Here is my understanding of the recent @TheLiturgists @michaelgungor debacle. I present it here because I have a stake in this sort of thing, trying to help form a culture around my own progressive Christian adjacent podcast...

1. An episode went out that did not “center” fat voices on an episode about fat issues. “Center” means in this case: have as main podcast guest

2. A kindly worded but ideologically inflexible complaint was lodged that a fat person should have been interviewed (again this is what “centered” means in this context)

3. Gungor disagreed with the assumed rule the complaint was going off of: always center marginalized voices, or something to that degree

4. Back and forth escalated on twitter as is so common. Gungor failed to agree with the underlying rule of always interviewing marginalized voices themselves. Hillary and Science Mike were called in to talk sense into Gungor.

5. McHargue threw Gungor under the bus. Hillary distanced herself from the show (“I’m only a collaborator and not a host”). These responses were in my opinion highly unprofessional, regardless of background conversations.

6. Gungor posted a cryptic and imprecatory-psalmlike set of lyrics about people drawing blood. I empathized.

7. The original complaint lodged wrote a thread confirming what I had understood implicitly, namely that the rule is simple (outlined above) and her expectation of what would happen was simple: Gungor agrees and apologizes and vows to fix it...

8. But Gungor did not agree and for that matter nor do I. Now for my own reflections on all this...

Conplaint lodger* not lodged

- First off, overweight women in America have a rough time. Our culture is thin-obsessed in a pathological way. I do not envy them their lived experience.

- I can understand that someone in a marginalized group might really prefer to only hear members of that group speaking about related topics

- However, I think that is untenable as a RULE, which is precisely how it was assumed to work in the original complaint and this morning's summary of the events

- for example, I recently interviewed a Protestant with extensive interfaith experience and expertise about Islam, Islamophobia, how the media in the US portrays Islam, Shariah Law, etc, on You Have Permission

- he had written a very good book about this, aimed at Christians in America, released by an American Christian publisher. Should he have not written that book? Should no one interview him? The rule would seem to say so.

- To assume this rule of "only center marginalized voices" is to ignore, I think, a major way that minds are actually changed: have a slightly different view presented by someone the listener/reader can identify with in most ways

- Jonathan Haidt gives a great example of this: if you want to pass gun legislation, who should be your spokesperson? A Hollywood actress, or a retired general, or NFL head coach? Who will win more hearts and minds?

- there is a difference between experience and expertise. Both are valid, both make good backgrounds for writing books or being interviewed. Just because the topic relates to marginalized people, that doesn't mean no one else can have relevant expertise.

- to SPEAK ABOUT a group or what they are going through (as my guest did re: Muslims) is not the same as to SPEAK FOR them w/r/t their own experience.

Now to relate it to my own experience (and expertise??) as a podcast host and moderator of a decent-sized FB group of patrons of that podcast, which has become a wonderful little community...

1. I have always been worried about encouraging the kind of community that could create this much chaos over this slight of an infraction in so little time. What happened yesterday was proof that I was right to be concerned.

2. Many thinkers have noted this, but there is a new kind of Puritanical culture that is creeping up in some parts of the far-ish Left. Gungor must repent or be banished. Hillary must be distanced from the stain. McH must show his allegiance with the marginalized voices.

3. And all this must happen FAST because it needs to be clear where everyone stands. If they stand too close to Gungor during all this, they are stained with his sin.

4. The module of the mind that all this relies on is disgust psychology, and it is VERY powerful. It keeps us from ingesting gore or rotten fruit, but it also powers the most vitriolic homophobia, etc. YHP Ep 20 deals with this in great detail.

5. Some people leave close-minded fundamentalist Christianity for more open-minded pastures, but others recreate a new close-mindedness all in the name of "justice." I hope to encourage listeners and community members to avoid this pitfall, which is very understandable!

6. Many of this new breed of fundamentalist have serious religious trauma, and it is not easy to leave the communities they have left. I don't judge them personally for this, but I will speak up against the ideology that results.

Might have more later. The reason I am posting this is that I have a stake in what kind of culture congregates around my own podcast, which is a part-time job of mine and something I care deeply about, and also is leading into my eventual career as a psychologist.

I understand that the leftmost 10% of America (which is what, 40% of Twitter?) will disagree with me on various parts of this. I can live with that, and I am also open to critique on anything I have misunderstood here.

One thing worth clarifying: I do not know McH or Hillary's internal motivations. What I am describing is how I see this new puritanism playing out in public -- the distancing of the stain, the doubling down on one's identification with the marginalized and the above "rule," etc

I don't think it was wrong for listeners to provide critical feedback, or to say that they were hurt by an episode. This has happened to me, and it is welcomed. My only issue is this RULE that experience is the only real teacher, the only real bonafide for certain topics.

Experience is not the only teacher. Research, expertise in related fields, etc -- these are also worth listening to but will often not include "centering."

Why has this become a gendered issue, again? (in some comment threads) It's about being fat, which I am. Why does my maleness or whiteness or whatever have a place in this conversation?

A helpful distinction a few ppl have made is that the Liturgists show is in some significant way ABOUT centering marginalized voices, and so they failed at their stated goal, whereas that is not a stated goal of YHP. This seems right to me...

...and it does have some effect. I would still contend that Gungor has the right to not do that every time he released a podcast or even the first time his podcast addresses some particular issue. But it would be reasonable for those who are especially drawn to that approach...

...to stop listening, listen less, find other podcasts instead, etc, if the show stops doing that well. What I was able to clear up with the OP is the principle she was operating on, and I still disagree with that principle. But I understand the complaint more now.