The problem, as I see it, is the liberal or conservative theology looking at Jesus as the approver of their theology rather than the communicator of truth. If they would openly look at the Jesus as presented in the NT– in all the various traditions presented there– they would see Jesus as:
*The one who sees sinners as oppressed people needing assistance, not as evil, bad people
*The one who outcasts only those who claim to be of God, but rejects the ones in need, no matter what they’ve done
*The one who has harsh words for the materialistic, but welcomes those involved in pornia (sexual immorality)
*The one who asserts that his followers would be killed as dissidents against the government

This is not either conservative or liberal theology. Jesus wouldn’t be accepted even by the “prophetic” because his message would be too outlandish.

I think that often there is a fear to get too far “into” the Bible, as if we would discover that our morality would be challenged by it and that the conservative’s take on ethics is fundamentally correct. I took the other approach and got into the details of every single thing Jesus said.

Let me tell you, they aren’t.

Sure, the WM tendancy to be “prophetic” and “narrow-minded” is frightening, especially when most WMs use the Bible as a bayonet. And, frankly, they need to do that with other WMs, otherwise they will not be heard.

But WMs also need to remember– myself included, perhaps especially– that many of those who have been oppressed need to be dealt with in a more gentle manner.

In my context, the homeless and mentally ill in Portland, you have to be loud and sometimes obnoxious. You have to use strong language just to be heard. But many are put off by that.

I apologize to anyone who feels that they have been “speared” by my words. I see the beauty of strong words, and will use such words to support the needy and oppressed (much like Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”). But not everyone sees that cultural beauty. I want to make it clear that I do not mean to harm with my words, as much as I would like for everyone to see the Unseen in our society.

Steve K

I think you summed up my points really well and your personal testimony I think gives weight to how this kind of theology arises.

I find this kind of theology to be very present in many mainstream Christian apologists, who need to iron out every detail of scripture and faith in light of reason and that grace and mystery have no room in that. I think it has a very chauvinistic approach. It would seem, to me, that they box-in God so that God has finality and totality ( which indeed God does) but I think only in respect to what they view as “reasonable” or “logical”. Their systematic theology must be totalizing; though they speak of grace, they rarely use it.

But this is only one tendency within the larger framework of white I identify as Euro-American SWM theology. There is another tendency that is “macho liberalism”, i.e., that one comes across something which is wildly “new” in scripture (or is very old but is re-captured in a new context) and that the macho/liberal/SWM must then articulate to everyone else because they clearly haven’t “gotten it”. And to disguise the fact that they have stuck up their nose at everyone else, they guard this by saying “I’m merely being prophetic”, yet that prophecy carries with it a great deal of egoism.

What I mean to point out is not that conservative theology is “wrong”, or that liberal theology is “wrong, but rather that in order to iron out every wrinkle in their approach, a lot of intellectual SWM theologians have taken a wholesale approach to theology where everything must have a logical end, with no room for grace, or for the interpretive community to conjure up a new direction for interpretation.

And, in my opinion, you hit the nail right on the head when you say that it is the competition/conquering tendency of SWM that fosters this kind of approach.

Then… when you feel that you have the answers… it’s hard to listen to others who see things differently and it becomes easy to make judgments, to judge what behaviors are right, what are wrong, what beliefs are right and wrong.

I’m also saying this as a formerly straight white male. When I was a SWM, it was easier for me to judge people, to think less of people because of various actions I didn’t approve of. What I *didn’t* realize is that when I judge other people, I judge myself. If I’m hard on other people, I’m even harder on myself. When I came out, it was a wake-up call, and I realized I don’t have to judge other people or myself, I don’t care if I have the theological answers, and that the people I was judging are in fact my community.

so yes, to rearrange your words luke, I do believe that exiting the place of the straight white male and entering the place of the marginalized has allowed me to feel unity with others. It’s not just an intriguing notion, it’s real. -skye

I find this particularly interesting because this is exactly the approach that I took to thinking about God & theology back when I was (sort of) a straight white male (ie before coming out to myself & others.) I felt that my spiritual life had to be focused on moral perfection, on fully channeling the will of the external father-God (I now refer to that old guy, since retired in my mind, as the “fire-breathing God”) - which of course meant fully figuring out his will, and therefore “figuring out” the Bible. In my reflections since then I’ve identified this posture with adolescent tendencies, and possibly a kind of compensation for my sub-conscious knowledge that I was gay. Since this spiritual life meant dividing my own self into pro-God’s-will and anti-God’s-will, it necessarily meant dividing all others & the entire world into such categories.

And then once I came out of the closet my spiritual life shifted very radically, and I now feel much more unity with others & with the world, and no longer that reflexive perspective of judgment. I’ve never really thought that part of that shift might have something to do with exiting the place of the straight white male in this society and entering the place of the marginalized. But it’s a very intriguing notion.

What is it, do you think, that tells the straight white males that they need to take on this kind of quest? It can be that marginalized people are simply forced to learned lessons about humility and about understanding others in a way that the very privileged aren’t forced to learn (although they are capable of learning.) Are there maybe certain chains/shackles of expectations placed on straight white males - pressure to take on the role of the powerful & the solitary, that their identity is built in competition & conquering - which manifests itself in this kind of theology?

I’d be interested to hear anyone’s thoughts on this.

I may be a privileged white heterosexual male, but that does not negate what strikes me as a consistent truth in the Scriptures, something that happens to immediately subvert one’s experience, mind included.

But I wonder why women don’t naturally speak out more. If it is their issues, then why don’t they say more?

I think, for the most part, it is the confrontational/debating tone that many hetero WMs have. This is not to say that others don’t have such a tone, but it is interesting that culturally hetero WMs are usually praised for being confrontational, while women and others of alternative race or sexuality are subtlely (or sometimes not-so-subtlely) put down for it. Women– like Hillary– are called “bit—s” for just speaking their opinion in a way that offers no room for disagreement– in other words, talks like a white American male.

This isn’t just about race, sex or sexuality, either. The homeless are also supposed to be passive, and if they stand up for their rights, they are literally, legally beaten, tazed and shot for their actions. And the police are praised for such actions.

Okay, but what can we do about it, at least here in this forum? I think, first of all, that us hetero WMs should tone down our argumentation. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t present our viewpoint, but we should invite disagreement instead of trying to verbally shut the door to it. Perhaps then Katie wouldn’t feel so tired or find it necessary to amp up her own arguments.

On the other hand, Emily and other women, I would encourage you to find the energy to post. You can’t be heard unless you speak. You don’t have to give in to the tone of argumentation if you don’t want to. All you need to do is to speak your mind, even with misspellings and misplaced phrases. All misunderstanding can be worked out in discussion, but if you never speak, then how will your point of view be heard?

And, please, don’t think that others can speak for you. They can’t. They won’t. I can’t. I don’t have your life experience, your point of view– heck, my brain doesn’t function the way yours does. We all have a responsibility to each other to speak the truths we understand in our own words. And if any one of us fails in that responsibility, then we all lose out.

Yes, the HWMCM (Hetero White Middle Class Male) privilege should be challenged. But the only way it will happen is if others who don’t fit in that category drown them out!

Steve K (a HWLCM– hetero white lower class male)

Interesting. To me, the gist of what Katie is saying is that too much input from certain SWMs silences those without white, male privilege. As I have often said to well-meaning male friends, “Even though you agree with me, I still don’t need you to speak for me.”

I know that some want to make that “unity” into a form fit mold for how all Christians should all look and act, but thats just wrong. It marginalizes those who don’t fit that traditional mold.

Its our unity that should bind our causes together. If our brothers and sisters are suffering, we need to take up their cause, not further marginalize them.

I’ve waited a while to post here because the point I wanted to make didn’t seem to be in step with the majority of the comments. And I think a lot of you have made some great comments. Here’s my two cents

One of the biggest roles I think those with privilege on this blog can play is assisting those who come from similar privilege in recognizing how that privilege actually gets played out in the very core of their thinking.

For example, as a straight white male, I’ve been observing certain things that keep popping up among the straight white men who post on the blog. And, I think, knowing where those perceptions come from because I am of a similar background, I am able to address them.

This may sound confusing, because it’s hard for me to put into words, I think it might best be illustrated in an example:

One thing I’ve noticed keeps popping up among straight white men, and I think is a particularly strong tendency in much of Euro-American theology that I have read, is to believe that one is “blazing a trail” and one has a “unique” theology/interpretation of Scripture/Jesus that is “what Jesus intended”. Now, it is important to grasp at what it is that Jesus intends us to be; yet, often that “unique” and “trail blazing” theology comes with a very exclusive tone, consciously or unconsciously (i.e., this is “my Jesus” and this is “radical”, and if you think otherwise you just “don’t get it”).

I think that there is some level of “nerve” in this approach, in the sense that one is saying, “Hey everybody, you haven’t understood what faith means for your whole life, let me explain it to you”. This has within it a paternalistic tone, one that provides the answers without ever being asked the questions.

This simultaneously highly individualistic and (in the mind of the “straight white male”) “unqiue, original, and dangerous” interpretation allows him to not only indulge his privilege of being able to “be individual” (opposed to the lack of identity that the marginalized often report) while also calling into question the identity of others, all under the guise of being “prophetic”.

What I find most helpful about the marginalized voices on this blog is that they raise questions about assumptions, but don’t expect that they are going to have all the answers, nor will anyone else. Instead, they allow space for conversation where imaginative new understandings of Christian identity, ethics, and understanding can be formulated within the context of an interpretive “community” of inclusion. And we Anabaptists are all about the interpretive community, aren’t we?

If you are straight white male and feel like I’ve made “generalizations” about you, I understand what you are feeling. I’ve been there. My first encounters with marginalized people discussing privilege felt uncomfortable.

But, understand that as Lora mentioned, your calls for unity are calls for those marginalized voices to shut up, whether you want to believe that or not (thanks for point that out Lora) also understand that those feelings of frustration, hurt, and anger are the same feelings that many marginalized voices on this blog have to feel every single day. Straight white men don’t have to justify their identity from day-to-day; queer identities, people of color, working class, and others, sadly, have to justify their identities. And, therefore, YAR should be and is intended to be a space where these voices shouldn’t have to feel like they should justify their existence, but rather question the forces that make them justify their existence. That’s why, straight white men, they are telling us to “listen”.

I don’t think marginalized voices are saying they have the “right set of beliefs” as Jason J mentioned, but I think want to create space for their voices to be heard and taken seriously. And, we as straight white men really have to face the facts that we have been in charge far too long.

Moreover, it is our tendency to think that these marginalized voices want to “colonize” (in other words, usurp power) from us by making us believe what they believe. Because that’s what we’ve been doing for centuries. And I don’t think that’s the point (as Lora noted). We just need to be willing to listen, because they want to call into question the very nature of power and how it has operated to exclude them, not heap the same power structure upon us with them on top and us on the bottom.
If you have the ears to hear, then I invite you to open them; you will learn much more about yourself and your world then you realize.

If you find yourself consistently being shut down, it might be because we’re all asses who are employing the same standards used by the denomination and its organizations; it might also be because everyone whom Tim involved at the beginning of YAR wanted this to be a space where those who, for whatever reason, found themselves on the margins of the Mennonite church, could have a space to express themselves–and perhaps your perspective at that point is a fairly traditional one we’ve all heard many times.

Listen for awhile. These aren’t just issues; some of the people who contribute to this blog have to listen to others discuss whether they deserve their very dignity, something those of us with a lot of privilege have never had to understand. Katie and others have said this better than me, but part of the nature of having power is that when it broadens away from your view, it can feel very threatening. I don’t think this needs to be the case, and I’d prefer that the discussions we have on YAR not come at the cost of anyone’s voice, much less yours. Perhaps what is important to remember that we don’t agree on everything here, and I don’t think we have to. Steve’s words on heresy and truth make me a little nervous, and I’ve told him that. But I also really, really admire what he’s doing with poverty and homelessness, and the way in which he consistently holds this up to us all. This may not be a space in which you’ll find a validation for all your thoughts, but I hope you’ll stick around anyway. In fact, I’d be happy to move conversations to email, with you or anyone else. I’m tired, too, but I still think that what we have in common is probably more than what divides us.

One idea that came to mind that blends open participation and quality content is a democratic editing system which allows users to vote on their favorite stories to promote them to the front page. Digg.com is one well known example of this system. In our case there would probably be a page with all incoming articles. Once an article had received three or four thumbs up from users (or a group of editors) the post would go to the front page. Thumbs down could provide a way for users to express their disaproval of a post.

As far as the discussion forum goes, one hybrid solution is to simply provide “open threads” which are posts set up so YAR readers can discuss anything they want to. The benefit is that this doesn’t require any new software and integrates easily with the existing posts. Here’s one example of an open thread on one high traffic blog.

I’m not saying it can’t happen, I’m saying that controlling power or believing you can control power is probably short-sighted.