NOTE: I am moving to Substack! Please subscribe to my work there.
Last week, I published an episode of Sacred Tension with Lucien Greaves responding to the recent controversy in The Satanic Temple. See that post to get caught up.
I’m glad I released the episode. I felt I needed to as a matter of conscience, and that I couldn’t live with myself if I didn’t. I feel like I’ve lanced a boil on my conscience that was going septic. At the same time, conscience errs. I know that the episode probably wasn’t perfect, and I’m willing to hear people out if they think I fucked up. I can live with both my imperfection and the requirements of my conscience. Whether other people can too is between them and Satan.
Unless something new happens that requires my commentary, I believe I’m done publicly discussing this controversy. That does not mean I’m closed to dialogue behind the scenes. By all means, my DMs are open. I’m just ready to move on to the stuff that I enjoy writing about.
Since publishing the episode, I’ve received an outpouring of responses, both privately and publicly. Some of the responses were filled with rage, disappointment, and hurt. Others were filled with relief, hope, and gratitude. I don’t think I’ve ever received such a diversity of feedback.
A member of my Discord server wishes that they had never listened to the episode:
Honestly, I wish I hadn’t heard it. Some of the things that were said felt even more dismissive than what I had already heard in response to the event. I’ve never been part of the mob calling for Lucien’s removal and I was hoping that this would blow over. This podcast has furthered the outrage coming from the people who were already hurt. It felt like gaslighting. Sentiment came across like, how dare you be upset. It was better left alone rather than airing this.
I’m glad that this listener felt confident and safe enough to share such raw, painful emotions. I don’t have any solutions to such disappointment and hurt, and the best I can do is say that I hear you, I care about you, and we can get through this together. I meant what I said above: my DMs are open, and I’m willing to talk through this stuff.
Another listener was initially unhappy with Lucien’s actions but found his explanations acceptable and the podcast conversation illuminating:
I was so glad you did this discussion, I knew I wanted to hear from Lucien in a conversational setting (not just some tweet) and had been almost certain you’d provide that for your listeners. While I understand the upset surrounding the whole ordeal, and never wished for it to happen, it did give a very real picture of how the community sometimes responds with less grace than it ought. We literally have a tenet based on understanding the reality of human error and necessity of righting our wrongs. With that being said, I don’t think he did anything wrong initially by posing for a picture with an acquaintance who has, for all his faults, been kind and generous to him. Did I want to see a statement from him denouncing the harm that may have been caused? Initially, fuck yes. After hearing his experience, not so much. I never had the idea in my mind, “oh this means Lucien is also a transphobe,” because I felt he has shown his true character over and over again in his work. I also see his point in saying that just making statements to appease the mob rather than doing the actual work is empty and counterintuitive. I’m personally content with his position, and am of the same mindset as you – just being friends or casual acquaintances with someone with horrendous worldviews does not equate to condoning those ideals. If I cut out every “prolife” or Trump supporting person in my life, half my family would be removed – people who have loved and cared for me all my life, with whom I have wonderful memories. Friends I’ve spent years sharing my life with would be eliminated because of religious differences. Would I denounce my own grandmother because she’s Christian and voted republican? Absolutely not, she helped raise me, has been my bestie all my life. We’re better than that, as individuals and as a community/global congregation.
This is a central theme that runs not just through my recent conversation with Lucien, but all my work: relationships are complicated.
This doesn’t mean that we can’t cut people out of our lives or that we are obligated to engage with every problematic person who might come into our orbits. I myself have had to cut toxic people out of my life. Instead, it means that I’m not interested in seeing other people’s relationships as some sort of litmus test for ideological, religious, or social justice purity. Being human is hard. I’m willing to give people a break and not demand “perfection” from them in regard to their relationships and acquaintances. I think this is the mature, wise, and noble stance, and I want to be in a community of people who encourage such wisdom and maturity. And it’s ok if others disagree with me about that. Maybe you still believe that Lucien should actively denounce David Silverman. I disagree. Welcome to community.
A number of people reached out to me to tell me that the podcast changed their minds. Substack commenter Illiam Shadows was one such person:
This was an extremely good conversation. I sincerely appreciate the openness on both your parts. It was something that really gives me some things to consider about this and how to approach any future issues with a more rational mindset.
I do feel a measure of guilt for letting outside sources influence how I first reacted. But I take this as a learning experience that I and many others can do better in the future. So..alas. Good episode and thought provoking.
All we can do is learn together. What’s the point of all this if we don’t?
A Discord member thinks that there should have been another trans person in the room during the conversation and that I tokenized trans people:
My biggest issue with this whole thing is that Trans voices were not in the room. Inside and out, it was two cis guys saying “well there are Trans people who don’t have a problem with this” which is tokenizing Trans people. I don’t claim to speak for every Trans person but I think, as a Trans person, it really falls flat to me when you both said that we can have complex relationships with problematic people. That is true, and it’s why I haven’t left TST. It’s why I’m vocal when I disagree with Lucien (or anyone) because I don’t believe in simple answers all the time. These discussions need to happen, but they need to include people they affect. Otherwise you’re commenting outside of your lane. We may intersect at Queerness but we do not intersect at Transness and that’s where your dialogue comes off as potentially more performative. I’m not saying you aren’t allies, or that Lucien is a bad guy, or anything in that vein. I’m saying, we can all be doing better about these issues across the board, including Trans folks who reacted harshly. I can stay in TST while disagreeing with other people about how things are handled, because I value the community. But also, I think part of the missing accountability many of us are seeking (and possibly could have asked for in a softer way) comes with, not a faceless corporate style Rainbow Capitalism statement, but a proper reassurance for Trans folks inside who feel demoralized and Trans folks and allies outside who don’t have the full picture of what happened versus what we are doing.
When you write, “I can stay in TST while disagreeing with other people about how things are handled because I value the community,” I agree. This is maturity, and I want more of this kind of maturity in our community. Full alignment will always be impossible, and ideological purity an illusion. The best we can do is handle our disagreements with grace, compassion, and care. We have the same goals and we follow the same seven Tenets. We can be united in that fact while working through differences. I believe we are made stronger as a result.
I think it’s fair to wonder if it was 100% productive to just have two cis men discussing issues that affect trans people in this particular instance. Maybe another person should have been in the room, and that would have had a better impact on the community. I don’t know — I can’t see into other timelines in the multiverse where that decision was made — but I think it’s fair to wonder.
Here is where we might differ. When I was a gay activist in the early 2010s I often took the same line: never talk about gay people unless there is a gay person in the room. I believed this because I was so over-exposed to conversations that felt dehumanizing and hurtful by merit of the fact that a gay person wasn’t present. It sucks to feel like you’re being talked about without ever being heard. So I get it, especially when things feel legitimately scary in regard to LGBT+ rights.
I no longer hold straight people to this standard. As much as it might suck to hear public conversations about homosexuality because straight people can indeed be clueless, I now want people to talk about me without me being present, both publicly and privately. Talking is a form of thinking, and people need a way to think through this stuff without me demanding a queer presence. Eventually, I just have to let go and let people talk — and therefore think — on their own. I and other LGBT people have an opportunity to be a voice in the room by way of the broader discourse, and it can be especially helpful when we are able to be in the room, but I don’t think it’s reasonable of me to ask that every conversation about homosexuality have a homosexual supervisor.
Because this is the standard I now hold for others, I also hold it for myself. I no longer feel obligated to talk about a certain minority only when the said minority is present in that immediate conversation. I welcome responses from that minority as part of the broader discourse, and I do make an effort to elevate their voices and include them in the room when I’m able. Everyone does get a voice. But I’m less black and white about this than I used to be. It’s ok if you disagree with me on this position, and I’m open to being talked out of it.
A listener wrote to me with some observations as an outsider to TST:
I have had the form filled out to become a card carrying member of TST for a couple years because I’m completely in accordance with the 7 tenets, and I feel it’s important to support those striving in the political arena so that we may benefit from the freedom to develop and grow without the fear of Christian nationalism and the hate fueled-views of those who believe there is only one way. But every time I attend a virtual meeting of the Satanic Temple or meet others in the TST community, I’m saddened by the toxic and openly judgmental nature of what comes across. While they may share the same interests as I, it seems they’re looking for trauma therapy rather than an idiology to center their own philosophies. As the parent of a trans teenager, we are often discussing the ramifications of cancel culture and its negative effects on the over all goal: freedom from oppression to live and love as anyone sees fit. Something you said in your podcast reminded me of a conversation we have often…my kid loves Harry Potter. It is their safe space and has been since they could read. Just because JK Rowling doesn’t understand doesn’t mean that what she’s created for the world doesn’t have value. Everyone’s art has different meaning to the people who experience it and if we judge a person’s art based on their political and social ideals, we’re going to have a very limited palette to enjoy. A concept I believe the Christian tradition got right is redemption, although I think very few Christians understand or appreciate what that word means. And if the Satanic community at large can’t appreciate redemption or even coming to the table to talk with those who oppose or misunderstand, I’m afraid all the tenets in the world won’t save this community from self destruction.
Harsh words, but I appreciate them. I’ve recently had to confront the fact that, if I were seeing TST from the outside lately, I would not want to join. That’s a shitty thing to feel about my own religious community. I want to be in a better community.
I continue to believe in what TST has to offer the world, though, and that our community is made up of incredible people who have enormous potential. I first joined TST in 2017 because I was exposed to the best TST had to offer and to the wise, compassionate, thoughtful people in leadership. That TST is still present, and I still believe in it. Every religious community I’ve ever been in goes through these tribulations, so there’s nothing unique about these challenges. I firmly believe that what is unique about TST is also what makes it a force for good in the world.
Substack commenter Liz voiced some strong disagreements with Lucien:
I agree with Lucien on so much. The problem is, Lucien seems to be labouring under the idea that if we could all just see it from his side, then we’d get it. He has dug his heels in and explained himself the exact same way several times now.
The issue is, we know exactly where he stands on the matter, to varying degrees of agreement. But the biggest reason the community are pissed that he he’s either accidentally forgetting or deliberately ignoring is that he isn’t just “some guy” who took a pic with a transphobe, he’s the representative of The Satanic Temple, the organisation many of us have dedicated blood sweat and tears to. It would have cost absolutely nothing for Lucien to say something along the lines of “oh shit I didnt know about his trans views. I will distance myself from him”. Does Lucien owe an apology for the picture? No, I don’t think so. But I don’t care if he didn’t intend to cause any hurt in the TST community. If he wants to stand by that plea, then he has forgotten the difference between intent and impact.
Nobody wants to force an apology out of Lucien, we don’t want to make him say or do anything he doesn’t want to, that would not be fair. We, as a community are just so deeply and sorely wounded and hurt that the representative of our religious organisation didn’t want to say anything to even remotely distance himself from a transphobe in the first place.
Lucien says mob mentality as a defence for having so many people disagree with him at once. This entire conversation felt like the weirdest attempt at gaslighting us while instead of being properly questioned over the whole thing like he should have, he just got to parrot the exact same apathetic rhetoric that has led to members renouncing their memberships in droves.
But sure, tell us again how you’re the victim.
Fair enough, and thanks for sharing. It appears there are some fundamentally divergent opinions between you, me, and Lucien about what constitutes a healthy community. I’m content to accept those disagreements in good faith and agree to disagree.
But allow me to get into some Satanic insider baseball for a moment: in 2021, TST underwent a radical organizational restructuring. One of the many goals of this transformation was to get away from the idea that Lucien and Malcolm are TST and that everyone must agree with them to be a member.
In my opinion, if we want Lucien to not be the whole of TST, then we need to start acting like it. We need to stop reinforcing the “Lucien is TST” whenever he does something that a portion of the TST community disagrees with. We can’t have it both ways.
One trans listener writes that Lucien’s silence on trans issues is problematic and hurtful:
…we see that the spokesperson for our religion has no compunction about speaking unkindly to others on Twitter whenever the mood takes him, yet does not see fit to voice an opinion that supports trans Satanists as our rights and bodily autonomy are being threatened. In fact, we learn in this interview that it is somehow a point of principle that he NOT say anything kind to us when we are fearing for our safety, and that instead we ought simply to know that he is behind us because of the Tenets. While it is true that empty rhetoric is not merely unhelpful but can be actively harmful, the Satanic Temple is not Nabisco. As a religious organization we do in fact deal in ideas at least as much as we deal in action. And so it actually does matter, and does help, to hear members of leadership express, genuinely and in their own words, that they see when their fellow Satanists are struggling, and in pain, and that they do specifically care about that. And in the same breath, because we ARE a religion of action as well as principle, we can showcase the things that are being actively done to make a difference, and the opportunities for others to engage in that work. To sit silent is emphatically not the ethical equivalent of these things.
This is well written and argued and an important addition to the conversation. The United States is a frightening place right now for a lot of LGBT+ people, especially trans people. I can understand why perceived silence in the face of that fear feels dismissive and hurtful.
My only addition here is that there are a number of minority groups in TST. We have a surprising number of Jewish people, and hate crimes against Jews are rising. We also have a large number of disabled people, and we are in the middle of July, which is Disability Pride Month. We have a huge number of sex workers, who are under constant threat and censorship from theocrats and governments alike. The list goes on because TST is a church that explicitly appeals to outsiders who are frequently subject to persecution.
I don’t know if Lucien should or even can comment on every one of these topics to anyone’s satisfaction, and if that’s the case, it isn’t clear to me why he should comment on trans issues as well. He has his own interests and limitations, and I don’t know if it’s right for us to ask him to speak on behalf of any interest group in TST. Is that really his role? And should he make an exception when there are special threats to that group? I don’t know, but I’d personally prefer him to stick to what he knows and that we not set a precedent of him giving special lip service to different minority groups in TST. Again, Lucien isn’t TST. It’s ok if people disagree with me, but that is where I’m at.
Another trans listener argues for uncomfortable empathy:
Speaking only for myself here, I don’t think Lucien harmed my community. I can say that people within my community do perceive harm in a lack of what they view is explicit support. It’s complicated and the loudest voices are sometimes not taking the time to see the complexity of the situation and that’s true on both sides of this. Dismissing the loudest voices can be seen as a dismissal of those who are actually working to change our circumstances even if it is not intended that way. So a bit of caution is warranted, even when people are screaming.
(…)
One final takeaway here, speaking directly to people who feel aggrieved that their actions are peceived as harm by trans people: You have to consider the weight of the world. Giving accidental approval to voices that harm us either through the photograph or reading and discussing gender-criticial rhetoric will strike the most wounded people the hardest. I will not tone police those who are drowning in their grief. They are in a different place than I am and I hope that in time they will find the peace to enhance their communication on these topics. But anger is still valid, even if it is making someone uncomfortable. Much of the rhetoric on advocating for civil rights is predicated on discomfort but I feel there’s frequently a difference of opinion how that discomfort manifests and the overall intent.
I want to express that cis people looking at the volatile reaction from trans folks should avoid making arguments for decorum. Historically, those arguments are designed to force a group into a less annoying obedience. Even if that is NOT the intent, the precedent exists and the same tactics were used against cis gay people, and people of color. There is room for development and improvement in these arguments.
And there is room for the uncomfortable application of empathy to both EM (the founders) and the people who are rather publicly wrestling with the weight of the world.
I agree that we should pursue complex empathy, and I appreciate this thoughtful response. I want to always be gentle, kind, and compassionate in my words and actions. I operate under the assumption that there is no ceiling to empathy and compassion and that I can always do better at hearing other people’s pain and context. I therefore take every admonition to greater compassion seriously. It’s inevitable that when Lucien and I were all up in our emotions I lost sight of some of the pain and horror that motivates these kinds of reactions in the trans community, and I will work harder to understand where trans people are coming from.
The subject of decorum is a tougher topic for me. I’m unsure of when messy anger and grief bleed into abusive and unethical behavior, and while I have a lot of time for the former, I have much less time for the latter, even as I try to empathize with the anguish that cultivates it. I want to respect people enough to expect them to have good boundaries and ethical conduct. The most important thing another human being ever did for me when I was a messy gay person freshly out of the closet was respect me enough to insist that I still act ethically towards others and practice appropriate boundaries with painful subjects.
That’s all for now. Please feel free to share your dissents, agreements, and everything in between in the comments below.
Please support me on Substack to keep my work sustainable and free.
Image prompt: Baphomet drinking coffee.
Stephen Bradford Long 