Abstract
Christians of the US South appear to be a major source of antagonism for gay and lesbian activism. Yet, as Conditionally Accepted: Christian’s Perspectives on Sexuality and Gay and Lesbian Civil Rights by Baker A. Rogers demonstrates, Christian sexual politics in the South are far more complicated. In the interest of better-informed gay and lesbian activism, Rogers demonstrates that Christians in the South display considerable variation in their views on sexuality despite their characterization as a block unified in hate.
Based on rich interview data with 40 Christians in Mississippi, Conditionally Accepted presents an important argument that specific religious identity formations produce opposition to gays and lesbians. Rogers begins the book with a succinct outline of salient distinctions between mainline Protestants, liberal and conservative Catholics, and Evangelical Protestants—an excellent introduction for unfamiliar readers. Then, through a series of substantive chapters on beliefs about homosexuality, stances on key issues of sexual politics (same-sex marriage and same-sex couple adoption), and social contact with gay and lesbian people, they detail how religious identity works as a central determinant to Christians’ perspectives on gay and lesbian sexual politics.
Evangelical Protestants, Rogers finds, hold unyielding views about homosexuality as a sin. These views are based on their interpretation of the Bible as explicitly prohibiting homosexuality and thus necessitating “traditional” heteropatriarchal family configurations. The problem from these perspectives is the sinful character of homosexuality and gender nonconformity, and the erosion of society that they represent. Rather than hating gays and lesbians, Evangelical Protestants insisted that they care deeply for all sinners whom they perceive to be overtaken by desires. Responses from Catholics and mainline Protestants tended to be at least conditionally accepting of gays and lesbians, if not openly affirming. Indeed, some liberal Catholics and most mainline Protestants downplayed the messages of judgment from the authorities and the Bible, emphasizing the Christian imperatives of love and care. In all cases, religious identity is the basis for attitudes on homosexuality. Conservative Christians, and Evangelical Protestants in particular, take the sinfulness of homosexuality as a defining feature of their religious identity and thus cannot recognize gay and lesbian people as anything other than misguided sinners. Christian sexual politics are rooted in deeply held religious worldviews about the meaning of sexuality.
Indeed, many Christians interviewed by Rogers stated that their views of gay and lesbian activism were not shaped by contact with gay or lesbian friends and family. Those who were supportive were supportive prior to developing relationships with gay or lesbian people. Those who were unsupportive remained so even after developing relationships with gays or lesbians. Especially for Evangelical Christians, contact with gay and lesbian friends and family members was simply interpreted through their understanding of homosexuality as a grievous sin. This group acted toward gays and lesbians in their lives with compassion, but still attempted to reform what they viewed as sinful behavior. Rogers thus confirms that religious identities rooted in specific ideologies of gender and sexuality, more so than social contact, explain the attitudes of Christians toward gay and lesbian activism.
Conditionally Accepted is compelling project. Rogers’ adroit narration of religious identity, however, would be strengthened if ‘gay and lesbian civil rights’ was engaged critically. Sexualities scholarship has detailed how “rights” tends to gloss over differences in the political interests of actual gays and lesbians. Rights-based approaches have been critiqued for assuming that all gays and lesbians benefit from marriage, for example, despite that institution’s gendered and racialized history. Same-sex marriage is an important matter, so debates around it merit attention. Attending to these debates across gay and lesbian activism would be important for exploring how religious identity shapes perspectives on different kinds of activism. I suspect that differences between pride festivals and economic justice work are salient.
Intersectional analysis of patriarchy and racism would also extend the findings of this project. Gender is discussed to the extent that patriarchal norms are important to many Christians’ religious identities. Race is noted among interviewee demographics but hardly discussed. Rogers explains that there was little racial diversity in their overwhelmingly white sample, making race outside their scope. From an intersectional perspective though, sexual politics are structurally racialized and gendered in all cases. This perspective is missing from this book despite interviewees’ mentions of race and gender (p. 120). Analysis of the way that race and gender (even if white and/or male) inform Christian sexual politics would be a solid contribution to gender and sexualities scholarship.
Conditionally Accepted provides an insightful contribution to sociological thinking about religious identity and sexuality. Greater engagement with themes in gender and sexualities scholarship would bring these insights to the cutting edge. This is an accessible text for introductory undergraduate courses on sociology of religion or sexualities and for rising graduate students who seek an example of a feasible dissertation project.