Indecent Theology, by M. Althaus-Reid

Garriguette

New member
I'm a practicing (liberal) Christian. Xicot, who is an atheist and humanist, asked me, "Do you think you would be poly if it weren't for the God thing?" I thought about that for a while. My reasons for being mono mostly have to do with the way my attention works (hyper-focused on what's in front of me) and with what I like most about relationships (I don't enjoy NRE, which feels similar to anxiety symptoms, the way I enjoy attachment).

But since he asked me that question, I have been assembling and working through a reading list in feminist and queer theology in hopes of understanding what a poly-friendly theology might look like.

I'm almost finished with Indecent Theology, a book by the late Marcella Althaus-Reid, which I think might be interesting to a number of people in this sub-forum. Althaus-Reid was trained in liberation theology (an anti-colonialist, populist movement within Latin American Catholicism, prominent in the 1980s) but grew away from it. Her major objection to liberation theology was that the well-scrubbed version of the poor that theologians offered was asexual-- not because poor people in Latin America were in fact all asexual, but because the church had found no way of understanding or representing both their sexuality and their worth as creatures of God. Poor people in Latin America, Althaus-Reid contends, were much less judgmental of sexual variation than the church-- the only institution expressing any particular interest in them at the time-- claimed them to be.

Though the book focuses mostly on what feminists, gender and sexual minorities, and kink practitioners might teach Christian religious institutions about the liberatory possibilities of the gospel, she also includes a small collection of stories about non-monogamy, in which the speakers are “people for whom the spectrum of human relationships as it is presented is not satisfactory” (141). And Althaus-Reid situates the church’s condemnation of non-monogamous relationships in the very context of regressive property relations that liberation theology was trying to call into question:

The church’s definitions are more ‘proprietary,’ more concerned with the marking of lawful belongings rather than with relationships between people. … [The heterosexual marriage] is the unique case of a legal contract which discourages intimate friendships for life, while trying to see in the controlled setting of marriage a foundation for goodness in society. (142-3)​

That is, even as liberation theologians recognize that societal change relies on finding a way to collapse the distinction between “us” and “them,” many of them forget that broader social networks-- e.g., poly networks-- help collapse that distinction much more readily than do tight, small, insular ones (yet it’s those tight networks that have the support of both church and state).

Althaus-Reid’s clearest statement in favor of poly and other forms of NM is that “intimacy with others has a divine nature, and is by far the more divine commandment [than mere fidelity]” (143). And she points out that individual communities have come up with new ways of speaking about relationships that better represent what needs those relationships meet and what roles they play: Amigovio, in particular, is a hybrid of the words for “friend” and for “romantic partner” in Argentina. The relationship the word describes “usually involves sex, but also a sense of friendship which trespasses beyond the heterosexual patterns of friendship in Argentina” (144):

Amigovios do not necessarily marry each other, but remain in close intimate friendship in a different pattern from that of lovers or ex-lovers. The relationships are not necessarily kept secret and do not carry a social stigma. … Perhaps … a Trinity based on amigovios instead of medieval conceptions of family would be richer and more credible than the actual property, boundary-concerned laws based on objectification of people and their control. (144)

Furthermore, defining sexual decency in rigid and narrow terms deprives the church of much of its potential force for social change: When a person submits “to sexual decency master codes” as the Church would wish, he or she also “submit to political master codes,” within which the liberation that liberation theology seeks cannot happen (170). “Indecency may be the last chance for … Christianity to transform political structures” (170).

It's on the dense side, but if you don't mind that, I recommend it.
 
What is "indecent" about intimate friendships/loveships?
 
Last edited:
Interesting! Thank you for posting about it. I grew up Christian and am now pagan. I am still interested in theology of all kinds. I will check this out.
 
In reply to Magdlyn:

Althaus-Reid uses the word "indecent" to refer to the many people who don't fit into the fairly narrow categories of sexuality that the church has termed "decent" (either celibacy or monogamous heterosexual marriage)-- herself included-- and she doesn't mean it as an insult.

She is trying to point out that liberation theologians, while helping poor people in Latin America organize in resistance to political and social repression, didn't see the church's own strictly defined categories of "decent" sexuality as part of the problem, because those categories, too, are repressive and at odds with the goal of liberation.

So she wants to point out that the church needs to learn something from the people it has termed "indecent"-- people who are gay, lesbian, bi, trans; people who love non-monogamously; people who practice kink-- about what it means to live and love in a liberatory, honest, unpossessive, intentional way.
 
Last edited:
Why would you want to affiliate with a religion that sees you as indecent?
 
Althaus-Reid is dead. She doesn't want anything. But when she was alive, she wanted to reform the church to better suit it to the lives of people it purported to represent.

I respect that decision as much as I respect the decision of people who would prefer not to have anything to do with an institution that they see as broken and/or unnecessary.
 
I've friends/family who've stayed in the Mormon church largely out of a hope to help reform said church from within. I respect their decision even while having quit the church myself. I think I chose an easier road than they did, so I have to respect them.
 
I hear you, Kevin.

My reasons for wanting to stay and change things are selfish, though. My parents are both retired ministers (well, my mom is only semi-retired). If at some point Xicot decides that he wants to be out, at least as far as family is concerned, and we're still together, I want to be able to direct my parents to some resources that will help them make some sense of poly, and theology is one of their lenses for understanding the world.
 
Althaus-Reid is dead. She doesn't want anything. But when she was alive, she wanted to reform the church to better suit it to the lives of people it purported to represent.

I respect that decision as much as I respect the decision of people who would prefer not to have anything to do with an institution that they see as broken and/or unnecessary.

I didn't ask why Althaus-Reid was Christian/Catholic. I asked why you were.

I hear you, Kevin.

My reasons for wanting to stay and change things are selfish, though. My parents are both retired ministers (well, my mom is only semi-retired). If at some point Xicot decides that he wants to be out, at least as far as family is concerned, and we're still together, I want to be able to direct my parents to some resources that will help them make some sense of poly, and theology is one of their lenses for understanding the world.

But, your mother is a "minister," which means she isn't Catholic. Why would Catholic theology about "liberation" (from.... something, but not from the Catholic Church) or "indecency" have any affect on her making sense of polyamory?

Personally, I would just question why anyone puts their faith in a 2000+ year old book to such a large extent. I saw through it when I was 12. Only my brainwashed fear of actual eternal hellfire kept me going to church, and praying for my soul, on and off til I was 16, then I was done.

Of course, Kevin, putting one's faith in the ridiculous Book of Mormon (gold plates in a top hat, my ass), written much more recently, is even more silly. :rolleyes:
 
I find it frustrating that some branches of Christianity and individual Christians themselves interpret the Bible in the way that they do thus promote homophobia, sex negativity and general bigotry. It alienates people like me who identify as a Christian but doesn't interpret the Bible in that way from the wider Christian community. Mind you, it is annoying when anyone assumes all Christians are conservative, homophobic and sex negative.

It is desirable to be part of a community of people that have similar beliefs to you, and often, you'll agree on all other aspects of life and religion except sex and relationships. This makes it tempting to try and change your views or those of the other party, however futile that may be. And once you realise that you have a fundamental incompatibility despite the fact you share very similar beliefs, it's easy to become frustrated by the rejection.
 
I didn't ask why Althaus-Reid was Christian/Catholic. I asked why you were.



But, your mother is a "minister," which means she isn't Catholic. Why would Catholic theology about "liberation" (from.... something, but not from the Catholic Church) or "indecency" have any affect on her making sense of polyamory?

Personally, I would just question why anyone puts their faith in a 2000+ year old book to such a large extent. I saw through it when I was 12. Only my brainwashed fear of actual eternal hellfire kept me going to church, and praying for my soul, on and off til I was 16, then I was done.

Of course, Kevin, putting one's faith in the ridiculous Book of Mormon (gold plates in a top hat, my ass), written much more recently, is even more silly. :rolleyes:

I find happiness and meaning in gathering together to talk about spirituality and ethics, in singing together, in sharing joys and concerns with each other, and in reading and talking about texts, biblical or not. And when I experimented with not going to church in college, I missed it. There aren't a lot of secular institutions that offer that kind of fellowship yet.

I may be making a mistake in responding, because I think what I'm hearing is not that you're asking me why I believe as I do but instead telling me I should believe something else. Part of the reason I've been happily dating an atheist for nine years is that we don't do that to each other. The reason I posted about this book is that I know there are other people on pdc who are interested in reconciling their faith with their live and/or the lives of the people they love, or this subforum wouldn't exist. If that shoe doesn't fit you, that's fine. I am not asking you to put it on.

Also, as the mono partner of someone who is poly curious-- something I do not anticipate will change-- I have no concern that the congregation I worship with will see me as doing anything wrong. (I am out as bi among them.) I do have concerns that some members of the congregation I worship with-- like my choir buddy who discovered in adulthood that her father had another family he never told her about-- would see my position as worrisome or as a cause for pity, because they would have trouble grasping that someone could be happy in it.

I think there's some value in being able to say, "I'm okay; you don't need to worry" in language that other people will understand. And for some people in my life, that language is going to be theological.

As for why my mother in particular would find a Catholic's perspective valuable, despite not being Catholic: My dad's theologically systematic, but my mom's theologically pragmatic and a bit of a magpie. She's not Lutheran, but she loves Dietrich Bonhoeffer's writing because she knows what's at stake when he writes about ethical quandaries. She's not Episcopalian, but she agrees with John Shelby Spong that it's perverse to use the bible as a weapon. She's not Catholic, but she finds Matthew Fox's suggestion that maybe it's time to rethink the doctrine of original sin pretty persuasive.
 
Re (from Magdlyn):
"Of course, Kevin, putting one's faith in the ridiculous Book of Mormon (gold plates in a top hat, my ass), written much more recently, is even more silly. :rolleyes:"

Indeed it is. The Book of Mormon (as has the Pearl of Great Price) has been shown to be obviously in error (sometimes even offensive) on many levels. And the Mormon church bids its members to put their faith in that 2000+ year old book called the Bible as well. But the friends/family I spoke of really don't put their faith in either. They realize the Scriptures are Earthly books written by Earthly mortals (yay confidence men even), without the divine inspiration necessary to make said books literally -- even figuratively -- correct. It is in fact this insistence that the books are literally (and figuratively) correct that is one of the things my said friends/family hope to help reform in the church. Their hope is that someday people will sort of cherry pick from the Scriptures and turn only to those occasional verses that are well-spoken and useful in life.

All of this of course is strictly their quest. I respect it but I wouldn't engage in it personally. It's enough for me to know that most churchmemebers will probably realize their errors in some future generation, and that my efforts to speed that process along wouldn't hasten things much or at all, certainly not enough to make up for the psychological damage, church-wrought exploitation, and damage to my reputation. I don't want to be known as a church supporter, even as a reformer. So, I'm content to watch other people's efforts from my seat in the sidelines.

Re (from Garriguette):
"I find happiness and meaning in gathering together to talk about spirituality and ethics, in singing together, in sharing joys and concerns with each other, and in reading and talking about texts, biblical or not. And when I experimented with not going to church in college, I missed it. There aren't a lot of secular institutions that offer that kind of fellowship yet."

... and:
"I think there's some value in being able to say, 'I'm okay; you don't need to worry' in language that other people will understand. And for some people in my life, that language is going to be theological."

I think my friends/family feel likewise. They're actually largely atheist/humanist. But, they've family of their own who'd be badly hurt if they quit the church, which they're willing to help stave off. I guess they're more compliant/diplomatic than myself. :eek:

Re: the book that is the topic of this thread ... sounds like a good book to me.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to go off topic a bit, Garriguette, but your answers were helpful. I find the idea of church reform interesting, as Christian writers, as well as Jewish prophets and rabbis, started doing it while the religion was still in its earliest days. Ie: Deuteronomy rewriting and reinterpreting other older "Old Testament" books, even before the canon was official. And of course, things just got crazier after the time Christ was considered physically dead.

I find happiness and meaning in gathering together to talk about spirituality and ethics, in singing together, in sharing joys and concerns with each other, and in reading and talking about texts, biblical or not. And when I experimented with not going to church in college, I missed it. There aren't a lot of secular institutions that offer that kind of fellowship yet.

Well, if Christianity is so outmoded and now being hardly involved with actual Belief, why not go to a UU Church? Why hang in there with Christianity when it's got such a record of hatred and wars?

I may be making a mistake in responding, because I think what I'm hearing is not that you're asking me why I believe as I do but instead telling me I should believe something else.

No. I don't want anyone to believe anything. Unless it really speaks to your heart or intellect. If it's just habit, I find it a bit... hypocritical? "I'm Christian but that just means I like hanging out with my Church friends," is what I am hearing.

Part of the reason I've been happily dating an atheist for nine years is that we don't do that to each other. The reason I posted about this book is that I know there are other people on pdc who are interested in reconciling their faith with their live and/or the lives of the people they love, or this subforum wouldn't exist. If that shoe doesn't fit you, that's fine. I am not asking you to put it on...


I think there's some value in being able to say, "I'm okay; you don't need to worry" in language that other people will understand. And for some people in my life, that language is going to be theological.

As for why my mother in particular would find a Catholic's perspective valuable, despite not being Catholic: My dad's theologically systematic, but my mom's theologically pragmatic and a bit of a magpie. She's not Lutheran, but she loves Dietrich Bonhoeffer's writing because she knows what's at stake when he writes about ethical quandaries. She's not Episcopalian, but she agrees with John Shelby Spong that it's perverse to use the bible as a weapon. She's not Catholic, but she finds Matthew Fox's suggestion that maybe it's time to rethink the doctrine of original sin pretty persuasive.

OK, that makes sense. Not really that one NEEDS to explain ones polyamory in specifically Christian theology friendly ways to any religious loved one we might have, but since you like to toss around theology anyway, despite not being a believer, per se, you do it for fun.
 
Back
Top