stephen hunt contemporary christianity and lgbt

8/19/2019 Stephen Hunt Contemporary Christianity and LGBT

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stephen-hunt-contemporary-christianity-and-lgbt 1/213



CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIANITY

AND LGBT SEXUALITIES



To Amelia



Contemporary Christianityand LGBT Sexualities

Edited by

STEPHEN HUNT

University of the West of England, UK



© Stephen Hunt 2009

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval

system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,

recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.

Stephen Hunt has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to

be identied as the editor of this work.

Published by

Ashgate Publishing Limited Ashgate Publishing Company

Wey Court East Suite 420

Union Road 101 Cherry Street

Farnham Burlington

Surrey, GU9 7PT VT 05401-4405

England USA

www.ashgate.com

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Contemporary Christianity and LGBT sexualities.

1. Homosexuality--Religious aspects--Christianity.

2. Bisexuality--Religious apsects--Christianity.

3. Transgenderism--Religious aspects--Christianity.

I. Hunt, Stephen, 1954- 261.8'3576-dc22

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Contemporary Christianity and LGBT sexualities / edited by Stephen J, Hunt.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-7546-7624-9 1. Homosexuality--Religious aspects--Christianity. 2.

Christian gays. I. Hunt, Stephen J, 1954-

BR115.H6C684 2009 261.8'35776--dc22

2009015696

ISBN 978-0-7546-7624-9 (hbk)ISBN 978-0-7546-9769-5 (ebk .V)



Contents

Notes on Contributors vii

Foreword xi

Preface xv

Acknowledgements xvii

Introduction Saints and Sinners:

Contemporary Christianity and LGBT Sexualities 1

Stephen Hunt

1 The Gift (?) that Dare not Speak its Name:Exploring the Inuence of Sexuality on the ProfessionalPerformances of Gay Male Anglican Clergy 23

Michael Keenan

2 Between Subordination and Sympathy:

Evangelical Christians, Masculinity and Gay Sexuality 39

Kristin Aune

3 Common Pathways, Different Lives:

The ‘Coming Out’ Narratives of Catholic Nuns

and Lesbians in Poland 51

Marta Trzebiatowska

4 Bisexual Christians:

The Life-Stories of a Marginalised Community 67

Alex Toft

5 Transgendering Christianity:

Gender-Variant Christians as Visionaries 87

Andrew Kam-Tuck Yip and Michael Keenan

6 Human Rights and Moral Wrongs:

The Christian ‘Gay Debate’ in the Secular Sphere 103

Stephen Hunt



Contemporary Christianity and LGBT Sexualitiesvi

7 Christians and Gays in Northern Ireland:

How the Ethno-Religious Context has Shaped

Christian Anti-Gay and Pro-Gay Activism 123

Richard O’Leary

8 Is it Meaningful to Speak of ‘Queer Spirituality’?An Examination of Queer and LGBT Imagery andThemes in Contemporary Paganism and Christianity 139

Yvonne Aburrow

9 Trends in the Spiritual Direction for LGBT People 157

Derek Jay

Bibliography 173

Index 191



Notes on Contributors

Yvonne Aburrow is a queer Wiccan and Unitarian. She has written four bookson mythology and folklore: The Magical Lore of Animals (2000); Auguries and

Omens: ‘The Magical Lore of Birds’ (1994); The Sacred Grove: The Mysteries of

the Forest (1994); and The Enchanted Forest: The Magical Lore of Trees (1993)(all published by Capall Bann Publishing). She has just completed an MA incontemporary religions and spiritualities at Bath Spa University. In her spare time,

she edits the Pagan Theologies Wiki.

Dr Kristin Aune is a Senior Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Derby,

UK. Her research focuses on gender and religion, especially gender in evangelical

Christianity. Her publications include Single Women: Challenge to the Church?

(Paternoster 2002); On Revival: A Critical Examination (co-edited with Andrew

Walker, Paternoster 2003); and several articles and chapters in journals, books andreference works. Her co-edited book Women and Religion in the West: Challenging

Secularization (with Sonya Sharma and Giselle Vincett) was published by Ashgatein 2008.

Dr Stephen Hunt is a Reader in the Sociology of Religion based at the University

of the West of England, Bristol, UK. His specialised interest in Contemporary

Christianity has led to research into such areas as Charismatic and Pentecostal

movements, Christianity and political mobilisation, Christianity and non-

heterosexualities, and the interface between Sociology and Theology. Dr

Hunt’s publications include the volumes Religion in the West : A Sociological

Perspective (Macmillan 2001); Alternative Religion: A Sociological Introduction

(Ashgate 2003); The Alpha Enterprise: Evangelism in the Post-Christian Era

(Ashgate 2004); Religion in Everyday Life (Routledge 2005); and A History of

the Charismatic Movement in Britain and the United States of America: The

Pentecostal Transformation of Christianity (Edwin Mellen, forthcoming).

Derek Jay is a theology graduate who taught Religious Education in comprehensive

schools for 30 years and was also an associate tutor in the University of Bristol’s

School of Education for 24 years. Early retired, he is still involved in RE subjectcommittees producing guidance for teachers and has also been a development

worker for an inter-faith group. He trained as a spiritual director, specialising inthe needs of those who nd themselves marginalised by mainline religions and is aChurch of England lay Reader, based at Bristol University’s chaplaincy church.



Contemporary Christianity and LGBT Sexualitiesviii

Michael Keenan is a Lecturer in Sociology at Nottingham Trent University. His

PhD thesis explored the identity negotiations of gay male Anglican clergymen.

He has previously published his work in edited collections and journals, and hecontinues to write in this area. His major research interests are around issues ofreligious identity within Christianity and ‘alternative’ spiritualities. Dr Keenan’s

publications include ‘Freedom in Chains: Religion as Enabler and Constraint

in the Lives of Gay Male Anglican Clergy’, in A. Day (ed.), Religion and the

Individual (Ashgate 2008).

Dr Richard O’Leary is a lecturer in the School of Sociology, Social Policy

and Social Work at Queen’s University, Belfast. He was educated at UniversityCollege Dublin (BA) and the University of Oxford (DPhil). His research interestsinclude the sociology of religion, especially religious and ethnic minorities, and

he has published on these subjects in The European Sociological Review, The British Journal of Sociology and Sociology. He is co-editor with Alasdair Crockettof Patterns and Processes of Religious Change in Modern Industrial Societies

(Edwin Melen Press 2004).

Alex Toft is a PhD candidate, funded by the ESRC, in the Faculty of Social

Sciences at the University of Nottingham, having previously completed his MSc in

Research Methods at Nottingham Trent University. His research interests include

bisexuality and Christianity, contemporary identity theory, gender and sexuality,and religion and spirituality. His research involves both quantitative and qualitative

elements with a keen focus on narrative ‘life-story’ interview techniques. He alsoworks as a tutor on the modules Sociology of Culture; Belief, Spirituality andReligion; and Introduction to Social Structure.

Dr Marta Trzebiatowska is Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Aberdeen.

Her doctorate (University of Exeter) investigated the social construction ofgendered subjectivities in contemporary Polish convents. Her research focuses on‘taking religion seriously’ and on the relationship between religious discourses andgender politics. More specically, she is interested in sociologically examining theways in which religious women construct their femininity under circumstances

commonly perceived as restrictive, or even oppressive, by secular feminists. This

in turn is linked to the questions of (gendered) agency, autonomy and the ‘freedomto act otherwise’. She is currently commencing a study of the impact of Polish

migrants on the Catholic Church in Britain and the role of women as agents of

religious socialisation.

Dr Andrew Kam-Tuck Yip is Associate Professor and Reader at the University

of Nottingham. His research interests include: contemporary religious/spiritual

identities, particularly in relation to young people and sexuality; and the Muslimcommunities in the West. He is the author of Gay Male Christian Couples: Life

Stories (Praeger 1997); and co-author of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Lives Over



This page has been left blank intentionally



Foreword

Although as a baby I was baptised as a nice, liberal Unitarian in keeping with myMother’s wishes, and grew up subsequently without a god ever being mentioned,

at the age of 13 – to my family’s collective horror – I gave my life to Jesus. This,

and voting for Margaret Thatcher in 1979, was my version of a classic teenage

rebellion. Ten years later, I took it back. I chucked Jesus when it seemed that Hisgrace ran out, since His Church thought I was an abomination, a disgrace, a sinful

degradation, perhaps even, as Stephen Hunt puts its so elegantly: ‘a machinationof Satan’. I had been living in one of the Communities of Celebration, colloquially

called ‘The Fisherfolk’. Men and women of a certain age will remember the potent blend of charismatic Christianity, performing arts and social justicemessage that characterised this very 1970s Anglo-American sect, led by the Rev.

Graham Pulkingham from Houston. Having been engaged in a closeted same-sex relationship with my spiritual director, I was shockingly and unceremoniouslyousted. I seem to remember I was given a week to leave. Some irrelevant, rather

garbled and unconvincing reasons were supplied, but implicit and known it was,that it was my sexual shame that had brought down this awful eviction.

I went to live in a lonely bed-sit in Weymouth, a small seaside town on the

South Coast of England. Still, the consequence of losing my home, and losing my

faith, was that I eventually found another community there and then in Brighton,

the lesbian and gay one, which eventually became the much broader collaboration

of LGBTQs. I never quite lost the feeling though that I had replaced one self-regulating cult with another; there were many parallels. There was the conversionmoment/coming-out story, there were the rules and regulations, the morality, the

strict dress codes, the fervour and commitment, the oratory and ritual, the glory

of the text, the sorority, and the fellowship. There were the same enigmatic and

sagacious leaders, the philanthropic conventions, the inclusive sense of being a

member of a worldwide community, the belief in progress and expansion, and the

concomitant conviction in the injustice of our repression.I had left one world and joined another. I never imagined it was possible to live

in both. This was the period within Anglicanism when vicars who got leery brushed

up against women from the Women’s Institute in the vestry, Dick Emery-style.

Homosexuals inside the Church were beyond my wildest imaginings, despite theevidence of my eyes, nose, ears, hands and tongue. What was before me remained

unspoken, I wouldn’t have believed it if it had been spelled out, I would probablyacted like Peter and denied it. This sense of impossibility remained with me, andI’m sorry to say that I had a bit of a hypocritical rebound and joined in with the



Contemporary Christianity and LGBT Sexualitiesxii

majority LGBTQ discourse of that time, opining for the next 20 years that queerChristians were simply deluded, sad, and self-oppressed (and badly dressed).

I’m glad to say that revenge is short-lived and rather self-limiting, and

eventually middle age appeared, accompanied by its customary temperance.

Gradually I became less self-righteously injurious toward the LGBTQ religious,and I saw I’d been too dismissive, even though I could also see it wasn’t a route

for me any longer. I’d only had one temporary relapse into Christianity, when I’d

had an acutely stressful time for a few days in 1994; I found it immensely soothingto sing the modern hymn ‘I am the Bread of Life, he who comes to me shall

not hunger’ to myself quietly, under my breath. I had sustained a spiritual life of

sorts, but I couldn’t give my life to Jesus again, I was too greedy for it myself. So

recently I went back to being a Unitarian, because in our ‘church’ the content of belief is not that important, it is the practice of it that counts. There remains some

Yorkshire pragmatism in my creed.There has been a signicant intensication of interest in spirituality within

LGBTQ and queer cultures in the past couple of years (though if we aren’tcareful it will shortly be deemed ‘a turn’). Recently, whilst engaged in researchon queer spiritual spaces, I found myself returning to liberation theology, well

really ‘thealogy’, which I rediscovered via the route of Queer Theory, rather thanReligious Studies. So things – as they tend to – came full circle, and I found myself

once again before the arms of Jesus, but this time I noticed that he came with a

more feminine package that included Mary, and the Holy Spirit, intriguing guresof possibility for reincorporation. I found Christianity to be rather more interesting

these days, partly because its diversity ensures it cannot be foreclosed by any

particular ideological standpoint, and partly because I approach it now with the

hindsight of maturity, not looking for absolute truths, but more from the positionof what this religion can teach us about being human. Belief is rather immaterial,

I can’t claim to be a Christian except nominally, perhaps cursorily, as a personal

cultural history, but knowing much more about the potential of such religiousrepresentations for impeding or easing a queer existence is constructive.

Whilst the Christian Church (Anglo- and Roman) continues to retain such a political hold over us, we need to be grateful to those who work for creative reformfrom within, those passionate associates who slog diligently to challenge and undo

homophobia in its many poisonous guises. We need to make more perceptible,and know more profoundly, the hidden distinctiveness of LGBTQ Christianlives and thought, to respectfully engage with an open heart with their particular

contradictions and dilemmas (where we are invited). We should know by now,and be able to make space for – move over for – the contradictory hybrid self, the

multiply formed and paradoxical identities that season our social world. Secularismhas accrued a righteous energy of its own, almost a quasi-religious compulsion

for the average liberal intellectual, so that greater scepticism is now required for

such default positions, even the ones that seem so normal and natural. The bookis important for all these reasons. For those of us who default to cynicism, for



Foreword xiii

those who would rather not know, and for those who need a grounding in mindfulacceptance of difference.

This collection is exceptionally interesting, clear and readable, it is full

of key source material useful for thinking through the myriad inections ofLGBT sexualities, spiritualities and belief. It reminds us that in the West we are

supposedly post-Christian, yet many ‘authentic selves’ still nd respite in, andactively seek, the established Church, a historical home for the marginalised. Thechapters within manage to be noteworthy and distinct, yet pleasingly they cohere

thematically; what Stephen Hunt has given us is a fascinating, well-informed andstructured insight into LGBT sexualities and contemporary Christianity, within the

best traditions of ethical sociology. Spirituality exceeds the rational explanation,

there is always some lurking ‘other’ occurring when we read about religion, a provocation, a discomfort perhaps, a reminder of our not-self and what remains

elusive. In this book there is plenty for the reader to engage with, amongst myown responses I felt much pleasure, disturbance, curiosity and resonance, it

posed memories, problematised the present, hinted at a future but I am sure you

will discover your own signicant insights, affective and rational, in this mostinteresting of collections.

Sally R. Munt

Professor of Cultural Studies

University of Sussex



Preface

There can be little doubt that the subject of non-heterosexuality (to use perhaps anunsatisfactory, contested and without doubt hopelessly restricting term) has drawna fair amount of academic interest in recent years, as it has for the Christian churches.

Disciplines such as historical and religious studies, theology and sociology have

all offered a growing quantity of literature which analyses various dimensions of

LGBT sexuality and religion and/or, as increasingly preferred, ‘spirituality’. The

subject, however, remains yet to be fully explored by the sociology of religionand, given the remit of the original papers, this volume is largely and unashamedly

sociological in nature, hopefully adding to the extant work. Yet it is not exclusivelysociological. Hence, this volume offers more than an array of sociological analyse

to the broad topic of LGBT sexualities and contemporary Christianity. To be found

in a number of the chapters is also a measure of theological and pastoral reection,alongside historical comparisons and cross-cultural insights that undoubtedly

enhance the value of this work.

The specially commissioned chapters that form this edited volume focus onthe specialised theme of religion and various non-heterosexual orientations. The

quality, originality and scope of the papers deserve a wider outlet than merely

an academic audience through a volume offering accessibility to a range of

‘interested parties’, most obviously the Christian churches and the lesbian, gay,

bi- and transgender (LGBT) communities within and outside their ecclesiastical boundaries. It might be hoped too, as it has become almost conventional to claim,

that the papers will be of interest to a ‘general readership’ especially given the

controversies generated by LGBT sexualities in the churches that have over-

spilled into the public domain.

Stephen Hunt

University of the West of England



Acknowledgements

This volume began life in a one-day conference organised under the auspices of

the British Sociological Association Study of Religion Group. The theme of the

conference, held in November 2007 at the University of the West of England,

Bristol, was that of Religion, Spiritualities and Gay Sexualities. Gratitude is

extended to all those who participated by way of offering the original papers and

those scholars who agreed to accept commissioned chapters that have widened the

volume’s remit. I would also like to thank all those who aided in the organisationand successful outcome of the conference, especially my colleague at UWE, Dave

Green. Finally, I would like to extend thanks to Lara Fiedler of the Gender Trustwhose talk at the conference was an education for all of us.



Introduction

Saints and Sinners: Contemporary

Christianity and LGBT SexualitiesStephen Hunt

Thorns and sh hooks

As the project of this edited volume unfolded a number of prevailing themes cameto the fore and these are reected in the subsequent chapters. Many such themesrelate to both inherently Christian and secular impulses which, one way or another,

force the churches to address the matter of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender

(LGTB) sexualities. They may be briey outlined at this juncture. Firstly, and perhaps most obviously, there is an increasing level of controversy in regard to

non-heterosexualities, particularly homosexuality, for the Christian Church.

Of course, this controversy is scarcely new but has certainly been heightened in

recent times as part of a cycle of storms that has turned throughout two millenniaaccording to time and place. Today, to use the biblical quote, gay sexuality, if

not bi- and transgender sexuality, can be said to be a ‘thorn in the esh’ for thechurches. The quote, at least in Christian circles, is associated with St Paul’s

second letter to the troublesome church at Corinth (2 Corinthians 12: 7–10) andreads in full: ‘And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance

of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the esh, the messenger ofSatan to buffet me’. Quite what the apostle’s ‘thorn’ amounted to has been open toa great deal of conjecture.

Conservative-inclined Christians, given their more strident views on the subject,might see the current preoccupation with the thorny subject of gay sexualityresulting from the churches’ spiritual complacency or even machinations of the

satanic. Those of a more liberal disposition would undoubtedly have very different

interpretations. Whatever the Christian self-understanding of why the subject ofgay sexuality has come to the fore, it refuses to go away. Over two decades ago,

as the more recent furore intensied, Nugent and Gramick used another pertinentanalogy, describing the subject of homosexuality as akin to a shhook caught in the

gullet of the Church that it could neither entirely swallow nor spit out (Nugent andGramick 1989, 29–42). The signicance, not to say urgency of the issue has beenacknowledged by numerous churches and is typically described by the General



Contemporary Christianity and LGBT Sexualities2

Board of the United Methodist Church, the second largest Protestant denomination

in the USA, as ‘One of the grave, pain-lled issues of our time’.1

Clearly, certain developments have brought the matter of gay sexuality to the

fore. One such development has undoubtedly been the extension of research in

the natural sciences, as well as the social sciences, in seeking to comprehend theextraordinary complex nature of non-heterosexuality. While no rm ‘scientic’conclusion has yet been drawn, it is perhaps an indication of secularity that the

churches increasing heed what the worldly ‘experts’ have to say. For instance,

in 1994, the Church of Scotland received a report submitted from its Board of

Social Responsibility on the subject of human sexuality and claimed to be‘placing questions of sexuality for people with … disabilities, elderly people, and

homosexuality in the contexts of human sciences and Scripture’.2

To be sure, conicting scientic ‘evidence’ (and pseudo-scientic ‘evidence’

for that matter) has been often been utilised, albeit in different ways, by variousChristian constituencies in order to bolster their foundational arguments, biblical

or otherwise, in respect of LGBT orientations. This has certainly been true of

debates around homosexuality. To some extent contrasting ‘expert’ evidence has

helped splinter attitudes and the way churches today address the subject. Perhapsmost obviously, conservatives Christians (in particular the evangelically-minded)have, in order to support their treasured biblical hermeneutics, identied multiple‘causes’ of homosexual orientation. All such ‘causes’ seemingly resonate with a

distinct medicalised tone but deny the genetic origins of gay sexuality. They aresaid to stereotypically include poor parenting, experiences of sexual molestation,

and a domineering mother and a passive or absent (either physically or emotionally)father during childhood. Such factors are frequently seen as ‘changeable’ and

‘treatable’ since they constitute a freely chosen lifestyle and/or an addiction or

pathology and thus avoidable and curable. It follows that gay sexual activity, if not

orientation, is not uncommonly rendered a serious ‘sin’: an unnatural, abnormal

deviant form of behaviour.

In order to deal with this increasingly medicalised ‘pathology’, and seemingly

to prevent ‘sinful’ lifestyles, evangelical conservative constituencies frequently

advocate therapy of one sort of another. For instance, in the USA, the National

Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) was foundedin 1992 as a ‘non-prot, educational organisation dedicated to the research, therapyand prevention of homosexuality’.3 It currently consists of more than one thousand

‘mental-health professionals’. Anyone who is sympathetic to the organisation’s

goals and not a therapist is invited to join as a ‘Friend of NARTH’. Manyconservative Christian ministries have done so. In fact, the vast majority of its

members are apparently from the evangelical-conservative wing of Christianity.

1 United Methodist Church, Christian Social Action 1, January, 1988, 6–9.

2 <http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/generalassembly/downloads/gareports07mandd.txt> (accessed 03/05/08).

3 NARTH Position Statement, 1 <http://www.narth.com/> (accessed 24/08/08).



Introduction 3

That gay orientation can be reduced to a ‘pathology’ is also the position taken by the Roman Catholic Church with the Catholic Medical Association stating that

same-sex attractions are preventable and a symptom of underlying psychological

causes. Therapy thus becomes a viable option, as does chastity. For those who

experience same-sex attractions and are experiencing difculty changing theirorientation, the Church offers the following counsel:

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that

teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship,

by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely

approach Christian perfection.4

By stark contrast, the more strident liberal Christian viewpoint is, at rst

glance, more accommodating, typically seeing gay sexuality as something thatone is: an unchosen orientation. Characteristically, this stance falls back on someform of genetic determinism (often with the equally stereotypical conviction that

environmental factors in early childhood ‘switch on’ the offending gene or genes).Logically, therefore, neither heterosexuality nor gay sexuality are inherently sinful

and the latter is ‘natural’ for a small minority of males and females. Celibacy is

thus viewed as an unnatural option, as is the need to change sexual orientation or

undergo a therapy that will invariably do more harm than good.

The politicisation of gay sexuality

Christian gay groups began to proliferate in the 1970s in order to advance their

cause in the churches and the secular world. The following decade saw a backlashfrom the conservatives (Gill 1989). This was not merely due to gay ‘cause’ groupsfrequently being highly vociferous and making inroads on a number of issues,

but because gay sexuality was becoming an increasingly politicised topic in the

secular sphere. For instance, in the USA, where the Christian Right had mobilised

since the 1970s, controversy over gay rights issues was compounded by the

movement’s increasing political clout. Evidence suggests that George W. Bush Jr

owed his second ofce in 2004 to the evangelical/fundamentalist vote in anelection dominated by the ‘values vote’ (Green et al. 2006). While the ‘gay issue’,epitomised by controversy over civil partnerships, was not necessarily the most

important factor overall and did not matter equally for every voter, it did matter to

white evangelical Christians and Catholics. It was they who were more likely to

turn out to vote in US states with a gay marriage ban on the ballot (Campbell andMonson 2005).

In many Western societies the response of conservative Christians is not

merely a result of moral indignation towards gay sexuality. They are now forced

4 Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 2359.



Introduction 5

Theological niceties and historical nasties

There can be little doubt that what is now frequently dubbed ‘the gay debate’ in the

churches, by which is generally meant issues around homosexuality, is to a greater or

lesser degree theologically grounded. Protestant conservative Christians typically

and often solely emphasise the biblical basis (or at least their interpretation of

certain scriptures) of their standpoints. The Roman Catholic view is also foundedon this criterion but is supplemented by a natural moral law argument going backas early as the writings of Thomas Aquinas. For these Christian constituencies the

relevant scriptures are not open to negotiation or re-interpretation and stand for

all time.

The biblical texts directly condemning homosexuality are, in fact, few and far

between. Other texts inferring condemnation are often quoted to support them.

These include references to the ‘normality’ of two-gender divine creation and theideal of the heterosexual monogamous marriage. The more explicit texts generally

referred to are in the Old Testament book of Leviticus which declares same-sex

sexual relations between men as sinful and, in the eyes of God, an ‘abomination’

(Leviticus 11: 9–12), and Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Roman church where he refers

to ‘men, leaving the natural use of the woman (burning) in their lust toward oneanother’ (Romans 1: 18–20) as a consequence or cause of the sin of idolatry. Paul

also seemingly states that homosexuals are ‘unrighteous’ and ‘shall not inherit the

kingdom of God’ (1 Corinthians 6: 9).Conservative orientated Protestant evangelicals are perhaps the most strident

in their biblical objection to homosexuality and this informs their politicalstandpoints. In the USA, 98 per cent of evangelicals have been found to oppose

gay rights.8 The objection is clearly theological, a stance typied by the Southern

Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the country. The SBC

has issued several resolutions in which it rejects homosexuality as a lifestyle‘choice’ and refers to it as a ‘manifestation of a depraved nature’, ‘a perversion

of divine standards and as a violation of nature and natural affections’, and ‘an

abomination in the eyes of God’. The SBC has urged churches not to show

approval of homosexuality in any respect.9 Traditionally, however, the SCB holds

that ‘while the Bible condemns such practice as sin, it also teaches forgiveness and

transformation, upon repentance, through Jesus Christ our Lord’.10

The time-honoured broad remit of liberal Christians, particularly the more

evangelical variant, has been the attempt to be ‘relevant to modern man’ (and, in

more recent times, women) and to advance a Christian gospel that is meaningful in

8 ‘Evangelicals Oppose Gay Rights Bill’ (1984), Fundamentalist Journal 3:7, July-

August, 6.

9 ‘On Same-Sex Marriage’, June 2003 <http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.

asp?ID=1128> (accessed 01/08/08).10 ‘Resolution On Homosexuality June’, 1988 <http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/am

Resolution.asp?ID=610> (accessed 07/08/08).




the contemporary context. Social issues including LGBT rights are thus central to

today’s agenda. This stance is also given a measure of theological justication. Thearguments of liberals concerning the above relevant biblical passages have centred

on the extent to which they are still applicable in the present age. They point out

that some verses, such as those supporting slavery or the inferiority of women,

are now rendered void and against the will and just nature of God. Liberals citethese issues, alongside the redundancy of ancient Judaic laws prohibiting same-

sex relations, when arguing for a change in theological views on homosexuality.

In their broad approach liberal Christians tend to regard the Bible as the record

of human activities, written by humans, and compiled by humans encountering

God within their specic historical context. This often leads liberals to reinterpret passages of the Bible as being less a record of concrete events, but rather narratives

illustrating how to live ethically and authentically in relation to the divine. Hence,

their elucidation of the so-called ‘Social Gospel’. Such a ‘gospel’ is now supported by the insistence that the relevant biblical passages quoted by those opposed to

homosexuality have been mistranslated or do not refer to homosexuality at

all.11 In sum, throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty-rst century,liberal theologians have challenged the Church’s traditional understanding of

homosexuality, claiming that the biblical passages often quoted do not refer to

what is now understood, particularly scientically, as homosexual orientation.Liberal Christian scholars not infrequently believe that there are numerous

terms in the original Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament) thatcan be understood differently than previous interpreted. They cite copying and

translation errors, and of bias among the translators of later editions of the Bible.

This has led to a biblical re-interpretation that differentiates among various sexual

practices, regarding rape, prostitution, or pagan sex rituals as sinful and those within

committed relationships as positive regardless of sexual preferences. Perennially

quoted is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah which the more liberal-minded believe

refers only to homosexual rape and the violation of the laws of hospitality of the

time, and thus scarcely relevant to consensual homosexual relationships. In short,

recent scholarship has produced interpretations of passages which reveal that the

Bible never advocates a blanket criticism of same-sex relationships and, in fact,may endorse it. Typically quoted is the interpretation of the story of David and

Jonathan (1 Samuel 18) which is viewed as including a relationship that wentfurther than just being good buddies.

Where the liberals are on strong ground is in their insistence that negative

views by the Church regarding homosexuality have changed in intensity over two

millennia. Hostile attitudes, even persecution, have periodically been expressed

with varying degrees throughout Christian history. At times religious stances havereected or endorsed wider cultural attitudes. Lending some credence to the viewthat the earlier Church was more tolerant of homosexuality than it was in later

generations is the evidence that widespread persecutions of homosexuals and

11 ‘The Bible and Homosexuality’,Sister Friends Together , Grace Unfolding Ministries.



Introduction 7

other minorities did not occur until the twelfth century. The medieval Church was

certainly not accommodating. Documents such as the Summa Theologiae, the

chief summary of doctrine in that era, includes passages denouncing ‘copulation

with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female’.12 St Hildegard’s bookScivias,13

which was ofcially approved byPope Eugene III in the twelfth century,

related visions from God which contain quotes stating ‘a man who sins with another

man as with a woman, sins bitterly against God and against the union with which

God united male and female’, and similar quotes in which same-sex relations are

condemned as ‘perverted forms’. In the next century Thomas Aquinas denounced

homosexuality as second only to bestiality among the worst of all sexual sins.

In his celebrated account of the period John Boswell, a prominent historian at

Yale University, quoted various translations and laws of the time period enacted

to persecute minorities (Boswell 1985). In his well-known essay The Church

and the Homosexual , among other publications, Boswell attributed Christianity’sdenunciations of homosexuality after the twelfth century to rising intolerance in

Europe reected in the laws enacted during the period to restrict women’s rights

and expelling Jews and Muslims from Christian lands. Even during periods

when interests of the state and Church were not entangled, Christian viewpoints

regarding homosexuality often followed cultural contours. For instance, in Britain

in 1808, during a time of widespread cultural disapproval, and when there existed

a variety of crimes that warranted the death penalty (including impersonating an

Egyptian), more men were hung for ‘buggery’ than murder. Exploring this period,Davies, in short, interprets the intensied persecution as a result of the fear thathomosexuality threatened to undermine existing or expanding social and national

boundaries and identity (Davies 2006, 114–9).Despite sophisticated hermeneutics and apologetics, and irrespective of the fact

that the liberal Christians may have current civil rights legislation supporting their

views of homosexuality, the reality is that they do not have the weight of Church

history on their side. The early Christian Church, and traditionally the Roman

Catholic Church the Eastern Orthodox Churches and later the Protestant churches,

have been explicitly condemnatory of same-sex sexual relations. Whatever

revisionist historical accounts claim, the early Church was hostile. Denunciation of

homosexuality is seen in surviving writings of early Christian notables such as St

Justin Martyr, St Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, St Cyprian, St Basil the Great,

St John Chrysostom, and St Augustine of Hippo, as well as canonical sources such

as the Apostolic Constitutions, for example, in Eusebius of Caesarea’s statement

which condemns ‘the union of women with women and men with men’.14 Many

who share the view that early Christians deplored homosexuality cite a translation

of St Aristides blaming the Greco-Roman heritage for what he believed to be

12 ST: II: II: Q154: Art. 11.13 Hildegard of Bingen, ‘Scivias’, Columba Hart and Jane Bishop, translators; New

York: Paulist Press, 1990.14 Eusebius of Caesarea (‘Proof of the Gospel’, 4:10 [AD 319]).




corrupting early Christianity as illustrated in one of his quotes: ‘Some polluted

themselves by lying with males. The Greeks, O King, follow debased practicesin intercourse with males. Yet they in turn impute their monstrous impurity to the

Christians’.15

Is there a liberal-conservative divide?

If we accept for the moment that positions taken by many churches and ministriesseem to have led to a certain polarisation of views along the liberal-conservative

theological divide, this divide is not only between churches of different traditions

and theological dispositions, but has created divisions within denominations

which frequently also have a global geographical dimension. This is evidenced by

a number of often well-publicised cases that has brought dilemmas in the ChristianChurch into wider public focus. Perhaps most obvious are the highly publicised

divisions within the Anglican Communion (Yip and Keenan 2004).During the thirteenth Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church in 1998

a resolution was passed, by a vote of 526–70, stating that homosexual acts

are ‘incompatible with Scripture’.16 However, the resolution also contained a

statement declaring that the policy would not be the nal word and research wouldcontinue on the subject, and given that Lambeth Resolutions are not binding on

member churches of the Communion. Controversy erupted again in 2003 with theordination of the rst openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, in the New Hampshire

diocese of the Episcopal Church in the USA. In the same year the Church of

England announced the appointment of the Suffragan Bishop of Reading. The

man in question, Jeffrey John, was a priest living in a celibate same-sex domestic

partnership. Many Anglican traditionalists were outraged and John eventually

succumbed to pressure from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams (who

had initially supported the appointment), and others to withdraw before he had been formally elected.17

As of 2004, Anglican provinces such as the Episcopal Anglican Church of

Brazil, the Anglican Church of Mexico, the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Anglican

Church of Southern Africa and the Episcopal Church of America (ECUSA) allowthe ordination of non-celibate gay clergy as well as the blessing of same-sex

unions. In the Anglican Church of Canada, six parishes in the Diocese of New

Westminster consented to bless same-sex unions. As a result of such developments,

the Lambeth Commission on Communion issued the so-called Windsor Report on

the issue of homosexuality. The report took a strident position against homosexual

practice and recommended a moratorium on further consecrations of actively

15 St Aristides (‘Apology’, c. 125 AD).16 Lambeth Conference 1998 Archives <http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/

index.cfm> (accessed 21/08/08).17 He was later appointed as the Dean of St Albans instead.



Introduction 9

homosexual bishops and blessings of same-sex unions.18 The report also called

for all involved in Gene Robinson’s consecration ‘to consider in all conscience

whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the

Anglican Communion’.19 However, the report stopped short of recommending

discipline against ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada.

Responding to these theological disputes many provinces, primarily from central

Africa but also some in Asia, South America and Australia (in total representing

around 50 per cent of the 80 million practising Anglicans worldwide), declared astate of compromised communion with their counterparts who were sympathetic to

the gay ‘cause’.20 Minority Anglican groups in the Western world similarly stated

their opposition to what they considered unscriptural decisions by the Churches of

England, Canada and Australia. In the USA, some agencies, such as the Anglican

Mission in the Americas and the Convocation of Anglicans in North America,

withdrew their afliation with ECUSA and realigned themselves.In the summer of 2008 over a thousand conservative Anglicans – many from

Majority World countries – met in Jerusalem at the Global Anglican FutureConference (Gafcon) to create a global network to combat modern trends in thechurch, primarily the ordination of gay clergy. It constituted a direct challenge

to Rowan William’s leadership and coincided with the Lambeth Conference of

that year. The network claimed to operate independently of the Archbishop, butinsisted that it would stay inside the Communion albeit with its own statement of

theology and home-grown council of archbishops. The traditionalists argued theywere ghting a ‘false Gospel’ and that the rift in the church could not be breached.After ve years of trying unsuccessfully to have the American church expelledfor its ordination of Gene Robinson and blessing of same-sex relationships in

church, the traditionalists claimed that the international alliance emphasised

a more orthodox reading of the Bible on the subject of homosexuality. Such astance seemed to depart from the spirit of Anglicanism. Historically, the church

has accepted diversity of belief and open debate (for example, in the debates

about slavery, contraception, divorce, capital punishment and female clergy.) Thisspirit of acceptance and debate traditionally required that different points of view

could be publicly expressed by bishops and clergy without fear of recrimination

or ridicule.

By contrast other churches have not, by convention, allowed the luxury of

meaningful debate. The Roman Catholic Church, through its ofcial teaching onhomosexuality, has censured several prominent individuals who have challenged its

position or promoted different understandings of the compatibility of the Catholic

18 The Windsor Report 2004, On public Rites of Blessing of same sex unions <http://

www.anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004/section_d/p3.cfm> (accessed 17/07/08).19 The Windsor Report 2004, Section D, On elections to the episcopate <http://www.

anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004/section_d/p2.cfm> (accessed 20/08/08).20 ‘Row over homosexuality splits Anglican Communion’, The Tablet (online),

26/07/2003 (accessed 23/08/08).




faith and homosexual identity and lifestyle. Notable examples of theologians who

proved overtly critical of the Church’s proclamations regarding homosexuality

include the former priest, Professor Charles Curran, subsequently removed from

his post at the Catholic University of America. Persecution has not prevented some

clergy in speaking out against the church’s rulings. In A Question of Truth

(2003),the Dominican priest Gareth Moore criticised the Catholic Church for obsessing

over sexual matters. Lay Catholic gay people have also increasingly spoken outagainst the Church’s ruling on gay sexuality (Yip 1997a).

To say that there exists a theological polarisation of Christian viewpoints, of

conservatives versus liberals is, nevertheless, a gross simplication and distortionof the positions taken by the churches on a range of gay issues. The reality isthat Christian stances are now extremely complex and divergent given the

explosive mixture of biblical hermeneutics, ‘scientic’ evidence and the extension

of human rights issues. In this respect, Gerald Coleman (1984), exploring thefour methodological perspectives originally enunciated by James B. Nelson

(1978, 188–99), conrms Christian preferences for either rejecting-punitive (thathomosexuality is morally wrong and should not be endorsed); rejecting–non-

punitive (that homosexuals are not to be held responsible for their orientation

but should lead a chaste lifestyle); qualied acceptance (mostly accepting thelegitimacy of gay orientation but insists that gay men should live their lives in an

ethically responsible way) and full acceptance (of gay heterosexuality and activity

as reecting God’s grace).Within these typologies today are complex attitudes towards the nature of

homosexuality; whether the orientation as well as the sexual act is sinful, alongwith wider issues such as gay rights, civil unions, and the ordination of gay clergy.

Once more, such issues seem to reect theological preferences and the recourseto ‘scientic’ evidence which sometimes appear to cut across the conservative-liberal divide.

Clearly, being liberal on some social issues does not necessarily mean endorsing

homosexuality on all fronts. The United Methodist Church, with its long history of

supporting campaigns of social justice in the USA, adopted a more conservativestance at its General Conference in 2008 than previously taken. Delegates passeda motion insisting that Christians are called to ‘responsible stewardship of this

sacred gift’ (of sexuality) and that ‘sexual relations are afrmed only withinthe covenant of monogamous, heterosexual marriage’.21 Based on its teaching,

the UMC prohibits the blessing of homosexual unions by its clergy and in its

churches. The breaking of this law is a chargeable offence and rebellious clergymay be subject to being defrocked. Moreover, the Confessing Movement within

the United Methodist Church seeks to continue to protect the United MethodistChurch’s current stance on homosexuality, if not wishing to make it more rigid.

Neither do the views of Quakers (The Society of Friends) toward homosexuality

constitute a wholesale endorsement as might be expected by a largely liberal

21 ‘Calendar Item 1186’, The United Methodist Church (accessed 29/06/08).



Introduction 11

Christian constituency. Quaker views in the USA are divided despite a tendencyto be theologically and socially radical and encompass a range of attitudes from

complete acceptance and celebration of same-sex marriage, to the view that

homosexuality is abhorrent and sinful. In the nal analysis, the true Quaker‘view’ on homosexuality is probably best analysed by local ‘Friends’ meetings or

understood as a matter of individual conscience. Some of the more mainstream

denominations have adopted this stance. The Baptist Union of Great Britain on

the one side holds that same sex couples ‘should not suffer discrimination because

of their sexual orientation’. On the other, the BUGB embraces the view that

individual Christians who believe that same sex relationships are wrong should be

able to behave as they believe to be right as conscience dictates.22 Although rather

ambiguous, the denomination seems to be suggesting that individual members

may accept the legitimacy of homosexuality and in what respects they do so, but

those who do not should be free to express their views without recrimination.Further complicating the situation is the fact that some conservative

denominations, while opposing homosexuality, have made recent statements that

are not in themselves anti-gay and this is a general drift. In Catholicism, homosexual

acts, as explored above, are regarded as contrary to natural law and sinful while

homosexual desires are seen as disordered. However, the Church has stated that

homosexual desires or attractions are not necessarily sinful. They are said to be

‘disordered’ in the sense that they tempt a person to do something that is sinful (that

is the homosexual act), but temptations beyond one’s control are not consideredsinful in and of themselves. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states ‘men and

women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies … must be accepted with

respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in theirregard should be avoided’.23 For this reason, while the Church continues to oppose

attempts to legitimise same-gender sexual acts, it also ofcially urges respect andlove for those who do experience same-sex attractions. Thus the Catholic Church

is also opposed to persecutions and violence against the LGBT community:

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies

is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes

for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion,

and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be

avoided. These persons are called to fulll God’s will in their lives and, if they

are Christians, to unite to the sacrice of the Lord’s Cross the difculties they

may encounter from their condition.24

22 Issues raised by the Equality Act <http://www.baptist.org.uk/resources/social_ political_resources.asp?section=91> (accessed 06/07/08).

23 The Church has published specic instructions to clergy on how to minister to gayand lesbian people which includes the document Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual

Inclination.

24 Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 2358.




In making some decision a level of initiative has been left to the local bishop andthe presiding priest as in the case of deciding whether practising homosexuals

might be denied Holy Communion due to advocating or performing gay sex.

In other respects the teachings of the Catholic Church has become more

stringent in its anti-gay stance. After taking pontical ofce, one of the morecontroversial directions of Pope Benedict XVI has been reected in the decisionof the Congregation for Catholic Education to further prohibit any individual

who has present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called

‘gay culture’, or any individual having had such ‘tendencies’ within the past three

years, from entry to seminary, and thus from joining the priesthood.25 This is a

departure from the Church’s earlier position that it is homosexual acts that are

sinful. However, some bishops continue to knowingly ordain gay priests despitethe Vatican’s pronouncement and individual religious orders sometimes vary in

their level of tolerance.The view of the Catholic Church is not untypical of those also to be found in

Protestant conservative quarters, especially among evangelicals. ‘Hating the sin but

loving the sinner’ has given rise to numerous specialised evangelising initiatives

directed towards gay people and are to be discovered in a fair few churches. Highly

valued is the ex-gay group, particularly when it is prepared to attempt to convert

practising gays. Emblematic in the USA is OneByOne, a Presbyterian ex-gay

organisation whose mission is both to minister to the ‘sexually broken’ and serve

as a source to those trying to support them.26

In July, 2003, it joined with ten otherorganisations purporting to serve people conicted over unwanted homosexualattractions to form a coalition called Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality.27

Similarly, International Exodus is a worldwide interdenominational Christian

organisation which claims to ‘encourage, strengthen, unify and equip Christians

to minister the transforming power of the Lord Jesus Christ to those affected

by homosexuality’.28 Another movement, Transforming Congregations, is a US

Methodist ex-gay ministry whose purpose is to ‘equip the local church to model

and minister sanctied sexuality through biblical instruction, personal and publicwitness, and compassionate outreach’.29 There are other groups that purport to

take a supportive role but ultimately seek to eradicate homosexual behaviour. Forinstance, the Christian organisation, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, believes

that ‘practising homosexuality’ is a choice and claims there are people who have

25 Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard

to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to

Holy Orders, Vatican Website) (accessed 09/11/08).26 OneByOne: About Us <http://www.oneby1.org/> (accessed 06/08/08).27 Diverse Coalition Forms to Support People Seeking ‘Non-Gay’ Alternatives to

Unwanted Homosexuality, 9 July 2003, Jersey City,Marketwire.

28 <http://exodus.to/content/category/6/24/57/> (accessed 04/08/08).29 OneByOne, ‘Our Purpose’, Transforming Congregations <http://www.fpco.org/

Mission/OneByOne.aspx> (accessed 07/09/08).



Introduction 13

attained ‘abstinence from homosexual behaviors’.30 Such grouping have, however,

been countered by others who are more welcoming or at least sympathetic, or exist

to help Christian families come to terms with gay relatives. Other groups, such as

the Gay Christian Network, work to promote dialogue between gays who approveof gay sexual activity and gays who do not. The proliferation of such a vast variety

of groups is again proof of how the Christian world has become fragmented in its

attitude towards gay people.

In marked contrast to the negative attitudes taken by many churches, thereare those who afrm all aspects of homosexuality and range further in acceptinglesbian, bi- and transgender people. LGBT-welcoming church programs make anexplicit attempt to include LGBT individuals in church membership and ministry.

In some cases, these programmes are formally sanctioned by a denomination. In

other cases, the initiatives may amount to groupings within the denomination that

are not formally recognised and may constitute breakaway factions largely forged by gay people themselves. Furthermore, there are ecumenical or para-church

programmes that are explicitly outreaches to LGBTs, but do not identify with any

particular tradition or denomination.

Included among those who are seeking to challenge their denomination’sofcial line is the Reconciling Ministries Network in the US, an unofcialorganisation attempting to change the United Methodist Church’s current teaching

on homosexuality in order to make the church more inclusive of LGBT people.

Other groups advocate the full inclusion of LGBT persons in the life and work oftheir church. This includes More Light Presbyterians, dating from 1974, and the

Covenant Network of Presbyterians that were formed in the negative aftermath of

the stance taken by the Presbyterian Church (USA). These groups are consideredadvocacy groups, separate from the PC(USA) and do not speak on behalf ofthe denomination. The list of such groups does not end here. Even the Southern

Baptists in the USA have their National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Neither dothe complexities cease at this point. In the UK the once ex-gay gay group Courage

has undertaken an about-turn and afrms practising gays whereas once it sought torehabilitate them, now believing that it is wrong to attempt to ‘heal’ gay men.

Staying in or opting out the fold?

For those in the Christian Churches, being gay has often meant ‘coming to terms’

with religion – carving their place in an often hostile world (Schallenberger 1998).Some have opted to stay in without ‘coming out’. For Bouldrey (1995), this raises

the essential questions as to whether gay people are able to claim their placeand role within churches or remain marginalised and estranged from organised

religion. Does mainstream Christianity serve the spiritual needs of gay men and

30 PFXG < prole.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprole&friendid=196160686> (accessed 16/08/08).




lesbian women, or do they have to look elsewhere? Certainly, many gay peoplehave not found the churches conducive places to be, even with the support of

lesbian and gay groups. Some, as a consequence, have been pushed more fully into

a ‘deviant’ gay sub-culture (Yip 1996), perhaps taking a more aggressive attitude

towards those who are hostile towards them (Yip 1997b; 1998).Opting out, if not altogether from church life, may mean joining a specicallyLGBT church, perhaps the best known being the Metropolitan CommunityChurch (or, to give it the full title, The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan

Community Churches). As an international fellowship there are currently 250

member congregations in 23 countries with a specic outreach to lesbian, gay,

bisexual, and transgender families and communities. The Fellowship has OfcialObserver status with the World Council of Churches but has been repeatedly

denied membership in the National Council of Churches in the USA.31

Conforming that gay Christian organisations tend to be liberal on many fronts,the MCC sees its mission being social as well as spiritual by supporting the rights

of minorities, not just those of LGBT people. The church is not exclusive in thesense that the MCC is ‘open’ and typied by the celebration of the Eucharist

which recipients who are not members of the LGBT communities, members of the

MCC or any other church, can partake of. The rst congregation of the MCC wasfounded in Los Angeles by the Rev. Troy Perry in 1968, at a time when Christian

attitudes toward homosexuality were almost entirely negative. Perry performed

the rst public same-sex marriage in the USA in Huntington Park, California in1969. A year later he led the rst lawsuit in the US seeking legal recognition forsame-sex marriages. Perry lost the lawsuit but launched the debate over marriage

equality in the US. Today, MCC congregations around the world perform more

than 6,000 same-sex union/marriage ceremonies annually.

Liberal attitudes of the MCC extend to allowing its member churches

independence in doctrine, worship, and practice. Styles of worship include

liturgical, charismatic, evangelical, traditional and modern. While the church

bases its theology on the historic creeds of the Christian Church such as Apostles’

and Nicene creeds, the dening aspect of MCC’s theology is its position onhomosexuality and Christianity where it fully embraces and welcomes lesbian,

gay, bisexual and transgender people. Indeed, the majority of members are lesbian,gay, bisexual or transgender, with many clergy being openly LGBT. It is not

surprising, then, that the MCC has been a leading force in the development of so-

called Queer theology.

More broadly, being afrming to gay sexuality led from an early stage totheological innovation and not just Queer theology. Modern gay Christian advocate

Justin R. Cannon promotes what he calls ‘Inclusive Orthodoxy’. He explains onhis ministry’s web-site: ‘Inclusive Orthodoxy is the belief that the Church can

31 Many local MCC congregations are members of local ecumenical partnerships

around the world and MCC currently belongs to seven state-wide councils of churches in

the USA.



Introduction 15

and must be inclusive of lgbt individuals without sacricing the Gospel and theApostolic teachings of the Christian faith’.32 Cannon’s ministry takes a uniqueapproach quite distinct from modern liberal Christians. He afrms the divineinspiration of the Bible, the authority of Tradition, and claims ‘… that there is

a place within the full life and ministry of the Christian Church for lesbian, gay,

bisexual, and transgender Christians, both those who are called to lifelong celibacy

and those who are partnered’.

Queer theology, however, goes further and like all theological systems makessense to those who endorse it and consequently embraces the ‘Q’ in LGBTQsexualities. The theology emerged from the development of ‘queer theory’ in the

1990s, which sought to explore a multiplicity of human sexualities and sexual

identities (Yip 2005a).33 This included lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender

people along with other sexualities. In Queer theology these concerns are linked

to the nature of the divine and humankind’s relationship with God.Many churches that have embraced ‘Queer theology’ would ascribe a broad

meaning to ‘queer ’ – taking into account the views of a broad range of thosewho choose to identify or ally themselves outside the constraints of the prevailing

sexual norms. However, while some Queer theologians seek to refute the moreconservative teaching that homosexual desires are disordered and homosexual acts

are sinful, increasingly the focus is moving away from the justication of LGBTdesires and behaviour and more towards the exploration of wider theological

issues arising from these communities.Queer theology is, in many ways, a branch of Liberation theology, sharing

much of the same methodology and seeing theology as a tool in addressing the

oppression which many queer theologians believe is perpetrated on LGBT people

by wider society in general and, in particular, the religious establishment. Mona

West, in a pamphlet published by the MCC explains the use of Queer in thetheological context by saying that:

We have reclaimed ‘Queer’ as an active word, a questioning word, a creative

word and a challenging word. When we ‘Queer’ disciplines such as history,

literature or religion we are actively looking for Queer people who have been

hidden or lost by those disciplines. To Queer these disciplines is also to challenge

their homophobic biases. Queer is also an indeterminate or generative word,

pointing to the ways all identities are uid and changing.34

32 <truthsetsfree.net> (assessed 03/08/08).33 The denition and use of the term Queer is not, however, without controversy

in the wider academic and social context with the identication of ‘queer’ with LGBTspirituality is one now challenged by many including Althaus-Reid (cf. 2003); Stuart (cf.2003a).

34 See <http://www.mccedinburgh.com/lgbtfaith.html> (assessed 01/07/08).




Neglected concerns: The ‘LBT’ in LGBT

‘Queer’, as a concept and designation, is a relatively newcomer to the remitof sexuality that the churches have to grapple with. The more conventionally

neglected matters of lesbianism, bisexuality and transgender have, at the same

time, also come to the fore. The subject of homosexuality has dominated the debateregarding non-heterosexuality in the churches and has long been at the expense

of discussions related to lesbianism, bisexuality and transsexuality, although the

former is often subsumed under the designation ‘gay’ or even ‘homosexuality’. In

short, the churches have not seriously addressed the ‘LBT’ in ‘LGBT’. Nonetheless,

the matter of ‘LBT’ is increasingly coming into focus and often because of many

of the reasons explored above.

If Queen Victoria once insisted that she did not believe that such a thing as

lesbianism existed, or was at least not possible in practical terms, the same might be said of the view of many Christian churches. The relative silence today may be

because biblical references to lesbianism are even fewer than those that mention

homosexuality. Only one passage in the entire Bible refers to lesbian activity

between women. This is St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: ‘For even their women

exchanged the natural use for what is against nature’ (Romans 1: 26). Even so,interpretations of this passage assume that what goes for the man goes for the

woman. Historically speaking condemnation of lesbianism in the Church was

rare but typied in the medieval period by St Hildegard’s book Scivias, alreadyreferred to above, in which his alleged related visions from God prompted him to

state: ‘a woman who takes up devilish ways and plays a male role in coupling withanother woman is most vile in My sight’.

While detailed contemporary condemnation of lesbianism is not generally

fully articulated today, some Christian constituencies have been scathing. In

2007, the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) declared that sincehomosexuality is ‘abhorrent and deviant, whether consensual or not … A similar

prohibition (criminalisation) ought to be enacted in respect of lesbianism’.35 In

Western countries the matter of lesbianism has generally come to the fore through

not only the matter of legal rights (or lack of them) but the high prole cases oflesbians in ministerial ofce.

In 2004 a jury of 13 United Methodist Church pastors voted 12 to 1 to convict itslesbian pastor, Beth Stroud, for violating the UMC Book of Discipline concerningthe prohibition of practising a ‘homosexual’ lifestyle by United Methodist pastors.

Stroud had preached a ‘coming out’ sermon at German town UMC in Philadelphia

in which it was revealed that she was living in a committed relationship with

another woman. She did not lose her membership of the UMC and was consideredto be an enrolled member of ‘good standing’ and free to be involved in the life

and ministry of the UMC as a lay person. Later, in March 2004 Karen Damman

35 Yawning Bread, March 2007 <http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2007/yax-719.

htm> (accessed 03/09/08).



Introduction 17

of the UMC Pacic Northwest Conference was put ‘on trial’ and found not guiltyin spite of the fact that she was living in an open lesbian relationship in the very

same manner as was Stroud.

The contemporary churches equally have little to say on the subject of bisexualityand transgenderism. This is partially because both are often incorporated under

‘LGBT’ by support groups and treated by hostile voices in this wider context.

It follows that bisexual and transsexual Christians are marginalised particularly

within organised religion and religious communities, even more so than gay and

lesbian Christians who have a choice of various access points to organised religion,

although there exist support groups such as Quest for bisexuals and the Sibyls fortransgendered Christians.

Certainly, one searches the web-sites in vain for church statements on the subjectof transgenderism. To date, conservative groupings like the Southern Baptists

have been silent on their own transgendered members. However, Christian groupssuch as Americans for Truth About Homosexuality make it their full-time missionto oppose transsexual activism and other things they see as morally corrupt.

‘Pathologies’ are often part of their discourse and they are not alone. In 2003, the

Vatican stated that transsexuals suffer from ‘mental pathologies’ and barred them

from Catholic religious orders.36

Alluding to scripture is an arduous task for those opposing transgender peoplesince no direct references exist. The passage usually referred to is 1 Corinthians

6: 9–10, where the Apostle Paul lists those who will ‘not inherit the kingdom ofGod’. This includes the ‘effeminate’ which is deemed by many conservatives to

be the closest thing to transgenderism. Conservatives may also point to such Old

Testament versus as that in Deuteronomy, which says, ‘The woman shall not wear

that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment;for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God’ (Deuteronomy 22: 5).More broadly transsexuals are seen as opposing xed notions of gender from theHebrew Bible, when God created Adam and Eve. For this reason conservative

Christians tend to treat transgenderism as an extreme form of homosexuality. It is

a disorder to be overcome, a cross to be borne.

The more liberal Unitarian, Episcopalian and Quaker churches seem to leadthe way in respecting transgendered members. The United Church of Christ,

traditionally the USA’s most liberal Christian denomination, ordained its rsttransgendered pastor, Bran Scott, in 1999. At the same time, the more mainstream

churches have been obliged to confront transgenderism and accompanying

sexualities usually because the subject has been forced upon them. Covering thestory of transgendered ministers, the USA Today newspaper suggested that the Rev.

Drew Phoenix of St John’s of Baltimore City was, for conservative Methodists, anembodiment of another front in the ‘culture wars’, a rebel who has deed God andnature and should be removed from ministry (conservatives tried unsuccessfully to

pass a resolution banning transgendered pastors at the church’s General Conference

36 See <http://www.tgcrossroads.org/news/archive.asp?aid=609>.




in 2004).37 To the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church Phoenix was

number IV on the docket for its October session: ‘A Review of Bishop’s Decision… Whether Transgendered Persons Are Eligible for Appointment in The United

Methodist Church’.

It is perhaps indicative of a generalised treatment of the subject of bisexualitythat ReligiousToloranceOrg, an Ontario-based organisation for religious tolerance,

discusses bisexuality and homosexuality in the same breath.38 The organisation’s

web-site article on homosexuality and bisexuality explores religious attitudes to

the former in some length but has next to nothing to say on the latter. Certainly,

fundamentalists groups such as the American Family Association link the two. Inan article on its web-site entitled ‘Bi-Sexuals are Homosexuals’ the author states:

As American society increasingly, abandons God completely, more and more

homosexuals are coming out of the closet … The latest trend is for people who

are not comfortable with the label a ‘homosexual’ to confess themselves as

bisexual’ (i.e. having sexual relations with BOTH men and women). The truth is

that bisexuals are still guilty in God’s eyes of committing HOMOSEXUALITY

and are, thus homosexuals.39

Congruent with their views of the full range of non-hetero-sexualities,

conservative groups are keen to see bisexuality as not only sinful but as a pathology.

A Roman Catholic web-site, for instance, has seized upon a study published in anissue of the British Journal of Psychiatry which suggests that 43 per cent of gays,

lesbians and bisexuals have a mental disorder.40

Overview of this volume

If academic works have taught the churches anything, it is that human sexualityis diverse and embellished by a range of social meanings. Stereotyping of LGBT

sexualities is never neutral. It is ‘differentness’; it is ‘queer’; it is ‘sin’; it is‘pathology’; it anything that human culture wishes to make of them. The above

37 ‘Transgender pastor prompts uneasy questions for Methodists’,USA Today, 19 October

(online) <http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-10-18-transgender-methodist_N.htm>.

38 <http://www.religioustolerance.org/homosexu.htm> (accessed 23/09/08).39 David Stewart <http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Sodomy/

bi_are_homo.htm> (accessed 05/09/08).

40 From a Catholic website <http://www.tldm.org/news7/GayMentalDisorder.htm>(assessed 09/09/08). The study carried out by the Imperial College in London surveyed1285 respondents from these groups. Mental problems included anxiety, sleep disturbance,

panic attacks, depressive moods or thoughts, problems with memory or concentration andcompulsive behaviour or obsessive thoughts. The study found that 31 per cent of respondents

also attempted suicide. Suicide attempts were found to be linked to discrimination such asrecent physical attack.



Introduction 19

introductory survey may suggest as much in over-viewing the complexities of

LGBT sexualities for contemporary Christianity. However, the survey has been

necessarily brief. The following chapters in this volume address many of the issues,

adding esh to the bones and providing them with a good measure of empiricalgrounding.

In the opening chapter Michael Keenan raises questions related to gay men

and their experiences in the churches in which they choose to remain, often

accommodating themselves to a malevolent environment. Refusing to ‘opt out’,

even to ‘come out’, needs its adaptive strategies. Keenan focuses specicallyon gay Anglican clergy and explores how the church’s continued questioning of

the acceptability of gay sexuality encourages many gay clergy to ‘closet’ their

sexualities in order to nd ‘space’ to continue in their vocation. Many rmly believe, as Keenan shows, that their sexuality, though unsupported by the church,

and indeed hidden from its ecclesiastical structures, inuences their work in a positive way. Indeed, many gay clergy insist they are called to the ministry as gay

men, and therefore they feel required to incorporate this aspect of their identities

into their vocation.

As briey noted above, evangelical church leaders’ opposition to the practiceof homosexuality is pronounced. The attitudes of evangelicals within local

congregations and the ways in which they negotiate the issue of homosexuality

have, however, rarely been examined. Additionally, discussions of the Church

and gay sexuality have neglected the importance of stereotypical cultural viewsof gender in sexuality negotiations and wider debates. In Chapter 2, through a

case study of an evangelical congregation and illuminated by an examination

of evangelical literature, Kristin Aune outlines the consensus position among

evangelical Christians that lies between, and incorporates, both subordination of,

and sympathy towards, gay sexuality, thus encapsulating the discernible shift in

attitudes to gay sexuality typied by the call to ‘hate the sin, but love the sinner’.Aune explores the centrality of gender to this negotiated position and suggests that

for evangelicals sexuality is less about genital desires or behaviours, and more

about the achievement of normative gender identities.

In similar vein, in Chapter 3, Marta Trzebiatowska discusses processes oflesbian identity formation using the examples of two socially and culturally distinct

social groups: Catholic nuns and gay women in Poland. The chapter provides

considerable insights into the inter-woven factors of religious and wider cultural

perceptions of lesbianism. More specically, the chapter observes the similarities between the discourse accompanying the formation of nuns’ spiritual identity

and the rhetoric and vocabulary mobilised in the ‘coming out’ narratives of gay

women. The contention is that what unites the two groups is the fact that they arecommonly perceived as adopting a ‘deviant’ identity. Trzebiatowska demonstratesthe pervasiveness of the hegemonic discourses of femininity in Polish society

through juxtaposing the two versions of deviation from the socially prescribed life pattern. The chapter highlights the issue of social censorship exercised on women

who embrace ‘unusual identities’ and shows how the overlapping themes include




a great degree of emotional trauma, experience of rejection and a constant searchfor tangible signs of the ‘true’ self.

Developing not dissimilar themes in Chapter 4, ‘Bisexual Christians:

The Life-stories of a Marginalised Community’, Alex Toft focuses upon how

bisexual Christians dene their identity, their lived experiences within religiouscommunities, and their involvement with support networks and responses to thechurches’ ofcial stance on bisexuality. Based upon data collected from membersof two user groups for LGB Christians, the chapter highlights the specicities ofthe bisexual Christian experience and offer a wider but more holistic understanding

of non-heterosexual identity.

In Chapter 5, recognising the neglected theme of Christianity and trans-

genderism, Andrew Yip and Michael Keenan survey the few sociological accounts

that do exist on the subject, presenting an overview and establishing the limits to

academic enquiry. Yip and Keenan recognise that sociological research in thisarea has adopted various approaches – feminist, lesbian and gay, and queer – yet

says little of the role of religion/spirituality on transgender identities and lives.

This chapter will address some empirical and conceptual themes, beginning with

a consideration of transgenderism as a diverse phenomenon and lived reality. This

is followed by an analysis of conservative Christians’ censure of transgenderism,

particularly transsexuality, and the attempts of transgender Christians themselves

to de-stigmatise their identity and to construct space for acceptance through their

own biblical hermeneutics.The next two chapters consider the politicalisation of gay sexuality and its

implications for Christian constituencies. As Stephen Hunt explores (Chapter

6), the mobilisation of gay and lesbian Christian ‘cause’ groups, and similarlyoppositional factions, has intensied controversies not just in the churches but the

political sphere. Both sides increasingly use ‘resources’ in the political struggle.

These resources are not merely theologies and moral systems which are often

‘hidden’. They involve the recourse to civil liberties as both sides of the debate

seek to court public opinion and the support of politicians. Gay Christian groups promote the discourse of sexual rights, conservative Christians the cause of

religious rights that include the liberty to speak out against sexual rights. Suchdiscourse, as this chapter argues, is a further indication of the growing secularity

which Christian constituencies are forced to confront.

In Chapter 7 Richard O’Leary considers the context of the ‘gay debate’ in

Northern Ireland, now a society which ranks very high in Europe in terms bothof church attendance and homophobic attitudes. Here the tension between being

Christian and being gay is heightened in the province’s cultural context. As

this chapter indicates, the Christian gay and anti-gay movements in NorthernIreland have been shaped by the historical sectarian conict between Catholicsand Protestants. This can be seen in the way aspects of the sectarian conict –organisational divisions, the use of language and the traditional activities of parade

and protest – have shaped the Christian gay and Christian anti-gay movements.

While these aspects display a high degree of continuity, as evident in an



Introduction 21

examination of public discourse and events, some recent discernible shifts away

from continuity and tradition are also signalled.

The nal two chapters squarely address the matter of LGBT sexualities andspirituality. Yvonne Aburrow’s chapter, entitled ‘Is it Meaningful to Speak of

“Queer Spirituality”?’, is a comparative study that points out that some ‘queer’spiritual and theological themes are consistent with the ‘mainstream’ of religious

traditions and not just Christian. Other themes are a distinctive feature of queerspirituality (such as ‘coming out’ and ‘acting up’, ‘nding the queer’ in thedivine, and the divine in the queer). This chapter examines these themes and thedistinctive development of queer spirituality in recent decades in the enclaves and

safe ‘spaces’ created by lesbian and gay people.

A comparable theme is discussed by Derek Jay (a ‘Spiritual Director’ for LGBT people) in the nal chapter, ‘Trends in the Spiritual Direction for LGBT People’.

This more polemical chapter demonstrates how social anthropological study hasuncovered forgotten riches for new forms of spirituality in non-Christian traditions

that Christian LGBT may have more in common than their co-religionists. Jay

argues that though many reject essentialist gay identity, LGBT Christians need todene their difference from their religious oppressors. This chapter explores theinterface between psychology and spiritual direction where reclaiming language

about ‘dying to self’ involves the necessity of nding the ‘self’ beforehand.

Whose voice is it anyway?

Collectively these chapters spell out many of the complexities of LGBT sexualities

for the Christian churches. However, for the outsider the core concern may be to

ask the question ‘whose voice is it anyway?’: who truly speaks on such mattersfor the broad Christian Church? The glib answer is no one and everyone who has

an opinion. Probably most Christians have a view and, at the moment, their voices

drown each other out. Certainly, the more shrill voices will not die down since the

subject of LGBT sexualities will not go away. They remain a thorn in the esh, ash hook caught in the gullet of contemporary Christianity. The medicalisation ofnon-heterosexualities, the issue of rights, both constituting secular inuences onthe Church, alongside the entrenched theological disputes, will ensure that this is

so.

In the past churches have certainly erred by virtually ignoring the broad subjectof sexuality of any sort, or in the words of Coleman the churches have made it ‘…

a kind of disreputable relative’ (Coleman 1984, 113). If heterosexuality was once

an unwanted relative, LGBT sexualities has long been disowned or ignored bykith and kin in the Christian Church. The result, as Fortunato (1983) points out inhis suitably entitled Embracing the Exile, is that the situation of the homosexual

person is at least different and that probably there is a ‘monolithic (Christian)system bent on making life for gay people as miserable as possible’. As much may

be said of the experience of lesbians, bi- and transsexuals.




Today the Christian churches seem preoccupied with the subject of LGBTsexualities and in part, at least, this is because the subject is thrust upon them. Forthose outside the churches and some within this might seem an unhealthy past-

time. Putting matters in perspective, Archbishop Desmond Tutu has criticised the

African Anglican church in particular for being ‘obsessed’ with homosexuality

and in failing to focus on the continent’s more serious problems.41 Speaking at anews conference in Nairobi, Tutu stated that the row over gay clergy was akin toracism and admitted to being: ‘… deeply disturbed that in the face of some of the

most horrendous problems facing Africa, we concentrate on what do I do in bed

with whom’. Much could be said of the Church and such concerns in all parts of

the world. As long as contemporary Christianity has anxieties regarding whom

does what with whom the Sociology of Religion will have something to report and

hopefully something to contribute.

41 ‘Tutu hits out at church’s ‘obsession’ with gay clergy’,The Independent on Sunday,

18/11/07.



Chapter 1

The Gift (?) that Dare not Speak its Name:

Exploring the Inuence of Sexuality onthe Professional Performances of

Gay Male Anglican Clergy1

Michael Keenan

The Anglican Communion continues to discuss and debate the acceptable

and unacceptable aspects of gay identity among its believers. Recent ‘ofcial’documents have emphasised tolerance and listening to gay believers’ experiences

(House of Bishops 1991, The Anglican Communion 1998). However, for those whofeel both called to the priesthood and attracted to members of the same sex nding

t and support within the boundaries of the ofcial Church remains difcult, andhas been shown to lead to high levels of stress for some gay clergy (Fletcher 1990).Due to their positions of authority, the clergy are expected to maintain a different

level of morality than their parishioners as they are ‘messengers, watchmen and

stewards of the Lord’ (House of Bishops 1991: 44). The institution’s translationof these requirements has meant that public statements from the Church remain

unafrming of gay clergy.This chapter explores the experiences of a number of gay male Anglican

clergy who believe that their sexual identities inuence and benet their publicministries despite the above mentioned position of the institutional Church. The

chapter offers a way of understanding such incorporation through the metaphor of

‘embroidering identity’.

Identity and stigma

Aside from argument based in theology and tradition, focus is also placed upon

the ‘upset’ knowledge of clergy’s sexualities may cause congregants, emphasising

1 I would like to thank Dr Andrew Yip and Dr Brian Heaphy for their help and supportthroughout the project this paper is based upon. The project was an ESRC funded PhDstudy (award number PTA-030-2003-01724).




clergy as responsible for the emotional and spiritual wellbeing of their parishioners.

For many gay clergy such a situation leads to a fear of being found out, a need to

closet or to hide sexuality in their vocational lives. This feeling has been discussed

in the literature on gay clergy across denominations (Fletcher 1990; Stuart 1993b;

Wagner 1989). Despite such difculties gay and lesbian clergy continue to workwithin and preach to congregations in the Anglican Communion, and are willing

to speak in some environments about their experiences.2 Often this can be seen

as despite their sexualities, which are seen to be constrained through the need to

silence such information.

Previous literature has focused upon the difculties raised for gay clergy ina variety of denominations due to the lack of t they experience between theirsexualities and their role as clergy (Fletcher 1990; Wolf 1989). Wagner (1989)emphasises the fear that many gay clergy live with: of losing their jobs, homes and

facing backlash. Stuart talks of the possibility of becoming ‘ego-dystonic’ due toforced constraint on aspects of identity (Stuart 1993b, 27). This identity dissonanceconnects with Giddens’ (1991) discussion of authenticity in late modernity. Giddensconcept of ‘authentic’ identity emphasises ‘being true to oneself’ (Giddens 1991,

78). He argues that individuals must be able to celebrate their authentic selvesand stories rather than being distanced from them. In the case of gay clergy the

distance seen to exist between sexuality and vocation suggests a need to live an

‘inauthentic’ public life which is distinct from individuals’ understandings of who

they wish to be, or how they understand themselves. More specically, gay clergyare seen to be required to live a public life which is divorced from their identities

as gay men.

Lack of t between religious belief and gay sexuality has also been discussedin wider literature on gay Christians. Thumma (1991), for example, discussesin detail the process of negotiation undertaken by a group of gay evangelical believers. Thumma evidences the need for negotiation in order to nd space to begay and Christian. In this example such negotiation takes place within the afrmingenvironment of a support group. Other examples include Yip who discusses a

variety of ways in which gay Christians nd space to embrace both their sexualitiesand their religious beliefs, including attacking the stigma and stigmatiser (Yip1997b), and leaving the institutional Church (Yip 2000). Rodriguez and Oullette(2000) discuss gay Christian experience in an afrming congregation, illustratingthat some gay Christians are able to nd t through accessing an institution whichencourages rather than rejects such connection. These gay Christian experiencesemphasise that t can be found. Each of these studies illustrates that sexuality andreligious belief can be incorporated. However, it also emphasises the importance

of others and the need for afrmation which aids a number of gay Christians tomake connections between different aspects of self.

2 See Ford (2004) and Heskins (2006) for examples of interviews with gay Anglicanclergy.



The Gift (?) that Dare not Speak its Name 25

It is for this reason that space to nd t is not so easily available to gay menin the Anglican clergy, due to their commitments to the wider Church, and the

responsibilities they have to their parishes. Still, a number of gay men and lesbians

working as clergy continue to see their sexualities as both enabling and helping to

dene their ministries. This chapter explores how a number of self-identied gaymale clergy view their sexuality as being intrinsically related to their vocation.

It has previously been argued that despite lack of t, gay clergy rely heavilyupon and gain meaning and satisfaction from their religious beliefs (Keenan

2008). Also, discussion of the interconnection between sexuality and clericalidentity has in some cases seen sexuality as a positive inuence upon clericalrole – though most often this is among clergy who nd themselves in ‘accepting’congregations, and able to ‘come out’ (Comstock 1996; Hibbs 2006). For manygay clergy ‘coming out’ does not appear to be possible if they wish to continue as

clergy. This leaves a gap in discussion related to how gay clergy in active ministrywho ‘hide’ their sexualities negotiate, manage and maintain their clerical roles and

connection to their identities as gay men. This appears to suggest that gay clergy

in some way ‘lose’ the gay aspect and become ‘clergy’; that in some way sexualityis left behind when undertaking activities related to being clergy. To be sure therewill be occasions when gay clergy undertake aspects of their clerical role and theirsexuality may seem irrelevant. However, by not attending to the role sexuality

may play in gay clergymen’s professional/vocational lives academic discussion

remains incomplete. Referring to the work of Giddens this is a suggestion thatsuch lives are in some way ‘inauthentic’ due to traits which ‘emanate from feelings

and past situations imposed on us by others’ (Giddens 1991, 79).

Front stage – Back stage

In attempting to address this gap there is a need to understand how an aspect of self

may be ‘hidden’, but remains inuential in everyday life. In other words how dogay clergy maintain a connection to gay sexuality when often nding themselvesin situations where such identication is required to be, or at the very least felt to be required to be hidden? Jenkins (1996) suggests there is always a social aspectto identity. Who we are in specic situations depends to a great extent on that‘situation’, or interaction. Simply put, how we behave when in the company of

friends is often different to how we would behave in the company of colleagues.

This again would be signicantly different from how we would behave in thecompany of lovers or spouses. Such a theme is developed in the dramaturgical

approach presented by Goffman. His discussion of everyday interaction emphasisesit is not only that location impacts upon presentation of self, but that interaction

can also be controlled and inuenced by the individual (Goffman 1971).Specically in his discussion of ‘front’ and ‘back’ stage Goffman argues that

the individual presents a publicly accepted self front stage, while back stageallows place for those aspects of self which must be separated/hidden/controlled in




interaction. The dark and sombre black shirt can be ironed, removing suggestionsof sloppiness, or untidiness, the white ‘dog-collar’ can be starched and put in

place, the evidence of a ‘sneaky cigarette’ can be removed with breath fresheners,‘inappropriate’ tattoos or piercings can be covered. However what occurs backstage is not fully separated from the front stage presentation. Rather it is a space

where preparations can be undertaken which may have a positive effect on the nal presentation, though such preparations must be carefully managed. As Goffman

points out:

If a factory worker is to succeed in giving the appearance of working hard all

day, then he must have a safe place to hide the jig that enables him to turn out

a day’s work with less than a full day’s effort. If the bereaved are to be given

the illusion that the dead one is really in a deep and tranquil sleep, then the

undertaker must be able to keep the bereaved from the workroom where thecorpses are drained, stuffed and painted in preparation for their nal performance.

(Goffman 1971, 116)

Control of boundaries and knowledge are central to Goffman’s understandingsof identity performance. In ‘everyday life’ we shift from situation to situation, in

doing so we must present ourselves in ways that are appropriate to the situations

we nd ourselves in. Awareness of our own and others’ expectations play important

part in this. The experiences of gay clergy illustrate the value of such an approachto identity. Moving from situation to situation, and to some extent from identity

to identity (for example from funeral visit with parishioners to going to a bar

with gay friends). Goffman’s discussion of the dramaturgical model allows a wayof understanding identity presentation wherein changeability can be accepted as

normal, though through front and back regions a sense of consistency of self ismaintained. However, this ‘consistent’ self is not so fully discussed in Goffman’s

work. It is thus important to nd a way of exploring both aspects in the discussionof gay clergy.

Plummer (1995) has developed a ‘sociology of stories’. This sociology of storiesexplores interaction in terms of stories which are told. He writes: ‘Everywhere

we go, we are charged with telling stories and making meaning – giving senseto ourselves and the world around us’ (Plummer 1995, 20). This highlights thesituated/social nature of stories, emphasising their changeability which Plummer

argues is due to the involvement of teller, coaxer and reader. Thus the social

nature in itself also affects what stories can be told and where. Plummer clariesthis, arguing that stories exist within ‘the stream of power’ (Plummer 1995, 26).

Here power is understood to allow or constrain a story. How power lies withinan interaction affects the way individuals behave, and the way they choose to tell

their stories within that interaction. Therefore stories told are selectively censored

in their telling, the stories of self we tell ourselves, differ from the stories of self

we may be able to tell in different settings.




The stories that we tell are therefore affected by how we feel that story will be

received (Plummer distinguishes a successful story from a failed story in terms of

its effect upon the audience). Being able to choose when and what to say placesan amount of power into the hands of the teller. However, simultaneously power

can reside with an audience who can listen to or ignore and accept or reject whatis told. Importantly, although certain stories may be constrained publicly, they can

still be told privately. In the current example clergy might tell of their vocation, but

keep the role sexuality has in this vocation silent. It is only themselves and trustedothers who can be told the hidden story of their sexuality. ‘Hidden’ information is

skipped in stories told to a rejecting audience, but incorporated within stories toldto an afrming one.

In both Goffman and Plummer’s discussions the individual is constantly active

sieving and siphoning what is presented to others. Information which is likely to

be received well is emphasised while information which might be received badly,or affect reputation in unwanted ways, might be held back or silenced. Plummer’suse of the concept of stories is particularly of interest, for not only does it allow

us to see the very public nature of identity presentations, through the relationship

between teller and audience, it also emphasises the reexive nature of story andalso recognises the possibility of simultaneous different stories existing within

an interaction: one version being publicly presented, different to what is ‘told to

self’.

It is important to recognise that identity stories are never divorced from what isaround us. Even the stories we tell ourselves rely on our knowledge of what surroundsus and ourselves as audiences hearing and accepting the stories. Also, whether

self-told stories, or stories told to others, these stories are always ‘retellings’. They

are considered, reected upon, reorganised and edited. They involve the audience,and are shaped through the audience. For gay clergy, although their sexuality may

affect their ministry, they are active in decisions about how much they tell their

current audience about the inuence such sexuality may have. Storied identity hassimilarities to the dramaturgical approach as it allows for an understanding which

emphasises that identity can be exible, publicly being presented in different waysdependent upon the situation. This storied approach also allows for some sense

of consistency in terms of how the clergy may see themselves and, by way of

Giddens’ term, a more ‘authentic’ story of self.

Plummer’s discussion of ‘stories’ allows an understanding which illustrates

the possibility of simultaneous tellings of different stories, or the co-existence of

front and back regions, through recognition of the role of individuals’ reexivityconcerning identity stories. Although such an understanding is possible to read in

Goffman’s work, his focus on the interaction and the public presentation means thatthe concurrent different presentation to self is less fully discussed. By exploring

how gay clergy understand, or tell stories to themselves regarding their ministries,

we can see how such concurrent diverse stories exist. Still, the connection between

private and public, or front and back stage, appears to require further claricationin order to fully express the importance of this connection for gay clergy in terms




of claims to ‘authenticity’. It is hoped that the following discussion will allow such

clarication to develop.This chapter explores how a number of self-identied gay male Anglican clergy

understand their sexualities as informing their ministries, when such information

often remains hidden. Specically, the chapter explores how the clergy continueto hold connection to their sexualities allowing a consistent understanding of an

authentic self-identity. It also explores the ways in which respondents saw this

connection affecting work decisions which in everyday presentation would beshown as being often fully divorced from gay identity.

The study

This chapter is based upon data which emerged during a study of gay male Anglicanclergy’s sexual, spiritual and professional/vocational identities. The study used a

combination of questionnaire, interview and diary methods to elicit qualitative and

quantitative data relating to the life histories, day-to-day experiences of gay male

Anglican clergy, and to explore how sexuality was understood to inuence ministryin the eyes of the respondents (whether the story of sexuality was told or hidden).Twenty-nine self-identied gay male clergy took part in the study (Questionnaire(n = 29), Interview 1 (n = 14), Diary (n = 10), Interview 2 (n = 9)). At the time of

the research the respondents were aged between 30 and 65 years old. They variedin terms of how open they were about their sexuality to others, and the sample

included single men, those in a committed same-sex relationship, and those who

were in heterosexual marriages. All of the clergy who took part in the interviewand diary stages were involved in parish ministry at the time of the research. The

questionnaire stage also included individuals who were retired (n = 3), those whowere involved in chaplaincy work (n = 1), and one respondent who did not havea permanent position at the time of the research. This chapter makes use of thequalitative data which emerged from questionnaires, diaries and interviews.

The chapter begins by exploring individuals’ stories of ‘call’. These stories

provided a basis for many of the respondents to establish a connection between

vocation and sexuality in stories of self-identity. The chapter discusses the

important role these stories play for a number of respondents. Following this,

the chapter proceeds to illustrate how respondents saw their sexuality’s inuenceon their ministry both in terms of general outlook and day-to-day interaction.By exploring the respondents’ reections the chapter reects on the connection

between shown and hidden information. The chapter concludes with a discussion

of how the results presented further the theoretical concepts discussed above,suggesting ‘embroidering identity’ as a way of advancing understanding of the

relationship between self-told and publicly-shown stories.




‘Called’ as a gay man

From the initial feeling of a ‘call’ vocation and sexuality are linked in theindividual’s ministry. However, the Church’s response to gay clergy emphasises

the tension rather than the connection. This has required negotiations on the part of

some gay clergy in order to maintain and manage the coexistence of vocation and

gay sexuality. Working out this relationship due to the tension seen by institutionalChurch causes a difcult process of negotiation to emerge for some gay clergy.For others, however, thinking through the theology of call they begin to questionwhether a tension can be seen at all. The following two quotations from respondents

discussing the call and their sexuality illustrate:

If he hadn’t wanted a gay minister why did he call you? That somehow … that

is the bit that God wants! Because he wants you the person, and you the minister

to be the same person. (Luke)

The idea that God didn’t know beforehand that you were gay is just daft! As if

somehow he would throw up his hands in horror and say ‘Oh my God. GAY

CLERGY? I’m not going to do that!’ (Matthew)

All of the respondents discussed having been ‘called’ to the ministry in some

way. Nonetheless, the above quotations from Luke and Matthew take this further.In these quotations there is a connection between self and God. God is understood

to be completely aware of the individual’s sexuality, and calls them to the ministry

as gay men. The use of such argument is often primarily understood as a defence

strategy. By articulating God’s ‘hand’ in vocation the respondents connect to a

traditional understanding of call to the ministry, where individuals feel personally

called by an omnipotent and omnipresent God. Towler and Coxon refer to this as

the ‘secret call’ (Towler and Coxon 1979). This secret story has power as it is atraditional understanding which links directly to accepted Church stories of call,and it cannot be proved false by others as they remain separated from this ‘secret’

story. By incorporating such argument into their vocational stories the respondents

are nding defensive power to stand against opposition from elsewhere. Thedefensive argument is most obviously shown by Matthew’s reections above. IfGod sees all and knows all, then God must know the individual’s sexual preferences,desires and activities, and if God remains willing to call this individual to the

ministry, then who can suggest otherwise as arguing this claim is questioning the

will of God.

Accessing such argument also gives constructive power, allowing individuals toconstruct meaningful and powerful stories which connect sexuality and vocation.

Indeed, stories of call are often seen as important meaning stories. Christopherson

(1994), for example, discusses call in this way: ‘A calling is not just a job or an abstractaspect of professionalism; it is more the discovery of possibilities about oneself,insight into who one is and what one should do’ (Christopherson 1994, 234).




Understanding of call as coming from an all-knowing God adds to the implicitconnection seen by a number of respondents between their vocations and their

sexuality. As Luke’s reections suggest, it is not just that God is tolerant of theindividual’s sexuality, rather, this sexuality is in some way one of the aspects of

the individual that God is calling. Individuals are not being called despite their

sexualities, they are being called as gay men.

For many gay clergy this argument remains theoretical as they choose not to

publicly tell of their experiences. However, the stories of call as discussed in the

above quotations remain of importance to the individual as in the telling they

emphasise the acceptance of God and the role that sexuality has in their everyday

ministries. The story of call (as a gay man) inuences self-acceptance and afrmationof self-identity and ‘ability’ to be clergy. It provides access to a consistent story

of self which incorporates ‘being a gay man’ and ‘being a clergyman’. Despite

this possibility of accessing ‘t’ in personal stories, it remains true that in day-to-day performances the clergy may feel required to remain separated from their

‘authentic’ selves.

This chapter now progresses to discuss a number of ways in which the clergy

appraise their ministries and their understanding of the important role their

experiences as gay men play in the undertaking of their ministries. These reectionsillustrate how self-told stories allow continued attachment to gay identity, despite

this being hidden in day-to-day public presentations. Specically, the chapter

will explore how the clergy understand the inuence of their sexualities on theirvocational outlook, and everyday interactions. In doing so the chapter illustrateshow the clergy hold onto an understanding of an authentic self despite a number

feeling the need to hide, or silence their sexualities.

The positive inuence of gay sexuality on vocational outlook

The respondents who took part in the study understood their sexualities as havinghad a positive effect on their ministries in a number of ways. For many of the

respondents, despite the fact they could not always (if ever) be open about theirsexuality, it was always understood by them to be inuential in the decisions theymade, the goals they aimed for and the work they felt called to. This was linked tostories of call as well as retellings of experience as gay men. Respondents reported

feeling called to a ministry that was aware of others, that was inclusive, and that

recognised issues others may not choose to. This was seen in terms of justice inthe wider world and in the local community often emphasising communities seen

as outside the norm, or in some way apart from mainstream Church community.The following quotes illustrate this understanding, emphasising the continued

inuence of sexuality on vocation:




Over the years I can see that a lot of my ministry has been very much fringe

ministry … mental health, alternative lifestyles, ordination of women … because

of your experience of being marginalised you can empathise with other minority

groups. (Ian)

My ministry has always been based I think on a very strong desire to stand up

for justice in the wider world … reinforced by my experience as a gay man, and

a gay priest. (Anthony)

These quotations illustrate the respondents’ commitment to inclusive ministry,

and their desire to see justice in the wider world. Also within this ministry theyemphasise the need to reach out to the marginalised, an approach also discussed by

a number of clergy interviewed by Ford (2004). The respondents are expressing a

commitment to an understanding of Christianity which is inclusive and emphasisesthe importance of acceptance. It is a story which is acceptable to the wider Church,

and highlights the Church as charitable and caring. This story becomes publicly told

through prayers during services and the issues which parishioners are encouraged

to give money to or work within the community to help.Generally this publicly expressed story of ‘vocational outlook’ will be divorced

from a telling of sexuality. Rather it will be expressed with reference to the wider

theological reasons for Church becoming involved in such work. Of course, such

a story is by no means a ‘false’ story. It is an edited version of the story which theabove quotations illustrate is being ‘told to self’. The respondents were undoubtedly

inuenced by Church theology. However, their specic choices and commitmentsare impacted by who they are, and part of who they are is being gay. In both of the

above quotes the respondents emphasise the importance of their ministry reaching

groups which they understand as beyond the reach of mainstream Church, citing

their own experiences outside of the mainstream Church community as a primary

reason for this.

These men understand their sexualities as allowing them to add to the services

provided to the community (both global and local) by the Church. In this sense thework that the respondents undertake is fully related to and innately inuenced bysexuality. If it was not for their sexualities and the experiences the men have had

of feeling marginalised due to these sexualities the focus of their ministries may

have been very different. This belief is evidenced by the above quotations using

the language of ‘because of … ’ or ‘reinforced by … ’. It is not just that such anoutlook connects with the respondents’ sexualities. It is much more the case thatsuch an outlook stems from their sexualities.

The quotations also illustrate that Christianity was understood by a numberof respondents as relating directly to a sense of justice in the world. For theserespondents this focus on justice was also directly related to their sexualities, feelingsof injustice that they had experienced due to marginalisation or discrimination oreven related primarily to the felt need to silence aspects of who they were within

their ministry added to their commitment to justice for other people. Therefore,




despite the respondents feeling held back and discriminated against due to theChurch’s unwillingness to accept or afrm them as gay clergy, this experience, primarily related to their experiences as gay clergy, added to, shaped and inuencedthe focus of their ministries. Essentially these men understand that they provide

a very specic ministry which adds to the Church’s work, and does so becausethey are gay and called to the ministry. These stories of vocational outlook showhow the acceptable public stories told by the respondents are edited retellings

of what is understood privately. The inuence of sexuality often remains untold but it is a knowledge which is recognised and accessed by the individual. Thesesimultaneous stories can also be seen in the way clergy related to others.

The positive inuence of gay sexuality on interaction

This positive inuence of sexuality on ministry was discussed by a number of therespondents as being important in their day-to-day ‘normal’ ministries. Respondents

understood their sexualities, and the experiences that these sexualities had provided

them, as being important inuences in their choices and approaches. Many of therespondents felt they were able to meet with people in a more meaningful way

due to their experiences as gay men. The following quotations illustrate how the

‘hidden’ story of sexuality was seen to inuence pastoral interactions:

Pastorally I can exercise a hugely sensitive ministry … with a kind of insight and

a sensitivity that I wouldn’t have had if I hadn’t been gay. (Robert)

I can also see that the experience of being a minority and discriminated against

as a gay person has given me an empathy with other people who are going

through bad times. (Harold)

I feel that as a clergyman I’m able to be a bit more sympathetic and empathetic

towards other people who might not be you know quite where society … or

where church thinks they should be. (Adam)

These three quotations emphasise the very real effect that the respondents feel

their experiences as gay men have brought to their lives as Anglican clergy. Here

again the simultaneous story to self and story to others can be seen. The above

quotations argue that, due to their experiences as gay men, the clergy are able

to connect with parishioners in a way which they would not have been able to

do had they not had those experiences. In this respect, once more, the clergy areemphasising the role their sexuality plays. However, in the publicly told story, that

is, in the way the clergy present within a particular interaction, sexuality may not

feature at all. The clergyman has an ability to understand, to sympathise and to

empathise, and that might well be because of the ‘type of person he is’. However,

for many parishioners the story they hear will not have mention of their clergyman




being gay and being able to provide a sensitive ministry due to the experiences

they have had.

It is worth pulling out how the inuence of sexuality can be read in a numberof ways in the above quotes. Firstly, a ‘straight’ reading of the above quotations

emphasises the empathetic approach that the respondents have in their ministry. By

having experienced discrimination the clergy feel that they are closer to others who

may have been discriminated against, marginalised or ostracised in the past. In this

sense sexuality impacts upon approach which, in turn, impacts upon the way in

which encounters and communications are undertaken. Of course, as these quotesemphasise, this heightened awareness is not only in terms of the ‘outsider’, rather

it is in terms of the individuals being able to relate to people on a number of levels,

both in and outside of mainstream Church communities. The respondents argue

that they are more able to undertake pastoral work with congregants experiencing

difcult times due to their own experiences.Secondly, the above quotes also emphasise that for many of the respondents

understanding their ministry as reaching out to all is central. In other words the

inclusive understanding of ministry that the respondents shared was lived in their

day-to-day interactions also. Again this was narratively linked to their experiencesas gay men. This internal story of the inuence of sexuality was outwardly

presented as commitment to aiding the struggles of others, including those who

were ostracised from other traditions or congregations, for example, the divorced,

the unmarried, and those with mental illness. Such a commitment allowed theclergy to bring their ministries to places that were not being reached by others, and

once more was a way in which through stories to self the clergy could understand

they were being ‘authentically’ themselves in their public ministries, despite the

publicly told story generally remaining divorced from discussion of sexuality.

Thirdly, the quotes emphasise that without their experiences as gay men the

respondents do not feel their ministries would be as inclusive, as empathetic or as

sympathetic. Being gay and clergy does not just affect ministry, it enables ministry.Despite the feelings many respondents had that doors were closed to them because

of their sexuality, in their day-to-day experiences their sexualities were in turn

opening doors for their ministries and their abilities to reach out to people and

to bring the Church to people who needed support. The respondents’ ministries

were therefore seen as being completely different than they would have been had

they had other life experiences. For a number of respondents the aspects of their

ministries which were believed to be most appreciated by congregants were those

that the respondents felt were most fully inuenced by their experiences as gaymen. Stuart (1993b) discussed why this might be the case. She wrote:

As people who have experienced self-hatred, guilt, rejection, and loneliness on

the grounds of their sexuality, these priests seem to be acutely aware of such

suffering in others and the need to combat it by building a loving, welcoming

community. It is through their humanity and experience as gay men that they




reach out to and minister to others. Pope John Paul should be proud of them

for they t his model of priesthood perfectly, except for their sexuality. (Stuart

1993b, 101)

Importantly, the Church is attempting to meet people where they are: to provide

meaning in the modern world. The Church requires individuals to reach out to

new places, to aid individuals who otherwise may not come into contact with the

Church to be able to do so. For many of the respondents there was a limitation

in being able to do this, although they could perhaps connect with a number of

groups of people in new ways which allowed them to further the work of theChurch. Many were still very restricted in terms of reaching out to other groups

which they may have been able to do had their position as ‘gay’ clergymen been

afrmed by the Church.

Some examples which illustrate this emerged in the research process. Stewart,for example, discussed events that occurred when he joined a club near where helived:

There was a reasonably young man in the club whose parents were fundamentalist

Christians and so when he heard a vicar had joined he was very, very anti. Now

that he has met me he’s suddenly thought ‘gosh perhaps the Christian faith isn’t

what my parents have said it is!’ (Stewart)

Stewart’s experience illustrates how his sexuality has provided him with the

ability to speak to this young man and put forward a type of Christianity he couldrelate to. However, these possibilities of ministry cannot be fully realised when the

Church is unwilling to accept men like Stewart as gay clergy. A more specicallyclerical experience was discussed by Gareth:

I am friendly with a lot of people who are HIV positive. That brings you into

more of an awareness world if you like. And I’m conscious that they are talking

to me and they are alongside of me, not only as a clergyman but also as a gay

clergyman. (Gareth)

The above quotation from Gareth should be contextualised. Gareth was more

willing than many of the other respondents to be known as gay. However, hisreection emphasises how the Church approach can be seen as constraining‘closeted’ gay clergy. The ministry Gareth discusses is only possible because his

sexuality is ‘known’. By constraining gay clergy from publicly acknowledging

their sexualities in their ministries the Church could also be constraining the reachof these ministries.

Generally in these examples the respondents, as gay men, are enabling the

Church institution to meet with individuals. Nevertheless, the institutions continued

refusal to recognise this means many of the respondents actually felt they were

being held back from living out their ministries as they best could, indeed as they




felt they had been ‘called’ to do. These examples illustrate that the respondents

believe their sexualities add to, enable and shape their ministries both in terms of

outlook and practice. However, this full benet is limited by the constraint manyfeel due to having to publicly hide what they privately know.

Embroidering identity – The lasting marks and hidden threads

These above discussions illustrate how the respondents felt that their sexualities

had inuenced and enabled their ministries. At times this was obvious both tothe individual and also to others in the encounter. However, more often for many

the inuence of sexuality was obvious to respondents, although it was hiddenfrom others. The examples above allow an understanding to develop where in

such interactions as discussed there are a number of different, inter-related andconcurrent stories occurring. Often information is withheld, perhaps as a defensive

strategy (Goffman 1971), that is, allowing clergy to continue their ministrieswithout the need to face the opposition and difculties that they feel would occurif they were to tell their sexualities.

Despite withholding such information, connection to an ‘authentic’ picture

of self is maintained through self-told stories which continue to emphasise that

even ‘closeted’ behaviour is shaped and made possible by previous experiences as

gay men. This understanding of storied interaction allows diversity between self-identity and public identity within specic environments. It also gives room for thecoexistence of coherent and exible understandings of self, as despite this coherentnarrative, how we present in different situations can be extremely different –

neither necessarily being a ‘false’ self. The coherent story keeps connection to an‘authentic’ self possible. However, the connection between publicly and self-told

stories can be developed further because one is in essence an edited retelling of

the other. The stories that we tell ourselves, may be different in important and

signicant ways from the stories we are simultaneously presenting to others.The activities occurring ‘back stage’ are hidden from view, but yet they remainimportant in shaping and even directing the ‘front’ performance. Considering these

stories in terms of an embroidered picture allows the relationship to be expressed

more clearly.

Imagine a framed embroidered picture, hung against the ock wallpaper, abovethe second of the three ying ducks. Beneath the glass the intricate combinationsof stitch and colour spell out ‘Home Sweet Home’. Through patience, effort,

and perhaps with reference to a pattern, a number of coloured threads have been

stitched to form the ‘story’ of the house. The satisfaction the artist has of the picture is shown through its framing, and prominent location. There for all (who

gain access to the room) to see, is the stitched illustration of a happy home. Thisillustration publicly declares its message both to visitors and the artist themselves.

It is both a public display, and a reminder to the artist of both their happiness in the

home, and their wish to display this.




remain within the body of the picture. Therefore, whether discussed as front/backstage, told/silenced stories, or shown/hidden pictures, what emerges from this

discussion is that each are versions of the other. As such publicly told knowledgemust be understood as inuenced by what has previously been experienced. Forthe gay clergy who are discussed in this chapter, although often their sexualities

remained hidden, they shaped and coloured the presentations which were publicly

shown. Gay sexuality was for many of these men ‘the gift that dare not speak itsname’.



Chapter 2

Between Subordination and Sympathy:

Evangelical Christians, Masculinityand Gay Sexuality

Kristin Aune

In the UK, like the rest of the Western world, attitudes to homosexuality haveundergone signicant liberalisation. Religion, however, is a sphere that has been particularly resistant to sexual liberalisation. Christians are more likely than thegeneral UK population to oppose gay sexuality according to Alasdair Crockettand David Voas’s (2003) analyses of the British Social Attitudes Survey and theBritish Household Panel Survey (for similar ndings in the US, see Olsen et al.(2006)). Religion is not the only important variable that differentiates attitudesto gay sexuality. Gender and age are also important: men are more opposed to

homosexuality than women and older people are more likely to have negativeattitudes than younger people (Sharpe 2002). Within Christianity, there is a divide between liberal Christians, who tend to support sexual diversity, and conservative

Christians who believe sex should be restricted to heterosexual marriage (Crockettand Voas 2003).

Evangelical Christians, who form part of the conservative group in Crockettand Voas’s research, tend to be least likely to approve of a homosexual lifestyle.Since 2003, evangelical church leaders’ opposition to gay sexual relationships has

been the subject of high-prole debates, especially in the Anglican Church, wherethe ordination as bishops of two gay men, Gene Robinson in the US and Jeffrey

John in the UK, met with opposition so considerable that John was persuaded to

resign. Indeed, evangelicals have emerged as a group who not only disapprove

of gay sexuality – at least of involvement in homosexual genital activity – but

who are willing to campaign against its acceptance as a legitimate lifestyle for

church leaders and in wider society, as Hunt’s (2003a) work on evangelical anti-gay pressure groups reveals.

However, while the limited, mainly quantitative, scholarship on Christianity

and homosexuality in the UK provides an overview of trends, campaigns andissues, it does not reveal the degree to which evangelicals’ attitudes to sexuality

are negotiated, sometimes with signicant thought and at considerable cost,and capable of change. For instance, Courage, one of the evangelical pressure

groups mentioned by Hunt (2003a), formed in 1988 and formerly afliated withthe international ex-gay organisation Exodus International, has changed its view.




In 2001, its founder Jeremy Marks decided that he no longer believed it rightor possible for those with same-sex attractions to change their orientation. In

2002, as a result of this development, Courage had to resign as a member of the

national British evangelical body the Evangelical Alliance. Courage no longer

condemns gay relationships or tries to help gay people become heterosexual, but

instead supports gay Christians in their spiritual journeys. Additionally, in thelittle academic research and in public understandings and media reporting there is

scant recognition that even within evangelicalism, there are afrming theologians,evangelical churches that give full membership rights to those in gay relationships

and several pro-gay organisations, namely Courage (see above), the EvangelicalFellowship for Lesbian and Gay Christians (founded in 1979) and AcceptingEvangelicals (formed in the early 2000s).

Although qualitative research on the negotiation of attitudes to homosexuality

among evangelical Christians is lacking in the UK, in the US a number ofstudies have recently emerged. Some of these address how congregations (and

the denominations they belong to), a number of which were evangelical, dealtwith homosexuality (Cadge et al. 2007; Moon 2004). Tanya Erzen (2006) andMelissa Wolkomir (2006) describe the challenges facing evangelical Christianswho renounce homosexual relationships to embrace an ‘ex-gay’ identity. A keycontribution of qualitative research on evangelicals and gay sexuality is that

‘ordinary evangelicals’ – evangelicals in the church pews, in the plastic chairs

in school halls or the sofas of evangelical living rooms – do not always simplyaccept the ofcial views of their churches and denominations. Inuenced bymany factors, including a steadily secularising morality, a social consensus that a

person’s sexuality cannot be changed and by their own experiences of gay friends,

colleagues and family members, many evangelicals are showing decreased

antipathy and increased sympathy towards gay sexuality.

As Erzen’s (2006) study reveals, even outspoken and prominent supporters ofnuclear family values and ex-gay ministries seek to understand and engage withthose struggling to abstain from same-sex sexual practice. For instance, the wife of

the founder of New Hope Ministry, the residential ex-gay programme where Erzen

conducted her research, was mother to a gay son. Although she believed that gay

relationships were not part of God’s design for humankind, she maintained a closerelationship with her son, nursing his partner while he was dying from an AIDS-

related illness. As Christians come to terms with sexual diversity, a growing body

of literature, predominantly US-based, has explored how gay Christians negotiate

their religious and sexual identities (Gross 2008; Walton 2006; Yip 2005a).The title of this chapter ‘Between Subordination and Sympathy: Evangelical

Christians, Masculinity and Gay Sexuality’ points to the three central argumentsto be explored in this chapter. I will be focusing on the UK, where I conducted

eldwork and where there has been little exploration of these issues. First, thischapter will illustrate the variety of evangelical views of sexuality that transcend

stereotypical representations of evangelicals as conservative and homophobic.

Second, I will show that among evangelicals there are a variety of attitudes that



Between Subordination and Sympathy 41

are not simply condemnatory of homosexuality but combines sympathy with the

view that homosexuality is and should be a subordinate form of sexuality. Third, I

will argue that the reason why evangelicals subordinate homosexuality is that it is

considered a lesser or improper version of masculinity; this reveals the importanceof masculinity to evangelicals.

Attitudes to homosexuality in an evangelical congregation

The data that form the basis of this chapter come from my fteen-month participationobservation and interview study of a congregation from the Newfrontiers networkof churches. Newfrontiers are a conglomeration of charismatic evangelical

congregations, and I gave the Newfrontiers congregation I studied the pseudonym

Westside. Newfrontiers are the largest New Church network in the UK, havingemerged from the 1970s as part of what used to be called the House Church

movement. My research with them was primarily about understandings and

practices of gender, but sexuality emerged as an important theme so was incorporated

within the interview questions posed to twenty church members towards the end

of the eldwork period. Westside may not be representative of all evangelicals, but the utility of an in-depth qualitative approach lies in the detail of the responses

gathered. These shed light on the variety and dynamics of evangelical responses

to gay sexuality.The questions asked to church members were ‘Would you ever consider it

acceptable for a Christian to be involved in a homosexual sexual relationship? (If

yes, under what circumstances?)’ and ‘Would you ever consider it acceptable fora Christian to be involved in a heterosexual sexual relationship outside marriage?

(if yes, under what circumstances?)’. Given the well-known evangelical concernabout homosexuality, more opposition to gay relationships than to sex outside

marriage might be anticipated, but in fact there was the same level of support

or rejection for both. Out of twenty interviewees, the same eleven answered inthe negative to both. Turning to the detail of responses to the question about

homosexual relationships, eleven said that they were not, without qualication,ever acceptable for Christians. This represents a more negative response than that

of the general population (Hinds and Jarvis 2000, 112). For example:

Mm, um, I’d have to say no, not at all in any circumstances. Yeah. Well, one

reason being the Bible says not to be involved and yeah um, it’s also a touchy

issue and some people say it’s ne. I think because people are always talking

about equality and the homosexual issue and give them rights and really society’sthinking ‘let them have those rights’ but I’m not so sure. Um, yeah. (Tom, 25)

No, I don’t think I would, not a sexual relationship, i.e. they’re having sex, no.

(Ruth, 24)




Eva, who was from Eastern Europe and whose rst language is not English,mentioned the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and then added:

It’s like a spiritual sickness because God created men and women to be together,

[which] is a normal thing, because God is normal and pure. It’s [Homosexuality’s]

not normal. (Eva, 28)

Here, Eva both pathologises and abnormalises homosexuality.

Four interviewees said that it was unacceptable but that gay people should

be treated gently, shown ‘grace’ (or mercy) and ‘love’, and Christians shouldunderstand that it may take time for them to change their lifestyle when they

become Christians. According to Adam:

Um. It’s not acceptable biblically within the church for that to happen, I don’t

think, but it’s the way you deal with it is what’s important. Like it’s very clear

that it says that you can’t do that in the Bible, but it’s also clear that you can’t

do a lot of things that people do in the church. So it’s about grace, it really is,

and I think it’s one of the most important things. I don’t know if I was a church

leader how I would deal with it exactly, because it depends on the circumstances

but for example if I, cos you can have really different circumstances, it depends

is the person a new person who’s just come in, because you have to give them

time, I think it’s about God convicting people and not men convicting people, Ithink it’s about Jesus saying into somebody’s heart ‘this isn’t the right lifestyle

for you, I’ve got something better’, not the leader saying ‘you must not do this.’

I think the leader could say ‘listen, I think there’s other things but you know keep

spending time with God and keep coming to our fellowship because we love

you’ and whatever and all of this. So that’s what I think, it’s not, they should,

they need to grow in Jesus and eventually if they were listening to Jesus I believe

that Jesus would be telling them to not have that relationship sexually um and

yeah, that’s what I think. (Adam, 22)

One interviewee said homosexuality was ‘Probably not’ acceptable. Three thought

it was not the best way to live but would nevertheless accept gay Christians and

would not actively say gay sexuality was wrong. Sarah explained that while

homosexuality is a sin, God never gives up on people and will, in his timing and

with gentleness, convince people to change their behaviour:

If you’re asking me ‘is it acceptable?’ um, it’s a very difcult word to sort of, to

put to it because I would say there is grace. I would say that, there is grace. God’sgrace is amazing, and, I wouldn’t have said that to you say ten years ago, because

I didn’t know it, I hadn’t seen it, um, but I think having worked with something

like the Project [where she worked with drug addicts] you’re completely, you’re

managing people who fall all the time – I mean not that we don’t all fall all the

time, do you know what I mean – but who fall in big ways and yet, and yet you




see the Spirit of God being poured out on them over and over again and think

‘God, your love is amazing’ and you know, that is, that is true. And he, God can

reach people like that, if he wants to reach people like that, why should I stop

him? I think that, that is my perception, I don’t say, and I understand people who

would say, would nd that very hard to accept um, because I’m not sure that I

would have found it easy to accept either, say ten, fteen years ago. I would have

felt very insecure in it. I don’t think I would have known what was right and

wrong and therefore I would have felt very insecure and I wouldn’t have had,

my opinion wouldn’t have been formed strongly enough to know, so I would

have probably erred on that score. And I don’t know whether I would have said,

I don’t think I would have said they’re not a Christian, I don’t know, but I’m, I

don’t know. I’d just say the power of God’s grace is very, very powerful, and it

says, and it talks about his kindness leading people to repentance, not his wrath,

not his anger, his kindness. (Sarah, 35)

So, while the majority exhibit fairly straightforward rejection of gay relationships,these mid-range responses reveal sympathy for gay people. One important point

made by Dawne Moon (2004, 206–27), who studied the way congregations in theUS dealt with homosexuality, is that churches seem able to cope with gay sexuality

if they see it as pain, as brokenness, as a kind of wound that elicits sympathy. Butthey nd it nearly impossible to see gay people as mature and whole adults; the

data from Westside suggests that something similar may be occurring.Finally, one felt that gay sexuality was perfectly acceptable. Jenny criticised

churches’ intolerance and rejection of gay people:

For me, it’s acceptable, two people who love each other, regardless of whether

they’re homosexual or heterosexual … but I recognise that it’s not biblical,

um and I’m really relieved that I don’t have to be the judge … I know lots of

homosexuals who are very committed to each other … I can’t say whether it’s

right for them to have that relationship, I can’t be the judge of that … For me it’s

acceptable but, and I think, you know, sin is sin and sexual sin is sexual sin for

heterosexuals and homosexuals. … But heterosexuals, particularly within the

church, tend to regard homosexual sin, homosexual sex, as an outrage and an

abomination to God, whereas they see it as much more normal for themselves

to lust after others or to have affairs or whatever and nd that God’s much more

willing to forgive them than he’d be, in their perception, to forgive homosexuals

in the same situation. … I think we have to be very careful not to judge lest we

be judged and I nd the attitude in the evangelical church towards homosexuals

a lot of the time very distasteful. (Jenny, 58)

These responses provide evidence that attitudes change as a result of personal

experience of gay people or, in Sarah’s case, of people who were trying to deal

with various forms of addiction (Sarah seems to see homosexuality as a form

of addiction). The importance of experience in shaping people’s attitudes is an




observation that Moon (2004) also makes: Christians are made to re-evaluate theirattitudes when faced with friends or family members who are gay. Hunt (2003b)has commented that afrmation of gay sexuality tends to come from experiencerather than theology, and this observation is reected in Jenny’s comments. Jenny,in fact, says she recognises ‘it’ – which appears to mean gay relationships – is

‘not biblical’. But this is not necessarily evidence that evangelicals are wilfully

rejecting ‘what the Bible says’; rather, it is more likely to be a reection of thelow level of theological knowledge among evangelicals – the only theologicaldiscourse they have access to is a conservative one, and they are simply not aware

of theological arguments for gay relationships. Andrew Yip’s (2005a) work, infact, seems to show that some gay Christians have reected more carefully andtheologically on their positions.

The prevalence of homosexuality within the general population, and the

recognition that a considerable number of Christians experience same-sex behaviours and desires, has forced evangelicals to incorporate homosexuality

within their worldviews and lives. Thus homosexuality has found a place –

however subordinated and marginalised – within evangelicalism, notably through

the ex-gay movement. Many ex-gay ministries have emerged to support people

in living a celibate lifestyle or even to reorient themselves sexually and become

heterosexual. The ex-gay movement is, arguably, a kind of gay sub-cultural space:it teaches its members to see their core identity as ‘in Christ’ rather than as gay,

and yet provides men with a same-sex community where discussion of gay sexualexperiences and behaviours that would be considered ‘camp’ or ‘effeminate’ are

tolerated; it also (albeit unintentionally) provides a source of sexual partners forsome. Erzen (2006) and Gerber (2008) have gone so far as to suggest that this marksthe ex-gay identity out as queer, as an identity that destabilises gender binaries and

challenges heteronormativity. As I argue below, this claim may be overplayed,

given the way evangelicals subordinate gay (male) sexuality as a deviation from‘proper’, normative masculinity. But the key point is that gay or ex-gay Christians’

presence in churches has led homosexuality to be simultaneously recognised and

marginalised as a form of sexuality.

The importance of masculinity

So far, I have shown that among evangelicals there are a variety of attitudes that

are not always simply condemnatory of homosexuality but also combine sympathy

with the view that homosexuality is and should be a subordinate kind of sexuality.

This prompts the simple question of why evangelicals dislike homosexuality. Theargument that will be proposed in the rest of the chapter is articulated frequently

in sociological studies of other contexts but has barely been touched on by

sociologists of religion. This is the argument that the reason why evangelicals

dislike homosexuality is that they consider it to be a subordinate, improper




version of masculinity. For evangelicals, sexuality is less about genital desires or

behaviours, and more about the achievement of normative gender identities.

For evangelical Christians, gender is very important. Elsewhere, I have argued

that in the UK, the gender beliefs and practices of evangelicals have much in

common with those of the non-religious British population, but are simply a

little more conservative or traditional. For example, men are more likely to beconsidered the head of the family than in non-Christian households, and married

women are somewhat more likely to support the stay-at-home mother role. The patterns of gender found in the general population tend to be present in evangelical

churches as well (Aune 2006; 2008a; 2008b).One of the gender patterns evident in the UK and other Western populations is

that, notwithstanding increasing acceptance of gay lifestyles, gay sexuality is often

seen as an inferior version of masculinity. Men in particular seem to hold this view

and are less accepting of homosexuality than women; the way the term ‘gay’ is used by groups of boys and men as an insult by or to describe something they consider

silly or laughable exemplies this. Indeed, it is argued by sociologists that one waymen construct their own heterosexual masculinity is by contrasting themselves

with those they consider less masculine. Men say that they are ‘real’ men because

they are not gay, effeminate or weak and use their denigration of homosexualityto convince others of this. Various studies show this, for example Mac an Ghaill’s

(1994) work on how boys do masculinity at school by bullying weaker, smaller

boys and calling them gay – whether or not their sexual orientations have yet become visible. Mac an Ghaill (1994, 90) writes about how ‘heterosexual malestudents were involved in a double relationship, of traducing the ‘other’, including

women and gays (external relations), at the same time as expelling femininity andhomosexuality from within themselves (internal relations)’. Frosh et al.’s (2001)study also observes this process.

R.W. Connell’s (1987; 1995) work on hegemonic masculinity is the best-known theorisation of this argument: in Western cultures hegemonic masculinityis both an ideal that associates proper masculinity with strength, heterosexuality,

leadership and avoidance of emotion, and the process by which men actively

create heterosexual masculinity by distancing themselves from anything contrary

to this. There is also a link between this subordination of homosexuality and thesubordination of women. Men display that they are ‘proper men’ by exerting

dominance over women, gay men or men they consider to be feminine. This process

ensures the maintenance of a patriarchal system of gender difference: proper men

are those who are rational, strong, heterosexual and who avoid displays of emotion.

Women exemplify the obverse of this, and men who display alternative attributes –

such as gentleness, sensitivity or concern about their physical appearance – areconsidered not properly masculine, inferior versions of masculinity.

At Westside, like the general population, men’s attitudes to gay sexuality weresomewhat more negative than women’s. It seems that this is because opposition

to homosexuality is a component of masculinity, whereas this is not the case for

femininity. An incident that occurred at Westside demonstrates how some men




assert their own heterosexual masculinity through subordinating homosexuality.

The focus is a 28 year old man called Simon.

Simon’s comments were inspired by a visit to the group by Jeremy Marks, thefounder of Courage, the former ex-gay ministry introduced earlier who have now

changed their stance and accept gay relationships. Along with other ex-gay groups,

Marks used to advocate psychologist Elizabeth Moberly’s ‘gender afrmativetherapy’ and the thoughts he shared with the group were similar to Moberly’s; hevisited Westside several months before his change in approach. Moberly (1983,

back cover) argues that ‘The homosexual – whether man or woman – has sufferedfrom some decit in the relationship with the parent of the same sex’, and ‘there

is a corresponding drive to make good this decit – through the medium of same-sex, or “homosexual” relationships’ (Moberly 1983, 2). Absence of identicationwith the same-sex parent results in malformation of gender identity; this may, she

claims, ‘be expressed in effeminacy in the male homosexual and quasi-masculinityin the female homosexual’ (Moberly 1983, 8). The solution to meeting the unmetneeds homosexual desire signies is ‘the meeting of same-sex needs withoutsexual activity’ (Moberly 1983, 19). Moberly contends that strong, non-sexualsame-sex friendships can facilitate same-sex identication, leading to ‘healing’and a heterosexual orientation.

In a local pub two evenings after the talk, Simon referred to himself as ‘anorthern lad, a real man’. He said that at work the previous day:

A gay bloke Simon works with asked him if he wanted to go into town with him

at lunchtime, which is a big thing for blokes who work together to ask (normally

it’s just seeing them at the sandwich machine). Simon felt ne about it having

heard Jeremy’s talk. Simon says he wants to have a daughter before having a son

so he can practise on her and get it right before having a son, for whom he will

be the more important role model because he’s a bloke. (Field notes)

A week or so later in a group discussion of reactions to Jeremy Marks’ talk, heexpanded on these ideas:

Simon says he was struck by the importance of the father in the family in

afrming his son and helping him develop as a man. Simon says he’s a ‘bloke’s

bloke’, a ‘northern lad’ who’s ‘forthright, condent’ and mucks around at work

with the other blokes. There are several blokes at work who aren’t like that:

one’s gay, others are ‘perhaps a bit camp or a bit weak or too shy’ and he and

the others tend to exclude them from the ‘blokey’ mucking around because

they assume they wouldn’t be interested in joining in. But Simon realises fromJeremy’s talk that male afrmation is precisely what they need and have lacked.

He sees that he has a responsibility to be ‘brotherly’ to them and include them

and afrm them, ‘because I’m exactly the kind of bloke they’d like afrmation

from. (Field notes)




Here, Simon’s hegemonic masculinity is couched in positive terms: he is

offering friendship to his gay colleague rather than rejecting and excluding him, but nevertheless he is still establishing his own heterosexuality by subordinating

gay sexuality. Furthermore, leaving aside the utility or veracity of Moberly’s

theories, what is signicant is the way ideas like Moberly’s are being used byevangelicals in the service of hegemonic masculinity.

Throughout the interview responses and examples from Westside, an uneasy

tension is evident regarding gender construction – specically, between seeingmasculinity as an innate, God-given biological attribute that issues in characteristics

like strength, leadership and heterosexuality, or seeing it as something variable,evolving and capable of being improved upon in ways that do not have to accord

with traditional conceptions of masculinity. This tension was most evident in a

story told by Dawn, a 24 year old woman who often expressed feminist views, at

the end of her interview. The story concerns a man contemplating a sex change.

In a church I used to go to, um I noticed that there was a guy who was very small,

very slight um, very creative, er, just brilliant, but if he was in secular society

you’d denitely think, you’d denitely say he’s homosexual, he’s gay, that is it,

that’s his label. In the church he – he’s able to be a Christian and be himself. And

if Christians start to label these people, if Christians start to say ‘right, he is too

effeminate, he doesn’t t our idea of what a man should be’, then where does

he have to go, what does he have to do? … I remember listening to a speaker, aguy who actually became a Christian before he went to have a sex change and –

fascinating, brilliant stuff, because he still had all the mannerisms of somebody

you’d expect to see as quite a camp person. But he said, he challenged our

judgements, he challenged how we saw him and basically his, his whole life,

ever since he was a child, he was told ‘you’re wet, you’re weak, you’re gay’ and

so that’s the only path he saw for himself. So if churches start to put people in

these boxes then it happens …

KA: So the guy didn’t have that sex change in the end?

No he didn’t, it was er, it wasn’t like he was converted on the table or anything,

but he had been looking into God and he said ‘God if you’re there, um show

me a sign and I won’t go ahead with this sex change’ and the clinic closed and

they, and he was driving into work and he heard an announcement that the clinic

had closed and the doctors had decided that no, this wasn’t the right thing to do,

um, that it was actually quite wrong psychologically. They weren’t Christians or

anything. They were talking from a medical point of view.




… an intelligible ex-gay category facilitates the creation of a more livable space

within the evangelical world. It creates discursive and institutional space to

come out, albeit in a manner that implies not only the presence of same-sex

desire but also its renunciation, and to address issues of gender and sexuality

within the context of the community.

Yet, in the ex-gay movement and in evangelical groups like Newfrontiers, queerelements are limited, it seems, by evangelicals’ simultaneous adherence to

normative models of gender and sexuality. These models claim that heterosexuality

and hegemonic notions of masculinity are the ideal that all men should aim for.

The ex-gay identity may exist, but as a temporary, marginal position, as a non-

normative identity.

Given that evangelicals’ attitudes and practices of gender are somewhat more

conservative than the general population, it follows that if people in the general population construct masculinity by subordinating homosexuality, evangelicals

will do this even more. In this light, the anti-gay pronouncements by some

evangelical groups can be interpreted as attempts by men in anti-gay groups

to establish their own, supposedly heterosexual, masculinity. It is important,

therefore, to shift the attention onto gender as a way of understanding what is

occurring in the homosexuality debates in the public arena. Indeed, in his analysis

of the discourses informing sexuality debates in the Church of England, David

Nixon (2008, 596) suggests that ‘a theme of appropriate masculinity underliesmuch of the argument’, yet does not expand on this statement. Theological debates

about sexuality, I contend, are also ways of doing gender, and specically, doingmasculinity. Looking at debates about masculinity in wider culture, evangelicalsembraced the 1990s notion that men are in crisis, have lost their identity and need

to reclaim a more traditional version of masculinity. This also explains why they

are now expending so much energy on establishing a traditional heterosexual

masculinity. It also at least partially explains why evangelicals are almost

exclusively concerned about male homosexuality, and not about women’s same-

sex relationships. What is at stake is not so much genital sexual activity, but ratherthe creation of strong, traditional heterosexual male identities.

In sum, then, there is some diversity within evangelicals’ attitudes to sexuality.

Notwithstanding this diversity, most evangelicals recognise and tolerate, to

different degrees, those with non-heterosexual orientations. But their tolerance

is circumscribed: they sympathise with those who are trying to resist same-sex

sexual relationships, not with those who are unrepentant. Additionally, they

believe in the possibility of change: gay sexuality is an inferior manifestation of

masculinity that needs to be subordinated and, with God’s help, transformed intohegemonic heterosexuality. Gender, or more specically masculinity, provides thekey to understanding how evangelicals negotiate gay sexuality.



Chapter 3

Common Pathways, Different Lives:

The ‘Coming Out’ Narratives of Catholic Nuns and Lesbians in Poland

Marta Trzebiatowska

The convent has often been imagined and portrayed as a hotbed of sexualdepravity. Tales of debauchery between nuns and clergy abound in the medieval

and renaissance literature in Europe (the works of Boccaccio, Chaucer, and Diderot being amongst the most obvious examples). A vast number of anti-Catholic publications appeared in pre-Civil War America where the ideal of Protestant

womanhood was contrasted with sexual immorality of nuns (Fessenden 2000;Pagliarini 1999). In contrast to these works, designed to expose Catholic hypocrisyand dismiss chaste life as socially useless, there also exist historical accounts of

romantic and sexual relationships between Catholic sisters in medieval and earlymodern Europe (e.g. Boswell 1980; Brown 1984). They draw on archival materialswhere we nd evidence of same sex desire in Catholic convents and examples ofhow such instances were dealt with by the church authorities.

A more contemporary example is Lesbian Nuns: Breaking the Silence (1993),a book edited by Rosemary Curb and Nancy Manaham which is a collectionof accounts by nuns and ex-nuns who consider themselves lesbian. All the

contributors entered religious life between the 1950s and 1970s in the United

States. Some claimed to have confused vocation with sexual orientation and left

as a result. Others realised their gay orientation in the convent, yet decided to

remain chaste. In the introductory passage to the volume Curb suggests that both

nuns and lesbians are considered ‘“unnatural” but at opposite poles on a scale offemale virtue’ (Curb and Manaham 1993, x).

This shared ‘unnatural’ status of nuns and lesbians is my reason for juxtaposingthem in this chapter. The argument focuses on the social evaluation of life choices

made by Catholic nuns and lay gay women in Poland. I do not stipulate that the

two groups share identical stories, or that the judgments they face imply the same

consequences. However, collectively their narratives illuminate the heteronormativediscourse in Polish society. Neither group enters romantic or sexual unions with

men. Nuns relinquish biological motherhood to serve God (and people), whereaslesbians allegedly give up their right (and duty) to mother because of their pursuitof hedonistic pleasure. Although their motivations differ, both groups deviate from

the socially acceptable route to feminine fullment and both may face sanctions as



Common Pathways, Different Lives 55

mothers is perceived as a rebellion against the laws of nature but more importantly

as an unpatriotic act of selshness.Maternal instinct, self-fullment through caring for others and domesticity

continue to be buttressed as the desirable and inevitable consequences of being

born female by the media, the politicians and the Church. Women are almost

exclusively dened by their romantic and complementary relationships with men(Mizielińska 2001). In 2008 only 23 per cent of Poles spoke in favour of singlelifestyle (Boguszewski 2008) and it is believed that nancial strain is the onlyobstacle to women’s inherent desire to give birth. Although the traditional model of

femininity may have been reshaped by the cultural, social and economic shifts, the

core aspects of what it means to be a woman in Poland remain intact (Twardowskaand Olczyk 2005). These strongly rooted assumptions have profound implicationsfor both the Catholic sisters and the lesbians whose experiences are discussed in

the next section.

Joining a convent as a form of disobedience

In his overview of vocational patterns in Poland, a Polish sociologist and priest,

Józef Baniak shows that three quarters of priestly candidates received supportfrom their families (Baniak 1997, 136). Although the title of his book The

Dynamics of Priestly and Convent Vocations suggests an analysis of nuns as wellas priests, Baniak rarely includes Catholic sisters in his account. Often, the phrase‘female vocations’ is tagged at the end of the paragraphs describing male calling.

Therefore, it is hard to determine what percentage of nuns’ parents matched those

of the priests’ in their positive response overall. One thing is clear: in my group of

interviewees relatively few women met with encouragement and support for their

decision.

It would be reasonable to think that choosing a consecrated life in CatholicPoland is highly approved of and a cause for pride for close relatives. Catholicism

pervades public and private lives of Poles. In 2001 98.3 per cent of Polish people

declared their membership of the Catholic Church, and 53.4 per cent describe their

relationship with the Church as close (Borowik and Doktór 2001, 68–9). It is alsotrue that the families of at least three to ve out of the thirty ve sisters welcomedtheir decision with joy and supported them throughout the process. On averagethose sisters who came from the ‘ultra-Catholic’ parts of Poland met with approval

and support from their family.2 In these regions, divided into small and closely

knit communities, priestly and convent vocations are highly valued, which exerts

2 For instance, one of my interviewees came from the South-East of Poland referred

to as a ‘land of vocations’. In her village, over two-thirds of young men her age entered

seminaries to become priests thus fullling the role expected of them by their community.The long-standing tradition of extreme religious piety and an implied obligation to replenish

priestly ranks produced a setting in which spiritual capital is an asset. Contrary to the rest




a different type of pressure on the potential candidates: should they withdraw from

the consecrated life, they may be ostracised in their social circle.

Nonetheless, even in such areas, personal concern for the future of children rules

over people’s devotion to God – an attitude which to a certain extent demonstrates

the power of the immediate social group and the latent hold the local community

has over its members. Hence, Sister Karolina’s (37 years old) reservations when Imentioned the high levels of piety in her home region:

Yes, I know that the region I come from is ripe with vocations but making a

decision yourself is not that easy and despite the generally positive attitude (of

the local community) there is still this mentality of ‘oh no, she’s becoming a

nun! She is not getting married!’

Thus, despite the existence of what might be called the Polish Bible belt,twenty ve interviewees overall encountered serious objections on the part of theirfamilies. In these cases the informants provided long, complex and often dramatic

accounts of their route to the convent. The reactions they received ranged from

sadness and disappointment to anger and violence.

Of course, such parental disapproval of a child’s decision to enter religious life

is not conned to a singular cultural context or historical period. For instance, insixteenth and late seventeenth century France the cases of sons and daughters who

joined religious orders against their parents’ wishes were common occurrences(Diefendorf 1996; Rapley 1994). The distressed parents went as far as turning to thePope, bishops and even the courts for help. In contemporary Taiwan, for example,

Buddhist nuns face criticism from their families because of their renunciation of

motherhood and family life (Crane 2004). Parental reactions are affected by thechanging historical context. Thus, for instance in Ireland, both convent candidates

and professed nuns were widely revered and vocations encouraged prior to the

late 1960s. When new avenues of mobility opened up for Irish women, religious

life seemed like a waste of time to many parents and their reactions grew morenegative (McKenna 2006, 205).

Although, as mentioned above, a few Polish sisters in my study reported

positive responses to their choice, the majority of parents disapproved of it. Noneof my ten lesbian interviewees recalled a positive reaction to their coming out. A

variety of these negative responses need to be discussed in order to give justiceto the diversity of ‘coming out’ stories. For the purpose of my analysis, I use

the phrase ‘coming out’ to describe the act of taking on an identity which is atodds with specic cultural expectations and the active exploration of this identity

through choosing a particular life route. The term originates in gay and lesbianstudies and is argued to ‘give expression to the dramatic quality of privately and

publicly coming to terms with a contested social identity’ (Seidman et al. 1999, 9).

of Poland, in this village (and to a certain extent the whole region) priestly vocations arecelebrated with pride by families of the clerics.




It is appropriate here in the sense that both Catholic nuns and gay women are often

perceived as queer by their environment.3

‘Coming out’ as an aspiring nun, ‘coming out’ as a lesbian

The moment of coming out to the closest family members – the parents – caused

both groups most distress. The reactions described by my interviewees offer some

clues as to the way in which the discourse of ‘real’ femininity is constructed in

Poland. The nuns and the gay women realised that their identity was socially

fragile and in need of validation. In order to make a case for themselves they hadto prove that their choice was not simply a phase or a whim that would pass with

time, as many parents later suggested. It is for this reason that Sister Miriam (53)

kept her decision a secret from everyone except for her mother. She feared thatshe might not last in the convent and she was not willing to explain her failure to

people:

I didn’t tell anyone I was going to join because I was worried that I’d go back

out. I was 25 and I realised that if someone leaves the convent, then it leaves a

mark on their personality in a way, so I didn’t even tell my father. Only mum

knew – this is very meaningful in my biography. I entrusted my mum with this

secret but none of my ve sisters knew.

Sister Miriam stayed in the religious community and she gained parental

approval after it became obvious that she would not back out. The processunfolded differently for my gay interviewees. They usually waited until they

formed an established relationship with another woman before they revealed their

orientation to others. They argued that this way they pre-empted possible criticism

from their family because they secured strong evidence of commitment to their

sexual identity. Mariola (26) said that she wanted to sound credible:

I didn’t want them to think it was just a phase or a whim. The fact that I had a

girlfriend I loved and had a sexual relationship with was like … You know, like

proving that I really was gay.

Although the more perceptive parents could detect signs of what was to come,

their sentiments were rarely articulated. At most the suspicions some had about

their daughters’ possible career choice or sexual orientation were voiced in the

form of nervous jokes. Sister Monika’s (26 years old) family made it clear that herincreasingly pious behaviour was an object of concern:

3 In this context, by queer I mean ‘a resistance to regimes of the normal’ (Warner

1993, xxvi).




At a family gathering, my aunt said: ‘Let’s hope you won’t become a nun!’ The

whole family picked up on it and they were always worried I might join.

Prior to her coming out Karolina’s (28) parents also indicated their awareness ofher difference:

Every time I left the house to see my partner my dad would ask if I was off to

see my boyfriend and my mum would just mutter under her breath: her girlfriend

more like …

Thus, early on the women’s difference was quietly noted by both sets of parents

and family members.

What can be referred to as a hit-and-run technique was frequently adopted by

both groups. The burden of their secret and the growing tension in the family meantthat the women could not withhold the information any longer and the coming out

moment was a spontaneous decision. Subsequently they would disappear from the

house for a few hours, or even days, leaving the parents (although most often the

mother) to digest the news. Sister Jolanta (28) laughed when she described herstrategy:

I said to mum: ‘I won’t go to university because we don’t have that much money,

so I will earn some this year and actually … no, you know I wanted to tell youthat I’d like to go to a convent and now I need to go to see my friend but we can

talk when I get back!’

The event unravelled almost identically in the case of a gay interviewee, Marzena

(30), who informed her mother that she was a lesbian and then

… literally ran out of the house and returned two days later. I stayed at my

girlfriend’s and waited for the worst to be over.

Fear and guilt emerged as the pervasive theme in the sisters’ and the gay

women’s stories. It came as a surprise in the case of the former group as I expected

Polish parents to endorse a life route characterised by core Christian values. I did

not hold such hopes for the second group of my respondents, however. It was

intriguing to nd that the two radically different life choices were judged in avery similar manner: as socially inadequate. Several mothers and fathers were

simply deeply upset and sad. For Sister Joanna (45) it was the rst time she had

witnessed her father cry. Karen’s (22) mother also ‘cried and chain-smoked for twodays’. Other parents became aggressive and verbally abusive, which according to

both groups of interviewees was caused by embarrassment and shame over their

daughters’ difference. Sister Monika (26) recalled: ‘when I became a nun dadtold me they were ashamed of me. They hid it from the neighbours and at work’. Aneta’s (21) mother was also ‘worried that someone would nd out (she was gay).




Because mum’s main problem was what other people would think and that theywould ruin our life if they knew’.

Both groups of my interviewees valued their parents’ opinion and advice and

they were disappointed when they could no longer rely on it. Sister Rosaria’s

family (24) responded badly to her news of joining the convent. For her: ‘it washard at home because it is normal that if parents don’t accept something then

it’s problematic. You feel misunderstood because you need support from them’.

Similarly, Agata (28), the gay informant, recalled the pain of rejection by herfather: ‘… the only person I thought I could always rely on let me down. My

father disowned me, at least emotionally. He said he didn’t care what happened to

me or to her (my girlfriend)’.

Making sense of the ‘abnormal’

The parents’ hopes of ‘normal’ future for their daughters were undermined. After

the rst wave of emotions had passed they attempted to make sense of the news.The life paths their children chose were incongruent with social expectations in

Poland. The parents did not want their family to be stigmatised. The Catholic

sisters and the gay women speculated on the reasons why their decisions were

received so unsympathetically and evaluated so negatively. Both groups invoked

the culturally specic discourse of ‘normal’ femininity. Sister Karolina (36) said:‘to put it very simply, getting married is normal. Come on girl, you’re so many

years old, do something with your life! Get married!’ Agata (28) experienced thissentiment directly when her parents and relatives questioned her allegedly single

status: ‘they asked me questions such as: when are you going to get yourself a fellaand get married? What’s wrong with you?’

So far the controversy over coming out has revolved around abnormality and

shame brought on the family by the women’s declared difference. But what is it

exactly that qualies these interviewees as abnormal in the eyes of their parents?Both groups were charged with a voluntary renunciation of motherhood. For

instance, Sister Augustyna’s (31) sibling criticised her for giving up the chance to be a mother in order to become a nun:

My sister, who was married at the time and who had a child, could not understand

how I could forego the opportunity to start a family and to be a mother myself.

She still says to me: ‘How can you do this? I could do without my husband but

my son is the biggest treasure I have got!’

The implication here is that not only should women become mothers but that

nothing else can give meaning to their existence in the same way. As a Polish

queer theorist puts it, ‘(in Poland) a woman does not have to be wife, but shehas to be a mother in order to full her purpose in life’ (Mizielinska 2001, 290).Whereas Catholic nuns enter religious life on the assumption that they forego




motherhood in exchange for their vowed status, it is not necessarily the same

trade-off situation for gay women. However, to many Polish parents declaring

one’s gay orientation was tantamount to their conscious rejection of procreation,and thus a woman’s natural destiny. Huma’s (31) mother asked: ‘how it was

possible that I didn’t want children. She couldn’t understand it. She said it was

abnormal’. In both quotes biological motherhood resulting from heterosexual

intercourse functions as the only conceivable option for Polish parents. But just‘as the experience of motherhood is complex and varied, so is the experience of

non-motherhood’ (Letherby 2002, 8). Thus the interviewees themselves arguedfor alternative versions of motherhood. The nuns engaged in spiritual mothering,

and the gay women spoke of their plans for adoption and articial insemination inorder to form non-heterosexual families.

The next stage of the coming out process for both groups of women involved

the parents’ efforts to convert them back to normality. The informants referred tothese strategies as guilt-tripping. Because of the relative strictness of convent life,

the sisters are not able to keep in close contact with their families. In Poland, familyties remain central to people’s lives: in a 2008 survey seventy eight per cent quoted

family happiness as the most important value for them (Boguszewski 2008). Thefamily serves as a support network where every member is obliged to contribute.It is not surprising then that the nuns were deemed ungrateful and neglectful of

their duties as daughters. Sister Maria’s (18) father tried to stop her from joining a

religious order because she was an only child: ‘(Dad) said he wouldn’t let me go because who would stay at home and take care of them when they got old?’ Gaywomen in turn were accused of destroying their parents’ world with their deviant

behaviour. Krystyna (27) recalled her father’s reaction as particularly dramatic:

He claimed his life had ended. He wouldn’t accept a birthday present from a

‘lthy lesbian’. He kept saying that I was slowly killing him and my mother, that

they didn’t celebrate Christmas anymore, that I ruined their lives.

Thus, both groups were judged as selsh and devoid of compassion for the wellbeing of their families.

A less confrontational and accusatory response was to judge the women as untfor convent life. The personal qualities which did not accord with the stereotype

of a Catholic nun were seized upon as evidence of unsuitability. Sister Asia’s (25)father:

Claimed that I wasn’t suitable for this and that I would blow up the convent

or something! Why did he say that? Well, because I am very energetic andtemperamental.

In the view of many parents, nuns were quiet and complacent. Their daughters

were not, so their calling could not be genuine. A similarly xed stereotype of alesbian operated in the imagination of the second set of parents. They were surprised




and shocked because the daughters had not displayed signs of homosexuality before. A good example is the story of Theresa (29) whose mother:

… started shouting. She said it was abnormal and that I had never been ‘like

that’ before. Like what? Oh, you know … I guess she meant butch and, um …

sexually … aggressive.

It is important to note that the stereotype of a nun implied in the argumentation

is the quiet, submissive, feminine and docile person. Gay women are imagined as

masculine and sexually predatory not least due to the association between deviance,

masculinity and lesbianism created and reinforced by sexologists Krafft-Ebbing

and Havelock-Ellis (Newton 1984). Both models are extreme caricatures.Finally, some mothers and fathers engaged in long-lasting arguments with the

women during which they questioned the quality of their own parental skills. They blamed themselves for inadvertently pushing their daughters into making a drasticdecision about their future. Sister Dominika (33) said:

My mum’s friends all told her it was her fault because there was no love in my

family, in my home. Yes, she prayed for vocations, but she did not want one in

her own family.

Two potentially contradictory points are evident in this quote: the assumptionthat Sister Dominika’s desire to pursue her vocation resulted from her search foremotional ties; and her mother’s support for Catholic nuns in general. Religiousvocation became problematic when personalised. In the case of my lesbian

interviewee, Mariola (26), it was the father who took the blame but the reasoningwas slightly different. He thought:

It was his fault because he had been too dominant and strict when I was younger.

He said maybe he tried to toughen me up too much.

Yet again, the stereotype of masculine lesbians returns when gender and sexual

orientations are conated.Both groups of women wanted to be taken seriously because they realised that

the relatively radical nature of their choice would work against them. Indeed, theiridentity was trivialised despite their efforts to validate it. In some cases, the parents

decided to seek a professional diagnosis of the abnormality they suspected in theirdaughters. Traditionally, a strong desire to enter a religious community has been

associated with personal weakness and escapism. The commonly found lack offamiliarity with convent recruitment procedures (a long and multi-stage process)often leads to the assumption that a religious vocation is simply an indicator of a

troubled and socially maladjusted personality. Similarly, Freud’s account of femalegay orientation casts it in terms of sexual immaturity (Lesser and Schoenberg




1999). Sister Anna’s (39) mother attempted to inuence her choice by appealingto professionals:

My mum had two holidaymakers staying with her – two psychologists, and she

persuaded them to talk to me. One said she had wanted to join too and then she

got pregnant so maybe I should wait and see what happened.

In this extract, Sister Anna’s choice is construed as the last resort. She is a woman

who has given up on the world and wants to lock herself away in the convent.The prospect of motherhood is presented as a saving grace. When Agata (28)

and her father visited a psychologist, the advice was different although equally

dismissive of the woman’s self-proclaimed identity. She recalled that:

The guy conducted all the personality tests and the results turned out completely

normal. And then he advised me to start cheating on my girlfriend with men

because he had a client who was married and he had three [female] lovers, which

apparently was really good (for his well-being)!

Thus, when the test results did not to deviate from the norm as expected, Agata

was instantly constructed as someone in need of exploring her sexual options.

Her actual voice and feelings are ignored and her relationship with her girlfriend

belittled.When all the above-described attempts failed, most parents resorted to other

means. In the period prior to the Second World War some family members were

reported to distract the aspiring nuns by bringing eligible bachelors into the family

home, or in some extreme cases by arranging marriages without consulting the

young women. One of the sisters I spoke to ran away to the convent on the day ofher wedding because she felt that married life was not her vocation. Obviously,

the tactics have changed to match the cultural and economic shifts in Poland and

the younger interviewees pointed to subtle bribing as a commonly used distraction

technique. Sister Joanna (45) worked in one of the Polish national parks before shedecided to become a nun and she enjoyed local tourist activities but she could notafford to go abroad:

I wanted to go to Greece. My aunt said: ‘we’ll give you the money for this trip.

You’ll go and maybe you’ll change your mind about this whole convent thing’.

This and other sisters’ families saw entering a religious order as the ultimate

end to hobbies and simple pleasures. Enabling the women to experience thesewas meant to make them realise what they would be giving up. In the case of thegay interviewees, the process was more straightforward. Dagmara (29) becameromantically involved with a young woman from an upper-class backgroundwhose family refused to acknowledge the relationship. Unlike in the previouslycited instances, the girl’s parents opted for gentle persuasion: ‘they promised to




acts, behaviours and identities as dened by the State and wider society’ (Kitchinand Lysaght 2004, 84). In Poland the requirements of good sexual citizenship areunderpinned by Catholic morality. Women who have not given birth, be it because

of infertility or unwillingness, are perceived as non-women as they have failed to

achieve the supreme physical and emotional qualities assigned to the experience

(Ussher 1992). That is because ‘in most societies to choose to remain childless is perceived as somehow “unnatural”, so deeply inscribed and culturally scripted areessentialist ideas of womanhood’ (Miller 2005, 58).4 As a result, childlessness is

attributed a negative quality and in consequence: a negative identity. It follows

that childless women may be stigmatised, questioned, or patronised (Veevers

1980). Motherhood, on the other hand, is a gateway to maturity and respectabilityand consequently to a full sexual citizenship. Polish women are ‘good’ citizens

when they participate fully in the heterosexual order.

Beyond sacred and profane

In the Durkheimian sense Catholic nuns belong to the sacred and gay women tothe profane in the Polish society. The two are heterogeneous realms which are

‘profoundly differentiated or … radically opposed to one another’ (Durkheim 1954,38): individuals can never belong to the world of the sacred without completely

leaving the realm of the profane and vice versa. However, what brings these twogroups together, despite obvious disparities, is their status as failed women in Polish

society. Polish women have been described as ‘hostages of destiny’ meaning that

they are chained to the biological stereotype of femininity by the patriarchal order

(Platek 2004). Catholic nuns and lesbians appear to be fugitives from this destiny,although the consequences of committing to alternative femininities are not easy

to bear. All women who voluntarily opt for lives without reproduction strike manyPolish people as socially unt.

It should be pointed out, however, that when the post-coming out dust

settles, chastity for religious reasons is judged more favourably than same-sexrelationships. After all Catholic sisters belong to an inuential religious institutionwhich validates their choice in the eyes of even the most judgmental membersof the general public. Even if their personal lives do not constitute a piece of the

heterosexual matrix (Butler 1990), they condone it in theory. Gay women have nosuch safety net. Their existence undermines the Polish nation-project as they refuseto conform to its basic requirements. Therefore they are silenced, or stigmatised

(Mizielinska 2001, 293). Despite these differences between Catholic sisters and

4 Motherhood has been described by most women as: mandatory (it is normal for

women to become mothers at some point in their lives), as a symbolical key to adulthood(women acquire an adult identity once they have had children), and as conducive tocultivating successful relationships with others (the child, the father and the family circles)(Woollett 1991).




gay women, one point remains: regardless of the form it assumes, subversion of

femaleness carries various degrees of social stigma in Poland.



Chapter 4

Bisexual Christians: The Life-Stories of a

Marginalised Community

1

Alex Toft

Bisexual Christians remain an under-researched population. The lack of researchinterest may stem from bisexual Christians dual minority status. Firstly within

a secular ‘community’ which may be perceived as negative towards religiousfaith. And, secondly, as a minority interest in LGBT religious groups which focus

primarily on ‘gay’ issues. Recent debate regarding sexuality and the Anglican

Church concerning the elevation of gay priests to Bishops (Jeffery John in 2003

was nominated for the post of Bishop of Reading, later withdrawing) has beencontextualised as focusing upon the issue of homosexuality rather than the broader

implications regarding human sexuality itself. The concept of bisexuality and the

life-experiences of bisexual people highlights societies continued struggle to see

sexuality as anything but monosexual (exclusive attraction to members of one sexonly). The negotiations and choices open to bisexual Christians differ substantiallyfrom gay and lesbian Christian, hence the need for a nuanced understanding of

what it means to identify as both bisexual and Christian, as will become apparent

throughout this chapter.

After presenting an overview of the context in which the research projectresides, the chapter moves forward to look at how bisexual Christians understand both their sexuality and spirituality and the complex negotiations which take placein living with sexualised religiosity. The chapter concludes which an exploration

of how bisexual Christians respond to the pressures of scriptural traditions and

Ofcial Church guidelines within Christianity.The study is located within three broad sociological elds: (1) The study

of human sexuality (namely bisexuality) and the self-denitions applied byrespondents in order to understand their own sexuality; (2) the exploration of thelives of bisexual Christians specically focusing on what aspects of bisexuality are

problematic for the Christian Church and the negotiations which occur in order to

gain access (if required) to the Church. Finally; (3) the investigation of Christianity

from the perspective of ‘non-heterosexuals’, how religious identity is constructed

1 The data from which this chapter is drawn is part of an ESRC funded PhD research

project. I would like to thank the ESRC for their support. I would also like to thank theindividual respondents without whom this research could not have taken place, and mysupervisors Dr Andrew Yip, Dr Esther Bott and Dr Victoria Gosling for their support.




by individuals who have historically been denied access to institutionalised

Christianity. These three areas all impact on, and inform the study therefore it is

necessary to briey consider the literature in these areas.

Locating bisexual Christians

Although once ignored in academic discourse (Rust 2000), both research andtheoretical dialogue regarding the lives of bisexual individuals is steadily increasing.

Fox suggests that bisexual academia is now at its highest peak throughout thehistory of social theory (originally stated in Fox 1996 and later conrmed in Fox2007). Yet bisexuality is elusive and denitions are eeting, resulting often inhighly personalised understandings. Contemporary theorists present a re-alignment

of denition away from the work of Kinsey (1948) and his associates towardsa more practical empowering standpoint for those actively dening themselvesas bisexual. The emphasis has moved from viewing bisexuality in terms of

combinations of masculinity and femininity or a combination of both heterosexual

and homosexual desire which it has been suggested Kinsey effectively does (Rust

2004), towards bisexuality being a positive sexual identity in its own terms.The work of Storr (1996) highlights such a progression with the production

of a four-phase history of research into bisexuality beginning with bisexuality as

a gender schema as the initial phase. Here bisexuality is heavily inuenced bythe work of Wolfe (1989) which sees deviation from masculinity (in men) andfemininity (in women) as bisexuality. Such denition has been discredited ongrounds of the re-enforcement of essentialised gender stereotypes (see Weeks1986), but should not be dismissed solely on these grounds. Following this phase bisexuality is often classied in terms of its relationship with heterosexuality andhomosexuality, suggesting that it is a not a distinct sexual orientation, rather a

combination identity. Modern theorisation has sought to reject such standpoints,either through radical denition or more conservative suggestions. The goal ofthose unwilling to embrace radical possibilities has been to establish bisexuality as

a valid sexual identity which has been tragically ignored by key sociologists. Eadie(1997) argues that Plummer’s unwillingness to explore bisexual stories in Telling

Sexual Stories (Plummer 1995) demonstrates society’s unwillingness to engagewith bisexuality. The focus of such theorisation has been upon understanding

bisexuality as the potential or ability to be physically, emotionally and spiritually

attracted to members of any sex. Rust (2004) argues that any stricter denitionrenders bisexuality exclusionist and inaccessible even to those who dene

themselves as bisexual.More radical possibilities have been controversial, with Garber (2000)

suggesting that bisexuality is more than just a sexual identity, that it can showeveryone the full potential of human sexuality, bisexuality is the end-goal for

all human sexuality. Rust (2004) has inferred that bisexuality could indeed bethe missing piece of the sexuality puzzle, allowing people across genders and



Bisexual Christians 69

sexualities the freedom to interact with each other. This is done through the

rejection of gendered attraction and has been furthered recently through the workof Baumgardener (2008) who suggests because female sexuality is uid otherattributes (such as humour or intelligence) play a greater role in attraction than

physicality or the persons sex.

Research exploring bisexual Christians in isolation from other sexual minorities

is an emerging area, featuring the book Blessed Bi Spirit (Kolodny 2000) and a small but growing body of online publications from the Whosoever Magazine.2 Focusing

primarily upon personal experiences and autobiography, research has highlighted

the problems in accessing religion based upon scripture but not with regards to the

negotiation of sexual or religious identity in any detail. Although previous workhas suggested bisexual Christians have struggled for inclusion through the use of

afrming hermeneutics and re-interpretation of the Bible (Maneker 2001; Reasons

2001; Udis-Kessler 1997; 2008), it does not address how bisexual Christians haveunderstood their sexuality and spirituality.

Such a conclusion would be an over-simplication of the literature availableand it is unfair and problematic to suggest that, although including bisexuals into

the LGBT milieu has not shown the distinct struggles due to the reluctance to

isolate the experiences bisexual individuals, such research is a vital base for the

current study. In fact, such research is of prime importance because it highlights

the plight of communities who are viewed as ‘others’ (outside the heterosexual

dynamic) by the Church. The work of Thumma (1991), Wilcox (2003) and Yip(1997b; 2000; 2005a) particularly resonate with the themes of the current study.Thumma suggests that previous research on religious identity negotiation has

overly exerted more radical solutions to identity dissonance such as leaving one’s

faith and/or nding another, ignoring the more subtle and complex negotiationsthat take place (Thumma 1991, 334). Using the symbolic interactionist perspectivewhich stresses ‘It is through the interaction of self and society that meaning systems

are created and sustained’ (Thumma 1991, 334), he suggests that individuals oftenconstruct ‘core’ identities which they use to organise and make sense of their otheridentities, therefore simply discarding religion is not an option. Thumma suggests

that three main negotiations must take place: Firstly, convincing gay EvangelicalChristians (in this instance) that it is permissible to alter your belief systems withinthe Christian framework. This is followed by a re-evaluation of Christian doctrineand an emphasis on teaching the ‘true’ meaning of the Bible. Then nally thestage integrating the new identity through interaction with other Evangelicals and

general social interaction (Thumma 1991, 339–41).The work of Yip is important in understanding how non-heterosexual Christians

have viewed their sexuality and spirituality, and how they have attempted to gainaccess to institutionalised Christianity. Although space does not permit a review of

all of Yip’s vast body of research, the piece Attacking the Attacker: Gay Christians

Fight Back (1997b) is particularly relevant to the study as it shows the techniques

2 <www.whosoever.com>.




used to justify the possession of the identity ‘gay Christian’ (in this instance). Thedocumented strategies are:

‘Attacking the stigma’ – as a scripture based religion Christianity

places signicance on the infallibility of the Holy Bible, therefore non-heterosexuals have to: (a) question traditional interpretations of the Bible;(b) focus upon other Christian values and teachings ahead of sexuality; and(c) challenge the context and compatibility of such passages.‘Attacking the stigmatiser’ – The focus here is the authority of the Churchas messengers of the word of God, a general mistrust that the Church has

got this issue wrong.

‘Positive Personal Approaches’ – Questioning the Churches understandingof sexuality and denying the relevance to one’s own life.

‘Ontogeneric argument’ – Sexuality is created by God and therefore allsexualities are valid and as acceptable as each other (adapted from Yip

1997b, 117–23).

Wilcox has furthered these techniques by presenting a more exible and uidapproach to Christianity. The notion of the ‘Bible Buffet’ seems pertinent here

with the suggestion that non-heterosexual Christians take part in a spiritual ‘pick’n’ mix’ in order to take on board aspects of Christianity which t with their sexual

identity (Wilcox 2003). Here sexual identity is implied as the ‘core’ identity withspirituality moulded to t. Numerous examples exist in relation to research into bisexual Christians as collected by Kolodny (2003) with contributors callingthemselves: Zen Catholic Pagan, Wiccan Quaker, Budeo-Pagan, and Zen BuddhistQuaker.

Unlike previous research, the current research project links the diversity of bisexual experience with the negotiation of religious identity. Rather than a strong

bias on religious negotiations the scope is twofold: an exploration of bisexuality

and how it is negotiated and dened in order to t with religious identity, thisaspect highlights the unique situation in which bisexual Christians nd themselves.And the techniques used to gain access to institutionalised Christianity; how do

bisexual Christians understand and shape their religious identity?

The study

Drawing upon data collected from a national survey of 60 self-identied bisexual

men and women, the research was designed to collect information regardingsexual and spiritual lives whilst also being exploratory in nature due to the infancy

of the research area. Distinctly divided into the two separate yet entwined stages

the research began with a questionnaire stage, collecting data through postal and

electronic means, 60 of these were completed and returned. Stage 2 consisted of

1.

2.

3.

4.




very loosely semi-structured interviews, where respondents were given the full

opportunity to tell their stories whilst I guided the ‘conversation’.

Bisexual Christians are a minority within a minority in that the space that

they occupy within the religious sphere is almost completely invisible; they canoccupy both conventionally heterosexual Church communities and also religious

communities which are seen as gay and lesbian, without being forcibly ‘outed’ as

being bisexual. In the example of the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) thecongregation is often non-heterosexual but any further investigation may lead to

‘outing’ bisexuals against their wishes. Therefore a representative sample of this

‘hidden’ population is unobtainable (e.g. Heaphy et al. 2004), emphasising the needfor constructive sampling (examples being snowballing or respondents actively

advertising or passing on my details to potential respondents) and an advertisingcampaign had to be developed. As no specic ‘ofcial’ bisexual Christian groups

exist, advertisement through non-heterosexual magazines, internet news-sites,mailing-lists, support groups/network, MCC (Young) Lesbian Gay ChristianMovement ((Y)LGCM) and other ‘open-armed’ Churches took place. Somereligious support groups were used but also several groups rejected my advert as‘un-Christian’, particularly Evangelical organisations that saw the term ‘bisexual

Christian’ as a contradiction.

In addition to such substantial advertising personal contact networks were usedand snowballing was very effective through Stage 1 respondents. The questionnaires

that were sent out were accompanied by an ethical statement which respondentshad to read and sign, at this point they could opt to take part in stage 2. Theethical statement/consent forms were returned in separate envelopes for security

reasons. Although the research sample for the questionnaire stage was recruited

evenly across the differing groups the majority (27) were recruited through non-heterosexual groups/organisations where the members happened to be Christian,

although the members were not necessarily exclusively Christian. This is followed

by MCC Church members (10). With such a seemingly small population it wasnot possible to be overly selective with choosing which respondents to interview,

all those who indicated an interest in taking part in Stage 2 were taken up on theiroffer.

The gender divide of the sample was evenly split with 29 men taking part and 31women. The age-range was from 18 to 64 with the majority in the 18–30 category(32–53 per cent). Seven ofcial denominations were represented: Anglican (14:23 per cent), Methodist (6: 10.0 per cent), MCC (10: 16.7 per cent), Unitarian (1:1.7 per cent), Evangelical (2: 3.3 per cent), Quaker (1: 1.7 per cent), Catholic (5:8.3 per cent) and Russian Orthodox (1: 1.7 per cent), along with those respondents

who were not afliated with any denomination (20: 33.3 per cent). It is importantto note that of those with no ofcial denomination 19 (95 per cent) never attendedChurch or did so only on special occasions. The sample was located throughout

the UK with the majority located in London (14: 23 per cent), this was followed by Yorkshire (6: 10 per cent), with the rest of the UK providing a few respondentsin each locality. It could be stated that the overwhelming amount of the sample




would dene themselves as white, privileged and middle-class. Forty-four per cent of the sample had degrees and 91 per cent were either students, retired or in full-

time employment, none of the respondents were unemployed, and a massive

majority (98 per cent) described their ethnicity as white British.

Of this 60 a further sub-sample of 10 were selected to take part in the interview.Due to the limited amount of respondents it was not possible to be selective and

respondents were interviewed because of their willingness to be interviewed. Six

men and four women of ages ranging from 19–63 took part. The respondentswere varied in their Church attendance with some regularly attending; otherswere struggling to nd a religious space in which to locate themselves and two in particular completely rejecting the need for participation. From this it is importantto note that the sample can never be truly representative and generalisations are

unrealistic, although the data and analysis presented here highlight the need for as

specic bisexual understanding of Christianity.

Negotiating bisexuality

The aims of this section are two-fold: To explore how bisexual Christians denetheir sexuality – self-denitions of bisexuality, and to understand how respondentssettled upon such denitions in order to identify as bisexual and Christian –

adapting bisexuality.

Self-denitions of bisexuality

What bisexuality is remains unclear, and its denition varies from person to

person. (George 1993, 103)

Bisexuality by its very nature and conceptualisation is full of uncertainty,

exibility and multifaceted meaning, and is both heralded and criticised for this.Hemmings, for example, states that bisexuality is too diverse to dene (Hemmings2002, 124). This has resulted in rather personalised/individualised constructs of

bisexuality. The following table gives an indication of how respondents view their

own sexuality.

Table 4.1 suggests that bisexual men and women are not unanimous in deningtheir sexuality and there cannot be a one size ts-all type denition, although formany respondents simply understanding bisexuality as a sexual and emotional

attraction is often sufcient. This is a common denition that appears within the

literature:

People who experience the desire of emotional, sensual and/or sexual relations

with people of both sexes, though not necessarily at the same time. (Off Pink

Collective 1988, 90)




From the research there are four main ways that the respondents preferred to see

their sexuality: (1) In terms of a rejection of gendered attraction (2) as a combinationof heterosexual and homosexual desire (3) as a way of dissolving binary thinkingwith regards to gender and sexuality or (4) a more practical approach which usesthe term ‘capacity’ (or ability – derived from the work of Rust (2004)) to illuminatethe issue.

Baumgardener (2008) understands the idea of rejecting gendered attractionas attraction/intimacy/love with an individual(s) without concern of specic

physical or learned characteristics such as the sex of the individual. The sex of

the individual is not as important in entering into relations (of any kind) as otherfactors such as intelligence and sense of humour. Bisexuality threatens to disrupt

‘maleness’ and ‘femaleness’ because it has been argued that this seemingly goes

against the understanding of Christian sexuality in terms of ofcial doctrine andscriptural evidence. Therefore a more uid viewing of human sexuality wouldforce a re-evaluation of Church policy. This was a common occurrence with my

respondents in both the questionnaire and interview stages:

I try to live as genderless as possible (this is not to say that my partners are

androgynous because they are not), in that I don’t go out looking for a man ora woman, if it happens then it happens. (Penny, a 32 year old female Methodist

from the London area)

Table 4.1 Number and percentage of respondents who answered ‘true’ to

the following statements

StatementEntire Sample

(n = 60)Male(29)

Female(31)

(A) I am more physically attracted to membersof the same sex

18 (30%) 10 (16%) 8 (26%)

(B) I am more physically attracted to membersof the opposite sex

11 (18%) 5 (17%) 6 (19%)

(C) I prefer to have sex with members of theopposite sex

10 (17%) 5 (17%) 5 (16%)

(D) I prefer to have sex with members of thesame sex

15 (25%) 7 (24%) 8 (26%)

(E) I feel more emotionally attached tomembers of the opposite sex 8 (13%) 5 (17%) 3 (10%)

(F) I feel more emotionally attached tomembers of the same sex

13 (22%) 4 (14%) 9 (29%)

(G) None of the above apply to me 27 (45%) 14 (23%) 13 (22%)




Yeah there were certain things about either sex that I’d nd attractive by looking

at people, and they were specically aimed at a certain sex. So this developed

towards the end of my High school time, but I guess that’s why I’m monogamous,

I don’t need to have both sexes because I’m just attracted to the person, how I

relate and interact with them. (Jim, a 26 year old male from the Midlands, with

no ofcial denomination)

The second nding links to the third phase of Storr’s plan as discussed in theliterature review, as respondents struggled in dening their sexuality without usingheterosexuality and homosexuality as reference points. Respondents considered

themselves to be made up of varying degrees of homosexuality and heterosexuality;it was their way of dealing with an identity which nds itself either in-between oroutside of what is socially recognisable. Some of these respondents used this to

divide their lives into stages with times that they were gay and others when theywere straight to result in a bisexual life.

These bisexual life-paths were in the minority, and those who spoke ofthemselves in relation to homosexuality and heterosexuality did so in order to

distance themselves, arguing that bisexuality is in fact distinct and potentially

more radical than this:

It’s much more than that. Bisexuality is about breaking down the boundaries

between sexualities and what it means to be a man and woman. It’s not being a mixof those though. (Nicola, 20 year old female with no ofcial denomination)

I struggle with this but, a person’s sexuality should have no bearing, there should

be no categories. (Phillip)

A fourth nding is directly informed by the work of Rust, who tentativelyunderstands bisexuals as being ‘able’ to have romantic relationships with members

of either sex. Rust argues that in reality most bisexuals view their sexuality as

the ‘capacity’ to be attracted to members of both sexes (Rust 2004, 216). Thistherefore does not rely on experiences or personal sexual history which would

possibly exclude some identifying as bisexual. Further to this ‘sexual attraction

to, or romantic feelings toward, another person does not necessarily imply that

one would enjoy having sex with that person …’ (Rust 2004, 217). Therefore sucha denition would have to encapsulate the fact that a sexual relationship couldoccur. Denitions often fail to recognise the radical logical end-point to the workof Rust, who it seems is suggesting that bisexuality itself is the end-point of human

sexuality and it is the position which people should attain to reach, therefore trulyfullling their potential as human sexual beings.

Although some people would say I am predominantly straight I have been

involved with men in the past and continue to have thoughts about men (just as

I do with women). (Alf, a 52 year old man from Manchester)




I don’t believe that attraction should be limited to members of the opposite sex,

doing so is denying ones fully potential. (Jo, 39 year old from Derbyshire)

Adapting bisexuality

Having presented the trends and commonalities from the research in regards to

how respondents understood their sexuality, this chapter progresses to look at howthese denitions are used in order for a positive identity of ‘bisexual Christian’to be created. Respondents suggested three clear ways in which their sexualities

helped them to access institutionalised religion and allow them to integrate their

identities. I will deal with them individually for the sake of clarity:

1. By seeing bisexuality as a combination of heterosexuality and homosexuality

respondents managed coming out strategies and used closeted identity techniques,effectively separating their spiritual and sexual lives.

The mental processes which bisexuals have to contemplate in relation to their

sexuality and belonging to a Church are often very complex and the management

of these processes can often have extreme consequences. For example, there are

practical negotiations and assessments that must take place before the individualis able to come out as bisexual. If then it is not possible for the individual to ‘come

out’ and be accepted within their denomination then how do bisexuals reconcile

their sexuality with a Church that does not accept them? Adam sees his sexualityas a divided self; his ‘self’ is literally split into two halves, one heterosexual andone homosexual:

… to take my point from earlier on. I am choosing … in relationship terms …

I am choosing to go in the gay direction, so I am choosing to leave behind the

straight relationship possibility …

For Adam, seeing himself as split in two in, this way is a coping strategy

in a society that cannot grasp those with attraction to members of both sexes at

the same time. Adam understands his bisexuality as almost two distinct forms

of sexuality combined and did not mind describing himself as either gay or

straight throughout the interview. This ties in with the Anglican Church’s ofcialstandpoint on bisexuality which notes that in order for bisexuals to be accepted

into the Church they must choose to be heterosexual because that is the nature of

bisexuality (Church of England 2003, 283). This of course is not made a Churchissue by Adam as he is not actively ‘out’ within his religious community but it is

an internal struggle for which he has developed his own coping strategy. Thereis further evidence to suggest that bisexual Christians can use closeted identity

techniques in order to survive within institutional Christianity. Cornelius, a 44

year old Roman Catholic states the following:




I think most people in the congregation would probably be ok with it. But I think

the clergy would denitely not be ok with it. I don’t think, the current pastor, he

would say anything, unless I made an issue of it.

Although in principal the Roman Catholic Church would oppose his sexuality,

in allowing people to believe that he is in fact heterosexual, Cornelius avoids the

difcult issue of being ‘out’ within his religious community by allowing the pastorto believe that he is heterosexual by not overtly promoting his same-sex attractions.

This is a common trend, with respondents feeling that being open and honest about

ones sexuality would often be ideal but in practical terms it was too difcult:

I don’t think that many people are aware. Certainly not forced me to come out

at all. I think though if I did I would need to walk away, I think, I’m fairly sure.

(Adam, a 63 year old Anglican from the Hampshire area)

In this instance the act of actively being out was not an option for Adam if he hoped

to stay at his chosen Church. There is a personal choice here to separate his sexual

and spiritual identity in order for him to continue with his religious journey.Table 4.2 shows that respondents were very wary to discuss their sexuality

within a religious context and most of them were not ‘out’ in that their priest or

the congregation had not been actively told about their sexuality. Apart from the

fact that bisexuals potentially face discrimination or exclusion because of theirsexuality, respondents also argued that it was not a matter open for discussion,

partly because their sexuality was a private matter but also because they did

not feel that they were dened by their sexuality. A common statement was thatrespondents were Christians who happened to be bisexual, indicating that they felt

their core identity to be their religious selves.

Table 4.2 To whom are you out as ‘bisexual’?

Entire Sample(n = 59)

Male(29)

Female(30)

Everyone 10 (17%) 3 (10%) 7 (23%)

Everyone apart from my religious community 9 (15%) 4 (14%) 5 (17%)

Just partner 26 (44%) 14 (48%) 12 (40%)

Just friends 9 (15%) 5 (17%) 4 (13%)

Just family 2 (3%) 2 (7%) 0

No-one 3 (5%) 1 (3%) 2 (7%) Not out in their religious community 49 (83%) 26 (90%) 23 (77%)




2. By suggesting that because bisexuality does not rely on an individual’s sex to

form relations (of any kind) it is therefore outside of the Church’s understandingof sexuality in general.

To elaborate, the respondents and the life-stories they gave seem to imply that

the very idea of bisexuality highlights a aw in the understanding of how peoplerelate to each other as highlighted by Thatcher and Stuart:

… bisexuals undermine the whole sexual system, the neat classication of people

into homo and hetero, the pathologizing of homosexuality as a heterosexual

disorder and so on. (Thatcher and Stuart quoted in Church of England 2004, 34)

The existence and frequency of bisexuality in society suggests that the

understanding that heterosexuality is the norm with homosexuality being a tolerated

error where sexual desire is inverted. The very concept of bisexuality rejects all pre-conceptions about sexuality, of which the Anglican Church seem to be fully aware. I

quote at length to fully appreciate the magnitude of the issue being discussed:

Instead it is bisexuality that is the norm. Most people have both heterosexual

and homosexual tendencies and it is only social pressure that stops more people

from accepting or expressing their homosexual ones … If accepted, this theory

means that any argument advanced against homosexuality on the basis that

heterosexuality is the norm, loses credibility, and it becomes much more difcultto maintain that God’s intention was that people should be heterosexual. (Church

of England 2003, 34)

Although still refusing to see bisexuality as a distinct sexual identity and

aligning the argument with rather out-dated research conducted by Freud where

bisexuality is the stage before a sexuality is formed (successfully in the case of

heterosexuality or incorrectly for homosexuality), such deliberation shows thatthe Anglican Church is aware of such an argument but clearly does not pay it any

serious credence.

3. Bisexuality represents the ideal way to live and relate to people. Taking the lifeof Jesus Christ as the ideal template for human existence, respondents argued that

the relationships and the ethos expressed in Jesus’ teachings was bisexual.

Although contentious such an argument has been put forward previously by

with the idea of ‘outing texts’ (Yip 2005a, 57), where respondents suggestedthat the Bible had been heterosexualised, quashing the possibility of same-sex

relationships in the Bible. Although the relationships between David and Jonathanor Ruth and Naomi were seen as afrming of non-heterosexuality, bisexualChristians were more interested in the characteristics of Jesus and his relationship

with people throughout the Gospels which respondents saw as being bisexual in

nature, and sexual conrmation of this is not required. Richard, a 46 year old manfrom the London area saw his bisexuality as a gift from God which had given




work of Layder is most interesting here, with the suggestion that although we havemore choices to make and we have to use individual insight to make such choices,such a situation may not be entirely healthy. But in his discussion of loneliness

Layder argues that spending adverse time on your own actually destabilises self-

identity rather than preserving it:

In this respect social contact is necessary to generate a sense of membership,

belonging and inclusion. Other people provide us with a conrmatory sense of

identity that we may not be able to provide for ourselves. (Layder 2004, 107)

Embracing this line of argument, Hope is using her religious community to

gauge herself and to stabilise her identity. Conversely the questionnaire stage

of the research shows that bisexual Christians have to privatise their spirituality

because of the uncomfortable sitting position of their faith with their sexuality,although this does not necessarily mean that they have been expelled from the

Church or walked away from the Church. They have adjusted what Christianitymeans to them and re-located their beliefs into a self-constructed belief system,

using Christianity as an over-arching structure with certain morals and values that

are useful and still salient in society.

Christian beliefs and practices

The overriding theme which comes from the research is that bisexual Christians

believe Christianity is about the promotion of good moral values and following the

teachings of Jesus and the Gospels, rather than the Bible in general. Therefore the

respondents viewed their religion as something very personal, for them Christianity

was a matter of personal reection and meditation. Of the entire sample 75 percent felt that being Christian meant having their own time to privately contemplate

their religion. In this respect Christianity is seen as rather more agnostic for the

bisexual respondents with internal contemplation plays a dening role. This wassupported by the qualitative data:

I do believe we can … communicate with God, that’s shorthand. God is not

removed from this world. So if prayer means anything that’s what it’s about

… a conversation that happens in the unconscious. There are times when I

just stop and try to listen … to work something out. (Phillip, a Methodist from

Oxfordshire)

I use prayer as a silent time to be with myself and to be closer to God. I feel morecomfortable when I do that. For me it’s a way of talking to God, it’s a big part

… You nd God by spending time with yourself like that … (Michael, a 27 year

old man, who has not attended Church since he was 18)




God as a supernatural entity was played down by the respondents and there are

numerous ways of expressing this:

I think my spirituality will always be linked to the natural world and the world

at large, I love people watching. I go into town and look at people, at their faces,

look at what’s going on. You walk down the street and there is God. I don’t nd

that in the programme of the Church. I read the Bible and the gospels, and that

seems to be what Jesus was about, just wandering around, outside the structure

of religion. Actually talking to people about the world … (Phillip)

Although raised in a nominally Christian family Phillip trained to be a priest and

considers himself a very spiritual person, yet he has become increasingly frustrated

with the Churches preoccupation with sexuality and division of people categories.

Phillip did not stop regular Church attendance because of the Methodist Church’sunderstanding of sexuality (although this contributed) but because the loss offocus within the Church. Here the Church and Philip’s understanding of the way

Christianity is taught does not reect his own personal experience with God.

I was looking at wanting to see changes in people’s lives, changes in people

living more liberated lives in the love of God. I found the Church to be more

like a prison with me as a prison warder. More that kind of issue, and I had to

conform to that sort of institution. (Phillip)

Phillip wants to belong to a Church which is more concerned with ‘bigger’

issues. He recently began to attend Quaker meetings to address this as he feels thatBritish Quakers are more focused with the issues that are of more importance tohim. There is an aim here to de-centre sexual categorisation and the importance

of sexuality in general in the Church’s teachings, although bisexual Christians do

this in a different way to gay and lesbian Christians because of the unique position

of their sexuality there are denite parallels here with the ‘Attacking the Stigma’technique as highlighted by Yip (1997b):

And I am just unhappy with the way people are pigeon-holed and pushed into

boxes by society. Because if you look around there is a uidity of other behaviour

… and an understanding of behaviour which is based on who they are. (Phillip)

Christianity for the respondents therefore is about being in tune with oneself

rather than being God-fearing or rigid about one’s faith, exemplied by a wariness

towards priests and pastors and the role that they play within Christianity. Numerous respondents rebelled against the traditional understanding and role of

the priesthood as bringers of God’s message. Kimberley, a currently non-practising

Methodist spoke passionately about this:




The God I feel is more real and I must admit I’m going on feelings way more

than the Bible. Or everything I’ve ever been preached, or maybe it’s the sum

total of everything I’ve ever been preached. I just don’t know. But I just know

he feels real and loving and not condemning and I just can’t imagine him making

me choose. I mean choosing between 2 people … If it is wrong then let God deal

with it. They don’t go on a Sunday morning and go through every single sin that

you could possibly commit. If it was wrong, and I can’t believe anything would

get me to believe it was … no, can’t, let God sort it out. Don’t be so obsessed,

let it go!

Within specic denominations the individual has to either re-assess theteachings of the Church or practice what Wilcox has labelled the ‘Bible Buffet’

(Wilcox 2003), where individuals take what they need from the religion and re-

interpret the meaning. The case with Evangelical Christians is particularly validhere who traditionally rely upon scriptural authority as a central tenant of their

belief system. This happens within individual religions such as Christianity,

appearing regularly in the questionnaires although in less radical form. In a section

where respondents were asked to elaborate on their reasons for practising on theirown one respondent stated:

I am Christian and believe in God but I have never felt the need to attend Church

(after leaving school). I know what I believe and believe what I want to believe.There is a lot of good in the word of God and I take what I want from this. (Jim,

a 27 year old, non-Church goer, from the Staffordshire region)

In distancing themselves from organised Christianity the respondents were

able to worship privately and construct what felt ‘Christian’ to them. Kimberly,

a 29 year-old Methodist woman, spoke that the God she found within organisedreligion was not the same God that she ‘felt’. Although Kimberly felt that she should

be part of a religious community she had become disillusioned about the image

of God that her Church was portraying and felt hypocritical for attending. This

strong emphasis on personal reection/meditation over Church attendance showsthat bisexual Christians have placed greater emphasis on individual ‘spirituality’,

questioning the Christian tradition of Church attendance as an integral part of

one’s faith, although this nding is not exclusive to bisexual Christians as Yip(2000) shows. What is distinguishing is that gay and lesbian Christians continue toattend Church weekly (80.3 per cent) (Yip 2000), whereas bisexual Christians arefar more staunch in their rejection of authoritative structure with only 31 per cent

attending weekly. This gure is also skewed because of the MCC respondents whoalmost exclusively attended Church weekly. Further to this there is the suggestionthat MCC members do not attend simply for traditional Christian worship but for

the support network perspective of the MCC. One respondent noted that she leftthe MCC Church because it felt like a support network for gay men and lesbians:




I recently attended MCC (Metropolitan Community Church) – a gay led

congregation. They were totally geared to lesbians and gay men only, and they

were also very family orientated. If you had one [a partner] of the opposite sex,

you were pretty much ignored and dismissed. (Jessica, a 28 year old female with

no ofcial denomination)

It would seem that a number of respondents did not see the MCC as traditional

‘Church’, and that attending MCC services was not a true religious experience, due

to the ‘happy-clappy’ congregational practice and the diluted nature of the religious

worship. Almost all of the interview respondents understood the importance of the

MCC as a temporary Church. Delilah a 21 year old Evangelical summarised her

experiences with the denomination:

… the MCC Church is not a settling down Church, it’s more of a passing through

Church, a Church to come to when you feel you can’t go back to you own. To

build up faith and then go back, its not like as he said a place to settle.

Responses to ofcial texts and scripture

With regards to spirituality the respondents often aligned themselves with

arguments put forward by gay and lesbian Christians, primarily because theycould potentially be in same-sex relationships although they identied as bisexual.They also felt the need to do this because of the invisibility and powerlessness they

felt as bisexual men and women, in standing alongside the gay responses to the

Bible there in a sense of resistance against the interpretation of the Bible which

condemns any relationship that does not result in monogamous heterosexual

marriage and cohabitation, or indeed any deviation from the ‘norm’. In this respect

they viewed sexuality in terms of sexual behaviour (specically the act of male onmale anal penetration) as the Bible appears to, as they had the possibility of beingsexually active with members of the same-sex. The interview respondents were

all well-versed in the passages of the Bible which are seemingly less than positive

about homosexual acts/relations. One respondent in particular, John, spent a good

deal of time dealing with each passage specically and arguing how it had been both misinterpreted and taken out of cultural context. As discussed previously thisis a strong eld within the literature and respondents felt as bisexuals they neededto have a standpoint on the passages within the Bible.




Table 4.3 below shows the broad responses from the questionnaire-stage with

regards to the Bible.

Bisexual Christians believe that the Bible is still of use for them, with only 12 per

cent of the entire sample agreeing with the statement that the ‘Bible is incompatible

with modern life’. However, there appears to be a contradiction here as 57 per cent

of respondents argued that the Bible was indeed negative to people who were

not heterosexual. This statistic is more accurate when combined with statement

(A) of Table 4.3, in that the respondents felt the Bible was misinterpreted andfurthermore the Church does not understand what bisexuality is. The interview

stage was used extensively to elucidate upon this seemingly hypocritical situation.

Respondents felt that whilst the Bible appeared negative on the surface it was due

to incorrect interpretation on the part of authority gures and preachers, statingthat the message of the Bible had been corrupted. This ts with the protestationthat Church structure and authority is inexible when it comes to scripture. Delilahspoke of how she was concerned that her Church would not accept any otherreading of the Bible:

I spoke to people who knew in-depth the Bible from both sides and neither sideconvinced me, and I was like, well doesn’t that say something. Doesn’t it say

that if it was clear cut then clearly it would be clear cut, but it didn’t. So I went

back to them and said, look the Bible could be interpreted as saying both things,

and they were like no (laughs) we believe the one interpretation.

Table 4.3 Number and percentage of respondents who answered ‘true’ tothe following statements

Number and percentage of respondents who‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’

Statement Entire Sample Male Female

(A) The Bible is often misinterpretedwith regards to sexuality

52 (87%) 25 (86%) 27 (87%)

(B) The Bible is negative towardsnon-heterosexual relationships 34 (57%) 18 (62%) 16 (52%)

(C) The Bible is incompatible withmodern life

7 (12%) 4 (14%) 3 (10%)

(D) Christianity is intolerant of bisexuals

38 (63%) 17 (59%) 21 (68%)

(E) Christianity persecutes bisexuals 36 (60%) 18 (62%) 18 (58%)

(F) The Church does not understand bisexuality

53 (88%) 24 (83%) 29 (94%)




Another response to the Bible is to embrace the teaching of Jesus rather than

the Bible as a whole. Cornelius argued this:

… but the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament. I think. Because if

we are going to take all those things from the Old Testament, as valid today,

oughtn’t we keep all the others? Oughtn’t we not be eating meat and milk on

certain days. We ought just be eating Kosher food. And keeping all those laws.

Whereas, the new Testament fulls the Old Testament, doesn’t it …

For numerous respondents the Old Testament was too full of contradictions and

behaviours that were not even practised by the strictest Christians, exaggerated

further by the fact that human sexuality had been given so much prominence.

Numerous respondents spoke passionately on the subject:

It makes me so bloody angry that the Church is hypocritical, and they will use

this excuse of ‘well the Bible says’, and it’s cherry-picking. A comparable thing

is slavery; the Bible probably says more about slavery and supports the idea

of slavery, than it does about gay sex. But the Church these days conveniently

forgets about those bits in the Bible, but hangs onto these few scraps about gay

sex. (Adam)

The ofcial standpoints of the Church denominations to which the respondents belonged were not particularly well-known in that the local-level of religiousexperiences was given most importance. Although several respondents stated that

they noted that the structure of the Church to which they belonged would not

be accepting, it was a matter to be dealt with in Church. Adam’s story here is

particularly fascinating as his wife upon hearing his ‘story’ forced him to discuss

the issue with their local priest. The priest recommended counselling, but after

counselling Adam went back to the Church and the issue was never discussedopenly again.

Concluding thoughts

This chapter has shown two main things. Firstly, that bisexual Christians have

been forced to re-evaluate what it means to identify as bisexual and has highlighted

the negotiations that have to take place in order to identify as bisexual andChristian simultaneously Secondly, that respondents conversely had to re-assess

what Christianity meant to them often against the traditional viewpoints of theirindividual Churches and denominations.

Being both Christian and bisexual situates the individual in a precarious

theoretical quandary enclosed within the binary understanding of human sexuality

with no space for negotiation. Homosexuality is therefore justied as God-given just as is heterosexuality, leaving bisexuality as being seen to actively deny the




choice to be heterosexual. Individuals are understood to be in a state of confusion,

or to use Freudian language, in a state of arrested development, where they have

failed to healthily progress into heterosexuality. Such a predicament has led to

several outcomes. By separating their sexual and spiritual lives bisexual Christians

have been able to ‘act’ heterosexually within religious spheres. Although such a

statement is highly contentious and not exclusively true for all respondents for

many within strict denominations it was the only way to continue a religious

life as a bisexual man or woman. Such a separation was not ideal and created

great inner conict which I uncovered particularly in the interview stage of theresearch. Respondents often wished for a religious community in which to form

their religious self in harmony with their sexual self.

Although being bisexual and Christian can lead to a privatisation of faith it

is not the case that the respondents championed the idea of total relativism or

individual agency. Bisexual Christians who chose not to attend Church, whileexpressing the postmodern ethic of de-traditionalisation and less reliance on

over-arching structures (such as organised religion), did still rely on Christianteachings, usually in the form of the Bible. Access and participation is acquired

through careful negotiation of what it means to be both sexual and spiritual, which

involves reassessing what the Christian faith and bisexuality as a concept actually

mean for bisexual Christians.



Chapter 5

Transgendering Christianity:

Gender-Variant Christians as VisionariesAndrew Kam-Tuck Yip and Michael Keenan

In recent years, ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender’ (LGBT) has been a well-established phrase employed in discourses of gender and sexual dissidents who

constitute the ‘Other’ to the normative ‘male/heterosexual’.1 Nonetheless, a closeinspection will reveal incontrovertibly that ‘transgender’ – as with ‘bisexual’ –

is often a tag-on, playing secondary role to ‘lesbian’ and ‘gay’ (Toft in this

volume; Toft forthcoming; Weiss 2004). Politically, there is a strong argumentfor such incorporation of transgender issues within broader LGBT activism,

despite the unequal attention and understanding. However this taken-for-grantedusage poses ethical concerns, because its continued domination of the social and

political agenda actually marginalises transgender and bisexual people. Further,

the distinction of sexuality and gender identity illustrate the need for a specicdiscussion of transgenderism separate from debates on sexuality and sexual

identity (Watts 2002).Complementing Toft’s chapter in this volume about the specic plight of

bisexual Christians, we wish to turn the spotlight on transgender Christians. On

the outset, our task is met with a signicant challenge. According to our extensivesearch, the burgeoning body of social scientic literature on transgenderismgenerally ignores the religious/spiritual dimension. Sociological research in this

area has adopted various approaches – feminist, lesbian and gay, and queer – but

1 We acknowledge that ‘queer’ is also increasingly appended, thus LGBTQ. Indeed,the longest acronym we have come across in this respect is LGBTQIQ, with ‘I’ being‘intersex’, and the second ‘Q’ being ‘questioning’. We decided to limit ourselves to LGBTin order to be consistent with the title and remits of this book. Further, we also think that,while the spirit of inclusivity that underpins the expansion of this acronym as the ‘Other’

to the normative ‘heterosexual’ is laudable, such an attempt is fraught with conceptual

ambiguity, and indeed inaccuracy. Some would argue, for instance, ‘queer’, in its strictest

sense, should cover all people regardless of gender and sexual variation (thus includingheterosexuals), because of their commitment to dismantling any form of gender and sexualcategorisation and codication. On the other hand, ‘intersex’ should be subsumed within‘transgender’. There are political and ideological biases in the debate and employment of

such terms. Sometimes, what is rhetorically inclusive could be exclusive and exclusionary

in practice (e.g. Bindel 2008; Yip 2005b). Such a debate, however, is outside of the remitsof this chapter.




with little mention on the role of religion/spirituality on transgender identities

and lives, with the exception of Sell (2005) and Kidd and Witten (2008), whichwe shall discuss later. On the other hand, literature that does address this topic

specically is often theological, advocatory, or anecdotal in nature.Within this context, this chapter will address some empirical and conceptual

themes, with the intention to enrich cross-disciplinary understanding of, and

encourage more research interest in, this grossly under-studied area. We begin

by offering a nuanced picture of transgenderism as a diverse phenomenon and

lived reality. This is followed by an analysis of conservative Christians’ censure of

transgenderism, particularly transsexuality. Focusing on the efforts of transgender

Christians themselves, the next two sections discuss their attempt to engage with

the Bible in creative ways so as to de-stigmatise their identity, to construct space

for acceptance, and to incorporate their religious and gender identities. Through

these creative endeavours, they offer a broad vision of an inclusive religiouscommunity, within which they can nd acceptance and to whose corporate lifethey could contribute. Such a vision is supported by an emerging network ofsupport and pressure groups, which offer signicant social, cultural, and politicalresources to individual transgender Christians and their community.

The multifacetedness of transgenderism

Transgenderism is a broad term that encapsulates various forms of cross-gender

behaviour, trajectory, and identity, which are not xed and mutually exclusive.These expressions generally include: (1) transsexuals, who wish to change their

biological sex through sex reassignment surgery and hormonal treatment; (2)transvestites, who cross-dress either on a full-time or part-time basis without the

intention to change their biological sex; (3) transgenderists/bigenderists, who

choose to live permanently in the role of the opposite gender – and not merely cross-

dress – without the intention to change their biological sex; and (4) intersexuals

(traditionally called hermaphrodites), who are born with physical, hormonal, andchromosomal aspects of more than one sex (e.g. Cromwell 1999; Ekins and King2006; Hines 2007a; Mollenkott 2007; Nataf 1995; Sheridan 2001; Tanis 2003).

While some transgender people cross gender boundary by switching gender

category (thus still upholding gender binarism), some go further to subvert whatthey perceive as essentialist and socially constructed gender categories, which

religion plays a signicant role in legitimating and perpetuating. In other words,they seek to transcend monogenderism: the ideology that an individual could –

and should – only comfortably inhabit one gender category. This ‘transgendering’of gender is illustrated by King and Witten (2008, 42) who report respondentsidentifying as ‘sex change’ and ‘transgender’, rather than ‘male/female’. Similarly

while discussing intersex gender identity, Looy and Bouma (2005, 169) identifyclaim to ‘third’ gender and the inhabitation of a ‘genderless state’ amongst

transgendered individuals. Indeed, such ‘gender-bending’ or ‘gender-transcending’



Transgendering Christianity 89

is only required due to the prevailing gender stories in society. As we shall discuss

below, in certain cultures, spaces for gendered ‘Others’ are well established. This

understanding of the social and cultural construction of transgenderism is well

articulated below:

One question that is regularly raised by intersexed and transgendered persons,

and by some feminist scholars, is whether it is our strongly gender-dichotomized

culture that creates ‘disorders’ of gender identity. In a context where everything

from pronouns to dress to expected interests and roles is dened as either female

or male, people who do not feel comfortable in either of the two available

categories indeed have a problem. But is the problem the context or the person?

(Looy and Bouma 2005, 171, their emphasis).

In terms of sexuality, transgender people are often erroneously consideredhomosexual. However, research evidence incontrovertibly shows that their sexual

identication spans the sexuality spectrum. Hines (2007a; 2007b) reports thather respondents identify themselves as ‘heterosexual’, ‘homosexual’, ‘lesbian’,

‘gay’, as well as ‘bisexual’. Interestingly, the majority of her non-heterosexualrespondents identify themselves as ‘bisexual’, rather than ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’,

primarily because the former seems to allow more space for the expression of the

uidity and exibility of sexuality. It is also important here to note that for many

transgender individuals, the concepts used to report ‘sexuality’ lack accuracy, asthey are based on a binary view of gender which many transgender individuals

wish to subvert or transgress. Also, the basis of such labelling of sexuality requires

a judgement to be made about ‘true’ – and mono – gender. Thus, is a transgenderindividual’s sexuality based upon the gendered body s/he inhabits or in terms of

her/his lived sex/gender? In other words, labels of ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’

rely on a binary and essentialist understanding of male/female which does not

easily incorporate a number of aspects of transgender experience.

Watts (2002) emphasises that transgenderism is primarily an issue of genderrather than sexual identity. The distinction between transgender identity and sexual

identity is further underlined by Shrock, Holden and Reid (2004). They discussa support group wherein transgender individuals distance their discussions from

talk of sex or eroticism, emphasising the gender in transgender. The group avoidsdiscussions of sexuality, and even more directly, screens out ‘those interested

in sexual thrills’ (Shrock, Holden and Reid 2004, 68), thereby emphasisingtransgenderism as related to gender rather than sexual identity; and indeeddistancing the group from comparison with sexual minority groups.

Historical and anthropological studies have convincingly demonstrated thattransgender people have a signicant existence in human societies. Joan of Arc,for instance, is widely considered the patron saint of transgender Christians

(Feinberg 1996, 1998). A cross-cultural inspection will also reveal the existence oftransgender people in different cultures, such as the berdache in Native American

society, the hijra in Indian culture, the acault in Myanmar, the katoey in Thailand,




the mahu in Tahiti, and the sworn virgins, Albanian women who dress and work asmen though are socially acknowledged as the ‘Other’ to men. What is signicantin these cultures is that the insistence on rigid gender dichotomy is less apparent

compared to Western or Christian cultures which demonstrate stringent self-

surveillance and social policing of appropriate bodily performances and social

roles. These transgender people are generally considered ‘two-spirited’ or ‘third-

gendered’, with some being accorded spiritual signicance (e.g. Deihl 2000;Elliston 1999; Munro 2007; Reddy 2005; Sell 2005; Young 2000).

There is no doubt that in a culture undergirded by monogenderism and

monosexism (the ideology that one can – and should – only be attracted to one

sexual partner at a time, which often problematises some forms of bisexual

attraction), transgender people encounter a huge amount of prejudice anddiscrimination. This is evident in both the heterosexual community (e.g. Witten

2003; Moran and Sharpe 2004 for a more detailed discussion of hate crime againsttransgender people); as well as the lesbian and gay community, where it is evenmore ethically problematic, given the assumption of inclusivity in the LGBT label,

as we have mentioned (e.g. Bornstein 1994; Namaste 2000; Tanis 2003; Valentine2007; Weiss 2003).

Hines (2007a) rightly contends that lesbian and gay as well as feminist identity politics often concretise monogenderism. Many gay men, for instance, insist, for

themselves and their partners, on being ‘straight-acting’, namely masculine as

heterosexual or ‘real’ men should be; as if being effeminate (perceived as feminine)would undermine the ‘respectable’ masculinity they share with heterosexual men.

From this perspective, the presence of a cross-dressing man could be a signicantthreat to their masculinity (e.g. Martino 2006). Similarly, a heterosexual male-to-female transsexual might be considered by radical feminists as a man who allows

himself to be victimised by internalised homophobia, thus having to change sex in

order to gain intimacy with other men in a socially approved – heterosexual – way

(see also Meyerowitz 2004; Monro 2007; Weiss 2004). In this connection, Hinesremarks:

On a theoretical political and cultural level … feminism has traditionally been

hostile to transgender practices … Trans women have been seen to reinforce a

stereotypical model of űberfemininity, whilst trans men have been located as

renegades seeking to acquire male power and privilege. (Hines 2007b, 104)

In practice, the level of intolerance or fear – what transgender people prefer to

call transphobia or transgenderphobia – differs. Transsexuals are often the most

censured as they are considered to be much more transgressive of the genderorder (i.e. not accepting their given body and choosing to modify it), comparedto transvestites (whose engagement in cross-behaviour conjures up temporary‘playfulness’) and intersexuals (who are born that way). In this respect, Bornsteinargues that:




Transsexuality in this culture is considered an illness … We’re taught that we are

literally sick, that we have an illness that can be diagnosed and maybe cured. As

a result of the medicalization of our condition, transsexuals must see therapists

in order to receive the medical seal of approval required to proceed with any

gender reassignment surgery. Now, once we get to the doctor, we’re told we’ll be

cured if we become members of one gender or another’. (Bornstein 1995, 62)

Social attitudes and legislations have undoubtedly moved on since Bornstein

wrote those words. But there is no denying that much prejudice still exists againsttransgender people, particularly in the case of transsexuals, who seemingly rejectthe givenness of their body and wish to switch gender category. Yet, on the political

level, this switching of category is conservative, because the switching itself

does not dismantle the gender categories, established by a dualistic process of

categorisation. Thus, the switching of category operates within the same dualisticgender system or order, without challenging its foundation. Of course, there are

exceptions; the most well-known one includes Thomas Beatie, a female-to-male‘transsexual’ who decided to retain his female reproductive system, and became

pregnant and bore a child. Beattie’s ‘pregnant man’ image (with a beard and atchest), spread across the mass media, profoundly challenges social perception ofthe immutability of the body, as well as gender-specic bodily features, functions,and performances (Beatie 2008).

The diversity of expressions of transgenderism also generates tensions withinthe transgender community. Shrock, Holden and Reid (2004) discuss the tensionswhich emerge in a support group in the US. They report tensions arising from the

different experiences and challenges faced by male-to-female and female-to-male

transgender individuals due to a higher proportion of male-to-female members;and perhaps more strongly between transsexuals and transvestites. They write:

Because most transsexuals in the group had previously labeled themselves

crossdressers, their sense of authenticity depended on dening their ‘crossdressing

period’ as denial, which suggested that the crossdressers could be in denial of

their true transsexuality. (Shrock, Holden and Reid 2004, 67)

The above-mentioned examples emphasise the heterogeneous nature of

the transgender community, and the differences, distinctions, tensions and

disagreements within it. This complex picture should encourage us to resist the

temptation to essentialise transgender people, and be respectful of the varied lived

experiences of this marginalised social group. Having offered this broad context,

we shall, in the following section, consider the impact of conservative Christianityon the perception and treatment of transgender people.




Tampering with God’s created order?

Conservative Christians generally uphold scriptural inerrancy, literalism, and

immutability. In preserving the authority or witness of Scriptures across time

and space, they strive to use the Bible in an ahistorical and xed fashion. Thisis particularly evident in the area of the body, in relation to gender and sexuality.

Within this theological formulation, the body is created good, but is lled with potentially corrupting desires as a consequent of our fallen nature. Thus, the body –

the esh – could be a vehicle of contamination of the soul or mind. Therefore, bodily performances must be carefully managed and policed, a responsibility of

individual believers as well as religious institutions and communities. We would

argue that this partly explains the preoccupation of conservative/fundamentalist

religious believers on the body. That is, the body is imagined as a potential

corrupter which must be surveilled and managed on both an individual and aninstitutional level. In the same vein, Weeks, referring to religions in general, arguesthat fundamentalism is:

… obsessed with bodies – their gendered nature, their ambivalent desires, their

couplings, their orices, their racialized characteristics, how they are clothed or

veiled, their youth or age, their potential for ‘good’ and ‘evil’. (Weeks 2008, 32)

Given the prominence accorded to scriptural authority, it is not surprisingthat conservative Christians always employ the Bible to construct the theological

and ethical justications for their censure of transgenderism. In this respect, thefollowing verses are often invoked.

God created humanity in God’s own image, in the image of God, God creates

them: male and female … And God blessed them. (Genesis 1: 26–8)

A woman shall not wear a man’s apparel, nor shall a man put on a woman’s

garment; for whoever dress such things is abhorrent to the Sovereign your God.

(Deuteronomy 22: 5)

No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to

the assembly of the Sovereign. (Deuteronomy 23: 1)

Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to

him? But if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? (I Corinthians 11: 14–15)

For conservative Christians, the above verses, alongside other less commonly-

cited (e.g. Genesis 2: 4–9; Genesis 2: 18–24; I Corinthians 6: 9–11) seem toinconvertibly establish that the binary gender order is a function of the divine

creation plan. This constitutes the baseline – the divinely-willed human identity

is rigidly divided into male/man and female/woman – which underpins the




conservative viewpoint that pathologises transgenderism as a form of gender

identity confusion, disorder, or dysphoria (Mollenkott 1984; Sheridan 2001; Tanis2003).

This stance, epitomised by the Evangelical Alliance Policy Commission’s

ofcial report on transsexuality (2000), clearly demonstrates the rigidity of the binary gender paradigm. On the outset, we nd it interesting that the policydocument addresses transsexuality specically, and seems to treat other expressionsof transgenderism as less disrupting of the Christian ‘ideal’. As we have mentioned,

this signies differential perceptions and treatments of various expressionsof transgenderism. Of these, transsexuality is by far the most problematic to

conservative Christians, because it involves permanent corporeal modicationthrough surgery and hormonal treatment, thus fundamentally disrupts the God-

given natural body. To them, this reality is not only a threat to the individual’s

own human identity and position within the order of creation, but also the body ofChrist, namely the religious community. We shall return to this point later.

The report asserts that, in employing sex reassignment surgery and hormonal

treatment, transsexuals elevate the authority of science and technology over that of

the Scripture – and indeed God. This human intervention to correct a ‘design fault’

is tantamount to treating the symptoms, rather than the root cause of the desire for

such a drastic measure. The root cause, in this case, is the fallen human condition,

expressed in a psychological condition (e.g. poor body-image) generated by a

broken childhood (e.g. the absence of a prominent father gure, leading to anarrested and distorted development of healthy body image and self-identity).Interestingly, in constructing such a narrative of the aetiology, the conservative

Christian standpoint positions fault in the ‘fallen’ world. The ‘born’ individual –

the body/physical product of God’s creation – is not at fault. Rather the ‘condition’

emerges through interaction with the ‘fallen’ world (e.g. that leads to a brokenchildhood). Such reasoning asserts that, instead of technological intervention, theindividual in reality is in need of psychological support; but most of all spiritualintervention in the form of ‘healing’. This view is clearly reected in the followingassertion:

Christians believe that personal happiness and fullment are found through

pleasing God and obedience to his revealed will. The adoption of a theological

position that regards an individual’s sex as a ‘given’ from God implies that

radical modern plastic surgery, notwithstanding that it may offer what many

transsexual people desire, represents a distortion of God’s creation. (Evangelical

Alliance 2000, 25)

Such uncompromising language extends to the description of transsexuality as

an ‘addiction’ (Evangelical Alliance 2000, 26), and the argument for transsexualsto be excluded from church leadership (Evangelical Alliance 2000, 78). As we haveargued, from this perspective, transsexuality is more than a threat to the individual’s

own God-given human identity, but also the body of Christ, namely the religious




community. This presents a thorny issue pertaining to transsexual Christians’

access to leadership positions or priesthood. Priests and church leaders are under

public scrutiny as the representatives of religious institutions and servants of God

(Louden and Francis 2003; Percy 2006). This places them in a more contentiousspace compared to lay believers. However, within the Church of England a small

number of transgender individuals have been openly accepted into the priesthood

by the Church (e.g. Rev Sarah Jones, and Rev Carol Stone). News reports onthese cases, however, illustrate the difculties and reservations many parishionersappear to have. Such tensions reect the debate about the acceptability of gay andlesbian priests – particularly if they are sexually active – in same-sex relationships

(Keenan in this volume). Thus, the statement below, setting out the position of theEvangelical Alliance, is hardly surprising.

Whilst we are reluctant to impose hard and fast rules, nevertheless it would

in principle be clear that, on the basis of biblical passages such as I Timothy 3:1–13 and Titus 1: 6–9, excellent and unquestioned role models are foundational

requirements for Christian leadership. As transsexual people are role models so

fundamentally distinct from accepted examples, we consider their appointment to

leadership or counselling positions within the church to be unwise on biblical as

well as other grounds. Church leaders, however, need to explore ways in which

a transsexual person’s gifts and abilities can to some extent be recognised so that

there is a measure of mutually peaceful integration into the church community

(Evangelical Alliance 2000, 78–9).Parallels can be drawn between conservative discourse on the aetiology of

transsexuality and that of homosexuality (e.g. Dallas and Heche 2009) – brokenchildhood, for instance, due to the lack of a father gure, leading to an arrestedand distorted development of healthy body image and self-identity. From this

perspective, any gender and sexual expressions outside the heteronormative

framework is essentially problematic, and in need of healing. In the next section,we shall consider how transgender Christians contest this limited but entrenched

ideology (for a detailed critique of the report by the Evangelical Alliance Policy

Commission, see Burns 2001; Tanis 2003. See also Holder 1998a for ethical andtheological arguments for the option of marriage for transsexuals).

Transgendering the Bible

If ‘gendering’ the Bible is about employing women’s experiences as a standpoint

for understanding, assessing, and applying religious texts to counter andocentric

and sexist hermeneutics (e.g. Newsom and Ringe 1998; Soskice 2008) – and‘queering’ is about the mobilisation of lesbian and gay experiences for the same

purpose to counter heterosexist hermeneutics (e.g. Guest, Goss, West, and Bohache

2006; Loughlin 2007) – then ‘transgendering’ the Bible brings to the fore the livedexperiences of transgender Christians. This strategy crystallises the challenge to

not only sexism and heterosexism, but also monogenderism, and promotes gender




blending. As with gendering and queering the Bible, religious text and theology

become the battleground in this endeavour. In the same vein as feminist and queer

theology, transgender theology afrms gender and sexual uidity and diversity.Altogether, these theologies are inspired by the broader ethical, conceptual, and

methodological framework of liberation theology, which emphasises liberationfrom oppression, justice for the disempowered, transformation of inequitablesocio-economic and political structures/systems, and celebration of human

diversity (e.g. Althaus-Reid 2006; Gutierrez 2001; Rowland 2007).In line with interpretive strategies employed by lesbian and gay Christians

(for more details see e.g. Yip 2005a), transgender Christians critique traditionalhermeneutics by highlighting its inaccuracy and socio-cultural specicity, and arguefor an alternative hermeneutics that takes seriously socio-cultural and historicalspecicities and contexts. For instance, transgender-afrming interpretation

argues that Deuteronomy 22: 5, which seemingly censures cross-dressing, must be read within the socio-cultural and political context of Israel’s Holiness Code,

which prevented the Israelites from taking part in pagan worship that involvedcross-gendered behaviour, rather than about a constraining gender system (e.g.

Countryman 1988; Holder 1998b; Mollenkott 2007; Sheridan 2001; Tanis 2003).Further, they also critique the credibility of institutional interpretive authority,

by highlighting its inadequacy and ideology; and relocating authentic interpretiveauthority to personal experience (e.g. Feinberg 1997; Mollenkott and Sheridan

2003; Sheridan 2001). Finally, they recast the Bible to construct resources for theirspiritual nourishment. There are three specic lines of argument here, rstly inthe positive biblical portrayal of transgender individuals. Such argument is often

centred on Philip’s baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8: 25–39. Kolakowskidiscusses the importance of this passage:

[N]o discussion is made regarding the eunuch’s genital status, beyond that

implied by the term ‘eunuch’ … No repentance is even asked … Furthermore,

no attempt is made to heal the Eunuch. The eunuch is accepted into the fold, as

he is. (Kolakowski 1997, 24; See also Holder 1998b)

The passage in Acts is therefore read as a powerful afrmation of transgender people. Specically the passage is seen to illustrate that in early Christianity therewas no exclusion of gender ‘Others’. Rather, Philip’s acceptance of the eunuch

without question is seen as illustrating an openness to gender difference in the

early Church.

Secondly, Kolakowski (1997), with reference to Matthew 19: 12, asserts the

incorporation of gendered others in Jesus’ vision of the Christian community. HereKolakowski suggests Jesus discusses three categories of eunuch, and he embracesthem all (see also Holder 1998b). These categories are: eunuchs from birth (i.e.due to genital incapacity), eunuchs made by others and eunuchs for the sake ofthe kingdom of heaven. This third category is sometimes translated as ‘renouncedmarriage because of the kingdom of heaven’ (Matthew 19: 12). Watts (2002) also




discusses this category by presenting historical examples of people who self-

castrate in service of the kingdom of heaven. Jesus’ words and actions are alsotaken as further afrmation and encouragement for transgender Christians.

The third theological argument is based upon Galatians 3: 28; that in Christ

there is no male or female. Shrock, Holden and Reid (2004) report that some oftheir respondents use this verse to argue that if there is no difference between male

and female then the binary divide of male/female is called into question and there

is no basis for condemnation of transgendered folk (we shall discuss this in moredepth in the following section).

These three lines of argument allow the transgender individual to nd a wayof including their transgender identity with their Christian belief system. Such

arguments also provide a line of defence against the exclusivist arguments put

forward by conservative Christians, particularly through illustrating the possibility

of a biblically-grounded counter discourses which emphasises the inclusion oftransgender folk within the Christian community.

In essence, this theology confronts the presumed infallibility of religious

authority structures and their interpretive objectivity, powerfully expressed by thefollowing quote:

The consequences of treating the scripture as though history and personality

made no difference to the words and content of scripture have been, in Christian

history, horrendous. By lifting a text from its content and treating it as a timelesstruth, Christians claimed scriptural warrant for their murder of Jews (Matthew

27: 25); by lifting a text, Christians found warrant for burning women whom they

regarded as witches (Exodus 22: 18); by lifting a text, Christians justied slavery

and apartheid (Genesis 9: 25); by lifting a text, Christians found justication

for executing homosexuals (Leviticus 20: 13); by lifting a text (Genesis 3: 16),

Christians found warrant for the subordination of women to men, so that they

came to be regarded as ‘a sort of infant’, incapable of taking charge of their own

bodies, nances or lives. (Bowker 1991, cf. Ford 1999, 136)

Sociologically, this attempt is another evidence of gender and sexual dissidents

exercising their agency not only to rattle religious orthodoxy by way of de-

stigmatising their identity, but also to stigmatise the stigmatiser as ideologically

biased and ethically suspect, as well as to construct positive individual and social

identities, thus turning shame into strength. This attempt that prioritises individual

personal experience reects a broader development within the Western Christianlandscape, characterised by a ‘subjective turn’ that elevates the authority of the

individual’s inner voice, against the established external voice of religious traditionand institution (e.g. Heelas 2008; Heelas and Woodhead 2004; Lynch 2007).This ‘subjective turn’ itself is a manifestation of signicant structural changesin the broader society, underpinned by processes such as individualisation, de-

traditionalisation, and globalisation, which collectively liberate and empower the

social actor’s agency in the fashioning and management of life (e.g. Bauman 2005;




Heaphy 2007). In the following section, we shall discuss the visions for a moreinclusive community that the inner voice of transgender Christians articulates.

Visions for an inclusive Christian community

Recent years have witnessed the growth of advocatory, anecdotal, and theological

literature by transgender scholars which passionately argues for a Christian

community that is inclusive of gender-variant people. Mollenkott (2007), forinstance, has argued that the binary gender order does not reect the true nature ofGod, because God is neither feminine nor masculine. As God’s creatures, human

beings therefore have within themselves the potential to demonstrate what society

constructs as feminine and masculine characteristics. In this connection, she

argues that:

Although I believe in only one Divine Source, not a multitude of gods and

goddesses, I have certainly noticed that the One Source likes variety and has

chosen to be incarnated in millions of diverse ways. I therefore assume that the

ultimate reason for ‘queerness’ does not lie in concepts constructed by society,

or some eternal essence like ‘male’ or ‘female’ or ‘bi-gendered’, but rather the

fact the God has chosen to embody Himself/Herself/Itself in just this person’s

particularities at just this time and place. (Mollenkott 2007, 17–18; originalemphasis)

To Mollenkott, this is the fundamental paradigm shift that the Christiancommunity must experience in order to liberate itself from the tyranny of gender

binarism or dualism, which so deeply informs its understanding of bodily

performances and identities, and embodied social relations (see also Mollenkott1984; Mollenkott and Sheridan 2003; Tanis 2003). She proposes an ‘omnigender

paradigm’ whose ethics and theology accept people as they are, rather than

what they ought to be, in compliance with socially constructed and reductionist

categories that constrain the liberating and diverse potentials of God’s creation and

human possibilities (2007, 81).In the same vein, Sell’s modest study of spiritual transgender people concludes

that the participants are sensitised to spiritual transcendence and that

there may be elements of third-gender identity that are transcultural and inherent

to gender intermediacy. In addition, they suggest that there may be an element of

‘calling’ to falling between the cracks of gender – and perhaps, in a wider sense,in our being men, women (regardless of the bodies we are born with), both, or

something in between. (2005, 311)

Underpinning this vision is the redeeming grace of Christ, the belief that Christ

has fundamentally changed the meaning of being human. This is because his




grace has led to the dissolution of human divisions and therefore the celebration

of human diversity that is not conned by binarism or any other kind of humancategorisation and labelling, because ‘There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is nolonger slave or free, there is no longer male or female; for all of you are in Christ

Jesus’ (Galatians 3: 28). In the same vein, Rudy argues the possibility of suchhumanity, and a community of faith:

We could strengthen our faith by the way we transcend gender and sexual

classications, by the way that we correlate sexual activity with spirituality, by

the way we embody Paul’s prescription of Galatians 3: 28 ‘In Christ there is no

male or female’. Such communities, I believe, serve as beacon of light for those

who feel oppressed by the way our churches today correlate gender roles and

spirituality. (Rudy 1997, 101)

This seemingly idealistic view would open up new ways of seeing, relating

and living; and transgender Christians have an important role to translate thistheological and ethical utopia to reality.

Gender-variant persons are society’s mirrors, reecting and often helping to precipitate change in the culture’s gender-based expectations and social mores. We

are pioneers who demonstrate and embody elements of what is possible for human

beings as we journey to and then beyond the frontiers of traditional gendering

(Mollenkott and Sheridan 2003, 7).Therefore, in the same way as lesbian and gay individuals who have been

cited as ‘pioneers’ of contemporary close relationships (Giddens 1992) and ‘primeexperimenters’ of contemporary life (Weeks, Heaphy and Donovan 2001), sotransgender individuals are seen by scholars such as Mollenkott and Sheridan as

people who pioneer possibilities and choices in terms of gender and sexuality.

Further, this new paradigm would also offer us a new way of understanding

the body, with its changeability being part and parcel of our spiritual journey, asTanis asserts:

Claiming a transgendered identity allows us a new way of thinking about our

bodies. For transsexuals, the body becomes not ‘wrong’ but rather part of

a process of change, a realization that is incredibly liberating. Our bodies do

not have to remain the same, but can be the very agents of liberation as we

realize that we can change our bodies. In looking at our bodies in a new way, as

changeable, we then embark upon the process of reconciling the inner and the

outer parts of our nature. Instead of trying to force ourselves to accept our bodies

as they are, we instead can be empowered agents to change our bodies. Insteadof having to live as other people view us, we gain control over how we present

ourselves in public. (Tanis 2003, 45)

This vision calls for a new body theology that prioritises embodiment: the body

being a vehicle to experience spirituality, amidst its messy and often contradictory




desires, urges, and inclinations; in place of the current theology of the body which prioritises religious authority structures or social structures in controlling and

policing bodily identities and performances (e.g. Fuller 2008; Isherwood andStuart 1998). As such the body becomes an aspect of spiritual experience ratherthan a threatening presence which must be controlled. This is a theology that is not

about empowering believers to switch gender categories, but to actually transcend

and dissolve these categories, therefore the enslavement that they bring.

Transgenderism, therefore, is far from tampering with God’s design. Rather,

it is about spiritual growth as an embodied experience, inextricably linked to anindividual’s relationship with herself/himself, God, and others. As human, one

grows and changes, in terms of perception, attitude, behaviour, which may include

modication to the body and bodily performance, to align with one’s existentialcore – the spiritual self. Indeed, change – bodily or otherwise – is part and parcel

of one’s life journey and development. Such theologising creates space for thedevelopment of an inclusive community of faith. This is accompanied by the

emergence of support groups and supportive communities which allow transgender

Christians to make communicate, to afrm who they are and to reinforce thecounter discourse against that of a disapproving Church (e.g. Mollenkott 2008).

As we have argued, though transgender individuals may share religious

struggles to some extent with their counterparts in the wider LGBT community,

they also face specic negotiations and tensions. Therefore, the emerging support

and pressure groups for the transgender community play important roles. TheGender Trust 2 and Press for Change3 are secular organisations campaigning for the

inclusion of, and respect for, transgender people in Britain. However, as secular

organisations, these groups do not provide the spiritual community which some

transgender believers seek.To some extent, transgender Christians may nd place within the wider LGBT

Christian movements. Changing Attitude, for example, states that the goal of the

group will be reached on ‘The day when the Anglican Churches fully accept,

welcome and offer equality of opportunity to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender

people’.4 The online magazine Whosoever also is inclusive of transgender issues.

They set out their vision ‘to provide a safe and sacred space for gay, lesbian,

bisexual and transgender Christians to reclaim, rekindle and grow their relationshipwith God’.5

Further, a small amount of transgender-specic religious resources can befound online on a variety of internet sites. Within the British context, the most

prominent transgender Christian support group, Sibyls, maintains a mostly off-

line existence. Their aim is to:

2 <http://www.gendertrust.org.uk >.

3 <http://www.pfc.org.uk >.

4 <http://www.changingattitude.org.uk/home/home.asp>.5 <http://www.whosoever.org/mission.shtmll>.




… offer transgendered Christians a safe haven for mutual support. Anyone

who is affected by gender issues or simply interested is welcome as a member.

In a world where to be somehow different is, at the very least, too often face

rejection, we simply seek to carry out Christ’s commandments to love God and

to love one another.6

Sibyls also provides a quarterly newsletter to members, meetings which include an

act of worship, and a member’s contact system. The support group also provides

a telephone ‘listening service’ where some members of the organisation provide

telephone support to members who require it.

This kind of support network, though small, enables transgender Christiansto explore their beliefs and the connection of their gender, sexual, and religious

identities within a safe and embodied environment that incorporates their spirituality,

gender, and sexuality. Through the emerging sense of community such networkcan be powerfully supportive (Shrock, Holden and Reid 2004). The emergence ofa powerful campaigning organisation would further enable transgender-Christians

to question and challenge dominant Christian discourses on transgender issues.

Sociologically, such networks constitute important social capital – the web ofrelationships that helps individuals who share common values to achieve various

goals. Such relationships become a signicant resource (Field 2003). Indeed, socialcapital is ‘an asset to facilitate information ow, exert inuence on agents, support

individuals’ social credentials, or reinforce identity and recognition’ (Reimer,Lyons, Ferguson and Polanco 2008, 256).

Concluding remarks

Within the British context, the enactment of the Gender Recognition Act (2004)has signicantly improved the rights and life circumstances of transgender people,

particularly transsexuals. The Act recognises gender transition, in that an individual

could now change her/his birth certicate to the required gender, without havingundergone – or express any intention to undergo – a sex reassignment surgery

(for more details, see e.g. Hines 2007a; 2007c; Whittle and Turner 2007). This isa giant step forward in the recognition of the human rights of transgender people

in the secular sphere. In this respect, transgender people play a signicant role intransgressing binary gender and sexual categories, and promote ‘pomosexuality’:

Pomosexuality lives in the space in which all other non-binary forms of sexual

and gender identity reside – a boundary-free zone in which fences are crossedfor the fun of it, or simply because some of us can’t be fenced in. It challenges

either/or categorisations in favour of largely unmapped possibility and the

6 Extract from e-mail communication with Rosie Martin, contact person of Sibyls,

<http://www.sibyls.co.uk >.




intense charge that comes with transgression. It acknowledges the pleasure of

that transgression, as well as the need to transgress limits that do not make for

all of us. (Queen and Schimel 1997, 23)

The above quote may have over-stated the agency for, and indeed interest in,

such ‘play’ and ‘playfulness’ (see also Bornstein 1994) in the everyday lives ofgendered and sexual beings. Nonetheless, there is no denying that progressive

legislative development will have a signicant impact on the lives of gender andsexual dissidents. To what extent this progressive development will be reected inthe Christian community remains an important and urgent issue. With regards to

lesbian-gay equality, the discrepancy between the secular sphere (i.e. legislative

development and social attitude) and the religious community is signicant, perpetuating the perception that religious authority structures are trapped in a time

warp, impervious to the lived reality of contemporary society (e.g. Yip 2003; Yipand Keenan 2004). Regrettably, the same scenario can be seen with regards to theattitude of the Christian community towards transgender people. The seemingly

lack of optimism is shared by Mollenkott, who argues that:

I sense that the gender mountain will be very difcult to move, especially in

religious circles. In all probability, ofcial church policies will be the rear guard

on gender, being dragged toward gender justice kicking and screaming when the

secular society will no longer tolerate anything else. (Mollenkott 2007, 89)

Nonetheless, the task is worth pursuing, no matter how uphill, as she continues:

Gender justice matters precisely because from an eternal perspective there is no

gender, bodies as we know them are temporary and constantly changing, and all

of us are the offspring of God Herself/Himself/Itself. (Mollenkott 2007, 204)

Citing Rothblatt’s (1995, 127) formulation of sexual apartheid, Mollenkott(2007) also proposes that there should be no legal and social denition of people

based on biology. Thus, one falls in love with a person, rather than a man or a

woman. Further, gender-specic language should be ‘de-gendered’, so that ‘his/her’ becomes ‘hers’; ‘he/she’ becomes ‘heesh’; and ‘him/her’, ‘hirm’ (Rothblatt’s(1995, 187). Some would argue that her vision for an omnigender society isunrealistic. Only time can tell the outcome.

The fruit of labour of lesbian and gay Christians attests that the marginal space,

though oppressive and soul-destroying, can also be a space of creativity and vision

that sows the seeds for change, because it offers a standpoint to ‘think outside ofthe box’. Transgender Christians, in mobilising their unique gifts, will contribute

signicantly towards the expansion and enrichment of current understandings ofgender, sexuality, and spirituality, as well as their intersectionality (e.g. Green

2003).



Chapter 6

Human Rights and Moral Wrongs: The

Christian ‘Gay Debate’ in the Secular SphereStephen Hunt

During the Anglican Lambeth conference in 1998 the no small issue of the

ordination of gay priests, alongside the legitimacy of gay sexuality in general,

were central to the agenda. Gathering at the conference, a miscellaneous groupof conservative Christian protesters with their own views on such matters held

up a placard with a message that read ‘Homosexual practices are a diabolically

deviant act and an unnatural discrimination against womankind’. Although themessage constituted a rather mischievous attempt to make a pertinent point, it wasalso indicative of the way that arguments ‘for’ or ‘against’ the key issues wereno longer purely a matter of theological mud-slinging. Recourse to the matter of

human rights had become part of the battleground for both the advancement and

opposition to a range of gay concerns.The Lambeth conference of 1998 (and that of 2008 for that matter) underlined

the fact that the rights of gays had become one of the most vexed and challenging

issues facing contemporary Christianity. For their part, and in line with other

elements of the non-heterosexual liberation movement, lesbian and homosexual

Christians in the UK have continuingly sought to organise and mobilise. Their

aim is to extend and protect what they regard as fundamental civil rights and

the human rights upon which they are contingent. A countervailing Christian

movement, articulated through various factions, has arisen to confront the non-

heterosexual lobby. This chapter explores the strategy adopted by both the gay

Christian movement and their more vociferous opponents in seeking to forcefullyengage not only with each other, but to appeal to both church and secular agencies

with the language of ‘rights’. Such a response has increasingly supplemented

theological groundings for the debate. While both constituencies have adopted the

rhetoric of rights in the context of changing UK legal enactments regarding gay

people, such recourse more than indicates ‘internal’ secularising impulses within

the churches themselves.

Arguably, ‘for’ and ‘against’ ‘cause’ groups in the ‘gay debate’ now effectivelyoperate in terms of what Goode and Ben-Yahuda (1994) refer to as ‘moralcommunities’. They are moral communities in the sense that any campaigning

group in the competitive political and public environment of a liberal democracy

seeks to have its values and ideology accepted by wider society. Moreover, insearching for public acceptance and the legitimation of a particular cause, there is




a further observable dimension: the negative labelling or ‘deviantisation’ of rival

groupings. In short, the competing moral systems of pluralist groups, whether

religious or secular, will frequently attempt to apply a negative label to their

opponents and, in doing so, both legitimise their own world-view for internal

consumption and to convince external agencies of their ‘truth’ claims.

The application of such a theoretical framework in providing an understandingof the relative success of the lesbian and gay Christian faction and the mobilisation

of its more beleaguered opposition is potentially fruitful, allowing an appreciation

of the dynamics involved in the growth and increasing legitimisation of the

gay Christian cause and the paralleled strategies of its conservative Christian

adversaries. These dynamics and strategies are partly related to the internal debate

regarding gay sexuality in the churches, and partly the broader matter of gay rights

in the secular sphere in which the impact of legislative changes provides a further

eld for mobilised political activity.

Legislative changes

Before surveying the strategies of ‘for’ and ‘against’ Christian groupings something

may be said in respect of the secular legislative changes in which they are obliged

to operate. In general the cause of gay rights has enjoyed a greater legitimacy

in the UK since the 1960s as it has in other Western democracies.1

The BritishParliamentary Act of 1967 (Sexual Offences Act) legalised homosexuality for those21 years of age or older. Several conservative Christian groups began to mobilise

themselves against such reforms in the 1970s, although the origins of some can

be traced back a decade earlier in organised resistance to permissive legislationin general (Parsons 1994). The two principal factions – the National Festival ofLight and the National Viewers and Listeners Association – condemned what they

frequently termed ‘militant homosexuality’ as a perversion of God-given sexuality

and saw it as the greatest threat to family life in the UK.

A further period of conservative mobilisation occurred in the 1980s and

early 1990s at the time of consecutive governments of the Conservative Party

(Hunt 2003a). These administrations set a negative agenda regarding gay as wellas lesbian rights – a task made easier by the anxiety aroused by the spread ofHIV during this period. State policy climaxed in the passage of Section 28 of

the 1988 Local Government Act (Department of Education Circular 12/88) which prohibited local authorities from allowing schools to adhere to the ‘promotion of

1 Some elements of the wider Christian community in Britain were ahead of

the politicians in calling for a liberalisation of the law since in the Church Assembly

of the Anglican Church, a majority of representatives voted, albeit marginally, for thedecriminalisation of the homosexual act as early as 1957. The call for decriminalisation

was not, however, to justify the act morally.



Human Rights and Moral Wrongs 105

homosexuality’ and from ‘intentionally … promoting homosexuality or allowing

the teaching … of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship’.

Since 1997 the Labour Party with its touchstone policy of ‘social inclusion’ has

attempted to gain a widely based consensus in relation to gay rights. A perceived

greater public acceptance towards the gay cause and the aggressive stance of the

gay lobby led to several changes in the law, although the reforms did not include a

repeal of Section 28 of the Local Government Act. Thus subsequent discriminatory

laws in the UK have opened up a new stage for those in the churches advancing

gay rights as well as their opponents. Both the gay Christian movement and its

adversaries have subsequently focused resources around a number of issues in

the realisation that the liberalisation of the law was likely to have a measureableconsequence on the debate concerning the rights of gays within the churches.

In 1997 legislation was passed to lower the gay age of consent from 21 to

18 and in 1999 from 18 to 16. The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation)Regulations of 2003 includes the Sexual Orientation Regulations which prohibit

direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, and discrimination by way of

victimisation or harassment in the workplace on the grounds of sexual orientation.The Civil Partnership Act was passed in 2004 which outlines the legal foundations

of same-sex partnerships on registration. More recently, in 2006, the Equality

Act was passed which states that, apart from transactions conducted on religious

premises, it is illegal to treat homosexuals differently where providing goods,

facility or services. All of these legislative enactments have provided the secularsetting in which the warring Christian pro and against gay right groups have

clashed.

The lesbian and gay Christian movement

In the UK, as in many other Western democratic contexts, lesbian and gay Christian

groups have proliferated. As the core umbrella organisation, the Lesbian and Gay

Christian Movement (LGCM) was established in 1976 to bring a common forumfor a number of the smaller groupings from the mainstream denominations and to

advance their interests within them as well as the secular world. Sean Gill provides

the denitive account of the LGCM’s brief but difcult history in up until the late1980s, tracing the movement through various stages (Gill 1989, 2–102). Firstly,the early years in which the movement found its footing and attempted to establish

a distinct identity. Secondly, a period of relative growth and progress (1977–84).Thirdly, the years 1985–88 entailing the creation of an inclusive movement in

terms of males and females, as well as by denomination. This latter period sawgaining of support for the LGCM’s challenge of institutionalised homophobia

more stridently undertaken at a time when many mainstream denominations,while not accepting the cause of the LGCM, appeared to increasingly accept that

a debate around gay issues could not be ignored.




In the late 1980s, in order to enhance the debate, the LGCM established the

Institute for the Study of Christianity and Sexuality. Its primary aim was to facilitate

education and discussion of all aspects of human sexuality within the broad

Christian community. The LGCM, however, developed a wider remit: to work

for the acceptance of lesbian and gay relationships; to witness the Christian faithwithin the gay community at large; and to establish international links with secular,as well as other gay and lesbian Christian agencies. Central to the LGCM’s agenda

has been the advancement of human rights and the civil rights that are contingent

upon them. Its mission statement commences with such a commitment:

To encourage fellowship, friendship, and support among individual lesbian

and gay Christians through prayer, study and action, wherever possible in local

groups, and especially to support those lesbian and gay Christians subjected to

discrimination.2

The issue of rights have not been the only context in which the LGCM has opposed

its adversaries within the churches. The emphasis on biblical interpretation has

meant that the ‘gay debate’ continues at a theological level. Even before the

establishment of the LGCM, those who sought to extend gay rights within the

churches were entangled in a largely sterile theological debate with conservative

evangelical Protestants and to a lesser extent traditional Catholics. Theologically

speaking, gay Christians are largely liberal in orientation. Many have embraceda ‘higher criticism’ and sought to re-interpret the key scriptural references tonon-heterosexuality, bringing a contextual understanding of the homophobia of

biblical times and criticising the conservatives for picking and choosing the sinsthey censure.

While the LGCM in the UK has partaken of theological arguments to further itsobjectives, the mainstay of its campaigning has however focused on human rights,a platform upon which it has lobbied the secular state and the traditional Christian

denominations. In this respect the organisation works within and recognises thesecular context of ‘progressive’ legislation changes. Thus, the secular sphere has

become a further battleground in which to engage Christian hostility to its cause.

There has been an appeal to broader universal principles within the framework ofthe extension of civil liberties, thus portraying conservative Christians as opposed

to enlightened secular development and going ‘against the ow’ of liberalisinglegislative enactments. This is more than conveyed in this extract from a LGCM’s

pamphlet:

It is only when homosexuals or black people or women stand up and demand just treatment and challenge prejudices, that any change is possible. When they

2 LGCM website <http:www.//lgcm.org.uk/html/aims.htm> (accessed 23/03/08).




do this of course they must expect abuse and ridicule, such has always been the

case, but justice is worth a ght.3

During the November Anglican General Synod in 1999, the LGCM published

its report Christian Homophobia on alleged Christian discrimination against

homosexuals.4 The report claimed that the words and actions of Christian churches

support most of the homophobic abuse suffered in the UK by gays and lesbians. It

advanced the view that the churches have a disproportionate inuence on legislationimpacting gay and lesbian people and ‘tried to defy the will of parliament and the

international consensus on human rights’. The report went on to maintain that a

signicant number of gay clergy had been dismissed, made homeless and reducedto living on state benets.

The report made 74 recommendations for good practice. Several of the most

signicant that refer to the universal principles of liberties are as follows. Firstly,that national and regional church bodies should develop and implement a ‘fully

inclusive equal-opportunities policy’ with reference to lesbians and gay men.

Secondly, that language should be inclusive and make no distinctions between‘Christians’ and gay men and lesbians in church literature and liturgy. Thirdly, that

all church posts should be advertised in the lesbian and gay press, and all existing

staff should receive training in homophobia awareness similar to the racism-

awareness training already implemented. Fourthly, that all churches should make

available same-sex blessings, while liturgical bodies should begin the process ofapproving services for these. Finally, theological colleges should ‘provide students

with the exegetical tools to combat biblically-based homophobia’.

Following the LGCM’s initiative, the Faith, Homophobia and Human Rights

Conference held in February, 2008 (supported by 52 organisations and attended by

250 delegates), attendees issued a statement5 calling on

… all people of goodwill, of whatever faith or none, to afrm and celebrate

human equality in all its dimensions and particularly to work for the elimination

of any faith-based homophobia and institutionalised prejudice towards lesbian,

gay, bisexual and transgendered people … We reject the activities of certain

religious leaders, seeking exemptions from equality legislation, and attempts to

base this on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, such a right

being for all, not just for some … We call for further progressive public policy

that will deliver comprehensive and effective anti-discrimination legislation,

including positive duties, on the basis of race, gender, disability, age, sexual

orientation, and belief. We call on the newly formed Commission for Equality

3 LGCM Brieng on Homosexuality and Christianity, pamphlet, 2001.

4 LGCM, Christian Homophobia: The Churches Persecution of Gay and Lesbian

People with Recommendations for Good Practice, 1999.

5 <http://www.lgcm.org.uk/fhconference/Conference_Statement.html> (accessed 29/03/08).




and Human Rights to listen to the experience of LGBT faith networks and those

who have suffered homophobia from and within religious organisations.

As part of its broad strategy the LGCM has courted association with wider

gay communities by making common cause with their struggles. As early as 1976the LGCM offered a submission to the policy advisory committee of the Criminal

Law Revision Committee arguing for an equal age of consent for homosexuals

and heterosexuals, reinforcing the arguments put forward by the Campaign for

Homosexual Equality. There has proved to be a limit to such a strategy however.

Many secular gay organisations regard the Christian Church as one of the prime

generators of homophobia. Hence, the LGCM has frequently been tarred with the

same brush. The attempt by a LGCM delegate to speak at the end of the 1976 GayPride march was met with hostility and, since 1981, Gay’s the Word bookshop has

refused to stock the LGCM’s literature. The matter of relationship with the gaycommunity has also weakened the internal unity and cohesion of the LCGM. Asizeable number of members are not prepared to follow the tactics of OutRage! –

one of the broader gay movement’s militant wings – in ‘outing’ gay bishops. While

the LGCM has occasionally displayed a more direct campaigning stance, such as

the interruption of church services, not all members endorse such tactics.

Conservative opposition

Since its founding, members of the LGCM discovered their cause harder to promote

in some quarters than others. This was particularly so for Roman Catholic gays

and those from the more conservative Protestant constituencies who staunchly

defended their traditional biblical stance against homosexuality.6 For their part, the

more mainstream denominations found the subject of gay sexuality uncomfortableto engage with and, as in the case of the Methodists and Anglican Church, majordivisions of opinion ensued. With its greater visibility during the 1980s, the

LGCM was subject to a backlash from numerous churches. Perhaps most notably,evidence of a reactionary stance was abundantly clear in the Church of England

Synod in 1987 when a motion to ostracise gay clergy was passed, albeit with

amendments which allowed bishops to abstain from a comprehensive purge.

Against this background, diverse conservative Christian grouping began tomobilise in opposition to the LGCM. Evidence of this in the Anglican Church was

clear when opponents sought but failed to have banned the thanksgiving servicein Southwark Cathedral in 1996 to celebrate the achievements of the LGCM’s

rst twenty years. Persecution continued despite notable advances. In 1998, the750 bishops of the world-wide Anglican Communion, meeting in Canterbury

6 As part of this battle against the conservatives a signicant initiative was the creationin 1979 of a separate Evangelical Fellowship within the LGCM. The group is specicallydirected to work amongst many arch-enemies in the evangelical wing of the Church.




for their ten-yearly Lambeth conference, made their harshest condemnation of

homosexuality to date, with the passing of a resolution rejecting homosexual practices as ‘incompatible with Scripture’ and that ‘abstinence is right for those

who are not called for marriage’.7

Conservatives of contrasting hues, both Catholics and Protestants, have adopted

various strategies in opposing the LGCM’s cause. Although disagreeing among

themselves on many issues, the matter of homosexuality appears to be one of those

to which the great majority of conservatives Christians are united in opposition.They have conventionally focused on the signicance of a small number of

biblical passages related to homosexuality which are deemed as constituting a

moral absolute binding on the Church today. On such grounds the greater majorityof denominations in the UK have also taken their stance, if less dogmatic, issuing

policy statements regarding homosexuality but little in respect of lesbianism and

far less on the subjects of bisexual and transgendered sexuality.What the LGCM refers to as ‘Serious Campaigning Groups’ (Gill 1989, 45–

58) are regarded as the most resourceful enemy of the cause of gay rights. Thesegroups are not uncommonly registered as companies and charities with a large

and easily mobilised support base. Each group has set out to combat what it sees

as increasing moral decline in the UK of which the legitimacy of gay and lesbian

lifestyles are perceived as merely one indication. Three such prominent groupings

appear to be the most aggressive in campaigning initiatives.

Perhaps the most signicant is the Evangelical Alliance (EA). Founded in 1846,the organisation constitutes the oldest confederation of evangelical Christians in

the world and the largest body serving evangelical churches in the UK, boasting

a membership including denominations, independent churches, organisations and

individuals (mostly charismatics, Pentecostals and conservative evangelicals).The claim of the EA is that the organisation was itself ‘born out of the ght forcivil liberties’.8

A second constituency of note is Christian Action Research and Education

(CARE) which purports to be ‘… a well-established mainstream Christiancharity providing resources and helping to bring Christian insight and experience

to matters of public policy and practical caring initiatives’.9 CARE’s ‘vision’

includes working towards a society that ‘honours the family as the foundation ofa stable society’ and ‘actively supports and encourages marriage between a man

and a woman’.10 Of similar ilk is The Christian Institute (CI) which, according toits mission statement, exists for ‘the furtherance and promotion of the Christian

7 Human Sexuality, Resolution I.10 (b). 8 Response from The Evangelical Alliance to Getting Equal: Proposals to Outlaw

Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Provision of Goods and Services <http://www.eauk.org/public-affairs/humanrights> (accessed 28/03/2008).

9 <http://www.care.org.uk/Group/Group.aspx?id=10604> (accessed 28/03/2008).10 <http://www.care.org.uk/Groups/10604/CARE/About_Us/About_Us.asp x>

(assessed 03/04/08).




religion in the United Kingdom’ and ‘the advancement of education’.11 Such

groups are keen to produce web-sites and literature to promote their views on‘rights’, lead campaigns and highlight particular cases related to gay rights and/or

those in which such rights are seen as negating other rights.

In addition to these ‘cause’ groups most of the main political parties in the UK

already have small informal caucuses of conservative Christians within them. Yet,

the attitude of the conservative religious lobby and the views of the Conservative

governments from 1979 throughout the 1980s on gay sexuality, the breakdown ofthe family, and single parent families brought no straightforward alliance during

the greatest period of reactionary backlash. The group of greatest signicancehas perhaps been the Conservative Family Campaign, founded in 1986, which

numbered ten Conservative members of the House of Commons, while it also

claimed to have the support of 24 members of the House of Lords including one

Anglican bishop.The development of effective lobbying skills to inuence non-Christian

members of Parliament has been a major plank for the conservatives. Senior politicians are enticed, brought on side, and then offered material assistance in

terms of information, researchers, and consultants for policy issues on which they

share a common concern. Both the CI and CARE operate in this way within the

Houses of Commons and Lords. As charities bearing the name ‘Christian’, senior

politicians may be persuaded to become trusties or non-executive directors, and

this increases the lobbying and networking power of these groups.Various attempts at impacting the secular political world have been adopted by

the anti-gay Christian constituency (Hunt 2004). The more obvious campaigningtechniques are lobbying, demonstrations, and counter demonstrations. Petitioning

MPs in both Parliamentary chambers have been the most direct assault on the gay

cause. For instance, the initial defeat by the House of Lords against lowering the

age of consent from 21 to 16 can be at least partly attributed by some conservative

Christian groups to their own lobbying pressures. The more obvious campaigning

techniques are lobbying, demonstrations, and counter demonstrations. Petitioning

MPs in both Parliamentary chambers have been the most direct assault on the gay

cause.

There remains a biblical basis to the strategy of the Christian anti-gay

rights groupings and relates to what Thompson refers to as the ‘Ezekiel factor’underpinning conservative Christian moral campaigning (Thompson 1997, 169–

70). In short, the Old Testament prophet Ezekiel warns that, no matter how devoutthey are, God’s people cannot stand aside seeking personal salvation while God’s judgment falls upon others. Unless they ‘blow the trumpet’ the blood of the sinful

will be upon the heads of the godly. Attempting to prevent people from sinning by lobbying for legislative change is part of this biblical justication including, if possible, the criminalisation of the homosexual act.

11 <http://www.christian.org.uk/whoweare/index.htm> (accessed 21/03/08).




Petitioning MPs in both Parliamentary the most direct assault on the gay cause.

At the rock foundation to their approach to ‘rights’ and in attempting to ‘deviantise’their opponents, the conservatives, as a ‘moral community’, still ultimately fall

back on biblical arguments against gay rights as this extract from a pamphlet bythe CI indicates:

The LGCM talk of ‘rights’ and ‘equality for homosexuals’. They refer to

homosexuals as ‘downtrodden’ and compare their opponents to the bigoted hate

mongers of the American deep south during the black civil rights campaigns.

However, Christians represented by groups such as Reform and Anglo-Catholic

group Cost of Conscience, feel bound to the Bible’s clear injunction against

homosexual practice … [I]f we accept a homosexual ‘Christian’ movement, there

is no reason why we should not also have an adulterer’s Christian fellowship and

a sex-before marriage fellowship.12

Conservative Christian groups have however come to realise that biblical quotes

do not strike accord with the public at large or politicians. This realisation hasenabled such factions to ght on the relatively new front of public policy andto have a greater ecumenical breadth. By emulating USA American Religious

Right lobbying, UK ‘cause’ groups opposed to gay rights are able to cross

denominational boundaries, free from some of the internal politics and dogma

of particular churches. They have mobilised themselves for pluralist politics andthus accept the legitimacy of democratic procedures and processes to further their

aims. Thus CARE’s goals include ‘… Challeng(ing) Christians to become activelyinvolved in the democratic process, to be effective salt and light where there is a

need for truth and justice’.13 In much the same vein the EA claims to be

… part of a movement ‘uniting to change society’ … [and] acts as an evangelical

voice to the state, society and the wider church … The Alliance speaks on behalf

of its members and represents evangelical concerns to Government, the National

Assemblies, the media and key decision-makers … resourcing its members and

encouraging Christians to fully engage in their communities as responsible

citizens …

In many respects the recourse to rights provides a marker of how peripheralthe broad Christian constituency has become in the UK since it is obliged to court

wider non-church agencies and engage with the wider and much utilised discourse

of civil liberties. This position is perhaps more readily and understandably

adopted by the liberal orientated Christian gay movement. However, it is one alsoincreasingly e,braced by conservative Christian lobby groups that are forced to

endorse the logic of their opponents in order to resist them and gain public support.

12 LGCM Brieng on Homosexuality and Christianity, pamphlet, 2001.

13 <http://www.care.org.uk/Publisher/Article.aspx?id=110635> (accessed 28/03/08).




While their objection to homosexuality remains ultimately biblically-based,conservatives have discernibly diluted their essentially scriptural element in order

to defend their position and to partake of the secular language that had long beenembraced by their liberal counterparts (Davies and Hunt 1999).

Secular strategies of the conservatives

There have been a number of strategies adopted by Christian anti-gay rights

groups that supplement the biblical foundation of their position and mark attemptsto impact upon public opinion and the political sphere. Integral to such strategies

is to ‘deviantise’ the LGCM or render it as being of marginalised irrelevance and

whose ‘rights’ are of little consequence or at least constitute a misappropriation

of the term.One strategy of the conservative anti-gay factions is to promote themselves as

guardians of public good and supporters of public consensus. The CI, for instance,

has advanced the view that a change in the law of the age consent is not supported

by the UK public, pointing out that according to British Social Attitudes, the most

respected survey of public opinion, some 70 per cent of the UK population opposed

it and a similar percentage considered that homosexual practices are ‘always or

mostly wrong’.14 The CI points to the ndings of opinion polls Christianity.

… as evidence that gay sex at sixteen was deeply unpopular … not morally

equivalent to heterosexual intercourse, with considerably increased medical

risks, and that homosexuality is something which sets people apart from the rest

of society. (Calvert 1997, 4)

Relatedly, anti-gay rights Christian lobbyists attempt to portray the gay cause

as constituting a ‘public menace’. There is a tendency to link the LGCM with promoting promiscuity, pornography, the ‘decline of the family’ and a number of

related issues, all of which are portrayed as posing a public threat and unpickingthe moral threads of UK society. This tactic has included the use of fairly emotive

and provocative language. The literature produced by the CI refers explicitly

to ‘obscene behaviour’ by way of describing gay sex and points out that the

terminology used in UK law includes frequent reference to ‘buggery’.15 Concerns

about HIV since the early 1980s has also been used by conservatives to attackthe gay community with the assertion that ‘true’ Christians should wish for and

positively be active in revoking permissive legislation. If HIV was not God’s

judgment, it was at least a discernible repercussion for breaking God’s laws (Gill1989, 66), if not secular laws.

14 The Christian Institute, Annual Report, 1997/8, 15.

15 The Christian Institute, Annual Report, 1997/8, 15.




Once again, it is perfectly clear that the entire agenda of The Evangelical Alliance

is to secure exemptions from compliance with equality legislation for Christian

(and other Faith) organisations and even individuals who, The Evangelical

Alliance argues, ought to be allowed to discriminate against lesbians and gays if

they can claim ‘Christian conscience’ as a pretext.28

The matter of gay rights has led to a number of further signicant court casessupported by Christian the anti-gay rights lobbies. In September, 2007, the Belfast

High Court ruled against the Northern Ireland Sexual Orientation Regulations.

This followed a case brought by the CI and supported by a number of other

Christian bodies in the province, while CARE had earlier campaigned against the

regulations.29 The judge ruled that the regulations do not apply to the NationalCurriculum in UK education or indeed to every action carried out by a faith group

in receipt of government monies, only the specic activity for which the groupreceives government funding. Responding to concerns that the regulations could

be used to force a Christian printer to print material promoting gay relationships,

the judge suggested a Christian could refuse to carry out work for someone onthe grounds they were gay and refuse to print material if its content violated their

religious faith. Colin Hart, Director of the CI, stated

We are taking this legal action to protect religious freedom. I believe these

regulations discriminate against Christians on the basis of their religious beliefson sexual ethics.30

In early 2008, the CI published an article on the implications of recent gay

rights legislation.31 The Diocese of Hereford was ordered to pay £47,000 in

compensation to a man who was turned down for a job as a youth worker becauseof his gay lifestyle in 2007. John Reaney, supported by a number of gay rights

groups, brought the Diocese to an employment tribunal after being questioned by

the Bishop of Hereford about his sexuality during a job interview. The tribunalfound that Reaney, whose claim was funded by the gay campaign group Stonewall,

had been wrongly discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Stonewall claimed the tribunal should require the Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Rev

Anthony Priddis, to undergo equal opportunities training which the group offered

28 Joel Edwards and The Evangelical Alliance: Opponents of human rights for lesbian

and gay people <http://www.lgcm.org.uk> (accessed 22/03/08).

29 Religious Liberty: Good News from Northern Ireland Care website article <http://www.care.org.uk/Publisher/Article.aspx?ID=90793> (accessed 27/03/08).30 New Releases, Monday 4 June, 2007, ‘Gay rights’ regulations restrict religious

liberty, High Court hears’ <http://www.christian.org.uk/pressreleases/2007/june_04_2007.htm> (accessed 28/03/08).

31 £47,000 ne for Bishop sued by homosexual youth worker <http://www.christian.org.uk/issues/2008/rellib/bphereford_12feb08.htm> (accessed 27/03/08).




to provide. The case was decided under 2003 laws banning sexual orientation

discrimination in employment. Strong conservative Christian opposition to the

introduction of the legislation led to an exemption to protect appointments by

churches and religious organisations. The tribunal rejected Stonewall’s assertionthat this exemption only applied to church ministers, and ruled that churches could

also require a youth worker to adhere to their doctrines on marriage and celibacy.While the LGCM has been prepared to support the campaigns of Stonewall

and comparable groups, it has proved no less forceful in following up cases of

alleged discrimination in seminaries. A case in point, in 2008, was the events at

the Anglican Oxford Theological College, Wycliffe Hall. Reading Employment

Tribunal heard an admission from legal Counsel for the College that the Principle

had acted unlawfully in sacking three members of staff who complained of‘homophobic bullying’ at the college and claimed that they were the subject of

‘religious discrimination’.32

There have been additional ‘rights’ battle grounds and these have included

adoption, civil partnerships, and assisted human reproduction. Regarding the

former, an article carried by the CI, that identies gay rights being in oppositionto religious liberties, relates how several adoption and childcare specialists were

threatened with dismissal from their jobs for deciding not to place children withgay couples which is now permitted under UK law.33 Norah Ellis and Dawn

Jackson were threatened with dismissal from Sefton Council. Both stressed that

their opposition to homosexual adoption was based on their rights as professional practitioners as well as Christian conviction. The response of the LGCM to such

cases has been to call for an assurance of ‘equality to suitable gay or lesbian

couples seeking to adopt children, where this is in the child’s best interests’.34

Christian anti-gay groups have occasionally strayed into the area of trans-

gendered sexuality in relation to religious rights. An article by the CI relates how

the UK government had ‘postponed a Parliamentary debate on new transgendered

sexual discrimination laws which impact on religious liberty’ and that ‘The delay

gives more time for religious liberty concerns to be raised’.35 The regulations

include a harassment provision which could lead to Christians being sued for

expressing their religious beliefs on transgendered sexuality in some circumstances.

Other measures mean that faith-based adoption agencies could face legal action

for refusing to place children in a household headed by a transgendered person.

The LGCM’s retort to such issues of adoption has predictably been framed with

reference to ‘rights’:

32 The Wrong Type of Christian? LGCM responds to Dr Elaine Storkey’s EmploymentTribunal against the Bishop of Liverpool <http://www.lgcm.org.uk> (accessed 03/10/08).33 <http://www.christian.org.uk/rel_liberties/cases/roberts.htm> (accessed 14/05/08).34 Richard Kirker, Religious Adoption Agencies <http://www.lgcm.org.uk> (accessed

21/07/08).35 <http://www.christian.org.uk/html-publications/pub_homosexualrights.ht m>

(accessed 14/05/08).




We see this as just the beginning of the legislation necessary to bring full equality

to lesbian and gay couples and families … We remain deeply committed to

the removal of all legal distinctions that discriminate against the homosexual

community and will continue to press for the removal of all that puts lesbian and

gay families at a disadvantage.36

The EA has also commented on the content of Content of Civil Marriage

Ceremonies.37 The organisation responded in October, 2003, to the General Register

Ofce consultation on the Civil Registration of Births Marriage and Deaths, CivilRegistration: Delivering Vital Change. In a statement the EA concluded ‘these

proposals constituted “controversial legislation’”. Along with CARE, the EA proposals outlined in the consultation document advocated extending the right to

use some religious language watered down the uniqueness, clarity and denition

of Christian marriage that was guaranteed by government when producing theCivil Partnerships Bill (now the Civil Partnerships Act). Another concern was inregard to the Civil Registration consultation which included aspects relating to the

recording of the birth or biological sex of the couples seeking civil marriage or partnership. Unease has also extended to the possibility of the religious content of

civil partnership ceremonies:

If potential civil partners do not think the content of civil marriage ceremonies is

‘religious’ enough they have the option of conducting their wedding in a church.With the current proposals, the crucial, guaranteed original distinction between

civil marriage and religious marriage is being blurred and religious marriage

watered down. We unreservedly oppose this creeping subversion of marriage.38

The CI, alongside other such groupings, has attempted to turn the tables on the

gay rights movements by appealing to the matter of sexual discrimination.39 For

example, the CI points to a married couple who won the rst round in a tribunalaction against employers who categorised their marital status along with civil

partnerships. The Civil Partnership Act came into force in Scotland in 2005,

following ministerial assurances that the new partnerships would not be equated

with marriage. Lucille and Frank McQuade complained after Strathclyde Police began recording employees’ marital status as ‘married/civil partnership’, rather than

identifying married status separately. The McQuades, who are Roman Catholics,were both employed by the force. They stated their employer’s decision to record

36 Richard Kirker, Religious Adoption Agencies <http://www.lgcm.org.uk > (accessed21/07/08).37 Content of Civil Marriage Ceremonies <http://www.eauk.org/public-affairs/

marriageandfamily> (accessed 07/10/05).38 <http://www.eauk.org/public-affairs/humanrights> (accessed 23/03/08).39 Married couple win rst round in ‘civil partnerships’ dispute Christian institute <http://

www.christian.org.uk/issues/2008/family/mcquade_11mar08.ht m> (accessed 24/03/08).




their marital status as ‘married/civil partnership’ represented both religious and

sex discrimination. Mrs McQuade allegedly complained that ‘The concept ofhomosexuality is not compatible with our faith’, adding: ‘We nd it offensive that people don’t know if we are married or civil partners’.40

Finally, in utilising the language of rights, conservative opposition to gay

rights has included recourse to the ‘rights of the child’. The government’s Human

Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (2007–08) includes provisions to recognise alesbian couple as a child’s legal parents and removes the legal requirement to

consider the child’s ‘need for a father’. The CI reported Archbishop, Dr John

Sentamu, who told the House of Lords: ‘The right of a prospective parent to have

a child by any means necessary must not triumph over the welfare of children

brought into the world’. He added: ‘The child’s right not to be deliberately deprived

of a father is greater than any right to commission a child by IVF’. The CI detailed

how Baroness Williams of Crosby warned ‘Unless we give men a full sense ofwhat it is to be a father, a member of a family, and a proud and in many ways very

rich potential, we will simply nd ourselves with more and more dysfunctionalfamilies’.

Summary

The Christian Church, along with the military, has proved to be one of the last bastions resisting the extension of gay rights within their structures (Davies 1975;Chester and Peel 1976). There are more than theological matters to be observedin the dilemma facing the churches: the wider secular extension of gay rights that

have brought warring parties onto the same eld of battle. In concert with otherelements of the broader gay liberation movement from the 1970s, gay and lesbian

Christians have sought to mobilise in order to protect and extend their rights. In

turn, they have been opposed by the conservative Christian constituency that is

frequently organised in permanent ‘cause’ groups launching a two-pronged counter

attack based on religious and moral tenets that could have a popular appeal. On theone hand they have wrought opposition to equal rights within the churches. On the

other, they have opposed the extension of rights in secular society as enshrined in

UK Parliamentary law and/or the rulings of the European Parliament and Court

of Human Rights. In sum, the activities of the LGCM and those of its opponents,

as ‘moral communities’, exemplify the increasing ‘internal’ secularisation of the

Christian Church UK as it responds to wider developments. At the same time they

are constituencies struggling to advance their cause, it is the negative labelling of

the opposition, especially in terms of the perceived spurious ‘rights’ they advance,that becomes an important moral resource.

40 Originally quoted in the Scotsman newspaper <http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/

Catholic-couple-win-rst-round.3862907.j p> (accessed 05/06/08).




In battling for what both parties interpret as ‘rights’ the LGCM and its opponents

have found liberal democracies ideal arenas to promote the struggle to legitimate

competing ethical frameworks. At the same time, these contending grouping havesought to establish their own distinctive identity and forge moral boundaries

by which they are able to differentiate themselves from rival communities and

interests. In short, part of the outcome of pluralist politics is for such parties to

establish a positive image for the state and its legislative authorities and to win

over public opinion.

Within their church communities religious conservatives have largely blockedthe full participation of openly gay and lesbian believers in virtually every

denomination. The anti-gay Christian movement in the secular sphere could also

claim a level of success. To some extent this is because, unlike their adversaries,the conservative factions are not single-issues groups. This has advantages in that

gay sexuality can be addressed alongside what may broadly be perceived as publicthreats including abortion on demand, pornography, and the breakdown of thefamily. Nonetheless, the LGCM is more focused and pours all of its resources into

promoting one issue. This has enhanced the movement’s sense of cohesion that

could have otherwise been weakened by simultaneously advancing other liberalcauses such as the ordination of women clergy.

There is, however, something more fundamental to consider. In many ways,

the aim of the conservative sector to bring a religious revival and reversal of the

permissive, materialistic and individualistic society that has evolved from the1960s seems unrealistic. Reforms are not easy to repeal wholesale. Moreover, most

politicians in the UK have little interest in the religious lobby. The EA, for one,

recognises that it is religious rights, at least by way of how it interprets them, are

‘at the bottom of the pile’ of equality and rights priorities.41 Indeed, the attempts

of the Christian conservatives to inuence the outcome of general elections, oversome three decades, by appealing to religious moralism have proved ineffectual.

In part, this may be because the conservative are operating within an increasingly

secular context. Yet, in attempting to mobilise support for their goals religious

organisations are less effective than secular organisations because of their tendency

to follow vague, universal, and usually moral goals which, in many respects, are

often abstract, unattainable, and unwinnable.

Perhaps above all, the cause of the LGCM is much in accordance with

developments in the secular world in that the enhancement of gay rights is seen

in increasing liberal legislation. This means that conservative Christian groups

within the Church at large are in a difcult, if not unsustainable position. In forging public opinion, as much as reecting it, the UK state is a powerful determinant

especially when it has to fall in line with the recommendations of internationalagencies such as the European Community. Ultimately, the pressure by the LGCM

for the churches to fully accept gay and lesbian orientation as legitimate may be

41 Joel Edwards and The Evangelical Alliance: Opponents of human rights for lesbian

and gay people <http://www.lgcm.org.uk> (accessed 22/07/08).




successful. Rather ironically, that victory may not come through the activities of

the LGCM or similar movements but via the legal requirements of secular society

and public opinion that will identify the Christian Church as out of line with the

culture and ethos of the modern world.



Chapter 7

Christians and Gays in Northern Ireland:

How the Ethno-Religious Context has Shaped Christian Anti-Gay and Pro-Gay Activism

Richard O’Leary

In the Summer of 2008 in England the Lambeth conference of the worldwideAnglican Communion politely tip-toed around the Communion’s disagreements

about gay sexuality. In contrast Northern Ireland was facing another marching

controversy. Unlike the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s when the police had to contendwith Orange (pro-British) and Green (pro-Irish) parades and counter-parades, thecurrent controversy was pink. Northern Ireland had progressed to contesting theannual Belfast Gay Pride Parade.

In decades past inter-communal tensions around the so-called annual marching

season, which culminated in the largest Orange Order parades on the Twelfth ofJuly, were exacerbated by intemperate public comments. Preceding the August

2008 Belfast Pride parade the feelings of the LGBT community and of the

Christian anti-gay1 constituency had been stirred by public anti-gay comments in

June by the politician Iris Robinson. Mrs Robinson MP, and wife of the new First

Minister for Northern Ireland, in an extended interview on BBC radio described

homosexuality as an ‘abomination’.2 She elaborated on this with adjectivesdescribing homosexuality as ‘vile’, ‘disgusting’ and ‘wicked’ and offered guidanceas to where gay persons might go to be ‘turned round’ with psychiatric help. She

emphasised that she was speaking as a Christian and that she was ‘defendingthe word of God’. The radio interview was conducted after a recent vicious

homophobic assault on a gay man in Belfast (which she condemned).The Belfast Gay Pride parades and the public comments about gay persons

made by Democratic Unionist Party politicians are key events which precipitated public discourse in the mid 2000s about being Christian and gay in Northern

Ireland. While that discourse has also been affected by the more secular national

context of the United Kingdom, as described by Stephen Hunt in his chapter, I

1 The term Christian anti-gay is considered a useful description to distinguish those

Christians who have spoken publicly to condemn homosexuality, who refer to homosexualityand gay persons in terms of ‘abomination’ and ‘sodomy’ and who demand celibacy of gay

persons as a condition of acceptance.

2 The Belfast Telegraph, 10 June 2008.




propose that any account of Christianity and gay persons in the United Kingdom

and Ireland needs to distinguish the particular experience of being Christian and

gay in Northern Ireland. This is not simply because Northern Ireland is both one

of the most religious and the most homophobic countries in Western Europe,

which has heightened the tension in the society between being Christian and gay

(Borooah and Mangan 2007). Rather it is argued in this chapter that the ethno-religious context and conict between Catholics and Protestants has shaped bothChristian anti-gay and Christian pro-gay activism. We will examine three ways in

which this is so.

First, we examine the sectarian divisions and comment on the cross-community

and denominational composition and organisational alliances of both Christian

pro-gay and Christian anti-gay organisations and trace the continuity with earlier

activism. Secondly, we examine the use of language by Christian anti-gay

activists and commentators and reect on how it has been shaped by outspokenevangelicalism. Thirdly, we examine ways in which the sectarian legacy is evident

in contests around parades and which has now shifted to the Belfast Gay Pride

parade. Before this it may be helpful to the reader to describe briey the generalsituation as regards both homosexuality and religion in Northern Ireland.

The situation as regards the acceptance of gay and lesbian persons in Northern

Ireland is different from that in Britain. Homosexuality was only made legal in

Northern Ireland in 1982, much later than its achievement in England and Wales

in 1967. Jeffery-Poulter (1991) describes how the conservative moral attitudes of both the Catholic and Protestant Churches together with the sectarian violence

mitigated against even the establishment of pro-gay campaigning groups in

Northern Ireland. A breakthrough on reform was only achieved through thesuccessful court case in 1981, initiated in 1975, brought by Jeff Dudgeon to the

European Court of Human Rights. This put sufcient pressure on the Britishgovernment to extend the legalisation to Northern Ireland.

The level of local political and societal acceptance of gay persons continued

to lag behind that in the rest of the UK. When same-sex Civil Partnership was

introduced in the UK in December 2005 it was only made possible in Northern

Ireland by ‘direct rule’ from the British government at Westminster – the regional

government in Northern Ireland was suspended at that time. Indeed, the rst CivilPartnership at Belfast City Hall was marked by Christian anti-gay protests. Thereare higher levels of homophobic attitudes in Northern Ireland than in any other

Western country (Borooah and Mangan 2007). However, this is not to deny that progress has been made with the development of an LGBT community sector,

a lively gay social scene and increased visibility of LGBT individuals and

organisations in the wider society. Northern Ireland scores highest of all the UK regions in terms of religious

afliation, and is known for its high levels of religiosity. A snapshot indicator fromthe past 30 years shows that in 1998 Protestantism was still the majority faith –38 per cent of the population reported an afliation to Roman Catholicism, 39 percent to mainstream Protestantism (21 per cent Presbyterian, 15 per cent Church



Christians and Gays in Northern Ireland 125

of Ireland/Anglican, 3 per cent Methodist) and 12 per cent ‘other’ Christian, forexample, Baptists, Free Presbyterians, and independent house churches (Brewer

2002). Both the Presbyterian Church and the Church of Ireland present in Northern Ireland are more conservative than these denominations are in Britain.

Mitchell (2006) also contrasts Catholics for whom she claims religion is primarilyimportant in its social and institutional forms with many Protestants for whom its

theological and ideological dimensions are more pressing. She also reminds us that

in Northern Ireland even persons who no longer go to church tend to reproduce

stereotypes of ‘them’ and ‘us’. This bring us to the discussion of our rst theme,that of the context of ethno-religious division and sectarianism.

Societal divisions

Northern Ireland generally can be described as being religiously and socially

segregated to an unusual degree, in terms of the Catholic and Protestant ethno-

religious groups. This division extends to varying degrees to all areas of society –

affecting where you live, type of schooling, membership of social organisations,

and wariness of intermarriage (McGarry and O’Leary 1996; O’Leary 2001). It isa society deeply marked by sectarianism, with a history of distrust and negativity

between many Catholics and Protestants and which in the past has escalated into

serious prolonged violence. While this tension and ethno-religious separatism haseased since the political peace settlement, it has not disappeared.

In contrast to the wider society the LGBT community and the gay social scene

in Northern Ireland is widely regarded as being remarkably less divided andsectarian. During the violent period of sectarian conict from the late 1960s untilthe mid 1990s, Catholic and Protestant LGBT persons formed and maintained

mixed religion LGBT community organisations and a social scene of gay pubs and

club nights at a time when the wider society retreated into religious segregation.

The violent conict, the peace settlement and its aftermath has howeverimpacted on the LGBT community in various ways. On the one hand it has

beneted on the back of measures introduced to tackle sectarianism, for example,the Equality and Human Rights Commissions and ‘hate crime’ legislation which

have been accompanied by measures to address racism and homophobia. Indeed,

anti-discrimination legislation pertaining to homophobia has arguably been

somewhat ahead of pubic opinion. On the other hand, in the period following the

signing of the peace settlement in 1998, the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement, while

sectarian incidents have decreased, homophobic incidents have persisted and in

some years increased (Select Committee on NI Affairs, Ninth Report;3 Jarman andTennant 2003). Jarman has commented on the contributory factors unique to theculture and history of Northern Ireland describing a ‘suspicion of difference’. He

3 The increase in the number of recorded homophobic incidents may reect someactual increase and some increased willingness by victims to report such attacks.




(in contrast to the wider society) what is more remarkable is that they participatedin ecumenical worship at a time when this was uncommon in Northern Ireland.

Their early participation in eucharistic sharing is especially signicant as this practice has been viewed as a symbol of reconciliation between the divided ethno-

religious communities (O’Leary 2000). In 2008 Changing Attitude Ireland helda public eucharistic service at St George’s, a Church of Ireland church, at which

there was eucharistic sharing. The ecumenical dimension of these groups is even

reected in the places where they had meetings and events, for example, GCF metat the ecumenical Corrymeela centre. The Gathering has met at a Roman Catholic

monastery.

Secondly, these groups were all multi-denominational, drawing on the full

wide range of denominations i.e. Roman Catholic, Church of Ireland, Presbyterian,

Methodist and others. Again, this may be seen as an achievement as even within

Protestantism in Northern Ireland, there was a tendency for the denominations tooperate separately.

The above characteristics are even more evident in the composition of the

newest, largest and most public of the Christian gay/pro-gay groups – Changing

Attitude Ireland (CAI).7 CAI describes itself as a Christian network of persons gayand straight, lay and ordained, working within the Churches for the full afrmationof lesbian, gay bisexual and transgendered persons in the Churches. Originally

formed within the Church of Ireland (and modelled on the Anglican, Changing

Attitude in England) it quickly became ecumenical and includes Church of Ireland,Roman Catholic, Presbyterian and Non-Subscribing Presbyterian members on its

Committee.

The individual activists and supporters most associated with Changing

Attitude Ireland also reect continuity with earlier activism in Northern Irelandaround issues of anti-sectarianism and ecumenism. The co-founder, Church of

Ireland clergyman the Revd. Mervyn Kingston, was known for his work on anti-sectarianism and ecumenism. Committee member and NI spokesperson CanonCharles Kenny was a founder of Catalyst (set up in 1996 to promote the healing

of sectarian divisions in Ireland). The current Chairperson of CAI, the Revd.Chris Hudson, a non-subscribing Presbyterian clergyman, was known nationallyin Ireland in the late 1980s/1990s for his work with the anti-violence ‘PeaceTrain’ campaign. One of the Patrons of CAI is the retired Church of Ireland Dean

Victor Grifn, who was known in Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s for his nationalleadership in anti-sectarian and ecumenical activities.

Changing Attitude Ireland was not only new in being a public and campaigning

Christian pro-gay initiative but it shows the type of engagement with secular

society described by Stephen Hunt in his chapter. As a network of persons gayand straight, it is signalling its strategy of mobilising the wider straight society.

Furthermore, it has afliated to the secular pro-rights umbrella groups the Coalitionon Sexual Orientation (CoS0) and the Equality and Rights Alliance. CAI in its

7 <www.changingattitudeireland.org>.




press statements has called for support for gay rights in the civil and not just thereligious spheres.

This picture of the Gay Christian and Christian pro-gay groups and individuals

has been presented because it may be contrasted with the prole of the most prominent Christian anti-gay groups and individuals in Northern Ireland in the

past three decades. The most prominent Christian anti-gay campaign was led by

the fundamentalist and evangelical Christian pastor and politician, the Revd. Ian

Paisley of both the Free Presbyterian Church and the Democratic Unionist Party

(DUP). While Paisley had long been hostile to homosexuality, it was Dudgeon’sEuropean Court action that in 1977 spurred him and DUP8 and Free Presbyterian

supporters to launch their campaign to ‘SAVE ULSTER FROM SODOMY’

(Jeffery-Poulter 1991, 151). In February 1978 they handed in a petition to thegovernment buildings at Stormont, Northern Ireland, which they claimed had been

signed by 70,000 persons.Although homophobia was widespread at the time, and endemic in all the major

Christian denominations, the largest Protestant denominations in Northern Ireland –

the Presbyterian Church, the Church of Ireland and the Methodist Church –

did not associate themselves with Paisley’s campaign. Therefore, the Christian

anti-gay campaign failed to form a cross-denominational Protestant organisational

alliance despite the fertile ground of widespread homophobia. Similarly, he

did not form a cross-community Protestant-Catholic alliance of conservatives,

although he playfully alluded to this in the 1981 debate in the House of Commonswhere he denounced the measure and said ‘I thought this House would encourage

such unity, because I have heard it said often “Why can you not get it together?

Why can you not agree on something?” Here is something on which they agree’(Jeffery-Poulter 1991, 153).9

The failure to form cross-denominational and cross-community alliances

around the ‘Save Ulster from Sodomy’ campaign may be seen largely to reect thetheological extremism of the Free Presbyterian Church and the political extremism

of the DUP which repelled mainstream Christian conservatives. However, it also

reects the Free Presbyterians’ own anti-ecumenical stance – for in its view evenother Protestant denominations were in error in doctrine and in behaviour. An

alliance with the conservative Roman Catholic Church was of course unthinkable,given both the Free Presbyterian antipathy to the Catholic Church and the DUP’s

opposition to Irish nationalism.

The Free Presbyterian Church has organisationally been the consistently most

vociferous opponent of homosexuality. It has, for example, maintained protests

at the annual Belfast Gay Pride parades. It was the Sandown church of the Free

Presbyterians which in August 2008 placed a controversial advertisement in a

8 Supported by Mr Peter Robinson, now in 2008 the DUP leader and First Minister of

NI and husband of Iris Robinson.

9 Although it was claimed that some individual Catholics signed the ‘Save Ulster

from Sodomy’ petition (Bruce 1986, 151).




local daily newspaper opposing the Belfast Parade. However, even in 2008 the

Christian anti-gay protesting groups at Pride did not form a singe united protest

issuing separate denouncements and being physically separated between the Free

Presbyterians at one location and the persons from a Congregational Reformed

church at another.

All the mainline Protestant denominations, including the Church of Ireland,

have large conservative evangelical constituencies and which include some anti-

gay opinion.10 Evangelicals have been identied as prominent in Christian anti-gay activism in Britain and other countries (Hunt 2003a). This became even moreapparent in Northern Ireland when on the same day as the Belfast Gay Pride

parade in 2008, the Evangelical Fellowship of the Irish Clergy (EFIC) within theChurch of Ireland printed in the Belfast Telegraph newspaper a stinging criticism

of the Church of Ireland Primate, Archbishop Alan Harper. The Primate, in a talk

after the Lambeth conference, had shown some openness to reection on the issueof gay sexuality.11 The EFIC declared that ‘We are saddened that one who is to

protect the faith and those committed to his care should so confuse, hurt and divide

the people of God over the issue of human sexuality’.12

There are differences of opinion about gay sexuality within the Church of Ireland

and the other mainline denominations. However, it is signicant that no conservativeclergyperson from these mainline denominations is known to have joined either ofthe anti-gay protests at Belfast Pride. Furthermore, the potential of some of Northern

Ireland’s conservative evangelicals to shift to more moderate opinions should not be dismissed as is evident in Ganiel’s (2008) examination of how evangelicals haveresponded to the recent seismic political changes in Northern Ireland.

On the other hand, liberals within the mainline Protestant denominations have

been reluctant to publicly adopt a Christian pro-gay stance.13 In this respect they

contrast with the many liberal Christians in Britain who have publicly afrmedgay and lesbian Christians and even joined Christian pro-gay organisations.Indeed in Ireland the mainline denominations are arguably 20 years behind their

counterparts in Britain and North America who have been openly addressing

this issue. The liberals in Ireland appear to be wary of incurring criticism from

conservatives within their own congregations and denominations. As was observed

10 Evangelicalism is a broad orientation within Irish Christianity ranging from the

fundamentalist Free Presbyterianism to small conservative churches to strands of the largest

mainline denominations of Presbyterianism and Anglicanism (Church of Ireland) throughto small liberal groups like Zero28 (Ganiel 2008).

11 Report in the Church of Ireland Gazette, 11 July 2008, ‘Archbishop of Armaghcalls for return to heart of Anglicanism to resolve contemporary issues’.

12 Letter in The Belfast Telegraph, 2 August 2008, ‘Archbishop should reconsider

his position’.

13 A rare expression of support by Christians for gay persons was that of the

theologically liberal and small evangelical Christian group, Zero28, which in 2005 called

on fellow Christians not to object to the Belfast Gay Pride Parade.




Catholic protesters described how ‘We contend that the farce in regard to so-called

civil unions for homosexuals is merely a prelude for the introduction of adoption

“rights” for practicing sodomites’.18

With the cessation of violence between the ethno-religious communities, and

the semblance of more normal politics, the question arises whether a new alliance

could emerge among conservative Protestants and/or between conservative

Protestants and Catholics.19 One indicator of this possibility and its limitations

is suggested by the responses in 2006/7 of various Christian organisations and

denominations to the Northern Ireland Sexual Orientation Regulations. A group

of seven conservative Christian organisations, including the anti-gay Christian

Institute and the Caleb Foundation sought a judicial review. They were not joinedin this action by any of the four main Christian denominations, indicating the

limits to alliance building between the most conservative organisations and the

four main denominations. Jordan (2001, 156) has reected on the relationship between evangelicals and Roman Catholicism in the new peaceful situation and has

concluded that based on how evangelicals understand spirituality and the centrality

of the Scripture it is unlikely that in the near future wide scale cooperation would be possible.

However, senior representatives of the four main denominations – the

Presbyterian Moderator, the Methodist President, a Church of Ireland Bishop and a

senior Roman Catholic priest – together met with the relevant British government

minister to discuss the regulations. The Presbyterian Church’s Information Serviceissued a statement on behalf of these four senior church representatives expressing

their shared concerns. They stated that while

… all our Churches respect and would seek to protect the civil, political, social

and religious rights of all persons irrespective of their sexual orientation … we

were not adequately assured that our concerns in relation to services provided

by our Churches as part of our Christian witness were fully met. These include

the provision of faith-based adoption services, care of older people, education

and marriage counselling.20

That these three main Protestant denominations were able to pursue joint actionwith the Catholic Church, on this occasion in relation the Sexual Orientation

Regulations, shows a degree of consensus and the potential for more joint actionin the future.

18 Reported in Searchlight Magazine, August 2006 – ‘Ex-Provo gives new life toIrish clerical fascism’ <www.searchlightmagazine.com> (accessed 30/07/08).19 The author was told about a recent public meeting about community matters during

which a RC priest called for increased cooperation in the new peaceful political situation

between the DUP and the RC Church on common causes such as opposition to gay rights.

20 Press statement issued 20 December 2006 by Stephen Lynas, Presbyterian

Information Service (accessed at <www.bbc.co.uk>).




Inammatory language

We continue with a consideration of our second area of the sectarian legacy – that

of language. Public discourse in Northern Ireland about the subject of gay sexualitycan be more emotional than that heard in other parts of the UK or Ireland. Two

possible sources of this may be the emotional charge of evangelical Christianity

and the legacy of inter-group communal tension.

Michael Vasey, writing about Anglican evangelical Christian protests about

homosexuality described how their ‘Evangelical protest has carried a high

emotional charge’ (Vasey 1991, 4). He elaborates how ‘Much of the emotional power of these protests has drawn on a powerful perception in Western culture of

the sodomite as an unnatural person who poses a threat to the religious and social

order’ (Vasey 1991, 5).

Vasey’s observation about the exaggerated threat perceived by conservativeevangelicals as being posed by homosexuality also appears evident in Mr Paisley’s

denunciations. In 1977 Paisley decried ‘The crime of sodomy is a crime against

God and man and its practice is a terrible step to the total demoralisation of any

country and must inevitably lead to the breakdown of all decency within the province’ (Jeffery-Poulter 1991, 150).

The emphasis and repeated use of the word ‘sodomy’ is also consistent with

the interpretation by Aune in her chapter in this volume that anti-gay evangelicals

were preoccupied with male rather than female same-sex activity. Indeed hersuggestion that what is at stake for conservative evangelicals is not so muchgenital sexual activity but their concern for strong, traditional, heterosexual male

sexual identities would seem to be especially relevant to Northern Ireland. This

is a society which has had its masculinity shaped by the macho culture of street

violence and paramilitarism and threatened by de-industrialisation and the recent

social progress made by women.

The very strong language about homosexuality used by anti-gay evangelical

Christians like the Revd. Ian Paisley and Mrs Iris Robinson was not uniquelyapplied to gay persons but was also used against other targets. For example, in

1986 the World Congress of Fundamentalists of which Paisley and the American

Bob Jones were co-chairmen, wrote of ‘Recognising the Roman Catholic Church

as revealed in Scripture as “mother of harlots and abominations of the earth” …’(Cooke 1996, 41).21

Such strong views can be powerfully conveyed by pastors with exceptional

rhetorical skills. The Revd. Ian Paisley possessed such skills and they wereemployed publicly and dramatically to denounce various enemies including

homosexuality. A master of inammatory language and publicity stunts, his

21 For accounts of Paisley’s anti-Catholicism, and criticisms of apostate Protestants

and the ecumenical movement see D. Cooke (1996). For example, The World Councilof Churches was denounced as ‘the great ecumenical assembly of Baalism and a wickedchamber of corruption’ (Cooke 1996, 70).




‘Save Ulster from Sodomy’ campaign had a familiar slogan and resonated with

an audience who were familiar with the ‘Save Ulster’ format – Save Ulster from

Rome, the papacy, Catholicism, a United Ireland. For Paisley, ‘We’ are the patriots,

they are the heretics, the apostates, the rebels. The inammatory language of anti-ecumenism, of sectarianism and political extremism was easily transferred to the

verbal assault on homosexuality and gay and lesbian persons, or sodomites as he

preferred to call them.

There is even intergenerational continuity in the use of offensive language.

In 2007 the Revd. Ian Paisley was joined in the government of NI by his son IanPaisley junior, as his father’s junior Minister in the Ofce of First Minister andDeputy First Minister (OFMDFM), and with responsibility for equality issues. Ina press interview in 2007 Ian Paisley junior described how gay and lesbian people‘repulsed’ him. Ironically, the equality section of the OFMDFM later that year

awarded grants to the LGBT sector administered though the Coalition on SexualOrientation.

However, it was Iris Robinson MP who made the most recent and most

inammatory statements about gay and lesbian persons. She rst gave an interviewon BBC radio following a local homophobic assault on a young gay man (an

attack which she condemned) before proceeding to describe homosexuality asan ‘abomination’. Mrs Robinson’s use of a strong word such as ‘abomination’ is

not exceptional, given her evangelical Christian background. She elaborated that

homosexuality was ‘vile’ and ‘wicked’, strong language but the sort of languagewhich was widely used during the period of violent sectarian conict to refer tokillers.

Mrs Robinson told the BBC ‘that I have nothing against any homosexual. I

love them, that is what the Lord tells me, to love the sinner and not the sin. And

just as a murderer can be redeemed by the blood of Christ, so can a homosexual.

And that’s the message. It’s the word of God’.22 That Mrs Robinson should makea comparison between persons who are gay and murderers is not exceptional in

Northern Ireland. A gay interviewee is recorded as once telling the evangelical

Christian Jeremy Marks that in Northern Ireland he felt it was more acceptable to be a murderer than a homosexual (Marks 2008, 34).

Mrs Robinson compounded the offence by adding that she had ‘a very lovely

psychiatrist who works with me in my ofces, and his Christian background is thathe tries to help homosexuals trying to turn away from what they are engaged in’.23

She later that month told a House of Commons Committee that ‘There can be no

viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than sexually abusing innocent

children’.

As Mrs Robison is an elected politician as well as a Christian, her comments both on radio and at the House of Commons held wider signicance. SinnFein’s Martina Anderson said the anti-gay comments called Mrs Robinson’s

22 The Belfast Telegraph, 10/06/08.

23 The Guardian, 21/06/08, ‘In bed with the DUP?’.




position as chairman of the Assembly’s Health Committee into question.24 One

political commentator suggested that the timing of her anti-gay comments was

not coincidental and wrote that ‘The DUP was put in power largely by people

who loved the old Paisley. Iris has reassured them that something of the old bible

bound thinking survives still’.

25 Since Ian Paisley and the DUP had appeared to

some of its supporters to have undertaken a volte face by entering into coalition

government with their long-time political enemies of the Sinn Fein party, these

supporters may have been reassured by a reiteration of traditional DUP views.

Members of the gay community made a formal complaint to the Police Service

of Northern Ireland about Mrs Robinson’s comments requesting them to investigate

whether her remarks constituted a ‘hate crime’.26 In response to the criticisms, Mrs

Robinson insisted that she had a right to express her view ‘I am defending the

word of God. I think at the moment there is a witch-hunt to curb or actually stop

or prevent Christians speaking out and I make no apology for what I said becauseit’s the word of God’.27

The recourse to the argument for free speech was to recur later in the Summer

with another intervention by the Free Presbyterian Church. On the eve of Belfast’s

Gay Pride, Sandown Free Presbyterian Church placed an advertisement in the daily

newspaper The News Letter which described homosexuality as an abomination,

dened homosexuals as perverts, referred to the act of sodomy as a grave offence

and called on religious followers to maintain a very public stance against the gay

community.28

Members of the gay community made a formal complaint to theAdvertising Standards Agency (ASA) about this advertisement in the newspaper.The ASA ruled that the advert breached decency codes, requested that the advert

not be republished and advised that ‘particular care should be taken to avoidoffence on the grounds of sexual orientation’.

While liberals may disagree with what Iris Robinson actually said, or with the

advert that the News Letter published, they may nd themselves in agreement withsome conservative anti-gay Christians in defending her right to speak as she did orfor the newspaper to carry that advert. In this way what has happened in Northern

Ireland on the subject of gay persons is part of a wider debate around freedom ofspeech which is taking place in the rest of the UK and other Western democracies.The difference in Northern Ireland is that the real life situations which precipitate

the public debate are on the subject of homophobia rather than islamophobia oranti-semitism.

24 The Belfast Telegraph, 10/06/08.25 Malachi O’Doherty, The Belfast Telegraph, 13/06/08.

26 At the time of going to press there has not been a conclusion to the police

examination of this matter.

27 The Belfast Telegraph, 10/06/08

28 Reported in The Belfast Telegraph, 6 August 2008, ‘Anti-gay parade advert probed

for breaching codes’.




It is signicant that in their attempt to halt the Gay Pride parade they invokedthe regulations which were originally designed to manage parades which could

be argued were deliberately provocative and which might give rise to inter-

communal/sectarian violence.

A new Christian anti-gay group, called ‘Stop the Parade Coalition’, did not

simply claim that the Parade was offensive to them, they requested that the Police

Service of Northern Ireland refer their complaint to the Parades Commission – the

body established to adjudicate on ethno-religious/political parades. According toJonathan Larner of Stop the Parade ‘As evangelical Christians we believe what

the bible says regarding sodomy – that it is a sin- and for that reason we want to

oppose a parade that we see as promoting a sinful lifestyle’.29 Even the title ‘Stop

the Parade’ is a slogan which locals would immediately recognise from their past

experiences of conict over religious/political parades. The outcome of discussions

under the auspices of the Parades Commission, was that the parade organisers andthe protesters agreed to a protocol to conduct themselves responsibly.

The 2005 and 2006 parades passed with small street-side protests, but without

major incident. In the 2007 parade an individual carried a placard declaring ‘Jesusis a fag’ which some people said they found offensive to their Christian faith. This

was raised with the Parades Commission as a grounds for objection in the lead-upto the 2008 Parade, and the Free Presbyterians also inserted their newspaper advert

on the eve of the Parade. The build-up to the 2008 parade was also more tense than

in preceding years given the anti-gay comments made in June by Iris RobinsonMP. This had led to a public meeting by the LGBT community, the circulation by

the LGBT community of a petition of protest, a formal complaint to the police and

criticisms of her comments by other political parties.

The 2008 Pride parade was estimated to have included about 8,000 paraders, the

largest ever turnout for Belfast. There were two organised Christian protests along

the route, with a few dozen persons in each, one at the City Hall and one next to

St Anne’s Cathedral.30 There was one veriable indecent act when an unidentiedman dropped his trousers in front of protesters. According to the Chairperson of

the Pride Committee ‘the incident was not seen by marshals but if it had been that

person would have certainly been removed from the parade … and we condemn

anyone indecently exposing themselves in this manner’.31

Aside from the Christian objections to the parade, what was arguably one ofthe most signicant developments was the positive engagement between someChristians and the LGBT community as evident in the participation by the

Christian pro-gay group, Changing Attitude Ireland. Gay Christians or pro-gay

29 BBC website 28/06/05 (accessed 18/08/08).30 Ironically, Free Presbyterians gathered outside St Anne’s Cathedral to protest at

the passing parade, were apparently oblivious to the fact that in 1986 they protested against

the visit to the Cathedral of the Roman Catholic Cardinal Suenens during the Week ofPrayer for Christian Unity (see Cooke 1996, 41).

31 The Irish News, 04/08/08.




Christians had not previously been visible or condent enough to take part asa group in Belfast Gay Pride. This milestone was captured by the media by the

headline – ‘Clergy at gay Pride to protest and take part’.32 The accompanying

newspaper report elaborated that ‘Normally the only clergy attending the annual

Gay Pride march in Belfast are those present to demonstrate. But on Saturday,

Protestant clergy were both protestors and participants. For while Church of Ireland

ministers joined a Unitarian clergyman in the Belfast Pride march as supporters,Free Presbyterians and other religious opponents of the city centre event protested

on the pavements’.

The Church of Ireland Minister and Secretary of CAI, the Revd. Mervyn

Kingston, explained ‘This is the rst time our banner has been displayed at Pridein Belfast. We are here because it is important to increase our visibility and to

show people that there are alternative Christian views to those espoused by Iris

Robinson’.33 In response, an evangelical grouping of conservative Protestantdenominations, the Caleb Foundation, criticised the participation by the pro-gay

clergy insisting that it was wrong to support it, that no ‘true Christian’ could be

involved in a gay relationship and called for the parade to be banned. 34

A well-known political commentator described Belfast Pride 2008 as a textbookillustration of opinion shifted.35 She noted the very high degree of cross-community

participation in the parade, a rare achievement for Northern Ireland. All the main

political parties in Northern Ireland, both nationalist and unionist (including the

Ulster Unionist Party, for the rst time) were prominently represented. The LordMayor joined the parade, as did trade unions, and community groups. Supportivecommunity stalls, including one from the Police Service of Northern Ireland,

ringed the Pride Square. The only noticeable ofcial absence was the DemocraticUnionist Party, and the Churches. Nevertheless, other commentators referred to

the event as a ‘tipping point’ in the shift towards acceptance of LGBT persons by

the wider society.

In conclusion, because Northern Ireland is not a secular society, the public

stances of the Churches and the behaviour of individual Christians affects both

the experiences of the many LGBT Christians and the attitudes of the wider

society. We have located our review of the engagement between Christians and

gay persons over past 30 years in the wider ethno-religious context. We noted that

the LGBT community and Christian pro-gay groups were more successful than

either the wider society or the Christian anti-gay activists in rising above both the

Protestant-Catholic ethno-religious and the denominational disunity. We traced

the continuity between the language of conservative Christian evangelicals which

easily moved between emotionally charged criticisms of Roman Catholicism,

32 The Irish News, 04/08/08.

33 The News Letter , 04/08/08.

34 The News Letter , 05/08/08.

35 Fionnuala O’Connor,The Irish Times, 07/08/08, ‘Pride and Prejudice Over North’sGay Community’.




political opponents or gay persons (or sodomites according to the most vociferous

Christian anti-gay spokespersons). We showed how institutions and regulationsoriginally designed primarily to manage conict around ethno-religious paradeshave been accessed by Christian anti-gay activists in their attempts to halt the

Belfast Gay Pride parade.

While much of our attention has been on continuity, we have revealed some

indications of change. Although the vocal evangelical Christian anti-gay activists

limited by their failure to form alliances with conservatives in the mainline

denominations, we have seen at least one example of some cooperation between the

mainline denominations in how they respond to changes in the civil law pertaining

to sexual orientation. Change has been slow within the mainline denominations

although the establishment of and activism by Changing Attitude Ireland, suggests

that Christian pro-gay opinion within the Churches in Northern Ireland is nally

beginning to be mobilised. The emotional language of abomination and sodomyhas not abated, but the responses by all political parties (bar the DUP), and their

participation in Gay Pride, is indicative of a shift in public opinion towards

increased respect for the dignity of gay and lesbian persons in Northern Ireland.



Chapter 8

Is it Meaningful to Speak of ‘Queer

Spirituality’? An Examination of Queerand LGBT Imagery and Themes in

Contemporary Paganism and Christianity

Yvonne Aburrow

Is there a distinctly queer spirituality? The term ‘queer’ has been dened in a varietyof ways – as ‘resisting normativity’ and as a verb meaning ‘to spoil or interfere’,

and as a tool for liberation (Goss 1999, 45–6). Irshad Manji (Summerskill 2006,62) denes queer as ’being unpredictable’, rather than ‘rigid and absolute, andfrankly dull’. Queerness is a metacategory which includes various non-normativesexual identities. ‘Queer’ is also a very different term from ‘gay’. Being gay or

lesbian has meant tting into a specic identity:

Gay identity can be as conning as ‘closetedness’ in its minoritization and elision

of the social-cultural differences of same-sex desire. (Goss 1999, 45)

The concept of queer dees categorisation and resists normativity: it is oftenunderstood as critically non-heterosexual, transgressive of all heteronormativities

and, I would add, gay normativities. ‘Queer’ turns upside down, inside out, anddees heteronormative and gay normative theologies (Goss 1999, 45).

Some LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and transsexual) peoplecontest the appropriateness of the term ‘queer’ (Hawley Gorsline 1996, 136);transsexual people say that a lot of their experience does not t into the queer paradigm (Prosser 1998, 59), others have complained that trying to dene a specicLGBT or queer spirituality is essentialist (Ali et al. 2006, 30) – in this context,the idea that gay people are more, or differently, spiritual than others because of

their liminal status (Stemmeler 1996, 100), either as marginalised people, or as‘intermediates’ (Owen 2004, 109).

Charges of essentialism notwithstanding, because of the marginalisationof LGBT people, a separate culture has developed to a certain extent in the

enclaves and safe spaces created by LGBT people. This chapter will examine this

marginalised culture and its spirituality, and ask whether it can be described as adistinct spirituality. The use of the term ‘queer spirituality’ (as distinct from talk ofgay or lesbian spirituality) is a post-AIDS phenomenon; male gay theologies drew




on liberation theologies, and lesbian feminist theology emphasised friendship or

the erotic as models of divine love; but they failed in the face of the AIDS crisis,and their failure to address the issues of life and death, and life beyond death, led

to the emergence of queer theology, which subverts traditional sexual identities

(Berry 2004, 255). Therefore queer, lesbian and gay spirituality must be regardedas distinct but overlapping domains. In order to determine whether this is a distinct

phenomenon (rather than part of the general turn towards individual spirituality),we need to examine how much of it is different from the ‘mainstream’ of religious

culture.

Theoretical background

Women and non-heterosexuals have often been ‘invisible’ in religions, theology,and religious studies in the past (Schüssler Fiorenza 1992, 45–7). They were eithersubsumed in the supposedly gender-blind category of believers (Gross 2004, 17),or repressed and silenced (Gill 2004, 201). Their hidden histories and mythologieshave had to be recovered and sometimes reinvented (Reid-Bowen 2007, 33–4).

Various authors have conducted an examination of Biblical texts to demonstrate

that a homophobic interpretation of them is unjustied (McNeil 1995); others haveshown how Christianity can be interpreted as queer (Moore 2001). These strategies

are similar to feminist strategies of reinterpretation, in that they seek to develop‘transformative critical theory and praxis’ (Gill 2004, 209). Moreover, becauseof the marginalisation of women and LGBTs, many of them have concluded

that they need a separate form of spiritual expression from the patriarchal and

heteronormative mainstream (Conner et al. 1997, 173). Some of these people havealso assumed that there is something different about the spirituality of women or

gay men that necessitates this separatism (Conner et al. 1997, 105).Feminist and queer theologies read ‘against the grain’ of texts, images and

mythologies. For example, Moore (2001, 21–89) examines the allegorical readingsof The Song of Songs and nds a great deal of gender-bending and same-sex lovein it; and Sawyer (2004, 166–70) re-reads the story of Abraham through the lens ofgender and discovers that in the face of the supreme authority of God, Abraham’s

masculinity is undermined, and that the women in the story consistently takecontrol of the situation.

Strategies within contemporary Christianity are different than those in

contemporary Paganism. In Christianity, feminist, queer, gay and lesbian strategies

have generally centred around re-reading or reinterpreting the texts (see examples

above); in Paganism, strategies have partly involved mining ancient mythologiesfor feminist, LGBT and queer imagery, and partly around simply creating new

mythology (Reid-Bowen 2007, 33–4). The reason I have chosen to explore thesetraditions is that early Christianity arose in the pagan context of the Roman Empire,

and much of its theology is based on Pagan philosophy (for example the use of

the concept of Platonic forms), and contemporary Paganism arose in a Christian



Is it Meaningful to Speak of ‘Queer Spirituality’? 141

context, and is either reacting against Christian thinking much of the time, oradopting Christian discourse without being aware of it. Each of them has used

the other as a rhetorical device to demarcate the boundaries of their respective

traditions (Hutton 1999, 11), particularly in the contested areas of gender and

sexuality (Duncan 2007).Therefore, it is interesting to examine where strategies for queering them

converge or diverge; this will also help to determine whether there is a distinctqueer spirituality, since if there are common themes across the traditions, it would

suggest that there is. It may also imply that there is a uidity or an openness between the traditions in the area of queer spirituality, and that queer spirituality

transcends, transgresses or dees the categories of specic traditions.The spiritual identity of Hawley Gorsline (1996, 128) certainly seems to defy

categorisation and reect an openness between traditions:

While retaining considerable emotional and theological connection with the

Episcopal Church, I also nd a denominational home in Unitarian Universalism.

The Radical Faeries … comprise my community of spiritual activism. I now

position myself as an Anglican Unitarian Universalist Radical Faerie and

companion of Jesus.

Similarly, Sister Mary Timothy Simplicity (2007) of the Sisters of Perpetual

Indulgence says that his spirituality is a mixture of ‘Judaeo-Christian, Hindu,Buddhist, and Wicca-Faerie traditions’.

In looking for evidence of a distinctive queer spirituality, I have cruisedthe web in search of contemporary writings about it, as a form of online

ethnomethodology. Ethnomethodology sees ‘ethnographic research as itself

participating in the construction of the social world’ and is more interpretive than

traditional ethnography (Walsh 2006, 227). I have also looked at popular artworkand writings by and for queer people, because ethnomethodology sees culture as

a system of signs, and is similar to semiotics. Ethnography also studies people

in their accustomed settings (Walsh 2006, 228). In this study, I am examiningthe literary and artistic products of LGBT people, rather than interviewing them;which according to Fontana (2002, 162–3) is in some ways a more articialsituation (cited in Seale 2006, 110).

In terms of my position on the spectrum from observer to participant, outsider

to insider, I am an insider in terms of being a bisexual Pagan; but an outsiderwhen it comes to Christianity, especially queer and LGBT Christianity, the extent

and depth of which I have only recently begun to realise. I was brought up as a

Christian and ceased to be one in 1983, in part because of Christian homophobia.I am probably what has been called a ‘marginal native’ – one who is inside a

tradition but able to view it as if from the outside (Walsh 2006, 233). I haveused the internet as the locus of my investigation because of the geographically

scattered nature of the eld, and because online communities are just as interestingas geographically situated ones. Odih (2006, 286) sounds a note of caution about




internet ethnography; whilst the ‘rhizomatic architecture’ of the internet releasesthe ethnographer from the traditional reliance on physical locations, researchers

need to be mindful that online and ofine realities may not be congruent; peoplemay feel less constrained on the internet than in real life.

Historical background

The rst wave of feminism included women who sought a non-sexist version ofChristianity. Some rst-wave feminists sought to justify their demands for equality,or at least rights, on the basis of religious teachings (Francis-Dehqani 2004, 128),or to point out the patriarchal bias in the Bible (Sawyer 2004, 162). However, itis difcult to subsume rst-wave feminisms into a single homogeneous group, as

they had widely varying concerns and agendas (Francis-Dehqani 2004, 128).The second wave of feminists began to look beyond mainstream Christianity

for alternative forms of religion. Some, such as Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza

(1992), chose to look for alternative interpretations of the Bible; others, such asMary Daly, declared themselves post-Christian, and embraced Goddess feminism

(Juschka 2001, 15). Still others, such as Starhawk, chose witchcraft, borrowingextensively from the ideas of Daly and others (Hutton 1999, 348) to create a headymix of Wicca, environmentalism and feminism.

Many queer and LGBT people have also found a spiritual home in Paganism,and there are specic groups catering for their interests, such as the Radical Faeries,the Modern Gallae, and so on. However, not everything in the Pagan garden is

rosy. Some Pagans are homophobic, and many are at the very least heterocentric. I

recently attended a public Beltane ceremony where all the references to love were

couched in heterosexual terms; this was all the more noticeable since our covenritual the previous night was inclusive and gender-bending. There are also queer

and LGBT-friendly spaces within Christianity – the Metropolitan Community

Church, the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, and many others. Nevertheless,

debate still rages among Christians as to whether homosexuality is permitted by

the Bible.

There have been a number of martyrs to homophobia, whose stories, whilst

tragic, also resonate in a mythical way: Oscar Wilde and Matthew Shepard (Duncan

2007; Stuffed Animal 2006); Robert Lentz painted an icon of Shepard who wascrucied on a hillside in Wyoming by a homophobic mob. The victims of AIDShave also been described as ‘holy martyrs’ (Starhawk et al. 1997, 200).

The heroes of queer and LGBT spiritualities are those who have struggled

for gay liberation by being out (openly gay), acting up (engaging in politicalactivism, particularly around the issue of AIDS), and exploring new possibilitiesfor political and spiritual identities. Such heroes are celebrated on the LGBT

Religious Archives Network website, for example. They include Harry Hay(founder of both the Mattachine Society and the Radical Faeries); the eightfounders of the Daughters of Bilitis; Edward Carpenter; the founders and ministers




of the Metropolitan Community Church; Christians who contend against thehomophobia of the Church; and many others. These heroes are still rememberedtoday for their pioneering struggle for liberation. They are both shapers of queer

and LGBT spiritualities, and a distinctive feature of them.

The experience of AIDS has heightened the sense of community and spirituality

among gay men (Stemmeler 1996, 105) as they care for each other, and devise newspiritual strategies for coping with the trauma of the untimely deaths of friends and

lovers, such as the memorial AIDS quilt, and numerous caring organisations and

activities. The experience of having AIDS oneself has been likened to alchemy byRobert Arpin:

Pain and suffering and sickness is like re. It can rene people into gold or

reduce them to ash. In the AIDS epidemic, gay people have begun rening their

lives into gold … It renes them into beautiful examples of the meaning of life… and love. (cited in Conner et al. 1997, 45)

The spiritual practices that have arisen in response to AIDS include: healing

techniques drawn from a variety of religious traditions; the role of the psychopomp(a being who assists a dying person to make the transition from life to death);celebratory and upbeat funerals; making altars for the dead; the search for inner peace, coming to terms with death; and an outpouring of art, poetry and drama

(Conner et al. 1997, 46).Arguably the impact of AIDS has also led to less radical sexual practices in

the gay community, and more conformity to heterosexual norms. Some queer-

identied thinkers are critical of the introduction of civil partnerships, in thatthey see it as just taking on the trappings of heterosexual marriage and the normsof monogamy (Tatchell 2001), though most LGBT people feel that it is a very positive development (Summerskill 2006).

Going with the ow

Some aspects of queer and LGBT spiritualities are similar to the orthodox

expression of their chosen traditions; others are radically different, and born outof the experience of being LGBT and/or queer in the context of Western culture.

We will rst examine those which seem similar to the traditions in which they aresituated.

The tribe – A pagan theme

Some gay people, particularly the Radical Faeries, see the gay community as a

tribe (Rodgers 1995). This is partly because they draw inspiration from NativeAmerican concepts such as ‘two-spirit’ (Conner et al. 1997, 172). The idea ofa gay tribe seems to be unique to gay Pagans. Christopher Penczak entitled one




seems to be a greater emphasis on it in queer theology, which is derived in part

from liberation theology.

Reading against the grain

There are many aspects of queer and LGBT spiritualities that are different from

the ‘mainstream’ of their traditions.

Coming out and acting up

Coming out, it has been suggested, is an act of resistance to the surrounding

heteronormative culture, and a radical afrmation of the gay self (Stemmeler

1996, 98–9). It is also an act of honesty and clarity:

When I come out, to any degree I do so to make a relationship more real not in

order to talk about my sex life. It may be painful yes, maybe a relief, maybe at the

risk of violence but coming out shines a very intense light on our relationships.

The person I am talking with has a chance to get to know who I am. (Foster,

undated)

Coming out is also an experience of self-actualisation; according to Boisvert(1999, 58):

… self-actualisation … is the predominant theme in most gay spiritual writing

… coming out – the dening life experience for gay men – is the very epitome

of self-actualisation.

According to Saadaya (undated), coming out allows self-expression, and should be celebrated as a rite of passage, which initiates the quest for love, spirit and self.

It releases ‘archetypal potential’ and can be experienced joyfully. It is a declarationof independence and individuality.

Some Pagans, fearing discrimination, remain closeted about their religion;revealing it is known as ‘coming out of the broom closet’, a reference to the gayexperience. Similarly, Pagan Pride events were inspired by Gay Pride events (Dewr

1998). The experience of being closeted and the potential consequences of beingout, as well as the sense of relief when one no longer has to avoid mentioning a

signicant part of one’s life, are similar to the LGBT experience.

Wahba (1989) says, however, that coming out is not a single act, but a process,a gradual revelation (cited in Stemmeler 1996, 99). The LGBT person has to comeout in each new social situation, unless we choose to make our sexual identityobvious by ‘acting up’. Acting up is a radical assertion of sexual identity, being

so out of the closet that no-one needs to ask; it is getting involved in politicalactivism (Hawley Gorsline 1996, 136) and refusing to accept heteropatriarchal




norms. Goss (1993) draws a parallel between Jesus overturning the tables of themoneychangers in the temple, and the protests of the organisation ACT UP against

the homophobia of the Church (cited in Hawley Gorsline 1996, 136). Acting up isan expression of righteous and transforming anger against injustice. It is saying,

‘We’re here. We’re queer. Get used to it’ (Stemmeler 1996, 97).Given that ‘mainstream’ Christianity is homophobic, and ‘mainstream’

Paganism is heteronormative, coming out and acting up, as radical afrmationsof the gay self, are clearly different from the ‘mainstream’; although declaringoneself to be Pagan in a generally hostile context is similar in some ways to the

experience of coming out for LGBT and queer people, the queer or LGBT Pagan

has to come out as both queer or LGBT and Pagan, thereby increasing his or her

sense of difference.

Gender-bending and androgyny

The third wave of feminism was characterised by a decrease in emphasis upon

separatist strategies and by an increased awareness of women-loving women and

women of colour and the problematisation of the concept of gender (Juschka 2001,568). This development was reected in theology and the study of religions byfeminist scholars engaging with queer theory.

Queer theory offers a critique of gender, regarding it as a performance or a

political formulation, and a product of discourse (Sawyer 2004, 163–4). Gender isrmly entrenched in Christian discourse (Sawyer 2004, 164) and Pagan discourse(Hart, 2005). Queer Christian theologians and some queer Pagans have emphasisedthe uidity of gender identity. Hart (2005) presents an overview of gender uiditythroughout history, and its implications for contemporary Pagan practice.

Queer Christians have deconstructed and queered the gender roles in the Bible(Moore 2001, 151–4), and criticised the homophobia of the Church (Standing 2004,65). Queer and LGBT Pagans have criticised Pagan ideas of ‘polarity’ (the notionthat the primary dynamic of the universe consists of ‘the masculine principle’ and

‘the feminine principle’) on the grounds that it does not include their experienceof gender and sexuality (Hine 1989).

There are three possible models of gender and sex (Matthieu 1996, 44): theidea that sex and gender are both biological givens; the idea that sex is a biologicalgiven but gender is cultural; and Butler’s (1990, 136) idea that gender is a productof discourse and sex is ‘inscribed on the surface of bodies’ (cited in Sawyer 2004,

164).Another problem encountered by both queer and LGBT Pagans and queer and

LGBT Christians is the gender and sexuality of the divine. There are two waysto confront the problem of non-inclusive models of deity: to decide that there are

both masculine and feminine forms; or to decide that the divine transcends gendercategories (which can be problematic for feminists if the masculine pronoun

continues to be used to refer to the divine). Pagans have generally opted for theformer choice, Christians for the latter.




The Radical Faeries also place great importance on androgyny:

The concept of androgyny was taken on by the Faeries and given a distinctly

spiritual bent. Rather than referring to an asexual or omni-sexual state, androgyny

for the Faeries means radically juxtaposing elements of the masculine and

feminine in psychological as well as physical formulations. The relationship

of the archetype of the Androgyne to gures in myth and history has become

a spiritual imperative for many Radical Faeries seeking a tradition to reclaim

(Rodgers, undated).

He goes on to quote Thompson (1987, 52):

The role of the fool, the trickster, the contrary one capable of turning a situation

inside out, is one of the most enduring of all archetypes. Often cross dressed

or adorned with both masculine and feminine symbols, these merry pranksters

chase through history, holding up a looking glass to human folly. (cited in

Rodgers, 1995).

Another interesting example of Pagan gender-bending is the contemporary

practice of seið r . This is a revived form of an ancient ‘shamanic’ practice. In heathen

myths, male seið r -workers were referred to as ergi (a term which may mean the

receptive partner in a relationship between two men). Many contemporary seið r -workers are gay men, and heterosexual male practitioners have found that theyneed to adjust their gender performance to accommodate this practice, becauseit involves an openness to being entered by spirits (Wallis 2003, 230–3). Manyconservative Heathens reject the practice of seið r because of these associations

(Blain 2002, 122).The celebration of androgyny is not unique to queer spirituality, but the

emphasis upon it is far greater within queer spiritual groups than in other groups.

There are a number of queer Pagan groups which specically celebrate the divineandrogyne, such as the Modern Gallae, the Brotherhood of the Phoenix, and the

Radical Faeries. The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (2007) defy classicationas any one tradition, as they profess many different traditions, but they too are

interested in gender-bending, and spreading joy and beauty whilst dispelling guiltand shame.

Darkness, nature and vulnerability

Further common themes across expressions of queer and LGBT spiritualities arethe concepts of darkness, nature and vulnerability. Darkness and Nature are seenas refuges from homophobic society. In De Profundis, Wilde (1996, 90) speaks ofthe nurturing and non-judgmental qualities of Nature:




Society, as we have constituted it, will have no place for me, has none to offer;

but Nature, whose sweet rains fall on just and unjust alike, will have clefts in

the rock where I may hide, and secret valleys in whose silence I may weep

undisturbed. She will hang the night with stars so that I may walk abroad in the

darkness without stumbling, and send the wind over my footprints so that none

may track me to my hurt: she will cleanse me in great waters, and with bitter

herbs make me whole.

Edward Carpenter was an enthusiastic advocate of Nature as a place of freedom

(Hutton 1999, 27), and following him, his friend E. M. Forster made the hero ofhis novel Maurice feel ‘at one with the forests and the night’ as soon as he had

made the decision to adopt an actively gay lifestyle (Hutton 1999, 50). Harry Hay,founder of the Radical Faeries, who was a Carpenter enthusiast, also stressed the

importance of communing with Nature (Conner et al. 1997, 173).Foster, a gay Anglican priest, writing more recently, draws parallels between

the darkness of the church at Advent, the darkness of the night, where it is safe forsame-sex relationships to ourish, and the vulnerability of being penetrated:

In the light two men cannot come together, they need the dark for protection.

Two men cannot embrace and still be thought to be real men. You can only hope

to become a man if you are separate not if you are connected to each other,

certainly not if you are coupled or copulating. Nothing must go into a man’s body in the light because then we would all see that we all have holes. That there

are holes in the bodies of boys and men that we can receive and be vulnerable.

Hawley-Gorsline (2006, 58), suggests that darkness is generally seen asa negative cultural meme – dark sexuality, dark continents, dark people – andthat Christian spirituality is focused on the light. This negative view of darknessincreases its power as a meme; darkness is equated with exotica, especially sexualdifference. Blacks and blackness are associated with sexuality and sensuality; and‘deviant’ sexuality is kept hidden, in the dark. An African American transgenderedactivist, Miss Lorrainne Sade Baskerville, said to Saadaya (undated):

Why is black the color of evil? Why is the color black bad and impure and why

does white represent light, wisdom and purity? … Black is [a] mysterious color,

a beautiful color! It represents mystery!

The celebration of darkness, which we have been told is the realm of evil, allows

us to transcend boundaries:

Darkness requires performance and each of us is called upon to perform, to play

across the boundaries of those worlds we have been told are dark and therefore

evil or bad or alien. (Hawley Gorsline 2003, 71)




It also allows us to escape the hierarchical view of the cosmos which is

associated with the exclusive honouring of the light:

Baldwin and Lorde, each in their distinctive ways, show us that turning to the

dark, celebrating darkness, and turning away from dichotomous thinking in

which light and dark are opposed – with light as a positive force for conquering

the negative dark – offer hope for saving humanity from destructive hierarchies

based on supremacies of race, sex and gender. (Hawley Gorsline 2003, 71)

The theme of reclaiming darkness as a positive concept is one that is also espoused by most Pagans, but there does not seem to be any additional emphasis upon it

among LGBT Pagans, or if there is, it is not discernible from that of other Pagans.

It is, however, unusual for Christians to talk about darkness in a positive way,

so queer and LGBT Christians are innovative in this regard, and once againtranscending standard categories.

Finding the queer in the divine

Despite the reluctance of many heterosexual commentators to include queer

and LGBT material in their work (Conner et al. 1997, ix), much of it has beenrecovered by returning to the original mythological material. A similar process has

occurred within Christianity, where queer commentators such as Moore (2001)have re-examined the Bible.

The Queer Jesus is currently part of a ‘global revelation’. There are paintings,sculptures, photos, a play, and a novel, Jesus in Love; and queer theologians havesuggested that Jesus may have had a gay relationship (Cherry 2006, 25). Gayartists have also contributed numerous images of the queer divine. The French

photographers Pierre et Gilles have produced numerous images of Christian saints,

Hindu deities, and classical deities (Marcadé and Cameron 1997, 197–223), andmany of them are gay icons in one way or another (Vallet 2006). The series of photographs of saints begins in 1987 with an image of Saint Sebastian, lookingremarkably calm as he is transxed with arrows, lashed to a tree-stump withgarlands of roses. Sebastian has been a symbol of same-sex love at least since

the Renaissance (Conner et al. 1997, 297), hence Derek Jarman’s remarkable lmof the same name, and Pierre et Gilles created two more images of him in 1994

(S é bastien de la Mer ) and 1996 ( Le martyre de Saint S é bastien). Pierre et Gilles alsodepicted Joan of Arc (1988 and 1997), presumably chosen for her gender-bendingactivities and possible lesbianism (Conner et al. 1997, 190). They also produced

an image of Sainte Afigée, known in English as Uncumber or Wilgefortis, alegendary gure who grew a beard to avoid marriage (Becker-Huberti, undated).There are numerous other saint pictures, some of which seem to have homoerotic

connotations, but mostly seem somewhat randomly selected. However, a lot of

their models are LGBT people, so perhaps the artists are making a statement by portraying them as saints.




Pagan deities that they have depicted include Adonis (1992), Amphytrite(1989), Bacchus (1991), Medusa (1990), Orpheus (1990), Venus (1991, 1992 and2000), Adonis (1992 and 1999), Eros (2003), Mercury (2001), Ganymede (2001),and Diana (1997). Medusa is sometimes seen as a lesbian icon (Conner et al.

1997, 229). Orpheus chose male lovers after failing to retrieve Eurydice fromthe underworld, and it was for this that the Maenads tore him apart; legend has itthat his friend Sappho buried his head (Conner et al. 1997, 258). Adonis was theeromenos of Dionysos (Conner et al. 1997, 43). Eros was also a symbol of same-sex love in ancient Greece (Conner et al. 1997, 132), among the Lacedaemoniansand the Athenians for example. In alchemical texts, Mercury was frequently

depicted as an androgyne; in Pierre et Gilles’ 2001 work, he appears as a gracefuland muscular youth. Ganymede is well-known as the eromenos of Zeus (Conner

et al. 1997, 155), and according to mythology, Diana shunned the company of men

and preferred the company of women. It would seem from this brief survey thatthe association of the deity or saint with same-sex love or gender-bending may be

a factor in their selection by Pierre et Gilles as a subject.Various other artists have portrayed religious subjects from LGBT and queer

perspectives, including Jesus as a gay man in a modern setting, Jesus as Sophia,

and even Jesus as a horned god (Cherry 2007). According to Cherry (2007, 7), theimages ‘embody and empower people who are left out when Jesus is shown as a

straight man. They can free the minds of everyone who sees them’. Many of the

images compare the persecution of Jesus to the persecution of queer and LGBT people (Cherry 2007, 29). Ford (2005) has created a series of short stories aboutthe encounters of the Green Man (the symbol of his tradition) with various deities,including a sexual encounter with Pan. For others, the recovery of ancient myths

of same-sex love seems as important as the discovery of new queer and LGBT

aspects of the divine.

Many lesbian Pagans nd the idea of a single Goddess attractive, sometimes because they have been molested by men (Foltz 2000), sometimes because they donot feel the need for ‘balance’ (Rose, undated). Other lesbian Pagans try to workwithin existing models, but often nd that they perceive them differently from theway heterosexuals do (Landstreet 1999).

Cherry (2006, 13–4), a lesbian Christian, explains why she feels the revelationof the queer Jesus is important:

The queer Christ comes at a time when Christian rhetoric is used as an anti-

gay political weapon. He is a beacon of hope in a world where Christians and

gays seem to be at war. He mends the split between body and spirit that has led

to violence, poverty, and ecological destruction. Like the Jesus of rst-centuryPalestine, the queer Christ images have come to teach, heal and free anyone who

accepts the challenge.

The emphasis on nding the queer in the divine seems to be unique to queerspirituality and theology, though the urge to perceive the divine in one’s own




image seems fairly widespread – numerous writers have criticised the portrayal of

Jesus as a Northern European person (Hawley-Gorsline 1996, 142). Some queertheologians would argue, however, that queering the divine is not a process of

perceiving the divine in one’s own image, but rather a process of God’s coming

out, because s/he has been closeted by heteronormative theology (Althaus-Reid

2003, 4). Indeed, if the divine embodies every possible identity, sexuality, andgender, then it must include queerness. The idea of God coming out, rather than

being queered, is echoed by Cherry (2006, 11):

I wrote about a sexual Jesus because human beings are sexual, and he is bisexual-

transgender because I did not want to limit Christ’s sexuality to a single approach.

I don’t feel that I ‘made’ Jesus queer when I wrote Jesus in Love. During the

writing process, Christ seemed to reveal this aspect of his all-encompassing self

to me, not as a historical fact, but as a spiritual truth.

Finding the divine in the queer

The idea of nding the divine in the context of places formerly deemed to beoutside the sacred, and the idea that God may be in the closet and be in need of

outing, are fairly radical in Christianity. Althaus-Reid (2003, 4) says:

Our task and our joy is to nd or simply recognise God sitting amongst us, atany time, in any gay bar or in the home of a camp friend who decorates her

living room as a chapel and doesn’t leave her rosary at home when going to a

salsa bar.

The idea of the divine being immanent in everything is fairly widespread in

Paganism, but there is less awareness of queer deities. Queer and LGBT Wiccansin particular have had to struggle with the notion that the primary polarity of the

universe is male and female in a heterosexual embrace. My personal solution to

this problem (and one that may have been adopted by others) is to regard the primary polarity as being the interaction of self and other, lover and beloved.

Lynna Landstreet (1999) sees the rst touch of lightning on the primordial watersas being the ‘true Great Rite, of which all other enactments, sexual or not, are

merely symbolic’ (the ‘orthodox’ denition of the Great Rite is the enactment ofthe union of the masculine and feminine polarities in Wicca).

The idea that the divine may manifest in queer and LGBT people and places has

been enthusiastically embraced by queer and LGBT Pagans and Christians alike.

This is radically different from the heteronormative and sometimes homophobicmainstream. It has been suggested by some thinkers that LGBT and queer peoplehave a special role to play in the spiritual world, by virtue of our androgynous

qualities or ‘higher vibrations’:




Any person who is at this link between this world and the other world experiences

a state of vibrational consciousness which is far higher, and far different, from

the one that a normal person would experience. This is what makes a gay person

gay. (Hoff 1993)

These views on sexuality and spirituality have been enthusiastically adopted by

many gay people, and are similar to those put forward by Harry Hay and Edward

Carpenter.

Christian de la Huerta (founder of Q-Spirit) has suggested that queer peoplefulll ten spiritual roles (Moon 2005). These are: catalytic transformers; outsidersand mirrors of society; consciousness scouts; sacred clowns and eternal youth;keepers of beauty; caregivers; mediators or in-between people; shamans, priestsand sacred functionaries; the divine androgyne (drawing on Carpenter’s ideas);

and gatekeepers. Some of these draw on ideas about gay people being essentiallya particular type of person – more caring, more instinctual, more spiritual, having

a better sense of humour, and so on. Some of them are predicated on the idea that

because gay people are ‘neither male nor female’ in terms of gender role, then they

are also good intermediaries between the material and spiritual worlds (which in

turn is based on an assumption that the material and spiritual worlds are separate).However, if we lived in a society where gender roles were less xed, and thecategory of biological sex was not so important, these ideas might have been

irrelevant, as everyone would be free to play whatever role they desired withouthaving it assigned to a particular gender category (Juschka 2005, 238). LGBT people ourish in environments where gender categories are more uid:

It is not an accident that music and the arts were always a tolerant environment

for gay men. It was a world where appreciation for the ‘feminine’ was not seen

as a weakness, and where strength did not have to manifest itself in violence

and coarseness … It was the perfect place in which to indulge a sense of the

extravagant and exuberant, as well as offering ideal camouage. A mask, a

costume, an affecting melody, a graceful leap were all perfect alibis for those

whose affections danced to a different tune. (Summerskill 2006, 210)

These ideas of the divine permeating everywhere, including gay bars, are fairly

‘mainstream’ in Paganism, but radical among Western Christians. The ideas about

spiritual roles echo ideas about archetypes, especially the trickster, that are popularamong Pagans; but the focus on queer people having a special status is differentfrom ‘mainstream’ Paganism.

Subject-SUBJECT consciousness

Harry Hay suggested that a dening feature of gay men is Subject-SUBJECTconsciousness (Conner et al. 1997, 172), and this idea was enthusiasticallyadopted by the Radical Faeries (Rodgers 1995). It is the idea that heteropatriarchal




relationships are characterised by the man regarding himself as a subject andwomen as objects, whereas gay men regard their partners as fellow subjects.Pemberton (2004, 252) says that:

Of course the subject is always subject in her own eyes when not objectied and

displaced by the gaze and the analytical grid of the other. Subjects speak, think,

act, love, cry, scream, ululate, make love, feel fear, carry history, dream dreams.

They do this best in a radical inter-subjectivity[.]

This radical inter-subjectivity seems similar to Hay’s subject-SUBJECTconsciousness. Clearly, in order to move away from the hierarchical and

exploitative nature of the current heteropatriarchal paradigm, there needs to be a

radical shift towards an awareness of the subjectivity of everyone; this is similar

to the ideas of queer theory, which argues that identity is uid and shifting, andthat each of us is

… a subject whose gender identity is purely performative, the product of

a compulsory set of rituals and conventions, which conspire to engender

retroactively the illusion that our gender is ‘natural and innate’. (Moore 2001,

177–8)

Such ideas about gender and gender roles are not widely accepted in eitherChristianity or Paganism, both of which tend to regard gender as something innate

and fore-ordained.

Queer theology

Queer theology is an extension of liberation theology (Althaus-Reid 2003, 2), andas such, concerns itself with love, justice, and lived experience (Yip 2003, 148). Itlooks at theology through a queer lens, highlighting the diversity of people who donot t into heteronormative categories. Goss (1999, 44) criticised gay and lesbiantheologies as perpetuating the notion of a monolithic gay or lesbian grouping with

only one voice, and failing to be inclusive of queers of colour, bisexuals, trans

people, and intersex people. He goes on to say:

Queer studies thus represent a paradigm or discursive shift in the way some

scholars view sexual identity. Queer studies attempt not to abandon identity as a

site for knowledge and politics but certainly problematize xed and hegemonic

notions of identity. Queer theorists argue that identities are always multiple,hybrid, provisional or composite in which an innite number of identity markers

can combine to form new sites of knowledge. For queer theorist Michael Warner

queer is a transgressive paradigm, representing ‘a more thorough resistance to

the regimes of the normal’. (Goss 1999, 45)




In arguing for a queer theology, Goss states that he is excluded by heteronormative

theology except in its category of ‘abomination’, but is also excluded by gay

theology in its ‘apologetic attempts to assimilate into mainstream culture’. Goss

(1999, 46) argues that queer theology should be a radical critique of normativity.

In this sense, queer theology is by denition different from the ‘mainstream’ of theChristian tradition, and different from gay and lesbian theology.

Standing (2004, 65) posits the theory that homophobia in the Church is dueto the uncertainty of the postmodern condition. Fundamentalists are especially

concerned about LGBT Christians, because they challenge their categories. Gill

(2004, 205) concurs, suggesting that the homophobia of some sections of theChurch is because homosexuality transgresses gender boundaries (Gill 2004,

205). A queer theology, writes Standing (2004, 65), would allow us to embrace‘the indeterminacy of postmodern existence, rather than seeking to negate it’, and

would offer a way in which people could be both religious and open to changesin society.

Conclusion

It would seem that there are a number of features of queer and LGBT spiritualities

that arise from their position as discourses of the marginalised. These include

radical resistance to normativity; an emphasis on androgyny and gender- bending; an interest in darkness and nature (unusual within Christian discourse)and vulnerability (unusual in both Christian and Pagan discourse); the initiatoryexperience of coming out; the radical celebration of difference in the practice ofacting up; the interest in nding the queer in the divine, and nding the divinein the queer, which may have echoes in ‘mainstream’ thinking, but in the senseof celebrating queerness, are unique to queer spirituality; and queer theology,which is different from the mainstream by denition, since it seeks to challengenormativity at every turn.

These unique features arise from the discourses surrounding the phenomena of

same-sex love and queerness, and the experience of being seen as different, rather

than any essential or innate quality. Queer theorists have long been at pains to pointout that whilst there are numerous examples of same-sex love and transgression

of the boundaries of gender in the past, they cannot simply be labelled ‘gay’, since

this term is associated with a particular historical and cultural construct (Foucault

1978, 43). Different societies have understood both gender and sexual identityaccording to different models. Horrocks (1997, 151–2) identies occupation,

clothing, sexual object choice, sexual organ used, sexual role, anatomical state,generation, and status as possible factors in constructing models of sexual roles in

various different societies.

Queer theory has been criticised for failing to include the experience oftranssexuals, who desire to pass as the other gender, and whose experience of

gender is rooted in the body (Prosser 1998, 59). It has also been criticised for




failing to include ‘straight’ thinkers; however, it does not exclude all heterosexuals,only heteronormative ones (Duncan 2007).

Queer theory and theology position themselves as radically resistant tonormativity (both gay and straight), and so it would seem that you do not have to

be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to be queer, as long as you are resistant

to normativity. Queer spirituality is, however, a discourse with its roots in earlierdiscourses celebrating same-sex love. There is a strong sense in the discourse of

queer spirituality and queer theology that Christianity is broken and in need ofhealing, because the queer component has been suppressed (Cherry 2006, 26). Thesame could be said of Pagan traditions, since the queer element is mostly ignored.

I would argue that Wicca, for example, is inherently queer, but most practitioners

are unaware of this. The word wicca (Anglo-Saxon for a male witch) apparentlyderives from an Indo-European root meaning to bend or to shape – and the actions

of bending and creativity are both frequently associated with same-sex love. Theemphasis on the need to become psychologically androgynous (frequently couched

in terms of developing one’s inner feminine or inner masculine) and the use of the Dryghtyn Prayer add to the feeling of queerness at the heart of the tradition. In

addition to this, the gure of the witch, derived in part from the spae-wives and seið r -workers of Northern Europe (Blain 2002, 89–110), is often associated withsexual and gender transgression. These ideas may not be very current in Wicca

generally, but they are part of the historical discourse about witchcraft.

I would argue, then, that it is meaningful to speak of queer and LGBTspiritualities, because they are distinguishable as separate discourses from the

‘mainstream’ of their traditions, incorporating unique theology, theory, practice,

art, poetry and ritual. Whilst they have connections to the wider realm of spirituality

and religion, they include an unique perspective on spirituality which stems from

the experience of being LGBT and/or queer.




beliefs, insights and experiences. His ndings were that LGBTs are more likely torespond to the personal and the spiritual than to the doctrinal and organisational

aspects of mainstream religion and to adapt spiritual practices in a pick ‘n’ mix way(Sweasey 1997, 13). After publishing his volume, Sweasey invited those who had

contributed to what was probably the rst interfaith LGBT meeting. Those presentcommented that they often had more in common, spiritually, with adherents of

other faiths than they did with their co-religionists. It is thus ironic that they cannot

cope with mainstream Christianity or that mainstream Christianity cannot cope

with them, given that Jesus identied with the subversives of his day (Empereur1988, 53; Solignac 1982, 164).

Revisionist New Testament scholars point out that Jesus had much in common

with Pharisees and that Judaism was not as legalistic as the polemic in the gospels

paints it.1 However, there is a tendency in all religions to reduce an emphasis

on grace to a sterile list of rules. The legalism confronted by Jesus can be seenin today’s Christianity. The pharisees were criticised for making heavy demandsupon the ordinary people. Yet most churches behave in a similar fashion when

they seek to enforce celibacy on unmarried people and insist on it for LGBTs,especially if they are in public ministry, but turn a blind eye towards the lives of

‘straight’ couples (Glaser 2001, 72).Those LGBT people who grew up in the 1960s and 1970s are likely to have

believed in progress for minorities, following the partial decriminalisation of

homosexuality. The resurgence of religion and anti-gay attitudes was unexpected.In the wake of the ‘New Morality’, urged by the likes of Bishop John Robinson,those who held the liberal view of history and an optimistic view of progress were

considerably disturbed when the forces of reaction regrouped as if somehow given

permission and credence by the elections of Thatcher and Reagan and increasing

swings to the political right.

In the United Kingdom, conservative evangelicals began to regroup while, in

the USA, the Moral Majority (MM) came to prominence. The rapid growth oftelevangelism during the 1970s and 1980s provided a natural outlet for the MM’s

message, and helped it to nd a sizable audience. The MM also beneted from theattention of the mainstream news media which saw in Jerry Falwell as an articulate

and readily accessible spokesman for the religious right. Stories of Falwell stating

that Telly Tubby Tinkie Winkie was gay because he wore purple and carried ahandbag, alongside the assertion that 9/11 was God’s wrath on America for liberal

laws on homosexuality and abortion, would have encouraged LGBT people to

dismiss Christianity as deluded. However, the MM has an inuence way beyondits numerical membership. It developed an extensive grassroots network to

implement its agenda at the local level, through involvement in political races

1 The gospels were written at a time when Gentiles were becoming the majority ofChristians and Jews and Christians were separating from and arguing with each other. The

arguments between Jewish and Christian leaders were most likely put back into the mouthsof the Pharisees and Jesus.



Trends in the Spiritual Direction for LGBT People 159

and community issues such as such as school prayer, and by asserting the validity

of religious belief as the foundation for public policy decisions typied by thecontroversy over abortion.

Arguably, the MM was actually a minority, but one which happened to be

backed by wealthy sponsors. Catholics were willing to form political coalitionswith Protestant activists of the Christian Right but remained reluctant to join itsorganisations. Many Catholics might hold very conservative positions yet they

embrace somewhat distinctive views among Republicans on such issues as the

death penalty, the teaching of Creationism in schools, the social welfare ‘net’,

opportunities for women, and nuclear weapons.

The National Conference of Catholic Bishops frequently calls for acceptance,

love and pastoral care of homosexuals (Rozell 2001, 1). Although the Church hasnot abandoned its traditional prohibition against homosexual activity, it recognises

that a homosexual orientation is a deep-seated dimension of personality that is notin itself sinful. The statement also reiterated traditional Catholic teaching about

respecting the inherent dignity of every person and insisted that nothing in the

Bible nor in Catholic teaching could be used to justify prejudicial or discriminatoryattitudes and behaviour.

Because of the Catholics’ reluctance to join the MM and in an attempt to broadenits support base, MM leaders decided to target conservative Catholics, mainline

Protestants, African-Americans, orthodox Jews, and other groups. At its annual

‘Road to Victory’ conferences, the Christian Coalition has held workshops on building bridges to Catholics and has featured Catholic speakers and organisations.It has also included Catholics in leadership and staff positions in the national, state,

and local organisations. Finally, in 1995, the organisation launched the Catholic

Alliance in an attempt to attract Catholic members, campaigning solely on issues

where there was agreement.

The MM, of course, does not speak for all Christians, but other coalitionsof fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals, particularly in the Anglican

Communion since the run up to the 1998 Lambeth Conference, have also become

vociferous on ‘the gay issue’. Since all they hear on the church media is anti-gay,

LGBT people are likely either to reject all religion or to reject Christianity and tolook to other religions as a source of spirituality.

The ‘quick pay-off God’

When LGBT people reject homophobic religious leaders, they are acting on a

more profoundly religious instinct that they may realise. James Fowler identiesvarious stages in spiritual development though which people grow. Those in the

MM would seem to be best labelled as being in the Mythic-literal and imperial

self stage. This stage is commonly reached by the average six to eight year old.

According to Fowler, people ‘in arrested development’ at this stage perceive God

in this way:




God is seen in anthropomorphic terms on the order of a stern, powerful, but

just parent or ruler. God rewards people when they do right; God punishes

people when they do wrong. Taken on a cosmic scale, this results in the kind of

interpretation that looks at the world as what might be termed as a ‘quick pay-off

universe’. (Fowler 1987, 61)

It is of a piece with the cause-and-effect, concrete narrative-sort of construction of

meanings which emerges with such power in this stage of spiritual development.

Yet this stage lacks something very important that will come with later stages: itlacks the ability to understand its own interiority – its own pervasive dispositions,the sources of its wishes, the structure of its motives, the patterns of its personality.

What it does not know about itself it is hardly able to penetrate in others: personsof the Mythic-Literal stage lack the ability to construct the interiority of other

persons as well. This means that from within the patterns of knowing and valuingof this stage, persons are seen as rounded, moving, behaving surfaces.

There is much reminiscent here of the behaviourism of B.F. Skinner whichrepresents a complex and sophisticated attempt to account for the possibility of

understanding and predicting the behaviour of organisms – including human

organisms – from a standpoint that knows nothing of the interiority of persons.This lack represents no real problem in dealing with children of elementary-schoolage, where this orientation typically takes form. But in adolescents or adults –

among whom it is not unusual to nd persons who are typied by this stage – itmakes for rather more difcult problems of understanding and response. Onesees the world, self, and others through the structure of one’s needs, wishes, and

interests: they become the lters shaping a person’s interpretations of experienceand other people.

Persons typied by this stage – especially those of adolescent age or beyond –are often manipulative because they seem to act so as to engender the behaviour

and responses of others to serve their interests, needs, and wishes. This is a more

naive and honest form of manipulation carried on by those who see others only as

rounded surfaces whose behaviour has to be predicted, if at all, on the basis of the

pattern of responses made to sometimes crude forms of stimulation and challenge.

Lawfulness and order are imposed on the universe in this stage by recourse to the

idea of moral reciprocity. The cosmos is construed as rewarding good actions and

as punishing bad actions. God is seen with the analogy of a stern but just and fair parent or ruler. In effect, this is a strong and clear narrative imposition of meaning

based on a concrete understanding of cause-and-effect relations.

In young people this construction frequently gives way during a phase that may

be called ‘eleven year old atheism’. This phase comes when thoughtful children,whose religious and social environments have given them sufcient emotionalspace, are able to question and reckon for themselves. They begin to come to termswith the fact that ours is not a ‘quick pay-off universe’. The good do not always getrewarded; the wicked are not always punished.




For other youths, however, where religious norms and beliefs have been

enforced with rigidity and forms of emotional coercion, this construct of moral

reciprocity becomes a more permanent xture in their souls. Though they toomay reject the God of the quick pay-off universe at the level of cognitive self-

understanding, emotionally they get stuck in the structures of the Mythic-Literalstage. They move on into adolescent and eventually adult roles and relationships

without the emotional freedom and the capacity for intimacy that are required

for mutual interpersonal perspective taking. Often they operate in the areas ofrelations and religion with the kind of naive manipulation which rst arose as aresult of the embeddedness of the Mythic-Literal stage in the structure of its own

interests, needs, and wishes.

In fact, we see a fair number of persons – usually men – who may exhibit

considerable cognitive sophistication in their occupational worlds (as say, physicians

or engineers) but who in their emotional and faith lives are rather rigidly embeddedin the structures of Mythic-Literal faith and imperial selfhood. To their marriages

and family life they bring a rigidity – often coupled with authoritarian patterns –

that inicts psychic and sometimes physical violence on their partners and children.It often leads them to a kind of bafed bereftness in their forties and fties, whenin the shambles of their shattered families, for the rst time they may begin the painful task of learning about the interior lives of selves – starting with their own(Fowler 1987, 61–3, 84–7).

LGBTs are likely to have considerably more self-awareness than thosedescribed above, simply because they have likely felt themselves to be outsidersand have had to face the questions, ‘Who am I, why am I different and is it OK

to be different?’ Moral Majority types, being conformist and authoritarian, willmost likely live by externally imposed rules than by the sort of inner convictionsthat come from their own, lived experience. It is not, thus, surprising that LGBTs

will be unlikely to look to Christian churches for guidance on spiritual matters.Indeed, it could hinder their spiritual progress to do so. Rather than undertakingthe lengthy and costly process of authentic spiritual transformation, conservative

Christians delude themselves that they are already in some sense what God calls

them to become and they ostracise those who question and disagree (DeBlassie

1992, 117; Young 2004, 45).Christians believe that Jesus revealed the true nature of God. He was far

more accepting and inclusive than the churches today. In one of the resurrection

narratives, the angel asked ‘Why do you seek the living amongst the dead?’ LGBTsmay not nd much that is life-giving in many of the more conventional churches.Elsewhere, Jesus said that he came to bring life more abundantly, not religion more

abundantly. Conservative religion sties the sort of lifestyle than enables LGBTsto ourish, mentally and spiritually, so it may well be that a spiritual director canenable LGBTs to get in touch with their religious roots but advise them not to go

to church if it is likely to be toxic. Arguably gay spirituality groups such as theLesbian and Gay Christian Movement can serve as ‘church’ for them (Empereur

1988, 57).




Ex-gay groups speak of ‘not going back like a dog to its vomit’, meaning notgoing back to gay meeting places. Another understanding might be to refuse thelure of the ecclesiastical closet which binds conscience and makes people unfree,leading to dysfunctional relations and an inability to love and to tell the truth

(Alison 2003, 112–3). There is also a need to resist engaging in futile argument.Reason is unlikely to convince a Biblical fundamentalist that s/he is wrong aboutthe Bible, despite a mountain of scholarship. Many LGBT Christians have wasted

mental and emotional energy getting upset about debates such as that going on

currently in the Anglican Communion. It is better to invest that time in becoming

more secure and more loving and where one’s life will speak for itself and convincemany more people than words will ever do.

Stages of spiritual development

Spiritual directors need to tailor their work to suit the developmental stage ofthe directee. Spanish mystic, spiritual guide, and major gure of the Counter-

Reformation, St John of the Cross (1542–91), offered a way forward throughwhat he identied as three stages of spiritual development: the purgative, theilluminative and the unitive.

i) Purgative

In the purgative stage, the client purges his socialisation. S/he will most likelyhave been raised in a nuclear family and have been expected to settle down, marry

and produce children and be like everyone else. For many Christians ‘repentance’means being sorry for doing wrong and trying to improve morally. However, its

meaning in New Testament Greek – metanoia – connotes a turning round/changing

your mind, distancing yourself from the value systems of this world. In the case of

LGBT people this might well involve distancing themselves from the guilt and hate

perhaps internalised from the tabloid press, from church and from wider society.

To do otherwise, to live the expectations of others is, for Sebastian Moore,2 a

form of sin. Repentance from living according to the expectations of others will

mean that LGBTs stop demeaning themselves, repent of the harm their negative

outlook has caused themselves and others, repent of their doubt and believe in the possibilities that abundant life has to offer. This should be good news for LGBTs.

Sin is not, as they are told, having ‘deviant sex’. It is living an inauthentic lifestyle

by being shackled to the morality of conventional, ‘straight’ people.

Purgation also involves a repenting of false gods (Isherwood 1980). OrthodoxChristianity ofcially teaches that God is greater than anything we could possiblyimagine. So, anything less, such as making God in our own image as advocates of

2 Quoted by McNeill (1995, 6). Dom Sebastian Moore is a member of the Benedictinecommunity of Downside Abbey, near Bath in England.




It would not be felt permissible to have any more sexual encounters after

receiving absolution because s/he would then be held to be in a state of ‘moral

sin’ and so the absolution would be ‘undone’. S/he would not be able to receive

Holy Communion again until making a further confession and receiving furtherabsolution. The split-off, one-night-stand encounters that frequently come from

this confessional mentality may lead to disintegration, disassociating one’s

emotions from one’s physical actions. Everyone has an instinct towards wholeness

but attempting to conform to the ‘straight’ world diverts attention away from it.

One must embrace the God intuited within.

Other phases in purgation include: awareness of differentness. Thus spiritual

directors need to encourage the telling of their life story so that they may own their

story. It may also be helpful to point them towards autobiographies of others who

have had similar experiences.

Then there is identity confusion. Directors need to encourage discernment thatwill enable a more inspirational reading of scripture. The people of the Bible were

no different, in many respects, from people today. The whole gamut of human

emotions is to be found in scripture, especially in the Psalms. If directees quote

scripture against themselves, they have internalised the Church’s homophobia

and the director needs to tell them about non-homophobic interpretations of the

scriptures4 until such time as they are able to interpret it to speak to their ownexperience (Sweasey 1997, 36).

Many have spoken of ‘coming out’ as being like the escape from bondagein Egypt.5 Hence, there is a need for ‘acceptance’. Spiritual directors should

encourage LGBT people to question previous assumptions and beliefs, alongside

trusting their own hunch that their experience is true and that they should accept

their own, inner wisdom and not the unquestioning, hand-me-down moralist of

others (Wagner 2006, 111–9).

Self-acceptance

The conformist gay needs to love his true self (Empereur 1998, 113f.). In thisrespect, as a Zen teacher once said, ‘you have to be yourself to change yourself’

(Sweasey 1997, 35). The real sin is a desire for a life other than the one we aregiven (Runcorn 2003, 53). Moreover, if you do not accept yourself, you are nottolerant towards others (Bryant 1987, 21). Here is the need for healing and healingmeans breaking open the human heart, breaking out of the narrow prison of personal heartbreak. The Kabbalah teaches that all life needs healing, not just thesick. It calls this tikkun – God created a broken universe in order to give everyonea role in its restoration (Frankel 2003, 4, 22).

LGBT people play a particular part in restoring wholeness. They can be prophetic as they stand on the margins of society (McCleary 2004, ix). A Sioux

4 There are now several commentaries written by LGBT scholars whose ‘hermeneutic

of suspicion’ challenges the assumptions of conventional commentaries and translations.

5 Bernard Lynch, quoted in Sweasey (1997, 36).




Indian, ‘winkte’, told a gay man that if given a burden, he is also given a gift(Roscoe 1995, 8). In shamanism, a nadle means ‘changer’. Those who cross-

dressed were given leadership. They took on the spirit of a God and were healersand mediators of spiritual life (Grahn 1984). A meditation teacher said ‘Gay people

hold the key to the next stage of human evolution; a world in which it is possible tocooperate without competing (Boyd 1988).6 Having been cast out by the Church,

it is as if the stone which has been rejected has become the corner stone (McNeill1995, xiii).

LGBTs play a particular part in restoring wholeness. They can be prophetic as

they stand on the margins of society. Joseph was cast out by his brothers but went

ahead to save them. ‘Straights’ need LGBTs’ healthy spirituality to enable all of us

to be who we are. LGBTs suffer from a lack of role models so this requires a leapof faith, to act on intuition that one is accepted, whatever the Church says. If the

Genesis idea of the image of God only being mirrored in heterosexual marriage istrue, celibates, gays and the elderly have their humanity denied them. If humans

are in God’s image there should be great pluralism, yet an interacting with other

parts. God is ‘I am who I am’, so our vocation is to be who we are, to listen to the

call, the yearning within, to our true self within the diverse spectrum is truly to

image God. If someone is not true to who they are, they are less than what God

intends. It may well be that many gays achieve greater individuation because the

struggle is harder and the need to escape ‘straight’ shackles is more impelling.

LGBT people are over-represented in the caring and artistic professions:dentists, doctors, teachers, social workers and the like. Equally so in the arts:theatre, painting and music. They are over-represented because purgation is forced

upon them by realising that they are at odds with society’s norms, sharing the cross

as wounded healers. It was always thus. In many cultures, homosexuality has been

a sign of divine election, for example, the Berdaches in Native American society,

cross-dressing and having sex with other men, were spiritual healers/priests and

educators, perceived as having a natural high intelligence. In the words of a Crow

traditionalist: ‘We don’t waste people the way white society does. Every person

has their gift’. In a similar vein, Edward Carpenter talked of Uranians being an

advance-guard to transform society and there used to be talk of ‘the third sex’(Carpenter 1984, 63). This is not without its dangers. There is the peril of buyinginto the essentialism dened by the Christian Right (Rudy 1997, 122).

Dying to self

In Christianity there is reference to the ‘dying to self’. The Church often takesthis to mean that people should deny who they are. LGBTs are often told that they

‘cannot help’ who they are, but their particular vocation is to take up their crossand live lives of sexual abstinence. It has been argued that this is a form of spiritual

abuse, worse still that it leads LGBT people to internalise its values and hate their

true selves (Young 2004, 87). A very different view can be seen in Judaism where

6 Quoted in Thompson (1987, 79).




it is Satan, not God, who is the accuser. He is a liar and internalising his voice leads

to low self-esteem (Seamands 1981, 77).For LGBTs, as for women, dying to self is harder as the true self has been

repressed. Relinquishing one’s identity is difcult after the hard-won battle

achieving it in the rst place (de la Heurta 1999 54, 63; McNeill 1995, 117f.;Young 2004, 2). Spiritual direction in the last third of the twentieth century wasrevolutionised by psychology’s conclusion that self-love is a necessary component

for love of anyone else and that Christianity, more than any other religion, needs

to learn this (Bailey 2001, 51–2). LGBTs might help Christians realise that self-denial is not some morbid mysticism of the cross but a longing for the beloved, for

justice (Empereur 1988, 61).St Paul’s favoured word for ‘sin’ is the Greek ‘amartia’, which is more often

used to refer to an archer missing the target. As a description of human progress,

or lack of it, sin means being less than what God intends; instead of livingabundant lives, humans are stunted and fail to reach their full potential. In today’s

acquisitive society, individuals develop a false self in response to objectives set by their parents, school and peer group to earn, spend, and achieve promotion.

People rarely ask why. If they do, a crude answer would be on the lines that we goto work to earn money to feed ourselves so that we can stay alive to go to work toearn money. In order to transcend the vicious circle, the family can be summoned

to justify it. We work to earn money to feed our children. Then an insistent voice

adds, ‘so that they can grow up, go to work to earn money to feed their children’.It is this false self, caught in the expectations of others, that is to be denied in order

to rise to the new, abundant life that Jesus spoke about, the real self.People can create an identity from within, nd their own truths, a true self

identity called LOKA in some Native American traditions and contrasted with the

false self (Thompson 1987, 219). The shaman who does not triumph by strength but submits is disintegrated, his ego shattered, only later (in a striking parallel toChristian talk of death and resurrection) to be reconstituted (Roscoe 1995, 214).Through extreme suffering, the gods’ gift wounded people: out of their death-

rebirth shamans receive the power to heal others (Frankel 2003, 164). LGBTs mayalso benet from the wisdom in Islam, where self-knowledge and knowledge ofGod are synonymous and where there is not necessarily a contradiction between

revealed truth (from God) and personal intuition (from humanity) (Manji 1999, 9).

Addiction and discernment

One possibly mistaken direction in which many LGBT people go, in dying to self,in a greater degree than the rest of the population, is through various addictions

which put them out of touch with themselves. Some, no doubt fuelled by guilt anda need for self-justication, turn to busy-ness in church or social action. They mayhave a rigid belief system that insists that others should be like themselves. Theymay incline towards workaholism to avoid internal psychological and spiritualtensions. Others turn to drugs, advocated by some to give vision and release

inhibition, but one needs to weigh up their effects on the body. The derivation




of alcoholic spirits, spiritus, may suggest spiritual awareness but it can also be

poison. Using various addictions to escape reality can hinder spiritual growth,

exhausting energy. Whereas the gifted, freed to be their true selves, can work forsocial justice because of the injustice they have experienced.

There are other pitfalls. To argue that all one has to do is to listen to oneself,

to intuit is too simplistic. In fact, most, if not all people have a cacophony of

voices within. Listening to one’s conscience is not listening to some Jiminy cricketsitting on one’s shoulder. It is more of a process, one which Thomas Aquinas

called synderesis. Bishop Berkeley of Bristol and later of Durham called it the practice of quiescence. In order for LGBTs to get in touch with their spirituality,

and discern the true voice within as opposed to the internalised voices of others,

they have to learn this process.

For Geoff Main (1985), meditation is the rst step towards establishing the

basic human relationship, the relationship with yourself. When you meditate, youdo not try to please anyone. In meditating you empty yourself of all images, so

space is made for the real you. In religious terms people often talk about lovingGod, loving your neighbour and loving yourself. Main continues:

But I think only a little experience with meditating will show you that the true

order is the other way round. You must rst learn to be yourself and to love

yourself. And secondly you must allow your neighbour to be themselves and to

love them. And it is then, and only then, that it makes any sense to talk aboutGod. And indeed, the less you talk and think about God in the initial stages, the

better. (Main 1985, 57–8)

Somehow, mysteriously over time, the practice of meditation and other forms of

prayer results in a profound conviction that the one at the heart of the universe is

good and benecent, and this belief in itself makes it easier to relax and be honestwith God and other people. Although Jung did not adequately acknowledge this,meditation encourages self-acceptance in a manner analogous to the integration

of the shadow in Jungian psychotherapy. The conviction that this God is

loving may enable people who meditate to risk becoming aware of the darkestfacets of themselves. However, sometimes these can be so difcult to face that psychotherapeutic help may also be necessary (Young 2006, 116).

ii) Illuminative

In the illuminative stage of spiritual development, identied by St John of the

Cross, people learn who they are. There are several insights here.

Sex-positive

For most people learning who they are includes the signicance of sexualrelationships. Dying to self at this stage is to be found in the practical, everyday

compromises that are required if a couple is to manage to stay together without




one totally dominating the other. Seemingly trivial arguments about whether the

toothpaste is squeezed from the bottom or the top of the tube and the presenting

issues as the two individuals nd that the ‘corners are knocked off’. It is not fornothing that the Orthodox Church speaks of marriage as a form of martyrdom for

the laity. Christianity consists not so much in heroic self-sacrice but in the humdrum give- and-take of daily living, in a relationship where people typically talkof ‘giving one hundred and fty per cent’.

Many Christians see spirituality in opposition to sexuality, yet the Christian

doctrine of the incarnation talks of God uniting the esh and the spirit. ArchbishopWilliam Temple talked of Christianity as being ‘the most materialistic of all theworld’s religions’. In short, ‘matter matters’: Christians use material things likewater, breads, wine, water oil, ash and candles as sacramentals. Our sexuality is

part of our material being and is a way towards union with God

Augustine identied ‘eros’ as the power that impels us toward God (Glaser2001, 18). Love is an energy that moves the world towards union with God sonobody should be ashamed of it (Cargas 1988, 30). Love includes rather thanexcludes. God is the erotic power between people (Sheldrake 1994, 10, 29). Wedo not pay enough attention to our desires and passions (Runcorn 2003, xvii).Religion without eros is reduced to moral values and dutiful rituals (Sheldrake1994, 28). Christians have a tendency to narrow down love (Bryant 1980, 67).In the rst epistle of John ‘we love because he rst loved us’. An early copyist

inserted the word ‘him’ to read ‘we love him because he rst loved us’.The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence have frequently pointed out that humour

and sexuality are at the roots of spirituality. Hinduism is far more sex-positive

than much that passes for Christianity. There are few examples of sexual imagery

in Christian churches. The carvings of Sheela-na-gigs, women holding their

vaginas open, inviting penetration, outside Kilpeck church in Herefordshire, is arare example. By contrast, there are numerous temples in India where gods with

erect penises chase naked goddesses around the temple towers and many templesfeature a lingam, an erect penis, over which worshippers pour rice pudding and

milk in what many Westerners would dismiss as a ‘mere fertility cult’. The godShiva’s symbol is this lingam or phallos. Shiva speaks:

I am not distinct from the phallos. The phallos is identical with me. It draws my

faithful to me and therefore must be worshipped. Wherever there is an upright

male organ. I, myself, am present, even if there is no other representation of me

… The phallos is … the symbol of the god. (Fox 1988, 176)

Judaism is also far more sex-positive. The Jewish Sabbath culminates in makinglove: sex is compulsory! In contrast to the Christian view that sex hinders one’s

approach to and relationship with God, for the Su Rumi there are a thousand waysof kissing the earth, a thousand ways of loving, each one a human counterpartto the divine-human encounter, each one a healing, a gift (Gillmore 1988, 65).Christianity’s loss of its Jewish roots needs reversing, especially so in relation to




Marcion who required catechumens to take a vow of celibacy before Baptism andexpected married converts to abstain from sexual intercourse after baptism (Fox

1981, 210) or where American prayer manual suggested abstinence from sex on

Saturday nights in preparation for Sunday Communion. In the Middle-Ages, by

contrast, sex was proscribed on Wednesdays and Fridays and throughout Advent

and Lent because they were fast days.

Some have argued for a sensuality which is larger than genital sexuality. Deep-

tissue massage eliminates tensions and increase self-awareness. Techniques such

as acupressure, acupuncture, Reiki, and Therapeutic Touch focus on the body’s‘subtle’ or energy body, and work with its chi or ‘vital energy’. The goal of

different massage therapies (for example, Traeger, Swedish or deep tissue) is therelaxation of the musculature and the consequent release of tension and repressed

emotions held in our tissues. Generally, however, the word ‘body workers’ refers

to practitioners of any form of massage therapy, excluding related practices suchas chiropractic, body-centred psychotherapy, touch therapy, or acupuncture.

Giovanni Aleri agrees that bodywork is a tool for ‘tuning in and developingawareness about what’s going on inside, a way to connect what’s going on in

our lives (like stress at work) with what happens in the body’. He believes that bodywork also helps us to realise that we have the ability to transcend and move beyond the circumstances of our lives. Mindfulness and self-awareness are

important, he adds, because ‘the most important thing on the spiritual path is

understanding yourself and sharing that with the world’.7

‘I hold bodywork in a very sacred way’, Aleri says, ‘and approach each session

by taking time to go within, calling in all my guides and angels, and asking forassistance so that the healing may be the highest’. Aleri specialises in deep tissuework because he believes that is the best way to access and release energies that wehold really deep in the body (having studied Reiki, he also combines energy workin his sessions). He acknowledges that what he does is a very intuitive process, onein which he does not put a great deal of conscious thought.

The whole body becomes a sex organ and sex becomes more than penetrative,

or as Roscoe puts it:

As heterosexual men, sex to them meant penetration and, therefore, an exchange

of bodily uids. Mutual masturbation, an extremely safe form of sex, never

occurred to them as an alternative because it wasn’t sex in heterosexual terms.

To the extent that safe sex directs erotic focus away from penetration, it can

be delightfully nonphallic. Piercing, tattooing, bodybuilding, and costuming are

also ways of reclaiming the body, of making it something of our own choosing

and remapping our erotic zones in the process. All these practices interruptthe head-crotch axis and direct attention away from the penis to other parts.

Eventually, the entire surface of the body becomes a sex organ. Over time, the

oedipalized body of the father sloughs off like an old skin, revealing a distinctly

7 Giovanni Aleri quoted in de la Huerta, 84.




outside world and create a heightened awareness of the body, its limits, and its

instincts. Actions like those of a paddle or a moving hand are often measured

and repetitive. Such actions (like those of a moving watch, a mantric chant or

a drumbeat) are recognized tools in trance induction … All of these have been

linked with shifts in consciousness.8

De la Heurta writes of how sadism and masochism was capable of transforming

the ego:

S/M is a spiritual discipline. The old person has to be completely dismembered

before they can be reconstructed … By submitting at the feet of a masterful

guide, I was, in effect, signing a contract wherein my ego-driven self could be

temporarily annihilated, loosed from its mooring. (de la Heurta 1997, 110)

iii) Unitive

The nal stage of spiritual development explored by St John of the Cross is theunitive. This has various dimensions. To become fully one’s self in God, united

at the root of one’s being, can only happen if one becomes in unity with one’s

authentic self (McNeill 1995, 10). It also involves union with other people,traditionally spoken of as the brother/sisterhood of the baptised, of others in the

struggle for liberation, so it has political and social dimensions, perhaps leading toinvolvement on the scene, in political groups and campaigning.

When LGBTs are claiming a new identity, directors need to resist any tendency

to defend the church or God and may lead them to liberation theology. As they

achieve afrmation, celebration, and activism directors need to be unambivalent intheir acceptance (Wagner 2006, 111–19). The ‘interindividual’ gay is free enoughto be himself and to let others be themselves and maybe mature enough not to

need spiritual direction any more but may sometimes feel lonely and need to share

with someone who understands and to be encouraged to pass on their wisdom to

next generation (Empereur 1988, 153f.). The conscientious gay is likely to be anti-church but needs to move beyond solely identifying with being gay. S/he needs to

address other issues and engage with other communities (Empereur 1988, 132f.).

Summary

Instead of seeking to be members of the Church on own its terms, LGBTs can

model an alternative spirituality, such as from those outlined above (Boisvert2000, 14). However, there is a need to forgive those who caused the problem(Seamands 1981, 21) and to stay and work within as the roots of homophobia liein religions (if one is strong enough) (de la Heurta 1999, 170).

8 Geoff Mains, quoted in Thompson 1987, 105.




Catherine of Sienna, Jesus and countless others felt called to confront religious

authorities (Linn 1995, 62). This could result in an end to conservative Christiansclaiming to be the sole arbiters of scriptural interpretation. Paradoxically, whilst

declaring to possess a revelation from God, from very early in the history of the

Church, theologians recognised that human beings can never achieve conceptual

knowledge of God. This is because in essence true knowledge of God is experientialknowledge: it is not attained by intellectual reection, but only through the unionof the soul with God through faith, hope and love. In the early Church, holiness

was regarded as an essential attribute of the theologian because sin distorts the

vision of God. It is only the person who is truly guided by the Holy Spirit who

can understand what God seeks to communicate of himself through the Bible. AnyChristians who acknowledge themselves to be sinners must also acknowledge thatthey do not have access to the denitive meaning of the Bible.

Since all Christians repeatedly confess that they are sinners, both in liturgicalworship and private prayer, it follows that no Christians can claim with integrity

to be able to interpret the Bible truly and denitively. To do so would amountto saying that they are in perfect accord with the Holy Spirit and no longer sin.

We are all sinners. How then is it possible for any Christians to assert that their

interpretation of the Bible is the assured truth about God? Even if the Bible is

objectively the revealed Word of God, none of us can be certain that we know whatthe denitive meaning of that revelation is! To read the Bible with this awareness

may enable the churches and individual Christians to behave with greater humility,and to avoid the false identication of their teachings with the guaranteed truthabout God (Young 2004, 139).



Bibliography

Adamiak, E. (1999), Milcząca Obecność: O Roli Kobiety w Kościele (Warsaw:

Biblioteka ‘Więzi’).Ali, S., Campbell, K., Branley, D. and James, R. (2006), ‘Politics, Identities and

Research’, in C. Seale (ed.) Researching Society and Culture (London: Sage).Alison, J. (2003), On Being Liked (London: Darton, Longman & Todd).Alsop, R. and Hockey, J. (2001), ‘Women’s Reproductive Lives as a Symbolic

Resource in Central and Eastern Europe’, The European Journal of Women’sStudies 8:4, 454–71.

Althaus-Reid, M. (2003), The Queer God (London: Routledge). –––– (2006), Liberation Theology and Sexuality (Aldershot: Ashgate).Anglican Communion (1999), Called to Be a Faithful Church in a Plural World ,

Section III, Report of Lambeth Council 1998 (Harrisburg, PEN: Morehouse

Publishing).Aune, K. (2006), ‘Marriage in a British Evangelical Congregation: Practising

Postfeminist Partnership?’, The Sociological Review 54:4, 638–57. –––– (2008a), ‘Singleness and Secularization: British Evangelical Women and

Church (dis)Afliation’, in K. Aune, S. Sharma, and G. Vincett (eds) Women

and Religion in the West: Challenging Secularization (Aldershot: Ashgate). –––– (2008b), ‘Evangelical Christianity and Women’s Changing Lives’, European

Journal of Women’s Studies 15:3, 277–94.

Bailey, E. (2001), The Secular Faith Controversy (New York: Continuum).Baniak, J. (1997), Dynamika Powołań Kapłańskich i Zakonnych w Kościele

Rzymskokatolickim w Polsce 1900 – 1994 (Cracow: NOMOS).Barna, G. (2005), Revolution (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers).Bauman, Z. (2005), Liquid Life (Cambridge: Polity Press).Baumgardner, J. (2007), Look Both Ways: Bisexual Politics (New York: Farrar,

Straus & Giroux).Beatie, T. (2008), Labor of Love: The Story of One Man’s Extraordinary Pregnancy

(Berkeley, CA: Seal Press).Becker-Huberti, M. (n.d.), ‘Aussehen wie die Heilige Kümmernis: über eine

erfundene Heilige’ <http://www.religioeses-rauchtum.de/sommer/kheilige_

kuenmmer nis. html>.Berry, J. (2004), Review of E. Stuart, ‘Gay and Lesbian Theologies: Repetitions

with Critical Difference’, Political Theology 5:2, 254–5.

Bindel, J. (2008), ‘It’s Not Me. It’s You’, The Guardian, November 8, 32.




Blackwood, E. and Wieringa S.E. (2001), ‘Sapphic Shadows: Challenging theSilence in the Study of Sexuality’, in D.M. Juschka (ed.) Feminism in the Study

of Religion: A Reader (London and New York: Continuum).Blain, J. (2002), Nine Worlds of Seid-Magic: Ecstasy and Neo-Shamanism in

North European Paganism (London and New York: Routledge).Bock, G. (1983), ‘Racism and Sexism in Nazi Germany: Motherhood, Compulsory

Sterilization, and the State’, Signs 8:3, 400–21.

Boguszewski, R. (2008), Nie ma Jak Rodzina (Warsaw: CBOS).Boisvert, D. (1999), ‘Queering the Sacred: Discourses of Gay Male Spiritual

Writing’, Theology and Sexuality 10, 54–70.

–––– (2000), Out on Holy Ground: Meditations on Gay Men’s Spirituality

(Cleveland, OH: Ohio Pilgrim Press).Bornstein, K. (1994), Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women, and the Rest of Us (New

York: Vintage Books).Borooah, V. and Mangan, J. (2007), ‘Love Thy Neighbour: How Much Bigotry is

there in Western Countries’, Kyklos 60:3, 295–317.

Borowik, I. (2002), ‘The Roman Catholic Church in the Process of DemocraticTransformation: The Case of Poland’, Social Compass 49:2, 239–52.

–––– and Doktór, T. (eds) (2001), Pluralizm Religijny i Moralny w Polsc (Cracow:

NOMOS).Boswell, J. (1980), Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay People

in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the FourteenthCentury (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

–––– (1985), ‘The Church and the Homosexual: An Historical Perspective’, in K.

Leopold and T. Orians (eds) Theological Pastoral Resources: A Collection of

Articles on Homosexuality from a Pastoral Perspective, 6th edn (Washington

DC: Dignity).Bouldrey, B. (ed.) (1995), Wrestling with the Angel: Faith and Religion in the

Lives of Gay Men (New York: Riverhead Books).Bourne, L. (1979), A Witch Amongst Us (London: Satellite).Bowker, J. (1991), A Year to Live (London: SPCK).Brewer, J. (2002), ‘Are There Any Christians in Northern Ireland?’ in A. Gray,

K. Lloyd, P. Devine, G. Robinson and D. Heenan (eds) Social Attitudes in

Northern Ireland: The Eighth Report (London: Pluto Press).Brown, J.C. (1984), ‘Lesbian Sexuality in Renaissance Italy: The Case of Sister

Bendetta Carlini’, Signs 9:4, 751–8.

Bruce, S. (1986), God Save Ulster! The Religion and Politics of Paisleyism

(Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Bryant, C. (1980), The Heart in Pilgrimage (New York: Seabury). –––– (1987), Depth Psychology and Religious Belief (London: DLT).Burns, C. (2001), ‘A Funny Kind of Integrity’, Press for Change <www.pfc.org.

uk/node/672/print>.

Butler, J. (1990), Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity

(London: Routledge).



Bibliography 175

Cadge, W., Day, H. and Wildeman, C. (2007), ‘Bridging the Denomination-Congregation Divide: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Congregations

Respond to Homosexuality’, Review of Religious Research 48:3, 245–59.

Calvert, S. (1997), ‘Southwark Welcomes Gay Celebrations. Blasphemy, theChurch of England, and the LGCM’, The Christian Institute News Digest 4:1, 4.

Campbell, D.E. and Monson, J.Q. (2005), ‘The Religion Card: Evangelicals,Catholics, and Gay Marriage in the 2004 Presidential Election’, paper

presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association,

Marriott Wardman Park, Omni Shoreham, Washington Hilton, WashingtonDC, September, (online) <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p41338_index.

html>.

Carbayo-Abengozar, M. (2001), ‘Shaping Women: National Identity Through theUse of Language in Franco’s Spain’, Nations and Nationalism 7:1, 75–92.

Carey, J. (1991), ‘Sexuality: What We Couldn’t Say’, Christianity and Crisis 51:12, August 19, 258–9.

Cargas, H. (1988), Encountering Myself: Contemporary Christian Meditations

(London: SPCK).Carpenter, E. (1984), ‘Intermediate Types’ in Selected Writings, vols. 1–3 (London:

Gay Men’s Press).Cherry, K. (2006), Jesus in Love (Berkeley: AndroGyne Press). –––– (2007), Art That Dares: Gay Jesus, Woman Christ, and More (Berkeley:

AndroGyne Press).Chester, R. and Peel, J. (eds) (1976), Changing Patterns of Sexual Behaviour

(London: Academic).Christopherson, R.W. (1994), ‘Calling and Career in Christian Ministry’, Review

of Religious Research 35:3, 219–37.

Coleman, G.D. (1984), ‘Homosexuality and the Churches: An Overview’, Ecumenical Trends 13:8, September, 113–6.

Comstock, G.D. (1996), Unrepentant, Self-Afrming, Practicing: Lesbian/

Bisexual/ Gay People Within Organised Religion (New York: Continuum).Connell R. (1987), Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics

(Cambridge: Polity Press). –––– (1995), Masculinities (Cambridge: Polity Press).Conner, R., Sparks, D.H. and Sparks, M. (1997), Cassell’s Encyclopedia of Queer

Myth, Symbol and Spirit (London and New York: Cassell).Cooke, D. (1996), Persecuting Zeal: A Portrait of Ian Paisley (Dingle: Brandon).Cosar, S. (2007), ‘Women in Turkish Political Thought: Between Tradition and

Modernity’, Feminist Review 86, 113–31.

Countryman, L.W. (1988), Dirt, Greed, and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the NewTestament and Their Implications for Today (Philadelphia: Fortress Press).

Crane, H. (2004), ‘Resisting Marriage and Renouncing Womanhood: The Choiceof Taiwanese Buddhist Nuns’, Critical Asian Studies 36:2, 265–84.




Crockett, A. and Voas, D. (2003), ‘A Divergence of Views: Attitude Change andthe Religious Crisis Over Homosexuality’, Sociological Research Online 8:4

(online) <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/8/4/crockett.html>.

Cromwell, J. (1999), Transmen and FTMs: Identities, Bodies, Genders and

Sexualities (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press).Curb, R. and Manaham, N. (eds) (1993), Lesbian Nuns: Breaking Silence (London:

The Women’s Press).Dallas, J. and Heche, N. (2009), The Complete Christian Guide to Understanding

Homosexuality: A Handbook for Helping Those who Struggle with Same-sex

Attraction (New York: Harvest House Publishers).Davies, C. (1975), Permissive Britain, Social Change in the Sixties and Seventies

(London: Pitman). –––– (2006), The Strange Death of Moral Britain (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction

Publishers). –––– and Hunt, S. (1999), ‘Religious Resistance to Secular Moral Permissiveness’,

paper presented at the Politics and Religion Conference, Lincoln Theological

Institute, February 12.

de la Heurta, C. (1999), Coming Out Spiritually: The Next Step (New York:Penguin/Putnam).

DeBlassie III, P. (1992), Toxic Christianity (New York: Crossroad).Deihl, M. (2000), ‘Bi God: Rediscovering an Ancient Self’, in D.R. Kolodny

and M.E. Hunt (eds) Blessed Bi Spirit: Bisexual People of Faith (New York:Continuum).Dewr, C. (1998), ‘Why Pagan Pride?’, The Stroppy Rabbit <http://www.paganpride.

org/what/why.html>.

Diefendorf, B.B. (1996), ‘Give Us Back Our Children: Patriarchal Authorityand Parental Consent to Religious Vocations in Early Counter-Reformation

France’, The Journal of Modern History 68:2, 265–307.

Dobbs, L. (2000), ‘Look At This Day’, in D. Kolodny (ed.) Blessed Bi Spirit:

Bisexual People of Faith (London: Continuum).Domański, H. (2002), ‘Is the East European “Underclass” Feminized?’, Communist

and Post-Communist Studies 35, 383–94.

Duncan, H. (2005), ‘The Homosexual Agenda’ <http://notesfromthegeekshow. blogspot.com/2007/01/protocols-of-elders-of-sodom.html>.

–––– (2007), ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Sodom’ <http://notesfromthegeekshow. blogspot.com/2007/01/protocols-of-elders-of-sodom.html>.

Durkheim, E. (1954 [1912]), The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (London:

Allen & Unwin).

Eadie, J. (1997) ‘Living in the Past: Savage Nights, Bisexual Times’, Journal ofGay, Lesbian and Bisexual Identity 2:1, 7–26.

Eberts, M. (1998), ‘The Roman Catholic Church and Democracy in Poland’, Europe-Asia Studies 50:5, 817–42.

Ekins, R. and King, D. (2006), The Transgender Phenomenon (London: Sage).



Bibliography 177

Elliston, D.A. (1999), ‘Negotiating Transnational Sexual Economies: FemaleMahu and Same-sex Sexuality in Tahiti and Her Islands’, in E. Blackwoodand S.E. Wieringa (eds) Same-sex Relations and Female Desires: Transgender

Practices Across Cultures (New York: Columbia University Press).

Empereur, J. (1988),Spiritual Direction and the Gay Person (London:

Chapman).Erzen, T. (2006), Straight to Jesus: Sexual and Christian Conversions in the Ex-

Gay Movement (Berkeley: University of California Press).Evangelical Alliance (2000), Transsexuality (London: Evangelical Alliance Policy

Commission).Feinberg, L. (1996), Transgender Warriors: Making History from Joan of Arc to

RuPaul (Boston: Beacon Press). –––– (1998), Transliberation: Beyond Pink and Blue (Boston: Beacon Press).

Fessenden, T. (2000), ‘The Convent, the Brothel, and the Protestant Woman’sSphere’, Signs 25:2, 451–78.

Field, J. (2003), Social Capital (London: Rouledge).Fine, G. and Deegan, J. (1996), ‘Three Principles of Serendip: Insight, Chance and

Discovery in Social Research’, Qualitative Studies in Education 9:4, 434–47.

Fletcher, B. (1990), Clergy Under Stress: A Study of Homosexual and Heterosexual

Clergy (London: Mowbray).Foltz, T.G. (2000), ‘Sober Witches and Goddess Practitioners: Women’s

Spirituality and Sobriety’, Diskus 6:1 (online) <http://web.uni-marburg.de/religionswissenschaft/journal/diskus/foltz.html>.Fontana, A. (2002), ‘Postmodern Trends in Interviewing’, in J.F. Gubrium and

J.A. Holstein (eds) Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method

(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).Ford, D. (1999), Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Ford, M. (2004), Disclosures: Conversations Gay and Spiritual (London: Darton,

Longman and Todd).Ford, T.M. (2005), The Path of the Green Man: Gay Men, Wicca and Living a

Magical Lif e (New York: Citadel Press).Fortunato, J. (1983), Embracing the Exile (Philadelphia: Fortress Press).Foster, N. (n.d.), ‘A Prayer in the Dark’, Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement ,

<http://www.lgcm.org.uk/archive/archive4a.html>.Foucault, M. (1978), The History of Sexuality: An Introduction, vol. 1, trans. R.

Hurlet (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books).Fowler, J. (1987), Faith Development and Pastoral Care (Philadelphia: Fortress).Fox, M. (1981), Whee! We, Wee All the Way Home: A Guide to Sensual, Prophetic

Spirituality (Santa Fe, NM: Bear & Co). –––– (1988), The Coming of the Cosmic Christ (San Francisco: Harper & Row).Fox, R. (1996), ‘Bisexuality in Perspective: A Review of Theory and Research’,

in B. Firestein (ed.) Bisexuality: The Psychology and Politics of an Invisible

Minority (London: Sage).




–––– (2007), ‘Bisexual Research’, paper presented at the Critical SexologyConference, London South Bank University, London, November 17.

Francis-Dehqani, G.E. (2004), ‘The Gendering of Missionary Imperialism: TheSearch for an Integrated Methodology’, in U. King and T. Beattie (eds) Gender,

Religion and Diversity: Cross-Cultural Perspectives (London and New York:Continuum).

Frankel, E. (2003), Sacred Therapy (Boston: Shambhala).Frosh, S., Phoenix, A. and Pattman, R. (2001), Young Masculinities: Understanding

Boys in Contemporary Society (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).Fuller, R.A. (2008), Spirituality in the Flesh: Bodily Sources of Religious

Experiences (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Ganiel, G. (2008), Evangelicalism and Conict in Northern Ireland (Basingstoke:

Macmillan).

Garber, M.B. (2000), Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life (New York:Routledge).

George, S. (1993), Women and Bisexuality (London: Scarlett Press).Gerber, L. (2008), ‘The Opposite of Gay: Nature, Creation, and Queerish Ex-

Gay Experiments’, Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent

Religions 11:4, 8 – 30.

Gibson, B. (2000), ‘A Bisexual Feminist Spirituality’, in D. Kolodny (ed.) Blessed

Bi Spirit: Bisexual People of Faith (London: Continuum).

Giddens, A. (1991), Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age (Cambridge: Polity Press).

–––– (1992), The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in

Modern Societies (Blackwell: Polity Press).Gill, S. (1989), The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement: Campaigning for

Justice, Truth and Love (London: Cassell). –––– (2004), ‘Why Difference Matters: Lesbian and Gay Perspectives on Religion

and Gender’, in U. King and T. Beattie (eds) Gender, Religion and Diversity:

Cross-Cultural Perspectives (London and New York: Continuum).Gillmore, H. (1988), A Minority of One (London: Quaker Home Service).Glaser, C. (2001), Reformation of the Heart (Louiseville, KEN: John Knox

Press).Goffman, E. (1971), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Harmondsworth:

Pelican).Goode, E. and Ben-Yehuda, D. (1994), Moral Panics (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).Goss, R.E. (1999), ‘Queer Theologies as Transgressive Metaphors: New Paradigms

for Hybrid Sexual Theologies’, Theology and Sexuality, 10, 43–53 (online)

Ebscohost: Academic Search Elite.Graff, A. (1999), Swiat Bez Kobiet: Plec w Polskim Zyciu Publicznym (Warsaw:

W.A.B).Grahn, J. (1984), Another Mother Tongue: Gay Words, Gay Worlds (Boston:

Beacon Press).



Bibliography 179

Green, J. (2003), ‘Centering: An Alternative Perspective’, Journal of Bisexuality

3:3/4, 277–85.

Green, J., Rozell, M. and Wilcox, C. (2006), The Values Campaign?: The Christian

Right in the 2004 Elections (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press).

Gross, R.M. (2004), ‘Where Have We Been? Where Do We Need to Go?: Women’sStudies and Gender in Religion and Feminist Theology’, in U. King and T.

Beattie (eds) Gender, Religion and Diversity: Cross-Cultural Perspectives

(London and New York: Continuum). –––– (2008), ‘To Be Christian and Homosexual: From Shame to Identity-based

Claims’, Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions

11:4, 77–101.

Guest, D., Goss, R.E., West, M. and Bohache, T. (2006), The Queer Bible

Commentary (London: SCM Press).

Gutierrez, G. (2001), A Theology of Liberation (London: SCM Press).Hart, L. (2005), ‘Magic is a Many Gendered Thing’, The Stroppy Rabbit (online)

<ttp://www.philhine.org.uk/writings/sh_gendered.html>.Hawley-Gorsline, R. (1996), ‘Facing the Body on the Cross: A Gay Man’s

Reections on Passion and Crucixion’, in B. Krondorfer (ed.) Men’s Bodies,

Men’s Gods: Male Identities in a (Post-) Christian Culture (New York andLondon: New York University Press).

–––– (2003), ‘James Baldwin and Audre Lorde as Theological Resources for

the Celebration of Darkness’, Theology and Sexuality 10:1, 58–72 (online)<Ebscohost, http://stroppyrabbit.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html>.

Heaphy, B. (2007), Late Modernity and Social Change (London: Routledge).Heaphy, B., Yip, A. and Thompson (2004), ‘Ageing in Non-heterosexual Context’,

Ageing and Society 24:6, 881–902.

Heelas, P. (2008), Spiritualities of Life: New Age Romanticism and Consumptive

Capitalism (Oxford: Blackwell). –––– and Woodhead, L. (2004), The Spiritual Revolution: Why Religions in Giving

Way to Spirituality (Oxford: Blackwell).Hemmings, C. (2002), Bisexual Spaces: A Geography of Sexuality and Gender

(London: Routledge).Henry, M. (2007), ‘If the Shoe Fits: Authenticity, Authority and Agency Feminist

Diasporic Research’, Women’s Studies International Forum 30, 70–80.

Heskins, J. (2005), Face to Face: Gay and Lesbian Clergy on Holiness and Life

Together (London: SCM).Hibbs, G.S. (2006), Journey of the Sacred Leader: A Qualitative Inquiry Examining

the Coming Out Process in the Organizational Culture of a Religious Setting

for Gay, Male, Protestant Clergy (Lincoln: iUniverse).Hinds, K. and Jarvis, L. (2000), ‘The Gender Gap’, in R. Jowell, J. Curtice, A.

Park, K. Thomson, L. Jarvis, C. Bromley and N. Stratford (eds) British Social

Attitudes, the 17th Report: Focusing on Diversity (London: Sage).Hine, P. (1989), ‘Some Musings on Polarity’, Philhine org.uk (online) <http://

www.philhine.org.uk/writings/sh_polarity.html>.




Hines, S. (2007a), TransForming Gender: Transgender Practices of Identity,

Intimacy and Care (Bristol: Policy Press). –––– (2007b), ‘(Trans) Gendering Sexualities’, in C. Beckett, O. Heathcote and

M. Macey (eds) Negotiating Boundaries? Identities, Sexualities, Diversities

(Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing). –––– (2007c), ‘(Trans)forming Gender: Social Change and TransgenderCitizenship’, Sociological Research Online 12:1 (online) <http://www.

socresonline.org.uk/12/1/hines.html>.

Hoff, B.H. (1993), ‘Gays: Guardians of the Gates. An Interview with MalidomaSomé’ (online) <http://www.menweb.org/somegay.htm>.

Holder, R. (1998a), ‘The Ethics of Transsexualism Part 2: A Christian Response tothe Issues Raised’, Crucible, July/September, 125–35.

–––– (1998b), ‘The Ethics of Transsexualism Part 1: The Transsexual Condition

and the Biblical Background to an Ethical Response’, Crucible, April/June,89–99.

Hollway, W. (1984), ‘Gender Difference and the Production of Subjectivity’, in J.Henriques, W. Hollway, C. Unwin, C. Venn, and V. Walkerdine (eds) Changing

the Subject: Psychology, Social Regulation and Subjectivity (London:

Methuen).Horrocks, R. (1997), An Introduction to the Study of Sexuality (Basingstoke and

London: Macmillan Press).

House of Bishops (1991), Issues in Human Sexuality: A Statement by the Houseof Bishops of the General Synod of the Church of England (London: Church

House Publishing).Hunt, S. (2003a), ‘Saints and Sinners: The Role of Conservative Christian Pressure

Groups in the Christian Gay Debate in the UK’, Sociological Research Online

8:4 (online) <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/8/4/hunt.html>. –––– (2003b), ‘Losing Your Sons to the “Gay Scene”: Strategies of the Christian

Anti-gay Lobby’, paper presented at the British Sociological Association

Sociology of Religion Study Group Day Conference Religion and

Marginalisation, Kingston University, Surrey, November 15.

–––– (forthcoming), ‘“God is Not Along for the Ride on this One”: ChristianBroadcasting in Britain’, in M. Bailey, A. McNicholas and G. Redden (eds)

Mediating Faiths (Farnham: Ashgate).Hutton, R. (1999), The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan

Witchcraft (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Isherwood, C. (1980), My Guru and His Disciple (New York: Farrar, Strauss &

Giroux).

Isherwood, L. and Stuart, E. (1998), Introducing Body Theology (London:Continuum).

Jakubowska, L. (1990), ‘Political Drama in Poland: The Use of National Symbols’, Anthropology Today 6:4, 10–13.

Jarman, N. (1997), Material Conicts Parades and Visual Displays in Northern

Ireland (Oxford: Berg).



Bibliography 181

Jarman, N. and Tennant, A. (2003), An Acceptable Prejudice? Homophobic

Violence and Harassment in Northern Ireland (Belfast: Institute for ConictResearch).

Jaszewska, D. (2005), ‘Matriarchat Konsumpcyjny’, W Drodze 10, 386.

Jeffery-Poulter, S. (1991), Peers, Queers and Commons The Struggle for Gay Law

Reform from 1950 to the Present (London: Routledge).Jenkins, R. (1996), Social Identity (London: Routledge).Jordan, G. (2001), Not of this World? Evangelical Protestants in Northern Ireland

(Belfast: Blackstaff Press).Juschka, D.M. (ed.) (2001), Feminism in the Study of Religion: A Reader (London

and New York: Continuum). –––– ‘Gender’, in J.R. Hinnells (ed.) The Routledge Companion to the Study of

Religion (London and New York: Routledge).

Keenan, M. (2008), ‘Freedom in Chains: Religion as Enabler and Constraint inthe Lives of Gay Male Anglican Clergy’, in A. Day (ed.) Religion and the

Individual: Belief, Practice, Identity (Aldershot: Ashgate).Kidd, J.D. and Witten, T.M. (2008), ‘Understanding Spirituality and Religiosity

in the Transgender Community: Implications for Aging’, Journal of Religion,

Spirituality and Aging 20:1/2, 29–62.

Kinsey, A. (1948), Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male (London: W.B. Saunders

and Co).

Kitchin, R. and Lysaght, K. (2004), ‘Sexual Citizenship in Belfast, NorthernIreland’, Gender, Place & Culture 11:1, 83–103.

Kitzinger, C. and Wilkinson, S. (1994), ‘Virgins and Queers: RehabilitatingHeterosexuality?’, Gender and Society 8:3, 444–63.

Kolakowski, V.S. (1997), ‘Toward a Christian Ethical Response to TranssexualPersons’, Theology and Sexuality 3:6, 10–31.

Kolodny, D. (2003), Blessed Bi Spirit: Bisexual People of Faith (London:

Continuum).Kowalska, A. (2005), ‘What is Behind the Curtain?’, Feminist Theology 13:2,

301–16.

Kramer, A.M. (2007), ‘The Abortion Debate in Poland. Opinion Polls, IdeologicalPolitics, Citizenship, and the Erasure of Gender as a Category of Analysis’, in

J.E. Johnson (ed.) Living Gender after Communism (Bloomington, IN: Indiana

University Press).Kwon, I. (2000), ‘A Feminist Exploration of Military Conscription: The Gendering

of the Connections Between Nationalism, Militarism and Citizenship in South

Korea’, International Feminist Journal of Politics 3:1, 26–54.

Lake, C. (ed.) (1999), Recreations: Religion and Spirituality in the Lives of Queer People (Toronto: Queer Press).

Lamond, F. (1997), Religion without Beliefs: Essays in Pantheist Theology,

Comparative Religion and Ethics (London: Janus Publishing Company).Landstreet, L. (1999 [1993]), ‘Alternate Currents: Revisioning Polarity Or,

What’s a Nice Dyke Like You Doing in a Polarity-Based Tradition Like This?’




(online), Gay Pagan Celebration, <http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?

a=usxx&c=gay&id=2458>.

Layder, D. (2004), Social and Personal Identity (London: SAGE).Lazar, M.M. (2001), ‘For the Good of the Nation: “Strategic Egalitarianism” in the

Singapore Context’, Nations and Nationalism 7:1, 59–74.

Lesser, R.C. and Schoenberg, E. (eds) (1999), That Obscure Subject of Desire:

Freud’s Female Homosexual Revisited (New York and London: Routledge).Letherby, G. (2002), ‘Childless and Bereft?: Stereotypes and Realities in Relation

to “Voluntary” and “Involuntary” Childlessness and Womanhood’,Sociological

Inquiry 72:1, 7–20.

Lieblich, A., Zilber, T.B. and Tuval-Mashiach, R. (2008), ‘Narrating HumanActions: The Subjective Experience of Agency, Structure, Communion andSerendipity’, Qualitative Inquiry 14:4, 613–31.

Linn, M. (1995), Healing Religious Addiction (London: DLT).Looy, H. and Bouma, H. (2005), ‘The Nature of Gender: Gender Identity in

Persons who are Intersexed or Transgendered’, Journal of Psychology and

Theology 33:3, 166–78.

Louden, S.H. and Francis, L.J. (2003), The Naked Parish Priest: What Priests

Really Think They’re Doing (London: Continuum).Loughlin, G. (2007), Queer Theology (Oxford: Blackwell).Lynch, G. (2007), New Spirituality: An Introduction to Belief beyond Religion

(London: IB Tauris).Mac an Ghaill, M. (1994), The Making of Men: Masculinities, Sexualities and

Schooling (Buckingham: Open University Press).MacThearlaich, S. (2000), ‘Let’s Undermine Polarities’, Queer Spirit 1:2.

Main, G. (1985), The Way of Unknowing (London: DLT).‘Mama Rose’ (n.d.), Why go Dianic? <http://www.iit.edu/~phillips/personal/

philos/dianic.html>.

Maneker, J. (2001), ‘Idolatry is the Source of Much Fear’, Whosoever Online

Magazine 5:4 (online) <http://christianglbtrights.blogspot.com/>.

Manji, I. (1999), ‘Confessions of a Muslim Lesbian’, in C. Lake (ed.) Recreations:

Religion and Spirituality in the Lives of Queer People (Toronto: Queer Press).Manning, B. (1982), A Stranger to Self-Hatred (Denville, NJ: Dimension).Marcadé, B. and Cameron, D. (1997), Pierre et Gilles: The Complete Works,

1976 – 1996 (Paris: Taschen).Marks, J. (2008), Exchanging the Truth of God for a Lie (Guildford: Courage UK).Martino, W. (2006), ‘Straight-Acting Masculinities: Normalization and Gender

Hierarchies in Gay Men’s Lives’, C. Kendall. and W. Martino (eds) Gendered

Outcasts and Sexual Outlaws: Sexual Oppression and Gender Hierarchies inQueer Men’s Lives (New York: Harrington Park Press).

Matthieu, N.C. (1996), ‘Sexual, Sexed and Sex-Class Identities: Three Ways ofConceptualising the Relationship Between Sex and Gender’, in D. Leonard

and L. Adkins (eds) Sex in Question: French Materialist Feminism (London:

Taylor and Francis).



Bibliography 183

McCleary, R. (2004), A Special Illumination: Authority, Inspiration and Heresy in

Gay Spirituality (London and Oakville: Equinox).McGarry, J. and O’Leary, B. (1996), Explaining Northern Ireland (Oxford:

Blackwell).

McIntosh, M. (1968), ‘The Homosexual Role’,Social Problems 16:2, 182–92.

McKenna, Y. (2006), ‘Entering Religious Life, Claiming Subjectivity: Irish Nuns1930s–1960s’, Women’s History Review 15:2: 189–211.

McNeill, J (1995), Freedom, Glorious Freedom (Boston: Beacon).Meyerowitz, J. (2004), How Sex Changed: A History of Transsexuality in the

United States (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Miller, T. (2005), Making Sense of Motherhood: A Narrative Approach (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press).Mitchell, C. (2006), Religion, Identity and Politics in Northern Ireland (Aldershot

Ashgate).Mizielinska, J. (1997), ‘Matki, Zony, Kochanki, Czyli Tak Nas Widza’, in J.

Brach-Czaina (ed.) From a Woman to a Man and Back: Considerations about

Sex in Culture (Bialystok: Trans Humana). –––– (2001), ‘“The Rest is Silence …”: Polish Nationalism and the Question of

Lesbian Existence’, The European Journal of Women’s Studies 8:3, 281–97.

Moberly, E. (1983), Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic (Cambridge: James

Clarke).

Mollenkott, V.R. (1984), The Divine Feminine: Biblical Imagery of God as Female(New York: Crossroad).

–––– (2007), Omnigender: A Trans-religious Approach (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim

Press). –––– (2008), Sensuous Spirituality: Out from Fundamentalism (Cleveland, OH:

Pilgrim Press). –––– and Sheridan, V. (2003), Transgender Journeys (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim

Press).Moon, D. (2004), God, Sex and Politics: Homosexuality and Everyday Theologies

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Moon, T. (2005), ‘Spirit Matters IV: Ten Queer Spiritual Roles’, San Francisco

Bay Times, December 15 (online) <http://www.sfbaytimes.com/index.php?

ec=article&article_id=3772>.Moore, G. (2003), A Question of Truth (London: Continuum).Moore, S.D. (2001), God’s Beauty Parlor and Other Queer Spaces in and around

the Bible (Stanford, CAL: Stanford University Press).Moran, L.J. and Sharpe, A.N. (2004), ‘Violence, Identity and Policing: The Case

of Violence Against Transgender People’, Criminal Justice 4, 395–417.Munro, S. (2007), ‘Transmuting Gender Binaries: The Theoretical Challenge’,

Sociological Research Online 12:1 (online) <http://www.socresonline.org.

uk/12/1/monro.html>.

Namaste, V.K. (2000), Invisible Lives: Erasure of Transsexual and Transgendered

People (Chicago: Chicago University Press).




Nataf, Z. (1995), Lesbians Talk Transgender (London: Scarlett Press). Nelson, J.B. (1984), Embodiment (Minneapolis, MIN: Augsburg Publishing

House). Newsom, C.A. and Ringe, S.H. (1998), Women’s Bible Commentary (Louisville,

KEN: Westminster John Knox Press). Newton, E. (1984), ‘The Mythic Mannish Lesbian: Radclyffe Hall and the NewWoman’, Signs 9:4, 557–75.

Nixon, D. (2008), ‘“No More Tea, Vicar”: An Exploration of the Discourses whichInform the Current Debates about Sexualities within the Church of England’,

Sexualities 11:5, 595–620.

Nugent, R. and Gramwick, J. (1989), ‘Homosexuality: Protestant, Catholic andJewish: A Fisbone’s Tale’, in R. Hasbany (ed.) Homosexuality and Religion

(New York: Harworth Press).

Odih, P. (2006), ‘Using the Internet’, in C. Seale (ed.) Researching Society andCulture (London: Sage).

Off-Pink Collective (1988), Bisexual Lives (London: Off-Pink Collective).O’Leary, R. (2000), ‘The President’s Communion’ in M. Peillon and M.

Corcoran (eds) Encounters with Modern Ireland (Dublin: Institute of Public

Administration). –––– (2001), ‘Modernization and Religious Intermarriage in the Republic of

Ireland’, British Journal of Sociology, 52:4, 647–65.

Olsen, L.R., Cadge, W. and Harrison, J.T. (2006), ‘Religion and Public OpinionAbout Same-Sex Marriage’, Social Science Quarterly 87:2, 340–60.

Owen, A. (2004), The Place of Enchantment: British Occultism and the Culture of

the Modern (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press).Pagliarini, M.A. (1999), ‘The Pure American Woman and the Wicked Catholic

Priest: An Analysis of Anti-Catholic Literature in Antebellum America’,

Religion and American Culture 9:1, 97–128.

Parsons, G. (1994), ‘Between Law and License: Christianity, Morality and“Permissiveness”’, in G. Parsons (ed.) The Growth of Religious Diversity in

Britain: From 1945 (London: Routledge).Pemberton, C. (2004), ‘Whose Face in the Mirror? Personal and Post-colonial

Obstacles in Researching Africa’s Contemporary Women’s Theological

Voices’, in U. King (ed.) Gender, Religion and Diversity: Cross-Cultural

Perspectives (London and New York: Continuum).Percy, M. (2006), Clergy: The Origin of Species (London: Continuum).Płatek, M. (2004), ‘Hostages of Destiny: Gender Issues in Today’s Poland’,

Feminist Review 76, 5–25.

Plummer, K. (1975), Sexual Stigma: An Interactionist Account (London: Routledge& Kegan Paul).

–––– (1981a), ‘Building a Sociology of Homosexuality’, in K. Plummer (ed.) The

Making of the Modern Homosexual (London: Hutchinson).




Rudy, K. (1997), Sex and the Church: Gender, Homosexuality and the

Transformation of Christian Ethics (Boston: Beacon).Runcorn, D. (2003), Choice, Desire and the Will of God (London: SPCK).Rust, P. C. (1992), ‘The Politics of Sexual Identity: Sexual Attraction and Behaviour

Among Lesbian and Bisexual Women’, Social Problems 39: 4, 366–86.

–––– (2000), Bisexuality in the United States: A Social Science Reader (New York:Columbian University Press).

–––– (2004), ‘Two Many and Not Enough: The Meanings of Bisexual Identities’,in Sexualities, Behaviours, and Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Saadaya (n.d.) ‘Coming Out as a Rite of Passage’ (online) <http://www.angelre.com/journal/saadaya/ComingOut.html>.

Sawyer, D. (2004), ‘Biblical Gender Strategies: The Case of Abraham’sMasculinity’, in U. King and T. Beattie (eds) Gender, Religion and Diversity:

Cross-Cultural Perspectives (London and New York: Continuum).Schallenberger, D. (1998), Reclaiming the Spirit: Gay Men and Lesbians Come to

Terms with Religion (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press).Schüssler Fiorenza, E. (1992 [1983]), In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological

Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroads).Seale, C. (2006), ‘History of Qualitative Methods’, in C. Seale (ed.) Researching

Society and Culture (London: Sage).Seamands, D. (1981), Healing for Damaged Emotions (Wheaton, IL: Scripture

Press Foundation).Segal, L. (1990), Slow Motion: Changing Masculinities, Changing Men (London:

Virago Press).Seidman, S., Meeks, C. and Traschen, F. (1999), ‘Beyond the Closet? The

Changing Social Meaning of Homosexuality in the United States’, Sexualities

2:1, 9–34.

Sell, I. (2005), ‘Spirit and Transcendence in a Sample of “Third-Gendered” NorthAmericans’, in S. Thumma and E.R. Gray (eds) Gay Religion (Walnut Creek:Altamira Press).

Seneviratne, T. and Currie, J. (2001), ‘Religion and Feminism: A Consideration ofCultural Restraints on Sri Lankan Women’, in D.M. Juschka (ed.) Feminism in

the Study of Religion: A Reader (London and New York: Continuum).Sharpe, S. (2002), ‘“It’s Just Really Hard to Come to Terms With”: Young People’s

Views on Homosexuality’, Sex Education 2:3, 263–77.

Sheldrake, P. (1994), Befriending Our Desires (London: DLT).Sheridan, V. (2001), Crossing Over: Liberating the Transgendered Christians

(Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press).

Shrock, D., Holden, D. and Reid, L. (2004), ‘Creating Emotional Resonance:Interpersonal Emotion Work and Motivational Framing in a TransgenderCommunity’, Social Problems 51:1, 61–81.

Simplicity, Sr M.T. (2004), ‘Meet the Sisters’, The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence

(online) <http://thesisters.org/bios/mts.htm>.



Bibliography 187

Singer, L., Butler, J. and MacGrogan, M. (1992), Erotic Welfare: Sexual Theory

and Politics in the Age of Epidemic (New York: Routledge).Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (2007), ‘Meet The Sisters’ <http://thesisters.org/

meet.html>.

Skrzek-Lubasinska, M. (2006), ‘Sytuacja Kobiet na Polskim Rynku Pracy’, papergiven at ‘Increasing Female Participation in Leadership Positions’, organised

by The Democratic Union of Women in Wroclaw, Wroclaw: Poland, March

31 <http://www.femina.org.pl/index.php?option=com_ content&task=view&id=76&Itemid=35>.

Sokolewicz, Z. (1988), ‘Matka Boska w Polskiej Kulturze Ludowej’, XIX i XXw, Etnograa Polska 1.

Solignac, P. (1982), The Christian Neurosis (London: SCM).Soskice, J.M. (2008), The Kindness of God: Metaphor, Gender, and Religious

Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Spitzer, R. (2003), ‘Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change their Sexual

Orientation? 200 Participants Report a Change from Homosexual to

Heterosexual Orientation’, Archives of Sexual Behaviour 32:5, 403–17.

Standing, E. (2004), ‘Homophobia and the Postmodern Condition’, Theology and

Sexuality 10:2, 65–72 (online), Ebscohost, Academic Search Elite <http://stroppyrabbit.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html>.

Starhawk [M. Macha Nightmare & the Reclaiming Collective] (1997), The

Pagan Book of Living and Dying: Practical Rituals, Prayers, Blessings and Meditations on Crossing Over (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco).

Stemmeler, M.L. (1996), ‘Empowerment: The Construction of Gay ReligiousIdentities’, in B. Krondorfer (ed.) Men’s Bodies, Men’s Gods: Male Identities

in a (Post-) Christian Culture (New York and London: New York UniversityPress).

Storr, M. (1996), Bisexuality: A Critical Reader (London: Routledge).Stuart, E. (1993a), Gay and Lesbian Theologies (Aldershot: Ashgate). –––– (1993b), Chosen: Gay Catholic Priests Tell Their Stories (London: G. Chapman).Stuffed Animal (2006), ‘ How I See Jesus Christ’, Christ, The Gay Martyr <http://

christthegaymartyr.blogspot.com/2006/03/how-i-see-jesus-christ.html>.Summerskill, B. (ed.) (2006), The Way we are Now: Gay and Lesbian Lives in the

21st Century (London and New York: Continuum).Sweasey, P. (1997), From Queer to Eternity (London: Cassell).Tanis, J. (2003), Trans-gendered: Theology, Ministry and Communities of Faith

(Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press).Tarkowska, E. (2002), ‘Intra-household Gender Inequality: Hidden Dimensions

of Poverty Among Polish Women’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies35, 411–32.

Tatchell, P. (2001), ‘Equality is Not Enough’, Stroppy Rabbit (online) <http://

stroppyrabbit.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html>.

Taylor, P. (1998), ‘Edward Carpenter Biographical Note’, The Edward Carpenter

Archive (online) <ttp://www.edwardcarpenter.net/ecbiog.htm>.




Thompson, M. (1987), Gay Spirit: Myth and Meaning (New York: St Martin’sPress).

Thompson, W. (1997), ‘Charismatic Politics: The Social and Political Impactof Renewal’, in S. Hunt, M. Hamilton and T. Walter (eds) Charismatic

Christianity: Sociological Perspectives (Basingstoke: Macmillan).Thumma, S. (1991), ‘Negotiating a Religious Identity: The Case of the Gay

Evangelical’, Sociological Analysis 52:4, 333–47.

Titkow, A. (2001), ‘On the Appreciated Role of Women’, in M. Ingham, I. Inghamand H. Domański (eds) Women on the Polish Labour Market (Budapest: CEU

Press).Toft, A. (forthcoming), ‘Negotiating Identity: Life Narratives of Bisexual

Christians’, in D. Robinson and P. Fisher (eds) Narrative, Memory and

Identities (Hudderseld: University of Hudderseld).

Towler, R. and Coxon, A.P.M. (1979), The Fate of the Anglican Clergy (London:Macmillan).

Tucker, N (ed.) (1995), Bisexual Politics: Theories, Queries and Visions (New

York: Harrington Park Press).Twardowska, A. and Olczyk, E. (2005), Women in Media/Polish Women in the

1990s (Warsaw: Women’s Rights Centre).Udis-Kessler, A. (1998), ‘Whose Bible is it Anyway?: Scripture and Spiritual

Self Defense’, Whosoever Online Magazine, January/February, 2:4 (online)

<http://www.whosoever.org/v2i4/>. –––– (2008), Queer Inclusion in the United Methodist Church (London:

Routledge).Ussher, J.M. (1992), ‘Reproductive Rhetoric and the Blaming of the Body’, in P.

Nicolson and J.M. Ussher (eds) The Psychology of Women’s Health and Health

Care (Basingstoke: Macmillan).Valentine, D. (2007), Imagining Transgender: An Ethnography of Category

(Durham, NC: Duke University Press).Vallet, O. (2006), Les Corps Divins – Pierre et Gilles (Paris: Editions du Chêne).Vasey, M. (1991), Evangelical Christians and Gay Rights, Grove Ethical Studies

No. 80 (Nottingham: Grove Books Limited).Veevers, J.E. (1980), Childless by Choice (Toronto: Butterworth & Co).Wagner, N. (2006), Spiritual Direction in Context (Harrisburg, PEN: Morehouse).Wagner, R. (1989), Gay Catholic Priests: A Study of Cognitive and Affective

Dissonance (San Francisco: Specic Press).Wahba, R. (1989), ‘Hiding is Unhealthy for the Soul’, in C. Balka and A. Rose

(eds) Twice Blessed: On Being Lesbian or Gay and Jewish (Boston: Beacon

Press).Walby, S. (2000), ‘Gender, Nations and States in a Global Era’, Nations and

Nationalism 6:4, 523–40.

Wallis, R.J. (2003), Shamans/Neo-shamans: Ecstasy, Alternative Archaeologies

and Contemporary Pagans (London and New York: Routledge).



Bibliography 189

Walsh, D. (2006), ‘Doing Ethnography’, in C. Seale (ed.) Researching Society and

Culture (London: Sage).Walton, G. (2007), ‘“Fag Church”: Men who Integrate Gay and Christian

Identities’, Journal of Homosexuality 51:2, 1–17.

Warner, M. (1993), ‘Introduction’, in M. Warner. (ed.) In Fear of a Queer Planet:

Queer Politics and Social Theory (Minneapolis, MIN: University of Minnesota

Press).Watts, F. (2002), ‘Transsexualism and the Church’, Theology and Sexuality 9:1,

63–85.

Weeks, J. (1986), Sexuality (Routledge: London). –––– (2008), ‘Traps We Set Ourselves’, Sexualities 11:1/2, 27–33.

–––– Heaphy, B. and Donovan, C. (2001), Same-sex Intimacies (London:

Routledge).

Weiss, J.T. (2003), ‘GL vs. BT: The Archaeology of Biphobia and Transphobiawithin the U.S. Gay and Lesbian Community’, Journal of Bisexuality 3:3/4,

25–55.

Wenzel, M. (2007), Sexual Harassment at Work (Warsaw: CBOS).Whittle, S. and Turner, L. (2007), ‘“Sex Change”? Paradigm Shifts in “Sex” and

“Gender” Following the Gender Recognition Act?’, Sociological Research

Online (online) 12:1 <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/1/whittle.html>.

Wilcox, M.M. (2003), Coming Out in Christianity: Religion, Identity and

Community (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press).Wilde, O. (1996 [1905]) De Profundis (New York: Dover Publications, Inc).Wishik, H. and Pierce, C. (1995), Sexual Identity and Orientation: Heterosexual,

Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Journeys (New Hampshire: New Dynamics).Witten, T.M. (2003), ‘Life Course Analysis: The Courage to Search for Something

More: Middle Adulthood Issues in the Transgender and Intersex Community’,

Journal of Human Behaviour in the Social Environment 8:3, 189–224.

Wolf, J.G. (ed.) (1989), Gay Priests (San Francisco: Harper & Row).Wolkomir, M. (2006), Be Not Deceived: The Sacred and Sexual Struggles of Gay

and Ex-Gay Christian Men (New Brunswick, NJ; Rutgers University Press).Wollett, A. (1991), ‘Having Children: Accounts of Childless Women and Women

with Reproductive Problems’, in A. Phoenix and A. Woollett (eds) Motherhood:

Meanings, Practices and Ideologies (London: Sage).Yip, A. (1996), ‘Gay Christians and Their Participation in the Gay Subculture’,

Deviant Behavior 17:3, 297–318.

–––– (1997a), ‘Dare to Differ: Lesbian and Gay Catholics’ Assessment of OfcialCatholic Positions on Sexuality’, Sociology of Religion 58:2, 165–80.

–––– (1997b), ‘Attacking the Attacker: Gay Christians Talk Back’, British Journalof Sociology 48:1, 113–27.

–––– (1998), ‘Gay Christians and their Perceptions of the Christian Community inRelation to their Sexuality’, Theology and Sexuality 8, 240–51.




–––– (2000), ‘Leaving the Church to Keep My Faith: The Lived Experiences of Non-Heterosexual Christians’, in L.J. Francis. and Y.J. Katz (eds) Joining and

Leaving Religion: Research Perspectives (Leominster: Gracewing). –––– (2003), ‘Sexuality and the Church’, Sexualities 6:1, 60–4.

–––– (2005a), ‘Queering Religious Texts: An Exploration of British Non-heterosexual Christians’ and Muslims’ Strategy of Constructing Sexuality-

afrming Hermeneutics’, Sociology 39:1, 47–65.

–––– (2005b), ‘Religion and the Politics of Spirituality/Sexuality: Reectionson Researching British Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Christians and Muslims’,

Fieldwork in Religion 13, 271–89.

–––– and Keenan, M. (2004), ‘By Name United, By Sex Divided: A Brief Analysisof the Current Crisis Facing the Anglican Communion’, Sociological Research

Online (online) 9:1< http://www.socresonline.org.uk/9/1/yip.html>.

Young, A. (2000), Women Who Become Men: Albanian Sworn Virgins (New York:Berg).

Young, J. (2004), The Cost of Certainty (London: DLT).



Index

Accepting Evangelicals 40

‘acting up’ 146

African Anglican Church 22

American Family Association 18

Anglican Church (see also gay clergy) xi,

8, 9, 19, 23, 39, 49, 67, 69, 71, 75,

76, 77, 78, 94, 99, 103, 104, 107,

108-9, 117, 123, 125, 127, 129,130, 132, 141, 149, 159, 162, 163

divisions over gay issues 8-9, 130

Anglican Church of Australia 9

Anglican Church of Brazil 8

Anglican Church of Canada 8, 9

Anglican Church of Mexico 8

Anglican Church of Southern Africa 8

anti-gay groups 12-3, 20-1, 103, 104, 108-

12, 112-20, 123, 125, 128, 129,130, 132, 134, 135, 136, 128

strategies of 112-4

anti-Semitism 134

Aquinas, Thomas 5, 7, 167

Augustus, St 7, 167

Baptist Union of Great Britain 11

Baptists 126

bi-sexuals xi, xii, xii, 1, 2, 4, 6, 11, 13, 14,

15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 67,

87, 89, 90, 97, 99, 107, 108, 109,

111, 112, 113, 123, 124, 125, 126,

135, 136, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144,

145, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152,

153, 154, 155, 156, 157-8, 159,

161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 171

and Christian identity 78-82

dened 68-72

evaluated 82-4

life experiences 57-8

and self-identity 71-8, 84-5

Buddhism 56, 70, 141, 143, 157, 170

Carpenter , Edward 142-3, 149, 153

celibacy 8, 15, 52, 123, 158, 163, 165

Celtic 144

charismatics xi, 14, 41, 109

chastity 3, 10, 13, 51

Christian Action Research and Education

(CARE) 109, 110, 111, 112, 114,

116, 117, 118, 119, 131

Christian Institute 109-10, 111, 112, 113,114, 117, 118, 119

Christian Right 3, 111, 165

Christian Union 114

Church of Ireland 125-6, 127, 128, 131,

134

Church of Scotland 2

civil unions 3, 4, 8-9, 10, 11, 14, 39, 105,

107, 118, 119, 124, 130, 143

‘coming out’ 13, 19, 21, 24, 51, 52, 56, 71,76-7, 142, 145

conservative Christians (see also anti-gay

Christian groups, Christian Right,

evangelicals, fundamentalists) 1, 2,

3-4, 5, 8-9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17-8, 20,

39, 40, 88, 92-3, 94, 99, 103, 104,

107, 108-9, 112, 113, 114-20, 124,

126, 129, 130, 132, 133, 135, 136,

137, 138, 139, 158, 159

Cost of Conscience 111

Counter-Reformation 162

Courage 39-40, 46

‘cruising’ 170

discrimination against LGBT people

(see also homophobia and

transgenderphobia ) 4, 7, 11, 32,

33, 91, 105, 106-7, 116-7, 118, 119,

125, 159

druids 144

early Christianity attitudes to gay and

lesbian sexuality 6-7

Episcopal Church of America 6




Episcopalian Anglican Church of Brazil 8

Episcopalians 8, 17, 141

Evangelical Alliance 40, 93, 94, 109, 111,

114, 115-6, 118, 120

Evangelical Fellowship for Lesbian and

Gay Christians 40Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada 124,

126, 128, 130, 131, 132, 135, 136

evangelicals 2, 3, 5, 11, 14, 19, 24, 39-49,

46, 49, 69, 81, 71, 79, 82, 106, 108,

109, 124, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132,

133-4, 137-8, 157, 158, 159

gay 24

ex-gay identity 40, 44

ex-gay organisations 11-12, 40, 44, 46, 48-9, 162, 163

Exodus International 39

femininity 19, 44, 45, 48, 51-2, 53-5, 57,

59, 63-4, 65, 68, 73, 90, 97, 146,

148, 152, 153, 156

feminism (see also Goddess) 20, 48, 87,

90, 95, 140, 142, 146-7

Freud 61, 77, 85fundamentalism 3, 18, 34, 78, 92, 128, 138,

144, 155, 159, 162

Gay Christian Fellowship 126

Gay Christian movement (see also LGCM)20

Gay Christian Network 13

gay clergy 12, 22, 94, 108, 109, 120

Anglican 8, 19, 67, 103, 104, 147

‘calling’ of 28, 29-39, 35

ordination of 8-9, 10, 203

positive inuence of 32-5

self-identity 23-8, 30, 35-7

stigma management 23-5

vocational outlook 30-2

Gay Pride events 145

Gay Pride parades (N. Ireland) 123, 124-9,

134-8

gender-bending 88, 140, 146-50, 152, 156

Gender Trust xvii, 99

Goddess 147, 151

feminism 142, 149

Hinduism 141, 147, 150, 159, 168

HIV/AIDS 34, 40, 104, 112, 139-40, 142,

143

homophobia xi, 4, 18, 20, 40-1, 90, 105,

106, 107, 108, 114, 117, 123, 124,

125, 126, 128, 130, 133, 134, 135,

140, 141, 142, 143, 146, 147, 153,155, 157, 159, 163, 164, 172

Inclusive Orthodoxy 14-5

intersexuality 87, 88, 154

Islam 7, 126, 134, 144

islamophobia 134

John, Jeffrey 8, 67

Judaism 6, 7, 95, 98, 134, 141, 158, 159,163, 165-6, 168-9

Jung, Carl 166

Kabbalah 164

Lambeth Conference 8, 9, 103, 104, 109,

123, 130, 159

lesbian xi, xii, xiii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12,

13, 14, 15, 16-7, 18-9, 20, 21, 22,24, 25, 51, 53, 56, 57-8, 59, 60-1,

63, 64, 65, 67, 69, 71, 81-2, 87-8,

90, 94, 99, 101, 103, 104, 106, 107,

108, 109, 111, 112, 113, 117, 118,

119, 123, 124, 125, 126, 129, 132,

133, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141,

143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 150,

151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157,

159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166

clergy 16-7, 24

stereotyping of 69

Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement 71,

104-8, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115,

117, 119, 120, 121, 126, 127, 142,

161, 163

lesbian and gay churches (see also

Metropolitan Community Church)14

LGBT rights 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 16, 20, 41, 100,

103, 104, 105, 106, 107-8, 109,

110, 111, 114, 119, 124, 125, 127-

8, 133, 135, 161-2, 131

legislation 4, 11, 100-1, 104-5, 106,

107, 108, 112, 114, 115, 116-7,



Index 193

118, 119, 120, 124, 125, 127-8,

131, 139, 158

versus religious rights 113, 114-20, 134

LGBT sexuality, views concerning origins

of 2, 5, 4, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, 40,

46, 48, 91, 93, 94, 99, 113-4, 115,123

liberal Christians (see also liberal theology)3, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 14, 15, 17, 39,

129-30

masculinity 40, 44-9, 54, 90, 97, 68, 73,

90, 140, 146, 148, 152, 156

Methodist Church of Great Britain 4

Methodists 12, 17-8, 71, 73, 79, 80, 81,108, 125, 127, 128, 131

Metropolitan Community Church 14, 15,

71, 81-2, 83, 142, 143

Middle Ages and Christian views of LGBT

sexualities 6-7, 51-2

Moral Majority 158-9, 161, 163

mysticism 147, 162

National Festival of Light 104 National Viewers and Listeners Association

104

Newfrontiers 41, 49

Northern Ireland, sectarian divisions 125-31,

136

nuns, Polish Catholic 18-9, 51-2, 55-7, 58,

59-62, 64

Occult 147

Orthodox Church 7, 71, 162, 168

Outrage! 108

Pagan Pride 145

paganism (see also queer) 6, 22, 70, 95,

140-1, 142, 143-4, 145-6, 147, 149,

150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156

patriarchy 45, 54, 145-6, 152, 154, 170

Pentecostals 4, 109

Perry, Troy 14

Pomosexuality 100

Pope Benedict XVI 12

Pope Paul II 34, 54

pornography 112, 120, 170

Presbyterian Church (USA) 4, 11, 12, 13

Presbyterianism 11

in N. Ireland 124, 125, 126, 127, 128,

129, 131, 134, 136

Press for Change 99

Q-Spirit 153Quakers (Society of Friends) 10-1, 17, 70,

71

queer (see also queer spirituality) xi, xii,

15, 16, 18, 20, 49, 52, 63, 87, 88,

94, 95, 142, 146, 150, 151, 152,

153

dened 139-41

pagans 140-1, 143-4

theory xii, 15, 59, 87, 146, 150-1, 154-5, 156

Quest 17

Radical Faeries 141, 142, 143, 147, 149,

153-4

Reform 111

Robinson, Gene 8, 9, 39

Roman Catholicism (see also nuns) xii, 3,

4, 5, 7, 9-10, 11-2, 17, 18, 20, 33-4,51, 53-7, 60, 64-5, 70, 71, 75, 76,

106, 108, 109, 111, 118-9, 124,

125, 127, 128, 130-1, 132, 133,

135, 136, 137, 157, 159

sadomasochism 170-1

Salvation Army 135

same-sex unions (see civil partnerships)Scottish Episcopal Church 8

shamanism 147, 153, 165, 166

Sibyls 17, 99-100

Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence 141, 148,

168

Southern Baptists 5, 13, 17

National Lesbian and Gay Task Force13

spirituality xii, 1, 19, 24, 28, 40, 42, 88,

131, 140, 143, 149, 155, 156, 157

LGBT viii, xvii, 13-4, 21, 67, 69, 76,

78, 79, 81, 82, 87, 93, 98, 99, 101,

145, 157-8, 159, 161, 165, 166-7,

171-2

Native North American 143, 164-5, 166

pagan 145-6. 151-4, 156




queer xii, 21, 139, 141, 143-4, , 145,

146, 147, 148, 151-2, 153, 155

dened 139-41

expressions of 152-4

historical development of 142-4

stages of development 162-7Stonewall 117

Susm 168

theology (see also Inclusive Orthodoxy) 4,

5-8, 9, 10, 20, 21, 30, 40, 44, 49,

92, 93, 95-6, 99, 103, 104, 106,

110, 119, 141, 143-4, 144-5, 152,

155, 172

conservative 5 8 10 92 3 109 110

transgendered xi, xii, xiii, 1, 2, 6, 4, 12, 13,

14, 15, 16, 17-8, 19-20, 21, 22, 47,

48, 67, 69, 107, 108, 109, 111, 113,

119, 123, 124, 125, 126, 135, 136,

137, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 145,

146, 147, 149, 148, 150, 151, 152,153, 154, 155-6, 165

clergy 17-8, 94

dened 88-94

inclusiveness 97

transgendering the Bible 94-7

transgenderphobia 91

trans-sexuality 88, 90, 91, 94, 95

transvestite 88, 91

Tutu Desmond 22