Identity Politics Are Not the Gospel

Posted on November 8, 2011 by TwoFriars

Back in August we Friars and Fools were guests on Pastor Nar’s podcast Losing My Religion. During the episode we called out the Homebrewed Christianity crew for a “theology-off” (whatever the hell that is). The host of that fabulous podcast, Tripp Fuller, responded in good humor on Twitter and later encouraged us to come to Soularize so we could share a beer and geek out over some good theology together. We accepted.

At Soularize Tripp and Bo did an awesome live version of their podcast, hosted a few different workshops and we got to talking process theology, postmodern philosophy, and identity politics. We turned the camera on Tripp during one of these conversations for some awesome, offensive, insightful pontificating. Enjoy.

Want more? Watch the second part.

Tripp Fuller

(@TrippFuller)is married to an awesome lady Alecia and has a handsome little baby boy named Elgin Thomas (aka E.T.) and Pebbles, the Schnoodle. He and Alecia are both graduates of Campbell University (where they met), the Divinity School of Wake Forest University and ordained ministers. He is working on his PhD in Philosophy of Religion and Theology at Claremont Graduate University. A few other things he digs are books, cigars, pipes, Shaq, guitar, pirates, fishing, the Counting Crows, and good conversations about Religion and Politics. His podcast, Homebrewed Christianity, is the most time consuming hobby he has ever had besides reading and blogging through Wolfhart Pannenberg’s 3 volume systematic theology.

This entry was posted in Sex, Theology and tagged Aric Clark, Doug Hagler, Homebrewed Christianity, LGBTQ Issues, Nick Larson, Tripp Fuller. Bookmark the permalink.

http://twitter.com/Rev_Mother Ellen Cooper-Davis

Can’t it be a both/and? While a sort of radical equalization of all of humanity, a kind of Universal ‘Namaste’ is certainly a horizon to aim toward, it isn’t present reality. The present reality is that there are people who are and have been marginalized and oppressed. When the predominant religious culture seeks to exclude particulars, then those of us working for radical inclusiveness must sometimes also speak directly to particulars, while simultaneously working on a larger scale to counter and change the cultural trend to label, demonize, subvert. We can be embracing of the whole of humanity, even Glenn Beck fans, but I don’t believe that that embrace and love means allowing their hatred of others to be enacted in ways that continues to oppress. We live in a world where identities matter to people–they are a source of community, heritage, empowerment, culture. Would we really ask people to flatten that out, so to speak, and be merely human? Could we? It seems to me that while we should aim to treat ALL people with the respect and dignity that their very existence deserves, part of that respect and dignity means honoring their specific particulars–especially when those particulars have been used to marginalize, exclude and denigrate. It’s tricky for those in a position of privilege to argue that identities shouldn’t matter.

http://twitter.com/reflectant Nick Larson

You’ve got a great point Ellen, it is tricky but should that stop us from trying? I love your comment about calling out “their hatred of others to be enacted in ways that continues to oppress.” I think back to our post last week about the 10 commandments of good internet community…and that you have to send trolls back under their bridges. And yes, a true flattening out would require those of us with privilege to give that up (which I would do). The bible has something to say about that…Also I think Tripp responds to that a little bit in the second half of the video (http://vimeo.com/31778600) if you haven’t had a chance to watch part 2.

I had a really interesting conversation with Rita Brock about this very subject at Soularize. She said the ancient church actually had a process for this around penance and excommunication. She was explaining to me that penance and excommunication were actually designed not to send people outside the community, but actually to seperate them internally to work through their confessed sins. I think we need to find a way to welcome all, while creating a process that would not exclude or overly denigrate a new set of people.

Brianskirk

I hear this argument loud and clear. Where I’m still challenged however is that many churches claim the mantle of “we are welcoming of all” and yet they aren’t. The Church has for so long participated in the sin of excluding persons who are LGBT that it’s reasonable to believe that these persons would assume every church rejects them…unless you somehow communicate, clearly, that they are welcome. I believe that for some churches the “Open and Affirming” designation is a way to say, “All are welcome.” That said, I pastor a church that never went through the process and yet we are completely open and affirming. We have gay members, gay staff, gay family members, etc. and we declare our radical welcome from the pulpit. We just sort of found our way to this place organically…but not all churches can do this. I do think some need to go through the process of thoughtful study, discernment, prayer, and conversation in order to reach that place of being “Open and Affirming.”

http://twitter.com/reflectant Nick Larson

I would agree with you Brian. Some churches do need to go through a process, I would argue that we need to go through a process that offers the deeper elmenents included in welcoming and embracing of all persons. The problems with a process of study, discernment, prayer and conversation over LGBT persons included in our churches is that it sets up a system where when another excluded group comes along that same church needs to go through another process to welcome that new group. For me it’s also about creating a process for church discernment that calls into question the concept of inclusion/exclusion. And that’s a process that I want to be part of leading the church through. I think making the goal to reach “open and affirming” could be too short sighted.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Douglas-Hagler/848645164 Douglas Hagler

You didn’t mention it, but I do hope that you are flying some kind of ‘you are safe here’ flag in your community. It would be a tragedy for a church like yours, organically moving toward inclusion and welcome, to keep it a secret. I’m not saying you are, I’m just saying it wasn’t clear. In my own current community, I would sacrifice a body part to have a visible, welcoming congregation serving the community. As it stands, the LGBTQ/alphabet-soup people in this area have two choices – 1. be bullied and excluded in church or 2. be bullied and excluded apart from church. I’d love to move my own congregation that way, but they just aren’t there. They are actually able to welcome LGBTQ people they know (well, L and G and Q thus far) but that is because they know them, not because they have even realized that ID politics exists.

Brianskirk

In the past, we made it known because we welcomed ministries in our building that served people living with HIV/AIDS and we offered a home to the local gay mens chorus, as well as a mention on our website. But in the last year we realized this was just not enough, so we hosted a booth at Pride Fest and are now working on a welcoming video for our church website. Once that video goes live, we hope to produce more videos that welcome people of other diversities including those from different family structures, people with different theological understandings, etc. We don’t necessarily want to just be seen as the church that welcomes LGBT persons, but that we are trying our best to be a church that welcomes any one who comes in our doors.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Douglas-Hagler/848645164 Douglas Hagler

That sounds awesome; many blessings on that road.

Matt G

The diversity of God and of Christ is reflected in the diversity of humanity. I think we have to be careful in how we define self when we talk of losing ourselves. The beauty of the Gospel is that it is incarnational (is this not a word? I hear it all the time but it always gets the red underline). There is a human element of God and so we do not lose our humanity or identity as humans. I do think surrendering ourselves to Christ is essential (would love to see baptismal tubs filled with acid, Aric) but I also know that the identity Christ gives back to me is interwoven with who I am. There is no one mold for all Christians because the Christ in us integrates with who we are and we are each unique. So I find trying to identify one particular definition of a Christian identity, and to negate the very human identities that we have, a fools errand and actually suppresses the very wild, chaotic, and diverse way that God wants to be in this world.

Anonymous

Matt, I hear you and I’m sympathetic to the “beauty of diversity” argument. Part of me very much agrees that we are loved and saved in all of our particulars and there is an unappealing flatness to the idea that our unique identities are wiped out in becoming Christian. But…

Another part of me thinks that maybe that language has more to do with the American dream of self-fulfillment than the Gospel ideal of losing oneself for the sake of others. It is appealing that the gospel sets me free to be me, but maybe the truth is more that the gospel sets me free FROM me. That in being willing to have the self dissolve, I find something much more lasting. Perhaps, as Peter Rollins is preaching these days, the good news is that we can’t be happy and fulfilled. That there is no magical point of Jungian integration, but that a majority of our suffering comes from this quest for individual fulfillment, and sacrificing that quest is exactly what gives us true freedom.

Matt G

I agree that the happy and fulfilled as purpose is a crock of shit and has caused a great deal of evil and suffering for those providing, mostly against their will, the sources of fulfillment and happiness but I don’t connect the self that I lose for others with certain elements of my identity. For me, it’s much closer to the Buddhist concept of self or individual ego than the things we would define as our identity. I can lose this without changing my identity as a husband and father and so I do not see how anyone who is gay, lesbian or transgendered cannot also lose their individual ego while still simply being who they are. I don’t like labeled churches much, and I don’t like labeling people for what is only one aspect of who they are, but I also know that that much of the world sees “church” and sees the label “Judgmental gay-haters” because that is the label the church has rightfully earned. While actions are more important than labels… a church still has an upward hill to climb to let it’s community know that they want to be different, even if they don’t know how to do it very well. I think the best thing that the white male dominated church can do is to say “We’ve caused a lot of pain, we haven’t loved well and in many cases not at all, we haven’t listened, we’re arrogant, we haven’t shared the pulpit, forgive us.” And then shut up and listen. reconciliation needs to come before resurrection and we just aren’t there yet. (and I, admittedly, haven’t done much to get us there.)

Anonymous

Well said. I agree with everything you said here. I’m not sure there is a clear bright line between the self that I lose and the identities that may or may not be retained in self-emptying, but the point is well taken.

Matt

you haven’t found the line?!…I bumped into mine on accident ; ) This is an interesting discussion and right away I gravitate towards blaming dualistic thinking… that matter and spirit are separate and even opposed to one another. I see the Gospel saying another thing but I think understanding where people are on that issue helps know how they approach it.

http://www.facebook.com/tiffany.bridge Tiffany Baxendell Bridge

The thing I took away from our conversation around biblical masculinity is that these labels DO matter, and the church should act like they matter, so it’s not sufficient to talk about discipleship in an ungendered way, because Christian men (and I believe one or more of the Christian men who run this site specifically) crave instruction on what specifically the Bible has to say on their identity as men. I was grateful for the challenge to my perspective that this presented and am still thinking about it, now what, 2 months later?

But now it seems like the opposite is being asserted- on the question of whether we deliberately and affirmatively welcome our LGBT brothers and sisters, people who have good and real reasons to feel wounded by and suspicious of institutions that call themselves Christian, it seems like now the assertion is that we need to move past these petty identity issues and get down to the important work of transcending our identities and and losing them entirely.

Brothers, I think this is backwards. If indeed the ideal is to transcend identity, then it is the privileged group, the group for whom identity is not a hindrance, that is most in the position to do the work of getting over their own hangups about what it means to be a man or a woman or a dog and get on with serving the Kingdom.

The marginalized group that has spent literally generations being told that being gay is incompatible with being a Christian are the people whose identities need the most specific and gentle care from the Church. What does it mean, as a gay person, to live a Christian life in a society that is still halfway through the transition from reviling to accepting them? What does it mean to have faith in a loving God in the face of social persecution that literally drives your contemporaries to suicide?

That identity has direct relevance to what it means to be a follower of Christ, even aside from the purely practical (but still important) idea of the “open and affirming sign” being like the not-so-secret-code for “it’s safe for you to be gay at this church.”

http://www.facebook.com/people/Douglas-Hagler/848645164 Douglas Hagler

Just a point of clarification – when we invite someone to contribute on TFF, we aren’t saying “This is what we believe” – we’re saying “This is interesting and we want to talk about it.” Tripp’s interview and our post on “Biblical masculinity” are accidentally contradictory – they’re both up because we think they’re worth talking about, and we think they’ll be of interest to people who are connected to our little community here.

I personally think that Tripp’s critique needs to exist side by side with “open and affirming” signs, rainbow flags and so on. I think you’re exactly right – we need to stand on our rooftops and shout “Sanctuary!” You are safe here. We will not hurt you because of who you love. Because the overwhelming majority of not just churches but societies will hurt you, and it’s wrong. We will draw battle-lines on your behalf and fight with you until it isn’t ok to hurt you anymore.

On the other hand, I think Tripp is right – this is not the fulfillment of the kingdom of heaven, to have enough slogans and signs and letters in the long list of “affirmed” groups we’re open to. We are called to something beyond that, and we should keep that beyond in mind as much as we can. We are playing an incremental game with ID politics, and the game has to be broken open to give rise to something better.

In the meantime, though, as long as a majority of our society, including churches, sees it as ok to exclude, discriminate against, bully, etc. a group of people, we will need to make specific effort to welcome that group of people. Otherwise, they will rightly assume there is a “not welcome” sign, whether we hang one out or not.

http://www.facebook.com/tiffany.bridge Tiffany Baxendell Bridge

I realize guest voices are just that, but I also note in the comments expressions of agreement from the very gentlemen who were advocating for addressing male identity a few months ago. Which is fine! I just think there’s an inherent conflict in those two positions that needs to be pointed out. Not because holding both positions isn’t possible or even reasonable (logical consistency is highly overrated, so long as you are conscious of where the inconsistencies are), but because examining the inconsistencies is where we really start to learn stuff.

I guess I just think that “shouldn’t we try to get beyond our labels,” as a position, is so obvious as to not bear debate. Of course we should. Is there anyone who seriously thinks that we’re just a collection of group identities? Can any reasonable person disagree that Christian discipleship ought to be about what it means to follow Jesus as a person, regardless of what checkboxes that person fills in on the EEO form? But as you say, in order for us to get to that point, we have a LOT of catching up to do in terms of making the marginalized feel welcome in our churches. That is valuable work, and it must continue. I just think arguing against it as an end point is kind of a straw man.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Douglas-Hagler/848645164 Douglas Hagler

As I said below at some point (and probably long-winded-ly) I want both/and in this case. I think Tripp makes good points (more than just the point about getting beyond labels – about market capitalism and Jesus being a ‘shit-collector’ for all of us and so on) and I think there is still very much a place for flying the inclusiveness flag, since otherwise the assumption will rightly be “Christians hate sexual minorities and want to bully them.”

I can also imagine a scenario where we take differences seriously, look at them and talk about them, and also have moved beyond the ID politics game we play now. That is, I think the inconsistency can be resolved (speaking as one of the Fools who is still interested in talking about masculinity).

http://www.facebook.com/tiffany.bridge Tiffany Baxendell Bridge

The theo-capitalism thing is… first of all, a really great point, but also just so… big. Like the fish who turns to the other fish and asks what this “water” thing is.

But I think it also kind of goes hand-in-hand with the identity politics thing. If pure religion is caring for the fatherless and the widowed (read: the most defenseless), then making it a point to publicly stand with LGBTQABCDEFG… is really just an expression of the same theology that should spur us to challenge the economic structures we live in.

The dominant social structure leaves gay people (among others) marginalized and defenseless. The dominant economic structure leaves all kinds of people marginalized and defenseless. But challenging the social structure victimizing gay people is a lot easier for us to wrap our heads around and challenge than something as complex as global capitalism, and frankly a lot less morally ambiguous. After all, a free-market system has a lot to recommend it at the micro level.

So if the point is that we should be thinking bigger than just standing with/accepting each marginalized group and start thinking about why any group gets marginalized to begin with, then I agree! So wholeheartedly that I’m still wondering why we’re even debating it! Hooray for social justice!

But I actually don’t think the solution to that is to wish we could get past identity politics. Speaking only from my own experience, it wasn’t until I stopped insisting on everyone’s rugged individualism and tried to understand how one’s membership in one identity group or another shapes one’s experience that I started to consider the larger, systemic questions of how marginalization happens.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Douglas-Hagler/848645164 Douglas Hagler

Hooray for social justice indeed! I realize I’m hearing Tripp from my own particularity, and I also have the context of whatever else I know about Tripp, but that’s what I took to be the thrust of what he said, using “I am not open and affirming” as a provocative intro to the ideas he went into. I can see how that could be taken as “tone-deaf” (as mentioned above) by other listeners. That’s why we have this conversation about whatever it is we post – the post is not complete, it is just an opener.

I think I basically agree with you. I also don’t think we should “get past” identity politics, not at this stage anyway. We need to keep playing identity politics because real people are receiving real wounds at the hands of other Christians, and pretending we can ‘move beyond’ ID politics won’t change that fact.

And it’s still weird to me, but I should accept it, that many people coming to the site seem to assume that we three Fools always agree with whoever it is we’ve invited to contribute. I think that’ll just have to be part of our ongoing introduction. I for one think this has been another great conversation. I’ve learned from it, anyway, and that’s kind of my own selfish standard. I hope other people contributing and ‘listening in’ have gotten things to think about too.
http://www.facebook.com/tiffany.bridge Tiffany Baxendell Bridge

I didn’t assume you all agreed until y’all started, you know, expressing agreement. Which I realize was more just working through the points being made rather than Endorsement, but even at that level, the contradiction is an interesting one to ponder.

And I guess I want to be clear (since it’s clear that this topic has bumped into a sore point for people) that my pointing out of that contradiction was not intended to come off with any kind of hostility or opposition. It was more intended to come across as “Isn’t it interesting that these two things conflict, and maybe you didn’t notice, but I sure think it would be interesting to explore that.”

I always learn a lot when I come here, whether I participate or not, and I regard y’all as people who are genuinely interested in being challenged, which is something I value and respect.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Douglas-Hagler/848645164 Douglas Hagler

I’m very glad that comes across – because that is what we want – for learning to happen, and to be challenged. I’m very happy with what we have going here, and am glad you’re here, silently or otherwise.

Anonymous

Doug answered this thread well, I just thought I’d add (with a hearty chuckle) – yup. We’re self contradictory. Welcome to Two Friars and a Fool!

http://twitter.com/trippfuller trippfuller

Great responses! Glad the conversation is so rich. I wonder what y’all think about the specific issue i was hoping to attack, namely that when progressive churches spend time, energy, and then worship time celebrating their decision to be open and affirming the more life threatening justice issues get pushed to the side. So instead of getting our congregations, congregants, and our own lives focused on addressing economism and its consequences we pick a much less costly (at least as a progressive straight dude) issue like identity politics. THink of it this way….I can touch ID politics in 40 sermons a year maybe an occasional email push back but one sermon where i challenge Global Capitalism and the story is very different.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Douglas-Hagler/848645164 Douglas Hagler

This was my experience, re: Global…I’ll say Plutocracy, because I think Capitalism is actually different from what we have (I’m thinking Adam Smith here). I preached about the Golden Calf and compared it to the Wall Street bronze bull (and the new one at the Shanghai Stock Exchange). Wow. Fortunately, it led to a couple really good conversations, but that was not a popular sermon.

Though, to be honest, when I met with the Session during the search process, they said that the thing they feared most was that I would preach a “liberal sermon”, which meant, a sermon that openly addressed what we’re calling ID politics in any way. I had at least one family essentially leave because they knew from other conversations how I felt about ID politics stuff, and they were afraid I would mention it. Ever. In any context. To anyone.

So some of this is just context. I get plenty of anger and fear, but more traction, with economic stuff, meaning a portion of the congregation will listen. If I put forward that we should be “open and affirming”, I think there would be burn marks on my ass as I was tossed out.

http://twitter.com/trippfuller trippfuller

definitely context matters Doug. after Alecia and I had a child we decided we just wouldn’t work at a church that wasn’t open and affirming because we would rather struggle to deal with the economic injustice and ecological degradation verse ID politics stuff. i guess you could say we are picking a context then.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Douglas-Hagler/848645164 Douglas Hagler

Insofar as I can pick a context, that’s one I’d pick happily. It’s just that I also have to be employed, and that was the decision last time. Hopefully, my current search will turn out differently.

http://www.anarchistreverend.com anarchist reverend

I think this assumes that being queer isn’t sometimes a life threatening identity (it clearly is, particularly for trans women of color) or that one can separate out your identity with your economic state, etc. For queer folks our race, gender expression, class, etc. all fit together in our identity and often leave us marginalized. The fact that I am trans impacts what job I can get, impacts the food I can afford, impacts where I can live and travel (and I am privileged because I am also white).

http://twitter.com/reflectant Nick Larson

This is absolutely true AR thanks for mentioning it. So much of our identity does effect our everyday life. I don’t think anyone here would want to deny that fact. But in not denying that fact, I also think the church is called to be a place where that doesn’t happen. It is wrong that queer folks lives are threated because of their identity.

And I think that’s what we are talking about when I’m thinking it is often best to put down the label fight in order to fight for the deeper injustice that makes the label fight necessary. It takes fighting at all the different levels. Too often in my experience churches stop with the label fight, which on it’s own, at best serves you for a little while.

Anonymous

In certain contexts (such as at my seminary or in many progressive churches) you’re absolutely right that “open and affirming” becomes a self-righteous badge. In some places, as Doug mentions below you’d still get a lot of anger over preaching lgbtq inclusion, but even there I think the anger is sort of scripted and predictable. I doubt much genuine challenge and conversion occurs, but more posturing.

On the other hand challenging Global Capitalism is something I would expect serious pushback from no matter how progressive the community. Many might nod their heads when talking about income disparity or sweatshop labor, but demonstrate considerable reticence when actually invited to make dramatic lifestyle changes. I would anticipate a lot of excuses leading to defensiveness and then accusations of extremism.
http://twitter.com/Rev_Mother Ellen Cooper-Davis

You’ve noticed that, too? That sermons challenging capitalism don’t go over well? I agree that we shouldn’t rest on our laurels, as progressive people of faith. I witness this at my annual denominational gathering a lot, which seems to me more of a pep rally about how great and evolved and progressive we are than anything else. But at the same time, removing the process altogether, especially in denominations that are still struggling with the very holy work of simply being welcoming to all people, no matter what, would be unfortunate. Here in Texas, the local ELCA, Methodist, Presbyterian churches struggle mightily with the congregational responses to recent denominational affirmations. In my area, my Unitarian Universalist church, and a small UCC congregation are literally the only places where openly gay/lesbian/transgendered/queer people could be, with their families, and not raise any eyebrows just for showing up. Hence my thought about both/and. We need process by which people can be converted-have their hearts turned-and become more open, more welcoming, more aware of some of the inherent bias in many systems. AND we need to be living our faith in big-picture ways, addressing huge systemic injustice and sin, and being on the forefront of imagining how we might live differently. Those sermons challenging capitalism are hard for people, I think, because we don’t yet know what a viable alternative really looks like. Without a vision, the status quo looks very comfy.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Douglas-Hagler/848645164 Douglas Hagler

For me, I want to fight both/and. I think we should fight the open and affirming fight and also fight the bigger economic fights, as well as the violence/militarism fight and the consumption-culture fight, all at the same time, all day. As AR points out, they are all interrelated anyway, and all of them are costly to the marginalized. For some people, the ID is won by way of blood, sweat and tears, and to say “this isn’t the *real* fight that is *truly* costly” won’t fly, and someone can spend their whole life in the trenches of the ID politics struggle, and make incremental progress, and that is a life well-spent.

Scott Jones

Tripp, my dear friend. In the 1960′s there was a distinct difference between those churches who publicly announced that everyone was welcome and those who publicly announced that blacks were welcome.

Also, how you define “welcoming and embracing” is precisely the way most of us talk about “open and affirming” in our churches. We do believe it is far more than simply sexual orientation, though at this point in American cultural life that must be stated explicitly and publicly.

http://twitter.com/trippfuller trippfuller

thanks scott…i see this after i emailed you BUT…like i told Doug Alecia and I just won’t work at a church that isn’t open and affirming in practice. my main concern is that churches and more so denominations fight over this issue while theo-capitalism is never called into question. Victory for ID politics is often put in terms of cultural acceptance without recognizing that what one is being accepted into is a ethically problematic market place.

http://twitter.com/MoJoJules MoJoJules

Tripp: I cannot even take what you are saying seriously. It is a slap in the face as a queer woman. I realize you cannot understand this and maybe have no desire to understand, but it is very and I mean very easy for you to say what you have said here light hearted or even tongue/cheek. However, just by the privilege you throw around here silence me and let’s me know that the battle I have DAILY is nothing. I hope you listen to others who have spoken on this well, but I cannot stand by and not say anything about what you have said here. It saddens me.

http://twitter.com/reflectant Nick Larson

I can’t speak for Tripp, but I wanted to say thanks for sharing. Your voice is welcome on Two Friars and a Fool. I never want you to feel like you have to stand by and not say anything. In reality we (Aric, Doug and I) purposely tried to craft a place where voices are welcomed, where opinions vary, where we can have real conversation with another. We hope all who have a desire to speak can find room here to share.

Your comment also brings up something for me that we haven’t really talked about here when referencing “labels” and such. And that’s the concept of who gets to choose these labels. It has largely been people of power and privilege creating labels. And I think for me, part of the desire to not get stuck fighting over labels. I’ve been in conversations about church were the deepest they went were trying to figure out if you were post-modern or not. Yuck. I don’t want to get stuck in that lifeless circle.

For me Tripp’s statements comes down to I would much rather see churches find ways to actually advocate with/for the LGTBQ community rather than put up a sign that says come here.

Mojojules

I can agree with that. However, yes a however, the fact is that you as a male, as white can separate that. That is privilege. I do not mean that as my nose looking down at you, but as a fact of life. I do not have that privilege. Like it or not, I am proud to have my label of queer. I fought for it. It was life and death for me. So there in lies the rub that must be considered. There are other layers.

http://twitter.com/reflectant Nick Larson

I would agree that me as a white, straight, married with kids, male I have privilege that allows me more of an ability to do that. My outright identities are not life and death. I understand that others do not have that privilege. My desire is that no one’s identities put them in a situation of life and death.

http://www.facebook.com/tiffany.bridge Tiffany Baxendell Bridge

FWIW, while I do think Tripp’s larger point is well-taken, the presentation of it did immediately make me think, “Oh great, a straight white guy using ‘open and affirming’ signs as a rhetorical prop to make a point that isn’t really even about inclusion.” When those signs are sometimes the only way gay Christians know where it’s safe to take their families to worship, the presentation seemed… a little smug. Like, I can see how the tone would make sense in the context of a conversation had between friends and colleagues, but recorded and played out of context on the Internet, it’s perhaps a little tone-deaf.

Michael Raimer-Goodman

I think Tripp’s point was that labels are inherently limiting, and we’ll never run out of the need for them until we allow ourselves to encounter each and every human “image bearer” as a moral, ontological equal without the predicates of labels to reduce them. I think most people in honesty would agree that labels “WASP” “Straight” “Gay” whatever do not define them completely, and the church in struggling against the reductionist tendencies of what Tripp calls “The Market” (not sure why) is called to avoid the labeling game.

http://twitter.com/jeffstraka jeffstraka

So once again, we have white, straight males pontificating about a subject in which they have no first-hand experience in. Not one person outside of YOUR “identifiers” was asked to help shape and inform the conversation. Not a woman. Not a person of color. Not a queer. Maybe once YOU guys understand the absurdity of what you and other “Emergents” CONTINUE to do in excluding marginalized voices, we might have a chance to move beyond identifiers.

Anonymous

Hey Jeff,

You’re within your rights to dislike, disagree, or even be offended by anything you read here, but it seems like you’ve misunderstood how Two Friars and a Fool works, so I’d like to offer a quick explanation. We get a different contributor each week to offer a reflection in video or writing about something they are passionate about. If you look through the past nine months you’ll see we’ve had more women than men, a goodly number of queer and other minorities. We value different perspectives. It is always the hosts though, (Me, Nick and Doug) who do the video responses. We’re three straight white guys, you nailed us.

We think what Tripp has to say is interesting and worth a good conversation and we explicitly invite everyone, including you, to come here and discuss it and offer better ideas. We also, hopefully, have a follow up in the works by Brian Ammons (know him?) so if you check back in a couple weeks we’ll continue the conversation from a different perspective.

Mojojules

Why is Brian Ammons all the sudden the go to queer??? Is it because he is the only one y’all know as queer? I can list at least five other queer people with in the conversation, as well who are women. What is interesting is that Brian is the queer of the moment. And he happens to be male. Thesis problematic. Do I enjoy Brian? Yes. Does he fully speak into all the voices of queer voices? Nope, not even close. However, whether by his will or others he has become the “it queer.” I disagree with Brian on a lot of issues. Although I encourage you to interview, I must push and ask, not for y’all to answer, but to consider, why continue pulling from the same hat. Why did not other rich queer voices come to mind? Which brings us back to the problem with this very interview. The fact that not only queers have been silenced by this very thought shared, but woman as well. Nothing for y’all to respond to. I have come to the understanding that although I keep pushing on this issues that many are just not ready nor to the point of humbling oneself of the privilege that is clearly thrown around in the video and video respones. However, I will continue to challenge these thoughts because they are unthoughtful, uneducated, and clearly more concerned with protecting one’s privilege over another.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Douglas-Hagler/848645164 Douglas Hagler

I’m sill honestly confused. Help me out here. How would I humble myself from the privilege that I am throwing around? How would I become thoughtful, educated, and unconcerned with protecting my privilege over another? What would that look like?

On a personal level: in my video response, all I talked about was my privilege, and Jesus’ judgement of that privilege, and my only hope being to be welcomed by those who are the true people of God – the marginalized. In a video response, how can I protect my privilege less?

Also, feel free to recommend rich queer voices, and we’ll invite them to say what they are passionate about saying. Plenty of people come to mind all the time – but we are a tiny website run as a hobby by three friends from school. Hook us up, Mojo.

Mojojules

I’ll have to try to respond to this later. Right now far too mystified by some of this to even bother. Right now need to step a way.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Douglas-Hagler/848645164 Douglas Hagler

Ok, well, we’ll continue to welcome whatever it is you want to say. If you want to talk to me personally, you can FB message me or find my email via FB, or whatever you want to do.
Mojojules

Doug, I appreciate this offer. I will take you up on that when I get home and can give you the full space to speak, ect. I just like to put that realm of respect there because it just isn’t fair otherwise. Again, thank you for this offer. It honored by me.

Anonymous

No Mojo, Brian isn’t the only one we know as queer. His reply to this came about spontaneously on twitter. He said something we found interesting in reply to Tripp and we invited him. His piece will be up later this week (Thurs or Fri morning). I wouldn’t expect any person to speak into every possible voice.

By all means keep challenging. You’ll keep being heard here. I’m glad to see that far from being silenced by Tripp you’ve been provoked into participation for the first time on this site when our various female and queer guests in the past did not so involve you.

Mojojules

Um, your last statement would imply that I would want to speak, ect. To be clear that would be the furthest thing from the truth. Just being clear in the under handed slam is found in the response. Which in terms of being a smart ass ignored the fact I was addressing the specific issue of THIS topic in THIS thread. NOT other podcast by others. But whatever. With that I’m out.
Anonymous

No slam, underhanded or otherwise, was intended. You’re welcome here. You’re welcome to comment, to criticize, heck if you have an idea for an article/video you’re welcome to be featured here. My point is just that you haven’t been silenced, but rather encouraged to speak.
Mojojules

Ok…what you need to hear is this…I have not said, although I can understand how you (others even) can imply, I have been silenced here. I have stated and the meaning is not getting in that in Tripp’s thought and in responses have silenced me (and LGBTQ). At this point I do expect this to be understood. I however encouraged to think upon what I have said and give no response.
Mojojules

I mean, I do not expect this to be understood. I realize what I am saying will not be understood because the response of listening cannot be found by “allies” on most fronts. Whether it is seen here by many is up to the level in which they have sat down, shut up, and listened. I do not mean this rude, but it is a fact. Jeff Straka is an example of an ally who has very consciously done this very things
Anonymous

I get how face to face the silent listening thing works, but over a comment thread like this, the way you can know I’m listening to you is that I have engaged with you and Jeff over dozens of comments respectfully. Your criticism that on this particular post the presenters did not reflect formal diversity is accurate. Your criticism that an argument against Identity Politics coming from persons ensconced in privilege is problematic is also well-received and you’ll note if you watch Doug’s video or the second half of the video with Tripp that we brought up exactly this point ourselves.
Mojojules

Ok, give background here and am using this as only an example. I have never has face to face with Jeff. With one exception, but it was to hammer out details for Queermergent. My entire interaction with Jeff is online. Yet, he, as an example only, has been able to understand the silence and think upon a suggested option/critisim. My online rule is to offer my thought and encourage ppl to not really respond to me. I prefer it because it allows for each of us to stop and consider. My experience and this conversation is showing this to be true, that the queer person is being over sensitive, not listening, or place whatever emotion someone puts here to then excuse themselves to not truly listen. It just isn’t that hard. It just isn’t. Y’all put this stuff out there and my impression is that you, whom ever you maybe, are possibly offended by a critique of someone who is LGBTQ. I have felt dismissed because you believe I did not hear you. However, I’m telling you ad a queer person how what was shared was totally dismissive and silencing. I showed how this correlates to privilege. I have defined that I am not using in a way to dehumanize anyone. It is not hard online at all to sit and listen. Not even a little. Yet when I as a queer person suggest this it is the hardest thing I could ask for. I get it and have seen it enough in the emergent circle to know to expect it any more. However, the truth is my suggestion is not that hard. Peace.
Anonymous

I’m not offended. I’ll do as you suggest and stop responding. Thanks for engaging here.

http://twitter.com/jeffstraka jeffstraka

You are well within your rights, as three white, straight guys, to run a conversational blog page, to invite guest posters, and to do video responses to them. But that format is of no longer of value to me as it simply perpetuates what has been wrong with the church since 313: white, male privilege (and I am a white, straight male). It is sad that those who consider themselves to be progressive/emergent STILL cannot seem to break this pattern. Yes, you allow divergent voices to sit “on the stage” with you (“WE’VE had…”), but at the end of the day, YOU own the stage and the microphone. I’m glad to see alternative movements like Queermergent beginning to build their OWN stage from which to speak, but its a shame they felt the need to build one at all…

http://www.facebook.com/people/Douglas-Hagler/848645164 Douglas Hagler

I’m confused…this is the internet. The “stage” is a website that a friend of ours helped us put together. The “privilege” we wield is the same privilege anyone who has a computer and an internet connection has – including you, and everyone commenting here. Nowhere have we ever said “We’re straight, so listen to us”. (In fact, you have to know us at least a little bit, or have read other posts or something, to even know we’re straight.) I’m also happy to see Queermergent – that’s cool, I hope that it answers people’s needs and fosters great conversations. I’m sorry to hear that this kind of forum has no value for you anymore, but I’m just confused by being treated as if we are speaking from an inaccessible ivory tower. We’re just one of hundreds of millions of websites fostering conversations. We’re not even a very big or successful one. I get the very strong impression that emotionally there is more going on for you than just this site and what it is we’re doing, because from my point of view, your reaction seems stronger than what we’re doing actually merits.

http://twitter.com/jeffstraka jeffstraka

Yes, Douglas, there IS something larger going on here that frustrates me. Apparently, you have not been tuned in to some of the push-back from the queer community recently on Wild Goose, Outlaw Preachers and SoJo. And tell me the “identifiers” of the people that produced “Christianity21 Women’s Gathering” and is planning on doing the “Christianity21: sexuality, humanity and spirituality”. White, straight males? Yep. So it’s the PATTERN of the paternal dominance that frustrates me, not the individuals per se. What is interesting, too, is that when criticism is offered, the reaction is largely defensive rather than acknowledgment of what’s being said.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Douglas-Hagler/848645164 Douglas Hagler

You’re right – I don’t follow what is going on on Wild Goose, Outlaw Preachers or SoJo, except for periodically receiving an email from SoJo, and having a few people invite me to Wild Goose, and the Outlaw Preachers hash-tag periodically showing up on my Twitter feed. I’ve also never heard of “Christianity21″. If I get any free time, I’ll Google it, or you can post a couple links to whatever it is you think is germane or interesting about it. There is so much going on with so many hundreds of groups, and those are definitely four groups I’m not really engaged with. I didn’t know Wild Goose existed until I was invited to Soularize, and I was invited to Soularize because I met a few interesting people on Twitter.

So, I think TFF is kind of being winged for coming near some kind of scrap, from what I can tell. I certainly don’t intend to answer for a bunch of groups I’m not a part of, though.

I also hope you can understand how responding here as if we were Wild Goose, Outlaw Preachers, SoJo, or Christianity21, or were involved with whatever it is they are doing that so angers you, would garner a defensive response. I appreciate the push-back in a general way, but also feel like I am being hit with shrapnel.
http://twitter.com/jeffstraka jeffstraka

Well, you ARE being hit with “shrapnel” (if you prefer to use images of war). Four white, straight males hold a closed dialog on the idea that the church, in essence, go silent on “open and affirming” at a time when the LGBTQ community needs out-spoken allies and readily-identified religious safe-spaces to reduce the number of teen bullying and suicides (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/savage-v-santorum-time-for-christians-to-be-radically-inclusive/2011/10/13/gIQAhAFPrL_blog.html).

Yes, you then open it up to comments AFTER 4 white, straight males state your privileged positions, but the much-needed marginalized voices were sidelined while you set the stage. If this was filmed at Soularlize, you could have invited Adele Sakler (an attendee from Queermergent) to be part of the conversation with Tripp as a live, active participant. What gets lifted up as “authoritative” is not the subsequent comments, but the main-stage videos/voices. What gets lifted up is ideology without the reality-check from those it effects most.

October 20th was Spirit Day where people wore purple as a sign of support for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth and to speak out against bullying. Soularize was going on at that time. NO ONE at Soularize mentioned it at ALL, until Adele asked for a few minutes to speak on it. No one. And then Tripp, in this post, suggests its time for the church to move beyond the term “open and affirming”.
http://twitter.com/reflectant Nick Larson

I’m sorry you feel like it was a closed conversation. Everything on our site is intended to be opening of conversation. So sorry.

I get your critique. Plus your suggestion of inviting Adele to be part of the conversation is a good one, we had dinner with her and spent a good amount of time connecting with her at Soularize. But I think your giving us to much credit in planning. We had talked to Tripp about doing something for us, I had my camera, so he and Aric sat down and did it. I didn’t know what he was going to say before I hit record. We really do invite folks to talk about what they are passionate about in an open ended way.

I was not suggesting (or do I think any of us) that we go quiet on these issues. In fact, I understand Tripp’s point to be a call to a deeper sense of justice. I had a conversation with a gay friend of mine who is a pastor at his church. He had a conversation with a group of folks from another congregation. They had asked him why his congregation wasn’t “open and affirming” (which is an offical process in the disciples of christ). He said essentially they didn’t need too, because they were busy ministering to gay members of their community including offering classes and groups that delt with gender/sexuality/identity issues. He then asked them (an official open and affirming congregation) how many gay members were at their church or how many of them present were LGBTQ. None, and they had none. Which would you prefer? I know which I would prefer.

PS: I had several conversations at Soularize about it being Spirit day. In fact when I got up in the morning, I was begroaning to my fellow friars that I had forgotten to pack a purple shirt.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Douglas-Hagler/848645164 Douglas Hagler

Ok, fair enough. If shrapnel is what you are wanting to share, then I am receiving it. I do want to refer you to my video response, where I make a very strong point about my own privilege, and the privilege of my fellow Fools and Tripp as well. I don’t think it is fair, or accurate, to characterize what we are doing here as univocal. That would actually be entirely against the purpose of the site. But yes, my two friends and I are straight white males, and this week we have a straight white male as a contributor. That comes with all the limitations one would expect. And yes, we are wielding the privilege of the Internet making it incredibly easy to put words and video on a website.

Maybe we need to restate, or state more clearly, what the purpose of the site is. The purpose of the site is the conversation we are having now. The video posts you experience as statements of privilege and power are intended to start a conversation, which is what we three actually privilege, in practice. We have four videos, right now, and 57 comments, all of which we are reading and trying to be involved with as we have time. The vast majority of our time is put into conversations like the one we’re having now. If that isn’t clear, that may be our failing, and something we should think about.

Anonymous

I think you feed into Tripp’s point here. You just identified THE thing that is wrong with the church for most of its history as a matter of identity politics instead of, say, complicity with the economic and political powers of empires and nation states? Or perpetuating gross economic injustice such that the church has impoverished many. Or violent sectarianism. Or…

I think Tripp has a point, which is not that there is no such thing as privilege or discrimination, but that choosing to draw our battle lines on the issue of identity politics serves partially to uphold a larger system of injustice.

http://twitter.com/jeffstraka jeffstraka

I would agree that Tripp has an idealistic “pie-in-the-sky” point (as a Mystic, I get it) but one that is insulting to suggest its possibility at this time in history, considering all the bigotry the church has created and sustains. Hell, the church-at-large isn’t even “open and affirming” to WOMEN, not to mention Sunday morning’s continuing to be the most racially segregated of hours! Perhaps we need to figure out some of THAT shit first, huh?

Brianskirk

I would be curious to hear from Tripp if he has run this idea past any of his LGBT friends yet and what their reaction has been.

http://twitter.com/trippfuller trippfuller

generally positive. i actually got the idea from a trans-gender theorist phd friend of mine and Badiou’s critique of ID politics.
http://twitter.com/reflectant Nick Larson

I actually had a similar conversation with Rich McCullen from Mission Gathering Christian Church (who hosted Soularize) about this kind of topic (he’s an openly gay man). He suggested a similar stance for their church. I actually think it might be easier for an openly gay pastor to choose not to use “open and affirming” because it’s more inherent.

Anonymous

Tripp – I wonder if you think there is overlap between what you are saying and Peter Rollins’ message that the church has bought into capitalism and is just offering God as yet another product for self-fulfillment? Worship music is just another jingle. Clergy are just salespeople. It seems to me that ID is a way of the church saying “you are our target demographic”.
http://twitter.com/trippfuller trippfuller

sorry to offend some of you. i would appreciate you watch the second half of the video. my whole point is that the traditional framing of the ‘open and affirming’ battle is assuming a political and ideological battle that is inherently problematic. that observation is part of marxist-queer theory discussion, sure its debated, but it wasn’t invented by straight white guys. calling the general structure into question (at least for the theorists im using) is more productive for the left. the observation is that ID politics is advocating a series of particulars (any of the letters LTGBQ…) be accepted particulars into a general structure that is in itself structurally oppressive. a transgendered friend of mine made the point that the general way in which progressive Christians justify gay and lesbian presence in the church (born this way) is, when accepted as an argument, oppressive to bisexual and transgendered people in that it implies a biology and anthropology in which these other sexual identifications are not legitimate. So a ID politics victory of L&G on those grounds is problematic to other particulars that are not yet accepted particulars of the general structure.

even if you don’t like the argument, assume it and then observe progressive churches and denominations who fight the fight of accepting a new particular into the general structure. what if the gospel is threatening to the very structure in which acceptance is being gained? what if the problem is the commodification of our identities? a part of the capitalist structure of our world. what if this system is remaining unquestioned because of the grounds the christian Left assumes in arguing for inclusion? what if global capitalism requires identities so they can become new markets rather than the freedom for humans engage in identification with people in all sorts of relations? what if this general structure is silently complicit in the economic and ecological crisis of the world? clearly is this is the case it is the people of privilege who are the problem for establishing the general structure and then requiring all movements of the Left to assume it in order to be heard.

personally i won’t work at a church that isn’t open and affirming in practice. i have participated in gay weddings and ordinations and have lost a job and multiple paid preachingspeaking gigs over the issue because I have no interest in being silent. my problem is what is being assumed in the advocacy and not the cause.

hope that clarifies things. perhaps the beer and sarcastic tone was not necessary. for that i will take the role of the ‘fool’ and let someone else be the friar.

Mojojules

I cannot give you a legitimate posture because in your video, which I could not bring myself to listen to the second after what I heard in the first, used me as a thing to be provocative about. That is offensive. The mere fact, I’m sarcasm used LGBTQ as a funny little PC thing showed me how unthougtful and how darn right uneducated you are about my LGBTQ tribe. You made my history, my story, ME a human a funny little game to what? Promote some political thought that at the end of the day ignores the epidemic of homeless LGBTQ and other aspects of how LGBTQ rights are apart of the fabric of economic justice. I can’t even stomach that in your apology just now you use the fact you have done queer weddings.

Tripp, are we even human to you??? One of my issues with the emergent convo is that it has used LGBTQ people not as humans but as bullet points to prove their progressive nature. Saying things such as, “the issue of LGBTQ…” is dismissing the very fact we are real, we are human and surprise we are a part of this culture. FYI: this line of thought would not fly out side the bubble of emergent. Laughed out of a place would put it mild.

Before any straight person decides to make comments they better make for darn certain they know what they are taking about. Period. No matter what, this was offensive in all natures. It is only being so easily dismissed because it is a theory that has not considered the humans it spoke of.
Brian Ammons

I appreciate your further unpacking your points here, Tripp. This post is pretty consistent with most of what I’m hearing in queer theology and among many queer activists challenging the assimilationist underpinnings of mainstream gay politics. I think the tension is around how to critique the limits of identity and still advocate for a serious analysis of repressive/oppressive power. More to come…
nebbel1

I am very confused here. Does ID politics require (or assume) that we can do without naming? I mean, nouns are really useful, as are adjectives. Melt all the ice cream into one pot, and what happens to pistachio?

“the general way in which progressive Christians justify gay and lesbian presence in the church (born this way) is, when accepted as an argument, oppressive to bisexual and transgendered people in that it implies a biology and anthropology in which these other sexual identifications are not legitimate.” Oh, come on! Why is bisexual not as “born that way,” and transgendering is an attempt to return to the innate gender. Yes, they can be socially awkward statuses–but are we forbidden to have ocial norms? Nobody is to prefer one way of being to any other? Oppressive? BS. Uncomfortable, yes, sometimes painful. But then, so is vegetarianism if you’re a carrot.

Adding to my confusion is that I am a person of privilege. I’m white, used-to-be solidly middle class (genteel poverty in my late years), highly educated, know which fork to use, and I’ve been in a same-sex partnership for 32 years. But you say that I am the problem. Just why is that? My smallish church is openly affirming, though not all of its members share that view; on the other hand, the membership includes a dramatically obvious transgendered woman (one of the Eucharistic ministers), several couples of gay men, two couples of partnered women. How should I feel oppressed, knowing that other members are uncomfortable in our presence, when it’s they who are uncomfortable? As long as they’re not hostile and we’re not behaving outrageously, what’s the big deal? We are doing our best to love the Christ in each other. They don’t smooch in church, and we don’t either. Fair’s fair.

I do believe your argument is such a generational thing that it is beyond my grasp entirely. I’m 82.

OneLittleBird

I think an implicit point being made in these comments is that the very argument Tripp makes is itself an act of silencing the lived particularity of the very marginalized voices it claims to be so radically embracing of. [Jules, this is something you raised and please feel free to contradict me for stepping in on this if you feel misrepresented by it in any way] And by silencing I infer an erasing of people’s lived experience through a disregard for those identities and thus a failure in the here and now to embrace meaningfully the intersectionality and complexity that transformation of a diverse society demands.

Silencing then, is not a “please shut up” but a persistent failure to incorporate marginalized perspectives into the very content of the central argument.
This is perhaps why there is deep felt frustration – it persists writ large across much of the current “emerging conversation” – and is a central problem in this specific interview that was, to my mind, far from adequately addressed.

Identity politics are indeed produced by, and foundational to, the very system Tripp criticizes and seeks to transform but that will not be achieved, nor should it be, by suggesting to anyone who is marginalized by their identity that they are not thinking radically, progressively or Biblically enough. I can’t believe the offense in that needs to be pointed out. Even throughout these comments there is a persistent return to challenge so-called “deeper issues”, more life threatening problems. That, I see as an extension of the persistent false dichotomies and rhetorical either/ors that are set up in the conversation. Anarchist Reverend’s point was very well made elsewhere in the thread on this issue of privileged voices determining for others what get to be classed as life threatening issues and what can be ignored as a distraction, and to pit marginalized groups against one another (e.g. support for Prop 8 is defined as a “never defending immigrants rights”)

This kind of hyperbolic language throughout both videos was intentionally and unapologetically offensive in the name of being theologically provocative and risks excluding vital voices from *wanting* to ever participate. I had great hesitancy to responding to a discussion where specific challenges are met with requests to wait for another person who will come along and give an opinion next week you might like more. I don’t think it was meant to be offensive but when people are offered a provocation and respond that it _is_ offensive, the appropriate response is to actually listen now. What several commentators were pointing out here was not that their opinion was offended but their lived reality and their dignity.

At no point was Tripp challenged on his derisive languaging of the identities of people whose lived realities are experienced through non-straight identities (“letters”). For a conversation challenging a system that uses people as political pawns, I found no reason to believe that there was any meaningful alternative being offered – people in this argument are *still* political pawns or indeed “letters” – but this time to assault a large, vague set of “progressives.”

The acknowledgment made of privilege both on the part of the speaker and through the question posed in video 2 was therefore all but nullified by both the message and the manner of the message. Claims of gay friends, or of only working in inclusive churches does not act as license to say whatever one likes and in doing so mock the diversity of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans*, queer, questioning community. This is not about “letters” but people. If churches celebrate lesbian and gay as born this way to the detriment of bi- and trans* inclusion the obvious conclusion is not that identity serves a capitalist market.

Many people use hyphens and asterisks or live without labels wherever possible and yet are capable of a complex understanding of identity while still knowing that “LGBTQ affirmation” is not just a string of essentialized letters that represent nothing more than ideological markers or a new target market. I would counter that it is not “progressive churches” that are (only) suffering from a lack of imagination here and when engaging in marxist-queer theory, particularly when straight, one needs to be willing to respond to questions of how that will actually play out, just as radical marxist feminism was and continues to be challenged in the feminist academy while appreciated as having value as a system of thought.

The frustration is compounded by the erasing of groups that historically continue to struggle for enfranchisement and who in doing so, (at great sacrifice & risk in many cases), have and continue to transform society. Rather than distracting from the “real” problems, these same people do indeed question & delegitimize the very system itself, and do so starting through their transformative presence and participation in society.

Such generalized, sweeping, cavalier hyperbole for the sake of “being more progressive” suggested an assumed audience that is deluded, unread and incapable of the complex thought required to address _in practical terms_ the systemic intersectionality of identity marginalization/oppression and economic oppression. Even the diversity of the Occupy movement was subsumed into a universal singular rallying cry that disavows the efforts being made on the ground to be a diverse but harmonious representation rather than a homogenized voice.

I am not sure by what magical means this new kingdom will be ushered in, nor what guarantee that new reality or indeed fantasy “church” will not continue to marginalize people, if in order to get there people must lay down their identity to do so. To lay down part of people’s identities is to take away part of people’s humanity – which makes much of the content of a conversation about getting to the issue of “what does it mean to be human?” something of a contradiction. Constructed identities of all kinds are still _lived_ identities. That this argument culminated in the assertion that progressive churches and their members are both pacified and pacifiers who never “go all the way to the cross” honestly astounds me.

Given the history of the USA, I am shocked that it apparently needs to be pointed out why *that* particular comment might be received as grossly offensive by anyone who experiences the lived reality (by which we actually challenge and transform the system that produces systemic violence) as an every-day battle for their own and others’ civic, social and politically equality. To let that statement not only go unchallenged but instead to affirm it deserves a strong response.

At least two respondents in these comments have rightfully pointed to racial segregation and women’s rights and raised the issue of historical context – suggestive that this discussion cannot be abstracted out as if identity politics were some new phenomenon amongst progressive churches. And indeed it is not.

I am left wondering if in 1851 Sojourner Truth had *not* asked the very *particular* political identity question, “Ain’t I a Woman?” whether we might now be farther down the road to the gospel-based world Tripp imagines and many a person could have saved themselves a lot of time struggling against disenfranchisement in this “demonic” system. Perhaps she should have been told to wait for the coming gospel kingdom and until then to stop playing identity politics and be more…“Christian”.

I’m not surprised in the least by the reaction these particular videos have garnered. It’s disappointing to see the desire to provoke taking precedent over listening to the people one purports to speak for.

Cary.

Mojojules

Yes Cary you have expounded upon my thoughts very well. I would not ask you to change any thing, in that it gives a richer balance to what I have tried to say.
Anonymous

Hi Cary,

Welcome to Two Friars and a Fool, thanks for engaging so thoroughly. That is a serious wall of text. 3 replies:

#1 – Because we are the hosts of the site and Tripp Fuller is a ginormous internet celebrity our “identities” are obviously public and subject to scrutiny. That said in your comment (and elsewhere in these threads) a great deal of assumptions have been made about our character, our motivations, and exactly how much skin we have in this game. Describing us as 4 straight white guys is true as far as it goes but a pretty thin description that doesn’t really give anyone enough to base such “sweeping” and “cavalier” (to use your words) judgments about us upon.

#2 – We are not speaking about other people when we talk about Christian progressives. We include ourselves in that circle. We’re not telling OTHER people how to think or what they’re doing wrong, we’re talking about our own communities, and Tripp specifically is talking about progressive churches not about individuals. The point is that in some progressive circles “open and affirming” has become a way to pat ourselves on the back for being inclusive without actually challenging the system that supports exclusion in the first place.

#3 – The very robust and respectful discussion that is actually happening right now is plenty of proof that what Tripp had to say is worth discussing.

OneLittleBird

I don’t think there’s much more to be said on my end but to clarify, on #1, when i used the terms cavalier and sweeping i was speaking to the content of the words and the style/tone of the delivery, which even tripp has made allusion to in his most recent comment. whatever anyone else has said i was not referring to your character, motivations or degree of internet celebrity.

as for churches, my own definition is in the end, that whatever shape, size or theology, a faith community _is_ people – a collection of individuals. i know i appreciate, in the church of which i am part, the consistent challenge that comes with a strong critique of and collective response to systemic economic, social & civil injustice. after 3 decades or more of being ‘inclusive’ – without a sign on the front door – we are still continuing to learn what it means for all in the community to better embrace one another in our whole identities & to embody a radical alternative. there is still much work to be done.

i hope your continued discussions prove fruitful for you.

best wishes,

cary.

Anonymous

I hope our discussions are fruitful for many, including you. But yes this has been fruitful for me.
http://twitter.com/reflectant Nick Larson

Thanks for these robust comments Cary. They were certainly thought provoking for me. Indeed, I think your comment about your community of faith spending “3 decades working on being inclusive” balanced by the comment that “we are all still continuing to learn what it means for all in the community to better embrace one another in our whole identities and embody a radical alternative” is a wonderful framework for this conversation…for me it invokes a wonderful image of “reformed, and always reforming” from Presbyterian land.

The work that is to be done that you are speaking of, is well articulated. I hope that is some of what is understood in my comments of a need for deeper justice.

What would happen if instead of trying to have everyone lay down every identity, that we try to pick them all up? Hmm…that’s poorly worded, I’ll need help articulating this…What if we try to embrace the totality of our own identities? which is said in another way in there no more male/female, greek/jew, etc. That would certainly be a lifetime project, especially extrapolated to a community of faith and the search to embrace the “other.” Hmm. Maybe you might have a better sense of how to word this…

http://twitter.com/jeffstraka jeffstraka

The dual “operating systems” that the contemplative mystic Cynthia Bourgeault refers to are both necessary. If we did not have the “binary” system, we would not be able to walk from point A to point B or drive a car or, basically, operate at ALL in this material world. We NEED binary boundary identifiers in order to survive. This might be considered our “horizontal axis” system. Some have called this our “false self” or our “egoic self”, which implies it to be something negative (and it CAN be used in that way), but it really is a necessary system. Where it becomes divisive and detrimental is when we, as individuals, classify and categorize people in order to elevate ourselves (male/female, straight/queer, black/white).

But our higher evolutionary brain – our non-dual operating system – provides a way to move beyond this judgmental way of seeing the world. It might be considered our “vertical axis” (note how both axises form a cross). This is where kenotic love, true inclusion, and seeing the Other (and in fact, the cosmos) as united with us, takes place. We cannot expect our community – the church, neighbors, family – to transform and BE the “Mind of Christ” (no male/female, Greek/Jew, slave/free) on our behalf. It simply does not work that way. It is up to US INDIVIDUALLY to find and transform into that Mind of Christ. Our community can help one another to tap into this alternative operating system, but is up to US individually to shift there.

I love how Pete Rollins’ quote speaks into this. “To believe (to draw lines) is human (belief requires our horizontal binary system), to doubt (to erase lines), divine (this requires our vertical non-dual system)” To be fully human and fully divine requires both systems.

Rebekah

I posted a reply to this here: http://bexrex.tumblr.com/post/12576963189/why-identity-matters

http://www.facebook.com/people/Douglas-Hagler/848645164 Douglas Hagler

This is awesome, for the record.

http://twitter.com/jeffstraka jeffstraka

I was watching your newly posted Vimeo responses (http://vimeo.com/31896042) and am glad to see the deeper thought that has been provoked by the push-back. The language of the Mind of Christ, to me is dead-on, but ONLY in the sense that Jim Marion, Thomas Keating, Richard Rohr and Cynthia Bourgeault – contemplatives/mystics – mean by it. What struck me as the missing and NECESSARY link is the path that GETS us there – action and contemplation. You cannot get there with our current “binary operating system” (to use Bourgeault’s wonderful language). We cannot get there by “thinking” our way there. We can only arrive there by practicing the “non-thinking” of contemplation. Our current church structure only PLAYS with this idea (if at ALL), as something optional, or as a “cute hobby”. I think that if there is to be hope in becoming the both/and church (vs. the either/or) that Jesus was pushing us towards (and Tripp was trying to articulate), we MUST move towards contemplation and action. Again,we cannot THINK our way there. Neuroscience is proving that Jesus and the mystics were right all along. Evolution has “pre-wired” us with a higher, more unified (non-judging, kenotic-loving) brain (the heart-brain) but we need to learn how to access this “non-dual operating system” rather that constantly falling back to our earlier reptilian brain out of fear.

The Christian of the future will be a mystic or he will not exist at all. ~Karl Rahner

Anonymous

Glad we’re finding a way to communicate that works better for you. The new responses are attached to the article by Brian Ammons which is now up. I encourage you to have a gander.
http://twitter.com/trippfuller trippfuller

thanks Jeff. you and Rahner are RIGHT! Mystics or BUST

Pingback: Identification as the Third Way | Two Friars and a Fool
http://twitter.com/jeffstraka jeffstraka

What if rather than the “3 white guys” always being the ones to do the video responses, you intentionally included one or two voices/faces from the effected community? With webcam technology being so widely available, it wouldn’t take much to have someone send you a video response to post along with yours. Knowing the content of Tripp’s idea and its effect on the LGBTQ community, it should have been a no-brainer to have a “not-Tripp” (in this case, perhaps someone female and queer) give some authoritative push-back. I perceive the video as the “stage” and the comments as “the audience”, so automatically there is a nuanced level of traditionalist power/authority, top/down in that very structure.

I guess my “soapbox” on this is that the church needs to intentionally change the “face” that it’s traditionally shown – primarily of the white privileged male. I was hoping the emergent movement would have reflected that more by now – and in some sense, it has. But when you look at who continues to drive and articulate the conversation, not much has changed. Part of the reason is that the emergent movement evolved out of a male-only, personality-driven, seminary-trained evangelicalism, but that just means there has to be more intentionality for it to truly flatten to include the richness and diversity of other voices. Part of putting on this Mind of Christ means SEEING the world through the eyes of Christ (the Other) and we can only do that when we have leveled the field and are directly in-line and in-proximity with the Other. Stage-to-audience, power-to-powerless, privileged-to-non-privileged doesn’t get us there.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Douglas-Hagler/848645164 Douglas Hagler

I think this is a good suggestion, one we have considered many times, that in cases like this would be wise. It is also something that would require significantly more time and effort than we currently put into this project. It’s a significant challenge, and I know a part-time job for Aric, to find the contributors that we do find each week, and the majority of them do not send us videos.

A no-brainer response is “Yeah, well, straight white guys, having fair representation of affected communities takes extra effort. Deal with it.” True enough. It may be that we don’t have the time and effort to dedicate to finding not 1 but 2 or 3 contributors per week (roughly 2 to 3 times the work we put in now, which is significant but manageable), and that will definitely impact how the site is experienced by different people. On this one post, the responses have run the gamut, from heated critique to personal messages of thanks for hosting it. One response was a whole other post offering more solid critique that we didn’t even plan for.

I agree wholeheartedly that the church needs to change not only the face that it has traditionally shown but also the whole body. How that plays out here is that we intentionally seek out contributors who are pretty diverse – straight and queer, more women than men, academic and practical, etc. On the other hand, this is an ongoing project of three friends from seminary, with limitations in time, experience, access and so on. I realize that this will be an unsatisfactory answer, but there it is. We’ll continue to focus on the conversations that arise, but believe me, we are taking all of this critique to heart and figuring out how we to incorporate what we can.
Anonymous

Like Doug says, we do this as a hobby between three seminary friends and it already consumes vast amounts of my time. It is a worthy idea that we’ve already considered that may indeed happen sometimes, but will also take much more of our time and that is simply not generally possible. What WILL continue to happen is that we will have diverse guests and when we have a controversial one we’ll try to get someone from a different perspective to respond in a separate post as we did this time.

dfreric

Perhaps I can paraphrase and affirm your point, Tripp. Many of the persons offended seem to identify more with identity politics itself than with any particular and positive identity (such as “saved sinner”). Maybe an identity dedicated to the promulgation of identity politics is an identity, but it’s certainly mistaking the cart for the horse in any context, including the Christian. The “openness and affirmativeness” of any Christian stance, if it is truly Christian, could only be grounded in the love of God as God gracefully expresses that love to us–not an “identity politic.” I say focus on the former as an identity and proclaim the latter as a consequence. Don’t put the latter first.

Keep up the good work, Tripp.

http://twitter.com/trippfuller trippfuller

how Lutheran of you…

Pingback: Heaven, we have a problem – with sexuality | navigating between the everyday and theology