If we were to dispense with Q, it would not be without tears. For Q has been all over the world, loved by everyone, feminists and liberation theologians, the sober and the sensational, the scholar and the layperson, a document with universal appeal. Indeed one of the keys to its success has been its ability to woo both conservatives and radicals alike. While conservatives, for example, are drawn by its early witness to sayings of Jesus, others have seen its lack of a Passion Narrative as witnessing to an alternative stream of early Christianity, one not based on the proclamation of a crucified Christ. For those at one end of the theological spectrum, Q can give us a document of Jesus material from before 70, written within a generation of the death of Jesus. For those at the other end of the spectrum, Q aligns itself with the Gospel of Thomas to form a “trajectory” in early Christianity that contrasted radically with emerging orthodoxy, and which only “canonical bias” can now obscure from our view (The Case Against Q, 16-17).In general, though, I am disinclined to spend too long worrying about possible ideological underpinnings of theories. In the end, it's the truth that counts and I would rather spend an afternoon in the company of the Synopsis, working with the data, than an afternoon speculating about the the ideological motivations of the scholars.
Incidentally, that line "all over the world, loved by everyone" comes from Laurel and Hardy, "Beau Hunks", but I doubt that anyone spotted the subtle allusion. Sadly, the degree of overlap between those who love Laurel and Hardy, and those who love the Synoptic Problem is small.