CHAPTER1O

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
QUEER THEORY

PATRICK S. CHENG

Introduction

Queer theory is a critical approach to sexuality and gender that challenges what is ‘nor­
mal’ or ‘natural’. Specifically, queer theory contends that identities—including identi-
ties relating to sexuality and gender—are socially constructed across different times
and places, and thus are fluid and not fixed. Furthermore, queer theory recognizes that
such identities are constructed through the deployment of social power, including the
power of discourse and naming. Since the term ‘queer theory’ was first coined by Teresa
de Lauretis in the Journal Differences (1991), it has deeply influenced scholarship in the
realm of literary, historical, and cultural studies.
Religious studies scholars and theologians—especially those who identify as lesbian,
gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI)—have also used queer theory in their
work since at least 1993 (Shore-Goss 2010:188). Several articles have been published in
recent years that provide a helpful overview of the intersections of queer theory and
religious studies (Schippert 2011; Jenzen and Munt 2012; Wilcox 2012; Brintnall 2013)
as well as the intersections of queer theory and theology (Lowe 2009; Schneider and
Roncolato 2012).
There is some irony, of course, in the fact that an anti-identitarian discourse like queer
theory has taken on an identity of its own. It is for this reason that at least one religious
studies scholar has wished that he could wave his fairy wand and ‘erase the words queer
and queer theory from our lexicón’ (Brintnall 2013: 55, emphasis original). Similarly,
Teresa de Lauretis herself disavowed the use of the term ‘queer theory’ as a ‘conceptually
vacuous creature of the publishing industry’, Just three years after she coined the term
(de Lauretis 1994:297).
Notwithstanding its contested use, queer theory has become an important part of
the field of sexuality studies. Accordingly, this chapter will provide an introduction to
154 PATRICK S. CHENG

what theologians should know about queer theory. Recalling the work of the late Eve
Kosofsky Sedgwick on ‘minoritizing’ and ‘universalizing’ views of homosexuality
(Sedgwick 2008: 82-86), this chapter will argüe that queer theory is not just a narrow,
or minoritizing, topic of interest to LGBTI-identified theologians alone. Rather, queer
theory is also a ‘universalizing’ topic of interest to all theologians, particularly to the
extent that Christian theology has always challenged and questioned issues of identity,
whether relating to God or humanity. For this reason, Gerard Loughlin has argued that
theology ‘is’ and ‘has always beerí a ‘queer thing’ (Loughlin 2007a: 7).
This chapter is organized into four sections. This introduction will be followed by
a section examining the word ‘queer’ and outlining four marks, or characteristics, of
queerness: (1) identity without essence; (2) transgression; (3) resisting binarles; and
(4) social construction. A section providing an overview of queer theology—that is,
‘queer talk about God’—and discussing four strands of queer theology that correspond
to each of the four marks of queerness will then follow. Finally, some future directions
for queer theology will be proposed; in particular, six ways in which queer theory might
inform the future work of queer theologians.

Four Marks of Queerness

Queer theory is a notoriously difficult concept to define. Because queer theory is a criti­
ca] methodology that challenges the stability of identities—including sexual and gender
identities—it resists attempts to reduce itself to an ‘essence’ or a core definition. Indeed,
Lauren Berlant and Michael Warner have suggested that the term ‘queer commentary’
might be a better way of describing queer theory. In their view, it is ‘not useful’ to treat
queer theory as a ‘thing’ or an ‘academic object’ because it cannot be ‘assimilated into a
single discourse’ (1995:343).
Similarly, Lee Edelman has criticized attempts by scholars to describe the State of
queer theory as a ‘fantasy’. For Edelman, queer theory resists any effort to create a ‘com-
munal site’, a ‘safe harbor’, or an ‘image of home’. Rather, queer theory must resist ‘every
totalizatiorí that would describe it as a ‘unified field of visión (1995: 343,348). Edelman’s
warning should be taken seriously by anyone—including this author—who tries to cap­
ture or boil down the essence of queer theory.
Keeping in mind the reservations of Berlant, Warner, and Edelman, this chapter
does attempt to address the practica! need of introducing queer theory to those who
are unfamiliar with its slippery contours. In addition to this chapter, there are a number
of helpful book-length introductions to queer theory (Jagose 1996; Turner 2000; Hall
2003; Sullivan 2003), as well as shorter articles (Schneider 2000; Murfin and Ray 2009:
420-423), that provide a useful overview of queer theory for pedagogical purposes.
A key task of queer theory is to observe and document the deployment and effects
of the word ‘queer’. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, ‘queer’ can be traced
back to at least the fourteenth century, when it originally meant ‘to questiorí or ‘to
 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM QUEER THEORY 155

inquire’. In the sixteenth century, the word took on the meaning of ‘strange, odd, pecu­
liar, eccentric’, and, in the early nineteenth century, the word became a synonym for
transgression—that is, ‘to put out of order’ or ‘to spoil’. At the end of the nineteenth
century, ‘queer’ had become a derogatory term for a male homosexual (O£D Online
2013).
In the late 1980S, gay and lesbian activists, including those involved with organiza-
tions such as Queer Nation, sought to reclaim the term ‘queer’ in a positive way. For
example, one of the slogans of Queer Nation was ‘We’re here, we’re queer, get used to
it!’ By doing so, however, the word ‘queer’ became a shorthand term for describing peo-
pie who self-identified as sexual and gender minorities. To this day, queer’ is still often
used as an umbrella term to refer to a variety of sexual and gender minorities, includ­
ing LGBTI people. This can be particularly useful in the context of an ever-expanding
alphabet soup of identities, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer,
questioning, allied, asexual, pansexual, and two-spirit identities.
This chapter, however, will focus less on the shorthand or umbrella definition of
‘queer’—which is grounded primarily in sexuality and gender identity categories—and
more on understanding queerness as strangeness or transgressivity. In particular, this
chapter will propose four marks, or characteristics, of queerness: (1) identity without
essence; (2) transgression; (3) resisting binarles; and (4) social construction. These four
marks are not intended to be an essentialist definition of queerness, but they are sim-
ply one way of documenting the various strands of what queer theorists have observed
about queerness since the early 199OS. Like the classical four marks of the Church, which
describe a ‘body’ that is remarkably queer (Ward 1999:176-177; Thatcher 2011:135-154),
these four marks of queerness describe a fluid body of ideas that is constantly in the pro-
cessofbecoming.

Identity Without Essence

The first mark of queerness is identity without essence. A key characteristic of the word
‘queer’ is its resistance to stable identity categories. Accordingly, it is not surprising that
‘queer’ lacks a stable definition itself. As David M. Halperin has famously noted in his
book Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography, queerness is an ‘identity without an
essence’. That is, ‘Hiere is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers' (empha-
sis original). Queerness is less a ‘positivity’ than a ‘positionality vis-á-vis the normal’
(1995:62).
As noted earlier, the word ‘queer’ is commonly used as a shorthand or umbrella term
for LGBTI persons and other sexual and gender minorities. However, the notion of
queerness as ‘identity without essence’ is actually at odds with these sexual and gender
identity categories. Rather than reaffirming such categories, queerness challenges the
stability and naturalness of such categories. Notwithstanding the pop artist Lady Gaga
and her LGBTI-affirming anthem of ‘Born This Way’—in which she asserts that T’m
beautiful in my way | 'Cause God makes no mistakes | I’m on the right track, baby 11 was
156 PATRICK S. CHENG

born this way’ (2011)—queerness is about questioning and challenging identities, and
not reaffirming them.
Queer theory difters from gay and lesbian studies to the extent that the latter disci­
pline treats the identity of ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’ as a given and becomes the focal point for
reflections about marginalized or non-normative sexualities. Gay and lesbian studies
reflect the traditional ethnic studies model of thinking about race, and the contempo-
rary LGBTI-rights movement has adopted such a model in arguing for LGBTI civil
rights based upon immutable characteristics. Queerness, by contrast, resists and chal-
lenges this essentialist way of thinking about sexual and gender identities.
According to Annamarie Jagose, the ‘definitional indeterminancy’ and ‘elasticity’ of
queerness is one of its constituent characteristics’ (1996:1). Not surprisingly, queer the­
ory has moved far beyond its original focus on sexuality and gender issues, and into the
realms of race, post-colonialism, temporality, and neo-liberalism (Eng with Halberstam
and Muñoz 2005). Some of these topics will be covered in the final section of this chap-
ter about possible future directions in queer theology.

Transgression
The second mark of queerness is transgression. Queerness, as David Halperin describes
it, is ‘whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant’ (1995- 62). In
other words, queerness can be understood more by what it opposes than what it is. To
that end, it may be helpful to think about the word queer’ as a verb instead of a noun. To
queer something—for example, the Bible or Christian theology—is to subvert, decon-
struct, and challenge it, as opposed to merely reaffirming it.
The connection between transgression and queerness aróse in the 1980S and 1990S,
when activist groups such as AIDS Coalition to Unlease Power (ACT UP) and Queer
Nation engaged in ‘confrontational and controversial’ direct actions in order to pro­
test governmental and ecclesial apathy with respect to the HIV/AIDS pandemic as
well as institutional homophobia. For example, in 1989, ACT UP engaged in a ‘Stop the
Church’ action at St Patrick’s Román Catholic Cathedral in New York City that involved
the disruption of Sunday Mass. It was around this time that activists began using the
term ‘queer’ to describe their ‘unwillingness to conform’ to social norms of silence with
respect to their sexualities (Gibson, Alexander, and Meem 2013: 76-77).
Michael Warner has written about the important connections between queerness and
transgression in his book The Trouble With Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer
Life. In constructing an ethics of queer life, Warner argües that the fight by LGBTI activ­
ists for marriage equality is actually ‘a mistake’ and a ‘loss of visión’, particularly in light
of queer cultures historical affirmation of sexual autonomy. For Warner, queerness must
resist the ‘norms of straight culture’ as the standard by which ‘queer life should be meas-
ured’ (1999:1,88).
Similarly, Lee Edelman has strongly rejected the compulsory narrative of reproduc-
tive futurism’ in his book No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive. For Edelman, it
 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM QUBER THEORY 157

is time to stop kneeling at the ‘shrine of the sacred Child’ that ‘marks the fetishistic fixa-
tion of heteronormativity’. That is, our society is often more interested in protecting the
needs of the fictional ‘fantasmatic Child’—for example, saving children from the ‘threat’
of LGBT people—than protecting the ‘actuality of freedom itself’ (2004:11, 21). It should
be noted that Edelmarís critique of reproductive futurism and the ‘Child’ is not a critique
of actual children or the raising of children. Rather, it is a critique of a ‘Save Our Children’
ideology that curtails the freedoms and civil liberties of actual people in the ñame of a fic-
titious ‘innocence’ that is continuously under siege’ (2004: 21-22). For both Edelman and
Warner, transgression is a queer valué that must be embraced instead of being rejected.

Resisting Binarles
The third mark of queerness is resisting binarles. Queerness challenges the gender binary
System in which there are only two options—male and female—with respect to biologi-
cal sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Under this System, a person who is clas-
sified as a ‘man’ with respect to biological sex is automatically assumed to have a male
gender identity as well as have a heterosexual orientation (that is, be sexually attracted
to only women). Similarly, a person who is classified as a 'womarí with respect to bio­
logical sex is automatically assumed to have a female gender identity and to be sexually
attracted only to men.
Queerness challenges this binary view of the world. First, not all people can be classi­
fied as either ‘men’ or ‘women’ with respect to biological sex. Approximately 1.7 per cent
of all births involve intersex conditions in which a baby is born with ambiguous sexual
organs or with genitalia that do not match the baby’s chromosomal make-up (Thatcher
2011: 12-13). Second, one’s biological sex does not necessarily determine one’s gender
identity. A person who is classified as a man in terms of biological sex may have a female
gender identity. Third, not all people have a heterosexual orientation (that is, are sexu­
ally attracted primarily to persons of the other biological sex). A person who is classi­
fied as a woman in terms of biological sex can be sexually attracted primarily to other
women, or to both women and men.
Queerness also challenges the heterosexual/homosexual binary. As Eve Kosofsky
Sedgwick notes in her book Epistemology ofthe Closet, this binary is highly problematic.
First, Sedgwick observes that the concept of ‘heterosexuality’ is actually meaningless
without the concept of ‘homosexuality’ to define itself against. That is, heterosexuality is
not so much set apart from homosexuality, but it is actually dependent upon homosexu­
ality for its meaning. As a result, the heterosexual/homosexual binary is ‘irresolvably
unstable’ (2008: 9-10).
Second, Sedgwick noted that there are actually a myriad of factors relating to sex­
ual identity for any given person—for example, one’s preferred sexual acts, one’s most
eroticized sexual organs, one’s sexual fantasies, one’s main locus of emotional bonds,
and one’s enjoyment of power in sexual relations—that do not necessarily depend on
the biological sex of one’s partner (1993: 7). Why then, Sedgwick asked, is the biological
158 PATRICK S. CHENG

sex oí one’s partner the single classification that is lifted up above all others? Again,
Sedgwick challenged the ‘naturalness’ of the heterosexual/homosexual binary in terms
of how sexual identity is classified.
Similarly, Gayle S. Rubín has challenged binary thinking with respect to sexual­ =
ity. In her influential essay ‘Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of
Sexuality’, Rubin lists twelve pairs of binaries that distinguish good’ sexual acts from
‘bad’ ones. These binary pairs inelude heterosexual/homosexual; married/unmarried;
monogamous/promiscuous; and procreative/non-procreative sex (2011:152). By expos-
ing the stark differences between the charmed circle’ (that is, the first element in each
pair) and the ‘outer limits’ (the second element in each pair), Rubin reveáis the impor-
tance of resisting binary thinking with respect to sexuality.

Social Construction
The fourth mark of queerness is social construction. Queer theory, as noted earlier, sub­
scribes to a social constructionist view of sexuality and gender. That is, queer theorists
have argued that there is nothing natural, universal, or fixed about contemporary cat-
egories of sexuality and gender, including the categories of ‘gay’ and ‘lesbiarí. Rather,
these categories are fluid and are constructed by the societies and cultures in which they
exist. Furthermore, these categories result from the deployment of social power, includ­
ing the power of discourse and naming (Thatcher 2011: 24-28).
To be sure, people have engaged in same-sex acts throughout history. However, the
contemporary identity categories of ‘homosexuality’ and ‘heterosexuality’ have not
always existed throughout history. In ancient Greece and Rome, for example, men
defined their sexualities in terms of being active (that is, the one who penetrales others)
or passive (that is, the one who is penetrated), but not in terms of the biológica! sex of
their sex partners (Halperin 2002:113-117).
The late Michel Foucault argued in the first volume of The History of Sexuality that
our contemporary understanding of homosexuality as an identity—that is, as a distinct
‘personage’, ‘life form’, and ‘species’ of humanity—only carne into existence in the nine-
teenth century as a result of the classifying work of sexologists and the discourses of
‘psychiatry, jurisprudence, and literatura’. Before then, people who engaged in sodorny
were viewed merely as a ‘temporary aberratiorí; they did not have an identity based
upon their acts. Foucault also argued that, ironically, as a result of the medicalization
of homosexuality in the nineteenth century, homosexuals were subsequently able to
organize around such an identity and demand the recognition of their ‘legitimacy’ or
‘naturality’ (1990:43,101).
Similarly, Judith Butler has argued that gender is not a matter of natura, but rather
of performativity. Drawing upon the notion of performative acts—in which cer-
tain linguistic statements not only describe reality but change it (for example, ‘I pro-
nounce you man and wife’)—Butler argued in her book Gender Trouble: Feminism
and the Subversión of Identity that gender is not determined by biology, but is rather a
‘repeated stylization of the body’ that congeal[s] over time’ to produce the ‘appearance
 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM QUEER THEORY 159

of substance’ (1990: 45, emphasis added). For example, drag is a powerful reminder of
the constructed nature of gender because it disrupts the norms of gender performativ-
ity. Butler has acknowledged, however, that gender is not something that can be merely
turned on or off at will. Rather, gender is a ‘ritualized productiorí that is ultimately a
constrained repetition of norms’ that is ‘regularized’ and enforced over time through
taboo, ostracism, and even death (1993: 60).
In sum, queer theory challenges the notion that sexuality and gender is fixed and
unchanging throughout different times and places. As the work of Michel Foucault and
Judith Butler has demonstrated, sexual and gender identities are socially constructed, as
opposed to being ‘timeless’ and ‘transhistorical’ categories that are ‘innate and unchang­
ing’ (Bristow 2011: 225).

Four Strands of Queer Theology

Shifting from queer theory to queer theology, this section will examine how contem-
porary Christian theologians have used queer theory in their work. In particular, it will
focus on the academic discipline of queer theology and how queer theologians have
incorporated the four marks of queerness discussed in the previous section—(1) iden-
tity without essence; (2) transgression; (3) resisting binaries; and (4) social construc-
tion—in their scholarship.
Queer theology, broadly speaking, is ‘queer talk about God’ (Cheng 2011: 2). Like the
word ‘queer’, however, queer theology has several definitions. One definition views queer
theology as theological reflection by, for, and about LGBTI people. This identity-based
definition stems from the umbrella definition of queer’ that ineludes a wide spectrum of
sexual and gender minorities, including LGBTI persons.
Under this first definition, queer theology has existed since at least 1955, when the
Anglican priest Derrick Sherwin Bailey published Homosexuality and the Western
Christian Tradition, one of the first books to argüe that the anti-homosexual tradition
in Western Christianity was actually ‘erroneous’ and ‘defective’ (1955: 172-173). Since
the early 2000S, several books (Goss 2002: 239-258; Stuart 2003; Cheng 2011: 26-42;
Cornwall 2011: 43-71) and anthology chapters (Spencer 2004; Shore-Goss 2010) have
been published that provide a helpful overview of theologies that have been written by,
for, and about LGBTI persons.
A second (and narrower) definition of queer theology relates to how theologians have
intentionally used queer theory in their work. It can be argued that, to the extent that
Christianity is a very strange thing from the perspective of the secular world, theology
has exhibited the four marks of queerness from its very beginnings. Despite the argu-
ment that theology ‘is’ and ‘has always been’ queer (Loughlin 2007a: 7), it has only been
since 1993 that queer theologians have engaged explicitly with queer theory in their
writings (Shore-Goss 2010: 188). (This is not surprising, of course, as the term queer
theory’ was not coined until 1991.) To this end, this section will now explore the four
strands of queer theology that correspond with each of the four marks of queer theory.
16o PATRICK S. CHENG

Identity Without Essence

The first strand of queer theology' relates to identity without essence. This strand of queer
theology recalls apophaticism, which was an important theme in early Christianity.
Apophaticism, which means ‘turning away from speech’ (McGuckin 2004: 23), can be
traced back to the early Church theologians Clement of Alexandria (c.150-215) and
Origen (c.186-255), and was more fully developed by Pseudo-Dionysius in the early
sixth century.
According to apophatic theology'—also known as negative theology—God can only
be known by what God is not. That is, God transcends all speech and thought, and is
ultimately ‘above all essence’. Indeed, theologians have consistently recognized the
‘profoundly' limited capacity* of human language and of thought to ‘capture the deity’
(McGuckin 2004: 23). Thus, to the extent that both God and queerness are ‘identities
without essence’, it can be said that God is queer.
Gerard Loughlin makes an explicit connection between God and queerness in his
introductory essay to the anthology Queer Theology: Rethinking the Western Body.
According to Loughlin, ‘queer’ can in fact be ‘offered as a ñame for God’. Citing tra-
ditional theological sources, including the scholastic theology of Thomas Aquinas,
Loughlin argües that we cannot know what God is, but only what God is not. In other
words, ‘God in Godself is an identity without an essence.’ At most we can only say that
‘God is’, in the same way that we can only' say that ‘queer is' (emphasis original). God is
queer precisely because God is ‘radically unknowable’ (2007a: 10).
Virginia Burras also makes a strong connection between theology and queerness.
In her essay ‘Queer Father: Gregory of Nyssa and the Subversión of Identity’, Burrus
explores the asceticism of the early Church Fathers. She equates asceticism with queer­
ness because both are practices that ‘center on resistance to normative discourses ofsex
and sexuality’ (emphasis original). Citing David Halperin’s definition of queerness as
‘identity without essence’, Burrus argües that Christian asceticism is not so much a ‘posi-
tivity’ but rather a ‘positionality vis-á-vis the normative’ (Burrus 2007:147).
As both Loughlin and Burrus have demonstrated, Christian theology is queer
because it understands God—as well as certain practices such as asceticism—as identi­
ties without essence. Furthermore, as Burrus notes, queer readings of traditional theo­
logical texts can be ‘therapeutic’ to the extent that they take ‘theological hate speech’
about queerness and reproduce it as ‘counterspeech’ within such texts (2007:147-148).

Transgression
The second strand of queer theology relates to transgression. Transgression is a key
theme in Christian theology to the extent that it is relates to the destruction of‘tradi-
tional boundaries’ or the undermining of ‘established paradigms’ (Goss 2002: 229).
From the perspective of the secular world, Christianity is a highly transgressive belief
 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM QUEER THEORY 161

System. That is, the incarnation, crucifixión, resurrection, and inbreaking of God’s reign
are all highly transgressive events with respect to the powers and principalities of the
world. As Paul writes, God chose what is foolish, weak, low, and despised to shame those
who are wise, strong, and powerful (i Cor. 1:27-28).
Indeed, Jesús Christ can be understood as the ‘Transgressive Christ’ because he was
tortured and put to death by the religious and political authorities of his day for dar-
ing to queer, or to challenge, the status quo. In fact, he is accused by the assembly of
elders of‘perverting’ their nation (Luke 23:2). To the extent that grace can be understood
in Christological terms (that is, by imitating Christ), grace in light of the Transgressive
Christ can be seen as deviance. Similarly, to the extent that sin can be understood in
Christological terms (that is, by opposing Jesús Christ), sin can be seen as unthink-
ing conformity with the status quo. For example, bystanders who silently acquiesce
to horrific acts of bullying or scapegoating of LGBTI people—whether by students
or by church leaders—can be understood as exhibiting the sin of conformity (Cheng
2012:101-110).
Robert E. Shore-Goss has argued that transgression is a central metaphor for queer
theologies. For Shore-Goss, transgression is at the heart ofqueer theology because queer
theology ‘turns upside down, inside out, and defies heteronormative and homonor-
mative theologies’ (Goss 2002: 225). In his book Jesús Acted Up: A Gay and Lesbian
Manifestó (Goss 1993), Shore-Goss argües that Jesús Christ is the ‘model for transgres­
sive practice’. Like activist groups such as ACT UP that disrupted church Services to cali
attention to the Román Catholic Church’s complicity in the HIV/AIDS pandemic, Jesús
Christ held his own action in the Temple’ by overturning the money changers’ tables
and challenging the established religious system of his day (Goss 1993:147-149).
For Shore-Goss, queer transgression is not limited to religious and political activism.
Transgression also ineludes ‘gender-bending and nonconventional sexualities’ (Goss
2002: 225). To that end, Goss writes about the spiritual dimensions of a variety of queer
sexual practices including erotic massage, full-body orgasm, polyamory, and bareback-
ing in his book Queering Christ: Beyond Jesús Acted Up. These practices are described
in a number of provocative chapters, including ‘Finding God in the Heart-Genital
Connection’ and ‘Is There Sex in Heaven?’ (2002:56-87).
Similarly, the late Marcella Althaus-Reid also used transgression to construct her
‘indecent’ theologies. In her groundbreaking book Indecent Theology: Theological
Perversions in Sex, Gender and Politics, Althaus-Reid uses a transgressive methodol-
ogy of indecent theology to critique the absence of sexual discourse in traditional Latin
American liberation theologies. By juxtaposing explicitly sexual topics with theological
reflection (for example, ‘Oral sex: sexual hi/storias in oral theology’ (emphasis original)
and ‘Black leather: doing theology in corsetlaced boots’), Althaus-Reid demónstrales
how liberation theologies fail to discuss the connections between economic and sexual
oppression and thus erase the sexual lives of the poor (2000:134,148).
The theologies of Shore-Goss and Althaus-Reid demónstrate that Christian theol­
ogy is fundamentally queer to the extent that it transgresses and challenges the world’s
religious, political, and sexual norms. Queer theologies of transgression are important
162 PATRICK S. CHENG

to the extent that they remind us of the scandal of a Messiah who was born in the midst
of an excrement-filled manger and who was crucified as a common criminal on the
cross.

Resisting Binaries
The third strand of queer theology relates to resisting binaries. Notwithstanding the cur-
rent obsession of the religious Right with male/female complementarity, the Christian
theological tradition has long resisted binary, either-or thinking. For example, the
ancient ecumenical councils concluded that Jesús Christ is both fully human and fully
divine, refusing to choose one nature over the other. Similarly, the Trinitarian Godhead
consists of three co-equal persons, which deconstructs binary thinking as well as
pair-bonded relationships. Finally, theological doctrines such as the Román Catholic
doctrine of Purgatory create middle or third spaces in which binary structures such as
heaven and hell are deconstructed.
The erasure of binaries—and, indeed, of boundaries generally—is an important
theme for PatrickS. Cheng. In hisbook Radical Lave: An Introduction to Queer Theology,
Cheng argües that both queerness and Christian theology can be understood in terms of
‘radical love’, which is defined as a love so extreme that it dissolves our existing bounda­
ries’ (2011: p. x). In the same way that queerness deconstructs the binaries of male/female
and of heterosexual/homosexual, Christian theology deconstructs the binary of divine/
human. According to Cheng, Jesús Christ can be understood as the ‘boundary-crosser
extraordinaire’, whether this relates to ‘divine, social, sexual, or gender boundaries’.
That is, the theological doctrine of Christology can be understood as ‘showing how the
boundaries between the divine and the human are forever dissolved in the person of
Jesús Christ’ (2011:79).
Laurel C. Schneider also resists binary thinking in her queer theological work. In her
book Beyond Monotheism: A Theology of Multiplicity, Schneider proposes a ‘logic of
multiplicity’ that moves beyond binary thinking. According to Schneider, monotheism
and the ‘logic of the One’ is actually ‘dualistic’ in that it demands a separation of‘truth
from falsehood’ and that ‘God be clearly and absolutely distinguished from not-God’.
By contrast, the logic of multiplicity results in ‘fluidity, porosity, a-centered relation,
nomadic generativity, promiscuous love, and impossible exchange’ (2008: 74, 152).
Schneider’s logic of multiplicity is a Creative example of how contemporary theologians
have used queer theory to resist binary thinking.
Finally, queer theology resists binaries to the extent that it is not limited only to the
perspectives of gay men and lesbians. Bisexual, transgender, and intersex voices inher-
ently resist the binaries of heterosexual v. homosexual (sexual orientation), male
v. female (gender identity), and man v. woman (biological sex). Although several books
have been published on bisexual (Kolodny 2000; Robinson 2010; Hutchins and Williams
2012), transgender (Mollenkott 2001; Tanis 2003), and intersex (Cornwall 2010) theolo-
gies in recent years, more work needs to be done in this area.
 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM QUEER THBORY 163

Social Construction
The fourth strand of queer theology relates to the theme of social construction. The
Christian theological tradition has long held that earthly identities—whether secular or
religious—are actually not of ultímate significance, particularly from an eschatological
perspective. The one identity that matters is one’s incorporation into the Body of Christ
through the sacrament of Baptism. In this way, theology is strangely consistent with the
social constructionist view of queer theory that challenges the ‘naturalness’ of one’s sex­
ual and gender identities.
As already noted, the work of Michel Foucault and Judith Butler has been central to
queer theory, and in particular with respect to the notion that categories of sexuality and
gender are contingent upon historical and other factors such as social power, as opposed
to being ‘natural’ and ‘universal’. Indeed, several important works have been published
since the late 1990S that explore the contributions of Foucault (Foucault 1999; Carrette
2000; Bernauer and Carrette 2004) as well as Butler (Armour and St Ville 2006) to reli­
gious studies and theology.
Along these lines, Elizabeth Stuart has written extensively about queer theory and
social construction in her theological work. In particular, she has critiqued gay and
lesbian liberation theologies—that is, the precursor to queer theologies—for replicat-
ing traditional identity categories as opposed to transcending them. In her book Gay
and Lesbian Theologies: Repetitions with Critical Difference (2003), Stuart argües that
Christianity, akin to queerness, deconstructs sexual and gender identities through one’s
‘baptismal incorporation to the body of Christ’.
For Stuart, queer theology is ‘not really “about” sexuality in the way that gay and les­
bian is about sexuality’. That is, queer theology recognizes the inherent instability of
sexual and gender categories and, as such, it must interrógate sexuality (as opposed to
sexuality interrogating theology). For Stuart, sexuality and gender categories ultimately
lack any ultímate or eschatological significance’ (2003: 102-103, 114-115). Theology is
queer only to the extent that it recognizes this truth.
Mark Jordán has also written extensively about queer theory and how sexual identi­
ties—including the ‘Sodomite’—have been shaped by Christianity throughout history.
In his book The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology (1997), Jordán challenges
Michel Foucault’s distinction between pre-nineteenth-century homosexual acts on
the one hand (that is, the ancient ‘practice’ of sodomy), and post-nineteenth-century
homosexual identities on the other (that is, the ‘personage’ of the homosexual). Jordán
explores the personage of the ‘Sodomite’, which dates back to at least Peter Damian and
the eleventh century, and suggests that the ‘rapid acceptance’ of homosexuality as an
identity in the twentieth century might actually not have happened without ‘medieval
theology’s preoccupatiorí with the Sodomite (1997:163).
Jordán continúes his exploration of church-influenced Scripts about sexual identities
in Recruiting Young Lave: How Christians Talk About Homosexuality (2011). According
to Jordán, this book is ‘a sort of seque!’ to The Invention ofSodomy in Christian Theology
164 PATRICK S. CHENG

because it documents the ‘invention or improvisation of new characters’—such as

‘inverts, homophiles, and gays’—who can only ‘speak in the space of the sodomite’s
retreat’ in twentieth-century American churches (2011: p. xx). Jordán, like Stuart, dem­
ónstrales how these sexual identities are neither ‘natural’ ñor ‘universal’, but rather are
socially constructed by the Christian tradition.

Future Directions for Queer Theology

This final section will explore some possible future directions for queer theology. As
noted earlier, queer theory has moved far beyond issues of sexuality and gender in its
current iterations. Queer theology, however, has yet to ‘catch up’ with respect to many
of the areas addressed by contemporary queer theory. Accordingly, this section will
propose six issues for future queer theological reflection: (i) queer of colour critique;
(2) queer post-colonial theory; (3) queer psychoanalytical discourse; (4) queer tempo-
rality; (5) queer disability studies; and (6) queer interfaith dialogue.
One issue for future queer theological reflection is queer of colour critique. Queer
of colour critique emerged in the late 1990S as a response to the ‘normativity of white-
ness in mainstream North American gay culture’ (Muñoz 1999: 9). A key principie of
queer of colour critique is that sexuality is ‘constitutive of race and gender’ (Hong and
Ferguson 2011: 2). That is, issues of race and gender cannot be separated from issues of
sexuality. Queer of colour critique recognizes its roots in women of colour feminism
and has proposed an alternative genealogy for queer theory that is grounded in the work
of writers such as James Baldwin, Audre Lorde, and Gloria Anzaldúa (Hames-García
2011: 26-28). One work that addresses queer of colour critique from a theological per-
spective is Rainbow Theology: Bridging Race, Sexuality, and Spirituality (2013) by Patrick
Cheng. Although there are an increasing number of theologians who are addressing
these issues in their scholarship (for example, there is a 2011 special issue of Theology and
Sexuality on queer Asían theologies), queer of colour critique remains a promising area
for future theological reflection.
A second issue for future queer theological reflection is queer post-colonial the­
ory. Queer post-colonial theory emerged in the late 199OS as a challenge to the binary
notion of the ‘deeply ingrained homophobia’ of post-colonial discourse on the one
hand and the perception of gay and lesbian studies as ‘white’ and ‘elitist’ on the other
(Hawley 2001a: 1). Although several books have been published in this area (Hawley
2001b, 2001c), few scholars have addressed queer post-colonial issues from a theological
perspective. One scholar who has done so is Jeremy Punt. In his essay ‘Queer Theory,
Postcolonial Theory, and Biblical Interpretation: A Preliminary Exploration of Some
Intersections’, Punt proposes a queer post-colonial biblical hermeneutic that focuses on
how ‘sexual, racial, colonial, and class dominatiorí identities are constructed and dis-
established’, and how the ‘suppressed voices of the subalterns’ might emerge in biblical
texts (Punt 2011:337).
 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM QUEER THEORY 165

A third issue for future queer theological reflection is queer psychoanalytical discourse.
Psychoanalytic discourse has been an important resource for queer theory from its very
beginnings. Queer theorists such as Leo Bersani, Judith Butler, Teresa de Lauretis, Tim
Dean, Lee Edelman, and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick have all engaged with psychoanalytic
theory in their work (Brintnall 2013: 54), and a key resource in this area is Homosexuality
and Psychoanalysis (Dean and Lañe 2001). As Kent L. Brintnall has noted, however, it is
surprising that this strain of queer theory ‘is virtually absent from religious studies and
theology’. According to Brintnall—who has addressed these intersections in his own
work (2011: 65-99)—queer psychoanalytical discourse should be of particular inter-
est to religious studies scholars and theologians who are interested in discourses about
mysticism, apophaticism, and the sacred (2013: 54-55). It remains to be seen whether
and howqueer theologians rise to Brintnall’s challenge.
A fourth issue for future queer theological reflection is queer temporality. Time has
been an important theme for contemporary queer theorists, as illustrated by the recent
anthology Queer Times, Queer Becomings (McCallum and Tuhkanen 2011). As J. Jack
Halberstam has observed, queer time is not only about the ‘compression and annihi-
lation’ resulting from the HIV/AIDS pandemic, but it is also about the ways in which
LGBTI people often live their lives outside the logic of heteronormative time—that is,
how queer lives are ‘unscripted by the conventions of family, inheritance, and child rear-
ing’ (2005: 2). Whether this relates to queer folk who come out later in life and experi-
ence a second adolescence, or queer folk who remain immersed in youthful club culture
well into their thirties and forties, queer time is about challenging linear notions of tem­
porality. As with the case of queer psychoanalytical discourse, there is a surprising lack
of queer theological work on queer temporality, particularly given the importance of
time with respect to liturgy and theological doctrines such as eschatology.
A fifth issue for future queer theological reflection is queer disability studies. Since the
mid-2ooos, a number of significant works have been published in queer disability stud­
ies, including Crip Theory: Cultural Signs of Queerness and Disability (2006), and Sex
and Disability (2012). As Robert McRuer has noted, there is a strong connection between
able-bodiedness and heterosexuality. Able-bodiedness, like heterosexuality, still ‘largely
masquerades as a nonidentity, as the natural order of things’ (2006:1). Similarly, Anna
Mollow has critiqued the societal bias towards a disability-free future. Citing Lee
Edelmans critique of reproductive futurism, Mollow notes that some disability-related
fund-raising events, with their ‘ritual displays of pity’ that ‘regularly demean disabled
people’, opérate under a logic of‘rehabilitative futurism’ that is threatened by the future
presence of disability (2012: 288). Unfortunately, most queer theorists—not to mention
queer theologians—have yet to make the connections between queerness and disability
in their work.
A sixth issue for future queer theological reflection is queer interfaith dialogue. Several
works have addressed queer theory from the perspective of non-Christian faith tradi-
tions. One such work is the anthology Balancing on the Mechitza: Transgender in Jewish
Community (2010b). This work engages with queer theory by challenging the gender
binaries that are present in many traditional Jewish practices. For example, Noach
166 PATRICK S. CHENG

Dzmura draws upon Talmudic texts in his essay ‘An Ancient Strategy for Managing
Gender Ambiguity’ to find an ‘ambiguous or indeterminate third space’ within the con-
text of a ‘binary norm’ (2010a: 170-171; see also Michaelson 2009 on non-dual Judaism).
Another such work, from a Buddhist perspective, is ‘Towards a Queer Dharmology of
Sex’ (2004). Ibis essay, by the late Roger Corless, argües that Buddhism itself can be
considered queer to the extent that queer consciousness can be understood in terms of
Buddhist principies of non-duality. It is critica! for queer theologians to be in dialogue
with such works—and to be engaged in a constant decentring of their Christian identi-
ties—if they are to take queerness seriously.
In conclusión, it is important to note that the foregoing list is merely one possible
roadmap for fiiture work in queer theology. As Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick has noted,
‘People are different from each other’ (2008: 22). Accordingly, other people may be
interested in issues that were not mentioned in this section, such as queer affect the-
ory, queer ecofeminism, and queer animal studies. It does seem appropriate, however,
to cióse this chapter with non-closure, since ‘queer theory curves endlessly toward a
realization that its realization remains impossible’ (Edelman 1995: 348). To paraphrase
Reinhold Niebuhr, queer theology is an ‘impossible possibility’. As such, theologians are
called, in the words of Lee Edelman, to the following: ‘Reinvent it. Resist it. Refuse it.
Pursue it. Get over it. Just do it’ (1995:348).

References
Althaus-Reid, M. (2000). Indecent Theology: Theological Perversión: in Sex, Gender and Politics.
London: Routledge.
Armour, E. T., and S. M. St Ville (2006). Bodily Citations: Religión and Judith Butler.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Bailey, D. S. (1955). Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. London: Longmans.
Berlant, L., and M. Warner (1995). ‘What Does Queer Theory Teach Us About X?’ Proceedings
ofthe Modem Language Association, 110(3): 343-349.
Bernauer, J„ and J. Carrette (2004) (eds). Michel Foucault and Theology: The Politics ofReligious
Experience. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Brintnall, Kent L. (2011). Ecce Homo: The Male-Body-in-Pain as Redemptive Figure.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brintnall, K. L. (2013). ‘Queer Studies and Religión. Critical Research on Religión, 1(1): 51-61.
Bristow, J. (2011). Sexuality, 2nd edn. Abingdon: Routledge.
Burrus, V. (2007). 'Queer Father: Gregory of Nyssa and the Subversión ofldentity'. In Loughlin
(2007b), 1-34.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversión ofldentity. New York: Routledge.
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of'Sex’. Abingdon: Routledge.
Carrette, J. R. (2000). Foucault and Religión: Spiritual Corporality and Political Spirituality.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Cheng, P. S. (2011). Radical Love: An Introduction to Queer Theology. New York: Seabury Books.
Cheng, P. S. (2012). From Sin to AmazingGrace: Discovering the Queer Christ. New York: Seabury
Books.
 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM QUEER THEORY 167

Cheng, P. S. (2013). Rainbow Theology: Bridging Race, Sexuality, and Spirit. New York: Seabury
Books.
Corless, R. (2004). ‘Towards a Queer Dharmology ofSex’. Culture and Religión, 5(2}: 229-243.
Cornwall, S. (2010). Sex and Uncertainty in the Body ofChrist: Intersex Conditions and Christian
Theology. London: Equinox Press.
Cornwall, S. (2011). Controversies in Queer Theology. London: SCM Press.
de Lauretis, T. (1991). ‘Queer Theory: Lesbian and Gay Sexualities—An Introductiorí.
Differences: A Journal ofFeminist Cultural Studies, 3(2): pp. iii-xviii.
de Lauretis, T. (1994). ‘Habit Changes’. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies,
6(2-3): 296-313-
Dean, T„ and C. Lañe (2001) (eds). Homosexuality and Psychoanalysis. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Dzmura, N. (2010a). ‘An Ancient Strategyfor Managing Gender Ambiguity’. In Dzmura (2010b),
170-181.
Dzmura, N. (2010b) (ed.). Balancing on the Mechitza: Transgender in Jewish Community.
Berkeley: North Atlantic Books.
Edelman, L. (1995)- ‘Queer Theory: Unstating Desire’. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay
Studies, 2:343-346.
Edelman, L. (2004). No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Eng, D. L., with Halberstam, J., and Muñoz, J. E. (2005). ‘Introduction: What’s Queer About
Queer Studies Now?’ Social Text, 84-85,23(3-4): 1-17.
Foucault, M. (1990). The History ofSexuality, i. An Introduction. New York: Random House.
Foucault, M. (1999). Religión and Culture. Selected and ed. J. Carrette. New York: Routledge.
Gibson, M. A., J. Alexander, and D. T. Meem (2013). Finding Out: An Introduction to LGBT
Studies, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Goss, R. (1993). Jesús Acted Up: A Gay and Lesbian Manifestó. New York: HarperCollins.
Goss, R. E. (2002). Queering Christ: Beyond Jesús Acted Up. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press.
Halberstam, J. (2005). In a Queer Time and Place: Transgender Bodies, Subcultural Lives.
New York: New York University Press.
Hall, D. E. (2003). Queer Theories. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Halperin, D. M. (1995). Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Halperin, D. M. (2002). How to Do the History ofHomosexuality. Chicago: University ofChicago
Press.
Hames-García, M. (2011). ‘Queer Theory Revisited’. In M. Hames-García and E. J. Martínez
(eds), Gay Latino Studies: A Critical Reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 19-45.
Hawley, J. C. (2001a). ‘Introduction’. In Hawley (2001c), 1-18.
Hawley, J. C. (2001b) (ed.). Postcolonial and Queer Theories: Intersections andEssays. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press.
Hawley, J. C. (2001c) (ed.). Postcolonial, Queer: Theoretical Intersections. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Hong, G. K., and R. A. Ferguson (2011). ‘Introduction. In Hong and Ferguson (eds), Strange
Affinities: The Gender and Sexual Politics of Comparative Racialization. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press, 1-22.
Hutchins, L., and H. S. Williams (2012). Sexuality, Religión and theSacred: Bisexual, Pansexual
and Polysexual Perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge.
168 PATRICK S. CHENG

Jagose, A, (1996). Queer Theory: An Introduction. New York: New York University Press.
Jenzen, O., and S. R. Munt (2012). ‘Queer Theory, Sexuality and Religión’. In Stephen J. Hunt and
A. K. Yip (eds), The Ashgate Research Companion to Contemporary Religión and Sexuality.
Farnham: Ashgate, 45-58.
Jordán, M. D. (1997). The Invention ofSodomy in Christian Theology. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Jordán, M. D. (2011). Recruiting Young Lave: How Christians Talk About Homosexuality.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kolodny, D. R. (2000) (ed.). Blessed Bi Spirit: Bisexual People ofFaith. New York: Continuum.
Lady Gaga (2011). ‘Born This Way’. Born This Way. New York: Interscope Records.
Loughlin, G. (2007a). 'Introduction: TheEnd ofSex’, in Loughlin (2007b), 1-34.
Loughlin, G. (2007b) (ed.). Queer Theology: Rethinking the Western Body. Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Lowe, M. E. (2009). ‘Gay, Lesbian, and Queer Theologies: Origins, Contributions, and
Challenges’. Dialog: A Journal of Theology, 48(1): 49-61.
McCallum, E. L„ and M. Tuhkanen (2011) (eds). Queer Times, Queer Becomings. Albany,
NY: State University’ of New York Press.
McGuckin, J. A. (2004). The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology. Louisville,
KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
McRuer, R. (2006). Crip Theory: Cultural Signs ofQueerness and Disability. New York: New York
University’ Press.
McRuer, R„ and A. Mollow (2012). Sex and Disability. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Michaelson, J. (2009). Everything Is God: The Radical Path of Nondual Judaism. Boston:
Trumpeter Books.
Mollenkott, V. R. (2001). Omnigender: A Trans-Religious Approach. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press.
Mollow, A. (2012). ‘Is Sex Disability? Queer Theory and the Disability Drive’. In McRuer and
Mollow (2012), 285-312.
Muñoz, J. E. (1999). Disidentifications: Queers of Color and the Performance of Politics.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Murfin, R„ and S. M. Ray (2009). The Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary Terms.
Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s.
OED Online (2013). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Punt, J. (2011). ‘Queer Theory, Postcolonial Theory, and Biblical Interpretation: A Preliminary
Exploration of Some Intersections’. In T. J. Hornsby and K. Stone (eds), Bible Trouble: Queer
Reading at the Boundaries of Biblical Scholarship. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,
321-341.
Robinson, M. (2010). 'Reading Althaus-Reid: As a Bi Feminist Theo/Methodological Resource’.
Journal ofBisexuality, 10:108-120.
Rubín, G. S. (2011). ‘Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality’. In
Rubín (ed.), Deviations: A Gayle Rubín Reader. Durham, NC: Duke UniversityPress, 137-181.
Schippert, C. (2011). ‘Implications of Queer Theory for the Study of Religión and Gender:
Entering the Third Decade’. Religión and Gender, 1(1): 66-84.
Schneider, L. C. (2000). ‘Queer Theory’. in A. K. M. Adam (ed.), Handbook of Postmodern
Biblical Interpretation. St Louis: Chalice Press, 206-212.
Schneider, L. C. (2008). Beyond Monotheism: A Theology ofMultiplicity. Abingdon: Routledge.
Schneider, L. C., and C. Roncolato (2012). ‘Queer Theologies’. Religión Compass, 6(1): 1-13.
Sedgwick, E. K. (1993). Pendencies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM QUEER THEORY 169

Sedgwick, E. K. (2008). Epistemology of the Closet, updated edn. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Shore-Goss, R. E. (2010). ‘Gay and Lesbian Theologies’. In S. M. Floyd-Thomas and A. B. Pinn
(eds), Liberation Theologies in the United States: An Introduction. New York: New York
University Press, 181-208.
Spencer, D. T. (2004). ‘Lesbian and Gay Theologies’. In M. A. De La Torre (ed.), Handbook ofU.S.
Theologies ofLiberation. St Louis: Chalice Press, 264-273.
Stuart, E. (2003). Gay and Lesbian Theologies: Repetitions with Critical Difference.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Sullivan, N. (2003). A Critical Introduction to Queer Theory. New York: New York University
Press.
Tanis, J. (2003). Trans-Gendered: Theology, Ministry, and Communities of Faith.
Cleveland: Pilgrim Press.
Thatcher, A. (2011). God, Sex, and Gender: An Introduction. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Turner, W. B. (2000). A Genealogy of Queer Theory. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Ward, G. (1999). ‘The Displaced Body of Jesús Christ”. In J. Milbank, C. Pickstock, and Ward
(eds), Radical Orthodoxy. Abingdon: Routledge, 163-181.
Warner, M. (1999). The Trouble With Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilcox, M. M. (2012). ‘Queer Theory and the Study of Religión’. In D. L. Boisvert and J. E.
Johnson (eds), Queer Religión: LGBT Movements and Queering Religión, vol. ii. Santa
Barbara, CA: Praeger, 227-251.