Review: Jenell Williams Paris: The End of Sexual Identity: Why Sex is Too Important to Define Who We Are (IVPress, large-print edition, 2011).

As a (‘straight’) advocate for my homosexual friends and clients part of my job is to read/discern  ¢â‚¬Ëœwho ¢â‚¬â„¢s saying what to whom ¢â‚¬â„¢ about gender and sexuality issues. Together with the world-wide turmoil created by religio-political fundamentalist terrorism, this is currently the #1 subject of fraught debate within political and religious institutions, in all Western countries and in most other nations as well. (See Footnote [1])

Here we have a unique contribution to this debate: a book (wait for it) written by a somewhat theologically conservative heterosexual Christian who is a professor of anthropology in an American college, a happily married mother of three small children (from six live births:  ¢â‚¬ËœIan, Simon and Gordon, my triplets, passed away at birth ¢â‚¬â„¢), who respects both the findings of peer-reviewed academic studies into the etiology of sexual orientation, and actually listens to the life-experiences of people right across Kinsey ¢â‚¬â„¢s gender-spectrum. She writes non-prescriptively (with one exception  ¢â‚¬“ see the next paragraph), and the book ¢â‚¬â„¢s publisher is renowned for espousing a (broadening) Evangelical stance. I have a great sense of hope when this sort of book is hitting the shelves of religious bookshops and academic libraries ¢â‚¬ ¦

So what ¢â‚¬â„¢s new about her approach? Simply this:  ¢â‚¬ËœPeople need identity categories that give a sense of self and community ¢â‚¬â„¢ [111] [but]  ¢â‚¬Ëœthe scientific problem with heterosexuality is that it is an imprecise category, barely a hundred years old, that is difficult to define or measure ¢â‚¬ ¦ Heterosexuality is a concept riddled with problems. I ¢â‚¬â„¢d even call it an abomination. So let us reject the label of heterosexuality altogether ¢â‚¬â„¢ [31, 38, 48, 129].

Further,  ¢â‚¬ËœThe concept  ¢â‚¬Å“homosexual ¢â‚¬  really functions as a category of negation, containing all who are not heterosexual ¢â‚¬ ¦ It just doesn ¢â‚¬â„¢t make sense to lump diverse individuals together as  ¢â‚¬Å“homosexuals ¢â‚¬  and then claim the Bible has a single message of condemnation that covers each of their situations ¢â‚¬â„¢ [72]. (See Footnote [2]).  ¢â‚¬ËœWhen homosexuality is seen as a disease to be cured, homosexuals seem like a distinct kind of (sick) people. However, when the focus is on care instead of cure, sexuality can be acknowledged for what it really is: a valuable part of human life ¢â‚¬ ¦ through which we receive grace. All humans are beloved children of God, each with a unique sexual story ¢â‚¬ ¦ so let us grow towards greater congruence between what we value and how we live ¢â‚¬â„¢ [131].

More:  ¢â‚¬ËœCreating categories, even one as seemingly simple as  ¢â‚¬Å“boy ¢â‚¬ , is not just descriptive. Categories also prescribe what is normal and right, and who belongs and who doesn ¢â‚¬â„¢t ¢â‚¬â„¢ [3, 14]. (How do we classify those who are born ambiguously sexed?). Binary fixed-position debates (homosexuality vs. heterosexuality, leading to affirmation or negation of same-sex sex) are not helpful [8].     Let ¢â‚¬â„¢s learn from the Bugis ethnic group in South Sulawesi, Indonesia: for them men ¢â‚¬â„¢s and women ¢â‚¬â„¢s sense of who they are exists on a continuum: men, feminine men,  ¢â‚¬Ëœbissu ¢â‚¬â„¢ (a perfect combination of male and female), masculine women, women [7].

[And let ¢â‚¬â„¢s reject]  ¢â‚¬Ëœcultural scripts, honoring heterosexuals and maligning homosexuals ¢â‚¬ ¦ For all of us redemption is incomplete. Let us set a place at the table for people with conflicted desires, inconsistent behavior and complicated sexual journeys. And if we really receive them, we ¢â‚¬â„¢ll realize that they are us ¢â‚¬â„¢ [132].  ¢â‚¬ËœIn the post-sexual identity church, there ¢â‚¬â„¢s no moral high ground for heterosexuals and no closet for homosexuals. There ¢â‚¬â„¢s just people, each of whom is lover and loved ¢â‚¬â„¢ [105].

Now, wait a minute, I hear some of you retort. All that talk of grace sounds like Jesus ¢â‚¬â„¢ approach to marginalized folks. Where ¢â‚¬â„¢s her  ¢â‚¬Ëœconservatism ¢â‚¬â„¢? Well, it ¢â‚¬â„¢s muted, but it ¢â‚¬â„¢s there. For example:  ¢â‚¬ËœMy views are conservative  ¢â‚¬“ I ¢â‚¬â„¢m a  ¢â‚¬Å“sex only within marriage between a man and a woman ¢â‚¬  kind of Christian ¢â‚¬â„¢ [94].

Let me lob a few more of her  ¢â‚¬Ëœprogressive ¢â‚¬â„¢ hand grenades into the scenery:

~~  ¢â‚¬ËœLet us pause in the rush to judgment ¢â‚¬ ¦  ¢â‚¬Å“Homosexuality is a sin ¢â‚¬  is a poor representation of Christian teachings ¢â‚¬ ¦ Holiness is not synonymous with morality ¢â‚¬â„¢ [xvi, viii].

~~  ¢â‚¬ËœAny of the three options for understanding sex  ¢â‚¬“ rigidly held sexual dimorphism, openly held sexual dimorphism or sex as a spectrum  ¢â‚¬“ could fit with a Christian understanding of creation ¢â‚¬â„¢ [18].

~~  ¢â‚¬ËœWhen we name, label, sort and categorize ¢â‚¬ ¦ the consequences [can be] grave; for example when Europeans labeled Africans  ¢â‚¬Å“primates ¢â‚¬  instead of  ¢â‚¬Å“humans ¢â‚¬  ¢â‚¬â„¢ [19].

~~ One of her friends:  ¢â‚¬ËœI ¢â‚¬â„¢m not gay ¢â‚¬ ¦ But I ¢â‚¬â„¢m having sex with men, so I can ¢â‚¬â„¢t be straight, right? Why can ¢â‚¬â„¢t I just be Tom? ¢â‚¬â„¢ [48].

Conclusion?  ¢â‚¬ËœChristians too often offer a  ¢â‚¬Å“one-size-fits-all ¢â‚¬  condemnation of homosexuality [to support] their collective delusion of moral superiority. When it comes to sex, there is no privileged, holy  ¢â‚¬Å“we ¢â‚¬  and no sinful, troubled  ¢â‚¬Å“them ¢â‚¬ ; there ¢â‚¬â„¢s only us, each of whom finds both virtue and vice in sexuality ¢â‚¬â„¢ [81].

A  ¢â‚¬Ëœgood read ¢â‚¬â„¢ for conservatives with an open mind.

Footnotes:

[1] More about various Christian approaches to Homosexuality  ¢â‚¬“ see http://jmm.org.au/articles/28630.htm

[2] Paris has an interesting couple of pages on terminology: should we use words with which many research recipients describe themselves ( ¢â‚¬Ëœlesbian ¢â‚¬â„¢,  ¢â‚¬Ëœgay ¢â‚¬â„¢,  ¢â‚¬Ëœqueer ¢â‚¬â„¢)? Or acronyms  ¢â‚¬“ from the basic LGBT to lengthier ones (LGBTQQPA(H), BDSM [76]? Go figure that one out! My suggestion (which I think Parisdoesn ¢â‚¬â„¢t use – the increasingly popular acronym DSG:  ¢â‚¬ËœDiverse sexuality/gender ¢â‚¬â„¢).

(Rev. Dr.) Rowland Croucher             October 2012

jmm.org.au.