Althaus-Reid, Marcella. 2007.thinking Theology and Queer Theory

http://fth.sagepub.
com/
Feminist Theology
http://fth.sagepub.com/content/15/3/302
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0966735006076168
2007 15: 302 Feminist Theology
Marcella Althaus-Reid and Lisa Isherwood
Thinking Theology and Queer Theory
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at: Feminist Theology Additional services and information for
http://fth.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://fth.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://fth.sagepub.com/content/15/3/302.refs.html Citations:
What is This?
- Jun 11, 2007 Version of Record >>

at Vrije Universiteit 34820 on June 11, 2012 fth.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Thinking Theology and Queer Theory
*
Marcella Althaus-Reid
Althausm@div.ed.ac.uk
Lisa Isherwood
Lisa@grayish.demon.co.uk
ABSTRACT
This article examines what it is to think through queer eyes, that is what
may queer theory offer to the study of theology. It shows what queer is in
this context and challenges the reader to think in other ways. The article
examines how queer theory helps to illuminate the radical nature of incar-
nation at the same time as examining some of the concerns expressed by
theorists about the nature of the queer theological project.
Keywords: Incarnation, economic, queer, heteropatriarchy.
Queer Theology and Love-talk
It was a conference organized on themes of sexuality and theology. A
group of theologians had gathered to discuss in a semi-informal way
questions related to sexual ethics, politics and theology. Experiences
and reeclions vere shared fron lhe differenl perspeclives of lhe par-
licipanls and as lhe day advanced, nany slereolypes vere unveiIed.
For instance, that Third World theologians care about sexual ethics
only in the context of heterosexuality. Or that European theologians
work only in bourgeois contexts. At one point, knowing that a couple of
political theologians currently engaged with Queer Theory were sitting
together at the same table, someone approached them to reproach them
for~apparenlIy~having deparled fron a radicaI lul 'connon sense
lheoIogy. They vere asked provocalive queslions: 'Whal has sexuaIily
to do with the current economic crisis of your countries? How can you
talk about sexuality when the global expansion of capitalism is destroy-
Copyright 2007 SAGE Publications
(Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore)
http://FTH.sagepub.com
Vol. 15(3): 302-314
DOI: 10.1177/0966735006076168
*
An earIier version of lhis paper appeared as lhe 'Inlroduclion in MarceIIa
Althaus-Reid and Lisa Isherwood, The Sexual Theologian (London: T. & T. Clark, 2005).
Althaus-Reid and Isherwood Thinking Theology and Queer Theory 303
ing so nany Iives` SuddenIy renenlering Tina Turner, lhe Lalin
Anerican lheoIogian, ironicaIIy repIied: 'You are asking ne, vhal Iove
has lo do vilh lhis`
It was a time when the theological praxis was understood as frag-
mented and made by struggles which excluded each other. Therefore,
to be a liberationist and engage in a praxis of political and economic
transformation could not coexist with a feminist pursuit of gender
equaIily. In siniIar fashion, lo le connilled lo an environnenlaI lhe-
ology was seen as separated with the struggle of for instance, Hispana
vonen in lhe Slales, or vilh Iack TheoIogy. Hovever, ve have cone
to the point of understanding better the complexity of any theological
reeclion connilled lo a serious diaIogue vilh crilicaI reaIily. Lspe-
cially, because the theological praxis of liberation to which many of
us have leen connilled for nany years heIped us lo undersland hov
differenl slruggIes have nore in connon lhan previousIy assuned.
Ior inslance, lhe facl lhal vonens discrininalion is reIaled lo lhe envi-
ronnenlaI crisis, or lhal cIassisl slruclures in sociely are reecled in
lhe church hierarchicaI organizalions. Using a perspeclive fron Queer
TheoIogy, ve nay say lhal lo reecl lheoIogicaIIy is aIvays an aclivily
done vilh a presupposilion of Iove. To laIk lheoIogy is lo laIk aloul a
Ioving slyIe of reIalionship.
TheoIogicaI lhenes are lhenes of Iove, even if perhaps lhis has
leen olscured ly cenluries of using a lerninoIogy vhich nay have
lost their original transparency. Redemption for instance, is the work
of giving freedon, saIvalion, of deIiverance fron suffering and danger.
Crace is lhe vork of freeing and deIivering peopIe and nalure for free.
Conversion, lhe lransfornalion of a person inlo a greal Iover of juslice,
equality and peace. It is in this frame that we would like to present
Queer TheoIogy as a radicaI forn of lhe 'Iove-laIk of lheoIogy, lhal is,
a theology which introduces a profound questioning into the ways of
Iove in our Iives as individuaIs and as sociely, and lhe lhings Iove can
do in our world.
Queering lheoIogy provides us vilh nore lhan a reeclion il is a
Chrislian praxis, vhich ains lo re-lhink aIlernalive and radicaI vays
of transformation in our present world so shaken by the contradictions
of gIolaIizalion. IoIIoving lhal queslion of 'Whal Iove has lo do vilh
lhis` il can sinpIy say: Love has everylhing lo do vilh everylhing
lheoIogy does. Queslioning lhe Iove-laIk of lheoIogy neans here lo
go deeper into the structures of the church, and the way that theology
heIps lo presenl, supporl and undersland lhe neaning of Iove in prac-
tice, that is, friendship, solidarity, and the political strategies and orga-
nization of the social structures necessary to foster a theological praxis
of Iove in aclion. Sone years ago, lhe Iale Lalin Anerican lheoIogian
304 Feminist Theology
Guillermo Cook commented that the main criticism of the church by
Maya indigenous peopIe fron CenlraI Anerica vas concerned, lasi-
cally, with the organizational arrogance of the Western church. Accord-
ing lo Cook, lhe Chrislian Mayas crilicized lhe facl lhal in nore lhan
hve hundred cenluries of Chrislianily in Lalin Anerica, lhe church has
not taken into account any element of the traditional structure of the
Maya Sociely inlo ils organizalion. The Weslern church did nol even
consider incorporaling inlo ils lheoIogy lhe Maya vays lo Iove, lhal
is, lheir lradilions of soIidarily, lheir idenlily-luiIding process depend-
ing on connunaI franes, or lo Iearn fron lheir differenl perspeclives
on sexuality, marriage and the family. In short, the Christian church
pervaded lhe Maya sociely vilh an epislenoIogy or Iove/knovIedge
assuning cerlain universaIily, and lransIaled lheoIogicaIIy as divineIy
nornalive. Hovever, lhe nornalive Iove/knovIedge of lhe church do
nol necessariIy need lo cone fron slraighl heavens. Nol onIy Chrislian
lheoIogy has leen inforned ly an ideoIogicaI conslrucled Iove knoving
and a parlicuIar sexuaI underslanding of hunane and divine lrulh, lul
lhis knovIedge is aIso conslilulive of a vay of lhinking/acling lheoI-
ogy. That is, it assumes as normal or natural what is temporary and cul-
turally organized in an ideological frame. Feminist, Black, Aboriginal,
DisalIed and olher poIilicaI lheoIogies have denounced lhal lheoIogy
as an idoIalry. A gender lhinking, a vhile-race coIouring of reeclion
and a cIass lias have leen al lhe naking of nany reeclions in lhe
church, without being explicitly acknowledged.
Hovever, vhal il has leen Iacking is lhe querying of vhal Rose-
nary Hennessy caIIs lhe poIilics of prohl and pIeasure (Hennessy
2000) in its history. What a theology of radical sexuality, such as
Queer Theology has to do with the present capitalist expansion, the
deslruclion of lhe environnenl and lhe poIilics of excIusion Iies in lhe
relation between capitalism and sexuality, economy and heterosexual
thinking and the traditional theological ethics which sustain many
of lhe excIusive Chrislian praxis. Hovever, Queer TheoIogy lakes ils
pIace nol al lhe cenlre of lhe lheoIogicaI discourses conversing vilh
power, but at the margins. It is a theology from the margins which
wants to remain at the margins. To recognize sexual discrimination
in lhe church and in lhe lheoIogicaI lhinking (ly seIeclive lhenalic of
reeclion or ly de-aulhorizalion of olher discourses) does nol nean
lhal a lheoIogy fron lhe nargins shouId slrive for equaIily. TerrilIe is
the fate of theologies from the margin when they want to be accepted
ly lhe cenlre! Queer TheoIogy slrives, inslead, for differenlialion and
pIuraIily. Queer TheoIogy is in lhis sense equivaIenl lo a caII for lio-
diversily in lheoIogy, lhal is, Iife and Iove in aII ils diversily, vhich al
lhe end, lransforns and renevs aII ils praxis. Iron lhal perspeclive,
Queer Theology is a political and sexual queering of theology which
goes beyond the gender paradigm of thinking of the early years of
feninisl lheoIogy lul aIso lranscend lhe hxed assunplions of Leslian
and Cay TheoIogy. To reguIale sexuaIily in lhe nane of divinilies
means to regulate the order of affectionate exchanges but also other
human exchanges such as the political and economic systems. Queer-
ing theology, that is, questioning the (hetero) sexual underlying of
lheoIogicaI reeclions exceeds lhe sphere of lhe privale and aIso goes
inlo lhe hearl of lhe underslanding of lhe exchange vision of lhe IMI
and the understanding of what does it mean to be human in the Global-
ization philosophy. Queering theology is not a rhetorical pastime but a
political duty.
Queering Theology is therefore a deep questioning or an exercize
of nuIlipIe and diverse herneneulicaI suspicions. Queer Theory has
leen descriled as an unlreIIa lern galhering logelher diverse issues
vilhin a connon slruggIe, a resislance againsl helerosexuaI knoving.
TheoIogy has leen adding issues of reeclion under a connon concern
for juslice, for inslance, lul vhiIe cIass, race and issues of gender have
lecone parl of lhe exercize of reecling crilicaIIy on issues of Cod and
hunan hislory, sexuaIily renains one of lhe nosl difhcuIl and perva-
sive ideoIogicaI areas of assuned underslandings. Sonehov, queering
theology requires us to challenge the existent link between theology
and sexual domestication. Queering theology requires courage. In the
sane vay lhal peopIe sonelines need lo renounce a leIoved vho
has iII lrealed lhen, ve face here lhe chaIIenge of renouncing leIoved
sexuaI ideoIogies, syslens of leIief lhal even if luiIl upon injuslice,
have lecone dear lo us especiaIIy if associaled vilh lhe viII of Cod.
Theology itself has a long history of struggling from the liberation of
forner ideoIogicaI alusive Ioves, such as racisn, sexisn, indifference
lovards lhe poor (if nol aclive cooperalion lovards lheir oppression)
and colonialism.
WhiIe Lileralion lheoIogies have leen lradilionaIIy gender and sex
lIinded, lhe prolIens have leen nore lhan lhe facl lhal niIIions of
vonen in poor counlries have conlinued suffering aluse and excIu-
sion under the indifference of a praxis which used the concept of the
'poor as a lIankel slalenenl. The prolIen has leen lhal lhe nany
crealive forns of vonens organizalion, successfuI in praclice, keep
leing excIuded fron lhe nainslrean of lhe lop-IeveI organizalion of
sociely. RecenlIy, Hele onahni (a founder of lhe Movimiento de Madres
de Plaza de Mayo in Buenos Aires) made a similar point while speaking
in relation to the total breakdown of Argentina, as a nation under the
conlroI of lhe InlernalionaI Monelary Iund (IMI) and lhe econonic
experiments of neo-liberalism. As Argentina faces an unprecedented
chaotic situation where social exclusion has reached limits only seen
lefore in science hclion novies, Mrs onahni shared lhe vay lhal lhe
excIuded are organizing lhenseIves ly asambleas populares (neighbour-
hood galherings, vilhoul poIilicaI represenlalives or hierarchies) and
cooperalive vork. The inporlanl poinl lhal she nade vas, hovever, lo
highlight how a different way of thinking is now needed. The alterna-
live, radicaI lhinking lhal leIIs us lhal lhe excIuded knov lhal al lhe
root of the crisis is a way of relating to each other, of networking and
dismantling hierarchical thought. Something that liberation theologies
sliII hnd hard lo accepl. Ieninisl lheoIogies proposed a reIalionaI para-
dign loo, lased on gender. Hovever, lhe gender paradign even if in
diaIogue vilh a Iileralionisl one have never leen enough lo produce
radical transformations. The problem is that gender paradigms tend
to normalise theologies in the long term by subsuming differences
inlo equaIilies. There is a revoIulionary chaIIenge hovever, vhen ve
confronl lhe sexuaI ideoIogicaI nornalivily of lheoIogy. Al lhis poinl,
Queer Theory has produced vhal nighl le considered a quaIilalive
change in lheoIogicaI lhinking ly unveiIing lhe exlension of lhe inu-
ence nol jusl of helerosexuaIily lul of helero-nornalivily in radicaI
lheoIogy and specihcaIIy Ieninisl TheoIogy.
Queer Theory and Theology
Theology has always been contextual, and it has always depended on a
theoretical framework of interpretation of the world. The fact is that the-
oIogy is nol enough and in ilseIf is insufhcienl as a discipIine lo provide
us vilh a lasis for expIaining crilicaIIy lhe reaIily in vhich ve Iive. Tra-
dilionaIIy in lhe Wesl, phiIosophy has provided lheoIogy nol onIy vilh
a theoretical framework of interpretation but also with a particular kind
of queslioning. Had lhal leen a Maya phiIosophy or an African visdon
corpus in diaIogue vilh lheoIogy ve vouId have a differenl slyIe of
doing lheoIogy as aIso a dislinclive sel of queslions and prolIenalic lo
discuss than the one we inherited. The theoretical framework of interpre-
lalion vhich lheoIogy uses varies in line, or al Ieasl, il shouId do. Nev
avakenings of consciousness chaIIenged previous ones. They lecone
sulversive, and in lhal sense, lhey can le considered prolIen-posing or
troublant. Such is lhe case vilh Queer Theory as a radicaI lheorelicaI heId
vhich has provided a slyIe and a queslioning lhal cruciaIIy deslaliIize
lheoIogicaI praxis. Iron lhe urlan prolesls of lhe CarnivaI againsl Capi-
laIisn lo lhe reeclions on sexuaIily al lhe nargins, Queer Theory has
deregulated the binary myths of the subjects of theology, and in doing
that, it has de-regulated our representations of God. The point is that
theories of sexuality function as myths which organize a representation
of history (Hennessy 2000: 166). Against that, other sexual thinking is
rendered as devianl. Hovever, lhe given coherence of cerlain sociaI order
and institutional life as the church also depends on the mythical hetero-
nornaI nalrix (ulIer 199O) vhich conslilules privale and corporalive
identities. In theology, the question is how the politics of hetero-normal
idenlilies (poIilicaI and divine) pre-enpls our represenlalion of Cod and
lhe reeclion inlo lhe key lhenes of Chrislianily`
y Queer Sludies ve nean an aIIiance of diverse inleresls and
studies with one common struggle: the struggle to liberate the dual-
islic pallerns of sexuaI idenlily (presenl even in Cay and Leslian dis-
courses). }udilh ulIer, in her inuenliaI look Gender Troubles (1992)
presented a powerful argument for Queer Theory. Butler considers that
it has been accepted that gender is learned in society, and that sexuality
is sonelhing vilh vhich ve are lorn. Cender, as lehaviouraI pallerns
established in different societies, are transmitted from generation to
generation. Different times and cultures produce different gender ste-
reotypes, which, in encountering Christianity, became entangled with
lhe oId gender slruclures of idenlily and lehaviour accunuIaled in lhe
ilIe, sonelines even in conlradiclion of each olher. In lhis ve have
agreed. Feminist Theology has made a point of denouncing the sacrali-
salion of oppressive gender pallerns lul il didnl undersland lhal il is a
'helerosexuaI nalrix vhich gives coherence and slaliIily lo lhe nylh of
helerosexuaIily as a naluraI or a given, vhiIe genders are usefuI insofar
lhey 'pIay nascuIine and feninine opposilions. Whal happened here
is that Queer Theory has introduced the concept of sexuality as learnt
and as nore unslalIe lhan previousIy assuned. The queslion for us is,
how do we learn theology and sexuality, and how can we unlearn it?
Queer Theory has three characteristics: the emphasis on the con-
struction of sexuality, the element of plurality which needs to be present
in any reeclion and lhe idea of anlivaIence or lhe uidily of sexuaI
idenlilies. ul lheoIogy has leen organized around a givenness, a
nonolheisn, and an exercize of lhe aulhorily of lhe nela-narralives of
helero-nornalivily. Therefore, Queer Theory vorks as a nev 'nedialor
science in radicaI lheoIogies. As Cuslavo Culierrez spoke of Lileralion
Theology as the irruption of the poor in theology, Queer Theory has
facilitated the irruption of the ultimate marginalized in Christianity:
people and institutional forms of organization at the margins of hetero-
nornalivily (gay, Ieslians, lrans-genders) lul aIso knovIedge al lhe
margin of heterosexuality too. Different ways of amatory knowing
express lhenseIves in differenl vays of lefriending, inagining Cod
and compassion and creating different structures of relationships.
y Queer TheoIogy lhen, ve nean a novenenl, and an aIIiance of
people who question the sexual construction of theology. Queer Theol-
ogy takes seriously the Queer project of deconstructing heterosexual
epislenoIogy and presupposilions in lheoIogy, lul aIso unveiIing lhe
different, the suppressed face of God amidst it. It is not only that theol-
ogy has been traditionally obsessed with ordering sexuality, but much
of lheoIogy has deveIoped forns of sexuaI orderings inlo doclrinaI
reeclions or lhe reading of lhe scriplures.
If we were to mention some common characteristics in the process
of doing Queer Theology, we will need to consider issues concerning
theology as a genre, that is, how people write theology, and the focus of
reeclion of lhis lheoIogy. As a genre, Queer TheoIogy parlakes of lhe
irony, humour and self-disclosure type of discourse of the Camp genre
and Queer literature. The self-disclosure style means also that Queer
Theology is an I theology. The theologian does not hide in a gram-
nalicaI essenliaIisn, for inslance lo use a 've vhich presunes lhe
authority of an academic body. In this way, Queer Theology is a form
of autobiography because it implies an engagement and a disclosure
of experiences vhich have leen lradilionaIIy siIenced in lheoIogy. Ior
inslance, issues of S/M, lranveslisn, or even lhe denuncialion of hel-
erosexuaIily as a conslruclion vhich does nol even properIy appIy lo
the real experiences of heterosexual people. It uses ways of expression
which are the camp, ironic genres of the sexual dissidents. Camp: is a
discourse of excess, an exaggerated style which puts together eroticism
and hunour. Canp is 'A queer, lvisled discursive luiIding (CIelo
1999: 9) vhich does nol vanl hrn foundalions. A Canp TheoIogy is an
unsettled one.
Queer Theology is then a sexual theology with a difference: a passion
for the marginalized. That passion is compassion but also a commit-
ment to social justice, because there is a wider understanding of human
reIalionships invoIved. The vay lhal nechanisn of produclion and
consumption has been analyzed, for instance in Latin American Libera-
lion TheoIogy, nov incorporales a differenl perspeclive vhich has leen
excluded and pertains to the exploitation but also to the solidarity and
cooperation of people at the margins of society and theology. There-
fore, it is not correct to say that Queer Theology lacks agency. Queer
Theology is an agent for transformation. As Hennessy has pointed out,
helero-nornalivily has a Ialour division poIicy presupposed in gender
hierarchies and lhe reihcalion of sexuaI idenlilies in our socielies are
linked to Capitalism (Hennesy 2000: 105). Queer Theology is a political
theology.
As a sulversive force, Queer TheoIogy focuses on lheoIogicaI
closets, in what has not been said or has been hidden. It is a theology
vhich denounces lhe doneslic sexuaI vioIence of lheoIogy on ils dissi-
dents. Its strategy is to read theology dismantling dualist readings and
pIays of opposilions. Il nay read lhe Scriplures in a specihc sexuaI vay
vhich deparls fron helero-nornalivily, il idenlihes nonenls of sexuaI
resislance in church lradilions, or even aIlernalive church lradilions, il
exposes the profound homophobia of theology and the sexual assump-
lions in doclrines, and hnds negIecled areas of allenlion in lheoIogicaI
discussions. More lhan anylhing eIse, Queer TheoIogy is an incarnaled,
body theology which deals with desire, but also pleasure. And pleasure
is after all, the incarnation of desires.
Queer Theology and Incarnation
Queer Theology is an emerging discipline which takes as its starting
point the radical, and as yet unexplored, nature of incarnation. That the
divine Iefl lhe heavens and enlered esh once and for aII is lhe queer
ground that we inhabitwhat other god does such a thing, there is
aIvays lhe safely of a heavenIy hone! Thal god is in esh changes
everylhing, yel il has leen a nessage of saIvalion in lhe hands of lhe
church vho ly lheir very nalure do nol Iike change~il is loo deslali-
lizing for their power base. They cling to power and make impotent the
revoIulionary polenliaI of lhe hunan/divine nalure. Chrislian lheoI-
ogy and lradilion hoIds fasl lo very rigid ideas aloul lhe nalure of lhe
world, sexuality, sin, human nature and fails to see the radical implica-
lions lhal lhey decIare. Cod dveIIs in esh and vhen lhis happens aII
our myopic earth-bound ideas are subject to change, the dynamic life
force vhich is lhe divine erupls in diversily and lhe energy of il viII nol
be inhibited by laws and statutes. Far from creating the same yesterday,
today and tomorrow this dynamism is always propelling us forward
into new curiosities and challenges. It does not shut us off from the
vorId, il is lhe vorId draving us inlo nore of ourseIves as ve spiraI in
lhe hunan/divine dance.
This world is queer indeed and those who wish to play it straight
are failing to see that new horizons are declared holy and we are pro-
pelled on in courage not certainty. Where are those who will sit with the
fear and uncerlainly and nol ee in lhe face of a queer god~lhe earIy
foIIovers ed in lhe face of a crucihed god, very queer in lhe }evish
vorId. They ed lo 'Iife as nornaI lul il didnl vork~il can never
work because life if fully engaged with is far from normal. Norms are
easy conveniences for lhose vho Iike surveys and slalislics, lhey are
nol for lhose vho Iive. Life can never le nornaI for lhose vho enlrace
lhe esh as divine, lhose vho are Iovers of god lhrough lhal esh in aII
ils diverse gIory.
Theology that has incarnation at its heart is queer indeed, what else
so fundanenlaIIy chaIIenges lhe nalure of hunan and divine idenlily.
Thal lhe divine innersed ilseIf in esh and lhal esh is nov divine
is Queer Theology at its peak. There can be no sanitization here or
sonelhing of lhe divine essence viII le Iosl~il is nol lhe genelicaIIy
nodihed, nelaphysicaI son of god lhal decIares lhe divine hunan con-
junclion lul lhe screaning laly lorn anidsl lhe cov shil and eas,
covered in his lirlhing lIood and received inlo lhe uncerlain arns of
his chiId/nolher lhal decIares saIvalion for aII. MaIe lheoIogians have
preferred lo dislance lhenseIves fron lhese aII loo earlhy nonenls
and in so doing have nissed lhe poinl~lhe divine is earlhy, nessy and
partial and is to be found there in all its glory, not in splendid doctrine
stripped of all humanness.
Queer lheoIogians are perhaps afraid lul neverlheIess courageous
enough lo pIunge inlo esh in ils unrehned fuIIness in order lo enlrace
and le enlraced ly lhe divine. odies leII very conpIex and chaIIeng-
ing slories and lhese nov lecone lhe sluff of lhe saIvihc laIe. We are
aII loo veII avare of hov ve have conslrucled lodies vilhin lound-
aries lhal couId never conlain lhen lul have al lines dislorled and
mutilated them. Queer Theology challenges the boundaries and wishes
to propel us into a much wider paradise, one no longer walled and
narrov Iike lhal in Cenesis. Incarnalion viII nol le lhus conhned. Il
throws down a challenge to imprisoned and imprisoning theology, we
loo are chaIIenged lo Iel go of lhe doclrines and dognas ve have nade
luiIl on our fear of lhe divine lhal puIsales vilhin and lelveen us. We
donl have lo enlody Creek virlues anynore and so are free of lhe fear
instilled by metaphysical perfection and ultimate ends. I came that you
nay have Iife in alundance is a profoundIy eshy slalenenl and one
that releases us into the passionate embrace of our own incarnation.
We are chaIIenged lo nove leyond nelaphysics and lhe conforl-
able world that they create. Queer Theory with its post-modern roots
asks us lo dislrusl any nasler narralive and lhere is no ligger one lhan
nelaphysics~il hxes everylhing in ils pIace and gives a pIace lo every-
lhing. When ve nove leyond ve shake lhe foundalions of lhe lheo-
logical world. But are we doing something profoundly anti-Christian?
Crahan Ward provides a suggeslion vhich aIIovs us lo argue lhal
ve are nol. The Chrislian god/nan does nol have a hxed nalure, even
though subsequent theology has argued that he does, but a permeable
and unstable nature. Ward alerts us to the many changes that took
place, the queer transformations, that showed the unstable categories
invoIved in Cod incarnale. Il is lhrough changes fron divine lo esh,
esh and lIood lo lread and vine and fron hunan lo cosnic spiril lhal
lhe fuII incarnalion of redenplive praxis lakes pIace. Whal is hxed and
slalIe and overarchingIy nelaphysicaI aloul lhis` y guarding lhese
slories vilh a proleclive shieId of Creek nelaphysics and excIusivily
ve have nade lhen slalIe and cIear calegories, lhus negaling lhen.
Queer Theology would like to take them in the raw and examine how
we between us embody these and other forms of incarnation. Queer
lheoIogians vish lo lake seriousIy lhe slories ve leII ourseIves and each
olher, lhese incIude lhe coIIeclive narralive ve have shared over lvo
niIIennia as veII as lhe slories of our Iives and our connunilies. There
are no boundaries, all stories tell us of the incarnation we share and the
redenplive space ve slrive for.
Our narralive herilage is rich and fuII of caulionary laIes for lhe
lenlalive queer lheoIogian! The lenplalion slories are parlicuIarIy
interesting and inspirational as here we see stated plainly the rejection
of incarnation with the help of metaphysics! Turning stones into bread,
ying vilhoul vings, giving over ones ovn pover lo anolher in order
lo have earlhIy pover is aII very easy and perhaps even expecled if
ve conlinue lo operale vilhin a nelaphysicaI franevork, afler aII isnl
lhis vhal nany a fundanenlaIisl laIe is nade of` Hov nany conver-
sion slories have ve heard lhal conlain eIenenls of lhe lruIy fanlaslic
and vhal of lhe aggressiveIy grasping capilaIisn of nany of lhose vho
espouse a fundanenlaIisl failh` ul ve hnd lhal aII lhese exlraverl
trappings so completely unremarkable for an almighty god are rejected
ly lhe one vho is decIared lhe divine incarnale. Inslead, lhere is a Iife
connilled lo lhe slruggIe for juslice and Iileralion in lhe reaI Iives of
real people. People in time and place struggling with their own incar-
nale denons of prejudice, poverly, coIoniaIizalion, lerror, fear and lhe
desire lo le lhenseIves in silualions lhal will not always allow this.
If we engage with this story from our heritage do we conclude that
lhose vho vork in lhe heId of nelaphysics have soId oul lo lhe deviI`!
Queer Theology does not operate in easy answers and tidy doctrine,
truly honouring our incarnation does not allow for such neat packag-
ing and comfort. Incarnation and queer theory are splendid passionate
and risk compelling companionsthey promise nothing and they offer
everylhing.
Queer Theory/Theology and Its Critics
We lolh have our rools in feninisl Iileralion lheoIogy and so hnd il
interesting that there is some concern emanating from both of these
camps. These concerns are perhaps, at this stage, no more than theoreti-
cal warning noises since the true praxis of Queer Theology needs some
time before it can be assessed.
Like post-modernism, Queer Theology asks that we de-mystify,
undo and sulverl. Iar fron leing seen as unheIpfuI lhis approach is
vieved as cruciaI lo our veII-leing and ve are encouraged lo enlrace
il as a very heaIlhy palh ly lhose vho vork vilhin Iileralion and feni-
nisl lheoIogy. Hovever, lhere is a Iine dravn in lhe sand ly lolh sels
of theologians when it comes to post-modernism and its apparent lack
of noraI judgenenl. everIey Harrison highIighls lhis ly conlrasling a
feninisl Iileralion lheoIogians response lo lhe slory of a lorlure viclin,
she says it would be outrage and a determination to act to alter the situa-
tion. The post-modernist, she claims, when told the story would simply
repIy, 'Hov inleresling. Can Queer Theory/lheoIogy as a chiId of lhis
novenenl avoid lhe sane pilfaIIs` In hnding everylhing inleresling
and expanding of the human story can Queer Theology be expected to
draw a line and still be true to its queer agenda.
Sheila Jeffreys is in the forefront of those who ask where do women
go if we transform the discourse from feminism to queer. If gender is
nothing more than a performance that can be adopted at will then, she
argues, the edge is taken off feminist politics ( Jeffreys 2003: 33). Indeed,
she suggests that the queer agenda has arisen from a gay lifestyle, where
women are not only absent but also at best disliked and at worst paro-
died and despised, and so women are not central to any queer theory.
She varns lhal hislory shovs us lhal vonen do nol survive veII in
male dominated politics be they queer or any other type.
We may accept that her suggested genesis for queer theory is correct
but we do not necessarily agree that this means all is lost. Coming at
lhis issue fron lheoIogy as ve do neans lhal ve have differenl cal-
egories in vhich lo lake refuge, such as lhe very queer nolion lhal lhe
divine and hunan esh are inlerchangealIe and lhal in Chrisl lhere is
neither male nor female. As feminist theologians we are only too well
avare lhal lhis has leen alused and used in favour of one gender and
nol lhe olher lul il aIso provides an opporlunily for us lo lhink leyond
gender in a whole and empowering way.
Anolher of }effreys concerns is lhal in considering gender as a per-
formance we are still stuck within binary opposites when looking for
vays lo perforn. She is lherefore nol al aII convinced lhal anylhing is
challenged but rather the categories male and female are reinforced.
She highlights her point by examining butch/femme relationships and
transsexual surgeryshe does not in the ordinary way connect both
issues but is concerned that a number of older butches are opting for
surgery as their bodies soften and they look more female, in order to
overcone lhis lhey go under lhe knife. }effreys is underslandalIy con-
cerned that both womanhood and lesbianism are being undermined
here in an allenpl lo opl inlo naIe pover and priviIege ( }effreys 2OO3:
130). She is also aware than when academic language is used and sexu-
aIily is spoken of in acadenic Ianguage il lecones difhcuIl lo crilicize
without being labelled as out of touch. Her concern arises from the
feminist understanding that gender as we know it is based on power
reIalions and her vondering hov lhis is lo le overcone if lasic gender
construction is simply performed and not challenged. Far from quoting
}oan NeslIe as lhe one vho nay expIain hov gender is sulverled
through butch/femme role-playing she cites her as one who popular-
ises roIe pIaying as a valered dovn forn of S/M in vhich doninance
and submission are embraced as delights and not political problems
( }effreys 2OO3: 127). }effreys is dislressed lhal nany S/M dykes lake
their ideas from gay male culture where they are formed in a world of
hyper-masculinity. A culture that often assess real masculinity in terms
of the amount of pain that can be borne and is often acted out with
fascisl insignia as sexuaI props. }effreys is unconvinced lhal lhis is a
healthy culture and she warns women against it.
We do not wish to dismiss Jeffreys concerns or to assume that there
is a simple solution when theologians are dealing with these issues,
after all it has been pointed out that theology itself is heterosexual
(Althaus-Reid 2001). We will do well to heed her concerns and to bring
into play the less stable categories that at its inception underpinned
Chrislianily~lhose aIready nenlioned, incarnalion, lranshguralion,
transubstantiation and so on. Will we be successful, who knows? Queer
Theology is, like all theology, an act of faith and reason with no guaran-
tee of success for either.
Feminists are not the only ones to highlight concerns in relation to
queer theory. Liberation theologians are worried that queer politics
has no inleresl in anaIysing capilaIisn vieving lhe nain issue as one
of access and not the system itself. As we both come from a libera-
tion background we would be more than reluctant to engage with any
lheory lhal overIooked lhe genocidaI reaIilies of advanced capilaIisn.
Hovever, as feninisl Iileralion lheoIogians ve nake lhe conneclions
between sex, gender and capitalism and so in incorporating queer
theory into our theology we hope to expand the area of issues that
come under scrutiny and not actually reduce them. We are no longer
nave enough lo lhink lhal IoucauIls cIain lhal pIeasure resisls pover
is unproblematic, after all pleasure costs and we are not left unaided in
our choice of pIeasures. IIeasure is prohl! We hope lhal queer lheoI-
ogy deveIops lrue denocracy, lhal is a syslen lhal has conneclion and
mutuality at its heart, and that it does not simply become yet another
form of liberal or neo-liberal theology that puts consumerism in the
place of real people touching and being touched.
Of course, fundamentalist Christians do a good line in holiness
and the rewards of capitalism and this too needs to be combated. No
accident we think that a form of Christianity that is so based in family
vaIues is aIso vedded lo consunplion and hnanciaI revard for hoIy
Iives. If Queer TheoIogy does no nore lhan deslaliIize lhe assuned
'righlness of faniIy vaIues il viII have slruck a soIid lIov againsl
advanced capilaIisn. Il viII, of course, do nuch nore lhan lhal! Il is
our hope lhal queer lheory aids lheoIogy in lhe lask of noving fron
metaphysics to metamorphing, not just for the sake of it but in order
lhal nore space nay le nade for lhe gIorious and diverse crealion of
lhe divine lo dance and le ceIelraled.
REFERENCES
AIlhaus-Reid, MarceIIa
2001 Indecent Theology (London: Routledge).
Butler, Judith
1990 Gender Trouble (London: Routledge).
Cleto, Fabio
1999 Camp: Queer Aesthetics and the Performing Subject (Edinburgh: Edinburgh
Universily Iress).
Hennessy, Rosemary
2000 3URW3OHDVXUH6H[XDO,GHQWLW\LQ/DWH&DSLWDOLVP (London: Routledge).
Jeffreys, Sheila
2003 Unpacking Queer Politics (Cambridge: Polity).

Althaus-Reid, Marcella. 2007.thinking Theology and Queer Theory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Althaus-Reid, Marcella. 2007.thinking Theology and Queer Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

http://fth.sagepub.

http://fth.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

- Jun 11, 2007 Version of Record >>

You might also like