I’m
going to say this, despite whatever social and professional consequences may
come with it. I am a Black Baptist minister, a scholar, and an Ally to the
LGBTQ community. And as a minister in the Black Church, a scholar and Ally, I
believe many in the Christian tradition, particularly in the “Black Church,”
have gotten it wrong when it comes to “Queer”[1]
relationships. The recent SCOTUS ruling has ignited several people from within
the Black Church tradition – many of whom have been silent on the recent issues
of race and the destruction of black bodies – causing them to speak out about
how sinful our nation is, or how we "need Jesus." Really? Too many of us are
still unduly homophobic, and consequently fail to see how more nuanced thinking
about sexual ethics can contribute to much needed liberation in our communities.
Many
may experience dissonance when they hear me say that I am both a Baptist
minister and a straight ally to the LGBTQ community. For far too long, far too
many people in the Christian community have assumed homo, bi, and other forms
of sexual orientation and expression are inherently sinful. In the Black
Church especially, there seems to be an assumed agreement that any erotic
relationship that does not privilege sex between a man and a woman, within the
confines of a heterosexual marriage, is and always will be sin… no ifs, ands or
buts about it. The justification of this belief comes from the bible, where it
is relatively widely assumed that “God’s word” speaks clearly on this topic. Not
so. A more critical and nuanced look into this issue reveals that much of this
homophobic conservatism not only comes from a misreading, misunderstanding and
misappropriation of scripture, but that it also comes from a failure to
recognize how our own sociocultural history has shaped how we think about
sexual ethics in this country.
First
of all, the bible does not speak that clearly on homoeroticism. In actuality, the
concepts of “homosexual” and “heterosexual” were not coined until Dr. James G.
Kiernan imagined these terms in an article written in 1892. Funny enough,
“heterosexual” was seen then as a mental illness that included “inclinations to both
sexes,” while “homosexual” signified one whose “general mental state is that of
the opposite sex.”[2]
As various sexual revolutions moved us away from the assumption that sex should
only be about procreation, these concepts continued to evolve in their meaning,
giving us our current understandings of these and other terms we use to
categorize our sexualities. The point here is not to give a full history of
these terms, but simply to show their constructed nature. Therefore, we should
be careful when imposing these concepts onto the bible because their
understanding of sexual ethics in biblical contexts was very different from
the way we understand it today. To argue that passages, in the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) for
example, condemn “homo” or “bi” sexual orientations – or their erotic
expression – is to ignore the fact that much of ancient Jewish law was in
keeping with the perceived promise that God would make Abraham the “father of
many nations.” In other words, Israel’s guiding ethic for all of life was to
become a nation among nations; sexual ethics included. Thus, any form of sexual
expression that did not contribute directly to the procreation necessary for a
small group of people to “fill the earth” was deemed an abomination. In sum, if
the bible does say something about “men sleeping with men” – which it does – it
does so with the specific agenda of procreation in mind, not with concerns of erotic
orientation or expression. Our contextual and historical needs are different
from ancient Israel, and these agendas are always operative in the ways
communities have understood their faiths.
Secondly,
let’s take a step further back. If we are going to think about sexual ethics in
more nuanced and critical ways, we MUST acknowledge the nature of the bible
more broadly. Yes, I know it is “inspired” and “God breathed.” I get it. That’s
fine. But let’s stop and think for a minute about what that means. Does it mean
that the men[3]
who wrote these narratives were in some sort of trance, under the control of
God’s spirit? Does it mean that, while they were writing these accounts of
God’s activity in the world, they were suspended of their cultural realities?
Was God literally using their bodies to write these narratives? I think not,
and interestingly enough, the bible – or its narratives – never claims to be
literally written by God. In fact, its authors regularly acknowledge their own
input and interpretations within. Now, this is not to say that the bible is any
less “inspired,” or even that God isn’t in some way central to its authorship. It is to
say, however, that we cannot assume that we can understand its message without also
understanding its cultural and historical context. We can also not ignore the
processes of canonization, which always functioned as a way to centralize
religious and political power. Canonization has caused many to assume that we
don’t need any other theories or discourses to understand the world, when ironically even
those who make this claim use other theories regularly. Again, this doesn’t
mean God was not involved in some way. But it does mean that human hands have
left an indelible print on it as well… And that’s okay. Such is, and always has
been the nature of all religious faith and sacred texts.
Lastly,
and most specifically to the Black Church, we MUST acknowledge the ways our
specific history in this country has shaped our thinking on sexual ethics.
Kelly Brown Douglas has been one of the leading scholars in showing how the theology
in the Black Church has been heavily informed by an (unconscious?) appeal to
respectability among those who have desired to be seen as pleasing in the sight
of dominant culture. She also helps us see the ways in which the history of
sexualized stereotypes leveled against black men and women have caused a
destructive silence among the black community on issues of sexuality. Such
stereotypes date back to slavery, and were used to justify the raping of black
women and the castration of black men. These stereotypes have been reproduced
in our contemporary context, and still function to make us “behave” according
to the gaze of dominant culture. In other words, there are social consequences
for being seen as a “hoe/welfare queen” (read: jezebel, etc), or a
“thug/rapist” (read: oversexualized buck). Let me say it more plainly… The
Puritan “Christian” values (which normalized a narrow expression of sexuality)
that got to define sexuality early on in this country, coupled with the history
of racism and (sexual) assaults on black bodies, along with the stronghold of a
biblical tradition that too many have been afraid to question (read:
challenge), has all come together to create a complicated sexual existence for
many (black) people of faith who have been told in explicit and subliminal ways
that living into the fullness of their sexuality… that exploring their sexual
selves… that expressing their sexual desires before, or outside of the confines of (heterosexual) marriage…
that engaging in homo- or poly-erotic sexualities, even if mutually consenting
and fulfilling… that all these forms of sexuality and sexual expression are…
simply put… SIN!!
We
need to nuance that a bit, because I’m not so sure these are always, and in
every circumstance, sinful. I know, I know… I’m crossing a boundary here. But
walk with me. Could it be that God, in our current contemporary context, is
less concerned with who is involved in a relationship and more concerned with
the nature of the relationship? Imagine there is a man and a woman, married,
Christian, all that… But the husband regularly engages in domestic abuse toward
his wife. Then you have two men, or two women, in a loving relationship that is
mutually life-giving, supportive, all that… Which relationship is God more
pleased with? Sure, it’s not a fair question. Some will probably say, neither…
Fair enough. But why not? Why isn’t the relationship that embodies the “fruit
of the spirit” that Galatians talks about “pleasing in God’s sight”? Why is it,
by the simple fact that the mutually loving and supportive parties involved
happen to be of the same sex, sin? Well I’m not sure it is. Just like I’m not sure that if two consenting
adults who decide they want to express their erotic desire toward each other
before they say “I do” is sin. Just like I’m not sure that the teenager who
rubs his or herself a little too long, in an exploration of the gift that God
has given them, is sin. I don’t have the answers. And honestly, I think we
would put ourselves in a much better position to think together on these things
if we would all admit that we don’t have the answers. Despite what tradition tells
us about the bible, it does not truly address these realities. It bears witness
to a people’s interaction with a dynamic God who spoke to them in context. They
heard God through that context, and in ways that fit their particular cultural
needs. In other words, they heard God addressing the questions they were
asking. We’re asking different questions now. Let’s not forget that.
Here’s
my point: The Black Church, and Christian communities more broadly, are in dire
need of a more developed and nuanced sexual ethic – one that does not merely
categorize all sexual identities and expressions that do not fit within the
narrow definition of an antiquated dominant cultural norm that served an
ancient purpose as sinful. This simply does not fit the Jesus I read in the
gospels. I’m not saying I know exactly what God would say about the complexity
of our erotic desires. But I am confident that I know what God would say about
how we should treat each other, no matter the complexity of one’s erotic
desires; and I find that example in Jesus. And one thing I know for sure: if we
embody the likeness of Jesus while we continue to develop our sexual ethics,
God will be pleased. So like any black preacher concluding a sermon, allow me
to conclude with the Christ.
The
Jesus I read did not categorize people as sinful based on their identities,
professions, desires, or any other social signifiers used to organize human
beings hierarchically. And even when he did chastise people based on their
behavior, he did so in nuanced ways that would have been deemed unfair
according to the de-contextualized prescriptions of the “Law.” Jesus challenged
the Roman establishment and the Jewish faith community, pressing both of them
to consider the ways they violated human rights in the name of their faith. He
challenged racism, classism, sexism – which is amazing considering how
patriarchal his context was – and several other marginalizing practices, even
when such challenges caused him to revise his own faith of origin. Most
importantly, Jesus used radical acceptance as his starting point. Not
tolerance, acceptance. He was radically hospitable to the most marginalized in
his context, and he built a movement around those without the need to have a
name for it. Oh how sweet it would be if we could suspend our need to
categorize people; to stop “othering” those who aren’t like us; to accept all
people into our homes, churches, and communities as they are, not requiring
them to “convert” to experience our love, then figure the rest out as we are working
together for justice. That is the Jesus I read, the Christ I preach about.
So
I say again. Yes, I am a Baptist minister in the Black Church tradition, and
yes I am a straight Ally to the LGBTQ community. Yes, I support the recent
decision of the Supreme Court, and not just from a political or constitutional
standpoint. I also support this legislation theologically. This is a human
rights issue that I believe was rightly corrected. Yes, I am still in pain at
the continued disregard of black lives, and the failure to realize that black
lives truly do matter. However, let’s not make the mistake of thinking that
these two communities are mutually exclusive, or in some kind of competition for
Justice. The black community and the LGBTQ community need each other in this
pursuit. So not only am I calling my community to account, I am also calling on
the LGBTQ community to take seriously the need to fight for racial justice in
this country, and to pay particular attention to the racial dynamics within its own context. Only then will Justice be realized. As the late great Fannie Lou Hamer once said, “Nobody’s free
until everybody’s free.”
[1]
Queer is not meant here in a pejorative way, but as a categorical signifier of
those relationships that have not been normalized as an ideal within dominant
cultural definitions.
[2]
Jonathan Katz, “The Invention of Heterosexuality,” in Race, Class, and Gender in the United States, edited by Paula S.
Rothenberg (New York: Worth Publishers, 2010), 72.
[3]
And yes I mean “men.” The culture in which the bible was written was extremely
patriarchal and misogynist, so women would (most likely) not have been the ones
recording the narratives we find in scripture.
