SCM Research

Life Stories from Non-normative Christians

Chris Greenough

• Publisher: SCM Press
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9780334056218
• eBook ISBN: 9780334056232
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Sexuality & Gender in Religion

The fundamental issue with 'queer' research is it cannot exist in any definable form, as the purpose of queer is to disrupt and disturb. Undoing Doing generates a process of 'undoing' as central to queer research enquiries. Aiming to engage in a process which breaks free from traditional academic norms, the text explores three life stories: an intersex-identifying Catholic, a former 'ex-gay' minister and a Christian who engages in bondage and fetishist practices. Employing an 'undoing' methodology, which liberates the researcher and allows intuitive, reflective and creative methods, the book makes a significant contribution to the fields of gender, sexuality and queer studies in religion, both empirically and theoretically.

1

Life Stories and Sexual Theology

The platform for exploring life stories of non-normative individuals sits between two fields of theological enquiry: sexual theology and practical theology. The primary aim of this chapter is to place my work alongside the relevant fields of study with reference to sexual theology. Accordingly, this chapter is split into two thematic sections. The first section traces the emergence of sexual theology, from its inception with James Nelson, to the radical theological praxis of Marcella Althaus-Reid. The chapter then considers the transformative potential of sexual storytelling and explores the sociological investigations of Andrew Yip. What becomes apparent is that theology about sex and sexuality emerging from Nelson is developed within feminist theology, and later queer theology. Indeed, in academic terms, feminist and queer theory has provided space for discourse on sexualities. Therefore, commentators such as Elizabeth Stuart, Robert Goss, Lisa Isherwood and Susannah Cornwall, among others, aid the discussion of sexual theology and its development into the realm of queer theology. Their scholarship is pertinent to my exploration of the lives of sexual migrants in the production of an inclusive sexual theology. The work of these contributors characterizes an approach that exposes just how sexual contemporary Christian lives are, not just in relation to minority sexualities or practices, but across the sexual continuum. Furthermore, I expose how queerness infects the whole discipline of theology, as a generic category, rather than being a designated subcategory of queer theology. The sexual stories provide more than a contribution to queer theology; they are part of a process by which theology is being revealed as having always been sexual.

Seeking Sexual Theology: James Nelson

Significant non-religious work on sexual practice which pre-dates Nelson’s theology includes the two studies by Kinsey and Shire Hite. Although Nelson does not cite these works, they form an important backdrop to theoretical investigations of sexual practice. Kinsey’s two key publications (Kinsey et al., 1948, 1953) dealt with Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male and Sexual Behaviour in the Human Female respectively. Within these texts, Kinsey put the notion of the sexual continuum firmly on the map. In his introduction to the scale, he states:

Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories … The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects (Kinsey et al., 1948, p. 639).

The Hite Report on female sexuality was first published in 1976. It described the sexual practices and fantasies of 100,000 women aged 14 to 78. Information gathered from real-life interviews are reported within the book, which include non-normative practices.

James Nelson is a significant precursor to the work of Althaus-Reid, as he was the first theologian to use the term ‘sexual theology’ and his book Embodiment (1979) provides the basis of his manifesto. Nelson explores sexual diversity under the chapter heading, ‘sexual variations’, where he is at pains to specify his preference for the term ‘variations’ rather than ‘deviations’, as a more positive lexicon. Among the variations Nelson explores are fantasy, masturbation, oral-genital practices, anal intercourse, sadomasochism and pornography (1979, p. 158). Equally inclusive of the variations, Nelson also encompasses the ‘sexual disenfranchised’ in his theology of embodiment, including ‘the physically disabled, the seriously ill, aging and mentally retarded [sic]’ (1979, p. 211). Linda Woodhead credits Nelson as a lead thinker in arguing that ‘the Christian doctrine of the incarnation of God in Christ should reorient sexual reflection by reminding us of the value and importance of the human body’ (1997, p. 102).

Nelson’s term ‘sexual’ becomes synonymous with ‘incarnational’, ‘embodiment’ and ‘body’ throughout his work. He justifies the importance of his term, by relating it to the new emerging trends in theology in the 1970s, as a term similar to ‘black theology’ and ‘liberation theology’ (1979, p. 15). His use of the term ‘sexual’ extends beyond a simplistic notion of acts involving genitalia: ‘sexual theology is body theology … our bodies-as-selves give shape to the way in which we feel about the world and about others’ (1979, p. 20). Nelson does not offer clear reasons for collapsing the sexual self into the embodied self. Yet, something is lost by not acknowledging this distinction, as the sexual or erotic becomes diluted in favour of a more generalized and broader framework. Certainly, ‘embodiment’ is less of an explosive topic than ‘sex’. Nevertheless, to maintain focus on the inception of sexual theology, we note how for Nelson this emerging discussion of sexuality, in theological terms, locates sexuality as embodied, and, in turn, relational. Nelson’s theology issues an important mandate to the Christian churches, calling on them to recognize the church as a sexual community. Such relational ethics underpin Nelson’s theology of embodiment in articulating how a community is a part of the development of self. It is this acceptance of self as a sexual being which enables the acceptance of others and theologically, this is the foundation of communion – with others, and with God. Of course, this is not simply a case of add sex to theology and stir, as Nelson explains:

Resexualizing our theology does not mean putting sexuality into a theology from which it has always been absent. It has always been there. It means a new level of consciousness about the ways in which our sexuality, for good and for ill, has shaped our expressions of faith. (1979, p. 236)

For Nelson, the interface of human sexuality and theology is a two-directional affair, where both sexual theology and the theology of sexuality set off from different starting blocks. His first method involves viewing the embodiment of sexuality as a basis for theology, and this he terms sexual theology. The second approach is to use a traditional approach (the Bible, the Christian tradition and other sources of faith) in exploring what such sources say about sexuality, thereby providing theologies of sexuality. Isolating one of these methods would result in a unidirectional and hierarchical approach to theology, while engaging in both results in a dialogical approach which Nelson favours. However, I argue that this dialogical approach becomes an insurmountable hurdle, which results in a non-explicit methodology.

In Lisa Cahill’s review of Embodiment, she states that ‘Nelson does not explicitly develop a fundamental methodology for Christian ethics’ (1979, p. 491). Her major critique is one I share: that Nelson fails to provide a methodology that allows Christians to incorporate sexuality (especially sexual minorities) into the communal life of the church’s ministry. Nelson’s contribution does not develop a fluid methodology, and by seeking to function two-directionally rather than ‘bottom up’, he is therefore unable to provide firm foundations for a grounded, embodied, communal theology based on embracing human sexuality. It is among the work of theologians who have built on Nelson’s courageous thinking, such as Althaus-Reid, that a methodology of storytelling is offered as one approach, yet Althaus-Reid’s offer of such a methodology is equally underdeveloped as I note later on in this chapter. Situating my argument among the work from Nelson and Althaus-Reid in valuing the importance of sexual theology, I offer an approach that uses ethnographic research paradigms, but which is grounded in a queer approach to sexual storytelling, which is detailed in Chapter 2.

My final explanation for how my approach to sexual theology differs from Nelson’s is one that results from acknowledging his time of publication. Developments in feminist and queer theory and in the understanding of gender and sexuality since the publication of his work mean that Nelson’s writing is limited by binary terminology. To cite one simple example: ‘sexuality is our self-understanding and way of being in the world as male and female’ (1979, pp. 17–18). This cannot be seen, however as a critique of his work, but an expression indicative of the period of his publication. It is within the new climate of queer studies that Althaus-Reid’s work on sexual theology began to appear.

Being Sexually Conscious: Marcella Althaus-Reid

Following Nelson, Althaus-Reid reframed this notion of all theology as sexual by using examples of Indecent Theology, in her book of the same title (2000a). She scandalized by encouraging theologians to remove their underwear to write theology, engaging sexuality and sensuality consciously rather than unconsciously when reading, writing and engaging with theology. Her challenge to theologians is to be sexually conscious, whether one’s sexuality is considered non-normative or not. Her invitation to think theologically while going commando is extended to straight theologians too.

Kwok Pui-Lan ponders on how traditional Christian doctrines would look if we use Althaus-Reid’s lens, as she reminds us of the inclusive nature of sexual theology:

Sexual theology is not just the specific concern of queer, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered theologians – as it is often assumed to be – but a project that all theologians, whether consciously or unconsciously, participate in. (2003, p. 151)

Althaus-Reid’s knicker-less, indecent theology compels theologians to remember that Christian theology is itself

always and foremost, a Sexual Theology. Based on sexual categories and heterosexual binary systems, obsessed with sexual behaviour and orders, every theological discourse is implicitly a sexual discourse, a decent one, an accepted one. (2000a, p. 22)

Althaus-Reid establishes how the conventional way of engaging with systematic theology has always been inherently sexual and this has always been repressed. However, the kind of sexual theology envisaged by Althaus-Reid is cognizant.

The term heteronormative was coined by Michael Warner in the early queer text Fear of a Queer Planet (1991), which builds on the concept of ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ developed by Adrienne Rich in her work of the same title (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality refers to the way society compels participation within heterosexuality as a form of social organization (Waites, 2005). Therefore, Althaus-Reid seeks to undo the heteronormative assumption within Christian theological discourse. Until the advent of feminist and queer scholarship, heteronormativity in theology production has remained unquestioned, so much so that it has largely gone unnoticed, just as questions of race and class have equally and largely been overlooked. Althaus-Reid seeks to make visible this heteronormative assumption.

The transformative power of work already conducted in the area of religious studies of sexuality cannot be underestimated (for example, Stuart, 1997a; Goss, 1998; Yip, 2000; 2002; 2003a; 2003b). Indeed, the political activism with church groups established around LGBTI identities has put the question of sexuality at the forefront of theological and ecclesial debates in the major Western churches. In fact, nowadays, the inclusivity of the church is often brought into question through discussions of sexual morality. That said, my work moves beyond sexual identities and holds a greater focus on the subjectivity of lives and sexual practices which are considered non-normative.

The Injunction for Sexual Stories in Theology

For Althaus-Reid, there is a personalized narrative framework at the basis of queer theology, where we find ‘biographies of sexual migrants, testimonies of real lives in rebellions made of love, pleasure and suffering’ (2003a, p. 8). She describes the process of telling sexual stories as acts of ‘oral sex’ (2000a, p. 134–35). Sexual stories rooted in real lives derive from individual self-reflection and offer a platform to theologize from our own experiences. She thus calls for sexual life stories as a valid context for producing individual, personal theological reflection, based on life experiences. Graham Ward observes how sexual theologies have been sanitized by traditional doctrines promoting heterosexual ideals:

Christians do not have a good record when it comes to developing sexuate theologies. In the past they have sanitized their holy desire, purging it of libidinal excesses, fearful of such excesses; or they have read certain socially endorsed heterosexual ideologies into their doctrines of God. (2010, p. 174)

The call for biographies of sexual migrants is therefore a necessary injunction, but Althaus-Reid follows Nelson in failing to provide a methodological overview of how these theologies should be produced. Aside from very brief snippets − such as the example of Argentinian lemon vendors, which is discussed below – the in-depth, subjective, sexual stories Althaus-Reid calls for are lacking in her own work and have not been adequately addressed in academic terms by other theologians. It is precisely the lacuna this book seeks to fill.

Althaus-Reid’s call for sexual theology is one which expands beyond queer theology: it is a call for all theology. She demonstrates how the generic category of theology is always sexual, but this sexual potency is rendered impotent because it is hidden. Her ‘indecent theology’ is an exposé of what was previously repressed, as she calls to light stories that have been previously marginalized, secreted, buried. For Althaus-Reid, the need for sexual stories in theology is essential to disturb, disrupt, challenge and undo what she describes as ‘T-theology’ (Totalitarian theology; 2003a, p. 8), which is largely the product of white, heterosexual males. Susannah Cornwall states that T-theology is ‘Althaus-Reid’s shorthand for Western systematic theology which apotheosizes its own historical out-working, not acknowledging its shifting, unfolding quality or its dubious alliances with capital imperialism’ (2010b, p. 95).

Indeed, T-theology is a vanilla theology; a myth of decency which is challenged by the theologians who remove their underwear and begin theologizing from the basis of their own real experiences. T-theology is decent theology, which seems to have become the dominant, legitimate form of currency for religion.

The Story of Althaus-Reid: ‘A Complex Compañera’

With a continued focus on life-story research, it is important to provide a biographical overview of Althaus-Re...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Dedication
• Acknowledgements
• Contents
• Introduction
• 1 Life Stories and Sexual Theology
• 2 Perverting Practical Theology
• 3 Intersex Bodies and Christianity Alyce’s Story
• 4 Ex-Gay Ministries and Christianity Caddyman’s Story
• 5 BDSM and Christianity Cath’s Story
• 6 Undoing Theology
• References
• Index of Names and Subjects
• Copyright