Well blog-readers, this is a treat! Brekke updates twice in
under a week! Don’t get used to it – there are still sermons to write, jobs to
find (oh yes, more on that later) and Bible studies to plan. But every woman needs to take a moment to
rant. And Y’all, if you didn’t know it, I love to rant!
So here’s the beef this week (moment?). I’m reading this
great post over at HomebrewedChristianity which is a discussion about the terms “Liberal” and “Progressive”
as used in Christian (mainly Evangelical) circles. It’s a defense against the
pejorative nature of those labels. And I say my two cents and am rather enjoying
the discussion, when I notice something: I am the only woman commenting. And
there are not people of color. It’s a bunch of white dudes in plaid talking
about “progressive” and post-modern Christianity. And there are no voices
coming from the margins. None.
Wait, what?
And – to preface the forthcoming rant – I want to say I like these guys over at Homebrewed
Christianity. I disagree with them sometimes. I get a little wrinkled when
Evangelical languages crops up. But generally I appreciate what they’re doing.
Rather a lot.
So, what’s the problem?
That these folks who are talking about a post-modern,
reshaping of theology which doesn’t
give pride-of-place to white men, and which intentionally does theology in
un-Orthodoxy ways, is completely dominated by white men!
For example, in a discussion with one such gentleman – with whom
I was disagreeing politely on a point – he says:
“I'm a pastor-in training in a mainline church as well and
really value feminist epistemology! :)”
I suspect the sentiment was to say “I’ve read your people
and I appreciate their contribution to the academy and its effect on my own
perspective.” But how it comes off is “oh hey I’ve read some women’s lit and I
this it’s just precious how y’all try to talk about God!”
In a conversation last month with a prolific post-modernist
author, I was told rather curtly that the time for “identity politics” was
over. Now, on one level I don’t disagree. If we are ONLY advocating from our
context we are not lobbing a thorough critique of ideologies. BUT, when we
strip away the space to advocate from the margins/context many people lose a
platform for their voice to be heard. It was frustrating that a Ph.D-holding
white European male (who, I will grant him, grew up in a situation where he
experienced serious violence and oppression because of his religious tradition)
could say without any hint of irony that his position was not informed by his privilege.
As a Ph.D-holding white male in America he represents the highest form of privilege
imaginable (sans being a billionaire). And there is no need for contectual politics/theologies?
Because you’re clearly the expert on what folk who can ONLY speak and be heard
from those contextual spaces need or want. Ugh.
This kind of selective blindness – the idea that one is open
to marginalized voices, but really only when one wants to hear them, rather than allowing them equal exchange – has been
driving me absolutely up the walls. One Womanist theologian does not equate to
an equal exchange of ideas. One queer author is not a conversation, it’s a
token.
Mostly, this rant boils down to: we have a hell of a long
way to go. We have a hell of a lot of privilege to unpack (I include myself
among those who still struggle with unpacking it!). And is post-mods think they’ve
got an edge on traditionalists, today has made clear to me that they are
deluded.
I suppose I should look at the mirror and say this: we need
more brave voices to be writing, and speaking, and challenging the all-white male
forums. But really, me? You have to be joking. Right?
/rant
Here I am Lord. Is it
I Lord? I have heard you calling in the night. I will go, Lord. If you lead me.
I will hold your people in my heart.
No comments:
Post a Comment