A Voice Crying Out: 2012 Election Week Edition

• Voting Against Intrinsically Evil Acts: A Working List?: “While I think that it is important to know about intrinsically evil acts, I think it is highly problematic to use intrinsically evil acts as an absolute guideline for how to vote in elections, if that means not really examining any of the candidates beyond whether they have the right answer.”

• Is Democracy Dividing Us?: “It could be argued that voting in our present democratic system is actually an act of violence. Not violence in the typical blood-and-gore sense so much, but our democracy serves to silence the voice of nearly half the population, rendering their vote impotent if they can’t secure a majority.”

• Not Voting (Dem or Rep) A Rising Revolution?: “Something has tipped for me this election and it’s the way I think I’m being asked to rip myself in half, figuratively speaking, by one party or the other, or both. It’s also the way I see my church being ripped in half, and the country ripped in half.”

• How to Choose a President: “As Christians trying to relate our faith to politics, we have to ask much deeper questions than are usually raised at the conventions of either political party. We have to ask: What has happened to our politics and why are we so unable to solve our deepest problems?”

• Though Shalt Follow These 10 Commandments for the Presidential Election: “The presidential election is only weeks away, and it’s getting ugly out there. And before you think I’m just talking about the political process, the political parties, or the respective candidates, I was actually talking about you, me, us, and them; the people. And by people, I’m also especially talking about Christians.”

Random Thoughts Concerning the Intersection of the Christian Faith and Homosexuality

The issue of homosexuality as it relates to Christianity is obviously one of the hot button issues in Christian theology today. It is also a topic that I have been wrestling with for some time now. I am at this point in time unable to side wholeheartedly with either of the majority positions in this debate. First of all, I am not persuaded by the common conservative position. That is not to say that conservatives get everything wrong when it comes to the topic of homosexuality. It is just that I find the homosexuality is unnatural and sinful because the bible tells me so argument to be rather superficial and far from convincing (and this is not because I reject biblical authority, which I do not). I tend to buy into most of the liberal critiques of the conservative position. However, I do not believe that these critiques provide the church with irrefutable evidence that we have been entirely wrong concerning our traditional condemnation of homosexual practice. When it comes down to it, I would be inclined to suggest that liberalism’s alternative might not be quite as progressive as those on the left usually presume.

The principle assumption that I take issue with when it comes to liberal understandings of this subject is that homosexuality is more or less neutral with regard to all matters of nature and sin. To put it another way, I have a problem with the either/or (all good and natural/all bad and unnatural) binary that exists between liberal and conservative viewpoints. I am currently leaning towards a position which would simultaneously recognize that homosexual behavior should not be universally condemned nor universally accepted (leaving the question of whether or not it is natural or not unanswered). This due to the fact that homosexual activity (as well as the promotion of it as good and natural) could potentially be employed as a means for serving both justice and injustice concurrently.

I, and I believe all serious Christians, ought to take this issue much more seriously and to think it through much more thoroughly than we have as of yet. This conviction of mine has sparked me to post this non-exhaustive list of arguments and counter-arguments that I have been tossing around in my own head while grappling with this difficult matter. These arguments in no way represent my final conclusion with regard to this issue. While many of the subsequent points are not original to me, there are points that I have not heard anyone else make. Some of these assuredly need to be investigated further by more capable scholars than me. I pray that they will be received with grace and mercy, and that they will be heard in the spirit of love and mutual edification that I intend.

1) The bible univocally condemns homosexual activity as unnatural and unclean and thus ungodly and sinful.

2) There are only a handful of texts in the entire bible that forbid homosexuality.

3) Other sin issues which are allotted substantially greater space in the pages of the bible (i.e. greed/poverty, oppression, self-righteousness) receive significantly less attention (if they are not ignored altogether, perhaps tolerated or even encouraged) in conservative circles and are contended against with far less ferocity than homosexuality typically is.

4) The placement of the OT denunciations of homosexuality within the priestly code and amongst other cultic laws relating to cleanliness and sexuality which the church has eradicated raises the question as to why the condemnations against homosexuality are still applicable today.

5) Some NT writers (not all) argue for the elimination of the cultic laws regarding cleanliness. However, certain of these same authors simultaneously uphold a few of the laws which relate to sexuality; specifically homosexuality.

6) We have no record in the bible that Jesus Himself ever condemned homosexual activity.

7) Even if Jesus believed that homosexuality was unnatural and ungodly, it is significantly relativized by His love ethic wherein He taught His disciples to unconditionally love, forgive and accept the other, the outcast and the sinner.

8) The apostle Paul, who rails against homosexuality harder than any other NT author, relativizes his own denunciation of the behavior to some extent when he uses a common second Temple era Jewish condemnation against homosexual practice as a ruse to unveil the hypocrisy and self-righteousness of the chosen people; and this in order to establish his case for the inclusion of Gentile sinners within the people of God.

9) Apparently, the apostle Paul considered homosexuality to be but one facet of the universal sin problem, of which the elect people themselves partook of, participated in and even perpetuated through their self-righteous, judgmental, separatist/exclusivist approach to dealing with those whom both they and the Torah had condemned as sinners.

10) Jesus and Paul both despised sin and called all people to repentance and Godly ethics.

11) The NT does not condemn, and in fact it even upholds evil institutions such as slavery and patriarchy; the former of which the overwhelming majority of Christians today, and the latter an increasing number of Christians today, would (against the NT!) condemn as unnatural, unbiblical and ungodly. It is possible that the NT’s judgment against homosexuals should be thought of as yet another devilish tradition that the love ethic of Jesus would, over time, lead the church to transcend.

12) Modern science claims to have revealed strong connections between genetics and sexuality; insights which were not available to the ancient authors of our sacred text. If someone is born with innate homosexual attraction, it could easily be argued that it was the God who formed them in the womb who made them that way, and thus that homosexuality is both natural and good.

13) It is more or less impossible to identify with infallible accuracy how much of our behavior is guided by the nature of our genetics and how much of it is steered by the nurture of our environment.

14) Even if a person is born predisposed to perform certain behaviors due to either genetics or environment, said person is not a complete slave to those genetics or that environment. For instance, if a person is born with a deep desire for power and control and into an environment which fosters those traits, said person should still be held responsible for their unjust actions performed (even though nature and nurture should both be taken into consideration when passing judgment upon said person).

15) In the bible, sexual intercourse is deeply connected to and principally for the purpose of procreation; even though the bible does also recognize sex as a pleasurable experience.

16) Procreation was of utmost importance for the survival of the nation of Israel. It was apparently also perceived to be a threat to oppressive empires (an idea which was possibly voiced by the empire itself, but which was certainly promoted by and within the oppressed Israelite community).

17) The fact that procreation was central and crucial to Israelite self-understanding is evidenced by the fact that the Torah spins tales of God striking down a man for spilling his seed on the ground in order to prevent reproduction, the historical books record an event wherein rape and murder were sanctioned for the purposes of procreation in order that the endangered tribe of Benjamin could be salvaged, and all throughout the bible, Israelite women who were barren were regarded as accursed by God.

18) It is not much of a stretch to suggest that homosexual relationships were considered unnatural because they are incapable of reproduction and additionally that homosexuals were labeled ungodly and deemed worthy of stoning because of the fact that their semen was not being utilized in a manner which would contribute to the survival and further the cause of the nation of Israel.

19) The dissociation of sexual intercourse from procreation that occurs in many (mostly Protestant) Christian circles (i.e. supporting the use of birth control, encouraging people to have sex for pleasure rather than procreation, tolerating masturbation, etc.) significantly weakens any argument that these same Christians might submit against homosexual practice.

20) In our scientific and technological age, where babies can be created in laboratories and apart from sexual intercourse, homosexuality is much less of a hindrance to reproduction than it had been in times past. These advances have therefore to some extent rendered the biblical writers’ fear of homosexual practice superfluous.

21) If procreation can and should still be judged as a means of resistance against empire, then we need to acknowledge the fact that the wealth inequality which exists throughout the world prevents poor and oppressed peoples (those who might benefit most from procreation) from gaining access to reproductive technology. This datum would considerably relativize the importance of this technology in relation to the homosexual debate; at least as far as poor and oppressed peoples are concerned.

22) It would be unjustified to write off suspicion of homosexuality within poor and oppressed communities who value procreation as an irrational fear since it is a real possibility that the acceptance of homosexuality as natural and good within such a community could be a legitimate threat to its survival.

23) If procreation and homosexuality are each deemed natural and good, there will be an inevitable tension between endangered people groups who esteem procreation and those who treasure the rights of homosexuals. Christians will often be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. For example, is it better for the church to support the suppression of the rights of individual homosexuals within an endangered community for the sake of said community’s survival, or to contend for the rights of individual homosexuals within an endangered community even if it could potentially contribute to said community’s annihilation?

24) We live in fallen world, where the liberty of one group is typically gained at the expense of another. Until the return of Christ, no one will ever experience pure and unadulterated freedom. It is thus vital for Christians to beware of the ways in which our unwavering support for one allegedly oppressed group could be aiding in the oppression of another allegedly oppressed group. Even if we conclude that homosexuality is not inherently ungodly, we must still be aware of the fact that it is not neutral, and that both it and we can be used by the principalities and powers as instruments of oppression.

25) As an interesting concluding note, the traditional conservative position concerning the resurrection life in the new heavens and the new earth (read the ideal world) which will occur just subsequent to the return of Christ renders all matters concerned with marriage and procreation irrelevant, being that humanity, like the angels, will not participate in either act.

Struggles for Power in Early Christianity

Elsa Tamez has written a fairly brief yet fascinating book on 1 Timothy; a letter that is not used much in Latin American Christian communities, and which has not been engaged very often by liberation theologians. The letter is largely ignored by these two groups because of a perception that it is heavily prejudiced against excluded groups. It offers no words of courage which might motivate people to resist and overcome their troublesome circumstances of poverty and discrimination. In fact, it sustains and endorses institutions of slavery and patriarchy.

It is also a letter that is entirely intollerant of progress (therefore obstructing any movement towards the dissolution of oppressive institutions) as well as all dissenting customs and theologies, to the point at which it even uses violent imagery in its call to defend its specific tradition. All in all, many are persuaded that the God in whom the poor and oppressed have placed their hope for liberation appears for the most part to be absent from this writing.

However, Tamez believes that 1 Timothy deserves to be studied (especially because it has traditionally been given the last word in times of ecclesiastical power struggle, but also because there are a number of interesting themes which might be of use in oppressed communities) albeit with different hermeneutical criteria than many are accustomed to using. Her process of interpretation, and the goal of her book, is “to reconstruct the situation behind the text to better understand the discourse and to be able to dissent from those parts of the letter that oppress persons and veer away from the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ”.

Tamez has determined not to focus upon certain issues that have dominated discussions of the Pastoral epistles in non-Spanish speaking Europe and North America, such as authorship or whether the epistle implies the accommodation of a Christian community to Greco-Roman society. Instead, she is interested in advancing towards the present in her reading of 1 Timothy. According to Tamez, she hopes that her reconstruction of the historical and cultural context in which this letter was penned will be a first step towards helping Christian communities in poor countries, who are hoping to find good news in the bible, to read this letter in a liberating manner.

Tamez has divided the book into four chapters. In the opening chapter, she will examine struggles for power in the Ephesian Christian community in relation to social position. In chapter two, she will investigate the power relations between genders in this community. In the third, she will take a look at the intolerance of the author of the letter towards different traditions and teachings. The concluding chapter will be Tamez’s analysis of the letter’s criteria for leadership in the church.

The Makings of a Fresh Emcee

C. Alexander’s recent post at This is High entitled The Missing Art of the Emcee has moved me to ponder more deeply those things that I hold in high regard when it comes to my evaluation of Hip Hop music in general, and lyricists in particular. In fact, his post has provoked me to develop (or more accurately, to arrange with an intentionality) my very own grading system, through which I will infallibly determine which emcees are worthy of being numbered amongst the greatest of all time!

Right out of the gate, I have to admit that I am somewhat more of a purist than C. Alexander. I am certainly not a Hip Hop legalist, for I do believe that the genre is much broader than many purists allow for, but that said, I am also convinced that there is a certain spirit at work behind, in and through Hip Hop music. When this spirit is quenched, the power inherent within Hip Hop is lost, even though it’s form still remains to some extent.

Without further adieu, here are my 9 indicators of a dope emcee. They are loosely based on the Alexander balance, but modified according to my own preferences.

1) Production- What does beat production have to do with being a dope emcee? Pretty much everything. I am not convinced that you can separate the emcee and the producer in some sort of dualistic fashion, so as to pass judgment on the emcee in isolation. The two are inextricably intermeshed and the one would not be what she/he is without the other. The producer sets the tone or the mood for the emcee by furnishing the beat. In response, the emcee narrates with words the story that the producer is seeking to communicate through the instrumental. The producer’s beat provides the energy, emotion, and inspiration which spark the imagination of the emcee, enabling her/him to pen her/his literary masterpiece. When the emcee and the producer are out of sync, what you have is utter wackness. Is it possible for an emcee to be a strong lyricist despite the fact that her/his producer is manifestly bootie? Yes, but it is unlikely that she/he will make a very strong connection with her/his audience without the aid of a dope beat.

2) Personality- It should be obvious that a top-notch emcee can not be boring. I do not want to delineate this category too strictly, because there are many different ways in which a personality can be interesting. What is certain is that an emcee who is healthy in this area will possess a great deal of charm and/or charisma, both of which should be powerful enough to influence styles, trends and even thought patterns within the culture. As an entertainer, the dope emcee will always leave her/his audience begging for more.

3) Delivery and Flow- These two factors go together hand in hand. Broadly described, delivery has to do with the overall technique or approach to lyricism, while flow concerns the blending of the lyrical tempo with that of the instrumental. In my opinion, the greatest emcees will have a delivery and a flow which will keep the listener on the edge of her/his seat, while remaining coherent and logical with regard to the rhythm of the beat. An over-emphasis on innovation will likely lead to confusion, but placing too much stress on logic might give rise to a lackluster performance. It is imperative therefore that the emcee learn to exist within the delicate tension between rationality and irrationality, if she/he desires to make music that is both imminent within the hearts of human beings and transcendent with regard to Hip Hop’s status quo.

4) Story Telling- This category sets the most profound emcees apart from the average or mundane. Almost anyone can spit a verse that rhymes, but to be able to formulate a unified, intelligible narrative in rhyme form is a markedly more difficult task. The role of the producer becomes even more clear at this point, for it is the beat which is the soundtrack to the motion picture that the emcee is depicting with her/his words. Story is assuredly one of the most powerful forms of communication known to humankind. To master this facet of the art form is to attain to a whole new level of lyricism.

5) Word Play- This indicator focuses on the emcee’s use of literary devices, such as similes, metaphors, puns, alliteration, allegories, parables and even apocalyptic. These techniques can make ordinary words spring forth with light and life. They reveal yet conceal, instruct and yet puzzle, simplify and yet challenge. In the minds of many a Hip Hop connoisseur, this is the most fundamental characteristic of the dope emcee. I would largely agree, for I do not believe that an individual can rightly be classified as a fresh emcee without having an adept ability to employ literary devices in her/his rhymes. Having said that, this feature is much more potent when it is appropriated as an adornment to the emcee’s narrative capabilities, as opposed to being the principal distinguishing characteristic of the artist.

6) Content- This characteristic asks the question, what is the artist attempting to communicate? This is the property where my Hip Hop Puritanism shines through most brightly. I believe that Hip Hop originated as the cultural, political and religious expression of an oppressed black community in the United States. While I do not believe that Hip Hop music must remain solely within the black community, nor that it must remain faithful to one particular style or sound, I do believe that it must continue to represent, in one way or another, the fundamental spirit of Hip Hop. In other words, Hip Hop is truly Hip Hop only inasmuch as it is a narrative reflection on the experiences of oppressed peoples and their personal struggles for freedom. Does what the emcee is verbalizing contribute to the liberation of oppressed peoples? Or, does it reflect the ideas, attitudes and desires of the oppressive world system? The most important and influential emcees will be those who manage to retain a prophetic edge in their music; speaking truth to power as well as to the powerless.

7) Communication- This attribute rides in on the coattails of the last one, for what good is the message if the emcee is unable to convey that message to her/his listeners? Do people understand what the emcee is actually saying? Does what she/he articulates become a catalyst for real change and/or does it stimulate momentum or perchance a movement within society? A fresh emcee will not merely get the message out, but she/he will furthermore make a difference in the lives of individual persons, in entire communities and possibly even in the culture at large. The crowds will be astonished at the wisdom of the dope emcee, for she/he will speak as one who has authority, unlike the Hip Hop scribes.

8) Originality- A genuinely fresh emcee will desire to be unique and inventive; to do things that no one else has done before. You can not be a dope emcee and a biter at the same time. It is (of course) not wrong to have been influenced by the pioneers of Hip Hop. Actually, it is a noble labor indeed to aspire to honor our foremothers and forefathers by learning from and building upon the foundation that has been laid down for us. Still, the emcees of the future must learn to push the envelope, to test new approaches and to find new ways to express their messages, rather than simply recycling the deliveries, flows, narratives and word play of previous generations of emcees. Ultimately, while the old wineskins might have done their job for a time, you can not put new wine into them, lest they burst.

9) Consistency- This final indicator of a dope emcee can manifest itself in several ways. The first of these is longevity. In other words, a superior emcee can not be a one-hit-wonder. If the emcee is more than just a passing fad, she/he should have a body of work which demonstrates her/his freshness over an extended period of time. This does not necessarily mean that every track that they ever released went either platinum or gold, that all of their albums were critically acclaimed, or that they were decorated with numerous awards from the music or entertainment industry. What does it mean then? This question leads us to the second manifestation; loyalty. The truly dope emcee will develop a fairly large and loyal following over the span of her/his vocation. I would also argue that the artist should have at least one project that people who would not be counted amongst the emcee’s most faithful listeners still keep in rotation after a number of years. The third and final manifestation of consistency can be subsumed under the heading classic. The freshest emcee should have at least one album which could arguably be considered a classic by a sizeable portion of the Hip Hop community.

Last Things: Horizon of Radical Love

The final topic in this book is eschatology. Cheng describes it as the horizon of radical love because the emphasis of the doctrine is on the ultimate dissolution of identities that will occur at the end of time (to which all of humanity is oriented). Included in eschatology are matters such as the second coming of Jesus Christ, the Last Judgment, heaven and hell. This doctrine is not addressed by many LGBT theologians in their theologies, due to the fact that most of them have been assured from childhood that their sexualities and gender identities would eventually land them all in hell. Cheng is actually anxious to tackle this issue, because he believes that this doctrine could perhaps be the queerest of them all, given that it has to do with humanity’s consummate return to the radical love from which we all came.

According to queer theology, there is only one identity which will be secure enough to hope in at the end, and that is being a baptized member of the body of Christ. Each and every socially constructed identity, including sexuality and gender, will be erased before the throne of grace where only the garment of baptism will remain. To put it another way, everyone will be transgender in the end. Cheng does not mean to insinuate that humanity will be entirely absorbed into God at the eschaton or that individual selves will cease to exist. Humanity is forever involved in a process of continual journeying towards God. While we will approach the perfection of God, we will never fully attain to any sort of climactic picture of perfection; even at the eschaton. The fundamental distinction between creator and creature will be maintained at the end, yet still, God and humanity will eternally be drawing nearer to one another in relationship.

Gay men were faced with the issues of life and death on an almost constant basis during the period of time beginning in the 1980′s and extending into the mid-1990′s, when HIV/AIDS was devastating the gay male community. This disease actually forced all of humankind to face up to the veracity of our own mortality. There were some queer theologians who explicitly addressed these issues at that time. The assured and certain hope of the resurrection was considered essential for persons to cope with the reality of AIDS. It was noted that while many heterosexual couples have the capability of satisfying the basic human urge to transcend their own finitude through reproduction, this choice is usually not available to LGBT people. Thus they are left with only two options for life; they can either despair or they can find hope in the resurrection of the dead. Queer theologians claimed that it was the spiritual peace, joy and trust that many patients with AIDS possessed which prepared and enabled them to hope in the resurrection, and it was this hope which empowered them to give themselves over to celebrating life and enhancing its quality for themselves and others.

Queer theologians additionally wrestled with the notion of heaven, and contemplated what it might be like. LGBT people were assured that they would not feel excluded in heaven, even though they were not (and in many places still are not) permitted to marry; for in heaven, marriage will not exist. Traditional depictions of heaven were compared to gay pride events. Queer theologians moreover sought to answer the question of whether or not there would be sex in heaven. This question was answered in the affirmative, since heaven represents the satisfaction of the desires of the human heart, and because sex is one of the deepest and most profound human motivations. Interestingly, some queer theologians believe that sex in heaven will be neither an orgy nor polyamorous. Paradoxically, the couple will be the ideal relationship, since truly great sex will inevitably lead to wanting more of it with the same person. It has furthermore been suggested that because sex is not physical in heaven, that you can actually enter into the whole person. It will be as if you are in fact merging and truly becoming one.

Queer theologians differ over the issue of punishment and reward when it comes to the Last Judgment. Some posit that it will be a matter of self-judgment. This view can be compared to C.S. Lewis’ depiction of the reaction of creatures to the lion Aslan. They either dash away from him (into the darkness), or they sprint towards him (into the light). The creature’s response depends upon whether they loved him or hated him during their own lifetimes. Cheng considers this position to be unsatisfactory, principally because there is no acknowledgement of the ultimate eschatological erasure of all boundaries. He instead follows Origen of Alexandria in his doctrine of apokatastasis, or the restoration of all things (a form of universalism which is so broad that even Satan is included as an object of God’s salvation). While those who hold to this teaching confess that all creatures will have to go through some form of purification process prior to reaching their final destination, they are persuaded that everyone will eventually enter into heavenly bliss. The notion that all things will be restored as a result of God’s ultimate triumph over evil and death is central to this doctrine. Thus the sinful boundaries which humanity has erected (including those which stand between differing religions, as well as those between male and female, life and death, guilt and innocence, punishment and reward) will finally be erased.

Sacraments: Foretaste of Radical Love

There are seven sacraments in Roman Catholicism and only two in Protestantism. Patrick Cheng will introduce us to each of the seven as he explicates a queer understanding of the sacraments. What is a sacrament? They have traditionally been defined as visible signs of God’s invisible grace. They are both a foretaste of and a means through which the Holy Spirit of God transports us to our ultimate eschatological destiny; when we will be reunited in fullness with the radical love of God. The sacraments generally consist of physical elements, reminding us that spirituality is not some sort of out-of-body experience. Queer theologians posit that coming out should be considered the predominant sacrament for queer people. This is because it is through the course of coming out that the invisible grace of God is made visible to queer people, and also because it frees them to be in authentic relationship with the rest of the queer community.

Baptism is the very first sacrament. It is basically the welcoming or initiation rite. It is bestowed either by immersing a person in water or by pouring water over the individual’s head. It is a symbol of dying to the old life and being born again into a new life. Coming out is similar in that LGBT people allow their old closeted lives to die and are born into a new out life. Theologians of the queer persuasion argue that baptism is profoundly queer because it erases all identity markers, including those of sexuality and gender. The only marker that truly matters is a person’s membership in the body of Christ. Church sanctioned exclusions on the basis of sexual or gender identity stand in blatant contradiction to this sacrament, which is a testimony to the radical equality that results from the fact that all of humanity exists by the grace of God alone. Baptism reminds us that all forms of identity other than an individual’s identity in Christ are inadequate.

The second sacrament is the Lord’s supper or the Eucharist. Despite the fact that the various Christian traditions disagree over what the Eucharist is, they are all in agreement that participation in this sacrament signifies that an individual belongs to the body of Christ. This sacrament is similar to coming out as well in that both of them involve an offering and a sacrifice which generate communion with God and others. Queer theologians suggest that the Eucharist is fundamentally queer because it wipes away binary distinctions in gender. The sex of the Roman Catholic priest is erased because the priest and the congregation are facing the same direction. Through the consecration of the bread and wine, the body of Christ is transformed into something sexless. Furthermore, following the theology of Gregory of Nyssa, who proposed that human beings will return to their pre-fall, sexless, angel-like state in the general resurrection, queer theologians argue that the Eucharist renders all sexual and gender identities non-ultimate; inasmuch as it anticipates the eschaton.

The third sacrament is confirmation, which establishes an individual’s place in the church. This sacrament is a manifestation of radical love because it dissolves the boundary between insiders and outsiders. There are similarities between this sacrament and coming out as well. When LGBT people come out, they choose to become a part of the larger queer community, and through confirmation, LGBT people begin to affirm their faith in the fact that they are citizens of God’s commonwealth. Both actions therefore confirm the place of LGBT people within the realm of God. Queer theologians have suggested that the significance of this sacrament (as the formalization of an LGBT person’s membership within the queer community) is that through this initiation ritual, the LGBT person enters into a shared erotic power for justice with other LGBT Christians.

The fourth sacrament is reconciliation, or penance. Reconciliation is concerned with the forgiveness of sin, and it typically involves some form of confession as well as an act of penance. This sacrament dissolves the boundaries between guilt and innocence. It is related to coming out in at least a couple of ways. First of all, when LGBT people come out, they repent of the closet and its myriad of sinful expressions, such as dishonest behavior and the exploitation of others. Positively, they accept God’s gift of their sexuality and begin being honest with others about who they are. Secondly, reconciliation is not merely concerned with repentance on the part of LGBT people, but it also provides justification for the refusal of queer Christians to be reconciled to those churches who decline to repent of their heterosexist oppression and compulsory heterosexuality.

The fifth sacrament is matrimony, or marriage. This is a sacred covenanting of two persons before God and community which is sealed by the promise of fidelity in love to one another. It displays radical love in that it eradicates the dividing line between the self and the other. It is related to coming out because coming out is what makes same-sex marriages conceivable. Queer theologians contend that same-sex marriages are sacred because they often exist without the conjugal stereotypes or the heterosexist power relations which are characteristic of heterosexual marriage. They are sacramental because the union is acknowledged as sexual action which is committed to the reign of God. There are numerous theological writings concerned with this topic. It has been documented that there was a surprising medieval tradition which depicted Jesus and John the beloved disciple as the unnamed couple who were married at Cana. There is at present an ongoing debate amongst queer theologians over whether or not same-sex marriage serves to reinforce patriarchy. Additionally, it has been recommended that queer fidelity should be treated as the ethical norm for marriage; a concept which challenges the assumption that monogamy is to be the sole pattern for this institution.

The sixth sacrament is holy orders. It involves the ordination of an individual to the service of God through the ministry of the word and the celebration of the sacraments. Taking into consideration the mediating role of the minister or priest, holy orders dissolves the borders which stand between human and divine. In this way, it is a demonstration of radical love. Queer theologians declare that this sacrament is a total rejection of power and domination over others. The authority which is granted through holy orders is to be exercised in a way that is symmetrical and egalitarian. Queer ministers are called to make love and to do justice. This sacrament is related to coming out because they each involve a ministry of presence which bears witness to the inclusive love of God, God’s creative diversity, spiritual-sexual integrity and harmony amongst sexual orientation. It is also claimed that, through their particular priesthood, LGBT people bring an assortment of gifts to the body of Christ. These gifts include but are not limited to being a blessing to themselves and to others, being a strange sort of minority, being sexual, being friends, being family and being alive in the face of death.

The seventh sacrament is the anointing of the sick, formerly known as last rites. It is a sacrament of healing which eradicates the boundaries between sickness and health. It is connected with coming out in that both are concerned with healing; whether it be the healing of human bodies, internalized homophobia or broken relationships. Queer theologians recognize a correlation between the anointing of the sick and the queer community’s outreach to people who are HIV-positive. It has been asserted that God is HIV-positive, which is no less than a declaration of God’s solidarity with marginalized and suffering HIV-positive people. Some queer theologians have been very critical of the silence and lack of action demonstrated by many churches when it comes to their responses and reactions to HIV/AIDS. Due to their dire shortage of concern, these churches have been branded morally bankrupt.

Saints: Breaking Through of Radical Love

For queer Christians, the veneration of Saints is not just a vestige of old-world religion and its superstitious practices. This is because the Saints dissolve a number of seemingly fixed boundaries; like past and present, ordinary and miraculous, history and mythology, reality and fantasy, and human and divine. Included amongst the special persons whom queer people venerate are traditional Saints who are perceived as having been either sympathetic to the queer cause or perhaps even same-sex oriented themselves, as well as contemporary martyrs and s/heroes who lived and died in service to the LGBT community. The Saints traverse the borders of space and time, so as to have an impact on the lives of queer people in our own day. As is true of the Spirit, the Saints help people return to the radical love of God.

According to Cheng, the Saints are the breaking through of radical love. They do this first off by expunging erotic boundaries. Although same-sex desire is explicitly condemned by and within the Roman Catholic church, the practice of venerating Saints has opened up a space wherein such a desire is actually encouraged, leading to an erotic fixation upon the Saints. In light of this, queer theologians have submitted a variety of queer readings of the Saints and have consequently crossed the dividing line between the holy and the erotic (along with some of the other aforementioned boundary markers). In addition, these queer theologians have begun to apply Roman Catholicism’s three categories of Saints (martyr, confessor and doctor) to members of the LGBT community. Queer saints are acknowledged as individuals who have been virtuous, consecrated models of queerness, and who have also served as role models for LGBT people.

The Saints are furthermore the breaking through of radical love because they eradicate literary boundaries. There are queer theologians who have mused over the relationship between Saints and the erotic within the context of hagiography (or biographies of the Saints). By weaving together queer theory with their own imaginative readings of the lives of the early Christian Saints, these theologians have effectively collapsed the literary genres known as histories and queer romances. They have also challenged the dualistic view which separates celibacy from sexuality. They contend that eroticism was not erased in the cases of those Saints who remained celibate, and rather that it was intensified as a result of the restraint shown by these people. Moreover, there are some queer theologians who have argued that there are homoerotic elements permeating the genre of hagiography, but that these elements have routinely been suppressed in liturgical retellings of these narratives.

Finally, the Saints are the breaking through of radical love because they erase social boundaries. Although non-Christians in the Roman empire venerated the dead, they did not cross any precious metaphysical boundaries in terms of claiming intimacy with the divine. The Christian cult of the Saints was scandalous because it challenged the presumably immovable boundaries between earth and heaven, the living and the dead, and divinity and humanity. Roman veneration of the dead was also restricted to a person’s own ancestors, family or kinship group, but Christian veneration of the Saints allowed for these family lines to be crossed. The dead belonged to the worldwide community of Christians; to everyone, and not strictly to the martyr’s own biological relatives. The boundary between family and strangers was thus dissolved. This practice transcended a vast array of social boundaries, and presented a challenge to all social and family relationships (which are grounded in patriarchy). To venerate the Saints is therefore to follow in the tradition of the early Christian Saints, who redefined the boundaries of the family. This is what stands at the heart of both queerness and radical love. One significant way that saints in our own day and age can cross social boundaries and follow in the footsteps of the s/heroes of the faith is to minister to and advocate for LGBT people.