of flags representing various social movements, such as LGBTQ+ Pride and Black Lives Matter;
Revoking affirmative action policies ending hiring practices that had been in place since 1965 ending attempts to create workplace diversity;
Signing an executive order on “Biological Truth” enforcing a strict male-female binary and disregarding the existence of intersex individuals and transgender individuals;
Attempting to end birthright citizenship, disregarding a key provision of the the definition of a US citizen in the Fourteenth Amendment; and
Erasing transgender rights by halting the issuance of gender-corrected passports and other policies aimed to promote transphobia in the federal government.
Each of these actions have been widely criticized by human rights organizations and advocacy groups as undermining civil liberties and democratic norms. Legal challenges are anticipated as stakeholders seek to uphold protections against discrimination and preserve democratic principles. My fear is that with the current makeup of the Supreme Court, these policies will be upheld no matter how blatantly unconstitutional and undemocratic they are.
I wish I could stay home this morning, but I have a few things I need to be at the museum to do. If I had my work computer here, I’d call in sick. I left at lunch yesterday because I had a migraine. This morning, it’s not much better, in fact it’s not better at all. I may only go in for a partial day. I need my work computer to do much of what I need to do today. I have a school group coming today, but my boss could handle that. However, I need my computer for the rest of what’s on my agenda. I have some emails to answer; I need to prepare for my classes next week; and I need my computer to be able to work from home tomorrow. I could do all that at home on my personal laptop, but it only has Microsoft Word, not the rest of the Office Suite. I could access it through the online Microsoft 365, but I hate using Office through my browser. It always feels clumsy to me. Anyway, I’ll go in today for whatever length I need to, then, I’ll work from home tomorrow.
Here’s your Isabella pic of the week:
I’d rather be doing this today: laying on my couch with Isabella on my hip. I wish she’d lay in my lap or down my chest and stomach, which she’ll do on rare occasions, but her preference is my hip with me laying on my side. Sometimes, this is how I fall asleep at night, with her on my hip.
The Closet Professor 