And instead, I write about unicorns.

 The Journey  2 Responses »
Feb 222013
 

I like unicorns.

Who doesn’t? They’re magical, their horns possess healing powers, and they poop rainbows.  What could possibly be wrong with unicorns?

I can even tell you about the first documented case of the unicorn myth for Western minds (Ctesias of Cnidus, 398 BCE), how it came to stand as a symbol of purity, and elaborate on virgin-as-Mary and the unicorn-as-Jesus iconography.  While I’m not a unicornologist, I’ve written a paper (or three) on them, and find myself writing more and more papers on these mythological creatures.

And I suppose that’s kind of neat.

But I’ll tell you what: when I get out of my undergrad program, instead of having a strong in-class guided educational tour of religion from a queer theology perspective, instead of being able to talk from in-class experience about the critical intersections of non-normative identity and faith, I’ll be able to tell you about unicorns.  Because I can’t bring my full self to school, and it’s starting to gall me more than a little.

Why can I not have these critical dialogues? Because I have an advisor that doesn’t advise and has, in fact, compared me to a radical conservative Christian and said that I would not be fit for the M.Div program. Because at every turn the administration shuts down queer dialogues. Because they are silencing of spiritual, sex-positive, queer-positive, and kink-positive dialogues. Because if you ignore marginal identities, in good old Catholic fashion, eventually they will give up and go away, or be so silenced as to no longer be a problem.

So instead, I’m writing about unicorns. Because I’m a senior, because I don’t know ofany university where I can do this – in an undergrad program – that wouldn’t involve me picking up and moving, which I don’t want to do. Because I’m not sure that the malarkey of transferring schools is worth it, and because, sometimes, there are allies – at least on the queer identity, though they may not even know where to start.

I don’t need anyone to come along and fix this for me, but I do need to get it out of my head so I can think about it and what it means. I’m not bringing most – or even a significant part of myself – to school at this point. I’m ducking and getting through, and that’s kind of fucked up.  And because of this, I’m pretty checked out: just going through the motions somewhere out on the fringe, writing about unicorns and getting through the day.

 

An Evaluation of Queer Theology in Religious and Spiritual Organizational Settings

 School, Spirituality and Religion  No Responses »
Aug 252012
 

Introduction

The term queer is often seen as a pejorative – something weird, shameful, and woefully off-kilter.  To say something is queer is to say that is alien, dangerous, or not of the norm.  But there is a positive aspect to this non-normativity; in refraining from settling at the status quo, queer as an approach allows us to remain in a state of constant inquiry and learning.  Queer theology is a deconstrucivist, dialogue-centered, accessible approach to the search for wisdom.  It has strong roots in liberation and social justice modes of thought/action, and can be considered truly interdisciplinary because it is understood that every person’s (and by extension, every community’s) identity is an ever-shifting constructed nexus of experiences, impressions, and ideas and that individuals operate through and with these multiple understandings of self simultaneously. By utilizing a queer theology approach, leaders can work to engage participants in their organization through proactive, inclusive practices focused on the betterment of all involved to an end goal of a vibrant and diverse co-created community.

Background Information on Queer Theory

As mentioned earlier, the term queer is an uncomfortable one.  It may evoke a sense of undesirability; something which is at odds with “established” society and, possibly, a threat (Butler, ii).  To call someone queer is a deadly insult; it highlights their inability to fit in, belittling their identity and crucifying them on the cross of their perceived otherness.  It is worth addressing briefly the difference between perception of identity and self identification, as these concepts will be addressed throughout.  Self identity is the composite of an individual’s understanding of where they are, how they see themselves, their impressions of how others see them, and how they wish to be seen in the world.  This self identification is in a state of constant evolution as an individual takes in stimuli and processes it.  Individual identity, then, may be understood as a continual work in progress – but largely the domain of the individual.

Perception of identity happens when a person (or outside source) imposes their ideas of an individual’s identity upon another person.  Perception of identity comes from outside oneself, and is often enacted without an individual’s consent.  While a useful tool for categorization, it becomes problematic when a person labels another’s identity without stopping to consider if that is the individual’s self-bestowed identity.  Such gross categorizations can become a tool of privilege, allowing us to label those we perceive as different as undesirable, and ourselves as better than them.

As is the case with many marginalized cultures, queer is a term which was imposed on those perceived as non-heterosexual or non-cisgendered[1] by others. Categorically, the word highlights an individual’s inability to perform as sexually- and gender-normative. However, as with some pejorative terms, the word has been reclaimed by those so labeled to become a positive locus of self-identity. This was brought to national attention in the late eighties during the early years of the AIDS crisis. A self described diverse, non-partisan group, the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) formed to bring an end to AIDS, primarily through direct actions with a target of raising awareness about the epidemic. One of their memorable rallying cries was “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it!” (ACT UP New York).

Part of the reclamation process of queer-as-identity included the formalization of queer theory as an academic discipline in the nineties. It has origins in gay and lesbian studies, the primary aim of which is to look at the presence and development of gay and lesbian identity and behavior in society through history (Kaczorowski). Queer studies and theory evolved to include not just gay and lesbian identity within existing structures (political, religious, economic) but as a method of considering any behavior or identity which is non-normative.  Binary labeling – us /them, him/her, white/black, straight/gay, rich/poor, religious/atheist – automatically creates a system of valuation where one identity or concept is rated more highly than the other. The more highly valued or desirable label becomes the standard for perfection.  In the quest for personal and societal perfection, we label that identity as “normal” and the other identity as deviant, or queer.  Thus it is that in America white, heterosexual, able-bodied, rich, young, Christian, cisgendered men – and those perceived to be so – are the most privileged, whereas anyone who fails to live up to one or more of these so-called normative standards is valued as less-than and denied the respect which should be (but is not) conferred to every human being.

Queer theory is intimately concerned with that binary system and what it does to us – as individuals, as communities, as cultures – by creating a mythos of immutable perfection which is unattainable for most of us.  Gay and lesbian studies often advocate for the “just like you” argument, which presents a notion of immutable sexual orientation, thus legitimizing and normalizing homosexuality within the bounds of accepted evolutionary variety. Further, gay studies and theology usually speak from the understood identity of “gay”, a construct which is a primarily white, cisgendered, and middle class (Goss, 44).  Queer theory takes another stance, stating that non-normativity is a desirable state because it recognizes the inherently mutable characteristics of an embodied experience in this life (Halperin, 62). Bodies age, riches pass, beliefs shift, and we all die.  What was normal a hundred years ago – women barred from voting and interracial marriage as illegal, for example – is no longer considered desirable and is therefore no longer normal.

Growing out of queer theory, queer theology also has roots in liberationist and feminist theology. As such, its primary concerns are that of accessibility and relevance to people in this world now, especially the poor and disenfranchised (Kraus, 2), and has overarching goals of social justice and inclusion.  Its approach is essentially interdisciplinary in nature; queer theology recognizes that all people have a multiplicity of identities, and is focused on inclusion of all – meaning the exclusion of none, no matter how different we may be from one another (Goss, 45).

Main Points of Queer Theology

Like queer theory, queer theology recognizes the myth of normal and that societal and cultural expectations are in a constant state of flux.  Queer theology posits a relevance of accessibility: it recognizes that we are all complex amalgamations of identities, concepts and experiences. No person or community can be reduced to a label; to do so is simplistic and dehumanizing. By actively welcoming iterations of difference which occur by and to human beings, queer theology seeks to be a theology which is created by and inclusive of everyone.

To deconstruct the myth of normal, queer theology encourages transgression of norms through an attention to social justice, fearless questioning of existing structures, and ongoing inquiry into the nature of self and other. Queer theology is not so concerned with where we may or may not go when we die but with the quality of our life here and now.  Any person who is denied basic respect because of their perceived identity can, no doubt, relate to the necessity for there to be a praxis of compassion for all human beings, not just those who are privileged.  I have yet to meet a woman who has not at some point in her life felt threatened, belittled or dismissed on basis of her gender, and believe that likely to be true for individuals with visible disabilities and any person of color in America or any other individual who is marginalized on the basis of their perceived difference.

For those who are visibly demarcated as different, or queer, there is always a factor of risk.  In my experience as a transgendered man, I can call to mind a handful of times where I felt myself to be at risk of bodily harm by virtue of being perceived as other, and countless other times where my identity has cost me everything from healthcare access to jobs – and I am not alone. A recent study noted that transgender people are four to five times more likely than the general population to live in poverty (Martin). That disparity becomes more likely the greater the number of non-privileged identities an individual experiences (being a person of color or having a visible disability in addition to being trans, for instance.)  Violence as a reaction to fear of non-heterosexual or non-cisgendered identities is a fact of existence for those perceived as other (Rosen-Berry, 139). Every year on November 20th, the Transgender Day of Remembrance stands as a stark reminder of violence in action. Since 1992, over five hundred people have been killed because they failed to conform to society’s standards of gender normativity, with the majority of the victims being low income MtF (Male to Female) sex workers of color (St. Pierre).

The issue of same-sex marriage provides another example of the way in which the legitimacy of an individual’s identity or experience is denied. While the desirability of defining the institution of marriage as a life-long, reproductively-centered, monogamous pairing in which both individuals live in a shared residence and combine incomes may be questionable from a queer perspective, the blatant opposition of recognition for all people of all genders to have equal access to marriage illustrates the ways in which a binary valuation system – in this case, straight/gay – can cause deleterious effects to those not privileged to belong to the desirable straight category.   By casting any sexual act or identity outside of a procreatively-centered, monogamous, heterosexual marriage as sinful, the experiences of any individual who does not fit into that community is invisiblized and silenced (Butler, xiii; Keenan, 130). A person who identifies as other is effectively told that their life, their love, their sorrows and experiences do not exist.

One of tasks of queer theology, then, becomes the construction of sexuality affirming hermeneutics, which include, among other tactics, focus on a contemporary reinterpretation of sacred texts to reclaim them for marginalized sexualities (Yip 50-51). Studies have shown that biblical literalism directly relates to a willingness to restrict the civil liberties of those perceived as “other” – notably non-heterosexual individuals, atheists, and anyone else who does not fit with the template of being a “true American” – the aforementioned white, cisgendered, young, able-bodied, rich, heterosexual Christian man (Merino, 233-234). By reclaiming sacred texts through a relevant, contemporary reading for people of non-heterosexual identity or experience, scripture becomes accessible as a tool of faith instead of an instrument of damnation.

Queer theology also encourages us to reclaim our lives as something to be lived, rather than something to be endured. We are fleshy creatures, and while asceticism has dominated the Christian perspective in particular as the centuries-old path to enlightenment, queer theology recognizes that ours is an embodied experience in which mind, soul and physical self are inextricably entwined. Sin is not a litany of specific acts, but the denial of identity, whether it is directed towards oneself or another.  Operating with lack of respect for everyone and everything, operating without compassion for oneself and others: these are the sins of queer theology.  Sin becomes not concerned with the act of suppressing integral expressions and actions of one’s identity but the failure of entrenched organizational practices to accept and welcome each person as they are: whole, and worthy of love. To deny the right of a human being to be whole in all aspects of their identity is to bar them from the respect that is due to each individual, and, more importantly, to visit harm upon them (Keenan, 142). The primary tenets of queer theology are that one should be as compassionate as possible; allow oneself to experience pleasure as a gift of this life (Halperin 102-103); take responsibility for oneself and one’s actions; and operate with integrity towards everyone and everything in this universe.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Queer Theology

One of the areas in which queer theology shines is its concern with radically inclusive co-created community.  By welcoming everyone, queer theology aids in the removal of silos of thought and identity exclusivity through concrete actions to create cohesive community. Although queer theology is a new discipline and therefore has few examples yet to offer, the Catholic Worker is a relevant and positive testament to maintaining a cohesive identity while still welcoming a diversity of perspectives.  Its practices are complimentary in nature, with strong liberationist ethics and radical practices. Catholic Workers is a loose affiliation of houses and farms which operates in some 175 cities and towns around the world, with communities surviving on private donations (Yukich, 177). The movement began in New York in 1933 as a paper through the efforts of Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin, Catholic activists. As the movement grew, it remained true to its values of personalism, non-violent anti-war demonstration, anarchy, and hospitality to all.  The Catholic Worker movement is not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, despite its Catholic faith affiliation, nor has it become an institutionalized social service organization; instead, it retains an intentional positionality of subversion to cultural norms that it may better serve those in need.  Even when faced with individuals who had radically different beliefs or practices – which were in some cases antithetical to Catholic Worker identity – members would still include these people in their lives (Yukich, 190).  Today, the Catholic Worker primarily operates in low-income areas, providing meals, community, and lodging to those in need.

Although at times challenging, radical inclusion creates a more vibrant, robust community. By honoring a diversity of perspectives, queer theology creates a space where the input of all participants is welcomed. That does not, however, occur without concrete action. While the mission statement and values are the heart of an organization, that heart is nothing without a body which acts in accord to those principles. Without ongoing work to enact an organization’s values, those words become so many empty mouthings.  Being radically inclusive, however, can be uncomfortable work as we confront our own internalized fears and biases.

Consider the challenge of disabled congregants in faith communities. While noting that the term disabled itself is problematic, it is used in this case to refer to those individuals who have some physical difficulty in accessing all aspects of the faith community. This may range from impaired senses (vision or hearing) to limited mobility issues.  The more visible an individual’s disability, the more likely people are to label that person as less-than, and dehumanize them thereby.  An internalized fear of people with disabilities (is it catching? what if I end up that way?) may create a space in which a person with some physical impairment is not actively welcome even though the mission statement of the organization may include them.  Such bars to inclusiveness often manifest as blatant inactivity; taking refuge in the way things are, organizations can live in the comfort of their prejudices by citing time, difficulty and expense as reasons for refusal to change.  A preliminary study on disabled congregants in faith communities found that those communities with a stronger social justice orientation were most likely to meet the needs of disabled congregants (Hodapp, et al, 389) by operating with a praxis of radical inclusion where hospitality for all is a key component.

Radical inclusion does, however, have its detractors. Critics of queer theology suggest that the hyperfocus on welcoming everyone means that individual experiences and identities are lost completely (Goss, 51). By bringing everyone to the table with all their unique identities and challenges and issues, we lose the ability to form a cohesive identity. While this can be a challenge of queer theology in action, it only becomes the case when the leadership team does not adequately facilitate the creation of a discrete organizational identity.  Organizational identity can happen at a theoretical level (Yukich, 174), while being inclusive at a physical level through ongoing concrete work.   The Catholic Worker (Yukich, 179-181) clearly embodies the principles of creating a cohesive, decentralized organization which honors individual experience while still maintaining group identity.  While every individual has their own challenges, they also have their strengths, and positive organizational movement may occur even in spaces of conflict, although queer theology primarily advocates for dialogue and cooperative collaboration.

Queer theology’s openness towards reinterpretation of sacred texts can be challenging to organizations and individuals more disposed to a traditional or literalist approach. Although the Bible is understood to be written with human intermediaries over a wide span of years, there are those who feel that it is the undisputed word of God. The Qur’an, on the other hand, is considered to be the direct and literal word of Allah, passed first-hand from God to His prophet Mohammad. While the methods of delivery – many authors versus one – differ, the challenges remain the same when addressing a traditionalist audience.

The accepted interpretations of the Qur’an, the Hadith, explicitly addresses the matter of same-sex intercourse with censure, whereas the Bible’s “clobber” passages can be contextually interpreted in a more inclusive light (Kraus, Yip 52).  As such, contemporary reinterpretation of the Qur’an becomes more challenging, as the entrenched cultural attitudes towards this holy text do not encourage the creation of a reverse discourse (Yip, 50).  In either case, however, to question a traditionalist interpretation of a sacred text can be interpreted as threatening to the core of an organization’s identity. Within most traditionalist organizations, these inquiries are seen as challenges, antithetical to their way of being, to be met with staunch resistance and, sometimes, violence.  The identity of the traditionalist group is then strengthened by tightening its ranks by further demarcating the line between “us” and “them” (Yukich, 173).

This idea of organizational stasis is arrived at through a perspective of othering and fears of the identified other.  Traditionalist organizations which utilize adversarial boundary work understand organizational evolution as death.  Change is not a positive agent; rather, it is something to be resisted at all costs.  By allowing for the possibility of change, that which has been may be revealed as irrelevant in the world that is.  What may, historically, have served a necessary function – such as rules around cleanliness or eating in the Old Testament – may have evolved past its use both in function and symbol through ritual. From a traditionalist approach, the choice then becomes either to vanquish one’s detractors or to perish as an organization.

When approached through the lens of queer theology, however, change is seen as a necessary and welcome component of any organization’s ongoing evolution.  Nothing is fixed; all points are in motion at all times, from the smallest subatomic particle to the largest galaxy.  Our human identities are also in a state of continual flux, and this extends from the most isolated individual to the most pervasive multi-media international brand conglomerate. We invent and reinvent ourselves every day: how we are perceived by our co-workers is no doubt different from the way we are seen by our friends which is yet again different from how we are seen by our faith communities or family or the guy working the check-out stand as we stop to pick up a quick snack on the way home.  Who I am today is not the person I was five years ago, or who I will be in the future. How, then, is an organization any different? No matter how monolithic an organization may appear, it is comprised of humans; indeed, humanity is an essential and inseparable component.  And it is the responsibility of organizations to serve humanity, not of humanity to serve organizations with no recompense.  If the needs of the individuals the organization was founded for change – and they will – the organization must perforce adapt in order to be able to be of assistance.  Failure to do so is a disservice to those in the organization and the community it purports to serve.

Conclusion

No person is a label, or even several, and no concept or understanding – at least through the lens of human knowledge and wisdom – is immutable. By demarcating an intentional position of subversion to concept of normative, queer theology transgresses barriers – such as institutionalized isms – by allowing one to operate from a space of awareness of the system. This allows individuals and organizations to question and deconstruct and see what works, what does not and what can use improvement. The notion of queering – or transgressing norms – can be an uncomfortable one. However, moving across the borders of what is normal allows us to find new modes of expression and ways of thinking.

Queer theology as a transgressive action allows space for all voices to speak. It has been shown that one’s religious affiliation and interaction within religious community does, to some degree, predict an individual’s reaction and attitudes to those they perceive as different. We become what we are exposed to. With roots in liberationist and civil rights movements, queer theology maintains a strong social justice orientation focused on respect as a basic human right. It maintains a willingness to create space for every person through radically inclusive practices, an understanding of change as a positive agent, and a willingness to question everything.  Queer theology encourages us to look beyond our first disposition and gain a greater understanding of ourselves, others, and the ways in which we are all interconnected.

Annotated Bibliography

ACT UP New York. AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power. Web. 02 Aug. 2012. <http://www.actupny.org/index.html>

Website of the New York branch of ACT UP. Includes an abbreviated chronology of actions performed since its inception, as well as information on the organization’s philosophy, current and future activities.

Butler, Judith. “Performativity, Precarity And Sexual Politics.” AIBR. Revista De Antropología Iberoamericana 4.3 (2009): 309. Academic Search Complete. Web. 01 Aug. 2012.

In this article, Butler discusses the mutability of identity, both on personal and organizational levels. Although dense reading, as typical for this author, the concept of precarity – and its positive aspects – make this a worthwhile read.

Glickman, Charlie. “Why Use the Word “cisgender”?” Good Vibrations Online Magazine. Good Vibrations, 12 Jan. 2010. Web. 02 Aug. 2012. <http://goodvibesblog.com/why-use-the-word-cisgender/>.

Dr. Glickman discusses the origins of the term cisgender as a counterpart to transgender. He provides an accessible, succinct case for the use of the word in lieu of other terms which have previously been utilized.

Goss, Robert F. “Queer Theologies as Transgressive Metaphors: New Paradigms for Hybrid Sexual Theologies.” Theology & Sexuality: The Journal of the Institute for the Study of Christianity & Sexuality 5.10 (1999): 43. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 May 2012.

This article serves as a primer for queer theology. It discusses heteronormativity as the dominant mode of thinking and the problems this reductionist, binary framework presents, as it contributes to a patriarchal, white, classist, sexist approach.  Gay and lesbian theologies are discussed, as are minority perspectives, and their positive contributions to theology.  Gay and lesbian theologies are also critiqued for their habit of existing within binary frameworks of female/male gay/straight. Queer theology is introduced as an alternative which focuses on the inclusion of all people because of its refusal to label and intentional positionality of subversion whatever is considered normative. Queer theology as a liberationist ideology is discussed, and the necessity of transgression of norms for positive social change.  Criticisms of queer theory are mentioned, including the possible problem of building anything significant when the focus of queer theory is about a non-normative perspective. The inclusiveness of queer theory is also addressed, as such inclusiveness may serve to invisiblize minority identities. Overall, the author is well-spoken and provides an engaging introduction to the need for queer theology which is accessible to a wide audience.

Halperin, David M. Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography. New York: Oxford UP, 1995. Print.

This book discusses the work of Michel Foucault through a queer lens. Considered “essential reading” for queer theory, it is an accessible and engaging work.  The author covers Foucault’s considerable contributions to our understanding contemporary understanding of sexuality-as-identity and the ways in which queer is an identity apart, and concludes by describing Foucault’s life.

Robert M. Hodapp, et al. “Characteristics of Inclusive Faith Communities: A Preliminary Survey of Inclusive Practices in the United States.” Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 25.4 (2012): 383-391. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 July 2012.

Researchers of this study investigate the ways in which religious communities are more or less inclusive for individuals with disabilities. They looked at three outcomes: the degree to which faith communities are welcoming and inclusive to people with disabilities; the roles and contributions of congregants with disabilities; and physical accessibility. Results found that the most inclusive communities had leaders who were committed to inclusion; offered ongoing education to address issues around disabilities; portrayed people with disabilities positively; had stronger ties with disability organizations; and a stronger social justice foundation. Indicators of the study included three factors: physical accessibility, hospitality, and recognition of the contributions of congregants with disabilities. This initial study provides a salient look at the ways in which leadership can help promote greater inclusion of people with disabilities into their religious community.

Keenan, James F. “The Open Debate: Moral Theology and the Lives of Gay and Lesbian Persons.” Theological Studies 64.1 (2003): 127. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 July 2012.

The author looks at the Roman Catholic Church’s repressive attitudes towards non-heterosexual identity and acts.  They note that the Vatican has not changed its attitudes in spite of the shifting attitudes of the Roman Catholic community at large because of a tradition of belief in the immutability of Holy Scripture. They detail the works of contemporary moralists on the issue, where procreative heterosexual marriage is seen as the normative (and desired) behavior. What should be considered normative for non-heterosexual behavior is discussed, although exclusively as concerns gay and lesbian identified individuals. Heterosexism and patriarchal problems with traditional interpretations of scripture are addressed, and feminist, liberation and progressive theologies are encouraged, with the need for a diversity of perspectives – especially those who have been traditionally silenced or misrepresented. The paper is an excellent presentation of the issue.

Kraus, Kelly. “Queer Theology: Reclaiming Christianity for the LGBT Community.” E-Research: A Journal of Undergraduate Work 2.3 (2011). Web. 18 July 2012.

The author clearly feels strongly about their thesis and is biased in favor of queer theology as a tool to free non-heterosexual people from homophobic frameworks and the resultant internalized shame and hate, the cause of which, according to the author, is the condemnation of homosexuality by the church. While laying entire cause of heterosexism at the feet of religion is somewhat overly-simplified, it is true that most people do draw their moral and ethical frameworks from religious systems or modes of thought and that most religious systems traditionally condemn non-heterosexual activities and identities. The author discusses liberation theology and how it can be used to inform queer theology. They also address the “clobber” passages and highlight some of the fallacies in heterosexist attitudes towards non-heterosexual individuals. However, the author focuses primarily on gay and lesbian cases and presents their argument in terms of immutability and normativity.

Kaczorowski, Craig. “Gay, Lesbian, and Queer Studies.” Glbtq: An Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Culture. glbtq, Inc., 01 Jan. 2004. Web. 02 Aug. 2012..

In this article, the author discusses the historical evolution of gay and lesbian studies and the evolution of queer studies. A concise synopsis of each area’s development and approach is provided, as well as recommendations for important works for each.

Martin, Michelle. “Study: Discrimination Takes A Toll On Transgender Americans.” NPR.org. National Public Radio, 28 Mar. 2011. Web. 04 Aug. 2012.

This NPR interview discusses the results of a 2011 study which researched the ill effects stigmatization has on transgendered people.  Interviewees included one of the lead authors of the survey and a Native American MtF woman, providing a balanced and relevant conversation on the meaning of the study’s results.

Merino, Stephen M. “Religious Diversity in a “Christian Nation”: The Effects of Theological Exclusivity and Interreligious Contact on the Acceptance of Religious Diversity.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 49.2 (2010): 231-246. Academic Search Complete. Web. 18 July 2012.

The author considers the data from the nationally representative Religion and Diversity Survey, which looked at the ways in which Americans responded to religious diversity, and non-Christian faiths in specific. Overall results revealed that exclusive group thinking correlated with higher negative attitudes towards other (non-Christian) faiths, that there is less willingness to include Muslims and Hindus in community life, and that contact with individuals from other faiths results in a higher incidence of acceptance of those faiths in one’s community. The author explores the relationship between theological beliefs about religious diversity and attitudes towards religious diversity, specifically from the viewpoint of Christians and their willingness to look at non-Christian lives and community. Correlates in this relationship indicate that theological beliefs can, to some degree, predict individual and community responses towards religious diversity.

Rosen-Berry, Judith. “Revealing Hidden Aspects of Divinity in the ‘Queer’ Face: Towards a Jewish ‘Queer’ (Liberation) Theology.” European Judaism 41.2 (2008): 138-54. Print.

The author presents an argument that Jewish liberation theology must be viewed from a queer lens.  Drawing on the work of Judith Butler, they assert that notions of binary gender and God as an identity predicated on heteronormativity are detrimental to liberationist theology because it assumes certain aspects of identity as immutable.  In order to be truly liberationist, theology must be willing to question all aspects of all things, from systems to identities.

St. Pierre, Ethan. “Transgender Day of Remembrance.” Transgender Day of Remembrance. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Aug. 2012. http://www.transgenderdor.org/

Website detailing those lost for failing to conform to society’s expectations of gender.  Provides a yearly listing of Transgender Day of Remembrance memorial events, as well as statistics and causes of death of those known to have been murdered for being ‘outed’ as trans.

Yip, Andrew. K.T. “Queering Religious Texts: An Exploration of British Non-heterosexual Christians’ and Muslims’ Strategy of Constructing Sexuality-affirming Hermeneutics.” Sociology 39.1 (2005): 47-65. Print.

This article discusses the difficulties non-heterosexual Christians and Muslims have in integrating their faith with their sexual identities and the challenges of being welcomed in religious community. It mentions some ways in which individuals cope, including eschewing either religion or their sexuality by intentionally suppressing a fundamental part of their identity, privatizing either aspect of their identity, or by remaining in community and dealing with the discrimination they receive there. The article then discusses the strategy of constructing sexuality-affirming hermeneutics of religious texts – or queering scripture – as a means of legitimizing identity and inclusion. The author mentions the clobber passages in Christian scripture, and then the somewhat greater challenges of constructing affirming hermeneutics in Muslim culture.  In the bulk of the report, the author discusses the results of two studies the aims of which were to highlight the ways in which queer theology was produced. They focused on the individual results (as opposed to interpersonal and group results of the studies), and addressed the ways in which non-heterosexual Christians and Muslims created personally-affirming understandings of their respective faith traditions. Specific methods included critique of the damning passages; contextualization of the material within its historic and cultural roots and inapplicability to modern society; a criticism of religious authority structures; and creative reclamation of sacred texts through the lens of individual experience. The article is well written and fairly researched; demonstrated author bias is minimal, as they allow the research to speak for itself.

Yukich, Grace. “Boundary Work In Inclusive Religious Groups: Constructing Identity at the New York Catholic Worker” Sociology of Religion 71.2 (2010): 172-196. Academic Search Complete. Web. 11 July 2012.

This article discusses the challenges of creating distinctive identity in inclusive groups. Othering and inclusiveness is discussed, and the use of symbolic boundary work to reach a distinct identity through the lens of the New York Catholic Worker movement. The author presents a solution of utilizing boundary work on a theoretical level while practicing inclusion on a concrete basis. They argue that concrete acts such as feeding the homeless work more concretely to create identity – both personal and group – than theory, because it involves the entire person, “body, mind, and spirit.” Martin Buber’s concept of “I-It” and “I-Thou” relations is heavily drawn upon, with focus on “I-Thou” interactions as a method for personal transformation. The author states that when “I-Thou” social interactions are used – which result in diagogic interpersonal exchanges – when they are used in partnership with symbolic boundary theory, groups can create distinctive identities while simultaneously remaining truly inclusive. Catholic Worker experience is used to illustrate the tensions between group identity and concrete practices, and the ways in which a group may be radically inclusive. The author presents a compelling argument for concrete actions as demonstrating inclusivity within identity-demarcated groups.


[1] Cisgendered: A person whose gender identity is synchronous with their gender identity (Glickman).

This paper was originally written for Theology of Leadership, offered at Marylhurst University, Summer term 2012.

Reflections on faith in an unjust world

 Spirituality and Religion, The Journey  1 Response »
Jul 262012
 

I don’t believe in a god.

I don’t believe in several gods, or the idea of heaven and hell.

Religion, and the dogma which is its end product, is the result of human intention. Religion is a human institution and therefore just as fallible as humans: as prone to beauty as terror; as capable of inspiring divine connection as alienating.  In many cases, religion becomes a political tool; something to exercise power over other people, to keep them silent and ignorant and scared.

The construct of sin is also a human one. Do this, and you’ll go to hell. Do that, and you’ll be rewarded – if you propitiate the correct god and perform the correct rituals first.  If you deviate from the expectations of a group, you sin – and the more you deviate from other’s perception of the group expectations, the more fundamentally flawed you are. Not straight enough, cisgendered enough, able-bodied enough, white enough, make enough, skinny enough, young enough, monogamous enough, vanilla enough? You fail at life. Go straight to hell: do not pass go, do not collect $200.  You are a shameful creature for failing to live within the confines of the group, and may as well absent yourself from the group’s midst lest you contaminate it by your otherness.

In such cases, sin becomes a convenient label for those designated as other.  They’re different?  Oh. They must be sinners.  Don’t question – just condemn, adhere more strongly to your religious beliefs without questioning, and move on.

Don’t mind the fact that studies have shown that homophobia is associated with homosexual arousal – which is to say that the harder you deny it the likelier you are to have some latent tendencies towards same-sex attraction. Don’t mind the fact that causing a person to suppress fundamental parts of their identity in order to remain in a group can lead to irreparable harm, or that people who don’t fit in with society’s so-called immutable gender assignments lead a life as the products of discrimination and hatred.

Where does the sin really lie here?

I’m pretty sure that sin, as such, is not a construct which is generally applicable to individuals aside from the respect everyone, be kind to yourself and others, and do what you like but don’t be a jerk clauses. Sin, as it exists, occurs on institutional levels: ongoing isms that deny everyone equal access to the respect that is due to them as a human being. White, Christian, capitalist, consumerist, able-bodied, ageist, cisgendered, male, heterosexual, monogamous, classist privilege is the sin.

It isn’t who you have sex with or how often or how you do it or the color of your skin or size of your body or how old or young you are or the activities you engage in. You’re not going to heaven or hell for that. And it really doesn’t matter whether heaven or hell exist, right here and now.  We live in this life, for better or worse.  And we’re here, usually, for somewhere upwards of seventy years (at least in privileged capitalist countries like America), and it is crucial that we, as humans, accept our own individual responsibility for our lives and the effects of our decisions on others.

To do less is to deny our humanity and to prolong the suffering of others.

The universe is not a just place. It does not know mercy. The universe just is.  Justice, mercy, kindness, compassion: these are human things. They are beautiful qualities, but they do not belong to the universe. They belong to us, to humankind.

We are, through some gift of divine spark or mischance or sheer whimsy, sentient beings, capable of wonder and delight and great beauty. While it is unlikely that we are alone in our sentience on a cosmic scale, it is our current understanding that we are the only species on this earth who has been so blessed. Out of thankfulness for that gift, and out of understanding for the sanctity of all things in this universe – from rock to whale to human – it is our fundamental duty to take responsibility for our own actions and to look out for the welfare of others, both sentient and non sentient, alive and inert.

The primary rule of that covenant is easy: don’t be a jerk. Be kind – to yourself and others, and operate always with compassion.

There is some fucked up shit that happens in this life, and generally, people don’t deserve it. Have faith in their goodness. Take some time to talk with them, make a connection and try to help ease their burden, even if only for a few moments.  No matter who they are, no matter how different you may think they are, you’ll have something in common: your shared humanity.  Start from there. Move outwards. Operate with grace.

And fucking get angry when that fucked up shit occurs. Do things about it. Raise your voice and make some change. We are all different, but we are all the same, too.  Have some faith in that.

Identity Matters: Queering Religion

 Gender, School, Spirituality and Religion  No Responses »
May 252012
 

There has been a great deal of positive forward movement towards the acceptance of gays and lesbians within Christian faiths during the last thirty years.  Opening and accepting congregations have taken steps to welcome people whose only difference from their heterosexual counterparts is, purportedly, that they engage in romantic and intimate sexual relationships with people of the same gender as their own.  The “we’re just like you” argument, coupled with the notion of the immutability of sexual orientation, has helped make gay and lesbian identities more normative – and if not actively accepted, at least tolerated.

However, sexual orientation is not a monolithic identifier. Just as there are a myriad of ways to be heterosexual, so are there a myriad of ways in which people are not.  Gay and lesbian are not the only non-heterosexual identities; there are people who are bisexual, pansexual, omnisexual, asexual, queer… the list goes on.  These labels, which are almost always bestowed by individuals upon themselves, do not fit neatly into the dichotomous framework of male-female and heterosexual-homosexual.  They are, however, most often subsumed into the binary system with little attention given to the nuances of personal identity and the positionality that adopting such a label usually signifies. When considering matters of religion, then, it becomes necessary to be open to a queer approach to theology in order to serve those who would fall through the cracks of neglect and disinterest otherwise.

Queer as an Operational Framework

I had to take my car to the mechanic this afternoon, where a mechanic referred to me with feminine pronouns – something that rarely happens to me these days. I was grateful, ultimately, when the shop said they couldn’t do the work because of the peculiarities of my vehicle, and I moved on to a shop which specialized in my car.  As a person with both a queer sexuality and gender identity, I regularly think about the ways in which I am perceived: what impression did I make? What do they think of me? Do they think I am straight? Gay? Man? Woman?

Even though I usually pass as a white, heterosexual, cisgendered male, and am regarded with the attendant privilege that comes with being perceived as a member of that group, my identity is more complex.  In moments like the one this afternoon, I am sharply reminded of the precarity of my identity, and the ways in which it is both self-constructed and imposed by the expectations of others and society.  My identity as a masculine-expressing person – one who shaves and is balding – does not match, to most people, my upbringing as a girl who loved dresses and the color yellow.

This, however, could be explained – and even accepted – within a binary framework if I ascribed to easily explainable labels when organizing my identity along sexuality and gender, like female-to-male and gay.  But I do not sit comfortably in either of those identities; my gender, while most certainly masculine-expressing, is not unequivocally male, and my romantic and physical attraction to people is not predicated on an individual’s gender identity.  Therefore queer becomes a useful term along which to organize my personal understanding of self and the ways in which I desire to be seen in the world.

But what does adopting queer as a self-identifying label mean? In Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography, author David Halperin described it thusly:

Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence. ‘Queer’ then, demarcates not a positivity but a positionality vis-à-vis the normative” (62).

Queer identity, then, becomes a matter of positionality against whatever may be considered normal – which can and does vary from culture to culture and context to context.  In this sense, it becomes inclusive – for by refusing to explicitly define as a certain way of being in the world, it becomes open to interpretation. Its value becomes whatever the individual assigns to it, with its most important factor remaining constant: a positionality of subversion to societal norms.

American philosopher Judith Butler, a champion of queer as an identity, remarked on its inclusiveness in a 2001 interview:

My understanding of queer is a term that desires that you don’t have to present an identity card before entering a meeting. Heterosexuals can join the queer movement. Bisexuals can join the queer movement. Queer is not being lesbian. Queer is not being gay…Queer is an argument against certain normativity, what a proper lesbian or gay identity is.

But it is this very inclusiveness which critics find threatening.  The lack of discrete identity qualifiers, the endless questioning of normative conventions, and the deconstruction of those norms would seem to result in nothing but unlabeled chaos.

Yet queer as an identity and as an academic approach to theology is a critical tool for understanding the multiplicity of identities which create individuals and cultures. Robert F. Goss discusses this in “Queer Theologies as Transgressive Metaphors: New Paradigms for Hybrid Sexual Theologies,” saying that “[q]ueer theorists argue that identities are always multiple, hybrid, provisional, or composite in which an infinite number of identity markers can combine to form new sites of knowledge” (45). No person’s identity is static, and no label forms the composite sum of a population.  Queer theory helps us to refrain from tokenizing individuals through seeing them only as the archetypal representative of a label or invisibilizing their identity altogether by subsuming it into that of a larger population to which the individual may not even self-identify with.

By being committed to a queer perspective, we engage in “a constant postmodern subverting the paradigm(s) into ever-widening margins of conversation. This includes our own identity markers. Otherwise, we privilege our identity over others. Thus, ‘queering’ or transgressing the queer is concerned to include everyone and to speak for no one in particular” (Goss, 47). The praxis of queer theory was a direct outgrowth of feminist and minority culture perspectives; as such, its approach is directly linked with and advocates for social justice.

The Need for Queer Theology

The origins of prejudice against non-heterosexual identities in Christianity is generally attributed back to the six “clobber” passages. In At the Intersection of Church and Gay, Eric Rodriguez elaborates:

Six passages from the Bible (Genesis, 19:1–28; Leviticus, 18:22, 20:13; Romans, 1:26,27; I Corinthians, 6:9; I Timothy, 1:10) have generally been used to support the contention that homosexuality is a sin. Based on these passages, Christian doctrine has decreed homosexuality to be “unnatural,” a “perversion,” and an “abomination in the eyes of God” (Clark, Brown, & Hochstein, 1990; Greenberg & Bystryn, 1982; Keysor, 1979; Scanzoni & Mollenkott, 1978). While a few Christian denominations (i.e., the United Church of Christ and the Religious Society of Friends [Quakers]) view homosexuality in a more positive light, the preponderance of mainstream Christian denominations does not (Ellison, 1993; Mahaffy, 1996). In one study, 72% of Christian religious organizations surveyed condemned homosexuals and homosexuality as being an abomination (Melton, 1991).

Andrew Yip confirms this, saying “religious texts constitute the primary, though not exclusive, basis for the censure of homosexuality” (49).

One can note that negative attitudes towards queer people are endemic within Christian communities. This prejudice results in a drastically underserved population, whose unique needs as an oppressed minority culture are ignored altogether, with focus placed on “curing” the individual of their undesirable sexuality or at least invisibilizing it to the point that the individual’s sexual identity is effectively removed as something undesirable. Normative apologist approaches are equally problematic; the focus in welcoming and accepting church communities is often that of the immutable nature of sexuality and gender.

The immutability argument is great for those who fit – or are made to fit – into normative identities of straight, gay and lesbian.  Goss notes that as “scholars in religion, we have, however, fallen into a trap that makes hetero/homo gender preference exclusive metacategories of sexual identity. There are other homosexuals who do not fit into the categories of heterosexual, lesbian, and gay” (44). But for those individuals who fall outside the narrow confines of those identities – the result is that of alienation, and an understanding that in order to be welcome a person must fit in one of the small, socially defined boxes instead of being allowed to experience faith as a person with all aspects of their identity fully integrated – social, sexual, religious and so on. Goss further elaborates, speaking from his personal experience:  “Heteronormative theology excludes me except in its hermeneutics of abomination while gay normative theology excludes me in its apologetic attempts to assimilate into mainstream culture” (46).

My own personal experience has confirmed this; as a person who tried desperately to fit into the available molds presented at the cost of personal happiness. The person I am today is the result of hard-won and ongoing work, and of consciously making the decision – several times in my life – to divorce myself from a pre-existing framework which viewed me as fundamentally flawed.  Queering theology allows us to look at existing institutional prejudice, and work to dismantle oppressive systems.  Goss speaks to this:

Hopefully, we may expose all traces of privilege within our own theological discourse, any traces of American white supremacism, centrism, sexism, biphobia and transphobia. Thus we may become more responsible in making new hybrid voices accessible to ourselves, the academy, and our theological constituencies (52).

The act of queering theology is not just relevant to sexual and gender minorities, however.  It becomes a tool of much larger scope, allowing us to create space for a diverse array of individuals, regardless of their race, culture, economic status, religion, physical or mental ability, age, or any other factor which may serve as a locus of identity either to themselves or as perceived by others.

Queer theology is, at its heart, a discursive, social-justice centered, liberationist approach to matters of religion and faith. Goss notes that as an act, “[q]ueering is ultimately opening space to new immigrant identities to articulate their own perspectives” (50). Through a willingness to engage in dialogue, however challenging, we work toward making the religious experience one which has relevance to an underserved and underrepresented population. There currently exists a culture of shame which bars us from serving those who we perceive as different. Through letting go of our attachment to binary frameworks and respecting the multiplicity of identities that comprise every person’s experience, we become better advocates and allies for the populations we serve. By employing a queer perspective, we can work to reclaim theology from its service to existing systemic institutionalized prejudice. With a queer theology, we can reclaim religion and faith to serve all of humanity by radically, actively accepting every person with respect and compassion.

 

 

Works Cited

 

Rodriguez, Eric M. “At the Intersection of Church and Gay: A Review of the Psychological Research on Gay and Lesbian Christians.” Journal of Homosexuality 57.1 (2010): 5-38. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 May, 2012.

Goss, Robert F. “Queer Theologies as Transgressive Metaphors: New Paradigms for Hybrid Sexual Theologies.” Theology & Sexuality: The Journal of the Institute for the Study of Christianity & Sexuality 5.10 (1999): 43. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 May 2012.

Halperin, David M. Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography. New York: Oxford UP, 1995. Print.

Michalik, Regina. “The Desire for Philosophy: An Interview with Judith Butler.” Lolapress.org. Lola Press, 2001. Web. 15 May 2012.

Yip, Andrew K. T. “Queering Religious Texts: An Exploration of British Non-Heterosexual Christians and Muslims Strategy of Constructing Sexuality- Affirming Hermeneutics.” Sociology 39.1 (2005): 47-65. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 May 2012.

This paper was originally written for Foundations of Religious Studies and Philosophy, offered at Marylhurst University, Winter 2012.

Links between cultural attitudes towards weight and queerness

 Spirituality and Religion  1 Response »
Jan 312012
 

There's an interesting new book out called Seeking the Straight and Narrow:Weight Loss and Sexual Reorientation in Evangelical America. In it, author Lynne Gerber discusses the fascinating correlations between attitudes towards fatness and homosexuality.

In a Salon interview about the new book, she notes "If you think about what fatness and gayness represent, they are similar. One is a sort of excess; the idea that fat people have this excessive desire for food, and gay people are depicted as having this excessive sexual tendency. Excess is directly linked to social efforts to control those excesses, to get fat people down to size and gay people into the 'correct' sexual orientation." (Read full article here.)

Social efforts to control excesses, especially within a religious framework, are generally predicated on the notion that conformity is better than non-conformity. Visible deviance from the norm is often met with disdain; at the least, those who do not conform are treated as less than desirable and at the most they may be openly excluded from a group.

But what I wonder is this: why is conformity so desirable? Do we really want to just see others like ourselves? If I want to see myself reflected back, I'll go look in a mirror. The universe delights in variety; why should it be any different with people? It is our individual experiences which make us unique and beautiful creatures.

Why, then, is conformity so important?

Belonging to a group confers a sense of security. It provides us with the knowledge that there are people who know us and like us just as we are. In community, we have a validated identity and a bulwark against troubled times. However, that security can sometimes come at the sacrifice of individual identity, as individuals compromise their self-image to the will of the group.

But it doesn't have to be like that. We can create conscientious, inclusive community which delights in both the similarities and differences that we, as individuals, embody.

What do you think are some ways we can work to create truly inclusive community?

The Fallacy of Queer as Sin

 School  No Responses »
Jan 302011
 

Christianity, by and large, maintains heterosexuality as the only correct sexual orientation, defining non-heterosexual ideations and acts as sinful transgressions against the will of God. Some progressive Christian communities are changing to reflect a wider acceptance. However, in many fundamentalist and mainstream Christian communities there still remains an often unspoken pressure for queer individuals to downplay or suppress their queer selves in service to their Christian identity. Therefore, a person is forced to choose between their spiritual and sexual identities, resulting in a fragmented personal experience. Defining non-heterosexual ideations and acts as sinful is harmful to queer Christians. This definition is harmful because it confers second-class status on non-heterosexual individuals, denying them genuine integration into their religious community. Additionally, it further enforces a fragmented personal experience for said persons, resulting in an incomplete religious practice as they are not fully present in their worship of God.

Where does such a prejudice initiate, and how widespread is this belief? In At the Intersection of Church and Gay, Eric Rodriguez addresses its origins:

Six passages from the Bible (Genesis, 19:1–28; Leviticus, 18:22, 20:13; Romans, 1:26,27; I Corinthians, 6:9; I Timothy, 1:10) have generally been used to support the contention that homosexuality is a sin. Based on these passages, Christian doctrine has decreed homosexuality to be “unnatural,” a “perversion,” and an “abomination in the eyes of God” (Clark, Brown, & Hochstein, 1990; Greenberg & Bystryn, 1982; Keysor, 1979; Scanzoni & Mollenkott, 1978). While a few Christian denominations (i.e., the United Church of Christ and the Religious Society of Friends [Quakers]) view homosexuality in a more positive light, the preponderance of mainstream Christian denominations does not (Ellison, 1993; Mahaffy, 1996). In one study, 72% of Christian religious organizations surveyed condemned homosexuals and homosexuality as being an abomination (Melton, 1991).

One can note that negative attitudes towards queer people are endemic within Christian communities, and the people who perhaps suffer most from these prejudices are queer Christians.

For the purposes of this essay, the term “queer” is used as a catch-all for individuals who self-identify with a sexual orientation other than heterosexual, and is used interchangeably with the phrase “non-heterosexual ideations and acts.” The meaning of sin is, at first glance, simple: The Collins English Dictionary defines sin as a “transgression of God’s known will or any principle or law regarded as embodying this.” In most cases, something that is sinful is a verb – an act, such as thievery or lying. When applied to non-heterosexual ideations and acts, however, sin also becomes a noun, defining queer identified people as sinful. Labeling a crucial aspect of an individual’s identity as sinful revokes their ability to seek absolution; in being queer, they are always fallen from grace, with no hope of redemption.

This can precipitate a crisis for the queer Christian: as a Christian, they seek to do the will of God and free themselves from sin; and as a queer, they are forever in a state of sin, and cannot therefore adhere to the will of God. Such a situation leaves an individual with few choices, and they must either suppress an aspect of their identity or find a way to integrate them by redefining both the queer and Christian aspects in a positive light. The personal integration of fragmented individual identities does not happen without the aid of one’s community, however, so an individual thus conflicted must either find existing queer-positive Christian community or be within a community which is open to this change.

Being subject to the censure of one’s religious community for the way in which one loves is no easy thing. As Alison Webster notes in Queer to be Religious: Lesbian Adventures Beyond the Christian/Post-Christian Dichotomy, many people within the larger queer population “…share an assumption that there is something a little odd, if not masochistic, about a Christian affiliation, however ambiguous and of whatever kind” (29).  She then goes on to say that “on the other hand there is, of course, the more obvious pressure from within the Christian community. The agenda here is that to remain within the Christian fold you must give up lesbianism. The more conservative the Christianity, the more explicit this pressure becomes, but it is certainly present within liberal strains of Christianity too” (30). One might ask why queer Christians don’t remove religion from their identity altogether, and thus forego so much suffering. While the reasons queer Christians don’t leave their religions behind is unique to the individual, it does still come down to being forced to choose between aspects of their self image: the queer or the Christian. Leaving a religious practice altogether is no healthier than suppressing one’s sexual orientation and either choice can negatively affect a person’s self esteem and ability to function in society.

Not only will this crisis affect an individual’s self image; when placed between the proverbial rock and hard place of choosing between their queer identity and their spiritual self, a person’s faith may also be adversely impacted. While the Christian religions say that they are but human agents seeking to best fulfill the will and word of God, in many cases individuals within Christian communities consider the particular doctrine of their church to be the perfect and infallible word of God, and therefore uncontestable.  If a person is told, by word and deed, that they are not worthy of God’s love by members of their religious community, then they may begin to question the validity of an ongoing relationship with God altogether. They may opt to suppress their faith entirely.  At the very least, the preoccupation of being convinced they are not worthy of God’s love may turn a faith that should be a source of love, strength and renewal into one of desperation, misery and depression.

Defining queer identity as sinful is also problematic within the larger Christian community. By classifying queer people as perpetually in a state of sin, they are denied inclusion into their Christian community as true peers. Because they cannot be absolved of their sin short of eschewing a portion of their self-identity altogether, queer individuals are not allowed to join in their religious group as true brethren who have been forgiven of their sins and enveloped in God’s love.  Queer Christians therefore become second-class citizens in their community – a community which offers no pastoral or spiritual care for their unique needs.  For queer people in a homophobic and heterosexist world, there are issues specific to their experience including: supportive queer youth groups; adoption; marriage and domestic partnership resources; elder care, both physical and spiritual, and so on. When a Christian community is not prepared to deal with these issues from a queer perspective, the assistance that they can offer becomes less relevant – and, in some cases, downright harmful, as the queer Christian is often forced to downplay or suppress their identity in favor of receiving access to pastoral services and care.

For queer Christians, it is imperative that the definition of sin is revised so it no longer includes non-heterosexual acts and ideations. The definition is nothing but harmful to queer Christians, causing unnecessary anguish as the queer Christian is forced to either choose between their queer identity or spiritual self or remove themselves from their religious community of choice in order to find a gay-positive church congregation. Further, the definition of queer as sinful is harmful to the Christian community, as it denies the genuine inclusion of diverse members who also are drawn to worship within a Christian framework. In denying or being merely tolerant of queer Christians, the religious community forsakes the gift of a varied and vibrant congregation.

There exists a dual rift: that between the queer person and their Christian self, and that between the queer Christian and their larger Christian community. In order to heal these rifts, the negative association of queer as sin needs to be removed. As long as non-heterosexual acts and ideations are considered abominations by Christian organizations, there is no way that their queer congregants will achieve a healthy integration of their personal identities and into their religious community.  By considering queer people in a positive light rather than a negative one, Christian communities open the door to creating truly welcoming community for every person, regardless of their identity.

 

Works Cited

Rodriguez, Eric M. “At the Intersection of Church and Gay: A Review of the Psychological Research on Gay and Lesbian Christians.” Journal of Homosexuality 57.1 (2010): 5-38. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 26 Jan. 2011.

“sin.” Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. HarperCollins Publishers. Web. 29 Jan. 2011.

Webster, Alison. “Queer to be Religious: Lesbian Adventures Beyond the Christian/Post-Christian Dichotomy.” Theology & Sexuality: The Journal of the Institute for the Study of Christianity & Sexuality 4.8 (1998): 27. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 26 Jan. 2011.

~~~~

This essay was originally composed for WR 223 E, taught by Susan Denning at Marylhurst University, Winter Term 2011.

 

Cad tá agam?

 Spirituality and Religion, The Journey  No Responses »
Nov 302010
 

Let’s start with what you know, Nik. When you were a child, you wanted to be a priest. Well, sure. You also wanted to be an astronaut, a rockstar, president, and a superhero. Somewhere along the line, you realized or were told that you couldn’t be a priest, and thought that nun maybe sounded nice, although it didn’t fill the same spot. The image of being cloistered away praying for the salvation of the world or quietly performing social service didn’t sound as right as a more active ministry. And you still thought being a superhero sounded cool.

Okay. So somewhere along the line, you realize that maybe Catholicism isn’t such a good match – or at least not the as-told-to-me-by-Rome version you’re raised in. You seek a little further afield, and think that you might find a home within another Christian denomination – say Southern Baptist. You take the bus clear across town to go to church, and the people are all very nice (as well as several tax brackets above your own). You’re a girl, but you can still do missionary work, or better yet, marry a nice boy and become a missionary’s wife. You’ll be serving (people who didn’t ask for it in the first place) by saving souls (into a faith which doesn’t necessarily have any resonance or relevance to their everyday life) from eternal damnation (a concept which you increasingly consider to be an abstraction) by accepting Jesus Christ into their hearts as their personal Lord and Savior (as you’re thinking about personal culpability and the need for people to save themselves.)

Well, hell (that place you’re not sure you believe in anyway.) This isn’t really working out at all – especially with this growing sense of personal identity that you’re starting to come to grips with. A problem indeed, in the framework you were raised with, and while you’ve suppressed or ignored it for a long time, the fact is that you’re not heterosexual. Or cisgendered. Mmm, now that is a quandary, as everything religion has ever told you says that you’re going to hell (there’s that place again) simply by virtue of being who you are.

Maybe this religion thing isn’t for you, after all, and maybe you can fulfil your call to serve others through social work, or activism, or volunteerism. Maybe you just need to go play some more video games and save the world that way. Regardless, you’ve got other things to worry about right now, like how to integrate this identity into your world, how you’re going to live, and how you’re going to stay alive and sane. Happiness comes in pieces with a developing sense of authentic self, contentment with building community, adventure and creativity and doing things for the first time that you never thought you would do because you were too afraid of what others might think. Personal responsibility is pretty neat stuff. And it’s a long road, but you’re also working on what personal responsibility means, and it comes to mean compassion and acceptance and respect. You consider love to be central to your life, and believe wholeheartedly in the inherent goodness of humankind.

And you’re starting to raise the lid on Pandora’s box of religion again. You’ve peeked in a few times over the years, and found a seething mass of anger, confusion, process – streaked with a deep affinity for the rituals to which you were first exposed, passion in faith, a buoyant  joyfulness in moments of connection with everything, richness of community and unconditional love. But you’re stoic about this, because this stuff can make you into a sullen tear-streaked teenager again without much work; you left this behind years ago (didn’t you?) and you’ve been told time and again (by other people) that you can’t be authentically you and still have faith.

So why are you prying at this, scratching like a not-quite-healed scab that itches? Slather it with some lotion, pop some ibuprofen, and move on. Deaden the nerves and don’t feel it, don’t process it, don’t dare to be moved by it. Mask the problem by suppressing the symptoms.

But the problem is still there. And it’s manifest in a growing realization of personal fragmentation – a sense that you’re not whole, that by not being true to yourself in all areas of your life you’re short-changing yourself. You’re not living up to your full potential, which means you’re not taking the best care of yourself which means you can’t take the best care of others. So you’ve come late but at last to school again, and you’ve been sitting with this and talking this and taking that word – faith – out and polishing it by squeaks and starts and seeing if it fits. Removing religion as you know it from the association, and finding other words – spirituality, interdependence, co-creation, creative manifestation, loonyverse. You’re framing your feelings and experiences with words, learning to articulate this mess, untie the Gordian knot and, perhaps, make a tapestry.

And that desire/need/call/passion (what is it?) to serve (how?) humanity/the greater good (what is that?) /the loonyverse/ all of us together, everyone (that’s a tall order)/ people, queer people (every single one?)/ people struggling to reconnect, people looking to find their authentic selves, people hungry for faith in something (I don’t care what you believe so long as you believe it and don’t harm others in the practice)/ humankind-unplugging-defragmentation-reconnecting-creating/re-creating/recreating-joyful-present-interconnection/we’re all in this boat together people. One person at a time, one connection at a time, one moment at a time, one breath at a time, making this world a better place. For all of us. Together.

 

 

Free of Sin: Eckankar and Queer

 School, Spirituality and Religion  No Responses »
Aug 252010
 

I. Eckankar: The Light and Sound of God

Come to modern form in the fertile grounds of the new age spiritual practices of the 1960s, Eckankar melds its roots in Indian Radhasoami (Olson, 1995, p. 363) traditions with Western religious beliefs. The term Eckankar likely comes from the Sikh phrase Ek Onkar, which means “one God” (Kalsi, 2005, p. 224).Paul Twitchell, the founder of Eckankar, is considered to be the 971st spiritual leader of Eck – also known as the Mahanta, or “living manifestation of God” (Robinson, 2007, ¶ 3). Eckankar claims to be the first religion, from which all others are drawn from, with the unbroken lineage of Mahantas keeping its teachings alive through time. After translation (death), the Mahanta’s soul advances to a higher spiritual plain where they continue to learn and teach, much like the Ascended Masters of Theosophy, as “advanced spiritual beings who once lived on earth” (Chryssides, 2005, p. 442).

Each person has an eternal Soul, “a particle of God sent into the lower worlds (including earth) to gain spiritual experience” (Eckankar, 2003, p. 1).  Eckists believe in reincarnation and a karmic cycle, and trust that through conscious spiritual exercise they can reach a state of spiritual enlightenment, both in this life and the next, where they become “Co-workers with God” (Eckankar, 2010, ¶ 6). Soul travel, dream work, and guardian spirits are also important facets of the Eckist teachings.

Eckankar recognizes the validity of other religions as ways to spiritual enlightenment, but says that Eckankar provides “the most direct teachings on the Light and Sound of God” (Eckankar, 2010, ¶ 7), the two pillars of Eckist faith. There is no doctrine of sin, with Eckankar teaching a lesson of personal responsibility, advising that one follow the guidelines established by Richard J. Maybury: “1) Do all you have agreed to do and 2) Do not encroach on other persons or their property” (Eckankar, 2003, p. 6). Membership is renewed yearly, and is estimated at upwards of 50,000 active members in over a hundred countries worldwide (ReligionFacts, 2008, ¶2).

II. Life without Compromises: Queer and Eckist

For this paper, I interviewed Frank Martorelli, the Regional ECK Spiritual Aide (RESA) – or spiritual director – of Washington State, and discussed what it meant to be both queer and spiritual. Frank was first introduced to Eckankar in 1976, shortly after graduating from college. He had been raised Catholic, and felt keenly the dissonance between his personal need for a spiritual practice and his identity as a gay man. Regretfully, Frank distanced himself from the Church. He explored various spiritual teachings, and found a wide array of beliefs which resonated with him. Frank says that “this included the ideas of reincarnation and past lives, karma, out-of-body experience, dreams, visions, meditation and contemplation, intuition, light, sound, spiritual guides and teachers, and others…. and they are all integral to the teachings of Eckankar.”

Through Eckankar, Frank found a spiritual home which he continues to value more than thirty years later. In 1999, Frank was asked to step up to the position of RESA by Sri Harold Klemp, the current Mahanta. Frank describes the honor, saying “[Sri Harold Klemp] was aware that I am gay when he invited me to serve in this position, and it has been deeply humbling to think that, as a gay man, I would be serving in this way.  I simply did not grow up with the message that ‘gay’ and ‘spiritual’ were in any way compatible. The [Catholic] church taught that I was an abomination, condemned to hell.  To have found a teaching that not only does not espouse this message, but actually teaches the opposite, is a great blessing to me.”

As we continued to discuss what it means to be openly queer and spiritual, Frank mentioned the importance of individual choice and responsibility for followers of Eckankar. He notes that identifying as queer or transgender is seen as a personal decision and that Eckankar “as an organization takes no stance.  I know many ECKists who are gay/queer, and also have an ECK friend who is considering SRS[1].  This again is a personal decision, and Eckankar takes no stance either for or against.”

When it comes to gay marriage, though, Eckankar does take a legal stance, albeit one which follows the laws of the local government. Frank elaborates: “In areas where gay marriage is legal, Eckankar allows and performs same-sex weddings. In areas where gay marriage is not legal, Eckankar does not perform same-sex weddings.” Eckankar makes this distinction out of respect for the rules of government. Frank also touched on the fact that not all individual Eckists are accepting of queer people, but that his overall experience as an openly gay man within the Eckankar community has been positive.

When asked if he would recommend Eckankar as a spiritual home for queer people, his response was enthusiastic. “Eckankar is a beautiful spiritual teaching and all are welcome…. No matter who you are, no matter your lifestyle, Eckankar is not here to put any more labels on you. Eckankar is here to help people find their way home to God again.  It is a teaching rooted in love, not fear or condemnation. Would I recommend Eckankar to others in our community?  Absolutely!”

III. Queer People: Human or Devil? Other Religious Views

The challenges of finding a spiritual home for a queer person can be many, as Frank experienced. In many religions, a person can be seen as inherently sinful simply for identifying as other than heterosexual or cisgendered[2]. Many Christian denominations still believe in ‘traditional family values’ which declare marriage (and, perforce, sex) for any purpose other than begetting offspring and homosexuality as sinful (Woodhead, 2005, p. 340 & 343). Zoroastrianism, while not possessing a doctrine of sin, also places emphasis on procreation being the focus of marriage (Hinnells, 2005, p. 250). Even the Bahá’í faith, a newer religion with strong focus on humanitarian issues, strongly encourages members of the faith to commit to a heterosexual marriage with the aim of procreation (Momen, 2005, p. 427).

By and large, it is not until one approaches religion either from the ancient past or looks at modern developments that one sees a space where it is safe to be perceived as openly queer. Ancient Rome is notable in its laissez-faire attitudes towards homosexual expression (Smith, 2005, p. 79), although its policy changed with the death of the Classical age and the birth of the Holy Roman Empire. As Christianity gained a hold on Rome, homosexuality was deemed a sin punishable by death (ReligionFacts, 2005, ¶ 8). In many world religions, having a queer identity became analogous to being at best, a damned soul, and at worst, a willing creature of the Devil. This attitude was prevalent through the late twentieth century, and can still be witnessed in many religions today.

IV. Finding a Spiritual Home in Eckankar

The options of finding a relevant spiritual practice for an openly queer person are more numerous now than ever, although it still remains a challenge within the framework of many modern religions. In closing our discussion, Frank shared with me a passage from We Come as Eagles by Sri Harold Klemp:

Many of us grew up under strict moral codes, both religious and societal. The moral code of the religions taught that love between people of the same sex was very wrong. But with the more open consciousness of today, we find that people of the same sex do love each other, and often more truly than do many people of the opposite sex.  So we realize, finally, that love loves, without regard for human opinion and human laws.

Eckankar clearly provides a welcoming atmosphere for queer identified people. Perhaps it is with eyes looking forward to new religions and those that are open to progressive change that some queer people may find the best answer for their spiritual homes. Such religions may be less likely to judge a person on the basis of perceived labels and to accept a person as they are, for who they are – a spiritual seeker.

 

Bibliography

Chryssides, G. (2005). New religious movements. In C. Partridge (1st Ed), Introduction to world religions (p. 440-445). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Eckankar (2003). About Eckankar: An overview of Eckankar and its teachings. Chanhassen, MN: Eckankar.

Eckankar (2010). Official main site of Eckankar, religion of the light and sound of God. Retrieved Aug 15, 2010 from http://www.eckankar.org/

Kalsi, S.S. (2005). Sikhism: Beliefs. In C. Partridge (1st Ed), Introduction to world religions (p. 224-227). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Klemp, H. (1994). We come as eagles: discover your greatness as Soul. Chanhassen, MN: Eckankar.

Momen, M. (2005). The Bahá’í faith: Family and society. In C. Partridge (1st Ed), Introduction to world religions (p. 427-431). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Olson, R. E. (1995). Eckankar: From ancient science of soul travel to new age religion. In T. Miller, America’s Alternative Religions (p. 363-370). New York: State University of New York Press.

ReligionFacts (2008). Eckankar. Retrieved Aug 15, 2010 from: http://www.religionfacts.com/a-z-religion-index/eckankar.htm

ReligionFacts (2005). Timeline of homosexuality. Retrieved Aug 15, 2010 from: http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/timeline.htm

Robinson, B.A. (2007). Eckankar™ religion of the light and sound of God. Retrieved Aug 15, 2010 from http://www.religioustolerance.org/eck.htm

Smith, C.C. (2005). The ancient religions of Greece and Rome. In C. Partridge (1st Ed), Introduction to world religions (p. 74-88). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Wilhelm, N. (2010). TransEnough lexicon. Retrieved Aug 15, 2010 from: http://transenough.com/2010/01/21/transenough-lexicon/

Woodhead, L. (2005). Christianity: Family and society. In C. Partridge (1st Ed), Introduction to world religions (p. 340-343). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

[1] SRS: Also sexual reassignment surgery. A term for the surgery or surgeries wherein a person’s physical characteristics are altered to better match their gender identity. (Wilhelm, N., 2010)

[2] Cisgendered: A person whose assigned gender is synchronous with their gender identity. (Wilhelm, N., 2010)

~~~~

This paper was written for Theology 301: Comparative Religions, taught by Dr. Lioy at Marylhurst University, Summer 2010.

 

Spiritual and Queer – What Does It Mean?

 Spirituality and Religion, The Journey  No Responses »
Aug 122010
 

If someone asks what I believe, I’ll answer depending on the context with everything from recovering Catholic to humanist to cautious believer in the sometimes great is. Or flying spaghetti monster higher power thingy that cannot be intuited whatever.  If they ask if I’ve accepted Jesus Christ into my heart as my lord and savior, the answer doesn’t bear repeating. I left a regular religious practice behind with my hometown, and haven’t regretted it; just about every major religion I’ve come across to date either has politics I cannot support or says, in one way or another, that I’m going to hell for being who I am: a poly, kinky, trans and queer person.  And if I’ve sometimes wondered or thought, well, there are plenty of other things to wonder, think and dream of in this world, and the lack of a spiritual practice is a small loss.

So I must be some kind of masochist (big stretch, that) to choose to attend a university founded by Catholic nuns that still has a very strong Catholic identification, right? This door was closed, this past done when I left my involvement in the church choir, the smell of incense, the measured processionals, the Nicene creed, the cult of saint worship, the daily recitation of the rosary and contemplation of the mysteries, the beautiful stained glass, Christ on the cross, stigmata, bleeding, thorns, confessions, pierced flesh, transmutation of the host, Latin hymns, community, Our Lady of Sorrows, the hierarchy of angels, the levels of hell, the mystery, the passion, the faith, the practice.

And I did. I did leave it behind for my personal happiness, my sanity, my health, my growth. I left behind a Pope who says that anyone supporting the ordination of women should be excommunicated, that aided in suppressing the sexual abuse of children by priests, the doctrine of fear, the hatred of that which is different, the conservative values, the idea that safer sex is a sin, sex outside of marriage is a sin, being queer is a sin, sex for sex sake is a sin, that kink is a sin, that polyamory is a sin, that I could not be ordained because of my assigned gender at birth, that if I were ordained I would have to give my life entirely over to God and never know love past that of agape. I left behind the idea that I am a weak creature, born of deceit and steeped in sin, and that I can never be anything more except by divorcing myself entirely from this life in contemplative preparation of the next.

This life is not just suffering.

This life is a gift, it is beauty and growth and change. This life is a blessing, and I cannot support a religion that forces me to choose between my health and love of this world and all the myriad creatures contained therein and its rules. I will not and cannot box myself, hide or suppress myself to meet someone else’s standards of what is morally right and wrong, and I will especially not support the practice of condemning others for taking care of themselves and their communities and seeking their authentic happinesses, so long as they bring no willful harm to themselves or others. I am me, whole, complete – mind, body and spirit, and any religious practice in which I was involved would have to welcome that and be one I could support in mind, body and spirit.

Whether I like it or not, this is a discourse that is going to keep coming up – in each and every class I take, at the least. It is generally rare to get the opportunity to talk about such subjects to the depth that I would wish in that kind of setting, too – as I am often the only visibly (or vocally) queer person in a small class of mostly religiously minded folk, I may as well be a fish speaking in bubbles to a flock of birds. I have a growing need to dialogue about what religion and spiritual practice as a queer person means – to talk about where people make concessions and if they think they are, gnaw around politics versus faith, attitudes and scripture, renewals of spiritual practice, practicing what one preaches and how to do it without preaching, the mysteries, the rituals, the sexual appeal, holistic approaches – how a person can be both queer and spiritual, or if it’s even worth the trouble.

So I’m putting this out there as a kind of feeler – is this something you would be interested in? Let me know. If you’ve got ideas on what format it could take, let me know. I would really love for this to be an ongoing dialogue with a wider community than what I’ve got rolling around in my head, would love to get excited and passionate and pull out books and compare research and bullshit and soapbox and dialogue with you. Let me know.

 


Practical Applications of Catholic Philosophy: Joan of Arc

 Gender, School, Spirituality and Religion  No Responses »
May 012010
 

The trial of Joan of Arc was politically motivated, but the reason for which she was burned at the stake – the sin of assuming male garb and taking on a man’s role – was a response to the rigidly hierarchical philosophy upon which the Church’s authority rested. The power of the Catholic Church was drawn from a dualistic view of the universe, where Man (not woman) had been created in God’s image. There was that which was good: God; Heaven; the angels and saints; contentment in one’s status; man in his contemplation of the divine and battling the forces of evil. As with any dichotomy, they had their evil counterparts: the Devil; Hell; demons and sinners; rebellion or disregard for established order; woman and her preoccupation with the sins of the flesh.  Joan, an illiterate peasant woman who dressed in men’s clothing, claimed direct divine guidance, and charismatic leader of a series of stunning French victories over the English, was a direct threat to the authority of the Church.

According to the Church, the consequences for blatantly disregarding all restrictions of gender, class, and economic status were disaster, ruin, and the loss of one’s soul. Joan’s blazing success told a different tale: that one could change their stars, that one’s destiny was not defined by birth, and that a person could receive revelatory guidance outside of the auspices of the Church.

Roots of Catholic Dualism: Socrates to Augustine

As a Classic philosopher concerned with the true (enduring) nature of all things, Socrates posited that bodily injury or loss of possessions is ephemeral and real harm can only occur in corruption of the soul. Plato further developed Socrates’ notion of abstract, timeless and universal truths and applied it to all of reality. Bryan Magee (2001) comments on this: “Everything, without exception, in this world of ours he regarded as being an ephemeral, decaying copy of something whose ideal form (hence the terms Ideal and Form) has a permanent and indestructible existence outside space and time.” (p. 27) Socrates and Plato were often referred to as “Christians before Christ” and many people believed that they laid the philosophical ground for the coming of Christ.

These philosophies directly influenced the development of Christian beliefs. The New Testament was originally written in Greek, and many early Christian thinkers worked to reconcile the revelations of their religion with Plato’s main doctrines. Foremost among these early Christian thinkers was Saint Augustine, who successfully applied the philosophies of Socrates and Plato to Church theology.

A gifted writer and critical thinker, it was no great feat for Augustine to utilize the philosophies developed by Plato as proofs for Church theology. Plato’s Ideals obviously spoke of Heaven, in its enduring truth; the fact that the mortal world is in a constant state of decay invoked the evil and corrupting influence of the devil, and that man’s best work was found in contemplating the eternal could easily be taken as a quest for the divine. In further support of this, Plato eschewed acts of art, as he felt they were illusory – ephemera aping ephemera, and distracting from the ultimate duty of the individual, which was to detach from the imperfections of this life and instead contemplate (and prepare for) the ideal universe.

It was upon these beliefs that the Church developed: a yin/yang dualism of good versus evil in every facet, and a hierarchy of power descending directly from the Lord God, through the Pope to the cardinals, bishops, and priests, who acted as shepherds for their ignorant laity. The devil and his agents continually laid plans against the church, seeking to disrupt all, and bring terror, evil and absolute chaos to humanity. The authority of the Church therefore rested on its ability to keep their congregation in line and their souls out of immortal peril, which they did by stressing the need for strict adherence to conformity. The risks for straying from the flock were both spiritual and physical; a person who threw aside their foreordained destiny not only placed their soul in jeopardy but also courted public repudiation and the attention of the Inquisition. By exercising absolute physical, mental, and spiritual control over the consequences of every significant decision an individual could make, the Church effectively kept their immense flock in check.

Cross-Gender Expression and the Church

The penalty for stepping outside one’s assigned gender roles was clearly outlined by the Church: “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) Evidence suggests that this was in response to the carryover of pre-Christian beliefs which espoused a less absolutist philosophy in matters of gender roles in sacred space. In Transgender Warriors, Leslie Feinberg notes “in 691 C.E. the Council of Constantinople decreed: ‘We forbid dances and initiation rites of the ‘gods’ as they are falsely called among the Greeks, since, whether by men or women, they are done according to an ancient custom contrary to the Christian way of life, and we decree that no man shall put on a woman’s dress nor a woman, clothes that belong to men.’” (p. 68) To transgress established gender roles was to subvert the order of God, and therefore a transgression of the soul.

The Nature of Women

In Christian theology, woman has been considered sinful from the moment Eve offered the apple to Adam, the belief of which was notably endorsed by the Dominican philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas. Credited with successfully integrating Aristotle’s philosophy with the theology of the Church, Aquinas also drew upon Aristotle’s thoughts on the nature of woman to further support the Church’s hierarchy of power.

The fact is, the nature of man is the most rounded off and complete, and consequently in man the qualities or capacities above referred to are found in their perfection. Hence woman is more compassionate than man, more easily moved to tears, at the same time is more jealous, more querulous, more apt to scold and to strike. She is, furthermore, more prone to despondency and less hopeful than the man, more void of shame or self-respect, more false of speech, more deceptive, and of more retentive memory. She is also more wakeful, more shrinking, more difficult to rouse to action, and requires a smaller quantity of nutriment. (Book IX)

Aquinas agreed with this supposition, stating that women should be ruled by men, as they were by nature the weaker sex. Furthermore, he posited that in a state of perfection, there would be no need for women, and in De Veritate noted “if there were no other natural influence at work tending toward the conception of female offspring, such conception would be wholly outside the design of nature, as is the case with what we call ‘monstrous’ births.”(Question 5) Therefore, said Aquinas, a godly man best puts woman aside and contemplates the divine, away from her corrupting influence. This attitude towards women remains pervasive in the Catholic Church even today, and can be seen reflected in such matters as the refusal to allow priests to marry and the right of women to become ordained ministers.

The Life and Death of Joan of Arc

In 1412, Joan was born an illiterate child of French peasantry amidst the ravages of the Hundred Years’ War. At the age of twelve, she began experiencing visions urging her to save France from its English oppressors. She continued to receive these promptings for several years, and in 1429, at the age of seventeen, obtained an audience with Charles VII, heir to the French throne, and won his favor. Charles granted her leadership within the French army as well as the right to bear arms and dress in masculine clothing, and she repaid his confidence by leading her soldiers in a series of conclusive victories, enabling Charles to be crowned as king of France a month later.

Joan’s mercurial rise to success through the liberation of much of France from England’s yoke and her absolute faith in the divinity of her mission won her the absolute love of the populace. Peasantry would crowd her everywhere she went seeking to touch her clothing and armour, believing her to be imbued with healing powers. Leslie Feinberg refers to this in Article II of the Articles of Accusations from Joan’s trial: “Item, they said Joan by her inventions has seduced the Catholic people, many in her presence adored her as a saint … even more, they declared her the greatest of all the saints after the holy Virgin….” (p. 35)

The fall of Joan’s star from ascendancy was both abrupt and tragic. In 1430, Joan was captured and handed over to the English. King Charles VII, whose coronation had been made possible by Joan, left her to her fate. For nine months, Joan was kept brutally confined, shackled by her neck, hands, and feet to stand upright in a small iron cage before being brought to trial by the Inquisition on charges of witchcraft and the heresy of assuming masculine garb and role.  While the charges of witchcraft were dropped, the Church remained firm in its accusations towards Joan’s cross-gendered expression, just as Joan remained firm in her God-granted right to dress as she pleased. Feinberg notes that “even though she knew her defiance meant she was considered damned, Joan’s testimony in her own defense revealed how deeply her cross-dressing was rooted in her identity. ‘For nothing in the world,’ she declared, ‘will I swear not to arm myself and put on a man’s dress.’” (p. 35)

While Joan’s refusal to put aside masculine dress and mannerisms was the pretext for her death, it is apparent that the real reason was that she was a symbol of truths which threatened the power of the Church. Joan, in spite of being of the weaker sex, in spite of being illiterate, a peasant, and not especially favored by the Church nevertheless rose to temporal power, claimed a divine mission, and, whilst cross-dressing, freed a significant portion of French from England’s grasp. The ability to do any one of these things without the Church’s implicit sanction would raise questions; when taken together, Joan’s end was self-evident. Joan was burned at the stake, and then her remains burned twice more and dumped in the river to prevent relic collection by the faithful, her death an object lesson to those who would seek to do otherwise than conform.

REFERENCES

Aristotle. The History of Animals (Book IX). Retrieved May, 1, 2010, from http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/history_anim.mb.txt

Aquinas, T.  De Veritate (Question 5). Retrieved May 1, 2010, from http://dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer5.htm

Feinberg, L. (1996). Transgender warriors: Making history from Joan of Arc to Dennis Rodman. Boston: Beacon Press.

Magee, B. (2001). The story of philosophy. New York: DK Publishing, Inc.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Attwater, D. (1970). The penguin dictionary of saints. Middlesex, England: Penguin Book Ltd.

DeVries, K. (2008, January). Joan of Arc. Military History, 26-35. Retrieved April 30, 2010, from: http://0-search.ebscohost.com.shoen.iii.com:80/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=28099925&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Freeman, J. (2008, August). Joan of Arc – Soldier, saint, symbol – of what? Journal of Popular Culture,  601-634. Retrieved April 30, 2010, from: http://0-search.ebscohost.com.shoen.iii.com:80/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=33158817&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Gordon, M. (2000, March 10). Desperately seeking Joan: Woman behind the hype. Commonweal, 11-13. Retrieved April 30, 2010, from: http://0-search.ebscohost.com.shoen.iii.com:80/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=2882670&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Scott-Dixon, K. (2006). Cross purposes: A short history of cross-dressing women. Herizons, 24-27. Retrieved April 30, 2010, from: http://0-search.ebscohost.com.shoen.iii.com:80/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=21923300&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Sircee, A. (2010, January). Exceptional Joan. Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity, 25. Retrieved April 30, 2010, from: http://0-search.ebscohost.com.shoen.iii.com:80/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=47731673&site=ehost-live&scope=site

—

This was originally written for Philosophy 201 at Marylhurst University.

 Older Entries