Opening the Doors of the Church: Nuancing (Black) Christian Sexual Ethics

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.