That's Blasphemy!

Many scholars working in queer studies and religion look at the interpretation of sacred scriptures and how traditional conservative understandings of scripture marginalize LGBTQ individuals and at times lead to discrimination and violence against individuals who do not conform to  hetero-normativity. But there is also an entire sphere of visual representations---photographs, paintings, sculpture, and illustrations---that are very important in understanding religious ideals and values. Visual representations often also play a significant  role in personal devotion and spiritual  practice.

Citing legal scholar Leonard Levy, Plate discusses the functioning of blasphemy to maintain morality and social cohesion. He writes: “Blasphemy and the accusation of blasphemy, is a culturally symbolic marker that helps defines societies and religious traditions, as well as provide identities for people in terms of gender, race, class, and sexuality. Some seemingly blasphemous images are ignored or overlooked by the masses, while religious and political authorities exploit other seemingly tame images. Oftentimes, those with the most authority, politically or religiously, win the battle. But not always.” (S.B. Plate, Blasphemy:Art That Offends, 2006, p. 27).

Visual representations of the religious that imagine the divine, for example Christ, Mary, or the saints, as non-gender conforming or sexualized, are condemned as blasphemy.  Formerly in the United States, blasphemy was a criminal offense.  Looked at historically, there are two dimensions of blasphemy. One form of blasphemy was offering an alternative understanding of a dogma. For example, denying the divinity of Christ and characterizing Jesus as merely human, was an example of criminal blasphemy in the United States during the seventeenth century.  Another form of blasphemy was insulting or cursing the divine.  Today, the United States no longer has blasphemy laws on the books. The same is not true in all countries. For example, Great Britain recently struggled with maintaining a blasphemy statute which would only have protected Christians.  A number of Islamic countries also have laws on blasphemy.

When queer artists attempt to offer LGBTQ imaging of the divine, there is often public uproar that is usually organized by small groups of right wing, conservative Christians.  Even when photographs or paintings are displayed in art venues, such as galleries or museums,  this sort of reaction occurs.  While conservative religious groups or individuals no longer have recourse to blasphemy laws, they exert political and social pressure to shut down these alternative imaginings that are friendly to LGBTQ individuals.   To make religion more inclusive and welcome to queer individuals, as a society and as members of religious communities, we must make the space for alternative ways of  imaging the divine in the same way that we create new, more nuanced and critical interpretations of sacred scriptures.  Text and image are both important expressions of religion and play important roles in spiritual practice.  We cannot let cries of blasphemy repress new visual representations.

Some useful resources on this issue include Steven Dubin’s “Arresting Images: Impolitic Art and Uncivil Actions.”  Dubin’s monograph includes several chapters on the cultural wars and the arts in the U.S. Many of these skirmishes involved LGBTQ issues and gay or lesbian artists.  Interestingly, some of these involved both gay and religious issues.  Kittredge Cherry’s “Art that Dares” offers images of Jesus as a gay man as well as Christ as a female.  The twentieth century artists that Cherry documents offer interesting alternative Christian images that are important in building religious communities that are LGBTQ welcoming and inclusive. Cherry's blog, Jesus in Love, offers numerous examples of queer religious imagery as well as reports of conflicts around such art.  Looking at the connection between blasphemy and contemporary art controversies, S. Brent Plate offers an overview that includes many images involving Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.  Plate’s richly illustrated monograph, “Blasphemy: Art that Offends,” is another useful resource.

Ethno-centric and America-Focused

Often when we look at the situation of LBGTQ individuals in other parts of the world, we use an ethnocentric lens that assumes that categories such as ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ are universally valid and understood in all cultures. This is not the case particularly in the realm of gender expression and sexual orientation. Non-Western countries have frequently been the victim of colonialism particularly in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Often indigenous legal as well as religious belief systems were supplanted by Western Christianity. Colonial ethical and legal  systems often condemned same-sex sexual behavior and gender non-conformity. Today, memories of past colonialism are lost or covered up and Victorian mores and legal codes can ensnare those who do not hold to a hetero-normative ideal.

In addition, we in the West often assume a binary approach to sexual orientation which designates someone as either ‘gay or lesbian’ or ‘straight.’ These Western categories often do not fit behavior in non-Western countries. We often make the assumption that the way that we live and think is universal.  Such an attitude ignores cultural variation and is a characteristic of ethnocentricity. Cultures around the world have different ways of thinking about ethics, the essence of being human, as well as different ways of evaluating which behaviors are good and which are bad. The same is true for gender  and sexuality.  There is no fixed, unchanging, universal approach to gender expression and sexual behavior.  Conflict often arises between those who strive for LGBTQ rights in the West and activists or even everyday citizens in other countries with mores and belief systems that differ from our own. At times, LGBTQ activists’ stress on Western style civil rights have actually led to a decrease in the frequency of same sex behavior, often because such behavior, which may have been seen as natural and part of the diversity of human life, is now associated with ninteenth, twentieth and twenty-first century western cultural, economic, and political exploitation.
 
Globalization moves us more and more toward a homogenous world, at least in urban, economically priviledged metropolitan areas. Globally, in such enclaves we may find individuals who resonate with and adopt western gay rights rhetoric and beliefs. However, in much of the non-Western world there is a much wider diversity of sexual and gender behavior. Sexual behavior, particularly same sex behavior, is often conceived of differently than it is in the west.  These general, divergent cultural assumptions also impact non-Western religions. And a number of non-Western religions have picked up the animus that many branches of Christianity has against LGBTQ individuals. 

To develop sensitivity to diversity, the Unitarian Universalist Association   offers several resources. I suggest the UUA’s Racial Justice and Multi-Cultural Ministries webpage as well as the resources found on the UUA’s Immigration Justice  webpage. Another very accessible resource is Patrick Cheng’s Rainbow Theology, a book that discusses the intersection of sexuality, race, ethnicity and religion.  Cheng writes in a accessible and easy to comprehend way and his book offers suggested discussion questions that would be useful with church study groups.  Rainbow Theology is also well documented so that Cheng’s primer can be useful for those interested in going into these subjects in more depth.