Guess What's Coming to the
American Academy of Religion This Year,
Courtesy of the Gay Men's Group?
by Robert A. J. Gagnon
Associate Professor of New Testament,
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Sept. 30, 2004
The Gay Men's Issues in Religion Group
has come up with an interesting theme for one of their sessions at the
American Academy of Religion's (AAR) 2004 Annual Meeting (Nov. 20-23, San
Antonio, TX). (For the uninitiated, the American Academy of Religion is
the U.S. national umbrella organization for professors of religion--church
historians, theologians, ethicists, scholars in world religions. Biblical
scholars have their own national organization: the Society of Biblical
Literature.) The theme is: "Power and Submission, Pain and Pleasure: The
Religious Dynamics of Sadomasochism." If you, bless your
heart, do not know what sadomasochism is, here's a definition: "the
combination of sadism and masochism, in particular the deriving of
pleasure, especially sexual gratification, from inflicting or submitting
to physical or emotional abuse" (The American Heritage Dictionary,
4th ed., 2000). Or, more succinctly, "the derivation or pleasure from the
infliction of physical or mental pain either on others or on oneself" (Merriam-Webster
Medical Dictionary, 2002).
Not that the Gay Men's group
is one-dimensional. They also have another session, half of which is
devoted to transgenderism, which includes both transvestism
(crossdressing) and transsexualism (intense psychological
identification with the other sex, often combined today with a sex change
operation).
This theme is a nice complement to a
theme adopted for one of their sessions at the 2003 Annual Meeting: "Love
Is a Many Splendored Thing: Varied Views on Polyamory."
Polyamory is "participation in multiple and simultaneous . . . sexual
relationships," that is, having more than sex partner at the same time (Webster's
New Millennium Dictionary, 2003). This includes "traditional" forms of
polygamy (specifically, "polygyny," multiple wives) as well as
"threesomes" and other sexual unions in which each partner has sex with
all other persons in the partnership.
Why do people think that bringing
male homosexual behavior into the mainstream is going to tame male
homosexuality rather than destroy basic societal norms?
Sadomasochism and Transvestism Chic
In early 2004 the Gay Men's group
issued a "Call for Papers" on topics such as "transgenderism" and "S/M,"
among others (http://www.aarweb.org/annualmeet/2004/call/list-call.asp?PUNum=AARPU025).
Here are the results (click
here or go to
http://www.aarweb.org/annualmeet/2004/pbook/pbook.asp and type in the
key words "gay men's"):
A20-66
Gay Men's Issues in Religion Group
Saturday - 1:00 pm-3:30 pm
Session Abstract
Donald L. Boisvert, Concordia University, Presiding
Theme: Power and Submission, Pain and Pleasure:
The Religious Dynamics of Sadomasochism
"Sadomasochistic or bondage/dominance
practice (sometimes also referred to as 'leather sexuality') . . .
offers a particularly potent location for reflecting on gay men's issues
in religion."
[Comment: Of what other group seeking
validation in the church today can it be said that "sadomasochistic
practice offers a particularly potent location for reflecting on their
religious experience"? Is this not a searing indictment of male
homosexuality?]
Justin Tanis, Metropolitan Community Church
Ecstatic Communion: The Spiritual Dimensions of Leathersexuality
Abstract
"This paper will . . . . look briefly
at the ways in which leather is a foundation for personal and spiritual
identify formation, creating a lens through which the rest of life is
viewed. . . . All of this based within the framework of a belief in the
rights of individuals to erotic self determination with other consenting
adults, rather than apologetics for those practices and lives."
[Comment: Apparently the most important
consideration for the sexual ethics of the presenter is that the
sadomasochistic behavior expresses "erotic self determination" between
"consenting adults." While not offering an apologetic for the behavior,
he wants to establish a framework of "belief in the rights of the
individual," apparently to participate in mutually self-degrading
behavior.]
Thomas V. Peterson, Alfred University
S/M Rituals in Gay Men's Leather Communities: Initiation, Power
Exchange, and Subversion
Abstract
"This paper uses S/M rituals within
the gay men’s leather community to explore how ritual may subvert
cultural icons of violence by eroticizing power. . . . Those who
exercise power and acquiesce to it in leather rituals meet as respected
equals and negotiate the limitations of power according to mutual
desires."
[Comment: The presenter actually claims
that violence is subverted when we eroticize it in a relationship of
"respected equals" where each partner can take turns doing ritual harm
to the other. Enough said.]
Ken Stone, Chicago Theological Seminary
“You Seduced Me, You Overpowered Me, and You Prevailed”: Religious
Experience and Homoerotic Sadomasochism in Jeremiah
Abstract
"[Jeremiah 20:7-18] can be construed
more usefully as a kind of ritual S/M encounter between the male deity
Yahweh and his male devotee. This possibility provides a lens with which
to interpret both other passages in the book of Jeremiah and the
dynamics of power and submission in religious experience."
[Comment: The presenter thinks that he
has found a wonderful new "lens" to interpret the relationship of Yahweh
to his people: sadomasochism. Just when you thought the Bible had
already been explored from every angle, along comes this innovative
approach.]
Timothy R. Koch, New Life Metropolitan Community Church
Choice, Shame, and Power in the Construction of Sadomasochistic
Theologies
Abstract
"One of the constitutive elements of
sado-masochistic interactions is the removal of the masochist’s choices,
making it possible for both masochist and sadist to proceed in a
spiritually powerful state of relative shamelessness. These axes of
choice, shame, and spiritual power are especially relevant to the
experiences of gay men."
[Comment: The presenter thinks that
"sadomasochistic interactions" enable gay men to transcend
"shamelessness"? What is backwards here?]
Julianne Buenting, Chicago Theological Seminary
Oh, Daddy! God, Dominance/Submission, and Christian Sacramentality
and Spirituality
Abstract
"This paper explores BDSM
(bondage/dominance, sadomasochism) as potentially transformative
encounter in relation to themes of trust and surrender, suffering and
pleasure, self-shattering and self-donation found in Christian
sacramentality and mystical spirituality. . . . Queer understandings of
BDSM offer relational conceptualizations that may be helpful for
Christian understandings of our relationship with the divine (and vice
versa). Special attention will be given to the characteristics and role
of the dominant (top/master/daddy) as these relate to Christianity’s use
of dominant imagery for God."
[Comment: That will really preach to the
kids, won't it? In the past I've read a book to my children that
introduces a series of comparisons with the words "God is like . . . ."
There is a page at the end to add one's own analogy. Apparently the
presenter believes "God is like a sadomasochistic daddy" would be a
creative use of that page. That will really help the child's
conceptualization of God.]
Kent Brintnall, Emory University
Rend(er)ing God's Flesh: The Body of Christ, Spectacles of Pain, and
Trajectories of Desire
Abstract
"This paper substantiates the claim .
. . that sado-masochistic homoerotic desire is part of what makes the
spectacle of the crucifixion attractive and desirable."
[Comment: So it's the "sadomasochistic
homoerotic" dimension of the cross that makes it such an "attractive and
desirable" symbol of the Christian life. Who knew? All along I've been
laboring under the mistaken notion that it was a symbol of the need for
radical self-renunciation and discipleship, of death to self that we
might live for God.]
A21-113
Gay Men's Issues in Religion Group
Sunday - 4:00 pm-6:30 pm
Session Abstract
Jay Emerson Johnson, Pacific School of Religion, Presiding
Theme: Differing Accents: Queering White, Gay, Male
Religious Discourse
Jakob Hero, Zagreb, Croatia
Do We Really Need That T? Trans-Inclusion in Queer Communities of
Faith
Abstract
"A deeper look into the mutually
beneficial impact of trans-inclusion on queer communities of faith and
on transgendered people makes clear that there is not only room for
transgendered people, but also that transpeople are an essential element
in queer theology."
Katharine Baker, Vanderbilt University
The Transvestite Christ: Hedwig and the Angry Inch Perform
Queer Theology
Abstract
"In the rock musical Hedwig & The
Angry Inch, Hedwig, the protagonist, re-signifies his identity through
gender-bending transvestism and doctrine-deconstructing re-appropriation
of Christian theology. This essay documents his evolution in the terms
of Bourdieu, Butler and Queer Theology."
Burkhard Scherer, Canterbury Christ Church University
College
Transgenderism, Homosexuality, and the Pandakas: Gender Identity and
"Queer" Sexual Conduct in Early Buddhism and Beyond
Abstract
Plus three other papers.
Polyamory Chic
As noted above, last year's Gay Men's
group at AAR explored the wonders of "polyamory" (click
here or go to
http://www.aarweb.org/annualmeet/2003/pbook/pbook.asp and type in the
key words "gay men's"). The abstracts make quite clear that this was an
advocacy session. Given the nature of male sexuality and the excesses that
typically occur when men have only other men for sex partners, advocacy of
polyamory by male homosexuals (but also by an occasional lesbian) is
hardly surprising.
A217
Abstract
Gay Men's Issues in Religion Group
Monday - 1:00 pm-3:30 pm
Donald L. Boisvert, Concordia University, Montreal,
Presiding
Theme: Love Is a Many Splendored Thing: Varied
Views on Polyamory
Julianne Buenting, Chicago Theological Seminary
(Marriage) Queered: Proposing Polyfidelity As Christian Theo-Praxis
"Lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender (LGBT)
political advocacy . . . have reflected the unexamined assumption that
monogamy is the sole and ideal pattern for Christian sexual
relationships. This paper troubles that assumption. . . . I conclude by
proposing polyfidelity as a queer Christian sexual theo-praxis of
marriage."
[Comment: Well, at least the presenter, a
woman, is honest: a "queer" theology and praxis leads to a view of
"polyfidelity" over monogamy as a new Christian model for marriage.
Since the notion of monogamy, one partner, is predicated on the notion
of the two sexes, the eradication of any significance to sexual
differentiation obliterates the model of marriage as a covenant
restricted to two persons. Evidently for the presenter, fidelity has
nothing to do with sexual exclusiveness.]
Robert E. Goss, Webster University
Proleptic Sexual Love: God's Promiscuity Reflected in Christian
Polyamory
"I will argue
that Christian religious communities, with their erotic
and polyamorous relationships, symbolize the breadth of God’s inclusive
and promiscuous love."
[Comment: Aren't you comforted by the
notion of God's "inclusive and promiscuous love"? What a model for us to
live by. I suppose the implication is that we should be having inclusive
sex with everyone in our local church.]
Jay E. Johnson, Richmond, CA
Trinitarian Tango: Divine Perichoretic Fecundity in Polyamorous
Relations
"Christian traditions abruptly stop
short of applying this Trinitarian logic to human sexuality. It is well
worth asking whether polyamorous sexual relations reflect the “imago
Dei” -- indeed, the “imago Trinitate” -- better than the dyadic model of
romantic love, commonly constructed as the Christian ideal."
[Comment: You knew this was going to
happen at some time or other: The Trinity used as a model for
threesomes. The presenter argues that polyamorous relationships reflect
the "image of God" "better" than twosomes. How absurd to regard the
Trinity as a model for erotic attraction. Taken to its logical ends, the
presenter should next be promoting incest and pedophilia--using "Father"
and "Son" metaphors.]
Mark D. Jordan, Emory University
"One Wife": The Problem with the Patriarchs and the Promiscuity of
Agape
"Traditional Christian arguments for
restricting marriage to two, and only two, . . . leave a gap through
which we can construct a theology of polyamory. So does the Christian
ideal of the agapic community, which may be the main source and
encouragement for this new theology."
[Comment: The presenter, unlike Jesus, is
not warning us against polyamory but rather setting out to "construct a
theology of polyamory." Obviously, fidelity to Jesus' teachings is not a
hallmark of the presenter's view of discipleship.]
Ronald E. Long, Hunter College
Heavenly Sex: The Moral Authority of a Seemingly Impossible Dream
I would suggest that all sex be
thought of as a form of meeting, so that sexual “introductions” might be
seen as ends in themselves, and sex within a relationship as meeting in
depth. We might also think of a man’s erection as his wearing his heart
on his sleeve, distortions taking place when he forgets.
[Comment: For the presenter sexual
intercourse is just a greater step toward more intimacy: meeting someone
"in depth," a particularly warm self-"introduction." A man's erection?
Nothing more than "wearing his heart on his sleeve"! Think of the
ramifications of this thinking for being "introduced" to new members of
the faith. It's mind-boggling.]
For a response to the "polyamorists"
who argue that multiple-partner sexuality is endorsed by Scripture, see
the note below.
What's Left?
One wonders what is next for the Gay
Men's group at AAR: the promotion of incest, "pedosexuality," and
bestiality? There is certainly little or nothing in the presenters'
theology that would lead away from such ultimate absurdities. There is no
understanding anywhere here of the notion of structural prerequisites to
sexual relationships. Eroticism and sexual intercourse is nothing more
than greater intimacy. The conclusion following from the premise is
inevitable: then intimacy with one's parents and children should be ever
open to the "logical" progression of sexual intimacy. For sexual
intimacy is for the presenters merely more love. Spread it around.
Jesus' view of the relationship of love
and sexual intercourse was obviously very different. For while Jesus
expanded the definition of love to embrace everyone he narrowed the
definition of acceptable sexual intimacy to embrace only one person of the
other sex for life. Who is missing something here? Jesus or the Gay Men's
group at AAR?
Churchgoing Christian proponents of
committed homosexual practice often get hysterical when those opposed to
homosexual practice make comparisons between homosexual practice and
incest, polyamory, or other forms of aberrant sexual behavior. They scoff
at the "slippery slope" theory. They claim that eliminating the most basic
structural prerequisite in Christian thought for acceptable sexual
relationships (i.e., the two-sex prerequisite) will have no bearing on
structural prerequisites regarding number (monogamy), degree of blood
unrelatedness (no incest), and age. It also won't promote transvestism and
other forms of transgenderism, they say. And yet it is the Gay Men's group
at AAR (and an occasional lesbian) that is promulgating exactly such a
vision. They provide both the slope and the grease.
Like most things, the bizarre stuff
that makes its way through the religious academy of scholars eventually
filters down to church leaders. It represents the coming wave. Look out.
The embrace of homosexual practice logically and experientially demands
it.
*
*
*
A Note on
Old Testament
Polygamy. The "polyamorists" in the Gay Men's group at AAR
doubtless justify polyamory, in part, on the basis of Old Testament
polygamy practices (more specifically, polygyny practices [from
Greek poly "many" and gyne "wife," "many wives"). How should a Christian respond?
As regards divorce and remarriage, Jesus recognized that the law of Moses
permitted a man to divorce his wife and remarry (Deut. 24:1-4; cf. Lev.
21:7, 14; Deut. 21:14; Jer. 3:1). Yet Jesus interpreted this as a
concession to human (chiefly male) hardness of heart, a loophole in the
law that Jesus was now revoking in light of a higher precedent established
“from the beginning of creation” (Mark 10:6 par. Matt. 19:8). In so doing,
he also implicitly revoked the Mosaic permission (not mandate) of polygamy
for men. How do we know this?
First,
Jesus emphasized in his remarks about divorce and remarriage the
importance of the number two and did so on the basis of the binary pattern
of the sexes in Gen. 1:27 (“male and female”) and the declaration “and the
two shall become one flesh” in Gen. 2:24. He concluded: “so they are no
longer two but one flesh” (Mark 10:8 par. Matt. 19:5-6). The existence of only two sexes,
obviously designed for complementary sexual pairing, is the basis for
prohibiting not only same-sex intercourse but also remarriage after
divorce and polygamy. The union of the two sexes is not only necessary
for integrating a sexual whole but also sufficient for doing so.
The addition of other sex partners is superfluous and, indeed, adulterous.
If, in Jesus’ view, this principle of two applied in the case of divorce
and remarriage, where the husband thinks that he has dissolved the prior
union, then it certainly applied for him in the case of polygyny, where
the husband acknowledges that the union with his first wife is still
intact.
Second, Jesus declared
that a man who “divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery
against her” because the first marriage is treated as still intact
(Mark 10:11; cf. Luke 16:18). Under the law of Moses, a man only committed
adultery when he had intercourse with another man’s wife. The
offense was against the other man, not his own wife. By making the man’s
acquisition of a second wife, whether in remarriage after divorce or in
polygyny, an offense against the first wife, Jesus declares that the wife
has as much claim to her husband’s monogamy as the husband has to his
wife’s.
We might add that Paul’s
discussions of marriage presume this same principle of monogamy, including
1 Corinthians 7 where Paul picks up Jesus’ divorce saying (vv. 10-11).
Even the Old Testament foreshadowed a broader case against polygamy, not
only in Gen. 2:20-24, but also in the implicit prohibition of polyandry
(multiple husbands),
the usual practice of one wife in Israelite society, and stories of
internal disputes in households with additional wives or concubines (e.g.,
Gen. 16:4-9; 21:8-14; 30:1-2, 15; 1 Sam. 1:6).
*
*
*
A letter
protesting that I didn't stress that polyamory refers to "loving"
relationships. On Oct.
15, 2004 I received the following e-mail correspondence. I have withheld
the name of the writer.
Dear Mr. Gagnon,
I find your convenient editing of the definition of
polyamory in the article below to be ethically and intellectually
indefensible.
I quote:
This theme is a nice complement to a
theme adopted for one of their sessions at the 2003 Annual Meeting: "Love
Is a Many Splendored Thing: Varied Views on Polyamory."
Polyamory is "participation in multiple and simultaneous . . . sexual
relationships," that is, having more than sex partner at the same time (Webster's
New Millennium Dictionary, 2003). This includes "traditional" forms of
polygamy (specifically, "polygyny," multiple wives) as well as
"threesomes" and other sexual unions in which each partner has sex with
all other persons in the partnership.
As I'm sure you're well aware, the "full" and unedited
definition of polyamory in that publication, as per a lookup on
dictionary.com just a few minutes ago, is as follows:
Definition: participation in multiple and simultaneous
loving or sexual relationships.
Source: Webster's New MillenniumT Dictionary of
English, © 2003
Note the source. The same one you quote.
The unquestionably deliberate omission of "loving or" from
the definition used in your article has a clearly pejorative and
distorting effect on the meaning of the term, reducing it to a definition
that is purely sexual in nature, and omitting the elements association
with emotional feelings and relationships, and the clear implication that
the former can take priority over the latter.
Further, I'm sure that you are aware that in actual usage
and practice, polyamory means multiple *relationships*, involving
emotional and personal commitment on the part of each part, as well as
full disclosure and honesty, NOT having multiple sexual partners with no
strings attached and none of them the wiser.
If one of your students pulled a stunt like this in a
paper, I'm sure you'd grade them accordingly. I'm giving you an "F" for
cheating on this essay.
Sincerely,
[Name]
Here is my response:
Dear Mr. [Name],
I do not know you but you do not come across in your email
as a careful reader of texts.
Nobody has any problems with multiple, nonerotic
friendships. It is when eroticism and intercourse are introduced into the
equation that people get concerned. You seem to think that it would make a
big difference to readers that sexual unions involving three or more
persons would be "loving."
It would not. A group of ten people (or 3 or 20 or more)
involved in "loving" sexual relationships with one another is going to
meet with as much public shock as a group in "non-loving" sexual
relationships. It's the erotic or sexual character of a multiple-partner
relationship that people will have trouble with, irrespective of whether
the sexual relationships are loving--just as it is shocking to introduce
an erotic component into a man-mother, brother-sister, or adult-child
relationship. Whether or not such relationships are "loving," in addition
to being sexual, is beside the point.
And let there be no confusion about whether the Gay Men's
Group has in view asexual, nonerotic relationships. Look at the following
papers:
Julianne Buenting's paper criticizes "the unexamined
assumption that monogamy is the sole and ideal pattern for Christian
sexual relationships." That's right: "sexual relationships."
Robert Goss's paper refers to "erotic and polyamorous
relationships" that "symbolize the breadth of God's inclusive and
promiscuous love." That's right: "erotic" and "promiscuous." And I guess
"inclusive" means that we should have sex with the maximum number of
people possible. Gee, I guess if someone marries a person of his or own
race, or another race, but leaves out other races, he or she is not
being "inclusive" enough. Maybe we should just be having sex with
everyone in our local church and, indeed, every "neighbor" with whom we
come into contact with.
Jay Johnson's paper asks "whether polyamorous sexual
relations reflect the “imago Dei” -- indeed, the “imago Trinitate” --
better than the dyadic model of romantic love." Catch that? "Polyamorous
sexual relationships," "romantic love."
Mark Jordan's paper states: "Traditional Christian
arguments for restricting marriage to two, and only two, . . . leave a
gap through which we can construct a theology of polyamory." Note: we're
not talking about friendship here but marriages consisting of more than
two persons (with no apparent limit).
And Ronald Long's paper suggests "that all sex be
thought of as a form of meeting, so that sexual “introductions” might be
seen as ends in themselves, and sex within a relationship as meeting in
depth. We might also think of a man’s erection as his wearing his heart
on his sleeve, distortions taking place when he forgets." Clearly, too,
he is talking about relationships involving sexual intercourse, where "a
man's erection" is little more than a particularly "warm" "meeting in
depth." So perhaps we should now add to our greetings: "Hi, I'm
so-and-so, and to make you feel really welcome how about having sex with
me? Allow me to really introduce myself!"
So the important point from each of these papers is that
they are all promoting polyamorous, i.e., multiple-partner "sexual"
relationships. And the "theology" implicit in each suggests "the more, the
merrier" so far as sexual relationships are concerned. Does that sound
like Jesus' teaching to you?
The very fact that I used the term "partnership" indicates
that I am acknowledging the commitment aspect of these sexual
relationships. You reproduced the text of my words but apparently this did
not compute for you.
You should also note that the dictionary definition says
"loving or sexual" not "loving and sexual." The definition
gives the impression that nonsexual, nonerotic multiple-partner
relationships may be in view when one uses the term "polyamory," when in
fact the common usage is to refer to sexual relationships (which
may or may not be loving). It's poorly worded. The key adjective of the
two, what separates polyamorous relationships from friendships, is
"sexual." And certainly the AAR papers had in view only sexual
relationships. I did not include the phrase "loving or" because it was
both badly worded and not applicable to the AAR papers. The
non-applicability had to do not with the fact that I was
discounting that "polyfidelity" might be involved in these papers (indeed,
Buenting's paper uses the very term in the title of her presentation, and
readers can clearly see this when they go to the article on my website)
but with the fact that only sexual relationships were in view in these
papers.
That you apparently think that it would make a difference
to people that the AAR Gay Men's Group was promoting "faithful" sexual
relationships that could include half a dozen persons or more (the sky's
the limit), rather than mere promiscuity (though, again, note Goss's
positive reference to a "promiscuous God") is sad commentary on how much
you are out of touch with what the vast majority of people in the United
States think. You might as well complain that criticism of man-mother
incest or adult-child sexual unions would be off-target if it failed to
note that committed relationships were in view.
You close by saying, rather condescendingly, "If one of
your students pulled a stunt like this in a paper, I'm sure you'd grade
them accordingly. I'm giving you an 'F' for cheating on this essay." This
complements the pejorative remark at the beginning of your email that you
find my "editing" to be "ethically and intellectually indefensible."
Let me say, Mr. [name], that as regards the moral and
intellectual content of your email, you are in no position to be my
teacher, to say nothing of giving me a failing grade. I hope--really, I
do--that you will come to your moral senses in the future, in accordance
with Jesus. I am sure that there is much to like about you and, even if
that were not so, you have inherent worth as a human being to be reclaimed
for the kingdom of God.
Sincerely,
Robert Gagnon, Ph.D.
© 2004 Robert A. J.
Gagnon