[BT 6.

1 (2008) 83–97] ISSN (print) 1476–9948

doi: 10.1558/blth2008v6i1.83 ISSN (online) 1743–1670

GUILTY OF SIN: AFRICAN-AMERICAN DENOMINATIONAL CHURCHES

AND THEIR EXCLUSION OF SGL SISTERS AND BROTHERS*

Darnell L. Moore
Princeton Theological Seminary
Box 5204
Princeton, New Jersey 08543
USA
darnell.moore@ptsem.edu

ABSTRACT
Same gender loving (SGL) brothers and sisters continue to experience marginali-
zation because of the exclusion perpetuated by African-American denomina-
tional churches. Many churches continue to proclaim SGL sexual identities and
partnerships as sinful. The author argues that many churches base this claim on
androcentric-oriented conceptualizations of sin and human sexuality. As a result,
the paper will explore Womanist/Feminist reconstructions of sin and sexuality as
a means to locate a theological perspective that confronts androcentrism and
affirms SGL identities and partnerships.

Keywords: African-American denominational churches, Feminist, same gender

loving, sin, Womanist.

It is no surprise that many African-American denominational churches regard

same gender loving (SGL) persons as sinful and “hell bound.” This theological
conceptualization has resulted in an appeal to a virulent demand, often repeated
by leaders and congregants within the churches regarding SGL sisters and
brothers, namely, “hate the sin [SGL identities, sexual intimacy, and love], but love
the sinner [the SGL woman and man].” This particular exploitation of Christian
ethics (i.e. “hate the sin, but live the sinner” in regards to SGL persons) has its

* I wish to express gratitude to the editorial reviewers who provided extensive feed-
back on this paper. Their comments prompted new insights and provoked me to give way to
my voice when writing. I would also like to thank Nancy Duff, Nicole Foster-Hinds, and
Cleve Tinsley IV for their careful reading of the initial version of this paper.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2008, Unit 6, The Village, 101 Amies Street, London SW11 2JW.
84 Black Theology: An International Journal

roots in the theological musings regarding the nature of sin/evil written by Saint
Augustine, which reads:
[H]e who lives according to God ought to cherish towards evil men a perfect
hatred, so that he shall neither hate the man because of his vice, nor love the vice
because of the man, but hate the vice and love the man. For the vice being cursed, all
that ought to be loved, and nothing that ought to be hated, will remain [emphasis
added].1

Although this infamous Augustine quote was not written to necessarily serve
as a prohibitive statement regarding homosexuality, it has been used by many
within the African-American denominational churches—and without—as a
means to preserve the consensus that SGL persons should be “loved” while
the physical expression of our love (i.e. sexual activity) and identities should be
abhorred. This view may not be problematic in terms of its intent. However,
for many individuals who identify as SGL in the African-American denomi-
national churches, this oft repeated maxim, and hence the connection made
between SGL identities/sexual intimacy and sin, serves as the basis of our self-
detestation rather than imago deification, that is, the appropriate imaging and
adoring of our whole selves as reflections of our loving God.
In light of this concern, it seems prudent that African-American theologians
commit to the ongoing tasks of deconstructing and reconstructing heteronor-
mative conceptions of SGL identities and sexual intimacy. In addition, since
many African-American denominations conceptualize SGL identities and sex-
ual intimacy as sinful, it is equally imperative that we reflect on the dominant
view of sin maintained that not only conceives SGL identities as sinful but
regards sexuality itself as taboo. Hence, we need constructive ways of conceptu-
alizing the doctrine of sin such that SGL identities can be deconstructed as
sinful and reconstructed as virtuous, and thereby help to end the oppression
experienced by SGL women and men within the African-American denomina-
tional churches. As a result, this essay will explore Womanist/Feminist recon-
structions of the doctrine of sin as a means to locate a theological perspective
that affirms SGL identities and partnerships.

On Location
Before I set forth my arguments in this essay, I wish to briefly name the con-
text that informs my own theological perspective. My project is influenced by

1. Saint Augustine, The City of God, trans. Marcus Dods (New York: The Modern
Library, 2000), 448.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2008.

 Moore Guilty of Sin 85

Black theology, Womanist and Feminist theologies, liberation theology, and

queer theology. I find latent within the aforementioned traditions a common
proclamation of Christ as Redeemer of the oppressed and a notion of a lib-
erative praxis that aims to bring about emancipation from subjugation in the
“here and now.” Thus, I am informed by the liberative threads that connect all
of these traditions. Yet, as one who daily seeks to survive at the intersection of
oppression—the place where marginalization based on one’s non-heteronor-
mative sexual identity, race, class, and gender coalesce—I am often in search of
a permanent safe space at the theological table, wherein all aspects of this inter-
sectionality can be addressed. I am African-American and am empowered by
Black theology, but Black theology does not always oppose homophobia and
heteronormativity. I am a SGL Christian who can harmonize with White les-
bian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Christians around the issue of
homophobia and heteronormativity; however, I find that my “Blackness” is
often discounted by the White male hegemony that ostensibly dominates queer
studies and theology. Alas, I appeal to the works of Womanist and Feminist
theologians who, in some cases, have made equality for SGL brothers and sis-
ters a priority in their projects; yet, as a male who is guilty of furthering andro-
centrism I stand critiqued by the Womanist/Feminist God-talk, and therefore,
on the outside of that particular circle. As such, I write and think informed by
a hybrid theology—a theology that jumbles the good found in the various
liberative theological motifs—one that seeks to uplift, affirm, and heal all; but
especially SGL brothers and sisters. I seek to construct a theology of intersec-
tionality that not only affirms SGL women and men, but uplifts all marginal-
ized groups that meet at the intersection of oppression.

Demystifying Androcentric Conceptualizations of Sin

In this section, I will now turn to Womanist/Feminist theological voices as a
means to assess a Womanist/Feminist appropriation of the doctrine of sin. By
way of a point of departure, it is worth stating that most Womanists/Feminists
would argue that the traditional Western understanding of original sin main-
tained throughout Christian history has been shaped by an androcentric his-
torical interpretation of the Genesis story of Eve and Adam (the Fall).2 In short,
this view maintains that the first humans, through pride, rejected dependence
on God for dependence on themselves, and as a result, the created nature of
mind over body was corrupted, resulting in lust: “a disordered love that taints

2. Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, “Sin,” in Dictionary of Feminist Theologies, eds Letty M.

Russell and J. Shannon Clarkson (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 261.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2008.

86 Black Theology: An International Journal

the intellect, the will, and the body.”3 However, this view also maintains that
Eve’s susceptibility to temptation by the serpent signifies female carnality and
weakness and has resulted in “the direction of the sexualization of women’s
bodies and the association of female flesh with danger and evil.”4 As a result of
this biased reading of the Fall, Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki asserts that a skewed
understanding of the anthropology of women emerged grossly affecting all
women.5 I am in agreement with Suchocki that this troublesome perception
provokes a damaging image of women as progenitors of sin. To be sure,
Feminist scholar Ivone Gebara, poignantly expounding on this notion, states:
For men, evil is an act one can undo. But for women, evil is their very being. To
be female is from the start something bad or at least something limiting. And
thus the evil springs from their corrupt being, which is responsible for the fall,
the disobedience of the human being toward God.6

Women are seen, erroneously, as representing sin or the perpetrators of vice.

On the contrary, men are imaged as symbolizing those affected by sin and prey.
This destructive conception shores up a hierarchical gender continuum wherein
masculinity is positioned as good and more closely aligned with the imago dei
and femininity is consigned to a lower status more closely aligned with sin and
evil.7
This damaging androcentric understanding of sin and evil plagues women
and men of all backgrounds. As James Cone purports, “just as whites were
responsible for creating the societal structures that aided black self-hate, so
black men are responsible for creating a similar situation among black women
in the church.”8 As a result, sexism is perpetuated further in our worshipping

3. Suchocki, “Sin,” in Dictionary of Feminist Theologies, 261.

4. Mary McClintock Fulkerson, “The Imago Dei and a Reformed Logic,” in Feminist
and Womanist Essays in Reformed Dogmatics, eds Amy Platinga Pauw and Serene Jones (Louis-
ville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 97.
5. Suchocki, “Sin,” in Dictionary of Feminist Theologies, 261.
6. Ivone Gebara, Out of the Depths: Women’s Experience of Evil and Salvation (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2002), 4.
7. I chose to use the term “gender continuum” as opposed to “gender binary” because
SGL women and men seem to traverse a gender construct terrain—moving between and
among presumed masculine and feminine identities, creating hybrid or new gender identi-
ties, or choosing to resist gender identification altogether. This notion troubles the gender
binary construct and may be useful as a means to provoke new dialogue around the issues of
sexism, heteronormativity, and homophobia as the result of appeals to destructive gender
classifications.
8. James Cone, For My People: Black Theology and the Black Church (Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis Books, 1984), 137.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2008.

 Moore Guilty of Sin 87

communities. For example, many women in certain African-American denomi-

nations are encouraged to “dress modestly” when attending church services.
Women are encouraged, and sometimes vehemently warned, by men and
other women to “cover up” their bodies by wearing dresses and/or skirts that
“fall an inch below the knee” and blouses that cover their breasts. This aspect
of church practice, what some label as an appeal towards “holiness,” is part of
many traditions, and therefore highly valued; yet, this tradition is an attempt,
ostensibly, to de-feminize women—that is, to disarm women of their assumed
evil potentiality that can negatively affect vulnerable men. Hyper-masculiniza-
tion, then, or the move on the continuum towards the perceived highest
echelon of good—namely, masculinity, can be understood as a move away
from evil.
Hence, since Eve (women) is conceived in this androcentric reading of scrip-
ture as being more vulnerable and prone to lust than Adam (men), conse-
quently, “ ‘woman’ is perceived as the seductress who lures man into sin.
Since lust is the result of sin, and lust is evident in the way that sexual desires
can override the intellect, sexuality is also associated with sin and women.”9
Kelly Brown Douglas provides a useful backdrop for how this view entered
into Christian thought in the following excerpt from her book Sexuality and the
Black Church, in which she states:
As reflected in his own personal struggles, Augustine was disturbed by the prob-
lem of sexual lust and passion and was most concerned about the genital “aspects
of” human sexuality. For him, human sexuality had been contaminated by lust
with the fall of Adam. Prior to the fall, Augustine argued, every part of Adam’s
body was perfectly obedient to God’s will…after the fall, Adam lost control of his
will… Thereafter, sexual activity was no longer a controlled act for procreation,
but instead became a “kind of spasm” in which reason is completely overtaken by
passion.10

Douglas points to early Christian thinkers, like Augustine, in her analysis of

the beginnings of the androcentric interpretation of sin and sexuality. Yet, it
could also be argued, as has been postulated by other Womanist/Feminist
theologians, that theologians should not only deconstruct the faulty sexist
interpretations of the readers of the text, but also women and men alike must
acknowledge the sexism inherent within the biblical text itself.11 Nonetheless,

9. Gebara, Out of the Depths, 261.

10. Kelly Brown Douglas, Sexuality and the Black Church: A Womanist Perspective (Mary-
knoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1999), 26.
11. For example, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza argues, “A Feminist hermeneutics cannot
trust or accept Bible and tradition simply as divine revelation. Rather it must critically

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2008.

88 Black Theology: An International Journal

this androcentric conceptualization of sin is problematic because it perpetuates

the vilifying, dehumanizing, and sexist ideas that seek to categorize women as
devoid of moral agency and intellect, as well as perpetuating ideas regarding
sexuality as taboo and separate from God’s good creation. In response to these
troublesome interpretations, Feminists and Womanists continue to challenge
and reconstruct appropriate theological claims regarding sin/evil to correct
these ills.
Several themes are prevalent in Womanist and Feminist critiques of andro-
centric understandings of sin/evil which, I think, are consistent with their pri-
mary tasks of de-centering discursive malestream theology, thereby providing
re-appropriated images to foster wholeness of women, and all peoples. Femi-
nist/Womanist theologians achieve this, by first, maintaining that a reading of
the Eve and Adam account (the Fall) that objectifies, exploits, and subjugates
women is in itself sinful because it results in the diminution of the well-being
of the “other.” Suchocki develops this notion further when she argues:
Sins are ecological as well as social and personal. The pervasiveness of sin follows
from the competitiveness of human life and the dynamic life this creates to pro-
tect and perpetuate one’s own kind over against those who are perceived as differ-
ent. This, combined with negative symbolism, leads to an objectification and
exploitation of those who are “other” to the dominant group, resulting in the
diminution of the other’s well being.12

Yet, Womanist/Feminist scholars are not alone in underscoring the effects of

sexist interpretation and ideology on the well-being of woman. James Newton
Poling, a White male Pastoral theologian, states, “Within the ideology and insti-
tutionalized power of patriarchy, women are denied fundamental resources
needed for equality, survival, and well-being.”13
I would argue, however, that all human beings, albeit the fact that women
are the targets of such oppressive tactics, are wholly affected by androcentrism
ideology. This destructive understanding works like a virus that destroys the
communal and relational essence (and equality) that is the core of our human-
ity. The well-being of the sexist male is diminished because of his refusal to
acquiesce to the equitable treatment of the female, and the well-being of the

evaluate them as patriarchal articulations, since even in the last century Sarah Grimke,
Matilda Joslyn Gage, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton had recognized that biblical texts are not
words of God but words of men.” See Schussler Fiorenza, Bread Not Stone: The Challenge of
Feminist Biblical Interpretation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1995), v.
12. Suchocki, “Sin,” in Dictionary of Feminist Theologies, 262.
13. James Newton Poling, The Abuse of Power: A Theological Problem (Nashville, TX:
Abingdon Press, 1991), 30.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2008.

 Moore Guilty of Sin 89

female is infringed upon by the evil workings of the sexist male. In simple
terms, within the human family of equals, sustained relationality is broken,
and male perpetuated anarchy continues unabated.
These searing critiques trouble androcentric conceptualizations of sin. It
forces men to surrender our superior-male hegemony as we consider its perva-
sive and destructive impact on the well-being of women. It also plays with our
understandings of difference—especially as it relates to our socio-culturally
informed concepts of gender—because it critiques the use of negative symbol-
ism that results in the dehumanization of others. Of even greater import, one
discovers when naming sin as an ecological contaminant that erodes commu-
nity by aggressively corroding the self-worth of others, one is forced to alter
his or her view of the “sinner.” In other words, an ecological view of the sin of
sexism moves the focus off women, who are considered as progenitors of evil,
and forces one to identify a new object of evil, namely, the men and women
who perpetuate brokenness in women because of the maintenance of such a
view. Furthermore, locating sin within the social/ecological spheres, in contrast
to the traditional Christian West’s approach of locating sin within the sphere
of the individual, is not only a move that may result in an end of androcentric
readings of scripture, but I would contend, it also aligns itself with the commu-
nal zeitgeist, the familial spirit that is characteristic of African-American peoples.
Evident within Feminist/ Womanist theologies is the emphasis placed on the
experience of those affected by sin, and consequently the need for justice on their
behalf. I would contend that an emphasis on the individual as sinner who
requires God’s corrective action in response to her or his rebellion is more
prevalent in the traditional understanding of sin. Furthermore, the social/eco-
logical focus on sin, namely, moving from an understanding of sin as indi-
vidualistic to collective, is significant for God-talk within groups who have
experienced the social/communal effects of subjugation, debasement, and
marginalization like that of African-American peoples. Because of our chris-
tological understanding of Jesus as liberator, as a result of the past experience
of enslavement and social/political oppression in America, conceptualizing
sexism and homophobia as ecological sins would be no different than having
conceived White racism as sin within our community.
Simply put, what can we glean from Womanist/Feminist theologians and
their insistence to name sin as more than an individual problem? What can we
learn if we understand evil as acted out by coercive dominant groups, as a
means to protect their positions of power, resulting in the dissolution of com-
munity and fragmentation of the affected persons? I shall argue, in a sub-
sequent section of this essay, for a new conceptualization of sin in a manner

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2008.

90 Black Theology: An International Journal

that greatly alters the discussion of SGL exclusion within the African-American
denominational churches.
It should be noted that some Womanist/Feminist theologians also oppose the
view of sexuality as sinful/taboo. I should also note that an understanding of
sexuality as a magnificent part of God’s good creation as opposed to conceiving
sexuality as a lustful distortion of a pre-Fall virtue challenges traditional
notions of sin and sexuality like that maintained by Augustine. For example,
Anne M. Clifford provides an alternative to the Augustinian view of sexuality
as deprived of its essence (to use a Tillichian concept) when she states, “[S]ex-
uality encompasses more than genital union. Sexuality is the energy of other-
directedness that makes all human relationships possible, whether or not they are
expressed in spousal intimacy.”14 Kelly Brown Douglas, quoting an illumina-
tive statement from Christian ethicist James Nelson, states:
Sexuality is a sign, a symbol, and a means of our call to communication and
communion. This is the most apparent in regard to other human beings, and
other body-selves. The mystery of our sexuality is the mystery of our need to
reach out to embrace others both physically and spiritually… [Sexuality] is who
we are as body-selves who experience the emotional, cognitive, physical, and
spiritual needs for intimate communion—human and divine.15

Thus, apparent in both Clifford’s and Nelson’s definition of sexuality is the

importance of relational energy as a description of sexuality. In addition, there
is a focus on reciprocity or shared intimacy between one’s self and others as
opposed to a focus on mere genital contact and lustful pleasure, as proposed in
an Augustinian understanding. As a result of this thinking, Womanist theo-
logian, JoAnne Marie Terrell, provides a specific challenge to human beings,
namely, to model healthy relationships and ensure that love relationships are
designed so that survival, liberation, and creative self-expression can be
achieved.16
In contrast to traditions that view sexuality as an unredeemable act char-
acterized by lust and uncontrollable passion, and therefore, external to one’s
embodied self, some Womanists/Feminists see sexuality as an aspect of who
we are, symbolizing reciprocity or the sharing of one’s self with another in both
physical and/or spiritual intimacy. Upholding a view of sexuality as sin and

14. Anne M. Clifford, Introducing Feminist Theology (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2005),
74.
15. Douglas, Sexuality and the Black Church, 28.
16. JoAnne Marie Terrell, Power in the Blood: The Cross in the African American Experience
(Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1998), 138.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2008.

 Moore Guilty of Sin 91

separate from one’s spirituality, based on an Augustinian understanding of

sexuality (i.e. corrupted act and void of goodness), would necessarily mean
that one believes sexuality to be merely a corporeal project of engagement.
Moreover, the maintenance of such a unilateral view of human sexuality, even
heterosexuality, makes sexuality nothing more than a lustful act to be abhorred
minus its procreative function. Biblical scholar Brian Blount labels intimacy,
reciprocity, and responsibility as markers of human relationships rather than
procreation.17 Thus, we must affirm the goodness of sexuality as an aspect of
one’s self, symbolizing intimate communion shared with another, both physi-
cally and spiritually.
Within African-American denominational churches in particular, sexuality,
when it is actually a topic of dialogue, is often cloaked in taboo and in most
cases one hears of the prohibitions surrounding sexual activity, or the shame
resulting from non-normative (i.e. SGL intimacy, “out-of-wedlock” pregnancy,
etc.) sexual practices. As I have stated elsewhere, “it is extremely common for
sexuality to be sifted out of the rich deposit of spiritual soil that fertilizes the
foundational grounds of the Black church, albeit, the bond the existed between
the sacred and secular in the African Traditional Religion.”18 Simply put, the
African-American denominational churches may be the most suitable spaces
to reconnect sex-talk with our God-talk. Kelly Brown Douglas prophetically
proclaims to the African-American denominational churches:
Finally, the Great Commandment makes the need for redeeming the sacredness
of sexuality clear. It resolves, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your
heart, all your soul, and all your mind. You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Such a resolution is a call to radical wholeness. It summons women and men to
wholly love their spiritual and embodied selves so that they can wholly love God.
Only when the taboo of sexuality is discarded will Black women and men be free
to experience what it means to wholly love and be loved by the God that became
flesh in Jesus.19

Douglas’s words provide a startling contrast to the present view of sexuality

maintained in the African-American denominational churches à la Augustine.

17. Brian Blount, “Reading and Understanding the New Testament on Homosexu-
ality,” in Homosexuality and the Christian Community, ed. Choon-Leong Seow (Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 36.
18. Darnell Moore, “Touching the Taboo in Sacred Space: Reading Sherley Anne
Williams’s Dessa Rose as a ‘Catalyst for a Sexual Discourse of Resistance’ in the Black
Church,” Theology & Sexuality 13.3 (2007): 275–87 (277).
19. Douglas, Sexuality and the Black Church, 143.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2008.

92 Black Theology: An International Journal

Douglas’s proclamation calls for “radical wholeness” whereas the present under-
standing of sexuality within the African-American denominational churches
endorses and causes radical self-fragmentation. Thus, the following section of
this essay will seek to highlight the ways in which the Womanist/Feminist
views of sin and sexuality may prompt a move towards radical wholeness in
the lives of SGL sisters and brothers within African-American denominations.

In Relation to SGL Identities and Partnerships

I would like to commence this discussion by acknowledging that SGL identi-
fication muddles the easily categorized gender binary (i.e. masculine and femi-
nine) and reveals a continuum of identities. When SGL adult males respond to
the epithet “Miz Thing” and SGL young adult females choose to be labeled a
“stud,” the essentialized gender constructs that further androcentric domina-
tion are defied. If, in fact, men are falsely viewed as maintaining higher moral
agency and as being closer to the image of God while women are viewed as
having less moral agency and as representing the embodiment of sin/evil, the
gender play of SGL individuals, as we traverse the continuum, may be necessary
in order to short circuit the continued privileging of maleness and masculinity.
It ought to be noted, however, that in gender play, one must also be sure not
to privilege “masculinity.” For example, there are some SGL men who maintain
androcentric biases and rebel when considered a “bottom” in a SGL relation-
ship. Identifying as a “bottom” (similar to the misleading notion that woman
are the passive participants during sex) symbolizes a man’s position in the
relationship as the passive feminized partner. In the SGL community, many
men, even if they prefer to receive during sexual intercourse, will choose to be
identified as “tops,” in fear that they may be seen as weak. In this regard, it can
be argued that some men, regardless of the type of relationship, seek to main-
tain a “masculine” identity, and any move to de-masculinize or feminize a man
is seen as mordant.
This is another example that undergirds the troublesome nature of the
gender binary that is furthered by androcentric readings of the Adam and Eve
account, and our socialized understandings of gender roles and identification.
Essentially, even in the SGL community one can clearly discern the central
problem regarding androcentric views of the Fall, namely, the upholding of a
hierarchical view wherein males are crowned as superior and women are
viewed as being “less than” in terms of moral agency and personhood. As a
result, some often argue that sexism itself must be thwarted in the African-
American denominational churches if homophobia is to be truly combated.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2008.

 Moore Guilty of Sin 93

To be sure, James Cone has argued that a truly liberated social order cannot
exist if men dominate women.20
In light of this, it is imperative to recognize that the struggle for the equality
of SGL women and men must occur in concert with the fight for equality of
women if true wholeness is to manifest. The androcentric biases that vilify
women also dehumanize SGL men and women. As long as the dominant male
and masculine construct (Adam—the “top”) is conceived of needing to co-
exist with an inferior female and feminine construct (Eve—the “bottom”)
sexism and homophobia will continue. This ADAM/eve formula is problem-
atic in that it furthers female domination and oppression while simultaneously
denying the feasibility of SGL partnerships.21
SGL brothers and sisters must ask, like our Womanist /Feminist sisters, the
following pertinent question; namely: Is the problem one of our androcentric
interpretations of the Fall or is the problem inherent in the text? Nonetheless,
it seems safe to reason that the interpretations of the ADAM/eve account
within many churches have resulted in the perpetuation of brokenness in
women and SGL individuals as well, in this regard. One can argue that churches
which continue to exclude SGL sisters and brothers are in fact guilty of com-
mitting sin.
Sin is evidenced in the oppressive conditions that torment the everyday lives
of groups of people and is the cause of the systematic marginalization of others
by those in power. Sin is also ecological and extends into the sphere of the
everyday. Moreover, sin is that which disrupts well-being and fragments one’s
relationship to others and God. Thus, an individual is seen as sinful inasmuch
as she or he perpetuates ills that engender the dehumanization, fragmentation,
and demoralization of one’s self and others. This understanding of sin is use-
ful for our discussion at hand, as it suggests that the present conception within
African-American denominational churches, namely, an understanding of SGL
identities as sinful, leading to the exclusion of SGL individuals, may very well
be sinful itself.
Some may argue that this claim is both exaggerated and daring; however,
for wounded SGL individuals within the African-American denominational
churches, this claim is less than efficient. As a result, a radical change is needed
if SGL individuals are to be healed. As if it were not sufficiently problematic

20. Cone, For My People, 204.

21. I have capitalized Adam and placed the word Eve in lower case letters to offer a visual
reminder of the power dichotomy that permeates androcentric understandings of the account
of the Fall.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2008.

94 Black Theology: An International Journal

for being Black to be considered as a sin,22 SGL females must confront racism
and sexism, poor SGL brothers and sisters must also combat classism, and all
SGL peoples must confront homophobia.
Furthermore, we are often forced into an ethical quandary as it relates to the
ordering of SGL partnerships because of the voices of many who continue to
argue that the intimacy shared between SGL partners is unnatural and there-
fore sinful. We are told that same-sex activity is uncomplementary because
partners of the same sex can not procreate. However, such an argument limits
sexuality to the realm of the corporeal, and resists an acknowledgement of the
very existential qualities needed within a committed relationship that could
foster and sustain wholeness within any family. Simply put, if we are to con-
sider the goodness of sexuality as characterized by reciprocity, responsibility,
and intimacy shared between two committed individuals, we discover that the
ethical test of all relationships, SGL included, is the sustaining of such char-
acteristics.
Essentially, as long as the contradictory “pro-family/anti-gay” propaganda is
pushed within the churches, which is suggestive of the unnatural anti-family
nature of SGL relationships, SGL couples will continue to be further alienated
and persecuted. Consequently, as long as more SGL people run away from
churches because of such excessive and incessant abuses, communal dissolu-
tion will be furthered. The churches’ exclusion is producing brokenness that is
itself “anti-family.” It is essentially anti-family-of-God.
African-American churches are communities that should wholeheartedly
and without hesitation shun oppressive tactics and welcome the dispossessed.
Our community is one that is familiar with the sting of discrimination, even
prejudice supported by so-called Christian theology. As Michael Eric Dyson
has stated, “if any group understands what it means to be thought as queer, as
strange, as unnatural, as evil, it’s black folk.”23 Yet, African-American denomi-
national churches have failed to welcome, fully, SGL sisters and brothers; as a
result, many are spiritually homeless because the doors of many churches have
been closed to them. Thus, the exclusion of SGL individuals stifles the radical
pursuit of wholeness of SGL individuals and it furthers self-fragmentation. As
a result, I contend that the new moral question as it relates to the inclusion of
SGL women and men in the African-American denominational churches can
be surmised in this way: Are African-American denominational churches that
exclude SGL women and men perpetuating brokenness in those whom they

22. Michael Eric Dyson also makes this claim in Dyson, Race Rules: Navigating the Color
Line (Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1996), 83.
23. Dyson, Race Rules, 106.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2008.

 Moore Guilty of Sin 95

reject and, if so, is this exclusion sinful? The answer to the question is a simple,
but unfortunate, yes!
Alas, the African-American denominational churches must ask: Will we
accept within our midst those whom we have sought to silence, subjugate, and
vilify? Will we end the push for propaganda that spurs fragmentation and nega-
tive self-regard within our own kin? Will we accept the call to include, as equals,
in our midst, those whom we have cast aside? Will we, by fully loving our
neighbor as we love ourselves, thereby showing forth love to God, becoming a
cure to heal our wounded brothers and sisters? The response to these questions
will shape the African-American denominational churches in the present and
the future. Mark Taylor states, in moving fashion, the following, regarding the
ethical demand that accompanies the theological question of homosexuality as
sin:
[U]ltimately our understandings of sin will remain unclear without a presen-
tation of our understandings of grace, of the good that is held to be revealed,
created, sustained, empowered by God. Sin is fundamentally what contravenes
that good, what moves contrary to that good One’s presence, being, or character.
If one judges a practice or orientation like homosexuality to be sinful, one must
then show how that practice violates or moves against the good or is somehow
contrary to the event of grace.24

It is my hope—shared in solidarity with Womanists/Feminists and all others

who support justice—that the churches will respond in such a way that the
worth of all persons will be uplifted. Churches must move toward the good
and move in concert with the event of grace. It is my hope that the churches
listen and act. The advice of Poling seems to be fitting in this regard when he
states, “Those who are in positions of power need to hear the voices of those
who suffer from abuse or deprivation just as sure as those who suffer cry out
to be heard.”25

Another Beginning…
Writing this article has allowed me to give voice to a painful experience, that is,
having to find hope in the most unexpected places because of the hostile
response of a majority of the African-American denominational churches to
SGL women and men like myself. In that vein, it serves as a form of resistance
and upliftment. For most of my life I was socialized by others, especially other

24. Mark Lewis Taylor, “But Isn’t ‘It’ a Sin?” in Homosexuality and the Christian Com-
munity, ed. Choon-Leong Seow (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 83.
25. Poling, The Abuse of Power, 14–15.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2008.

96 Black Theology: An International Journal

Christians, to regard my sexuality (considered by others to be an act, choice,

and lifestyle as opposed to an aspect of my embodied and spiritual self) as
sinful. I discovered, however, a truth that many SGL sisters and brothers “in
hiding” may not have come to recognize yet, that I am as I was created. As a
result, I no longer carry the baggage full of regrets, sorrowful prayers, and
depression. In fact, it is time for the African-American denominational churches
to carry and unpack the loads that weigh down its people. Yet, as Poling poeti-
cally proclaims, “The art of listening is not easy, especially for oppressors
whose very position of power inhibits them from hearing and understanding
anything that contradicts their values.”26
With that in mind, we must all act to weaken these positions of power. We,
men, must be ready to dethrone ourselves, to rid ourselves of androcentric
biases and fully affirm the equality of women, and those who are homophobic
must relinquish disdain for SGL people and fully welcome us within the
churches. Only when this is accomplished will SGL women and men be able
to throw down the fig leaves and be transparent before God, our communities,
and selves. This essay is only a beginning towards the actualization of radical
wholeness for SGL people in the churches. So, in joining with the Womanist/
Feminist tradition, I too affirm the “necessity for freedom for all people.” May
God who appeared in Immanuel bring forth by the continued work of the
Spirit peace, justice, and wholeness for all oppressed sisters and brothers.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Augustine. The City of God, trans. Marcus Dods. New York: The Modern Library, 2000.
Blount, B. “Reading and Understanding the New Testament on Homosexuality.” In
Homosexuality and the Christian Community, ed. Choon-Leong Seow. Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.
Brown Douglas, K. Sexuality and the Black Church: A Womanist Perspective. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis
Books, 1999.
Clifford, A. M. Introducing Feminist Theology. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2005.
Cone, J. For My People: Black Theology and the Black Church. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1984.
Dyson, M. E. Race Rules: Navigating the Color Line. Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1996.
Gebara, I. Out of the Depths: Women’s Experience of Evil and Salvation. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2002.
Hewitt Suchocki, M. “Sin.” In Dictionary of Feminist Theologies, eds Letty M. Russell and J.
Shannon Clarkson. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.
Lewis Taylor, M. “But Isn’t ‘It’ a Sin?” In Homosexuality and the Christian Community, ed. Choon-
Leong Seow. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.
Marie Terrell, J. Power in the Blood: The Cross in the African American Experience. Eugene: Wipf &
Stock, 1998.

26. Poling, The Abuse of Power, 137.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2008.

 Moore Guilty of Sin 97

McClintock Fulkerson, M. “The Imago Dei and a Reformed Logic.” In Feminist and Womanist
Essays in Reformed Dogmatics, eds Amy Platinga Pauw and Serene Jones. Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.
Moore, D. “Touching the Taboo in Sacred Space: Reading Sherley Anne Williams’s Dessa Rose
as a ‘Catalyst for a Sexual Discourse of Resistance’ in the Black Church.” Theology &
Sexuality 13.3 (2007): 275–87. doi:10.1177/1355835807078261
Newton Poling, J. The Abuse of Power: A Theological Problem. Nashville, TX: Abingdon Press,
1991.
Schussler Fiorenza, E. Bread Not Stone: The Challenge of Feminist Biblical Interpretation. Boston:
Beacon Press, 1995.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2008.