Too Gay for the Evangelicals, Too Evangelical for the Gays: A Narrative and Autoethnographic Study of a Celibate–Gay Testimony

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This can be an incredibly valuable contribution to ecclesial questions regarding gay identities, but at present, the article does not rise to its potential. Its chief promise, it seems to me, is (1) a theological evaluation of the importance of experience in relation to ecclesial debates regarding sexuality and (2) a particular offering of experience that complicates current narratives within the churches. Both (1) and (2) are good contributions, and if the author strengthens the paper, they would enrich discussion. As it stands, however, neither goal is met.

With relation to (1), there was inadequate attention to the theological complexities of experience. The author shows an awareness of the work of Simeon Zahl and others, but misses the point that Zahl brings forward: considerations of experience as source have their problems, but there are other ways to use experience theologically. However, the author exclusively uses experience as a source, but provides no argument for doing so. Merely stating that one is adopting critical realism is not an argument in favor of using experience like this, especially when sophisticated accounts against this kind of use exist. So, rather than stating their method, the author needs to defend their use of experience with an argument.

With regard to (2), I was not given persuasive reasons to think that the testimonies provide add to the discussion. I do think they add to them, but what might the unconvinced reader say? What prevents the skeptical reader from saying, merely, that this is a one-off situation that does not need to bring about the ecclesial change this author proposes? Additionally, why think that any experience should bring about such broad change? The analysis of the experience is good, but it has no context or argumentative direction.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This was very well written, apart from minor editing corrections.

Author Response

Comment: This can be an incredibly valuable contribution to ecclesial questions regarding gay identities, but at present, the article does not rise to its potential. Its chief promise, it seems to me, is (1) a theological evaluation of the importance of experience in relation to ecclesial debates regarding sexuality and (2) a particular offering of experience that complicates current narratives within the churches. Both (1) and (2) are good contributions, and if the author strengthens the paper, they would enrich discussion. As it stands, however, neither goal is met.

Response: Thank you for your comments and critiques. They gave me much to think on and led me to redoing various parts of the article, especially section 2. My chief struggle has been trying to address your concerns while already up against the word limit. The changes I have made have required quite substantial cuts elsewhere.

Your full comments demonstrate to me that your understanding of my goals and the potential contributions of this article are slightly different to my intentions. While I agree the wider methodological discussions of (1) are important, my focus is not an evaluation of the importance of experience in the debates in any broad sense, but a more precise argument for the value of testimony in inviting reflexivity by the audience and it’s role in illuminating and critiquing subjectivity and cultural assumptions (thus relating more to Zahl’s ‘implicit’ role of experience than experience as formal source).

I hope that the article can speak into point (1), but I have tried to do this by modelling a way of handling and analysing experience theologically in a way that should be acceptable to evangelicals holding a high view of scripture, rather than a new summary of well documented epistemological debates. Thus point (2) is illustrative of point (1). The complexifying effect desired is one of greater reflexivity rather than any sense that my story is evidence for a particular ethical camp.  

I have updated the abstract to better reflect this emphasis; given greater clarity about my limited scope/aim in the introduction; and attempted to address the specific feedback within the main body of the article (see responses below.) Amended sections are coloured in red and you’ll note this includes most of section 2.

Comment: With relation to (1), there was inadequate attention to the theological complexities of experience. The author shows an awareness of the work of Simeon Zahl and others, but misses the point that Zahl brings forward: considerations of experience as source have their problems, but there are other ways to use experience theologically. However, the author exclusively uses experience as a source, but provides no argument for doing so. Merely stating that one is adopting critical realism is not an argument in favor of using experience like this, especially when sophisticated accounts against this kind of use exist. So, rather than stating their method, the author needs to defend their use of experience with an argument.

Response: I was surprised by the claim that I exclusively use experience as source. While the descriptive analysis of prior testimony practice and the autoethnographic vignettes make claims on the basis of experience (as themselves the practice of testimony), and I do cautiously and briefly model how the claims made in testimonies on the basis of experience might be tested in a way that is agreeable to evangelicals wanting to prioritise scripture over experience, the major analytical focus is on what Zahl calls the ‘implicit’ role of theology. I emphasise the potentially queering effect of narratives and how testimony practice (which by it’s nature makes claims on the basis of experience) might still highlight and challenge socially constructed cultural assumptions (which can be sometimes be assumed as objective or self-evident truth) regardless of whether one ultimately believes the claims to be plausible or true or experience to be authoritative or legitimate as formal source. I had made this clear in section 2 and 3.2 especially. At no point am I actually arguing that my experiences/testimony or the experiences of other gay or celibate people necessarily are a better or truer source of theological insight.

In other words, I am not seeking to convince people of my own views and interpretations described in my past practice. It is the disruptive potential of claims, true or false, I seek to emphasise as I feel this is the least contentious use of experience for evangelicals wanting to maintain the priority of scripture and that greater humility and reflexivity is one of the key things currently lacking in the sexuality debates. This point is also made in the first paragraph of section 7. That the reviewer feels I miss Zahl’s point about the complexity of experience and the claim I use it exclusively as source shows that my fundamental intentions have not been clear enough (although, I note that the second reviewer seems to have grasped my intentions and focus on the implicit role of experience more accurately.)

While I do cautiously seek to model how the formal claims from experience in testimonies might be tested against scripture, the critical realist framing means even here, I do not make absolute claims of truth on the basis of experience, but theorise plausible interpretations with epistemological humility. I have tried to give more attention to the complexity of experience and make the reasoning for my own nuances and method clearer in section 2 with a substantial rewrite. Due to space, this is still more clarifying than detailed arguing or evaluating the full range of positions, but I hope the reasoning behind my position and the intended, relatively limited implications of my use of experience are now clearer. My references to the wider scholarship are of course there for readers interested in engaging more deeply with these methodological debates.

Comment: With regard to (2), I was not given persuasive reasons to think that the testimonies provide add to the discussion. I do think they add to them, but what might the unconvinced reader say? What prevents the skeptical reader from saying, merely, that this is a one-off situation that does not need to bring about the ecclesial change this author proposes? Additionally, why think that any experience should bring about such broad change? The analysis of the experience is good, but it has no context or argumentative direction.

Response: Thank you again for these comments. As above, I would note that the second reviewer appeared to grasp my argumentative direction and contribution more clearly – that testimony can and should have a queering effect whilst operating on an epistemology that prioritises scripture over experience. I have deliberately wanted to avoid turning the experience towards an argument for a particular ethical position in the debate (even though mine position is clear from the testimony content) as I am not convinced that my personal experience is an authoritative enough source for such arguments. While I think we can and should seek to discern God’s action in our experience and try to model one way of doing this, I think the reflexivity and humility argued for is needed across the spectrum and more important for helping in the stalemate.

I feel this argumentative direction is already made clear in section 7, and that my amendments to the abstract and section 2 provide greater context for this direction within the article. I think the reviewer’s confusion on this point may have been from the assumption I was placing a greater weight in experience as source than I am, which I have now clarified more in section 2 and at various other points throughout. Hopefully the line of argument is now more consistently articulated at the start and the end but I lack space and time to further develop. With my second reviewer and other colleagues who read earlier drafts recognising the argumentative direction and value, I am content that the contributions are clear enough.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A sound introduction is provided with a much-needed analysis of how testimony works undergirded by a critical realist approach to truth and revelation. This article helpfully problematizes mainstream queer discourse which does not provide an epistemology of truth which takes the foundations of theology and theological discourse seriously (particularly revelation of scripture and its connection to experience), as well as challenging the circularity of conservative approaches which overly sublimate experience so as to resist the queerness of queer celibate Christians. I think a deeper plumbing of reformed epistemology and debates about how it can often fall into a justificatory loop, unchallenged by critical theology, and the role of the Holy Spirit could further enhance this article should it ever become a larger work. Additionally, further reflection on how queer theory and meet with the alterity of celibate eros and its Christian ascetical forms would further strengthen its illuminating methodology of ‘queer’ authoethnography from an evangelical, critical-realist base.

 

The mixing of fantasy narratology and the recounting Christian experience was incisive and analytically creative (219-275). I think the autoreflexive moments from 456-493 may need minor editing and reflection of the content. Line 414 need to 415 needs to be rewritten. I think it would be good to add something to the reflections on line 448-449. Self-deprecation is better replace with honest humility, and confession that is personal, but does not divulge certain aspects of safe privacy. Safe vulnerability observes the distinction between healthy personal vulnerability and confession of weakness and even ‘sin’, and oversharing in a negative way about the self which does not lead to humility and safe vulnerability. Bennett is misspelled in line 699.

 

 

The theological metaphysics of love in the reflection could also do with some attention, distinguishing between a repressive, non-erotic, celibacy of extrinsic obedience and works-based righteousness and a positive, non-repressive, erotic celibacy of love in lines 770-776 (cf. Bennett, 2022; Deus Caritas Est, Benedict XVI; Freud, Civilisation and its Discontents (Penguin, 2022), Coakley, The New Asceticism, 2015), particularly the eros-agape synthesis in these thinkers which enshrines a celibate flourishing without the need for sex. The author can strengthen their account by further and theologically distinguishing between bad celibacy which overly moralizes the queer individual without a consideration of the theodicean aspect of the evangelical structure of reality (Romans 8:20, Job etc.). It would also be good to incorporate a theodicy-based reflection of desire (either as a footnote, or at some point in reflection), potentially through Oliver O'Donovan's view of Created Order (cf. Resurrection and Moral Order, and A Conversation Waiting to Begin). God is the one who has allowed orientation to be varied, misaligned with creational ordering, and puts the gay person in a Job-like situation, which requires them to re-find trust and faith in a far deeper way than mainstream discourses which resist this third movement of theodicy. Overall, I recommend resubmission with these minor changes, and commend this ground-breaking article for publication as soon as possible.

Author Response

Comment: A sound introduction is provided with a much-needed analysis of how testimony works undergirded by a critical realist approach to truth and revelation. This article helpfully problematizes mainstream queer discourse which does not provide an epistemology of truth which takes the foundations of theology and theological discourse seriously (particularly revelation of scripture and its connection to experience), as well as challenging the circularity of conservative approaches which overly sublimate experience so as to resist the queerness of queer celibate Christians.

Response: Yes. I’m glad this came through.

Comment: I think a deeper plumbing of reformed epistemology and debates about how it can often fall into a justificatory loop, unchallenged by critical theology, and the role of the Holy Spirit could further enhance this article should it ever become a larger work.

Response: Agreed. The limitation on space takes this beyond my scope, however.

 

Comment: Additionally, further reflection on how queer theory and meet [meets?] with the alterity of celibate eros and its Christian ascetical forms would further strengthen its illuminating methodology of ‘queer’ authoethnography from an evangelical, critical-realist base.

Response: Again, I agree but the limitation on space and my desire to prioritise modelling the autoethnography methods means I have not acted on this comment. The article was already close to the word limit and other more importer reviewer critiques have been prioritised.

 

Comment: The mixing of fantasy narratology and the recounting Christian experience was incisive and analytically creative (219-275).

Response: Thank you. It was a personally insightful part of the analysis for me and led to many of the key insights in the emerging themes.

 

Comment: I think the autoreflexive moments from 456-493 may need minor editing and reflection of the content.

Response: I am unsure what the reviewer is referring to here, especially the part about ‘and reflection of the content’ and so am unable to respond in detail. The cited lines look like this comment focuses on the first epiphany (although do not match the PDF). I have looked over this section again and made some minor adjustments and changes.

 

Comment: Line 414 need to 415 needs to be rewritten.

Response: Rewritten. Now 409-413.

Comment:  I think it would be good to add something to the reflections on line 448-449. Self-deprecation is better replace with honest humility, and confession that is personal, but does not divulge certain aspects of safe privacy. Safe vulnerability observes the distinction between healthy personal vulnerability and confession of weakness and even ‘sin’, and oversharing in a negative way about the self which does not lead to humility and safe vulnerability.

Response: This better articulates what I was seeking to communicate. I have replaced ‘self-deprecation’ with ‘honest humility and safe vulnerability’.  See lines 446-447.

 

Comment: Bennett is misspelled in line 699.

Response: Corrected.

 

Comment: The theological metaphysics of love in the reflection could also do with some attention, distinguishing between a repressive, non-erotic, celibacy of extrinsic obedience and works-based righteousness and a positive, non-repressive, erotic celibacy of love in lines 770-776 (cf. Bennett, 2022; Deus Caritas Est, Benedict XVI; Freud, Civilisation and its Discontents (Penguin, 2022), Coakley, The New Asceticism, 2015), particularly the eros-agape synthesis in these thinkers which enshrines a celibate flourishing without the need for sex. The author can strengthen their account by further and theologically distinguishing between bad celibacy which overly moralizes the queer individual without a consideration of the theodicean aspect of the evangelical structure of reality (Romans 8:20, Job etc.).

Response: Thank you. This is a key part of my premise regarding the positive contribution of celibacy to the interrogation of heteronormative Chrisian cultural and ecclesial discourse and so I agree it is important to draw this out more clearly. I felt this belonged more naturally in the section 6.2. which considers the creative offering of celibate identity configurations and so have added a paragraph from line 707 which makes the distinction and emphasises my focus on an erotic celibacy of love. I have then applied this into my discussion of the buffered and porous self by noting my move from a more repressive celibacy to a healthier sublimation of desires on lines 766-767.

 

Comment: It would also be good to incorporate a theodicy-based reflection of desire (either as a footnote, or at some point in reflection), potentially through Oliver O'Donovan's view of Created Order (cf. Resurrection and Moral Order, and A Conversation Waiting to Begin). God is the one who has allowed orientation to be varied, misaligned with creational ordering, and puts the gay person in a Job-like situation, which requires them to re-find trust and faith in a far deeper way than mainstream discourses which resist this third movement of theodicy.

Response: While I recognise this might add another dimension to the consideration of same-sex orientation, my amendments in response to feedback has already taken me well over word count and required cuts elsewhere. My argument is less about whether homosexual desire is disordered or not and more about how queer narratives can illuminate and challenge cultural assumptions. I have therefore chosen not to act on this comment.

 

Comment: Overall, I recommend resubmission with these minor changes, and commend this ground-breaking article for publication as soon as possible.

Response: Thank you for your generous review and helpful comments for improvement. My sense is that you very much grasped what I was seeking to do.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Recommendations were taken into consideration and the article looks ready for publication.