In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

The Evangelical Christian Movement – Harm Reduction

Guest Blogger

This is a guest post by Kristen J. Kristen J. is a frequent commentor at Feministe and a former member of several Evangelical churches located throughout the U.S.

Woohoo! We’ve made it to the most important part of this series. Solutions.

I’m a solutions oriented person. Find a problem and fix it, I always say. Okay, usually I don’t say that…I just proceed with the fixing. But, to be honest, I’m not sure there are “solutions” in this particular situation. People are and, in my view, should always be free to believe and to worship as they deem necessary limited only by the principle that they are not permitted to cause direct harm to others. In a pluralistic world the best that we can do is try to convince people to agree with us instead of with them. And it’s my guess that no matter how brilliant our arguments are, there will still be a non-zero number of people who will consider me to be possessed by a demon. The question then is not “how do we stop people from believing things” since…well, I think Hagee said it best:

[Pastor Hagee in a sermon called Faith Tested by Fire – Transcript beginning at 0:59 and ending at 1:10
I want to tell you, in this world in which we live, you can go into a group of people and believe any stupid doctrine you want to believe and they’ll applaud you for it.]

…

I probably should have put a trigger warning for excessive irony, but I didn’t want to ruin the surprise.

Rather than trying to convince people that people like me are not enemies of their God, I’d prefer to spend my energy preventing people from causing me and other people harm. The questions is…how the fuck do we do that?

Your guess is as good as mine, but here are a few ideas I’ve had (or that Mr. Kristen has had and I’ve decided to co-opt):

1. Get Organized

Let’s face it. The Progressive Movement lacks much in the way of formal organization. We have trade unions and…MoveOn.org? In part this dearth of organizational structure is a product of what Progressives (often) wish to accomplish. Anti-establishment types typically aren’t big on creating institutions. Instead we work separately to make lives better for people in our own circles of influence. That’s not a bad thing. This non-structure, community activism is the ideal way to address needs in a community, but it isn’t very helpful for combatting a highly organized well-funded opponent.

Like many Progressives, I’m skeptical of formal institutions. In my view, institutions tend towards kyriarchial norms such that even if we were to structure it with the best of intentions, it likely would fail in some way to meet our expectations for an anti-oppression organization going forward.

So what is a possible solution? I think we should better utilize organization like local trade unions. I know in the communities I’ve worked in there seemed to be a social barrier between progressive groups and labor unions. I think it’s time to reach out and work together. Unions have *excellent* organizational and communication tools. In my experience they are already involved in helping people in our communities, and are usually more than happy to help you to do more. Can you think of any other organizational structures we can use?

2. Build a Community

I think it might be helpful to find a way to connect with other progressive groups in your community and with other groups that are facing some of the same challenges. Oftentimes, I think of Feministe as one of those spaces where I can connect with other gender activists. We share ideas and provide support to one another. In that way we’re a community. How awesome would it be if we could manage to build a sense of community within the entire Progressive Movement? If we had an opportunity to talk to each other about the projects we’re working on, share solutions and resources, even provide moral support when things are looking down. Just last summer, bfp shared her experiences in Detroit and I learn a lot about how we might begin to restructure a more cooperative economy. I believe we all have experiences that could help the rest of us in our efforts to create a more just world. Of course, I have no idea how to make that happen. What do you think?

3. VOTE

I guess this one is obvious, but progressive turnout for state and local elections often sucks. Big time. But these local elections are wreaking havoc in our communities. At the very least we need to vote. If you have the time and resources, campaign. You’d be surprised how much of a difference a few hours of your time will make in a local election. And if you have some spare time and energy, run for office. No, seriously. I know most of you would – assuming you have the time and energy – make superb school board members or city council members. Imagine what our communities would look like if we had someone committed to anti-oppression work on every city council. Imagine how much safer our schools would be if we had even one person who would stick up for all kids.

4. Let the Sun Shine In

Justice Brandeis (a personal historical favorite of mine) once said in the context of his own battles against better organized and better funded institutions, that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” A lot of what I’ve discussed in this series isn’t known very well outside of the Evangelical Movement. Frankly, I don’t think the Evangelical Movement can stand the sort of scrutiny that would come to bare when its role in politics, health care, etc. are revealed. In my view we saw a bit of the backlash with the Planned Parenthood and Komen fiasco as well as the C Street scandal. By talking about the Movement and highlighting the ways in which they are influencing events in your community, I think we can do a lot to blunt their influence.

5. Stepping Out from the Moral Majority

I glossed over much of the political power of the Evangelical Movement given its extensive coverage in other places, but I do what to address a possible strategy here as well. Part of what gives the Movement its political power is the perception not that it commands a “majority”, but rather that it commands a substantial voting block. The numbers vary greatly depending on who you talk to but the range from 15 to 30 million. However, as Mother Jones uncovered years ago, those numbers are sometimes misleading. In actual fact the Evangelical Movement may be more like 4 or 5 million people. Not an insubstantial number of people, but not an overwhelming force either.

In part these inflated statistics are the result of the spokespersons of the Evangelical Movement to include other Christian sects, including other Evangelicals, in their Movement. For some it’s falsehood used to great political effect, but for others in the Movement, they genuinely believe that other Christians share their belief systems and, although they’ve lapsed, when push comes to shove they would agree with them to ban contraception or prevent people who are gay from adopting. Many churches that preach that if the “Righteous” (that would be them) would rise up to oppose “Satan’s Forces” (that would be Progressives, in general) then all of Christianity would unite behind them.

In other words they draw strength in their convictions from every other person who shares their belief in Christ.

I know that doesn’t sit well with Progressive Christians. And we *could* have another long drawn out discussion about True Christians and coopting, but that conversation is not going to stop members of the Evangelical Movement from claiming you as part of their Movement. What may stop them is you saying to them, to your community and to your church that you do not support their efforts. What may stop them is you organizing your church in support of LGBT youth. What may stop them is your church members standing in front of crisis pregnancy centers handing out factual information. What may stop them is if Progressive Christianity becomes visible. And making that happen is your responsibility.

***

Those are just a few ideas I’ve had or heard of over the years. What do you think? Do you see another strategy that might be helpful? Do you see weaknesses in these strategies that we can fix or that call for them to be scrapped altogether?

***
Since this is the last in the series, I want to say thank you to everyone for sharing your experiences and for being so supportive. And thank you to the bloggers at Feministe for having me. See you in the comments!

48 thoughts on The Evangelical Christian Movement – Harm Reduction

  1. I think you answer, or at least provide one of my answers, to your first question in your summation. Progressives need to get more comfortable with partnering with progressive religious institutions, even when we do not share the faith of the organization we’re collaborating with.

    The flip side of that is what you call for in your last paragraphs – progressive Christians need to LOUDLY denounce the folks in the Evangelical Movement who proport to act in their name.

    They need to loudly declare their strong disagreement with the people who would dehumanize women and gay people and non-Christians in the name of Christ.

    Rather than worrying about what discussions such as this suggest about Christianity as a whole, they need to take a good hard look at the structures of their own Church and the inherent assumptions of their own beliefs and make sure that if they see themselves in these posts, that they examine why that is – because the conflation of Christianity and Evangelism and the Evangelical Movement did not start with non-Christians.

    Because we progressive non-Christians *do* need to get more comfortable working side-by-side with progressive Christians, but it is going to be hard to do that when we wonder what the real goals are of our partners in activism.

  2. I am not sure if we can have a general Progressive community in a similar sense to the Evangelical Movement. “Progressives” like “feminists” is too broad a group with too many different opinions and beliefs. I think we have to accept that the Evangelical Movement has an intrinsic advantage on this front.

    I believe more in organisations with specific limited goals. Even though it is harder to get the same enthusiasm and commitment in that context, it is much easier to build broad coalitions.

    I just wanted to comment on this also

    Rather than trying to convince people that people like me are not enemies of their God,…

    I agree that this would probably be pointless, but I also do not think it is true. People like me are enemies of their God (as in the embodiment of their beliefs and values). Not the enemy of all the different God concepts that exists within Christianity, but certainly to the concept of the groups we are discussing here.

  3. This continues to be a really interesting series.

    I find that “calling out,” for lack of a better term, other Christians on things like misogyny tends to result not in them changing their views, so much as in them considering me (or anyone who does it) not “one of them” any more. I say this because I think it’s actually a positive thing, killing two birds with one stone– they become less likely to co-opt us because we’re some of those misled evil liberal heretics (or something).

    On the other hand, the more Christians point out that the behavior of some Christians is unacceptable, the more those Christians are going to have a persecution complex and try to convince their followers that they are the One True Branch and they need to Fight For The Truth. Absolutely not a reason not to engage, of course, just something to keep in mind for the future.

  4. Progressives need to get more comfortable with partnering with progressive religious institutions, even when we do not share the faith of the organization we’re collaborating with.

    I’ve seen this call a lot, and it almost always comes from a progressive believer.

    What it never comes with are any suggestions. How? How, exactly, am I supposed to get more comfortable with institutions based in a belief system that has a history of inspiring people to persecute, if not murder, people like me? How am I supposed to get more comfortable with institutions based in a belief system that has been used to justify the oppression of people like me? How am I supposed to feel comfortable with an institution that, no matter the progressiveness, explicitly excludes people like me?

    I once worked on a welfare-rights project with a progressive church. The director of the project was a young gay woman. We never felt closer than on the day we had to make a presentation at the church, she in her butch gayness, and me looking as Jewish as can be, because when people start talking about Christ’s love, we both make sure we have clear pathways to the exits.

    So how? When that is the history informing not just you personally, but your community and culture, how?

  5. What I’m saying is that religious institutions, particularly Christian ones, make me uncomfortable, not as some intellectual exercise or tactical stance, but on a visceral, bone-deep level. How, exactly, am I supposed to either change that or feel like religious institutions, particularly Christian ones, merit that change in me?

  6. @ EG:

    I feel uncomfortable when I’m the only Black woman in a large group of white people. Even though I can’t stand the institution of whiteness that discriminates against me, I know that, even on my own merits, it’s impossible for me to achieve my goals – especially if those goals include changes that they may find contrary to what they know or believe – without having any interaction with them.

  7. I’ve seen this call a lot, and it almost always comes from a progressive believer.

    What it never comes with are any suggestions. How? How, exactly, am I supposed to get more comfortable with institutions based in a belief system that has a history of inspiring people to persecute, if not murder, people like me? How am I supposed to get more comfortable with institutions based in a belief system that has been used to justify the oppression of people like me? How am I supposed to feel comfortable with an institution that, no matter the progressiveness, explicitly excludes people like me?

    Well, in this case, it’s coming from a complete heathen atheist raised by atheists and agnostics, hence my describing myself as a progressive non-Christian. But Kristen asked for suggestions of other established groups progressives could align with, and that one seemed almost painfully obvious in this context.

    The “how”, at least for me, needs to be led by those who claim the mantle of “Progressive Christian”, as I outlined in the rest of my comment – the folks who fall into that category are going to have to lead the charge here, IMO. Because, frankly, I’m not comfortable aligning with organized religion either at this point.

  8. The “how”, at least for me, needs to be led by those who claim the mantle of “Progressive Christian”, as I outlined in the rest of my comment – the folks who fall into that category are going to have to lead the charge here, IMO. Because, frankly, I’m not comfortable aligning with organized religion either at this point.

    Are there specific things progressive churches could do that would make you more comfortable, either at the congregation level or at a broader level?

    I realize that “progressive churches” is a very broad category.

  9. @Angel H:

    But that isn’t really comparable. There isn’t an explicitly white institution that white people go to to celebrate whiteness and with which you have to interact. Almost 20% of America is a nontheist these days, and then we also have muslims, jews, and non mono religions. And a further number of christians are secular. They don’t go to church. They will call themselves christians but will do anything possible not to have organized christianity have any affect on their lives.

    Its perfectly possible to change the world without ever stepping foot in a church or going to an explicitly church rally or event. Or even a church sponsored one.

    Whereas its very very unlikely that you can avoid organizations populated primarily by white people in the same way.

    Now a 100 or more years ago it may not have been possible to avoid working together with a church, but that is no longer the case.
    I suppose you could argue that there is and its called America?
    But that isn’t really the same.

  10. @EG,

    I hear your concern. Its one of the reasons I didn’t suggest reaching out to churches, but I did suggest churches reaching out to progressive groups in their community. IME, churches tend to take shit over which sometimes makes sense given their organizational resources, but sometimes screws stuff up because the mission morphs to meet church goals. I’m much more comfortable personally with a church *helping* existing orgs or creating new ones than churches taking over existing orgs.

  11. EG @ 4

    I’ve seen this call a lot, and it almost always comes from a progressive believer.

    A few years back, I was involved in an online discussion about the development of a faith caucus in a political party. You can see the overriding concern of the “progressive” religious to not be associated with the right-wing religionists:

    We believe that the neo-conservative right has unfairly seized the religious discourse and have used it toward their own ends. The religious right has been so successful at this, in recent years, that many have come to associate religion with intolerance, conservatism, capitalism and even imperialism. This must stop.

    So what these “progressives” were aiming for is getting people to stop associating religion with intolerance, etc., and the NDP was going to do it for them. That was the whole point of the caucus. For their benefit. And not only were progressives supposed to be eager to be exploited in this way, they were, once you got right down to it, past all the vague, flowery words, supposed to agree to the moral superiority of the religious. From one of the comments:

    In your email you say “Many progressive and social democratic principles can be founded upon, and guided by, religious values. Love, forgiveness, generosity, dignity, liberation, equality, respect, as well as the support and acceptance of the poor and marginalized are but a few of these values.”

    These aren’t religious values, they are HUMAN values that are, I think, shared by all of us in the NDP. . .

    It’s the linking of the two issues I object to, as if you must be a person of faith before you can believe in social justice.

    And that, when you scratched the surface, is what the proponents of this caucus thought. That these were religious values. That odious view permeated the discussion I was in. They’d talk about having to speak to religious people in a different way, and say that the caucus was needed to be more “welcoming” to religious people, and otherwise dance around the question of why the party needed a faith caucus, why they needed that special recognition. And when they finally answered the question, it was some variant of compassion, love, generosity being religious values. IOW, you can’t be good without god. So along with the PR goal, what they were after was official acknowledgement that progressive values were rooted in religion.

    So, to “Progressives need to get more comfortable with partnering with progressive religious institutions”, fuck that shit. Why do progressives need to partner with progressive religious institutions? Are religious progressives unable to do any social justice work without getting that special nod of recognition? Can they not come to the table as just a person wanting to do good?

  12. @8

    Are there specific things progressive churches could do that would make you more comfortable, either at the congregation level or at a broader level?

    I outlined what I think would be a pretty good start in the first comment in this thread. Personally, I need to hear that people respect my basic right to exist as someone who does not share their beliefs. I need to know that the work toward a common good relates to the good in this life, not their hope to bring more people with them to the afterlife.

    And really, I find myself agreeing on a basic gut level with the people who are disagreeing with my earlier comments than I do with my own. Do I think we may ultimately *need* to find a way to peace with progressive believers? Probably. But I’m not particularly happy about it.

    @11

    So, to “Progressives need to get more comfortable with partnering with progressive religious institutions”, fuck that shit. Why do progressives need to partner with progressive religious institutions? Are religious progressives unable to do any social justice work without getting that special nod of recognition? Can they not come to the table as just a person wanting to do good?

    Good question. The flip side is does it matter? If we’re all trying to do essentially the same good, but for different reasons, and if they believe they’re going to heaven and we believe they’re putting their faith in a fairytale, do we have to care about why they are there?

  13. Anti-establishment types typically aren’t big on creating institutions. Instead we work separately to make lives better for people in our own circles of influence.

    More than two people starts to look like a conspiracy. Paranoia aside, I wouldn’t underestimate the power of individuals working within their own circles of influence.

    Every single patient I will see over the course of my career is going to, in one way or another, receive a similar message: it is vital to your continued happiness that you learn to think for yourself and engage in relationships with other people that are insightful, honest, and reciprocal. The same is true for children I encounter in my life, for my friends, for my coworkers. At some point in my career I’m likely to begin teaching in a clinical program and, again, that message will be the one I send. If I get around to publishing, to speaking in public, to guest blogging again, the same thing. I don’t just believe in human liberty and agency, I live it and live for it.

    Every single time you support a friend whose parents are being repugnant because their child just came out, every time you reach out to someone and give them a few precious moments outside of judgement, every time you teach a child or help them break a silly rule just so they can see what happens, you bleed out the influence of Evangelicals just a little bit more. Every time you stand up and call someone on bullshit you embolden observers who thought that they were the only ones who saw it. Every time you get to know someone and they see a human being happily and ethically existing outside the bounds of conservative morality you weaken the argument those values deploy.

    Because, and maybe this is me being polyannish but fuck it I seem to have found myself above a soap box, evangelical Christianity is a shitty argument. Its a shitty deal. Its a bad idea that doesn’t stand up well. Traditional morality is oppressive, its designed to be oppressive, and it doesn’t have much more holding it together than the jealousy of people too afraid to step outside of it. Help open that door for others and the whole structure comes crumbling down.

    Over the weekend I attended an incredible talk at the local psychoanalytic institute in which Ken Corbett talked about perversion not as something to be fixed or cured back into normalcy but as a constitutive necessisty for the human experience. We need to be what we are. The oppressive position of conservative Christianity is, itself, deeply unnautral. It is not, regardless of the arguments to the contrary, The Way of Things. I think I’m taking Corbett’s position a step further than he would have, but it is my belief that the oppressive norms that Evangelical Christianity passes off as ersatz morality only hasten the further dissolution of those values. The more you say “no” the more varied the ways human beings will find to say “yes.” From sufferage to civil rights to gay rights to the emergence of trans* communities to the increasing acceptance of kink to whatever wonderful new tributaries of human desire and experience we’ll see before my body wears out, we human beings just don’t much care for being caged. Human beings want to sleep in on Sunday, have orgasms, and not be forced into parenthood at times inconvenient for them. We fought for that, damnit. The whole of human history can be read as a battle to tell mediocrity to go fuck itself because we’re too busy getting drunk and laid and laughing to bother with the details.

    So fuck organizing, its just playing into the game. Be the change you want to see, protect your allies, make your communities better. Insititutions always end up coopted. People, on the other hand, have a fighting chance.

  14. Are there specific things progressive churches could do that would make you more comfortable, either at the congregation level or at a broader level?

    Obviously I cannot speak for everyone, but for me it has to start with two things: a complete avoidance of even the appearance of evangelism and not using the moral authority of the bible in mixed company. The very moment someone invites me to a church event or tries to talk to me about Jesus I shift my treatment of them into a strictly defensive posture. Evangelism is an act of violence, and for many of us it hasn’t even been theoretical or metaphorical violence. As for the bible, I think a lot of Christians seem to forget that it doesn’t hold much authority for those of us who don’t share the faith. In my experience the only people who have a habit of rountinely quoting religious texts in daily life are people who come from a background of overwhelming religious privilege and cult members. Quoting the bible to a heathen, even if you’re doing to to support a point you both share, is like telling a homeless person about the merits of a BMW and thinking that its relevant because they asked for directions.

  15. aydan,
    for one thing churches could send volunteers without waving their fucking religious banner. I’ve done extensive work with RCRC, a religious organization that has got it right. Churches need to model their participation after that organization. They could also stop preaching that if we don’t believe in their mythical man in the sky that we are going to a mythical burning fire for all eternity

  16. @William

    Re: Organizing

    I think you have a fundamentally more idealistic view of human nature than I do. I don’t think people seek out opportunities to be kind to one another. Instead, for the most part I think we need prompting. We need something or someone to remind us of the world outside ourselves and our immediate concerns. But perhaps I’m projecting. I know I need those reminders.

    Re: Evangelizing

    Fuck yeah. My rule is you get one warning that I’m not going to tolerate it and if you continue either I leave or you do. I’ve experienced too much pain at the hands of those using that book. I refuse to spend the rest of my life listening to it.

    Unfortunately, its interwoven into the lives of even Progressive Christians such that its hard for them to even notice when they do it. Privilege in action I guess.

  17. Like others here, I’m also very skeptical of forging alliances with the more so called “progressive” denominations of Christianity. I’m not saying it’s not possible, but their track record to date doesn’t give me much cause for optimism. Because of every discussion I’ve ever witnessed either online or IRL that is critical of organized Christianity, someone who self-identifies as one of these supposedly more progressive sects usually pipes up and pleads for people not to tar all Christians. IMO, their energy could be far better spent speaking up in their own congregations and actively distancing themselves from the others that are openly less so and make it very clear they want nothing to do with them, therefore sending out a message not only to the populace at large, but also to those in their own congregations who might have similar leanings. The fact they by and large don’t make any attempt to do this says a lot about their priorities and loyalties.

  18. I feel uncomfortable when I’m the only Black woman in a large group of white people. Even though I can’t stand the institution of whiteness that discriminates against me, I know that, even on my own merits, it’s impossible for me to achieve my goals – especially if those goals include changes that they may find contrary to what they know or believe – without having any interaction with them.

    I hear that, Angel H., and I don’t think there’s any reason why you wouldn’t or shouldn’t–which is why I would never tell a black person that he or she should “become more comfortable with white institutions.” And I would never ask or expect a black person to be the only emissary to a group of whites. I would as, others have said above, tell white institutions who want to effect positive change to reach out to nonwhite communities and find out what they can do to make themselves less off-putting.

    I don’t have objections to working with Christian people. I just don’t see why I should have to go to their home, their turf, on their terms in order to do so.

  19. I’m not Christian, but I am a pretty darn religious Jew, and I think the progressive Jewish community has some good techniques that might be able to help progressive Christians to create the kinds of coalitions we’re talking about.

    1) Inclusivity in your organization: when the rabbi is a woman, or the synagogue president is gay, or the cantor is black, I’m far more likely to trust that an organization is willing to combat kyriarchy than if it is a bunch of upper middle class white Ashkenazi Jews who are straight.
    2) Sponsoring and hosting dialogue about the issues: synagogues often bring in speakers of different backgrounds to give lectures about issues of the day. Often they will sponsor Jewish progressive groups to come in to have a dialogue with the synagogue community.
    3) Doing social justice work uncoupled from proselytizing- I think this is where Christians have the most to learn from Jews. Judaism as a religion has a huge commitment to social justice and a phobia against proselytizing, which means that there are many liberal Jewish groups that may include a prayer aspect in their social justice work, but they do not include conversion or preaching as a prior condition to accepting help.

    Granted, most Jewish communities are a WORLD of not perfect at this, but I think that there is something here for other religious organizations to learn.

    As to why include religious people in coalitions? I think it’s two parts. One is the shitty (but real) truth that, in the national discourse, a person of faith is often taken more seriously than an atheist.

    The other piece (which is far more compelling and I don’t think will ever go away) is that some people who have been abused by religion will heal through exposure progressive religious tolerance. Some people who have been hurt by the church benefit most from hearing that “God does not exist,” others benefit most from hearing “God loves you, contrary to what you’ve been taught.” My goal is enable victims of spiritual abuse to live whole and loving lives, and I want to give them as many options as possible to get there.

  20. @ EG & Matt:

    I totally get what you’re saying and you’re both absolutely right.

    It would be better if I stepped back and STFU&L on this one. I’m going back to lurking.

  21. Kristen J. – Not that I don’t think community is a great thing, but I feel like most of what you’re asking is something that’s been asked time and time again. How many feminists have called for better organizing, stronger community, etc. It’s pretty much a staple plea in progressive circles. And I don’t really have any research at this moment to support my point, this is purely observation, but I feel like progressive persons may naturally be more individualistic than non-progressive persons (whether they have it and it leads them to the movement or the movement inspires more individualism or both feed into each other). So it might be a pretty futile thing, and perhaps we should, instead of trying to copy the success of people with different inclinations, look for new ways our strengths might work to our benefit. But this is an argument for the broader community, not just for this thread.

    I am also wary of the idea that it is us, the progressives, that need to step forward, though I’m wondering if perhaps we’re talking around each other? When I hear about progressive orgs, I’m always thinking of smaller groups of twenty or so people, and to me, asking that group to be more inclusive of the opressors is the same as me as a lesbian being told that I need to be more inclusive of straight people. Um…no. I get I need their help and that they will be able to make more progress in their community since they have that in, but I’m not about to accomodate them if they’re not stepping forward.

    But I also know there are larger, better funded groups that consider themselves progressive, and perhaps this is what emandink was talking about? I really haven’t had experience with this groups, so I don’t know the social rules or how inclusive/exclusive they may be. I can’t really speak on it.

  22. Just realized that my writing may be unclear. When I say “an element of prayer in their social justice work,” I mean that participants are praying on their own time, not that there is a prayer service during the social justice project that might make the people benefiting feel pressured to join in.

  23. When I hear about progressive orgs, I’m always thinking of smaller groups of twenty or so people, and to me, asking that group to be more inclusive of the opressors is the same as me as a lesbian being told that I need to be more inclusive of straight people. Um…no. I get I need their help and that they will be able to make more progress in their community since they have that in, but I’m not about to accomodate them if they’re not stepping forward.

    I’m not sure how I came across as saying that we need to reach out to our oppressors. I was thinking that we need to reach out to one another. As an example, in the last place I lived, I worked with several orgs to help victims of DV get the help they needed. It wasn’t always seamless because there were turf wars and whatnot. If the various orgs had worked together, cooperated to provide food, housing, clothing, child care, medical care, etc I think we could have been far more effective. If we had the opportunity to share our experiences with the orgs I experienced in other places maybe we would have helped them and they could have helped us. I don’t think we need an umbrella org or central organization, and I sure as hell don’t think we should reach out to those who are hurting us, but if we’re working towards the same goals we should learn to collaborate. It may be something as simple as the way food banks will swap items to improve nutritional coverage, but I think we should be talking to one another and helping one another.

  24. So, to “Progressives need to get more comfortable with partnering with progressive religious institutions”, fuck that shit. Why do progressives need to partner with progressive religious institutions?

    This is a very good question IMO. For someone like me that believes religion in general and Christianity in particular has been a great force of evil in society it is hard to find common ground with the religious. However, if you manage to join around a common purpose it may still be a viable alliance.

    Still, since I both have no respect for religion nor any real understanding (how can they seriously believe that shit?), finding common ground can be very problematic.

  25. I’m not convinced it’s a matter of organising or being organised. I am a strict secularist, I try and connect with people voicing opinions of legitimate progressive dissent. To do this I work to ensure my streams of information are uncorrupted by any religious presence.

    This culling, in the long run, should allow for the emergence of a unified , secular, progressive network capable of responding to calls for support from within at the local, regional or global level.

  26. Another point to throw into this whole discussion is that not every atheist or ex-Christian/Muslim/Jew/etc. would probably fit neatly into the “progressive” box. Some of the most recent influential atheist writers, people like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, have refused to fully align with the political left in the United States. I don’t think they’re anomalies. I grew up in very Evangelical circles, and would describe myself more as a political moderate than a proper progressive. One of the biggest problems out there right now, I think–one of the things that keeps people entrenched in churches–is the confluence of leftwing politics with atheist thinking and of religion with conservatism. It perpetuates a certain “politics of identity” climate that I think a lot of formerly religious people find deeply suspicious and difficult to navigate. Many of the atheists I know and encounter trend towards libertarianism (which usually includes ultimately agree with the Left on social issues like reproductive rights, for example, though their reasons are different). I think that sort of political expression feels freer, less conformist and ultimately safer, in some ways, to people who have experienced extremely conformist environments like conservative churches or schools.

    I have appreciated Kristen’s articles, but the underlying question/intent seems to be “how can we as secular liberals unite to take on the religiously-motivated conservatives?” Given recent antics with regards to women’s health and reproductive rights by the political religious right, I can understand this position, but I for one am extremely uncomfortable giving too much allegiance to any particular political ideology or party–like Kristen wrote, anything too organized “[tends] towards kyriarchial norms.” I’m extremely critical of any sort of institution, movement or establishment, because I’ve seen so clearly how people suspend their reason and critical thinking capabilities in order to fit into a group with whom they identify with on some level. I suspect there’s lots of former evangelicals floating around out there who feel similarly–who are wary of anything too organized or too politically one-sided, who find any experience of getting too swept up in any kind of philosophically-minded movement to be almost triggering, in some sense. I certainly respect progressives and agree with them on many things, but you’ll never get me to commit to some kind of wider ideological movement, and being politically central and insisting upon disagreeing with all positions on certain issues, at times, is a sort of necessary exercise for me. It reminds me of my own current intellectual freedom, of the fact that I am no longer obligated by anyone to do difficult mental gymnastics to support a viewpoint that might not be completely foolproof. Openness to dissent, openness to differing political viewpoints without shaming them as fundamentally immoral would be, I think, hugely productive in involving the formerly churched secularists in combating the American religious right’s current theocratic-minded surge.

  27. I read/lurk here a lot and rarely comment, but I did want to say thank-you thank-you thank-you for this series. Your writing and the subsequent comment threads have been very informative and pretty game-changing for me. I’ve been avoiding commenting up until now because I didn’t want to be a Christian looking for a cookie because “I’m not an asshole” or to do some sort of no true Scotsman thing. your series has helped me check my privilege in a whole new way. I consider myself progressive, but thank you for reminding me that I do not get to be an “ally” just because most evangelicals I know think I’m a heretic, and that I don’t get to decide who does and doesn’t see me as a potential ally or friend, and if I want to be either I need to be that, not a “Christian” version or “perspective”.
    shit this is still looking like cookie-seeking.
    I’ve got a few things to figure out, and I’m really grateful to Kristen J and to the commenters for their criticism reality cheques. (checks? is it the same in Canada?) I want to be a part of a movement that fights for equality and safety and care for everyone, and if I can’t do that and also be a Christian I’m going to have to re-think the latter because the former takes precedence.
    I am seriously not as much of a suck-up as I look here. I probably should have stopped at “thank you, you’ve given me a lot to think about and reminded me of things I need to always think about, and I’m grateful.”

  28. You know…I do get it. Institutions suck. We don’t like each other. We all think the other groups are doing it wrong. Ideologically we’re mismatched. Those are all very important theoretical questions searching for big answers. And maybe I sent this discussion on this path by trying to stay too objective…but here’s the thing. We need solutions for problems that are literally killing people.

    Right now I want to stop women from being raped by their doctors before they are allowed to have an abortion. Right now I want to stop kids from dying. Right now I want people not to starve or die from dehydration. And if I have to hold my nose and work with some people that share those goals but differ from me on X, Y and Z (when X, Y, and Z are not causing harm to people), then I will.

    This whole thing of putting ideology above people’s lives pervades our entire society and it really ticks me off regardless of where it comes from. People are more important than ideas. Full stop.

    I hear that these solutions are less than ideal. So suggest some alternatives. That was the point of this thread. Together we’re pretty damn smart. So let’s find something we can do.

  29. @guest blogger, I guess it depends on whether the overall goal is to organise an effective lobby to try and change the system from within or whether it is to provide a space that would allow the voices of secularism to rewrite the rules and develop an alternate system.

    One thing I do know, divided we fail. Of course confronting the dichotomous fact that theism and secularism are incompatible can be difficult.

  30. A commitment to progressive politics might well include networking with black churches if the GOP continues to rabble-rouse racists im the dubious spirit of running Obama out of office. Aydan, I may be bone-deep paranoid of evangelicals and fundies, but that doesn’t stop me calling one out via their own scriptures, for instance, taking down the pink-collar ghettoizers by letting them know that women were on the construction crew of Solomon’s temple. I’ve long suspected that Jesus and “the beloved disciple” were closer than the gospels admitted. Many ministers are willing to practice a pragmatic pluralism in order to feed the hungry, house the homeless, etc. Some good conversational psychology on how to shut the proselytizers up when they get offensive, would be welcome.
    we need a strong presence at the polls, and it would be great for those with legal transportation to contact the Democratic Party precinct orgs and take voters to the polls on Election Day-something which can make a major difference in vote totals.

  31. And if I have to hold my nose and work with some people that share those goals but differ from me on X, Y and Z (when X, Y, and Z are not causing harm to people), then I will.

    This whole thing of putting ideology above people’s lives pervades our entire society and it really ticks me off regardless of where it comes from. People are more important than ideas. Full stop.

    I hear this, but sometimes people’s resistance to partnering up with more progressive churches isn’t just about ideological purity or other such abstractions. I, personally, would never work for or with a religious organization, no matter how liberal, because the ideology of Christianity causes me pain. I am attacked directly by that system of belief. I am a real person, too, and my mental health is as important as that of the people we, as progressives, are supposed to be helping.

    I want to suggest solutions of my own, but I can’t come up with any direct counter to evangelism that is not ripe with its own serious problems. One of the most important, and frightening, aspects of religious political power is their sense of absolute certainty and strength of conviction. Progressives are obliged to cede the power of certainty because our entire philosophy is built around doubt, skepticism, and relentless searching for truth – a stance that necessarily requires us to situate ourselves as lacking any definitive answer. While doubt is essential to inquiry, and is therefore an essential element of building sound, reality-based policy, it lacks emotional appeal, which limits our ability to galvanize a population. It also demands humility on the part of the doubter – you can’t have a smug sense of superiority a la ‘God’s chosen people’ if your philosphy compels you to analyze your own place in the world, and question whether it is indeed legitimate. And a humble ideology will never gain as many followers as one that encourages people to imagine themselves as superior.

    I guess my predicament is one of trying to find a way to make progressivism appealing on an emotional level, without compromising our need to continually test our ideas for soundness (thereby relying on doubt and humility). Dunno if that’s possible, really, but it’s something for me to think about, anyway.

    1. evangelism seems, by definition, to be going out of ones own ‘xian’ community with the the goal of giving voice to christ in all other communities. What that means in practice is that any discussion on which the evangelist holds a biblical view, everyone must hear that view, ad nauseum, in my experience the mere presence of evangelists derails meaningful engagement. evangelism, and evangelists are in direct opposition to secular and progressive causes and serve merely to obstruct progress.

  32. emandink @ 12:

    Good question. The flip side is does it matter? If we’re all trying to do essentially the same good, but for different reasons, and if they believe they’re going to heaven and we believe they’re putting their faith in a fairytale, do we have to care about why they are there?

    That is not the flip side. In the example I gave, they are *not* trying to do “essentially the same good”. Those religious people were already in the party, ostensibly doing whatever social justice work the party was involved in, so forming the caucus had nothing whatsoever to do with actually doing good works, and everything to do with branding. They are the ones that made “why they are there” an issue. Before they said, “We need a faith caucus”, nobody asked, nobody cared, and nobody was making a distinction between the contributions of the religious and non-religious.

    And it’s the same with progressives collaborating with religious organizations. It’s not the progressive organization that cares about why they are there and raising the question of religious identity, it’s the religious organization doing it. The question is not, “do we have to care about why they are there”, it’s, “why are they making this an issue”.

  33. Kristen J. – Sorry! I didn’t mean that whole post to be to you, just the first paragraph. The last two were directed to the thread as a whole. I probably should’ve made that clearer. -_-

  34. @ Colin —

    Actually, there are progressive Evangelical Christians. Maybe (probably) the vast majority are like what you describe, and I’ve certainly known several like that, but there are those who aren’t. For example, Fred Clark is a socially progressive writer who is also an Evangelical Christian. He vehemently supports equal rights for women and LGBT individuals, he recognizes that the bible he loves is also a flawed and extremely human book, and his blog readership is an interfaith internet community, including atheists, pagans, and Christians of many different stripes. (TW for folks who have been badly hurt by Christianity: He does talk a lot about Christianity on his blog, and not always in the context of social justice.)

    Fred Clark is an excellent example of #5 (and he’s also done some of #3, with his ongoing deconstruction of the Left Behind series), and someone that I, as an atheist secular humanist, personally feel very comfortable allying with.

    Regarding community-building and joining forces in general: I do think secular groups should partner with progressive religious organizations simply because they’re organized and that’s a valuable resource in the fight for social justice. But that doesn’t mean every individual needs to, or even every group needs to directly partner. A lot of people in comments have mentioned being actively harmed by Christianity or Christian groups, and it would be wrong to demand they sacrifice their health or security and partner with sectarian groups. And others have mentioned that some sectarian groups don’t know how to respectfully partner with groups where not everyone is Christian, or even The Same Kind Of Christian.

    So I’m picturing groups like a large number of clustered soap bubbles — a connected whole, able to work for a common cause, but without a single hierarchy and with some groups acting as intermediaries for other groups. So the groups of people who aren’t comfortable or safe working with sectarian groups don’t directly partner with them, and the sectarian groups that are still learning how to respect others’ boundaries don’t directly partner with those that they would harm. Those of us who can safely (to us and others) interact with both groups serve as the intermediate soap bubbles, providing a link and educating the sectarian groups.

    Can it work on a large scale? I don’t know. I’ve seen it sort-of on a smaller scale — Foundation Beyond Belief is a humanist and atheist charitable giving foundation that serves as one of those intermediate soap-bubbles, connecting the rather nebulous atheist and humanist community with individual charity groups, and providing a safety buffer when one of the charities has a religious affiliation.

  35. @konkonsn,

    Ah, that makes sense… Sleep deprivation makes my reading comprehension fly out the window!

  36. Wow, does no one else see anything problematic with Matt’s terrible explanation of racism to Angel H.?

    But that isn’t really comparable. There isn’t an explicitly white institution that white people go to to celebrate whiteness and with which you have to interact. Almost 20% of America is a nontheist these days, and then we also have muslims, jews, and non mono religions. And a further number of christians are secular. They don’t go to church. They will call themselves christians but will do anything possible not to have organized christianity have any affect on their lives.

    Its perfectly possible to change the world without ever stepping foot in a church or going to an explicitly church rally or event. Or even a church sponsored one.

    Whereas its very very unlikely that you can avoid organizations populated primarily by white people in the same way.

    Now a 100 or more years ago it may not have been possible to avoid working together with a church, but that is no longer the case.
    I suppose you could argue that there is and its called America?
    But that isn’t really the same.

    OF COURSE there’s “an explicitly white institution that white people go to to celebrate whiteness”. These types of places are everywhere, which Angel H. is testifying to by reporting her experiences of very often being in all white spaces. They are built into American society* because of the everpresent systemic racism.

    Separation of church and state means that it is possible for many nonreligious people to completely avoid explicitly religious environments (I am one of those people), but it is impossible in the US to avoid completely white spaces as a person of color.

    It looked to me like Angel H. was pointing out that as a black woman she has no choice but to inhabit “explicitly white” spaces to achieve her goals.

    When others “kindly” explained that her points weren’t relevant, saying things like they would never tell her she must become comfortable in explicitly white spaces or that those spaces don’t exist, it looked to me like they were denying her experiences of racism.

    Because explicitly white spaces are EVERYWHERE

    and unavoidable.

    @Angel H.
    Of course if none of this rings true to you then please correct anything I might have said above. I do not want to speak for you or silence you in any way. But when I saw that you felt you had overstepped and needed to be silent, I felt like I had to say something.

    Angel H., to me it seemed as though you were pointing out that in your experience, when one is trying to fight oppression, one is going to have to talk to one’s oppressors.

    *Angel H., I’m assuming that you live in America which may be false, please correct me if it is.

  37. Ah I’m a darn computer scientist, I should be able to make quoting work. Alas I cannot. Matt’s comment was quoted in it’s entirety above from “But that isn’t really comparable.” to “But that isn’t really the same”

  38. it is possible for many nonreligious people to completely avoid explicitly religious environments (I am one of those people)

    Perhaps. It is, however, virtually impossible for a Jewish person in the United States (and all the more so in most other Western countries) to avoid explicitly Christian and Christian-centric environments, whether they have that characteristic consciously or otherwise. And by definition it’s entirely impossible to do so in the context raised here, namely, working in any way with Progressive Christians, no matter how Jew-friendly they think they are.

  39. In response to the circulation of this article http://goo.gl/rlnkV a commenter replied “…to be fair, the concept of original sin, in most fundamentalist evangelical protestant denominations, does not apply until a child reaches the age of accountability. That is, becomes self-aware”

    And that’s the guts of it, a secularist like myself cannot collaborate with someone who at their core believes I am an abject moral failure. That same someone who has a duty to evangelise me, bring me to christ.

    The way to reduce harm is to evict theists in the developmental stage of progressive networks.

    Progressive xians, interested in promoting the progressive cause, can do so within their church environment. One place progressive evangelism most definitely needs a presence.

  40. When others “kindly” explained that her points weren’t relevant, saying things like they would never tell her she must become comfortable in explicitly white spaces or that those spaces don’t exist, it looked to me like they were denying her experiences of racism.

    Could you please explain how saying that I would never tell Angel H. that she should or must become comfortable in explicitly white spaces is denying her experience of racism?

    And yes, just as the US is a racist white country, so too is it a dominant Christian country. You cannot swing a dead cat in this country without finding evidence of that.

    I am fine with talking to oppressors. But I’m not going to do it on their turf and on their terms, and I’m not going to put the burden of reaching out to them on my shoulders. If they’re so goddamn progressive, let them reach out to me.

  41. I am Jewish. I understand intimately the experience of a non-christian in a Christian centric society, to a rather extreme point since my orthodox upbringing meant I have a very different religious culture than even mainstream halloween and christmas type Christianity.

    Saying that you would never ask a person of color to be comfortable in all white spaces seems condescending to me because I don’t see any other choice than simply being uncomfortable, because these spaces are unavoidable. They are also far less acknowledged than religious spaces, since there is already the concept of separating religious spaces from general society, but there is little public acknowledgement of the imbalances that are caused by systemic racism.

  42. Saying that you would never ask a person of color to be comfortable in all white spaces seems condescending to me because I don’t see any other choice than simply being uncomfortable, because these spaces are unavoidable.

    How is that condescending? Of course the other option is being uncomfortable. I personally find “become more comfortable” far, far more condescending than acknowledging that such a demand is not only unmeetable, but insulting.

    I have not found it possible to avoid Christian spaces, and I have crafted a life that makes it significantly easier than it would be on average.

  43. Further, is there a reason that you think you have a better insight into racial dynamics than Angel H.? She’s always struck me as a smart, tough person who would call me out on being condescending, and who doesn’t need a white person to defend her honor.

  44. I have not found it possible to avoid Christian spaces, and I have crafted a life that makes it significantly easier than it would be on average.

    Same here. If it were reasonably possible for anyone, it should be possible for someone like me. But it’s not, certainly not entirely.

  45. Shit…I’m away from a few hours, and I come back and see my name everywhere.

    The thing is, I’m a Christian. I am also a fat, Black, mentally ill, homeless woman so it’s been a little tough for me to acknowledge that I actually have privilege in this situation. That’s why I stepped back from the conversation. DoublyLinkedLists, you did understand what I was trying to say with my comment and I do appreciate that. But they were right in that religious oppression doesn’t work in the same way as racial oppression. I don’t completely understand it, but that’s what STFU&L means. 🙂

    Anyway, I’m out. Thanks all!

Comments are currently closed.