Nabprpaper2009

BRITE DIVINITY SCHOOL TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY FORT WORTH, TEXAS

The Temple He Had Spoken Of Was His Body: Christian Sexual Ethics, Race, Sexuality, and the Biblical Narrative from Womanist, Liberationist, and Evangelical Perspectives BRITE DIVINITY SCHOOL TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

NABPR THEOLOGY SESSION II ROD TAYLOR, HARDIN SIMMONS UNIVERSITY MAY 19, 2009 RODNEY A. THOMAS JR.

Copyright. Rodney A. Thomas, Jr. May 26, 2009

Introduction Over the past few months, events have transpired that have served as opportunities for the American public to discuss issues relating to race and sexuality: the passage of the Matthew Shepherd bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, the political activity of the Latin@ political leadership seeking a historic nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court after the recent retirement of Justice David Souter, the inauguration of Barack Obama as the first U.S. president of African descent, the passage of same sex marriage in Vermont, Iowa and Connecticut, and lastly the heated deliberations over Miss California Carrie Prejean‟s stance in favor of traditional marriage. Throughout all of these occurrences, both the mainline and evangelical churches remained relatively silent on each of these controversies. How have gossip columnists, bloggers, beauty pageant contestants, and lawyers managed to become legitimate moral authorities in the eyes of the American public as opposed to the Body of Christ? We, as the people of God located in the United States of America, have had a tendency to circumvent social problems such as racism and sexism in order to be accepted by the mainstream of society rather than remain faithful to the empire (basileus in Greek) of God. In this work, I will seek to compare some of the most current responses that Christian theologians and ethicists have offered pertaining to American Christian approaches to the intersecting dynamics of race and sexuality. The works of Miguel De La Torre (Liberation Social Ethicist), Kelly Brown Douglas (Black Womanist Ethicist), and the late Stanley Grenz (the late Evangelical theologian) will all come under investigation. In particular, this assessment will compare and contrast each scholar‟s theological method for observing race and sexuality. It is my hope that laypersons, clergy, and scholars alike can be empowered to establish dialogues

Copyright. Rodney A. Thomas, Jr. May 26, 2009

pertaining to racial differences and human sexuality by listening to the voices of these three authors. Sexuality and the Black Church The perspective that I shall examine first is that of the Black Womanism of Kelly Brown Douglas. Alice Walker in her introduction to In Search of Our Mother’s Gardens, defines a Womanist as, “1. A Black feminist or a feminist of color. […] From the black folk expression of mothers to female children, “you acting womanish.” […] 2. Also: A woman who loves other women, sexually and/or nonsexually. Appreciates women‟s culture, women‟s emotional flexibility […] and women‟s strength. Committed to survival and wholeness of entire people, male and female. Not a separatist, except periodically, for health. Traditionally universalist[.] Traditionally capable [.] 3. Loves music. Loves dance. Loves the moon. Loves the Spirit. Loves love and food and roundness. Loves struggle. Loves the Folk. Loves herself. Regardless. 4. Womanist is to feminist as purple is to lavender.”1

When the average person hears the word, sex, she or he usually thinks in terms of what human beings choose or do not choose to do with their genitalia.

For Kelly Brown Douglas,

“sexuality is not synonymous with sex. Rather, while sexuality is not the whole of who we are as human beings, it is basic to who we are. It compels our emotional, affective, sensual, and spiritual relationships. […] Sexuality involves our self-understanding and our way of relating in the world as women and women.”2 Douglas offers this work not as an answer, but as a discussion starter to eliminate the idea of conversations concerning human sexuality and race as taboo. Theological inquiries do not emerge from what Douglas calls “formal God-talk” but out of the experiences and histories in which the Black Church has responded to sexuality.

1

Stacey M. Floyd-Thomas, Deeper Shades of Purple : Womanism in Religion and Society, Religion, Race, and Ethnicity(New York: New York University Press, 2006). P. XVIII 2 Kelly Brown Douglas, Sexuality and the Black Church : A Womanist Perspective(Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1999). P.6

Copyright. Rodney A. Thomas, Jr. May 26, 2009

The historical context that the Black Church uses to address sexuality, according to Douglas, begins with a history of power relationships. The Black Church‟s continued silence on matters of sexuality is the impact of white supremacy which regarded the sexuality of racial minorities as inferior. It is a hush that has been generated by the refusal to properly address the off topic subject of African enslavement; African female and male bodies had to go through a process of dehumanization before being sold as objects. Douglas uses the lens of Michael Foucault to analyze the origins of power relations; power does not reside one particular agent and then subsequently trickles down to other agents; on the contrary, there exists a web of interpersonal interactions that has its roots in a bottom-up approach. The model that characterized the relationships between enslaved Africans and their European-American enslavers was founded upon regulations and rules which perpetuated Black sexual stereotypes for the purpose of maintaining White cultural dominance. This mythology included notions such as Black women as either the gateways of depravity (also known as Jezebels) or asexual, subservient mother-figures (also known as Mammys) while enslaved African males became regarded as sexually powerful animals (also known as Violent Bucks).3 The tragic story of Sarah Bartmann, the Black South African woman who was exhibited like a circus freak while audiences gawked at her naked body, represents the White cultural attack on the sexuality of Black women.4 The assault on the sexuality of Black men included castration as one of the penalties for Black men accused of raping White women and the practice of lynching during the early twentieth century as a primary way of relieving White male fears of Black male sexuality.5 The stereotypes (Jezebel, Mammy, the Violent Buck) remain prominent in the news media; whether we are talking about Ronald Reagan‟s welfare queens, the Black mothers 3

Ibid. 35-50. Ibid.33-35 5 Ibid. 47-50. 4

Copyright. Rodney A. Thomas, Jr. May 26, 2009

recently seen on the local news complaining about KFC‟s and Popeye Chicken‟s marketing strategies, the Kobe Bryant trial, as well as the coverage of hypersexual violent Black criminality of celebrities such as singer Chris Brown and athlete Adam “Pacman” Jones6 Douglas goes on to suggest that „White culture left its mark upon certain aspects of Black sexuality, specifically Black self-esteem, Black relationships, and Black spirituality.‟7 Black men and women are made to feel ashamed of their bodies by being told things like “they are the wrong skin color” or that “their hair, lips, hips, and even the way they move (their very being is not normative.” Black male film makers continue to portray Black women as sex objects and Black mothers as „emasculating, overbearing, and/or irresponsible‟; see for instance, Mo’ Better Blues, School Daze, Boyz in the Hood, and Poetic Justice.8 Black male patriarchal privilege reared its ugly head in 1995 when the Million Man March happened. Women were left at home protesting their exclusion from full participation in this instance of assertion of Black humanity. When boxer Mike Tyson was arrested on rape charges, the National Baptist convention leadership remained silent towards Desiree Washington‟s victimization and vilification while supporting Tyson. For Douglas, a primary problem that hinders the Black Church from properly dealing with sexual ethics is the way the Black Christians have interpreted Scripture. On the issues related Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning sexualities, the Black Church uses the Bible to argue for freedom from racial oppression and simultaneously used to keep the GLBTQ community in bondage.9 Douglas argues that homosexuality in particular is rejected because it is seen as a threat to Black masculinity. 6

Popeyes http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/Fracas_over_Popeyes_Fried_Chicken_Price_april_22_2009; KFC http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsaSZyHzVSU ; Chris Brown: :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOJ_AWLaNAM; Pacman Jones: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkgLLtGl8VU 7 Douglas. 72 8 Ibid. 77-79. 9 Ibid. 94-107

Copyright. Rodney A. Thomas, Jr. May 26, 2009

Douglas offers a solution that would lead to a sexual discourse of resistance. The Church must be reminded that that Jesus is God‟s WORD made FLESH, and that the goodness of creation as revealed in the Incarnation, Imago Dei, and the revelation of God in the life and ministry of Jesus the Messiah should be used as weapons against Christian dualism/Platonism. Embodiment must be viewed as God‟s instrument in the disclosure of the union of the human and divine pointing toward the lack of separation between the sacred and the secular. Douglas asserts: “Integral to reclaiming and affirming an African religious heritage, as well as being conscientious stewards of the Black faith tradition, Black churches are obliged to restore the unity of the sacred and the secular realms. Such restoration perhaps signals a fourth component to the meaning of wholeness for womanist theology. […] This means that in promoting wholeness for the Black community womanist theologians are also constrained to spur the Black church toward an awareness of the inviolability of all reality, sacred and secular.”10 Along with the Black church‟s incorporating the womanist notion of wholeness and remaining faithful to an African religious worldview, Douglas also infers that a hermeneutic of suspicion must be used to approaching the biblical text as scholars are allowed to lead bible studies in congregations.11 I do have a couple of methodological questions concerning Douglas‟s work: does one have to eliminate any discussion of “formal God-talk” as a starting point for a Christian theology of sexuality? While I agree that Jesus the Messiah‟s prophetic ministry should be elevated on equal terms along with his Crucifixion and Resurrection, I do not believe that bringing to the fore Jesus‟s words and deeds should lead us as the Church to neglect any discussion concerning his divinity. In my view, the Incarnation makes „formal God-talk‟ possible for us to know the Triune God and then consequently know the Creator‟s purpose for our sexual existences. Also, if the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation functions, for Douglas, as the revelation that there is 10 11

Ibid. 132. Ibid. 96, 136.

Copyright. Rodney A. Thomas, Jr. May 26, 2009

no separation between the divine and human, how is one able to differentiate between that which is a human construction and what is divinely inspired? Sexual Ethics: An Evangelical Perspective The late Stanley Grenz responded to the changing views on human sexuality in twentieth century from a postmodern evangelical perspective. The two major camps in evangelicalism are the Old Evangelicals and the New Evangelicals; Grenz belonged in the latter group. Neoevangelicalism, as defined by The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology is a segment of the evangelical Christian population who “share the same convictions of the old evangelicals [such as stressing the importance of conversion experience, adhering to the inerrancy of Scripture, studying the Bible in a disciplined manner, and strict personal morals] but add an accent on the rational defense of faith and seek to related piety more aggressively to social issues.”12 While both parties may espouse the inerrancy of Scripture, new Evangelicals interpret the author‟s intent in a much broader sense. Grenz identifies sexuality as something that “is an aspect of our being that lies behind, produces, and is given expression by physical sexual characteristics and reproductive capacity. To understand this fuller dimension of sexuality we must look both to the human sciences and the biblical narratives concerning human origins.”13 Like Douglas, Grenz wants to avoid the Augustinian tradition‟s view of sexuality as purely evil and he also affirms that the “sexual dimension of the human reality encompasses all the various aspects of the human person that are related to existence as male and female.”14 Grenz argues that the events that took place according to Genesis two and three mean that the original goodness of our sexuality was taken 12

Alan Richardson and John Stephen Bowden, The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983). P.191. 13 Stanley J. Grenz, Sexual Ethics : An Evangelical Perspective(Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997). P. 16. 14 Ibid. 22

Copyright. Rodney A. Thomas, Jr. May 26, 2009

away, but it is through the bodily Resurrection of Jesus the Messiah and his Church means that our sexuality will not be just go away in eternity.15 It is important to note that the Fall, for Grenz, includes the genesis of gender hierarchy; male domination is a result of sin and not part of God‟s plan of salvation.16 Jesus the Messiah returned to his disciples from the grave in his full, Jewish male-self; in Grenz‟s view, “resurrection means that our entire person, including our body, passes through transformation.”17 Grenz asserts, however, that “our basic maleness or femaleness is a factor in who we are, how we perceive ourselves, how we think, how others perceive us, how we relate to others”; “racial differences and other factors do not loom as foundational in personal and social identity as do those distinctions which rise out of the fact that we are sexual beings.”18 Grenz claims that racial distinctions only emerge after the flood, and do not have an origin in the Creation Stories located in Genesis chapter One to Three. If sexuality is central to our understanding of ourselves as human beings, the appropriate context for sexual expression, in Grenz‟s view, is marriage between one male and one female. Traditional heterosexual marriage serves as an eschatological sign here on Earth that represents the relationship between the Redeemer and the Redeemed.19 The purpose of marriage is for 1) sexual expression, 2) procreation and childrearing, 3) companionship, and 4) the embodiment of a theological metaphor for the divine will to communion with humanity.20 Marriage between one man and one woman can be seen as a reflection of the divine image, which for Grenz, is a community concept whereby human persons are beings-in-fellowship.21 Same-sex unions fall 15

Ibid. 24-27 Ibid. 41-42. 17 Ibid. 27 18 Ibid. 29. 19 Ibid. 66 20 Ibid. 66-71 21 Ibid.49-51. 16

Copyright. Rodney A. Thomas, Jr. May 26, 2009

short of the Christian ideal for marriage because of the greater degree of the dialectic of sameness in terms of the persons seeking partnership; same-gender loving couples cannot serve as appropriate symbols of reconciliation because maleness and femaleness are the two foundational ways of being human.22 Marriage must be understood as a symbol of God‟s mission for the at-one-ment with creation, where two opposites exist in true community. Unlike Douglas, Grenz addresses the theological problem of the Christian single women and men. The Christian single lifestyle reflects “the universal, nonexclusive, and expanding nature of the divine love.”23 The marital bond is exclusive, represents the intra-Trinitarian relationship between God the Father and Jesus the Son, and its love expands through the exclusive love of the agents, the male and the female by way of pro-creation. “Singleness finds its paradigm above all in Jesus and secondarily in celibate saints in the church from Paul to the present.”24 The life of celibacy until marriage, whether as the believer is a young single adult or a divorcee, reflects the nature of God‟s own self-sacrifice that is characteristic of the Christian view of salvation.25 In comparison with Douglas, Grenz arranges his arguments by placing a priority on Christian revelation, the canon and the example of Jesus the Messiah and his tradition while Douglas chooses to discuss historical realities and then subsequently Christian revelation. I concede on narrative grounds that Grenz may be correct when he contends that sexuality is the primary marker of identity for human beings in Creation stories found in Genesis. However, if we continue with the biblical story, humans exist in a world after the Flood and our racial makeup is now part of our present existence. Just because race and/or ethnicity does not appear to be

22

Ibid. 241. Ibid. 195 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. 198 23

Copyright. Rodney A. Thomas, Jr. May 26, 2009

prevalent in the Creation stories does not mean we can simply avoid discussing these issues. Nation-states are not divided along gender lines, but are separated by race and ethnicity. Although Grenz meant to only address Christian sexuality in his work, I believe that one cannot have a conversation on sexuality without discussing cultural norms and racial differences. It seems that racial identity would not be important to someone whose view is seen as normative and who has not been casted as the racialized Other. Lastly, Grenz‟s uncritical use of marriage as a metaphor for the covenant relationship between the Messiah/his Church as well as YHWH/Israel can be problematic given that Grenz fails to address any history of sexual violence towards women or the wrathful ways in which YHWH deals with His spouse, Israel (as have womanist biblical scholars such as Renita J. Weems).26 A Lily Among the Thorns: Imagining a New Christian Sexuality De La Torre notes, “Few sitting in the pews know their denomination‟s Christological doctrines, but they do know where their church stands on premarital sex, homosexuality, and ordination of women.”27 De La Torre believes that it is possible for the Church to “be at the forefront” of the discussion on Christian ethics, and that the Bible can serve as a guide for “human sexuality and the multiple social and political issues associated with sexual practices”28 Great love-making is necessary for the existence of justice-makers and, conversely, justicemakers need good love-making; therefore sexuality must be seen as a justice issue. De La Torre understands that because God is love, God created sex as a good gift. Therefore, familial bonds should reflect the spiritual union one can have with and in God.29 At

26

Renita J. Weems, Battered Love : Marriage, Sex, and Violence in the Hebrew Prophets, Overtures to Biblical Theology(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995). 27 Miguel A. De La Torre, A Lily among the Thorns : Imagining a New Christian Sexuality, 1st ed.(San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2007). xiii 28 Ibid. xiii-xiv 29 Ibid. 4

Copyright. Rodney A. Thomas, Jr. May 26, 2009

its core, sexuality is expressed in a family (centered in relationship) founded upon mutual commitment, mutual giving, and vulnerability. The appropriate model for familial relationships is the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. “Rather than attempting to decipher the baffling concept of the Trinity, theologians from the margins of society—specifically early theologians of liberation—have contributed to the understanding of the Trinity symbol by focusing on the existing relationships among the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,” argues De La Torre.30 God‟s existence as being-in-communion serves as a pattern for humanity. The Trinity is a God who shares with co-equals in terms of power and authority because of God‟s agape, or unconditional love. De La Torre‟s call for liberation contains the manumission of both the bodies of women and people of color. As it pertains to the female body, he argues that in spite of the truth of the Creation story of Genesis 1 being told whereas both male and female are made in God‟s image, Christian men have historically treated women as property, as submissive incubators of children, and as temptresses.31 Patriarchal rule endures to this very day. Women are still viewed as subordinate in American society; that is why every detail of their bodies comes under scrutiny when females are put before the American public; see for instance the media coverage of female politicians, ala Alaska governor Sarah Palin and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Coinciding with the history Christian male patriarchy especially in the United States, the bodies of men and women of color have also come under attack as being sexually demonic. De La Torre points to just as recently as 2006 midterm election, Harold Ford Jr. (an African American candidate for U.S. Senate from Tennessee) lost a very tight election in part because the Republican National committee played on fears of miscegenation by funding a commercial

30 31

Ibid. 9. Ibid. 13-29

Copyright. Rodney A. Thomas, Jr. May 26, 2009

where a white blond woman claims to have met Ford at a „Playboy Party.‟32 The eroticization of bodies of color such as the cultural myths of „the male Latin lover,‟ and the female colored body as sensual objects that exist for the consumption by white males is a consequence of Western imperialism. De La Torre notes that in Christopher Columbus‟s first journal entry that the first thing Columbus notes is not the technological advances or the political or religious organization; rather Columbus describes the naked bodies of the Native American women who were “well built, with very handsome bodies and very good faces.”33 Women of color became symbols for the land that the Western conquerors wanted to penetrate; this was particularly the case with Miguel de Cuneo, who joined Christopher Columbus on his second voyage. After Columbus had gave de Cuneo an indigenous woman (as if she were property owned by Columbus), de Cuneo raped the woman after she used her agency to resist his advances. The purveyors of the social system of American chattel slavery naturally followed Columbus in his precedent of conquering the human bodies of color in order to remain masters over the Western Hemisphere. Rape was defined in the Ante-bellum Era as a sexual assault against free white women; if slave masters took advantage sexually of their enslaved African females, the men could never be at fault because of black women‟s inferior status. Joining Douglas, De La Torre also observes the labeling of Black men and women as morally deficient; for instance, Black males could not be considered „real‟ men, although they were supposedly strong as mules, because they lacked the means to provide for their family.34 The practice of American chattel slavery and the Western conquest of Amerindian lands were essentially justified with classic “blame the victim” rhetoric where the victimizer remained invisible. 32

Ibid. 38. Ibid. 42. 34 Ibid. 46. 33

Copyright. Rodney A. Thomas, Jr. May 26, 2009

After De La Torre deconstructs the North American‟s churches‟ problems with human sexuality and racial difference, he goes on to submit to his audience a “lily among the thorns” vision of justice where sexual equality exists in the midst of white male patriarchal society. While Douglas merely calls for a hermeneutic of suspicion during church bible studies, Miguel De La Torre actually applies it to the biblical text in his work. He first calls for a complete repudiation of the Hebrew Bible‟s construction of marriage. De La Torre argues if our society rejects polygamy, sexual slavery, male-adult/female-child relationships, prostitution as well as the stoning of brides who were not virgins, then the Church must categorically condemn marriage according to the Old Testament.35 Christians should accept the evolving definition of marriage, which should be founded ideally upon love, trust, commitment, and vulnerability.36 Our example should Jesus the Liberator who overturned the biblical definition of marriage found in Deuteronomy 25:5-6. The author of the Matthean Gospel tells us of a time when the Sadducees tested Jesus asking him, on the day of the resurrection (something they did not believe in), which of the seven brothers would possess a widow they had all married as their wife in heave. Jesus the Messiah‟ response, according to De La Torre‟s interpretation, where no one in heaven will marry, allows the woman to exist as her own person and thereby undermining the patriarchal order of his day.37 Similar to Grenz, De La Torre conceives of human sexuality as something grounded in our participation in the divine life of the Triune God. Marriage, and therefore sexual expression within a family is not about males owning female bodies; rather it is about becoming one with one‟s lover, because of “the possibility of mystical union” made

35

Ibid. 90-92. Ibid. 92. 37 Ibid. 93. 36

Copyright. Rodney A. Thomas, Jr. May 26, 2009

possible by a “Trinitarian awareness—that is, as three Gods in one is mystery beyond reason, so too is the union of the human soul with God.”38 Although De La Torre has a different view of the life of single Christians, he still addresses it from his liberationist context much like Grenz did from his Evangelical perspective. De La Torre dismisses the idea that singles need to practice the extremist form of celibacy found in American Christendom or the rampant promiscuity promoted by the sex-saturated mainstream media. Instead, informed Christian singles who practice safe sex will avoid the extremes we find in our society.39 De La Torre, contra Grenz, suggests that the Christian community should embrace the familial relationships of same-gender loving persons. De La Torre points to the biblical story in Act 15 (the Jerusalem conference) where the Jewish Christians were trying to get the Gentile Christians to conform to their version of Judaism ala circumcision; he asks, “How might gays respond to those people who pressure them to assimilate into heterosexual culture?”40 Since homophobia serves as a paradigm for oppression, De La Torre recommends that the Church (as the community of Jesus the Liberator) in the United States affirm the reciprocal relationships of homosexual couples. Lastly, Christians have the obligation of fighting predatory sex in all of its forms. This requires American congregations to become advocates of victims of child abuse, domestic violence and rape while denouncing violent pornographic films.41 As it pertains to De La Torre‟s methodology, there is one major point of contention that must be addressed. He is perhaps misguided to completely discard the Hebrew Bible and its view of marriage; yes, believers should be aware of the stories of sexual violence, rape, and imperial conquest in the text, but we should not be compelled to reject a portion of our canon just

38

Ibid. 64 Ibid. 115-119. 40 Ibid. 154. 41 Ibid. 163, 166, 182, 184. 39

Copyright. Rodney A. Thomas, Jr. May 26, 2009

because it offends members of our society. We, as the Church, just need to understand the Hebrew Bible in light of God‟s self-disclosure in Jesus the Messiah. Miguel De La Torre‟s elimination of the Old Testament is reminiscent of the ancient Marcionite heresy, where the Old Testament and its evil god were viewed as repulsive by one Christian sect. If De La Torre wants to rid the Christian community of the Old Testament and its outdated view of marriage, he needs to also prepare to scrap out the New Testament along with the Hebrew Bible; it was Jesus who quoted Genesis in Matthew 19 restricting the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Jesus the Messiah‟s use of the Old Testament probably would not go over too well with opponents of California‟s Proposition 8. Last but certainly not least, while De La Torre discusses the interconnectedness between issues of race and sexuality in the first part of his work, he does not provide us with a “lily in the thorns” dream where racial justice happens in a society still struggling to accept its racist history in the constructive portion of this work. It would have been beneficial for De La Torre‟s audience if the author had established a relationship between his ethic for sexual liberation and its meaning for anti-racism efforts. Conclusion It is not possible for any one Christian thinker to come up with a resolution to the sexual and racial issues that currently divide the Body of Christ. Although one may not agree with their methodology and/or conclusions, the works of Grenz, Douglas, and De La Torre can serve as conversation starters to at least get congregations thinking theologically about race and sex. Jesus of Nazareth, whose human body the Evangelist of the Gospel of John refers to as the Holy of Holies of God, is the central revelation for the Christian understanding of the divine and human. Therefore, it should be the mission of the Church to develop an ethic of racial and gender justice where every human body is treated as the temple of the most High God.

Copyright. Rodney A. Thomas, Jr. May 26, 2009

Works Cited Popeyes: http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/Fracas_over_Popeyes_Fried_Chicken_Price_ april_22_2009 Chris Brown: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOJ_AWLaNAM Kentucky Fried Chicken: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsaSZyHzVSU Pacman Jones: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkgLLtGl8VU De La Torre, Miguel A. A Lily among the Thorns : Imagining a New Christian Sexuality. 1st ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2007. Douglas, Kelly Brown. Sexuality and the Black Church : A Womanist Perspective. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1999. Floyd-Thomas, Stacey M. Deeper Shades of Purple : Womanism in Religion and Society Religion, Race, and Ethnicity. New York: New York University Press, 2006. Grenz, Stanley J. Sexual Ethics : An Evangelical Perspective. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997. Richardson, Alan, and John Stephen Bowden. The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983. Weems, Renita J. Battered Love : Marriage, Sex, and Violence in the Hebrew Prophets Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995.

Copyright. Rodney A. Thomas, Jr. May 26, 2009