But given the kinds of people I look up to these days, I knew that was bound to change sooner or later.
There have been plenty of things that I've done the occasional Twitter rant about, but today I actually posted a reply to a blog that got my dander up. Progressive evangelical blogger Zach Hoag made a post about what a blessing the LGBT community can be to the church.
Now, I'm all about that subject. I took an entire directed study in seminary on queer theology. There are so many talented queers out there putting out some really great theology. To sum it up would be difficult, obviously, but Patrick Cheng's Radical Love provides an excellent starting point, explaining that queer theology is about the eradication of barriers.
Seriously, read this shit. It's great.
Zach Hoag's post was not this. And worse, he had already blocked a number of fellow queers who dissented too much to what he had to say. His opinions, flawed as they were, were going relatively unchallenged.
So, despite all common sense, I posted a reply. He had no clue who I was, so I was able to try and explain why his ideas were so problematic.
To wit:
"There's a lot going on here that requires responding to, and I don't even really know where to begin, so I'm just going to launch into it with some general things.
First, for the love of all that is holy, please stop using LGBT when you're clearly just talking about gays, lesbians, and maybe if they're lucky enough, bisexual folks. This entire post is clearly focused on Christians who have a problem with homosexuality - hence the reference to ex-gay therapies and "civil gay marriage" (protip, just call it marriage, that's what we do). If you wanna be progressive, try actually progressing forward and point out where the church falls short (read: EVERYWHERE) when it comes to the transgender community. However, if your goal here is to discuss homosexuality, just come out with it. Don't use LGBT just because it seems like the thing you're supposed to do. The acronym has a meaning, and it represents more than just "the gays".
Second, with regards to the marriage thing, queers are NOT monolith when it comes to geddin' weddin'. Some want it, others don't, and some are all about polyamory. If you want to address the entire LGBT community's stance on mawwiage and twue wove, be prepared to say a lot, because there's a lot of opinions on it. Some are even adamantly against the entire institution. Yes, it's true, there are queers that actually DO want to destroy traditional marriage.
Finally, please do not confuse the actual pain and suffering of the queer community (note: often at the hands of Christians from all walks, even those who mean well) with the idolized, idealized, perfected "weeping" that we imagine today. Queer people are actually being traumatized, abused, brutalized, killed and more, really, in real life, in reality, right now. And that existence is not so that Christians can take our hands and hold us close and tell us that God has a plan for our pains. We will not be your murder porn.
There is no third way, there is every way. Queer people exist. Accept us, deny us, ignore us, hurt us, murder us, none of it matters. We're here.
I'll agree with you on one point, though. This is not a matter of opinion."
To my surprise, he actually replied!
"Agree that the second point about marriage pertains primarily to gay people, and i tried to differentiate. But I apologize for the confusion. Points 1 & 3 are each applicable to the LGBT people in general, imo, but I understand if you disagree. Another thing: my focus here is on confessing LGBT Christians specfically, and I probably should have added something like "orthodox" LGBT Christians just to be even more clear. Yes, I'm in a progressive Christian category, but I consider myself an orthodox Christian, and an evangelical. I think those things can go together (though, again, it's fine if you disagree).
Finally, your read of my third point as "murder porn" is, of course, outrageous. But outrage is likely what brought you to this post."
At time of writing, those two posts are still visible on the blog, so he at least had the decency to not delete our (admittedly brief) interaction.
Okay, I thought, conversation not over. Rad. So I got to work on a new post. It took me a little while to write, and when I hit "post," I saw a message flash up telling me I'd been blocked and that my post wouldn't be going through.
Ah, well then.
Here we have the siren call of the privileged, one I had until this point been lucky enough not to be a part of. "You're being mean to me, so what you have to say isn't valid. Come back when you're ready to be civil." As if we should be grateful for the scraps. As if anger is only justified when Jesus is chasing moneychangers out of the Temple. As if talking about queer issues is more important than listening to actual queer people.
I can't directly respond on his blog. But I can damn sure respond on my own blog.
So let's get the big gripe out of the way - no, just because you string a series of letters together doesn't suddenly mean you're talking about all queer people. That blog is most definitely referencing a majority of gay Christians. The blessings that trans and non-binary Christians could bring have so much more to do with the way churches treat gender. I don't imagine I'm the only one who experienced major gender segregation growing up in the church. Men and women are implicitly and explicitly made out to be separate creatures. Discussions are sometimes divided into teen boys and girls because they couldn't possibly understand one another. Purity culture is completely focused on the "differences between genders". And, for the sake of repetition, if your main argument is that we also want monogomous marriage, you're completely missing the point. It shows a total lack of understanding for queer folk.
Next, orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is an awful word, and I'm not sure I know many queer Christians who would identify with it. I'd hate to make a blanket statement beyond that. Nonetheless, I can say safely that the dedication to this imaginary "orthodoxy" is exactly why the church at large has such a problem bringing LGBTQ Christians back into the fold in the first place. After all, who likes calling for orthodoxy more than the same people who put "1 Man + 1 Woman = Traditional Marriage" bumper stickers on their cars.
But most importantly, I'm going to go ahead and defend my analogy, because I was frankly proud of that one. This desire to make queer folks out to be pathetic sufferers who can bring beauty into the world through their transformed pain is not unlike someone who talks about how meaningful it is to have a disabled person in their life to teach them how to be humble (sometimes snarkily known as inspiration porn).
However, in this case, I went with "murder porn" specifically because the lives of queer people are actually at stake. There are those of us who have been abused, beaten, bruised, broken, and killed - often in the name of maintaining the status quo that also pervades Christianity. And I can't help but get a squicky feeling at the idea of people putting up their pictures and praying over them and feeling all self-righteous about it, the same way I would if I found out someone jacked it to Saw or Hostel (or perhaps more accurately, real life snuff films). It's gratification at the expense of real pain. Nothing wrong with a little kink, but there's a difference between sadism and sociopathy.
So yes, my analogy was outrageous, quite on purpose mind you. And yeah, I'm outraged. I'm outraged that actual people are victimized because you need a new way to feel good about yourself. I'm outraged that you silenced real queer people so that you could take another hit of that sweet, sweet congratulatory cis-het applause.
You're fucking right I'm outraged, and I'm not going to let us be silenced.
Try and stop me.
