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 ‘who’s saying what to whom’ 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: ‘Ian, Simon and Gordon, my triplets, passed away at birth’), 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’s gender-spectrum. She writes non-prescriptively (with one exception – see the next paragraph), and the book’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…

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

Further, ‘The concept “homosexual” really functions as a category of negation, containing all who are not heterosexual… It just doesn’t make sense to lump diverse individuals together as “homosexuals” and then claim the Bible has a single message of condemnation that covers each of their situations’ [72]. (See Footnote [2]). ‘When 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… through which we receive grace. All humans are beloved children of God, each with a unique sexual story… so let us grow towards greater congruence between what we value and how we live’ [131].

More: ‘Creating categories, even one as seemingly simple as “boy”, is not just descriptive. Categories also prescribe what is normal and right, and who belongs and who doesn’t’ [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’s learn from the Bugis ethnic group in South Sulawesi, Indonesia: for them men’s and women’s sense of who they are exists on a continuum: men, feminine men, ‘bissu’ (a perfect combination of male and female), masculine women, women [7].

[And let’s reject] ‘cultural scripts, honoring heterosexuals and maligning homosexuals… 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’ll realize that they are us’ [132]. ‘In the post-sexual identity church, there’s no moral high ground for heterosexuals and no closet for homosexuals. There’s just people, each of whom is lover and loved’ [105].

Now, wait a minute, I hear some of you retort. All that talk of grace sounds like Jesus’ approach to marginalized folks. Where’s her ‘conservatism’? Well, it’s muted, but it’s there. For example: ‘My views are conservative – I’m a “sex only within marriage between a man and a woman” kind of Christian’ [94].

Let me lob a few more of her ‘progressive’ hand grenades into the scenery:

~~ ‘Let us pause in the rush to judgment… “Homosexuality is a sin” is a poor representation of Christian teachings… Holiness is not synonymous with morality’ [xvi, viii].

~~ ‘Any of the three options for understanding sex – rigidly held sexual dimorphism, openly held sexual dimorphism or sex as a spectrum – could fit with a Christian understanding of creation’ [18].

~~ ‘When we name, label, sort and categorize… the consequences [can be] grave; for example when Europeans labeled Africans “primates” instead of “humans”’ [19].

~~ One of her friends: ‘I’m not gay… But I’m having sex with men, so I can’t be straight, right? Why can’t I just be Tom?’ [48].

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

A ‘good read’ for conservatives with an open mind.

Footnotes:

[1] More about various Christian approaches to Homosexuality – 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 (‘lesbian’, ‘gay’, ‘queer’)? Or acronyms – from the basic LGBT to lengthier ones (LGBTQQPA(H), BDSM [76]? Go figure that one out! My suggestion (which I think Parisdoesn’t use – the increasingly popular acronym DSG: ‘Diverse sexuality/gender’).

(Rev. Dr.) Rowland Croucher         October 2012

jmm.org.au.