Doing Church at the Amplify Open and Affirming Conferences: Queer Ecclesiologies in Asia (Asian Christianity in the Diaspora) 3030733130, 9783030733131

Citation preview

ASIAN CHRISTIANITY IN THE DIASPORA

Doing Church at the Amplify Open and Affirming Conferences Queer Ecclesiologies in Asia

Joseph N. Goh

Asian Christianity in the Diaspora Series Editors Grace Ji-Sun Kim Earlham School of Religion Richmond, IN, USA Joseph Cheah University of Saint Joseph West Hartford, CT, USA

Asian American theology is still at its nascent stage. It began in the 1980’s with just a handful of scholars who were recent immigrants to the United States. Now with the rise in Asian American population and the rise of Asian American theologians, this new community is an ever-important voice within theological discourse and Asian American cultural studies. This new series seeks to bring to the forefront some of the important, provocative new voices within Asian American Theology. The series aims to provide Asian American theological responses to the complex process of migration and resettlement process of Asian immigrants and refugees. We will address theoretical works on the meaning of diaspora, exile, and social memory, and the foundational works concerning the ways in which displaced communities remember and narrate their experiences. Such an interdisciplinary approach entails intersectional analysis between Asian American contextual theology and one other factor; be it sexuality, gender, race/ethnicity, and/or cultural studies. This series also addresses Christianity from Asian perspectives. We welcome manuscripts that examine the identity and internal coherence of the Christian faith in its encounters with different Asian cultures, with Asian people, the majority of whom are poor, and with non-Christian religions that predominate the landscape of the Asian continent. Palgrave is embarking on a transformation of discourse within Asian and Asian American theological scholarship as this will be the first of its kind. As we live in a global world in which Christianity has re-centered itself in the Global South and among the racialized minorities in the United States, it behooves us to listen to the rich, diverse and engaging voices of Asian and Asian American theologians. More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14781

Joseph N. Goh

Doing Church at the Amplify Open and Affirming Conferences Queer Ecclesiologies in Asia

Joseph N. Goh School of Arts and Social Sciences Monash University Malaysia Bandar Sunway, Malaysia

Asian Christianity in the Diaspora ISBN 978-3-030-73313-1    ISBN 978-3-030-73314-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73314-8 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the ­publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and ­institutional affiliations. Cover credit: Liviu Pazargic / Alamy Stock Photo This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Foreword

In November of 2012, I received an email from Paul Lucas and Gary Chan inviting me to be one of the keynote speakers at the Amplify 2013 conference in Hong Kong. I could never have imagined at that time what an amazing and transformative experience the conference would be in terms of my own scholarship and ministry. Although much of my theological scholarship prior to that time had focused on the intersections of LGBTQ and Asian theologies (Cheng 2002, 2006, 2011a, b, c, d, e), I had never before attended such a large gathering of LGBTQ Asian Christians and our allies. It was one thing to write about queer Asian theologies; it was quite another thing to live it. As I wrote in a HuffPost article in June of 2013, the Amplify conference was an “incredible witness to the international ministries of queer Christians of Asian descent” (Cheng 2013a). Delegates from nearly a dozen countries were represented at the conference, including Australia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and the United States. Reflecting upon the event shortly after it concluded, I wrote that Amplify 2013 was “one of the most moving experiences of my life” and that I would “always remember my experiences of living, loving, and leading in the midst of my queer Asian siblings from around the world” (Cheng 2013a). Indeed, to this day I still treasure the close friendships and connections that I made during those three days. It is for this reason that I am so grateful for Dr. Joseph N. Goh’s monograph on the historical and ecclesiological significance of the Amplify conferences. From their inception in 2009 to their most recent incarnation in v

vi 

FOREWORD

2018, the Amplify conferences have touched – and transformed – the lives of so many queer Asian Christians around the world, including mine. Because it is not uncommon for grassroots events such as these to be erased from our collective memories, I believe that it is critical that these unique manifestations of queer Asian ecclesiology be documented for future generations. I am particularly appreciative of how Dr. Goh, taking the Amplify conferences as a starting point, has constructed his own queer ecclesiological framework of interminable flourishing, promiscuous irregularity, and eschatological accountability. Drawing upon an impressively wide range of sources from Karl Barth to Marcella Althaus-Reid, Doing Church at the Amplify Open and Affirming Conferences: Queer Ecclesiologies in Asia is a learned and significant contribution to the discipline of queer theology and religious studies. I have written about how, from a queer theological perspective, the church is an “external community of radical love.” That is, in my view, one of the key functions of queer ecclesiology is to recognize how the Body of Christ has “dissolved traditional boundaries that [have] kept people apart such as biological relationships, social class, and physical attributes” (Cheng 2011d, 106). In many ways, the Amplify conferences have served exactly this purpose. It was wonderful to see first-hand how many boundaries were dissolved at Amplify 2013. This included not only the aforementioned biological relationships, social class, and physical attributes, but also those boundaries relating to national origin, language, educational background, denominational affiliation, race, gender, gender identity, and sexuality. The Amplify conferences have been a sacramental manifestation of what I have called “rainbow theology” – that is, an outward and visible sign of the inward and invisible rainbow graces of multiplicity, middle spaces, and mediation (Cheng 2013b, 145–58). In his First Letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul wrote to his beloved yet unruly church community in Corinth about how the Body of Christ “does not consist of one member but of many.” 1 Cor. 12:14. That is, no one part of the Body can say to another that “I have no need of you.” In fact, according to St. Paul, it is the “weaker” members that are “indispensable,” and it is the “less honorable” members that we “clothe with greater honor.” 1 Cor. 12:21–23. Although the Amplify conferences might be viewed by some as “weaker” and “less honorable” than the more established ecclesial gatherings in Asia – say, the distinguished assemblies of the Christian Conference of Asia – Dr. Goh has demonstrated convincingly in this work that the Amplify conferences are not only indispensable but should be clothed with greater honor.

 FOREWORD 

vii

From a queer theological perspective, God has chosen precisely “what is weak in the world to shame the strong,” and “what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are.” 1 Cor. 1:27–18. And that is precisely what the Amplify conferences have done. They have shown us how the Word made Flesh is found not only in the midst of the scandalous and indecent contexts of a filthy manger in Bethlehem or a bloody cross on Golgotha, but also in the beautiful and loving gatherings of LGBTQ Asian Christians in Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, and Taiwan. And it is for this reason that I give thanks for this wonderful and grace-filled work by Dr. Goh. The Rev. Dr. Patrick S. Cheng Episcopal Divinity School at Union Theological Seminary New York City The Feast of the Presentation of Our Lord February 2, 2021

Bibliography Cheng, Patrick S. 2002. Multiplicity and Judges 19: Constructing a Queer Asian Pacific American Biblical Hermeneutic. Semeia 90/91: 119–133. ———. 2006. Reclaiming Our Traditions, Rituals, and Spaces: Spirituality and the Queer Asian Pacific American Experience. Spiritus 6 (2): 234–240. ———. 2011a. A Three-Part Sinfonia: Queer Asian Reflections on the Trinity. Journal of Ethnicity, Race, and Religion 2 (13.9): 1–23. ———. 2011b. Gay Asian Masculinities and Christian Theologies. CrossCurrents 61 (4): 540–548. ———. 2011c. ‘I Am Yellow and Beautiful’: Reflections on Queer Asian Spirituality and Gay Male Cyberculture. Journal of Technology, Theology, and Religion 2 (3): 1–21. ———. 2011d. Radical Love: An Introduction to Queer Theology. New  York: Seabury Books. ———. 2011e. The Rainbow Connection: Bridging Asian American and Queer Theologies. Theology & Sexuality 17 (3): 235–264. ———. 2013a. Amplify 2013: Three Hundred Queer Asian Christians in Hong Kong. HuffPost. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/amplify-­2013-­queer-­asian-­ christians_b_3447602 ———. 2013b. Rainbow Theology: Bridging Race, Sexuality, and Spirit. New York: Seabury Books.

Preface

I dedicate this volume to the God of surprises who irrupted in, and queered, the writing of this book in 2020 delightfully goosepimply ways. The completion of this book also marks the 20th anniversary of my presbyteral ordination. Little did I know that when I said ‘yes’ to God twenty years ago, I would find myself still wowed by the Mystery that is God. To this very day, I can still hear God whispering to me, ‘tu es sacerdos in aeternum’, and I am grateful for the multiple evolutions that I experience ceaselessly as the deepening of my initial call. Gloria, laus et honor tibit sit. I also dedicate this book to Nick, Celia, Sheela and Eve who have always supported me in my drastic life choices, my godkids and their fathers, my family in France, EQARS, Lisa Isherwood, Hugo Córdova Quero and the the Fetish Boots and Running Shoes 2019 Symposium participants, the many organisers and participants of Amplify, the North American Catholic Ecumenical Church, Iglesia Antigua de las Américas, all theologians who live and work in Asia, all who fight for gender and sexual(ity) equality – especially in theology and church – and the eternal memory of my brilliant, loving husband R. (d. 2016) who always had my back. Pas même la mort ne peut nous séparer. I also offer this monograph as a memorial to fratrum minorum Roderick Payne (d. 2001), Richard Purcell (d. 2011), and particularly Kenan B. Osborne (d. 2019) who helped me to understand that ‘no theology of God will ever be complete, since God is infinitely free’ (2009, 275). I wish to pay tribute to the life and work of my writer-grandfather John M. Chin (d. 2017), theologian Michael Bernard Kelly (d. 2020), and t­ heologian Ibrahim Abdurrahman Farajajé, formerly Elias Farajajé-Jones (d. 2016), ix

x 

PREFACE

who took time to meet with me in Kuala Lumpur and speak of queer godly ‘bodies [which] have been colonized and treated as though they were someone’s occupied territories, with all sorts of projections and fears mapped out across them’ (2000, 328). Finally, I wish to acknowledge the life of Edgar Ng (d. 2020), husband of Henry Li, Hong Kong LGBTIQ activist, devout Roman Catholic and member of Compassion (摯情同行) – HK LGBTQ Catholics Union (香港天主教同志小組). Researching and educating on LGBTIQ issues is no mean feat. At two different academic events in 2014 and 2015, when I presented my research on self-reflexivity in the meaning-making of sexual activity among Malaysian gay men, I was promptly accused by several academics of reinscribing the stigma of non-normative sexuality (at the earlier event, and much to my dismay, some members of the audience even clapped and cheered with glee when they heard this!), and that my labours would be better served by eliding these men’s eroticism and concentrating on their non-­sexualised talents, successes and societal contributions as ‘just people, like everyone else’. To this day, I continue to resist such simplistic notions by reiterating the centrality of sexual identity and practice to the very subjectivity of gay men, and the potential dissolution of their worth based on their sexualities which make them (often unapologetically) different but equal to the rest of humanity. How could I sweep the genders and sexualities of gay men so easily under the carpet when their talents, successes and societal contributions – indeed their very humanity – could easily be ignored and nullified by those very genders and sexualities if they found themselves in unfavourable situations? My thoughts on the doings of gender, sexuality and biology as integral to the meaning-making of existence among gay men, but also lesbian women, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, transgender, non-binary and intersex people, and others who do not fit in, are reflected in this book – but specifically in relation to their meaning-makings of faith. Gender, sexuality and anatomy impact faith as much as faith impacts gender, sexuality and anatomy. This monograph, which started life much earlier but was largely completed during the period of my sabbatical leave from January to June 2020 when COVID-19 cases continued to escalate in Malaysia and around the globe, is infused with memories of isolation, loneliness, anxiety, frustration, disappointment, fear, uncertainty and prayerful anticipation. Just as global communities worked (and still work) alongside each other in attempts to end this resilient scourge, it is my hope that churches around

 PREFACE 

xi

the world will similarly labour side by side to foster radical forms of mutual respect, genuine love and profound equality as followers of Christ to end the political, social, ecclesial and theological persecution of LGBTIQ people. I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Amplify co-founders Gary Chan and Paul Lucas, Amplify frontliners Jason Man-bo Ho, Sam Li, Caelan Liu, Duncan Mark, Boon-lin Ngeo, Su-lin Ngiam, Pauline Ong, Joe Wai-yap Pang, Miak Siew, Stephen Suleeman, Pearl Wong and Silas Kwok-yiu Wong for being such amazing storytellers, the churches, organisations and individuals that participated in Amplify for their various forms of assistance, the School of Arts and Social Sciences of Monash University Malaysia for its support towards this project (especially for approving the OSP!), series editors Grace Ji-sun Kim and Joseph Cheah for being open and affirming towards this Asian queer practical theological project, scholars who reviewed and scholars who endorsed this volume, and Phil Getz, Tikoji Rao M., Dhanalakshmi Muralidharan and others in the Palgrave Macmillan and SPi Global teams. This book could not have been written and published without you. A special word of thanks to Patrick S. Cheng for writing the Foreword, Tony Chin-chew Quah and Pearl Wong for helping me to decipher Chinese texts, Jill Ross and other friends for their prayers towards this project, and Cecilia Chin PPN for kindly proofreading an earlier draft of this book. Ribuan terima kasih. Pax et bonum, Joseph N. Goh Bandar Sunway, Malaysia

Bibliography Farajajé-Jones, Elias. 2000. Holy Fuck. In Male Lust: Pleasure, Power, and Transformation, ed. Kerwin Kay, Jill Nagle, and Baruch Gould, 327–335. New York: Harrington Park Press. Osborne, Kenan B. 2009. A Theology of the Church for the Third Millennium: A Franciscan Approach. Leiden: Brill.

Contents

1 Gender Variance, Sexual Diversity and Christianity in Asia  1 Writing From, With and For the Margins   1 Ecclesial Responses to LGBTIQ Issues   6 Striving Towards Being Open and Affirming  11 A Queer Matrix of Relational Empowerment  16 Navigating the Chapters  22 Bibliography  23 2 Amplify Open and Affirming Conferences 35 Theological Vision  35 Co-Founders  41 2009  43 2010  44 2011  44 2012  45 2013  47 2014  48 2016  49 2018  50 Themes  53 Doing Solidarity  56 Bibliography  56

xiii

xiv 

Contents

3 An Ecclesiology of Interminable Flourishing 61 Life, Not Death  61 Continuous Thriving  65 Expanding Intersecting Identities of Gender, Sexuality, Biology and Faith  68 Magnifying the Community of Open and Affirming Churches  73 Augmenting Mutual Learning and Interdependence in Doing Church  77 Towards an Ecclesial Font of Life  83 Bibliography  84 4 An Ecclesiology of Promiscuous Irregularity 89 From Tradition to Vision  89 Impure Incarnation, Gratuitous God  92 Appreciating Theological Uncertainties and Differences  95 Motivating Potential for Ecclesial and Theological Development 103 Uncustomary Strategies 109 Bibliography 112 5 An Ecclesiology of Eschatological Accountability119 Old, New, Renew 119 Imaginative Contiguity 121 Attaining Impact and Sustainability 123 Seeking Emotional, Cognitive and Practical Complementarity 131 Pursuing Diversity in Representation 136 Interweavings of Past, Present and Future 140 Bibliography 142 6 Open and Affirming Inclusivity: The Journey Continues149 Bibliography 159 Appendix161 Bibliography169 Index173

CHAPTER 1

Gender Variance, Sexual Diversity and Christianity in Asia

Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it —Hebrews 13.2 (All scriptural references in this book are from the New Revised Standard Version) Like good stewards of the manifold grace of God, serve one another with whatever gift each of you has received —1 Peter 4.10 Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labour in vain —Psalm 127.1

Writing From, With and For the Margins My primary objective in this book is to unveil the queer doings of church, or the active practices of self-understanding, values, principles, vision and purpose of Christian practice from, by, with and for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ)1 people which are birthed,  In this book, I use ‘LGBTIQ’ interchangeably with ‘gender-variant’, ‘sexually diverse’ and their cognates, and include non-normative indigenous identities, asexual, pansexual, non-binary, gender-fluid, questioning and queer-straight people, drag queens and kings, crossdressers, BDSM practitioners, and many more. 1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. N. Goh, Doing Church at the Amplify Open and Affirming Conferences, Asian Christianity in the Diaspora, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73314-8_1

1

2 

J. N. GOH

adopted, shared and augmented in the Amplify Open and Affirming Conferences in Asia.2 My focus on doing church is fuelled by my desire to explore and formulate Amplify ecclesiologies, or theologies of church that emanate from Amplify when it acts as a communion of open and affirming churches. Elements of these ecclesiologies may already exist in varying levels among Amplify’s participating churches. Therefore, I am not claiming that Amplify’s ecclesiologies are unique or exclusive. Instead, I focus on how the coming together of these churches as an organised whole contributes to the production of what I propose as Amplify ecclesiologies. My intention is thus to showcase vignettes of doing church, or performing church, or church in the making, rather than propose a static model or paradigm of Amplify ecclesiology. This dynamic has been articulated by several informants but none more eloquently and poignantly than Singapore’s Free Community Church (FCC) Executive Pastor Pauline Ong. Both FCC and Hong Kong’s Blessed Ministry Community Church (BMCC) have been the primary drivers of Amplify since its inception. According to Ong during my interview with her: [Amplify 2018] was one where we very intentionally articulated that it is actually doing church, but in a bigger context, in a wider context … it’s not even just about being a Conference, but what we’re trying to do is to be church, and we’re just pulling everybody from different countries together and to come to the table together. So doing church as in like we come and we gather as a community of believers and to worship, and to encourage one another, to learn from one another, just like what we would do in a local church context, just that we are doing this on a bigger scale, wider, and across languages and cultures.

‘Doing church’ underscores the understanding that the notion of ‘church’ can be more productively interpreted as a pliably performative process than a collection of crystallised ontological systems which are guarded by a magisterial hierarchy. The idea of defining church in terms of what it does rather than what it is is more consistent with a functional approach to church that appears more conspicuously but not exclusively in Protestant ecclesiologies. Roman Catholic ecclesiologies seem to favour a more ontological understanding of church (see Chan 2014, 157–202). My  ‘Asia’ refers exclusively to South, East and Southeast Asia in this volume.

2

1  GENDER VARIANCE, SEXUAL DIVERSITY AND CHRISTIANITY IN ASIA 

3

ecclesiological constructions in this book propose that, using Ong’s words, the doings of church (‘doing church’) at Amplify give rise to its identities as church (‘be[ing] church’). As Ong understands it, Amplify is fundamentally doing church by providing a space for open and affirming churches to ‘come and … gather as a community of believers’ for communal worship, and mutual encouragement and learning. By pooling individual resources of doing church that arise from ‘local church context[s]’ and sharing them at ‘the table together’, Amplify gathers, enhances and (re)distributes the ecclesial visions and missions of participating churches that prioritise the physical, emotional, mental, social and spiritual wellbeing of LGBTIQ people. Hence, doing church at Amplify pays close attention to how relationships are meaningfully constructed within LGBTIQ communities as well as between such communities and the larger realities in which these communities exist. Doing church at Amplify also holds great interest in factors that create, galvanise and preserve openness, inclusion, non-judgement, acceptance and affirmation for LGBTIQ people in faith spaces.3 My use of the term ‘ecclesiologies’ instead of ‘ecclesiology’ is intentional. As the subsequent chapters will evince, the doings of church at Amplify are diverse, multifaceted and pluralistic. Throughout this volume, terms such as ‘church’ and ‘ecclesial’ represent formal, semi-formal and informal ecclesial structures, faith fellowships, solidarities, initiatives, ministries, movements and organisations. The appearance of ‘queer’ in ‘queer doings of church’ does not denote a collective identity for LGBTIQ communities as much as it is a deconstructive signifier that gestures towards ‘a resistance to identity categories or easy categorisation, marking a dis-­ identification from the rigidity with which identity categories continue to be enforced and from beliefs that such categories are immovable’ (Giffney 2009, 2–3). My interest thus lies in seeing how ecclesial and ecclesiological processes, often constructed on uncontested cisnormative and heteronormative foundations, are interrogated, re-interpreted and re-enacted by LGBTIQ-affirming churches.4 ‘Amplify’  – a favoured abbreviation among organisers and participants – is a series of volunteer-led trans-denominational Conferences or events. It is not an ecclesial denomination, nor is it affiliated to any  Openness and affirmation are discussed in greater detail in Chap. 2.  See my formulation of a queer matrix of relational empowerment in the later part of this chapter. 3 4

4 

J. N. GOH

particular church hierarchy. It does not conform to a popular notion of ‘church’ as an empirically hierarchical structure with a particular geographical base, and weekly offerings of worship and faith formation activities. Still, it is deeply steeped in the doings of church through regular assemblies of open and affirming churches in Asia, and is constantly striving to expand this communion through diverse support measures beyond the Conferences themselves. While such doings are often derived from, or echo, the extant practices of individual LGBTIQ-affirming churches in Asian countries, they are amplified during the Conferences. The sheer magnitude of participation with attendant ethnic, linguistic, geopolitical, ecclesial, theological and spiritual diversities is very likely the main reason behind the attraction and success of Amplify. The Conferences have been in existence for only slightly more than a decade, and I feel that it is important to chronicle the historical development of Amplify while collaboratively participating in the interpretations and meaning-making of the experiences of Amplify frontliners, namely the co-founders, organisers, hosts, consultants, speakers and other active contributors who are also concomitantly Amplify participants. Frontliners are a sort of ‘community leader-practitioners [or] those who are knowledgeable in, and work and/or minister at the grassroots level in issues of Christianity, gender, sexual diversity, sexual health and HIV’ (Goh et al. 2019, 171; original emphasis).5 ‘Church’ is often associated with, and modelled after, the Greek concept of ekkle ̄sia – or ‘called out’ – and used to mean the act and reality of assembling (Gooder 2008). More importantly however, as George Zachariah observes, ekkle ̄sia is ‘a theological statement on the self-identity of the Church as a democratic community of equals and disciples’ and as ‘a new creation which practices equality and inclusiveness, but also as a pluriversal community that converges different voices’ (2013, 298). Another Greek concept, koinon̄ ia is used to describe various traits of ‘church’, including fellowship, communion and unity. For Thomas F.  Best, koinon̄ ia ‘offers a biblical basis for both the church’s spiritual bond with Christ and one another, and their material support of each other and a world in need’. Moreover, koinon̄ ia ‘evokes the special quality of relationships which should obtain among Christians and the churches’ (Best 2008, 412; original emphasis). As I see it, Amplify strives to embody the characteristics of both ekkle ̄sia and koinon̄ ia, namely that it 5

 See Appendix for a more detailed account of the research project.

1  GENDER VARIANCE, SEXUAL DIVERSITY AND CHRISTIANITY IN ASIA 

5

understands itself as being called out by God to create a space in which LGBTIQ Christians can assemble in genuine fellowship and support, loving communion, and respectful unity amidst diversity. My modest labours in this volume are part of an immense corpus of scholarship on theologising church which arguably stretches back to the incipient stages of the faith when the early Christians sought to make sense of their communal discipleship in relation to the revelation of God in Christ and the continuing operations of the Spirit. Churches today share concerns which are similar to those of their predecessors, and also embrace new issues. Contemporary theologies of church grapple with the complexities of deepening the understanding of ecclesial identity, existence and purpose (Barth 2003; Dulles 1978; Lakeland 2009; Osborne 2009; Percy 2016; Rahner 1963; Sanks 1992), unravelling the church’s mission and response to, witness in, and significance for an evolving world (Avis 2003; Bennett 2020; Fiddes 2015; Green et al. 2018; Hauerwas 2001; John Paul II 1999; Lubac 1988; Mannion 2007; Moltmann 1977; Paul VI 1965; Russell 1993; Schillebeeckx 1990; World Council of Churches 1967), exploring the roles of the laity (Boff 1986; Rush 2007) and women (Graham 2018; Ruether 1985; Schüssler Fiorenza and Elisabeth 1993; Watson 2002), examining ecclesiological perspectives on gender variance and sexual diversity (Cornwall 2009; Flunder 2005; Masequesmay 2011; Sanders 2013; Sanders and Yarber 2015; Simpson 2005), interrogating the church on its commitment to the marginalised and disenfranchised (Gutiérrez 1988; Russell 1993; Segundo and Centro Pedro Fabro de Montevideo 1973), and developing relationships with other Christian traditions and non-Christian faiths (Congar 1967; Küng 2001; Phan 2003). Pope John Paul II’s (1999) Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in Asia highlights the plurality and unevenness of political, socio-­ economic, cultural and religious realities in many parts of Asia, and which thus give rise to a multitude of interpretations and practices of Christianity. Unsurprisingly therefore, as Luis Anthony G. Tagle notes, ‘the complex and diverse traditions, histories, and situations of the churches partly explain the absence of a uniform ecclesiology in Asia’ (2003, 74). Additionally, Peter C.  Phan (2008) posits that while ecclesiology is a somewhat rare occurrence in Asian theologising, it still occupies a significant position in Asian Christianity.6 Asian ecclesiologies, he proposes, are 6  I use the term ‘Asian Christianity’ in the plural sense as an acknowledgement of the diverse ways in which the faith is lived out in various parts of Asia.

6 

J. N. GOH

pastorally inclined, centre on the kingdom of God, appropriate a m ­ issionary spirit, emphasise concerns of community and equity, value the role of the laity, and foreground ecumenical and interfaith issues. Among other issues, the church in Asia is engaged in deep reflection on its vision and mission in a multi-ethnic and multi-faith environment, particularly the interplay between socio-cultural realities and Christian praxis which gives rise to issues of inculturation and mission (Fabella 1980; Kim 2008; K. Lim 2019; J. Y. Tan 2014; Wilfred 2010; Zachariah 2013), matters of human dignity, disempowerment, poverty, migration, injustice and liberation (K.  C. Abraham 2004; Brazal and De Guzman 2015; Cruz 2012; Fabella 1980; Joedhiswara 2002; Wilfred 1992), ecumenism and interreligious dialogue (Aleaz 2010; Amaladoss 1998; Chan 2014; Cheah 2020; Chia 1999; Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences 1994; Kit 2017; Thomas 1978), the role and empowerment of the laity and basic ecclesial communities (Episcopal Committee on Basic Ecclesial Communities (CBCP-BEC) 2019; Genilo et  al. 2015; Hai 2012) and women (D. Abraham 2012; Lamis 2009; Le 2017; Sanchez 2016; Yong 2009), and politics and colonialism in Asian Christianity (Lau 2011; Vinayaraj 2016). Scholarship at the intersection of church and LGBTIQ people in Asian contexts is gradually expanding (Goh 2020a, b; 2019; Goh et  al. 2019; Kuruvilla 2017; Siew 2015; Suleeman and Udampoh 2019; Wu 2003; 2000). Asian ecclesiologies demonstrate great concern over matters of human struggle and marginalisation, even if ‘marginalisation’ holds different meanings for different theologians. From my personal location as a Malaysian cisgender gay man, university academic, theological activist, ordained presbyter, and Amplify participant in Hong Kong (2014) and Taiwan (2018), I write with, and for other LGBTIQ Christians. My book harbours a deep conviction that our contemplations, ideas, efforts and imaginations as LGBTIQ Asian individuals and communities, and as followers of Christ in myriad ways are part of the evolution of Church and Christianity, and must thus be accorded the space and respect we rightfully deserve.

Ecclesial Responses to LGBTIQ Issues Countries in Asia today that criminalise same-sex sexual expressions are Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Malaysia, the Maldives, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka and certain provinces in Indonesia. Bangladesh, India, Nepal

1  GENDER VARIANCE, SEXUAL DIVERSITY AND CHRISTIANITY IN ASIA 

7

and Pakistan have introduced and recognise a third gender category,7 and Pakistan’s Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2018 or Transgender Rights Bill exists to protect the rights of transgender people  (Ingber 2018).  Same-sex sexual activities are not outlawed in Cambodia, China, Laos, Thailand, South Korea and Vietnam, and same-­ sex marriages are now legal in Taiwan (Wang 2019). Many of these countries also tolerate Gender Affirmation Surgeries among transgender people. Nevertheless, the force of cultural norms, customs and traditions continues to run deep, and LGBTIQ people are often viewed with suspicion or caricaturised as human anomalies. S. Wesley Ariarajah notes that ‘most of the religious traditions in Asia are “ways of life” that find expression as cultural traditions’ (2008, 230) and Christianity is no exception. The Philippines and Timor-Leste are the only Asian countries where Christianity – specifically Roman Catholicism – is the dominant religion and inevitably holds sway over quotidian understandings and performances of gender, sexuality and biology (Renaldi 2019; Torres 2016) despite the absence of discriminatory laws. Strands of Christian conservatism continue to permeate political, social and cultural modalities in non-Christian-majority countries which were previously subjected to European colonialism, such as Brunei, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, and spill over to approaches towards non-normative genders and sexualities. There also often appears to be a firm alliance between Christian conservatism and homophobic, biphobic and transphobic sentiments in Muslim-majority countries such as Brunei, Indonesia and Malaysia (BBC News 2019; Walden and Souisa 2020; The Star Online 2019).8 The relationship between Christianity and LGBTIQ Asians is one that is often fraught with profound experiences of confusion, guilt, pain and anger. An active stance of discrimination, rejection, condemnation and exclusion in mainstream and/or theologically conservative churches towards LGBTIQ people and/or their behaviours, and a zealous crusade to be ‘compassionate’, ‘heal’ and ‘convert’ them via ‘counselling’, coax them into celibacy, and subject them to diverse forms of religious-based reparative therapy (Chim 2012; Dong 2016; UNDP and USAID 2014; Yuen 2017; see also Ong 2017) leave very few opportunities for LGBTIQ  Consult Asia Pacific Transgender Network 2018 and ILGA 2020 for more information.  By ‘homophobia’, ‘biphobia’ and ‘transphobia’, I mean any kind of negative attitudes and actions that are levelled against LGBTIQ communities due to their gender and sexual identities and expressions. 7 8

8 

J. N. GOH

Christians to practise their faith without harassment, or experience unconditional fellowship and support in ecclesial communities.9 Churches throughout Asia ordinarily register great interest in issues of gender and sexuality but the repudiation of LGBTIQ expressions and same-sex marriages appear to command unparalleled zeal. Christian leaders in Singapore and South Korea, for example, are at the forefront of battling LGBTIQ rights (AFP 2019; Andanari and Ng 2015). Churches often conflate gender variance and sexual diversity, and predicate their disapprobation and denunciation on homophobic, biphobic and transphobic interpretations of scriptural passages known as the clobber passages or ‘texts of terror’ (Trible 1984). Although many biblical excerpts can be de-contextualised to persuasively shore up the purported sinfulness of non-normative genders and sexualities, Genesis 19, Judges 19, Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13, 1 Timothy 1.9–10, Jude 6–7, and Romans 1.25–27 often occupy centre stage as the queer- and trans-bashing texts. In many Asian churches, LGBTIQ people are frequently terrorised from the pulpit based on inaccurate, literal and in particular, anachronistic biblical translations and interpretations. Although K. P. Aleaz adamantly states in relation to scriptural interpretation that ‘we cannot accept some timeless interpretation from somewhere and make it applicable to our context’ (2010, 201; see also Long 2006; Wu 2000), the bible remains as the main manual for LGBTIQ opposition, and a source of confusion and dread for many LGBTIQ Asians (Goh 2016). While there are no uniform approaches or common understandings in the rejection of gender variance and sexual diversity among Asian non-affirming churches, most of them operate on a ‘love the sinner but hate the sin’ premise and are amenable to tolerating, accepting and even including LGBTIQ people in their midst, but see any semblance of same-sex sexual expressions and commitments as contravening divine dictates. LGBTIQ people are often considered as recalcitrant casualties of a post-lapsarian world, given to unpredictable bouts of erotic overindulgence, possessing diminished consciences, suffering mental disorders, and harbouring paedophilic and ephebophilic tendencies. As Patrick S. Cheng aptly declares, ‘sin-talk is the primary reason why LGBT people of faith are denied full participation in the life of the Church’ (2012, 6). 9  It is interesting to note that issues concerning reparative therapy have emerged sporadically, rather than been given prominence in presentations, workshops and personal testimonies during the Conferences.

1  GENDER VARIANCE, SEXUAL DIVERSITY AND CHRISTIANITY IN ASIA 

9

The most sophisticated doctrinal and theological-anthropological formulation of gender variance and sexual diversity has arguably been developed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church by the Roman Catholic Church with its emphasis on same-sex inclinations as ‘objectively disordered’ (John Paul II 1997, para. 2358).10 It also vividly and meticulously condemns same-sex acts as constituting grave depravity, intrinsic disorder, contra naturam, death-dealing through non-procreative sexual activities, and devoid of authentic emotional and biological complementarity. This condemnation constitutes a form of ‘“just discrimination” in doctrine – that it is so because God made it so’ (Goh 2014a, 151). Catholicism,11 like most Christian traditions, insists on ‘respect, compassion, and sensitivity’ (John Paul II 1997, para. 2358) for people with same-sex tendencies, and decries any form of violence against them. Pope Francis often speaks kindly of individual LGBTIQ people (2013; also Dodd 2019) despite railing against same-sex marriages which he parallels with the destructiveness of nuclear weapons (McElwee 2015).12 Recently, the pontiff’s ostensibly overarching support of civil unions for same-sex couples, derived from a 2019 interview with Mexican broadcaster Televisa which was never broadcast, was weaved into the 2020 film Francesco. This caused quite a stir around the globe and the hopes of many were understandably raised as it appeared as though the Vatican had finally relinquished its opposition to same-sex unions. Nevertheless, the Vatican issued an official statement that Pope Francis was in fact referring ‘to a position he had taken when he had been archbishop of Buenos Aires’ (Povoledo 2020), Argentina. Moreover, his unequivocal stand against same-sex marriages and erotic expressions, which was part of this original interview, was not included in the film (Povoledo 2020; Associated Press 2020). In 2016, the Episcopal Commission for Justice and Peace in Bangladesh condemned the murder of two LGBTIQ activists in the country (AsiaNews 2016), and the Commission for Justice, Peace and Pastoral for MigrantItinerant People in Indonesia called for an end to the demonisation of LGBTIQ people (Dagur 2016). The clergy, religious and laity in Kerala, 10  The Catechism also acts as a compendium of various Vatican resources on same-sex attraction issues. 11  The term ‘Catholicism’ and its derivatives throughout this volume refer specifically to Roman Catholicism. 12  Pope Benedict XVI has alluded to same-sex marriages as evidence of the growing power of the Antichrist (Duffy 2020).

10 

J. N. GOH

South India began actively supporting transgender people through outreach programmes in 2017 (Catholic News Service 2017). Although these pronouncements and initiative are noble, they imply that LGBTIQ people are worthy of dignity and security despite their genders and sexualities, rather than an unequivocal pronouncement of their inherent value as human beings because of their genders and sexualities. As Amplify co-­ founders Gary Chan and Paul Lucas emphatically declare in relation to Amplify participation, ‘God’s calling on your life is not [in spite] of who you are, but because of who you are!’ (激揚 Amplify 13 2013, 4). On an official basis however, the Catholic Church dismally portrays people of same-sex attraction as hapless individuals given to inevitable suffering and pronounces their life vocation as one of obligatory chastity (John Paul II 1997, paras 2357–2359), an obvious euphemism for an exhortation to eschew any form of sexual activity, and effectively any romantic pursuits and committed relationships. These principles, which trickle down to Catholic dioceses and parishes in Asia, occasionally manifest themselves in sacramental policing and censure. In 2017, for instance, the Hong Kong LGBTIQ Catholic group Compassion (摯情同行) stated that the diocese ordered a priest to cancel a prearranged Christmas mass for its members on the grounds that a sinful homosexual lifestyle is inconsistent with a worthy reception of communion (as quoted in Tong 2017). This priest had apparently been ministering to the faith group on a personal level. Informal initiatives for greater inclusivity which occasionally override hierarchical ambivalence and official proscription are not uncommon. Catholic priests have preached at Blessed Ministry Community Church (BMCC) and on a more institutional level, the Anglican Church and Hong Kong Christian Institute consistently offer assistance to BMCC (Collett 2010). The Tamil Nadu Theological Seminary in India has invited intersex activist Gopi Shankar to speak to its students (Isaac 2016). The issues and concerns presented here may not be unique to LGBTIQ Asians (and Asian Christians) but they are engendered by their actual circumstances, experiences and realities. These are also issues and concerns that Amplify seeks to address and redress. While there have not been any official denunciation of the Conferences by non-affirming churches,13 it is likely that these churches harbour the same attitudes of incredulity, rejection and disdain with which they approach LGBTIQ issues in general.  Information provided by Gary Chan, WhatsApp communication, 19th November 2020.

13

1  GENDER VARIANCE, SEXUAL DIVERSITY AND CHRISTIANITY IN ASIA 

11

Striving Towards Being Open and Affirming The general demeanour of non-acceptance among Asian churches has propelled LGBTIQ Asian Christians to create spaces of inclusion and affirmation in relation to gender, sexuality and faith, and free from the threats of inadvertent and humiliating exposure, condescending attitudes and conversion therapy (Ong 2017). These spaces are transgressive, as the confluence of church and congregants who are unapologetically LGBTIQ is unthinkable and even blasphemous for many non-affirming churches. Moreover, such ‘ecclesial authority renders queer theologies as thoroughly deviant, empty of economies of grace  – thus, disgraceful’ (Shore-Goss 2020, 1). Inclusive and affirming spaces are spiritual oases which were founded by LGBTIQ communities principally, but not exclusively for LGBTIQ communities. Christians who are desirous of more progressive, inclusive, versatile and democratic ways of performing theology, spirituality and church, who identify with those at the peripheries of society, and who find themselves ostracised for canonical infringements or various forms of unrespectable disability often seek refuge in these spaces. Some family members and friends of LGBTIQ individuals who share the same faith also frequent these churches. In this section, I showcase some examples of such open and affirming spaces. Hong Kong’s Blessed Ministry Community Church (BMCC) (2020a) was founded in 1992 as Hong Kong Blessed Minority Christian Fellowship (HKBMCF). Selina Shuk-man Sun, a biblical scholar and feminist theologian ‘who was ordained in 2004 by a collegium of sympathetic clergy acting together from across the denominational divides’ (Collett 2010) began shepherding HKBMCF as pastor from 2003 before Silas Kwok-yiu Wong took over in 2010. Joe Wai-yap Pang and Jason Man-bo Ho serve as its current pastors. Sun laments how people with same-sex attraction who are often the targets of unfounded assumptions of promiscuity eventually become overly cautious in human interactions and even ‘go to another extreme of letting go of their physical beings and turning off their spiritual souls’ (quoted in World People’s Blog 2008), which probably alludes to risky sexual behaviours as well as flouting religious and/or ethical values. Not unsurprisingly, in an interview with Fridae.asia in 2010, Amplify co-founder Paul Lucas who was also actively involved with BMCC reiterated its importance as

12 

J. N. GOH

a Church with an open and affirming message of love and acceptance for all of God’s creation reminding them to be fully who they are intended to be. We are actively reconciling liberation theologians wrestling with the issues of our day and our reality, while remaining orthodox in our Christian tradition, which we do not see to be incompatible with our faith (Collett 2010).

I challenge Lucas’ opinion of remaining ‘orthodox in … Christian tradition’, as notions of orthodoxy and tradition must be subjected to rigorous interrogation, especially for LGBTIQ people of faith. Nevertheless, his insistence on a version of doing church that is open and affirming is unmistakable. HKBMCF officially became BMCC on 25th July 2016.14 Today, this ecumenical and trans-denominational Church promotes a Trinitarian faith that propounds diversity in creation, community and fellowship, and mission and social justice. Building on a more regnocentric ecclesiology that also conscripts the classical Pauline imagery of the Body of Christ (BMCC 基恩之家 2020b), BMCC holds weekly Sunday services in addition to conducting training for its worship team, leadership and fellowship development, and faith formation classes. Additionally, the Church mobilises ministries for social justice and mission, and provides counselling services (BMCC 基恩之家 2020a).15 ‘Founded in 2009 by a group of theology students and ministerial leaders’, the Queer Theology Academy’s (QTA) ‘mission is to develop and practice queer theology and gender justice in the context of Hong Kong’ (2020) in order to foster the dignity, security, equality and rights of LGBTIQ people in the emulation of Christ’s inclusive sensibilities. The Academy participates in book discussions on publications that foreground sexuality, gender, body, theology and queer theory, and offers downloadable weekly Meditation Booklets. Its main publication, Sexual/Beings III: Queering Hermeneutics in Asian Chinese Contexts, ‘features eighteen queer (LGBTQI+) Christians (from Hong Kong, Taiwan and China) “reclaiming” the Bible by creative and constructive interpretation from their own perspectives’ (2020). One of QTA’s most conspicuous activities is the 2019 Queer Theologies Project for Asian Chinese Christians held from 9th to 14th July. This series of workshops encompassed presentations by local and international experts on LGBTIQ Christian history, 14  Information provided by Jason Man-bo Ho, Facebook Messenger communication, 3rd March 2020. 15  Rose Wu has written extensively on this church in Liberating the Church from Fear: The Story of Hong Kong’s Sexual Minorities (2000).

1  GENDER VARIANCE, SEXUAL DIVERSITY AND CHRISTIANITY IN ASIA 

13

queering biblical hermeneutics and interpretation, Christian perspectives on sexuality, feminist and queer theologies, sexual ethics, pastoral care and Chinese philosophical views on LGBTIQ communities (Queer Theology Academy 2019). Pearl Wong is currently the Director of QTA. The ecumenical and trans-denominational Free Community Church (2020c) in Singapore ‘grew from many streams, including Safehaven, a gay and lesbian Christian Fellowship that Lee Tuck-Leong helped organise in the late 1990s, which itself was preceded by Sanctuary, the first LGBT Christian Fellowship that Leng Lim started in 1992’ (Lim with Yap and Lee 2006, 70). The word ‘Free’ in the Church’s name, itself an acronym for ‘First Realize Everyone is Equal’, is indicative of the people-­ centred and justice-oriented stance of FCC which declares that ‘all individuals, including [LGBT] persons, are individuals of sacred worth created in God’s image [and] that same-sex and transgender relationships, when lived out in accord with the love commandments of Jesus, are consistent with Christian faith and teachings’ (2020c). FCC adheres to the Nicene Creed, and promotes open commensality, progressive and responsible sexual ethics, personal relationships with God, the value of individual lives and the importance of communal fellowship. Akin to BMCC, FCC celebrates the diversity of divine creation. The Church places great importance on the lived experiences of marginalised communities and sees them as potential agents for social and ecclesial transformation. Miak Siew and Pauline Ong are full-time Executive Pastors, and Amplify co-founder Gary Chan is one of FCC’s lay pastors. Along with Shawn Lee and Jaime Low, Chan is also a member  of the Church’s Board of Directors which governs the financial, legal and logistical aspects. FCC also has a church council, whose role is ‘to determine the spiritual and theological direction of the Church as a collective by discerning, discussing and deciding on the short and long term plans for the future’, and ‘help oversee pastoral care, and the life and health of [FCC’s] ministries’ (Free Community Church 2020a). Prior to his demise on 16th November 2017, activist, retired Methodist bishop and LGBTIQ ally Kim-hao Yap16 also served as the Church’s Pastoral Advisor (Goh 2017). FCC’s doings of church consist of the outreach ministry Dirty Hands, 16  Chinese and Korean names – among other similarly structured Asian names – are ordinarily laid out in the sequence of surname or family name, followed by first or given names. Solely for the sake of convenient uniformity, the various chapters in this book adopt the western convention of first names, followed by surname, as seen in this example.

14 

J. N. GOH

support group programmes such as Living Water for gay men and LUSH for lesbian women, various cell groups, and online prayer warriors (Free Community Church 2020b). The National Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP), founded in 1963 ‘is an ecumenical fellowship of non-Roman Catholic denominations in the Philippines’ (2017) comprising ten member churches and nine associate members. Focusing on issues of social justice, peace, human rights and the environment, the Council adheres to a theology of incarnation which emphasises ‘God in solidarity with us, especially with those who suffer and the vulnerable – for the affirmation of just and inclusive communities’ (2017), and mobilises its ministry through the Ecumenical Education and Nurture, Christian Unity and Ecumenical Relations, and Faith, Witness and Service programmes. As its vision, the Council adopts Christ’s mandate to foster abundant life (cf. John 10.10) through the creation of ‘a just, egalitarian, self-reliant, and sustainable society’ (2017). As its mission, the NCCP aims to create ecclesial camaraderie and collaborative action to further justice, peace and ecological integrity, including issues of gender variance and sexual diversity. For instance, Irma Mepico Balaba represented the NCCP at Amplify 2018, and spoke of the social and theological injustices afflicting LGBTIQ people.17 The ‘inter-confessional autonomous’ National Council of Churches in India (NCCI) ‘is the apex body and ecumenical expression of Protestant and Orthodox Churches as well as ecumenical organizations, regional councils and agencies in India’ (2016). Prior to its establishment as NCCI in 1979, the Council manifested itself in various forms such as the National Missionary Council, and the National Christian Council of India, Burma and Ceylon. Through ecclesial fellowship with 30 member churches, 17 regional Christian councils, 18 All India organisations, 7 related agencies and 2 autonomous bodies, the NCCI pursues the concrete materialisation of the gospel values of justice, unity and peace. The NCCI holds as its objectives unity within and between churches, Christian witness through collaboration with non-ecclesial entities, service and collaboration to create just and equitable communities, and best practices in its self-governance. In terms of its ministry priority areas from 2016 to 2020, the Council privileges ecumenism and mission, human rights, peace building, migration and human trafficking. The NCCI’s

 See Chap. 1.

17

1  GENDER VARIANCE, SEXUAL DIVERSITY AND CHRISTIANITY IN ASIA 

15

Ecumenical Solidarity for HIV and AIDS (ESHA)18 programme ministers to gender-variant and sexually diverse communities, and people living with HIV and AIDS (National Council of Churches in India n.d.). The NCCI is responsible for a number of publications which promote theological affirmation of sexuality and LGBTIQ people, such as Public and Sensual: Exploring Solutions: Bibles on Human Sexuality (Rajkumar 2012), Christian Responses to Issues of Human Sexuality and Gender Diversity: A Guide to the Churches in India (Kuruvilla 2017), and A Theological Reader on Human Sexuality and Gender Diversities: Envisioning Inclusivity (Gaikwad and Ninan 2017). Other open and affirming Christian spaces in Asia include Compassion (摯情同行) (2020), Covenant of the Rainbow  – Campaign Toward a Truly Inclusive Church coalition (2020a), One Body in Christ Church under Grace Bok (Hui 2012) and Kowloon Union Church under Phyllis Wong (2020) in Hong Kong, the National Council of Churches in Korea (Park 2020), Open Doors Metropolitan Community Church under Craig Bartlett (2020) and Hyanglin Seomdol Presbyterian congregation under Borah Lim (임보라) (Schumacher 2016) in South Korea, Tong-Kwang Light House Presbyterian Church under Silas Kwok-yiu Wong (n.d.), True Light Gospel Church under Joseph Mao-chen Chang (張懋禛) (2019) and Amazing Grace LGBT Fellowship under Elias Tseng in Taiwan (n.d.), Good Samaritan Kuala Lumpur led by Joe Wai-yap Pang and Travis Chung (2020), and Antioch Mission in Asia under Carrey Yubong in Malaysia (2020), and the Persatuan Gereja-Gereja di Indonesia (PGI or Communion of Churches in Indonesia) (Campbell-Nelson 2016), the Jakarta Theological Seminary (PR Team STFT Jakarta n.d.; Goh 2014b), and Gereja Komunitas Anugerah (Grace Community Church) under Suarbudaya Rahadian (Siddharta 2019) in Indonesia. The Philippines is home to a range of LGBTIQ-affirming churches such as the Ekklesia Tou Theou Church of God (ECOG) under Regen Luna (n.d.; K. Tan 2012), LGBTS Christian Church under C. J. @ Ceejay Agbayani (2019), and the United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP) under its clergy and officers (2020, 2016). Numerous Metropolitan Community Churches are flourishing under the Philippine Network of Metropolitan Community Churches (2018), including Open Table MCC (formerly MCC Quezon City) under Joseph 18  While the name and acronym of this programme are retained, ESHA now concentrates on issues of gender and sexuality.

16 

J. N. GOH

San Jose (2019), Metropolitan Community Church of Marikina under Michael Jason Masaganda (2019) and Metropolitan Community Church of Metro Baguio under Myke Sotero (n.d.).19 Contrary to some opinions that ‘queer theology abhors the traditional significance of the Church’ and that its version of church is nothing more than an uncritically inclusive Christian club, these open and affirming churches are also keen on strategies of (re)doing church that involve ‘repentance of sins, baptism and the direction of the Holy Spirit to evangelize non-believers through modeling holy living and belonging to Christ’ (Smith 2014, 181) without a default discriminatory stand towards LGBTIQ people (see  Covenant of the Rainbow 2020b). These churches are reclaiming their right to be Christians in community but with queer ‘twists’. In Japan, openly LGBTIQ-affirming Christian leaders comprise Kaori Ambrosia Goto of the Anglican Episcopal Church (2020), and Yuri Horie, Yoshiki Nakamura, Koji Sahara, Aika Taira and Reina Ueno of the United Church of Christ in Japan (United Church of Christ in Japan 2020; Queer Asian Spirit 2014; Network on Religion and Justice n.d.; Ueno n.d.). Inclusive and affirming ministers in India include Esther Bharathi of Evangelical Church of India (Ramkumar and Karthick 2012), Thomas P. Ninan (Noronha 2019) and Philip Kuruvilla (Isaac 2016) of the Indian Orthodox Church, and Roger Gaikwad and Christopher Rajkumar20 of the NCCI (2016). Many full-time and part-time open and affirming Christian clergypersons and pastors in Asia, some of whom also identify as LGBTIQ, include Amplify frontliners and leaders of participating churches at Amplify.

A Queer Matrix of Relational Empowerment Despite an increasing welcoming posture among some Asian churches, this welcome is often conditional. Other churches still practise outright rejection of gender-variant and sexually diverse identities and/or behaviours. The inconsistency of ecclesial attitudes towards LGBTIQ people, and LGBTIQ people towards churches, speaks to interactions and 19  Good Samaritan MCC Philippines ceased operating around mid-2019. Information supplied by Jack Nicklaus Quimpo of Open Table MCC, Facebook Messenger communication, 6th April 2020. 20  Rajkumar currently serves as a presbyter of the Church of South India (CSI), a participating member of the NCCI.

1  GENDER VARIANCE, SEXUAL DIVERSITY AND CHRISTIANITY IN ASIA 

17

relationships which are inflected through mutual doubt, fear, suspicion, anger and even abhorrence. In China, for instance, LGBTIQ Christians often experience irresolvable conflicts between their identities of faith, gender and sexuality. In 2016, the tabloid Global Times published a human-­interest article on being gay and Christian in China, and featured the narratives of a few gay men including ‘Zeng’ who shares the following: When people in the church denigrate gays, I feel very uncomfortable. But I can’t tell them the truth. The last thing I want is for them to know I am gay … They get shocked. A few accept it but most don’t and they would tell me it was a sin according to the Bible and I needed to confess. Sometimes we would be told not to come to church anymore if we didn’t repent … I felt I was being tortured and I had to endure this completely in silence (quoted in Dong 2016).

Zeng’s self-disclosure as a gay man elicits responses from his church that include scripturally supported accusations of sinfulness, the subsequent need ‘to confess’ and ‘repent’, threats of expulsion, and a general sense of shock. Although his faith community ‘denigrate[s] gays’ and he is subjected to the torment of unfavourable responses, Zeng feels compelled to maintain ‘silence’ – or refrain from any rebuttal or further self-disclosure – and brave feelings of discomfort. I propose that for LGBTIQ people like Zeng, the church as an avenue of fellowship, belonging, community and connection to God is concomitantly a source of anxiety, discrimination, rejection, judgement and condemnation. Ecclesial spaces of relationality and affirmation converge with, and are often eclipsed by dissonance and disavowal. As discussed at the outset of this chapter, repudiations of non-­normative genders and sexualities are justified and exacerbated in faith communities, and lead to estrangement from Christian spaces. A 2018 statement issued by the National Council of Churches in Singapore (NCCS) against the repeal of section 377A of the country’s Penal Code – a legacy of colonial legality primarily used against male same-sex sexual activities  – is a case in point: The Bible clearly and categorically prohibits homosexual behaviour because it is a perversion of the way in which God has ordered human sexual relationships. In light of the Biblical teaching on the subject, the Council believes that the homosexual lifestyle is not only harmful for individuals, but also for families and society as a whole. The repeal of section 377A would

18 

J. N. GOH

result in the normalization and promotion of this lifestyle, which in turn would lead to undesirable moral and social consequences … the Council urges Christians to pray that God will protect the institutions of marriage and family because they are indispensable for the wellbeing of the future generation and the flourishing of our society (2018).

The NCCS’ condemnation of same-sex ‘behaviour’ and ‘lifestyle’ emerges from a profoundly heteronormative interpretation of ‘human sexual relationships’ and a dread of moral corruption, the breakdown of marriage and the cessation of progeny in a state that valorises conservative Confucian values. In describing same-sex activities as perverse and damaging, the Council insults LGBTIQ people and belittles their agency, robs them of their dignity, portrays them as responsible for a moral pandemic and accuses them of participating in the evil trend of western decadence. Moreover, by basing its disapproval on the bible and requesting for prayers to protect ‘marriage and family’, the Council conscripts divine authority in its favour, and unproblematically and monolithically installs Christianity as the nemesis of gender variance and sexual diversity. Any departure from the norm is also presented as a potential threat to what is conceived as divinely endorsed traditional marital and familial expressions. This act of the NCCS is a classic illustration of the wedge that is interminably being driven between churches and LGBTIQ Christians, and the perpetuation of ecclesiophobia among LGBTIQ people of faith. Such an absolute stand of non-affirmation, common in Christian spaces throughout Asia, occludes any possibility for life-giving relationships between churches and LGBTIQ people. Owing to such a disenabling demeanour, this book adopts an overarching queer matrix of relational empowerment to discern, analyse, interpret and theorise the operations of Amplify. This matrix, which emphasises a pastoral tone, is informed and fortified by four major elements. First, a queer matrix of relational empowerment co-opts some elements of Marcella Althaus-Reid’s ideas of the hard core of dis/grace that serve as a ‘pedagogical space’ and which potentially bear ‘important consequences for radical ecclesiologies in the twenty first century’ (2007). In her paper entitled ‘Hard Core Queer: The Church as Dis/grace’ which was delivered by Mark D. Jordan at the ‘Queering the Church’ Conference at the

1  GENDER VARIANCE, SEXUAL DIVERSITY AND CHRISTIANITY IN ASIA 

19

Boston University School of Theology in Massachusetts, United States,21 she postulates that ‘it is queer hermeneutics which puts us in a unique position to contribute towards a new ecclesiology precisely because [of] its inner transgressive elements: without hermeneutical transgressions, there is little possibility of structural changes in church and in society’ (2007). In ecclesial communities that are dictated by the normative strictures of gender and sexuality compliance, the grace of God is defined and validated exclusively under cisnormative, heteronormative, homonormative and transnormative conditions. Anything else is disgraceful and graceless. For Althaus-Reid, this interpretation of grace underpins ‘the mythical origins of the genderisation processes of theology [which facilitates] the creation of the illusion of the gender core of classical theologies’ (2007). In other words, a normative and exclusionary notion of grace springs from, and demands, obeisance to a belief in any ontological naturalness of gender and sexuality, which then entitles appropriately gendered and sexual subjects to religious and ecclesial membership. Without the justification of this species of grace which enables and lauds decent performances of life and faith, people who fall short of compliance to normative economies of grace through unorthodox behaviours and embodiments find themselves inevitably relegated to a state of shameful gracelessness. Althaus-Reid calls for a permanent state of dis/grace in theology, a demeanour of resistance to conformity as an exchange for the comforts and securities of acceptance and belonging. The hard core of dis/grace derails this project of normativity in whatever form it assumes, and allows ‘queer theology to remain prophetic and transgressive’ (Althaus-Reid 2007) in its consistent option for the indecent, the alternative and the radical. Dis/grace thus traces the potential for godly grace in ‘indecent’ and transgressive embodiments and practices. Hence, I use the queer theological strategies or hard core dis/grace as optics to interrogate, deconstruct, denaturalise and upend existing unchallenged ecclesiological epistemologies which have been encrusted with heteronormativity, cisnormativity, patriarchy and sexism, and in some cases, homonormativity and transnormativity, as well as binarism, racism, classism and ableism, while simultaneously seeking to transform, recast and reconstruct them.22

21  Althaus-Reid, who passed away in 2009, could not attend the Conference due to her failing health (Shore-Goss 2010). 22  These issues are also discussed in Chap. 4.

20 

J. N. GOH

Second, a queer matrix of relational empowerment draws on the notion of radical relationality as a crucial hallmark of doing church. For this purpose, I look to Kenan B. Osborne’s ecclesiological concepts which build on Bonaventure’s Trinitarian theological insights. Osborne emphasises the fact that God is radically relational at God’s core and that this relationality is manifested in the vestigium or persistent presence of God in all of creation, as well as the infinitely diffusive love of God that is unconditionally extended to each individual. As such, ‘the relationality of God ad intra pours out in the relational acts of God ad extra’ (Osborne 2009, 13). Churches are called to emulate this radical relationality of God as the very relevance of church relies on a ‘primal and foundational relationship … to a loving, diffusively good, and infinitely free God’ (Osborne 2009, 381). Radical relationality is personified in the person of Christ and his relationship with God. Akin to the early disciples who experienced relationality and community through Jesus as the human incarnation of God, churches receive their depth of identity by imitating and reflecting Christ. Osborne extends this idea of radical relationality by citing the ‘missio and manifestatio of the Spirit [which] takes place beyond the boundaries of the church, for the Spirit is free to manifest its mission in and through any part of creation’ (2009, 381). These concepts realign the focus of ecclesiology on God, not on churches that need to be constantly reminded of the necessity of an abiding ‘ecclesial humility [which] is a recognition of the church’s own finitude’ (Osborne 2009, 276) and contingency qua God’s infinity and necessity that are central to any endeavour of doing church. Additionally, Osborne’s Trinitarian vision of ‘relational ecclesiology’ (2009, 276) focuses on the significance of relationships in boldly doing church in pluralistic, interactional and dialogical ways. Although Osborne is evidently not writing about church and LGBTIQ people, his ecclesiological ideas are pertinent to my theologisings of Amplify. Third, a queer matrix of relational empowerment upholds the attributes of radical inclusivity as envisioned by Yvette A. Flunder and the City of Refuge United Church of Christ. Radical inclusivity is an act of doing church which foregrounds the imperative to reach out to the socially and ecclesially marginalised, and ‘demonstrates the authentic desire of the church to sustain a community where all marginalized people can feel welcome’ (Flunder 2005, 31). The twelve steps of the Refuge Radical Inclusivity Model are particularly helpful to unpack this attribute. Radical inclusivity advocates a meticulous and purposeful outreach to those on the furthest edges of societal marginalisation, ‘recognizes, values, loves, and

1  GENDER VARIANCE, SEXUAL DIVERSITY AND CHRISTIANITY IN ASIA 

21

celebrates people on the margin’ (Flunder 2005, 134) in imitation of the ministry of Jesus, celebrates the diversity of marginalised communities, acknowledges the damaging effects of religiously driven zeal, creates community and ministry at the margins of society, and distances from tyrannical doctrinal, biblical, traditional and theological interpretations. Radical inclusivity advocates a renewed vision and practice of living to affirm the intrinsic worth of every individual, and encourages marginalised individuals to be forthright and transparent about who they are. Radical inclusivity is marked by responsibility, accountability and hospitality. It calls for a ‘cultural familiarity through education and training, which equips the community to understand, actively fight, and overcome oppressive and exclusive theology and practices’ (Flunder 2005, 136), and emphasises forms of ‘preaching and teaching that defines and strengthens the essence of the community through a theology of radical inclusivity’ (Flunder 2005, 137). Radical inclusivity is undergirded by a desire to create, protect and nurture a sense of affirmation for individual human beings who experience ostracisation, fragmentation, isolation and self-loathing. Fourth, a queer matrix of relational empowerment embraces a rubric of Asian theologising based on Sathianathan Clarke’s ‘five defining dimensions of theologizing in Asia’ (2012, 3) in terms of method and task. While Asian theologising is a multidimensional undertaking that cannot be simplistically reduced to a monolithic and unambiguous endeavour, I find Clarke’s Asian theological traits sufficiently expansive and inclusive for the task of constructing ecclesiology. First, Asian theologising is marked by ‘human reflection on a shared God and Christian reflection on Jesus Christ as the interpreter of God and human beings’ (Clarke 2012, 4). The process of theology is thus a profoundly human enterprise in which diverse Asian Christian communities who hold diverse impressions of God through diverse ecclesiastical traditions acknowledge a fundamental belief in the revelation of God through the human person of Jesus as God’s primary and perfect manifestation, and strive towards personal spiritualities and ethics that reflect this belief. Clarke’s insistence that Asian theologising is ‘communitarian … personal but not private’ (2012, 5) points to the interactive, dialogical, pluralistic and more democratic dimension of this endeavour that holds human experiences as its main resources. As a project that ‘is not uncritically absorptive’ (2012, 5), Asian theologising prizes the act of discernment, accountability and reflexivity. Asian theologising is constructively disruptive, interrogative, inventive, imaginative and prophetic ‘in order to

22 

J. N. GOH

spin new historical paths and diverse human patterns’ (Clarke 2012, 6). Finally, Asian theologising goes beyond an abstract and a pietistic notion of God-talk to a deployment of its transformative and liberative potential for the betterment of human beings. Like Osborne, Clarke admittedly mentions nothing of LGBTIQ people but his emphasis on the qualities of community, interaction, relationality, plurality, multiplicity, liberation and transformation to affirm the goodness and godliness of human lives is extremely relevant for my theological constructions of doing church at Amplify. Through this book, I also engage liberally with a spectrum of theologies, religious and sociological studies, particularly those by Asian, queer, transgender and feminist scholars. The thoughts of these scholars assist me in magnifying this matrix and further articulating my analysis. While I principally draw on ecclesiological elements from such studies, I also find it useful to converse with these interlocutors in terms of broader but relevant theological themes.

Navigating the Chapters In an effort to provide a more grounded contextualisation of my ecclesiological discussions, this book segues into a more comprehensive cataloguing of the historical developments of Amplify in Chap. 2, ‘Amplify Open and Affirming Conferences’. The construction of Chap. 3, ‘An Ecclesiology of Interminable Flourishing’, draws on responses of informants to my question on the significance and relevance of Amplify to LGBTIQ Christians. Central to this chapter is a discussion on the communal space that Amplify affords for the confluence of gender, sexuality, biology and faith, and opportunities for mutual learning and interdependence. This space encourages holistic thriving in the lives of LGBTIQ people, even if this thriving is neither total nor perfect in nature. ‘An Ecclesiology of Promiscuous Irregularity’ or Chap. 4 discusses the theological ambiguities and pluralities of Amplify. Drawing on the feedback of informants to my question on whether or not Amplify harbours and promotes a distinctive theological premise or tradition, this chapter proposes that diversity, growth and difference are some ecclesiological hallmarks of Amplify. Chapter 5, ‘An Ecclesiology of Eschatological Accountability’, performs an overview of what Amplify frontliners see as the strengths, weaknesses and aspirations of Amplify, and proposes that Amplify is characterised by an eschatologically evolutionary projection that is informed by a keen

1  GENDER VARIANCE, SEXUAL DIVERSITY AND CHRISTIANITY IN ASIA 

23

awareness of its past and present realities. The chapter argues against the delineation of strengths, challenges and future plans, and proposes a more holistic approach that sees the developments of Amplify as contiguous and overlapping. The final chapter, Chap. 6, ‘Open and Affirming Inclusivity: The Journey Continues’, brings this book to a close by discussing the theological insights of four open and affirming Christian ministers, namely Christopher Rajkumar, Roger Gaikwad, Jim Mitulski and Darlene Garner, in order to further reflect on possibilities for greater inclusivity, openness and affirmation.

Bibliography Abraham, K.C., ed. 2004. Third World Theologies: Commonalities and Divergences. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers. Abraham, Dulcie. 2012. The Priesthood of Women in the Church. in God’s image 31 (2): 45–52. AFP. 2019. Thou Shalt Not March: South Korean Conservatives Denounce Pride Event. AsiaOne, May 31, sec. Asia. https://www.asiaone.com/asia/ thou-­shalt-­not-­march-­south-­korean-­conservatives-­denounce-­pride-­event Aleaz, K.P. 2010. Theology of Religions and the Mission of the Church. Asia Journal of Theology 24 (2): 197–203. Althaus-Reid, Marcella. 2007. Hard Core Queer: The Church as Dis/Grace. Presented at the Queering the Church Conference, Boston University School of Theology, Boston, April 18. Amaladoss, Michael. 1998. Beyond Inculturation: Can the Many Be One? Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers. Andanari, Kintan, and Yi-shu Ng. 2015. Pastor Lawrence Khong: “We Will Wear White Until the Pink Is Gone”. Mothership.Sg, June 14. http://mothership. sg/2015/06/pastor-­l awrence-­k hong-­w e-­w ill-­w ear-­w hite-­u ntil-­t he-­p ink-­ is-­gone/ Ariarajah, S. Wesley. 2008. The Ecumenical Movement in Asia in the Context of Asian Socio-Political Realities. In Christian Theology in Asia, ed. Sebastian C.H. Kim, 227–249. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Asia Pacific Transgender Network. 2018. Asia Pacific Transgender Network. Asia Pacific Transgender Network. https://www.weareaptn.org/ AsiaNews. 2016. Church Slams LGBT Activists’ Murder in Dhaka, a Moral Failure for the Government. AsiaNews, April 28. http://www.asianews.it/news-­en/ Church-­slams-­LGBT-­activists%26rsquo%3B-­murder-­in-­Dhaka%2C-­a-­moral-­ failure-­for-­the-­government-­37348.html

24 

J. N. GOH

Associated Press. 2020. Vatican, Explains Pope’s Civil Union Comments. NBC News, November 3. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-­out/vatican­breaks-­silence-­explains-­pope-­francis-­civil-­union-­comments-­n1245803 Avis, Paul. 2003. A Church Drawing Near: Spirituality and Mission in a Post-­ Christian Culture. London: T & T Clark International. Barth, Karl. 2003. Church Dogmatics: Volume 1: The Doctrine of the Word of God. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. BBC News. 2019. Brunei Won’t Enforce Gay Sex Death Penalty. BBC News, May 6, sec. Asia. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-­asia-­48171165 Bennett, Matthew. 2020. Concerning Ecclesiology: Four Barriers Preventing Insider Movement Contextualization from Producing Biblical Churches. Missiology 48 (4). Best, Thomas F. 2008. Ecclesiology and Ecumenism. In The Routledge Companion to the Christian Church, ed. Gerard Mannion and Lewis S. Mudge, 402–420. London: Routledge. BMCC 基恩之家. 2020a. BMCC 基恩之家. BMCC 基恩之家. http://www. hkbmcc.org/home/en/ ———. 2020b. 我們的信仰綱領 Our Creed. BMCC 基恩之家. http://www. hkbmcc.org/home/2018/05/09/our-­creed/ Boff, Leonardo. 1986. Ecclesiogenesis: The Base Communities Reinvent the Church. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. Brazal, Agnes M., and Emmanuel S.  De Guzman. 2015. Intercultural Church: Bridge of Solidarity in the Migration Context. Oakland: Borderless Press. Campbell-Nelson, John. 2016. A Pastoral Letter from the Communion of Churches in Indonesia (PGI) Concerning the LGBT Community. Global Ministries, July 14. https://www.globalministries.org/a_pastoral_letter_from_ the_communion_of_churches_in_indonesia_concerning_the_lgbt_community Catholic News Service. 2017. Here’s How the Church in India Is Supporting Transgender People. America: The Jesuit Review, January 3. https://www. a m e r i c a m a g a z i n e . o r g / f a i t h / 2 0 1 7 / 0 1 / 0 3 / h e r e s -­h o w -­c h u r c h ­india-­supporting-­transgender-­people Chan, Simon. 2014. Grassroots Asian Theology: Thinking the Faith from the Ground Up. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Cheah, Joseph. 2020. An Asian Pneumatology of the FABC and the Re-Imagining of Spirituality in Asia. QUEST: Studies on Religion & Culture in Asia 4: 1–14. Cheng, Patrick S. 2012. From Sin to Amazing Grace: Discovering the Queer Christ. New York: Seabury Books. Chia, Edmund. 1999. Turning 20, Embracing Dialogue: New Way of Being Church. Inter-Religio 35: 3–15. Chim, Ezra. 2012. “She” Is My BROTHER – Pastor Edmund Smith of Real Love Ministry (RLM) in Malacca. Christianity Malaysia, October 16. http://christianitymalaysia.com/wp/she-­b rother-­p astor-­e dmund-­s mith-­r eal-­l ove-­ ministry-­rlm-­malacca/

1  GENDER VARIANCE, SEXUAL DIVERSITY AND CHRISTIANITY IN ASIA 

25

Clarke, Sathianathan. 2012. The Task, Method and Content of Asian Theologies. In Asian Theology on the Way: Christianity, Culture and Context, ed. Peniel Jesudason Rufus Rajkumar, 3–13. London: SPCK. Collett, Nigel. 2010. Fellowship and Faith: Hong Kong’s Blessed Minority Christian Fellowship. http://www.fridae.asia/gay-­news/2010/04/02/9798. fellowship-­and-­faith-­hong-­kongs-­blessed-­minority-­christian-­fellowship Compassion (摯情同行). 2020. Compassion 摯情同行 – HK LGBTQ Catholics Union 香港天主教同志小組. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/ compassionTQ Congar, Yves. 1967. Ecumenism and the Future of the Church. Chicago: Priory Press. Cornwall, Susannah. 2009. “State of Mind” versus “Concrete Set of Facts”: The Contrasting of Transgender and Intersex in Church Documents on Sexuality. Theology & Sexuality 15 (1): 7–28. Covenant of the Rainbow. 2020a. Campaign Toward a Truly Inclusive Church Coalition in Hong Kong. https://rainbowcovenant.com.hk/en/ ———. 2020b. The Creed of Inclusivity. 2020. https://rainbowcovenant.com. hk/en/creed/. Cruz, Gemma Tulud. 2012. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: An Asian Theology of Survival. In Asian Theology on the Way: Christianity, Culture and Context, ed. Peniel Jesudason Rufus Rajkumar, 75–82. London: SPCK. Dagur, Ryan. 2016. End Bias Against LGBT People, Say Indonesian Bishops. UCA News, March 3. https://www.ucanews.com/news/ end-­bias-­against-­lgbt-­people-­say-­indonesian-­bishops/75382 de Lubac, Henri. 1988. Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. Dodd, Liz. 2019. Pope Condemns “Heartless” Discrimination Against Gay People. The Tablet, April 10. https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/11610/ pope-­condemns-­heartless-­discrimination-­against-­gay-­people Dong, Liu. 2016. Gay Christians Struggle for Acceptance in Churches in China. Global Times, July 14. http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/994281.shtml Duffy, Nick. 2020. Former Pope Benedict XVI Links Gay Weddings to “the Antichrist” in Scathing New Attack on LGBT+ Rights. PinkNews, May 4. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/05/04/pope-­benedict-­xvi-­same-­sex-­ marriage-­antichrist-­catholic-­church-­lgbt-­rights-­biography/ Dulles, Avery. 1978. Models of the Church. Garden City: Image Books. Ekklesia Tou Theou. n.d. Ekklesia Tou Theou: Church of God – A Liberal Church in the Old Catholic Tradition. https://cogaocc.wordpress.com/. Accessed 20 Jan 2019. Episcopal Committee on Basic Ecclesial Communities (CBCP-BEC). 2019. PCP II (2nd Plenary Council of the Philippines). http://cbcpbec.com/?p=323

26 

J. N. GOH

Fabella, Virginia, ed. 1980. Asia’s Struggle for Full Humanity: Towards a Relevant Theology. Papers from the Asian Theological Conference, January 7–20, 1979, Wennappuwa, Sri Lanka. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences. 1994. Being Church in Asia: Journeying with the Spirit into Fuller Life (Final Statement of First FABC International Theological Colloquium). http://www.fabc.org/fabc%20papers/fabc_ paper_71.pdf Fiddes, Paul S. 2015. God and Story in the Church and in Doctrine: Reflections on the Ecclesial Basis of Method in Theology. Ecclesial Practices 2 (1): 5–22. Flunder, Yvette A. 2005. Where the Edge Gathers: Building a Community of Radical Inclusion. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press. Francis. 2013. Press Conference of Pope Francis during the Return Flight. Apostolic Journey to Rio de Janeiro on the Occasion of the XXVII World Youth Day, July 28. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/ speeches/2013/july/documents/papa-­f rancesco_20130728_gmg-­ conferenza-­stampa.html Free Community Church. 2020a. About Us. https://www.freecomchurch.org/ about-­us/statement-­of-­faith/ ———. 2020b. FCC Experience. https://www.freecomchurch.org/fcc-­ experience/ministries/. ———. 2020c. Free Community Church  – Welcome Home. http://www. freecomchurch.org/ Gaikwad, Roger, and Thomas Ninan, eds. 2017. A Theological Reader on Human Sexuality and Gender Diversities: Envisioning Inclusivity. New Delhi: ISPCK/NCCI. Genilo, Eric Marcelo O., Agnes M.  Brazal, and Daniel Franklin E.  Pilario, eds. 2015. The Second Plenary Council of the Philippines: Quo Vadis? Manila: Ateneo de Manila University Press. Giffney, Noreen. 2009. Introduction: The “q” Word. In The Ashgate Research Companion to Queer Theory, ed. Noreen Giffney and Michael O’Rourke, 1–9. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Goh, Joseph N. 2014a. “You Must Follow Our Belief or Else You Can’t Receive God”: Constructing a Sexual Bi/Theology of Eucharist. Dialog 53 (2): 149–158. ———. 2014b. Report from Jakarta: The International Consultation on Church and Homophobia. Weblog. Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality, December 5. http://aacre.org/report-­jakarta-­international-­consultation-­church-­ homophobia/ ———. 2016. Survivalist Sexuality-Faith Strategies in Biblical Meaning-Makings: Non-Heteronormative Malaysian Christian Men and Negotiations of Sexual Self-Affirmation. QUEST: Studies on Religion & Culture in Asia 1: 38–53.

1  GENDER VARIANCE, SEXUAL DIVERSITY AND CHRISTIANITY IN ASIA 

27

———. 2017. From Polluted to Prophetic Bodies: Theo-Pastoral Lessons from the Lived Experiences of Gay, HIV-Positive Christian Men in Singapore. Practical Theology 10 (2): 133–146. ———. 2019. Practical Guidelines for SOGIESC Theologising in Southeast Asia: Foregrounding Gender Nonconformity, Sexual Diversity and Non-Dyadic Embodiment. In Siapakah Sesamaku? Pergumulan Teologi Dengan Isu-Isu Keadilan Gender, ed. Stephen Suleeman and Amadeo D. Udampoh, 185–210. Jakarta: Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Theologi Jakarta. ———. 2020a. Looking Queerly Through the Heart: Towards a Southeast Asian Praxis of Doing Church with LGBTIQ/PLHIV.  In Gender and Sexuality Justice in Asia: Finding Resolutions Through Conflicts, ed. Joseph N.  Goh, Sharon A. Bong, and Thaatchaayini Kananatu, 185–201. Singapore: Springer. ———. 2020b. Trans/Forming Church in the Asia Pacific Region: Narratives of Hospitable Ecclesiology by Philippine and Tongan Transgender Women. QUEST: Studies on Religion & Culture in Asia 4: 1–17. Goh, Joseph N., Kristine C.  Meneses, and Donald E.  Messer. 2019. An Ecclesiological Praxis of Inclusivity toward Sexual Diversity and HIV: Learning from Singapore and the Philippines. International Journal of Public Theology 13 (2): 163–184. Good Samaritan Kuala Lumpur. 2020. Good Samaritan Kuala Lumpur. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/gskualalumpur/ Gooder, Paula. 2008. In Search of the Early “Church”: The New Testament and the Development of Christian Communities. In The Routledge Companion to the Christian Church, ed. Gerard Mannion and Lewis S. Mudge, 9–27. London: Routledge. Goto, Kaori Ambrosia. 2020. Kaori Ambrosia Goto. Facebook, March 21. https:// www.facebook.com/kaorim01 Graham, Elaine. 2018. Feminist Critiques, Visions, and Models of the Church. In The Oxford Handbook of Ecclesiology, ed. Paul Avis, 527–552. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Green, Gene L., Stephen T. Pardue, and Khiok-khng Yeo, eds. 2018. The Church from Every Tribe and Tongue: Ecclesiology in the Majority World. Cumbria: Langham Global Library. Gutiérrez, Gustavo. 1988. A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation. Trans. Caridad Inda and John Eagleson. Rev. version. London: SCM Press. Hai, Peter N.V. 2012. Sentire Cum Ecclesia: Laity and the Call to Holiness in Papal and Local Theologies. The Australasian Catholic Record 89 (3): 333–348. Hauerwas, Stanley. 2001. Christian Existence Today: Essays on Church, World, and Living in Between. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press. Hui, Sami. 2012. One Body in Christ: Family Education in Church. LoveHK: LGBTs in Hong Kong (blog), December 16. https://freelovehk.wordpress.

28 

J. N. GOH

com/religions-­a nd-­p arental-­l ove/one-­b ody-­i n-­c hrist-­f amily-­e ducation­in-­church/ ILGA. 2020. Maps – Sexual Orientation Laws. ILGA World – The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Association. https://ilga. org/maps-­sexual-­orientation-­laws Ingber, Sasha. 2018. Pakistan Passes Historic Transgender Rights Bill. NPR.Org, May 9. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-­way/2018/05/09/609700 652/pakistan-­passes-­historic-­transgender-­rights-­bill Isaac, Anna. 2016. Awesome! This Tamil Nadu Seminary Is Teaching Pastors to Accept the LGBT Community. The News Minute, July 15. https://www.then e w s m i n u t e . c o m / a r t i c l e / a w e s o m e -­t a m i l -­n a d u -­s e m i n a r y ­teaching-­pastors-­accept-­lgbt-­community-­46577 Joedhiswara, Mikha. 2002. As Assessment of the Churches’ Participation in Overcoming Poverty in the Indonesia’s Development Process. Asia Journal of Theology 16 (1): 164–188. John Paul II. 1997. Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed. (E-Book). Libreria Editrice Vaticana. http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-­and-­teachings/what-­we-­ believe/catechism/catechism-­of-­the-­catholic-­church/epub/index.cfm ———. 1999. Ecclesia in Asia (Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation). http:// www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/ hf_jp-­ii_exh_06111999_ecclesia-­in-­asia_en.html Kim, Sebastian C.H., ed. 2008. Christian Theology in Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kit, Sivin. 2017. Christian Participation and Creative Resistance: Reflecting on Luther’s Two-Fold Governance in Muslim-Majority Malaysia. Dialog 56 (3): 260–271. Kowloon Union Church. 2020. Phyllis Wong. Kowloon Union Church. https:// kuc.hk/phyllis-­wong. Küng, Hans. 2001. The Church. London: Burns and Oates. Kuruvilla, Philip, ed. 2017. Christian Responses to Issues of Human Sexuality and Gender Diversity: A Guide to the Churches in India. New Delhi/Nagpur: ISPCK/NCCI. Lakeland, Paul. 2009. Church: Living Communion. Collegeville: Liturgical Press. Lamis, Liza B. 2009. Resisting Abuse of Women in the Church: Towards Healing and Wholeness. in God’s image 28 (2): 7–14. Lau, Alwyn. 2011. Deconstruction and the Daring Church: A Brief Dis/(Re)Assembling of Faith and Politics in Malaysia. Asia Journal of Theology 25 (1): 24–41. Le, Ngoc Bich Ly. 2017. Gender-Inclusive Leadership: Transforming Toraja Church in Indonesia. QUEST: Studies on Religion & Culture in Asia 2: 60–76.

1  GENDER VARIANCE, SEXUAL DIVERSITY AND CHRISTIANITY IN ASIA 

29

LGBTS Christian Church Philippines. 2019. LGBTS Christian Church Philippines. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/lgbtschristianchurchph/ Lim, Kar-yong. 2019. A Theology of Suffering and Mission for the Asian Church. In Asian Christian Theology: Evangelical Perspectives, ed. Timoteo D.  Gener and Stephen T. Pardue, 181–198. Cumbria: Langham Global Library. Lim, Leng, Kim-hao Yap, and Tuck-leong Lee. 2006. The Mythic-Literalists in the Province of Southeast Asia. In Other Voices, Other Worlds: The Global Church Speaks Out on Homosexuality, ed. Terry Brown, 58–76. New  York: Church Publishing, Inc. Long, Ronald E. 2006. Introduction: Disarming Biblically Based Gay-Bashing. In The Queer Bible Commentary, ed. Deryn Guest, Robert E. Shore-Goss, Mona West, and Thomas Bohache, 1–18. London: SCM Press. Mannion, Gerard. 2007. Ecclesiology and Postmodernity: Questions for the Church in Our Time. Collegeville: Liturgical Press. Masequesmay, Gina. 2011. How Religious Communities Can Help LGBTIQQ Asian Americans to Come Home. Theology & Sexuality 17 (3): 319–335. McElwee, Joshua J. 2015. Francis Strongly Criticizes Gender Theory, Comparing It to Nuclear Arms. National Catholic Reporter, February 13. https://www. n c r o n l i n e . o rg / n e w s / v a t i c a n / f r a n c i s -­s t r o n g l y -­c r i t i c i z e s -­g e n d e r­theory-­comparing-­it-­nuclear-­arms Metropolitan Community Church of Marikina. 2019. Metropolitan Community Church of Marikina (Members, Friends, and Allies). Facebook. https://www. facebook.com/groups/140745335959436/ Metropolitan Community Church of Metro Baguio. n.d. Metropolitan Community Church of Metro Baguio, Philippines. https://mccmb.webs.com/. Accessed 20 Jan 2019. Moltmann, Jürgen. 1977. The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A Contribution to Messianic Ecclesiology. London: SCM Press. National Council of Churches in India. 2016. Introduction. https://ncci1914. com/?page_id=540 ———. n.d. About Us – ESHA-NCCI. https://www.eshancci.org/about-­us-­2/. Accessed 25 Mar 2020. National Council of Churches in the Philippines. 2017. About Us. https:// nccphilippines.org/about-­us/ National Council of Churches of Singapore. 2018. RETAIN 377A, 13 September 2018. National Council of Churches of Singapore. September 13. https:// nccs.org.sg/2018/09/nccs-­statement-­retain-­377a/ Network on Religion and Justice. n.d. Pastors. Network on Religion and Justice. https://www.netrj.org/resources_pastors.html. Accessed 30 Mar 2020. Noronha, Navin. 2019. Meet the Indian Priest Trying to Change the Way Churches Perceive Homosexuality. Vice (blog). December 24. https://www. vice.com/en_in/article/z3be7w/meet-­the-­indian-­priest-­trying-­to-­change-­ the-­way-­churches-­perceive-­homosexuality

30 

J. N. GOH

Ong, Pauline. 2017. Towards a Responsible and Life-Giving Ministry with and among Sexual and Gender Minorities. In A Theological Reader on Human Sexuality and Gender Diversities: Envisioning Inclusivity, ed. Roger Gaikwad and Thomas Ninan, 333–344. New Delhi: ISPCK/NCCI. Open Doors Metropolitan Community Church. 2020. Open Doors MCCC Oasis Group: A Faith Community of the Progressive Christian Alliance and Metropolitan Community Churches. http://www.opendoorskorea.org/ Open Table MCC. 2019. Open Table MCC. http://opentablemcc.ph/ Osborne, Kenan B. 2009. A Theology of the Church for the Third Millennium: A Franciscan Approach. Leiden: Brill. Park, Ji-won. 2020. Protestant Church Group’s Unwavering Support for Gay Rights. The Korea Times, January 27, sec. Lifestyle. http://www.koreatimes. co.kr/www/culture/2020/03/703_282505.html Paul VI. 1965. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern Word. http:// www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/ vat-­ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-­et-­spes_en.html Percy, Martyn. 2016. Shaping the Church: The Promise of Implicit Theology. New York: Routledge. Phan, Peter C. 2003. In Our Own Tongues: Perspectives from Asia on Mission and Inculturation. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. ———. 2008. The Church in Asian Perspective. In The Routledge Companion to the Christian Church, ed. Gerard Mannion and Lewis S.  Mudge, 275–290. London: Routledge. Povoledo, Elisabetta. 2020. ‘Vatican Clarifies Pope Francis’s Comments on Same-­ Sex Unions’. The New York Times, 2 November ­2020. https://www.nytimes. com/2020/11/02/world/europe/pope-­gay-­civil-­unions.htm PR Team STFT Jakarta. n.d. Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Theologi Jakarta. Accessed 3 Mar 2020. http://sttjakarta.ac.id/?q=englishpage Queer Asian Spirit. 2014. ‘People’. Queer Asian Spirit. http://www.queerasianspirit.org/people.html Queer Theology Academy. 2019. 2019 Queer Theologies Project for Asian Chinese Christians. Hong Kong: Queer Theology Academy. ———. 2020. Sexual/Beings III: Queering Hermeneutics in Asian Chinese Contexts. Publication. http://qtacademy.com/qtj3/index.php/en/ministry/ publication/172-­s exual-­b eings-­i ii-­q ueering-­h ermeneutics-­i n-­a sian-­ chinese-­contexts Rahner, Karl. 1963. The Church and the Sacraments. Freiburg: Herder. Rajkumar, Christopher. 2012. Public and Sensual: Exploring Solutions: Bible Studies on Human Sexuality. Nagpur: National Council of Churches in India. Ramkumar, Pratiksha, and S.  Karthick. 2012. Meet India’s First Transgender Pastor. The Times of India, February 6. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ india/Meet-­Indias-­first-­transgender-­pastor/articleshow/11772802.cms

1  GENDER VARIANCE, SEXUAL DIVERSITY AND CHRISTIANITY IN ASIA 

31

Renaldi, Adi. 2019. Asia’s Newest Nation of Timor-Leste Is Fighting for LGBTQ Rights. VICE, May 22. https://www.vice.com/en_in/article/wjvgqn/ asias-­newest-­nation-­of-­timor-­leste-­is-­fighting-­for-­lgbtq-­rights Ruether, Rosemary Radford. 1985. Women-Church: Theology and Practice of Feminist Liturgical Communities. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Rush, Ormond. 2007. The Spirit of Lay Ministry. The Australasian Catholic Record 84 (4): 437–443. Russell, Letty M. 1993. Church in the Round: Feminist Interpretation of the Church. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Sanchez, Rachel Joyce Marie O. 2016. Where Is Women’s Wisdom in the Life of the Church? A Feminist Perspective on the International Theological Commission’s “Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church”. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 32 (2): 27–43. Sanders, Cody J. 2013. Queer Lessons for Churches on the Straight & Narrow: What All Christians Can Learn from LGBTQ Lives. Macon: Faithlab. Sanders, Cody J., and Angela Yarber. 2015. Microaggressions in Ministry: Confronting the Hidden Violence of Everyday Church. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Sanks, T. Howland. 1992. Salt, Leaven, and Light: The Community Called Church. New York: Crossroad Publishing. Schillebeeckx, Edward. 1990. Church: The Human Story of God. New  York: Crossroad Publishing. Schumacher, Karina. 2016. From Hurt to Welcome: An Interview with Rev. Bora Lim, South Korea. https://affirmunited.ause.ca/from-­hurt-­to-­welcome-­an-­ interview-­with-­rev-­bora-­lim-­south-­korea/ Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. 1993. Discipleship of Equals: A Critical Feminist Ekklesia-Logy ̄ of Liberation. New York: Crossroad Publishing. Segundo, Juan Luis, and Centro Pedro Fabro de Montevideo. 1973. The Community Called Church. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. Shore-Goss, Robert E. 2010. Dis/Grace-Full Incarnation and the Dis/Grace-Full Church: Marcella Althaus-Reid’s Vision of Radical Inclusivity. In Dancing Theology in Fetish Boots: Essays in Honour of Marcella Althaus-Reid, ed. Lisa Isherwood and Mark D. Jordan, 1–16. London: SCM Press. ———. 2020. Introduction: Angels in Human Drag: Alternative Queer Orthodoxies. In Unlocking Orthodoxies for Inclusive Theologies: Queer Alternatives, ed. Robert E. Shore-Goss and Joseph N. Goh, 1–23. New York: Routledge. Siddharta, Amanda. 2019. Trials of First Indonesian Church to Welcome LGBT Members. South China Morning Post, August 7, sec. Lifestyle. https://www. scmp.com/lifestyle/family-­r elationships/article/3021586/lgbt-­indonesia­how-­first-­church-­welcome-­queer

32 

J. N. GOH

Siew, Miak. 2015. Learning to Be Queer: Questions the Church Should Be Asking. in God’s image 34 (2): 65–70. Simpson, Robert Hamilton. 2005. How to Be Fashionably Queer: Reminding the Church of the Importance of Sexual Stories. Theology & Sexuality 11 (2): 97–108. Smith, David L. 2014. Theologies of the 21st Century: Trends in Contemporary Theology. Wipf and Stock Publishers. Suleeman, Stephen, and Amadeo D. Udampoh, eds. 2019. Siapakah Sesamaku? Pergumulan Teologi Dengan Isu-Isu Keadilan Gender. Jakarta: Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Theologi Jakarta. Tagle, Luis Anthony G. 2003. Ecclesiologies: Asian. In Dictionary of Third World Theologies, ed. Virginia Fabella and R.S.  Sugirtharajah, 74–76. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. Tan, Kiki. 2012. Church of God: A Message of Hope. Outrage Magazine (blog), October 7. https://outragemag.com/church-­of-­god-­a-­message-­of-­hope/ Tan, Jonathan Y. 2014. Christian Mission among the Peoples of Asia. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. The Star Online. 2019. Five Men Jailed, Caned for Gay Sex. The Star Online, November 7. https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2019/11/07/ five-­malaysian-­men-­jailed-­caned-­for-­gay-­sex Thomas, M.M. 1978. Towards a Theology of Contemporary Ecumenism: A Collection of Addresses to Ecumenical Gatherings (1947–1975). Madras: Christian Literature Society. Tong, Elson. 2017. Hong Kong Priest Cancels Christmas Mass for LGBT Community After Catholic Church Warns of Gay “Sinfulness”. Hong Kong Free Press HKFP, December 28, sec. Hong Kong. https://www.hongkongfp. com/2017/12/28/hong-­kong-­priest-­cancels-­christmas-­mass-­lgbt-­community­catholic-­church-­warns-­gay-­sinfulness/ Tong-Kwang Church. n.d. 同光同志長老教會 Tong-Kwang Light House Presbyterian Church. 同光同志長老教會. https://www.tkchurch.org. Accessed 27 Feb 2020. Torres, Joe. 2016. Philippine Bishops Voice Concern Over Same-Sex Marriage. Ucanews.Com, October 7. http://www.ucanews.com/news/philippine-­ bishops-­voice-­concern-­over-­same-­sex-­marriage/77285 Trible, Phyllis. 1984. Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. True Light Gospel Church. 2019. 真光福音教會. 歡迎所有人的信仰大家庭!. https://truelightgc.org/ Ueno, Reina. n.d. Reina Ueno: Senior Pastor at United Church of Christ in Japan. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/in/reina-­ueno-­65a086119/?originalSu bdomain=jp. Accessed 13 Dec 2020.

1  GENDER VARIANCE, SEXUAL DIVERSITY AND CHRISTIANITY IN ASIA 

33

UNDP, and USAID. 2014. Being LGBT in Asia: The Philippine Country Report. Bangkok. https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/ hiv-­aids/being-­lgbt-­in-­asia%2D%2Dthe-­philippine-­country-­report.html United Church of Christ in Japan. 2020. The United Church of Christ in Japan. http://uccj-­e.org/ United Church of Christ in the Philippines. 2016. United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP). Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/uccpphils/?fref=ts ———. 2020. United Church of Christ in the Philippines. https://www.uccpchurch.com/ Vinayaraj, Y.T. 2016. Ecclesiology With(Out) Margins: Defining Church in the Context of Empire. Asia Journal of Theology 30: 79–95. Walden, Max, and Hellena Souisa. 2020. Indonesia Could Force LGBT People into Rehab Under Draft “Family Resilience” Law. ABC News, February 20. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-­0 2-­2 0/indonesia-­c ould-­f orce-­ lgbt-­bdsm-­communities-­into-­rehab/11979880 Wang, Amber. 2019. #LoveWon: Taiwan Legalises Same-Sex Marriage in Landmark First for Asia. Hong Kong Free Press, May 17, sec. Law & Crime. https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/05/17/breaking-­t aiwan-­l egalises-­ sex-­marriage-­landmark-­first-­asia/ Watson, Natalie K. 2002. Introducing Feminist Ecclesiology. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press. Wilfred, Felix, ed. 1992. Leave the Temple: Indian Paths to Human Liberation. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. ———. 2010. Asian Public Theology: Critical Concerns in Challenging Times. New Delhi: ISPCK. World Council of Churches, ed. 1967. The Church for Others and the Church for the World: A Quest for Structures for Missionary Congregations. Geneva: World Council of Churches. World People’s Blog. 2008. Shuk Man “Selina” Sun – Hong Kong, China. World People’s Blog (blog), March 22. http://word.world-­citizenship.org/ wp-­archive/2001 Wu, Rose. 2000. Liberating the Church from Fear: The Story of Hong Kong’s Sexual Minorities. Kowloon: Hong Kong Women Christian Council. ———. 2003. A Dissenting Church. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Christian Institute and Hong Kong Women Christian Council. Yong, Ting-jin. 2009. Church – A Community of Faith, Struggle and Tradition. in God’s image 28 (2): 49–54. Yuen, Sin. 2017. Churches Building Bridges with LGBT Christians. The Straits Times, December 17. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/churches­building-­bridges-­with-­lgbt-­christians

34 

J. N. GOH

Zachariah, George. 2013. Church without Walls: Church Happening in the Street. In Even Now and Not Yet: Kingdom Tensions and Contemporary Concerns, ed. J.R. Paul Singh, 297–303. Bangalore: Ecumenical Christian Centre. 性神學社 Queer Theology Academy. 2020. About Us. http://qtacademy.com/ qtj3/index.php/en/. 激揚 Amplify 13. 2013. 激揚 Amplify 13: All Asia ‘Open & Affirming’ Church + Life Conference. 激揚 Amplify 13.

CHAPTER 2

Amplify Open and Affirming Conferences

These I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer —Isaiah 56.7 These things I remember, as I pour out my soul: how I went with the throng, and led them in procession to the house of God, with glad shouts and songs of thanksgiving, a multitude keeping festival —Psalm 42.4 For you are all children of light and children of the day; we are not of the night or of darkness. Therefore encourage one another and build up each other, as indeed you are doing —1 Thessalonians 5.5, 11

Theological Vision Amplify provides a space for LGBTIQ-affirming churches and LGBTIQ Christians in Asia to congregate, commune with each other, and connect more intimately to themselves and to God. Little wonder therefore that the name ‘Amplify’ was chosen at the outset by its founders as a gesture of responding to God’s call for churches ‘to amplify God’s love to all and mission of shalom (peace) into the world’.1 In its present incarnation, 1

 Chan, email communication, 20th February 2020.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. N. Goh, Doing Church at the Amplify Open and Affirming Conferences, Asian Christianity in the Diaspora, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73314-8_2

35

36 

J. N. GOH

Amplify is a series of bi-annual2 international trans-denominational gatherings to ‘worship, witness and wonder together’ (Li n.d.). The Conferences feature Pentecostal-styled communal worship sessions, testimonies, inspirational sermons, faith formation and human formation workshops, and informal fellowship (see Cartledge and Swoboda 2016) among mostly LGBTIQ participants. A feature of worship that continues to command respect, visibility and popularity is the inclusive communion services, ordinarily held on a Sunday during the Conferences, based on the notion of what Robert E. Shore-Goss calls ‘LGBTQI inclusion and commensality’ (2013, 20). Although a recent description in the Amplify Stakeholders Presentation – a sort of white paper to chart the next stage of Amplify which was delivered to stakeholders on 17th January 2020 – states that Amplify ‘began its life in 2009 out of a call to missions as a training conference to develop skills for ministry in open and affirming Christian churches in Asia’ (2020),3 I find a much fuller expression in an earlier source in which co-­ founders Gary Chan and Paul Lucas state that: Amplify was born out of a call to be a blessing to the development of inclusive churches and ministries in Asia, providing a space for us as followers of Jesus Christ to explore and embody what ‘open and affirming’ means as we seek to be effective witnesses to the Gospel, meeting the needs of our communities (quoted in 激揚 Amplify 13 2013, 4; added emphasis).

This account of Amplify is, I argue, the theological vision of Amplify that serves as the lynchpin of the Conferences. Amplify aims to be a conduit of the gratuitous relationality that God desires to establish with the people of Asia, particularly those who are LGBTIQ. Amplify is firmly entrenched in the belief that it is called to progressively discern and manifest a spirit of openness and affirmation in its discipleship to Christ and the values he 2  Due to various circumstances, the frequency of Amplify is fluid. In conversations with relevant parties in early 2020, I was informed that the next Conference may be held in 2021, three years after the last instalment in Taiwan. Nevertheless, due to the prevalence of the COVID-19 global pandemic at the time this book was written, it may be deferred or held as an online event. 3  Information provided by Gary Chan, email communication, 20th January 2020. On 28th April 2020, I received an email notification from a hitherto unknown Amplify contact that a dedicated but incomplete Amplify website (Amplify Ministries 2020) was now accessible online.

2  AMPLIFY OPEN AND AFFIRMING CONFERENCES 

37

espoused. In so doing, Amplify engages in a fruitful outreach to LGBTIQ people in persona Christi. Amplify’s theological vision is similar in many ways to general notions of revival and renewal in Pentecostal ecclesiologies. This is hardly surprising as both Chan and Lucas are familiar with such Christian traditions.4 In these ecclesiologies, emphasis is laid on the idea of the church as a witness to God’s grace and Christ’s outreach through the charismatic gifts of the Spirit, the actualisation of God’s kingdom on earth, a deeply committed practice of discipleship based on biblical principles, resistance to diabolical temptations, and the pursuit of a new creation in everyday life (Cartledge 2016; Lovelace 1979; Studebaker 2016; Vickers 2011). At Amplify, however, these ecclesiological notions are extended to churches that strive to be open and affirming, and their meanings are often challenged and expanded. The term ‘open and affirming’ is particularly poignant. Siobhan Garrigan very aptly reminds churches that they ‘should not be open to and affirming of all behaviors [as] the Church’s job is as much, if not more, to challenge as to affirm’ (2009, 226). Moreover, as Sathianathan Clarke insists, ‘Asian Christian theology is not uncritically absorptive’ (2012, 5). Nevertheless, as the ensuing chapters will demonstrate, Amplify’s theological vision of openness and affirmation involves genuine and respectful critique and reflexivity rather than an unproblematic assimilation of all concepts and convictions. The idea of being open and affirming at the Conferences emphasises instead a demeanour of non-judgemental embrace that does not stipulate normative forms of respectability, decency and unquestioning obeisance as prerequisites for participation. It is a mindset that does not demand LGBTIQ people ‘to mute their behavior or speech’ (Garrigan 2009, 222) in order to fit in at ecclesial spaces, even spaces which appear ostensibly as inclusive. As I point out elsewhere: ‘Inclusivity’, ‘inclusive’ and ‘open’ mean a deliberate choice to embrace, incorporate and involve non-normative people, while ‘affirming’ stipulates an attitude of total and unconditional acceptance towards them[, because] Christian entities that are inclusive and open in varying degrees may not necessarily be affirming. (Goh 2019, 189; added emphasis. See also Goh 2020)

4

 See the section entitled ‘Co-Founders’ in this chapter.

38 

J. N. GOH

The Amplify Stakeholders Presentation which I mentioned earlier provides a lengthy and detailed definition of openness and affirmation which, I propose, is the consequence of more than a decade of understanding and developing the dynamics of the Conferences: Openness is a mindset, posture and approach to being receptive to that which is new or different, intellectually and experientially; our responsibility and willingness to learn and grow. It is the recognition by individuals and communities that because we live in a diverse world, we are therefore called to build bridges of greater understanding and reveal the beauty and potential of people around us. Openness moves us from not just embracing that which is different but to affirm, protect, advocate and celebrate who people truly are … we believe all persons are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect – equal because we are all made uniquely by God and loved by God. AMPLIFY declares that no one should be afraid of judgment or exclusion because of who they are. All persons who live respectfully and responsibly are invited to be in community together to learn, heal, welcome, liberate and thrive (2020; added emphasis).

This description of openness endorses and incorporates a sense of unconditional affirmation and acceptance, and lends necessary textures to the concept of inclusivity by emphasising a willingness to defend, promote and revel in unfamiliar, unconventional and unorthodox human ideas and experiences, including those of LGBTIQ people. Openness and affirmation are principles which are averse to the suggestion that people need to change and conform to majority ideas and practices in order to experience inclusion. A personal anecdote may also add to the understanding of openness and affirmation. Some years back in the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur, ‘Siluvai’5 who is a gay man mentioned to me in casual conversation that he was attending a small independent church which was ostensibly accepting of LGBTIQ people. He was elated that he had found a faith community that did not judge him for his sexuality and was particularly appreciative of the pastor who welcomed him with open arms. His effusiveness tapered off when he recounted his pastor’s offer for optional ‘counselling’ should he ever felt the need to talk about his life as a gay man. When  Siluvai quickly moved on to another subject in what I thought was a sheepish

5

 This is a pseudonym which I have assigned to this individual.

2  AMPLIFY OPEN AND AFFIRMING CONFERENCES 

39

segue, I believe that I detected a hint of doubt in his voice over the pastor’s purported acceptance. Siluvai’s inner conflict reminds me of the words of Adrian Danker, a Singaporean Jesuit priest and spiritual director of Courage Singapore, a ministry aimed at helping people with same-sex attraction who strive to live celibate lives: To be able to truly share the love of God with another, we have to really accept the other, including people with [same-sex attraction], as he or she is God’s own, in spite of any imperfection and regardless of sexual orientation. We should aim to support one another in our struggles and accompany each other to live as Jesus did (quoted in Courage Singapore 2017).

My hypothesis is that akin to Danker, Siluvai’s pastor acted genuinely in offering acceptance, support and accompaniment to Siluvai ‘regardless of [his] sexual orientation’ but had yet to reach a level of affirmation where Siluvai’s sexuality could be wholly embraced as part of this acceptance, support and accompaniment. To me, the ambiguous mention of ‘acceptance’ hinted at a non-judgemental attitude that was accompanied by a sincere desire to help Siluvai control his sexuality, address his struggles, amend his ways and return to the correct path in accordance with God’s will, possibly through a subtle suggestion that he could accomplish this feat with the help of, and out of ‘genuine’ love for God – not uncommon rhetoric in reparative therapies. The pastor was probably unprepared to accept and include Siluvai in church just as he was as a concrete  sign of unconditional affirmation. Pauline Ong refers to this ‘qualified acceptance’ as ‘pastoral accommodation’, which holds ‘same-sex sexual activity as inherently imperfect, rather than entirely sinful’ (2017, 336–37). ‘True’ discipleship, as is acceptance, is thus interpreted and proven through heteronormative (and cisnormative) frameworks. Conversely, being open and affirming resists the definition of control, sinfulness and support simply on the basis of being LGBTIQ, but in regard to the daily struggles to act ethically as LGBTIQ people in accordance with Christian values (Edman 2016; Farley 2008; Goh 2016; Yip 2017). Nonetheless, not all church leaders exercise such subtle or cloaked approaches in terms of ‘qualified acceptance’ or ‘pastoral accommodation’. During Amplify 2018, Hong Kong’s Queer Theology Academy Director Pearl Wong publicly shared her experiences of direct ecclesial

40 

J. N. GOH

rejection and exclusion of people of non-normative sexuality. This heart-­ breaking experience did not, however, dampen her spiritual journey as an out bisexual Christian woman: This is how my journey began. Eleven years ago, I left my church because my pastor told me that God would not accept my sexual orientation. With a broken heart, I started my theological study determined to seek the inclusive side of God (激揚 AMPLIFY 2018 2018; 1:10–1:25).

It is likely that Wong’s determination to lay bare ‘the inclusive side of God’ – an interpretation of God that is welcoming and affirming of sexual diversity – for herself through ‘theological study’ was due to her ability to decouple God from ecclesial hierarchy in the person of her pastor and the latter’s rejection of people with same-sex attraction. I suggest that her effort in this respect is not a simple scheme to justify her sexuality, but a deep desire to untether God from exclusively heteronormative (and cisnormative) frameworks based on a deeply experiential conviction of God’s unconditional inclusivity, openness and affirmation. At the same event, the General Secretary of the National Council of Churches in India (NCCI) Roger Gaikwad reiterated the need for ecclesial openness and affirmation: The gospel of love and justice should embrace everyone. We tend to think that people with gender and sexual diversities have got no religion, have no spirituality, but to see the spirituality of worship and the testimonies, and the message that came across, it’s a learning experience for me, that there is a fellowship of love and concern, of solidarity, of strength and support, which is very, very special, and no one would say, that they were in a different community where God is not there (激揚 AMPLIFY 2018 2018; 6:05–7:16).

Gaikwad articulates the widespread assumptions that LGBTIQ people are areligious and aspiritual due to their non-normative genders, sexualities and sex. The underlying principle behind these myths is, as Juswantori Ichwan (2019) may suggest, a belief that LGBTIQ people who are already mired in immorality and iniquity have little need for God, the bible and faith. Gaikwad’s eye-opening experience of ‘worship’, ‘testimonies’, ‘fellowship of love and concern, ‘solidarity’, and ‘strength and support’ in his first appearance at Amplify buttresses his belief that ‘the gospel [values] of love and justice’ should be extended to all human beings, including LGBTIQ people whom he has witnessed as spiritual persons at Amplify. As

2  AMPLIFY OPEN AND AFFIRMING CONFERENCES 

41

I see it, Gaikwad is subtly chiding exclusionary attitudes and closed systems in churches. For him, LGBTIQ communities of faith can be concrete spaces of human-divine interaction rather than cesspools of sinful defiance. Activist, LGBTIQ-ally, Gereja Kristen Indonesia6 (GKI) minister and now retired lecturer of the open and affirming Jakarta Theological Seminary in Indonesia Stephen Suleeman also spoke of the importance of unconditional acceptance when he was interviewed at Amplify 2018: Amplify is an event where LGBT Christians can feel that they are really loved by God, that they are not excluded. God sees them as they are and accepts them. I think that is the Good News for LGBT people (激揚 AMPLIFY 2018 2018; 0:48–1:04).

Suleeman stresses a crucial importance for gender-variant and sexually diverse people to be ‘really loved’, included, seen and accepted by God ‘as they are’. The likening of these divine traits to ‘Good News’ is, I suggest, an upending of biblically based arsenal that contributes to hatred, indifference, stigmatisation, fear, exclusion, invisibility and rejection in matters of gender, sexuality and biology. Christina A. Astorga notes that ‘at the heart of resistance is an alternative vision to a hegemonic belief system that claims the minds and hearts of men and women’ (2016, 259), and Amplify acts as a counterforce to the negativities that LGBTIQ people often encounter in churches and society. By striving to be a channel of an open and affirming God, Amplify enables LGBTIQ Christians to transform ecclesial exile to ecclesial coming-home. Moreover, that many Amplify frontliners have experienced ecclesial dismissal themselves as a consequence of homophobia, biphobia and transphobia propels them to consciously avoid doing church among fellow LGBTIQ Christians in ways that stipulate conditions for acceptance and affirmation.

Co-Founders A co-founder of the open and affirming Free Community Church (FCC), Singapore, and currently the chairperson of the Board of Directors and one of FCC’s pastors, Gary Chan grew up in the Presbyterian tradition. At the age of 21, he stepped forward in response to an altar call in a Methodist church and subsequently took on the role of worship leader in both City  Indonesian Christian Church.

6

42 

J. N. GOH

Harvest Church and FCC. Holding a Masters in Theology and Ministry degree from King’s College in London, Chan recalls that his ‘theological bias back then was that worship through music was the opportunity for the manifest presence of God to come to a gathering and touch the hearts of people so that people can experience the love of God’.7 Between 2007 and 2009, Chan was instrumental in organising annual Worship Conferences at FCC in Singapore that provided a space for ‘worship music, worship leading, songwriting, that kind of stuff’.8 At the same time, he intuited ‘a call from God to be more missional’,9 which he subsequently understood as a desire to connect with other Christian communities in the region which were similarly passionate in worship. Chan had been visiting Good Samaritan Metropolitan Community Church (GSMCC) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia since 2008 and quickly discerned that he was called to serve this community as his personal mission.10 Additionally, he was interested in discovering how worship could be translated as mission and thus, in his own words, ‘[bring] the gospel to life in communities, first through partnership with [HK]BMCF’,11 or Hong Kong Blessed Minority Christian Fellowship. Theologically trained at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, California, Paul Lucas had been an active member of the City of Refuge Church which was founded in San Francisco by Yvette A. Flunder, currently the Presiding Bishop of The Fellowship of Affirming Ministries and Senior Pastor of the City of Refuge United Church of Christ. Lucas soon found himself in Hong Kong and attending HKBMCF which he initially found to be evangelically conservative. Lucas and Chan had met before in San Francisco, during which Lucas had introduced Chan to Flunder and her vision of Asian churches collaboratively forming open and affirming Christian communities in Asia. Eager to explore how HKBMCF and FCC could benefit from mutual exposure and shared spaces, Lucas reached out to Chan in 2008.  Skype interview, 5th November 2018.  Skype interview, 5th November 2018. 9  Skype interview, 5th November 2018. 10  Chan continues to visit and preach at this community on a regular basis. On 2nd October 2012, GSMCC officially became Good Samaritan Kuala Lumpur (GSKL). Information provided by Joe Wai-yap Pang, email communication, 15th May 2020. 11  Skype interview, 5th November 2018. As of 25th July 2016, HKBMCF became officially known as Blessed Ministry Community Church (BMCC). Information provided by Jason Man-bo Ho, Facebook Messenger communication, 3rd March 2020. 7 8

2  AMPLIFY OPEN AND AFFIRMING CONFERENCES 

43

2009 In 2009, upon Gary Chan’s invitation, Paul Lucas led a thirty-member contingent from HKBMCF to visit FCC in Singapore, where they were welcomed by fifty members of FCC and participated in ‘combined worship practices’ (Free Community Church 2009). Both FCC and HKBMCF understood that worship was an integral part of the life of Christian communities, particularly as it provided an avenue for members to share their talents and abilities in hopes of ‘creating an experience which was different, more miraculous, or more supernatural than the experiences that you would have on a normal weekend’.12 For Chan, this FCC Worship Conference from 7th to 9th August 2009 was simultaneously the birth of Amplify, whereby ‘at least two churches intentionally gathered together and so that [they] became by default now … one’.13 Lucas also saw Amplify as a critical avenue for the clergy to be acquainted with each other in hopes of an eventual collegium of open and affirming clergypersons and lay leaders. Moreover, he was hopeful that the exchanges between HKBMCF and FCC would not be limited to ecclesial parameters, but contribute effectively to ‘policy and advocacy for the LGBT community, and [add] a faith voice to a much larger agenda to seek legal change and affirmation of same-sex relationships within Asia’.14 The FCC Worship Conferences from 2007 to 2008 revolved around streams that focused principally on music and worship. Amplify soon became aware of the need to incorporate streams on ‘justice and community action topics’.15 Chan attributes this progression to Kim-hao Yap’s recommendation for the Conferences to adopt a greater sense of justice and community awareness in its principles and operations.16 In 2009, a ‘Justice & Truly Inclusive Worship’ stream was included alongside ‘Creative Production’, ‘Leadership & Vocals’, ‘Musicians (Beginners)’ and ‘Musicians (Advanced)’ streams (Free Community Church 2009).

 Chan, Skype interview, 5th November 2018.  Skype interview, 5th November 2018. 14  Skype interview, 6th November 2018. 15  Chan, Skype interview, 5th November 2018. 16  Yap passed away on 16th November 2017. See Nur Asyiqin 2017. 12 13

44 

J. N. GOH

2010 The term ‘Amplify’ was only used officially at the Amplify 2010 Conference at FCC, Singapore between 6th and 8th August 2010, which drew approximately sixty participants who were housed at Ibis Hotel. In its promotional slides for the event, FCC declared that the heart of the Amplify Conference is to champion the cause of local inclusive churches in Asia … we are stepping out to gather even more churches and Christians to unite, to worship and to equip ourselves to be strong, effective witnesses for the Kingdom in our local communities built on the revelation of the love of our God, through Jesus, and empowered by the Holy Spirit (Amplify 2010 2010).

The ‘Justice & Truly Inclusive Worship’, ‘Leadership & Vocals’ and ‘Creative Production’ streams were retained while three new streams, ‘Church Life & Ministry’, ‘Song Writing’ and ‘The Musician’ were introduced. Facilitators, presenters and helpers from both FCC and HKBMCF were fully involved, including Paul Lucas, FCC pastor Su-lin Ngiam, GSMCC pastor Joe Waiyap Pang and then HKBMCF pastor Silas Kwok-­yiu Wong. There were three inspirational talks or ‘messages’ during Amplify 2010, namely ‘Building the Great Commission Church’, ‘Worship, Evangelism & Justice’ and ‘Ministering & Communicating the Gospel in the 21st Century’ (Amplify 2010 2010). Streams included ‘Cell Groups – Doing Life Together’, ‘Sharing Our Experiences’, ‘Music Team Structure & Layering’, ‘Vocal Masterclass  – Proper Singing Technique’, ‘Vocal Workshop’, ‘Creative Production’, ‘A Culture of Welcome’, ‘The Inclusive Church’, ‘Arranging Music for Worship’ and ‘Musicians Hands-On’. A worship leaders’ panel and an ‘Effective Evangelism & Outreach Panel’ combined stream  were also convened. The streams were held on FCC premises and in  the homes of FCC members. At the close of the Conference, a Special Amplify Conference Sunday Service Worship was led by Silas Kwok-yiu Wong and Joe Wai-yap Pang.

2011 From 16th to 19th June 2011, Amplify was termed as ‘FCC Retreat 2011’ and saw the participation of GSMCC. Sixty people took part in this event which was held at the Berjaya Times Square Hotel, Kuala Lumpur. Streams

2  AMPLIFY OPEN AND AFFIRMING CONFERENCES 

45

such as ‘One for Another’ and ‘Transformation & Discipleship’ appeared next to ‘Church Life & Ministry’, ‘Music in Worship’ and ‘Worship Leading’ in 2011 (Free Community Church 2011). ‘An “Amazing Race” type [of] activity … where people ran around [Kuala Lumpur] together in teams to complete tasks to bond with one another’17 was introduced to Amplify 2011.

2012 Amplify was termed as the ‘All Asia “Open & Affirming” Church + Life Conference’ and ‘Amplify ’12’ when it was held at the newly constructed chapel of the Divinity School of Chung Chi College, Chinese University of Hong Kong in 2012. The choice of venue bears immense significance, as the School ‘is supported by five [mainstream] churches in Hong Kong, none of which [is] openly LGBTQ-affirming’ (Ko 2012). Amplify 2012 was hosted by HKBMCF and Paul Lucas acted as the Conference Director. The Hyatt Regency Shatin hotel was selected to accommodate the participants and a dedicated website was designed for the Conference. FCC’s promotional slides for Amplify 2012 underwent minor amendments in its description of the Conference through an additional emphasis on the role of ecclesial leadership: The Amplify Conference was born out of a call to be a blessing to the inclusive churches in Asia to build strong, local, relevant faith communities that are effective witnesses for the Gospel and meeting the needs of our communities … So whether you are a leader in Church, involved in ministry or a worshipper looking for fresh anointing and inspired teaching, come join us … where we will encounter God in a fresh new way, equip ourselves and expand our vision for our Church (Amplify ’12 2012).

300 people gathered for ‘Worship Services, Workshops & Panel Discussions, Morning Prayer and many opportunities for genuine fellowship with congregations’ (Amplify 2012 2012a; also Ko 2012) from 22nd to 24th June. Fridae.asia, ‘the largest online gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community in Asia’ (2020) reported that ‘15 LGBTQ-­ friendly churches, ministries and fellowships from 10 Asia Pacific regions’ participated in the event, and that it was ‘also the first year that ministries [or LGBTIQ-related Christian communities] from Mainland China  Chan, email communication, 3rd March 2020.

17

46 

J. N. GOH

participated in the conference’ (Ko 2012). Aside from HKBMCF, participating churches included One Body in Christ Church from Hong Kong, Open Doors MCC from South Korea, GSMCC from Malaysia, FCC from Singapore, MCC Metro Baguio, MCC Quezon City and MCC Makati from the Philippines, and Tong-Kwang Light House Presbyterian Church and True Light Gospel Church from Taiwan. According to Gary Chan, he and Kim-hao Yap were the main speakers at the earlier versions of Amplify that took on the form of FCC worship retreats. Over time, and inspired by Hillsong Church’s international church conferences (n.d.), Chan and his collaborators began to see the relevance of including keynote speakers in what has always largely been a worship-based event.18 In 2012, Amplify invited international keynote speakers for the first time in the persons of Yvette A. Flunder and Gene Robinson, then Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire. Flunder identifies as a lesbian woman while Robinson is openly gay. In 2012, Amplify organised morning, afternoon and elective workshops with panels under specific streams. Participation in workshops of a specific stream was encouraged and required registration prior to the event. The ‘One for Another’ stream from the FCC Retreat 2011 proliferated into various panels such as ‘At the Intersection of Church & Society’, ‘Creating a Space for Change – Being an Ambassador and Bridge Builder’ and ‘Breaking the Silence: The Church & AIDS’. Workshops under the ‘Church Life & Development’ included ‘Developing Affirming & Inclusive Ministry in Asia’, ‘Intro to Church Size Theory: The Fastest Way to Grow Your Church in a Healthy, Sustainable Way’, and ‘Sex & the Church’. The ‘Ministry on the Margins: Asian/LGBT’ stream offered a broad range of workshops that included ‘Beyond Boundaries: Constructing & Practicing Queer Theology in Hong Kong’, ‘When Hong Kong’s Tongzhi Movement Meets the Christian Right’ and  ‘Asian LGBT Life and Ministry in the US – Radical Justice Meets the LGBT Movement’. Workshops for the ‘Faith & Sexuality’ English stream included ‘Our Relationship with the Word’, ‘“Fabulous Faith”: Living as Christian & Gay’ and ‘I Love You, Please Go Away!: A Christian Perspective on Meeting and Keeping Life-giving Relationships’. The Chinese version of the same stream comprised workshops such as ‘Getting Homogenized:  Skype interview, 5th November 2018.

18

2  AMPLIFY OPEN AND AFFIRMING CONFERENCES 

47

The Bible & Homosexuality’, ‘At the Intersections of Being: Chinese, Gay and Christian?’, and ‘Releasing the God-potential Within You’. Amplify 2012 abolished ‘a dedicated stream for worship teams [in favour of] a combined church worship team formed for Amplify ’12’ (Amplify 2012 2012b, c). During the Conference, Robinson emphasised the divine gift of choosing one’s partner, and underscored the homophobic and misogynistic tendencies of churches. Flunder spoke of the need for all marginalised communities, not just LGBTIQ people, to be enfolded in ministry. She also hosted a Radical Inclusivity roundtable. In one of her workshops, QTA honorary consultant, LGBTIQ-ally and theologian Rose Wu pressed for more liberating and empowering interpretations of the scriptures for LGBTIQ people. Participants also witnessed the Asian premiere of the independent documentary on Robinson’s life and faith journey, Love Free or Die (Alston 2012). Paul Lucas’ comment in Fridae.asia’s report aptly sums up the achievements of Amplify 2012: ‘Amplify has transformed since 2009 from a place of solidarity with “victims” ill-treated by mainstream churches, to a place of affirmation where religion and sexuality is [sic] reconciled’ (quoted in Ko 2012).

2013 Amplify continued to be publicised as the ‘All Asia “Open & Affirming” Church + Life Conference’ in 2013 and 2014. The Conference was hosted by HKBMCF in Hong Kong again in 2013, but the venue was changed to the Y Loft Youth Square Hotel. International keynote speakers included theologian Patrick S. Cheng, and MCC activists and ministers Cindi Love and Boon-lin Ngeo from the United States. Silas Kwok-yiu Wong, then pastor of HKBMCF, referred to Amplify as a ‘spiritual banquet [and] a blessing for both local and overseas LGBT pastors and congregants to gather together to converse, listen to the Word and praise God’ (激揚 Amplify 13 2013, 1). Amplify 2013 saw even greater representation in terms of its organisation. The steering committee consisted of HKBMCF, One Body in Christ Church, Tong-Kwang Lighthouse Presbyterian Church, Chaotongku Fellowship in Xiamen, FCC, Good Samaritan Kuala Lumpur, Open Doors MCC, Ambassadors and Bridge Builders International, MCC Asian Pacific Initiative

48 

J. N. GOH

and MCC New York. Supporting organisations included BigLove Alliance ( 大愛同盟) (2017) and Queer Affirming Fellowship (酷兒團契) (2018) of Hong Kong. The diversification of Amplify’s activities continued in 2013. A Pre-­ Conference Church Leadership Retreat was held for several hours prior to the event proper. During the Conference itself, a wide repertoire of concurrent workshops included ‘Self Image, Self Esteem & Sexual Identity’, ‘Living “Out” My Faith in Today’s Connected World’, ‘Big Love to Rainbow (The Hong Kong Experience)’, ‘Every Wall Has A Door’, ‘Radical Love: The Queerness of Christianity’, ‘Fuel For the Journey’, ‘At the Intersections of Being: Chinese, Gay and Christian’, ‘Coming Out to Herself’ and ‘How Can Gay-Friendly Churches Develop Intentional Relationships with Other Communities?’

2014 Amplify returned to Singapore and was hosted by FCC from 12th to 14th September, 2014 with a participation of over 200 people ‘from Australia, China (both mainland and Hong Kong), Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and the [United States]’ (Goh 2014a). Alongside Yvette A. Flunder, former MCC Vice Moderator Darlene Garner from the United States and Kim-hao Yap were named as keynote speakers (see Yap 2020). FCC also invited ‘special guests’ (激揚 Amplify 14 2014) such as Boon-lin Ngeo, Australian musician and worship leader Tash (Natasha) Holmes, newly installed HKBMCF presiding pastor Joe Wai-yap Pang, and Malaysian theological activist Joseph N. Goh. Also in attendance were ‘Flunder’s spouse, “Mother” Shirley Miller … and Pastor Twanna Grause of New Jersey’ (Goh 2014a). Garner and Flunder led a pre-Conference leadership workshop entitled ‘Creating, Sustaining and Celebrating: Tools to Develop Community on the Margins’. A range of workshops was held, including Garner’s ‘The Church as a New Creation’, Pauline Ong’s ‘Travelling Light: Leaving our Emotional Baggage Behind’, Pang’s ‘Three-Person Group Communication Skills’,19 Goh’s ‘Erotic Renewals: Rethinking Sex as LGBTQ Christians’, Gary Chan’s ‘Renewing Culture; Renewing the Church’, Miak Siew’s ‘Renewing Community – Developing Healthy Small Groups’, Ngeo’s ‘Gay Movement

 Delivered in Mandarin as ‘三人小組溝通技巧’

19

2  AMPLIFY OPEN AND AFFIRMING CONFERENCES 

49

and Christianity’,20 and ‘All Things New: Renewing Congregational Worship’ by Holmes and her panel. Intersex activist Small Luk held a session called ‘Beyond the Boundary  – Knowing and Concerns of the Intersex’ at the end of the Conference. In the multilingual Sunday Service which concluded Amplify 2014, Garner spoke of ‘letting go, respect for difference, the need for dialogue and change, and the quest for new forms of doing church instead of merely resting on traditional ideas of “gay churches”’ (Goh 2014a; see also Chap. 6).

2016 Up until 2014, Amplify had been an annual affair. Amplify took a hiatus in 2015 but returned in 2016 and was hosted by the progressive and LGBTIQ-affirming Jakarta Theological Seminary (JTS), Indonesia (PR Team STFT Jakarta n.d.). A particularly noteworthy feature of this particular instalment of Amplify was that it was held concomitantly with JTS’ annual International LGBT and Queer Conference (for an example of this event, see Goh 2014b). According to Stephen Suleeman, the driving force behind JTS’ bold but controversial Conference, he and Gary Chan had discussed the possibility of hosting Amplify in Jakarta when they met during Amplify 2012 in Hong Kong. Initially apprehensive about the feasibility of such a joint venture, Suleeman made a proposal to Chan that was finally realised in 2016. During my interview with Suleeman, he shared the following: First I was struggling, hesitating because, we also have our annual programme at about the same time. And our programme is a little bit different than Amplify. Amplify is targeted toward the LGBT communities, while ours is more targeted to students who are interested in LGBTIQ issues and queer studies. But also to those people who are interested in getting to know what LGBTIQ is all about, and how they could be open and embracing towards their LGBTIQ friends. So I said to Gary [Chan], perhaps we could have these two programmes running at the same time, but occasionally we could have joint programmes, where we share our different programmes to one another, so we can learn from another.

 Delivered in Mandarin as ‘同志運動與基督信仰’.

20

50 

J. N. GOH

Held on the premises of the Seminary in Indonesia from 3rd to 6th November, the joint event attracted a crowd of 150 participants. Amplify’s international guest speakers included then Moderator of the United Church of Canada Jordan Cantwell, MCC minister, leader and biblical scholar Mona West, and Miak Siew. FCC continued with its offering of broad streams with individual topics such as ‘Preparing Our Hearts’, ‘Stories of the Revolution’, ‘Wholeheartedly’, ‘This Is My Revolution’ and the aforementioned ‘Church Life & Ministry’. JTS’ schedule of individual sessions, rather than streams, included ‘Testimonies from Intersex and Transpersons’, ‘Just Tolerance is Not Enough’, ‘Queer Spirituality: A Theoretical Construction’, ‘PGI’s (Persatuan Gereja-Gereja Indonesia or Association of Indonesian Churches) Pastoral Letter’, ‘Research on Dalit Hijra community from an Indecent Theological Perspective’, ‘Growing Old Together: Love in a Time of Capitalism’, ‘Trans/Pacific Affairs: Bridging Queer Theologies in the Global South’, ‘Islam and LGBT’, ‘LGBTIQ and Spirituality’, ‘Transgender Pesantren (Muslim boarding school) as an Icon of Islamic Tolerance’, ‘The Problem of Masculinity’, ‘The Problem of Gay Identity’ and ‘Neither Man, Nor Woman, Nor Transgender’. Siew facilitated the Leader Pre-Conference session as well as the Pastors’ and Leadership Conference in English. ‘High Heels and Hijabs’, the seventh episode of the 2015 season of Dateline, an Australian SBS (Special Broadcasting Service) documentary series (O’Shea 2015), and David Brian Esch’s documentary ‘Trans Terrains: Indonesian Transgender Muslims’ (2016) were also screened and used as resources for discussion. Amplify went on yet another intermission in 2017.

2018 From 25th to 28th November 2018, Amplify was hosted by Tong-Kwang Light House Presbyterian Church and held at the Taipei Innovation City Convention Centre, Taiwan. Yvette A.  Flunder reprised her role as the keynote speaker of the 300 strong Conference, which adopted the additional name of ‘Amplify18: The Gathering of Open and LGBTIQ Affirming Churches in Asia’. ‘Supporting partners’ (激揚Amplify18) included the BigLove Alliance, Covenant of the Rainbow  – Campaign Toward a Truly Inclusive Church coalition (2020), Equally Beloved (2020), Taiwan LGBT Family Rights Advocacy (台灣同志家庭權益促進)

2  AMPLIFY OPEN AND AFFIRMING CONFERENCES 

51

(2011), Taiwan Tongzhi Hotline Association (台灣同志諮詢熱線協會) (n.d.), Equal Love (婚姻平權大平台) (n.d.), Student Christian Movement of Hong Kong (2015) and Love Church, also known as Living for Love Community (為愛而生聯盟) (2016). Amplify 2018 witnessed a slew of activities. Boon-lin Ngeo and Pauline Ong each moderated a panel entitled ‘Crossing Chasms – LGBTIQ and the Church’ in Mandarin and English respectively. Other panels which shared similar themes such as ‘Building Bridges: Listening to One Another’ and ‘Building Bridges  – Sharing Our Struggles’ were also held. There were also several workshops, such as Joe Wai-yap Pang’s ‘Spiritual Growth and Self Care for LGBT’, ‘Kintsugi  – Wholeness through Brokenness’ which was jointly facilitated by Ong and Love Church pastor Caelan Liu ( 劉子喜), and ‘Sexual Ethics  – Bringing Wholeness into Our Sex Lives’ with Joseph N. Goh and activist-scholar Lai-shan Yip. Other presentations which were built into the Conference included ‘Building Bridges: Redemption, Reconciliation, Restoration’ and ‘Building Churches: Imaging the Church for the Future’ moderated by Gary Chan, and ‘Queer Biblical Interpretation in Asian Chinese Context’ moderated by Pearl Wong (激揚Amplify18 2018). ‘The Shepherds’, film director Elvis Lu’s documentary chronicling the account of ‘a heterosexual female pastor [who] founded Taiwan’s first LGBT-affirming church in May 1996’ (2018) was also screened. For the first time in the history of the Conferences, the dates of Amplify were deliberately selected to coincide with the Taiwan LGBT Pride which took place on 27th October 2018. Taiwan’s LGBT Pride parades are the largest in Asia, and the one held in 2018 attracted more than 130,000 participants. The 2018 Pride theme, ‘Tell Your Story, Vote for Equality’ was an obvious reference to the battle for marriage equality which was eventually legalised by the Taiwanese Parliament on 17th May 2019 (Drillsma 2018; Wang 2019). As Amplify was the largest parade contingent, it was allowed to lead the parade. Nevertheless, it had held a press Conference just prior to the parade whereby ‘more than 30 international and local media agencies picked up the story’.21 Approximately thirty Christian ministers and leaders – myself included – collectively read out a Statement ‘to declare God’s love for all, to call for legislators to the repeal of laws that discriminate against LGBTIQ people and to urge churches to 21  Amplify 2018, email to participants entitled ‘Post Amplify 18 Event Wrap Up & Thank You’, 3rd November 2018.

52 

J. N. GOH

create safe and welcoming spaces for LGBTIQ people’.22 The brief 97-word Statement reads as follows: In the love of Christ, we pledge to stand with those who are oppressed and marginalised, to walk with those who seek to realise a fair, inclusive and just society, supporting equality. We will work together to end discrimination against sexual orientations, gender identities, gender expressions and sex characteristics until every person is free to love and be with the person they love, receiving the blessings from the church and society. Because of principles of love and justice, because of the calling of the spirit of Christ, here we stand together, and we can do no other (Amplify 2018 2018).

I gleaned additional insights into Amplify 2018 from my interviews with Amplify frontliners who were present at the Conference. Pearl Wong, for instance, refers to the activities at Amplify 2018 and previous Conferences as opportunities for participants to learn of affirming theologies that would enable them to embrace their own gender and sexual identities, such as feminist and queer theologies. Departing from their more patriarchal and heterosexist counterparts which tend to marginalise and subordinate women and LGBTIQ people, preserve heterosexual-homosexual and man-woman binaries, and portray an overarching view of sex as sinful or corrupted, feminist and queer theologies bear the potential to foster the notion that all human beings have been equally created and that sex is not inherently iniquitous. Such theologies, she asserts, must ‘stay transgressive [in order to] challenge normativity’.23 I also spoke with Boon-lin Ngeo who identifies the central theme of coming out in his presentations at Amplify 2018 and previous Conferences over the years as a method of rectifying the presumptions and misconceptions of churches in relation to LGBTIQ communities. He sees a parallel between the transformative potential of coming out among LGBTIQ Christians in churches and the self-disclosures of individuals in LGBTIQ-­ related human rights movements. Nevertheless, Ngeo recognises the crucial nuances of this process, as evident in this excerpt from my interview with him: I mean, coming out is not an event, it’s a lifelong process … Of course, we’re not saying that everyone have to come out now. We have to create conditions for people to come out. But that’s the only way for us to fight for  Ibid.  Skype interview, 7th December 2018.

22 23

2  AMPLIFY OPEN AND AFFIRMING CONFERENCES 

53

a better future, not only for ourselves, but if you want to change our lives, change our country, change our laws, we need to come out.

I was only able to speak briefly with the Assistant Programme Secretary in Christian Unity and Ecumenical Relations of the National Council of Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP) Irma Mepico Balaba during Amplify 2018, and was not able to contact her thereafter. Nonetheless, I wish to reproduce a part of her statement which was made during the English version of the ‘Crossing Chasms  – LGBTIQ and the Church’ panel at the Conference. This statement, which was eventually published on the National Council of Churches in the Philippines’ website, seemingly echoes Yvette A. Flunder’s call for a broader intersectional vision of marginalisation and inclusivity. Balaba insists that: Oppression … based on sexual orientation and gender identity is not solely rooted in the traditions and theological teachings of the Church, but is a product of broader social inequalities that afflict all peoples … In the Philippine context, as we shout for the LGBT rights, we also shout for the rights of the indigenous peoples and farmers who were killed because none of us is free until all of us are free from all forms of oppression (2018).24

Themes With the exception of 2010 (and the 2007 and 2008 FCC Worship Conferences), each Amplify Conference bears a specific theme. ‘New Vision, New Heart, New Anointing’ was the theme in 2009, ‘Follow You’ in 2011, ‘Transcending Boundaries  – Restoring Hope’ in 2012, ‘Live, Love, Lead’ in 2013, ‘Renewal’ in 2014, ‘Revolution’ in 2016 and ‘Rainbow Bridges’ in 2018. Themes were selected to provide navigational cues for participants to reflect on and formulate their own objectives and desired outcomes from participating in the Conferences. As Paul Lucas suggests, each theme ‘strives to send a coherent sort of message[, an] expected focus [or] key messages’.25 Commenting on the ‘Live, Love, Lead’ theme of 2013  in the Conference booklet, Lucas and Gary Chan intimated their hopes for participants ‘to better comprehend God’s mission as churches and individuals’ (quoted in 激揚 Amplify 13 2013, 3). Silas Kwok-yiu Wong focused  I return to this issue of broader inclusivity in Chap. 6.  Skype interview, 6th November 2018.

24 25

54 

J. N. GOH

on the Chinese translation of the theme as an encouragement for ‘every participant to experience how “cool” it is to love God, and to make us aware that this “intense” love is the path “queer” believers must travel’ (quoted in 激揚 Amplify 13 2013, 1). I suggest that Wong’s idea of being ‘cool’ in loving God serves to reinforce the notion of active Christian practice as current, attractive, viable, pertinent and beneficial for both LGBTIQ and non-LGBTIQ people in Asia, but in particular for the former who have long been excluded from, or positioned at the periphery of ‘valid’ Christian identity. Wong himself ‘had left the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church over his views on the liberation of LGBT persons (which were inconsistent with the strict fundamentalist teachings of the denomination)’ (Collett 2010). The theme ‘Rainbow Bridges’ for Amplify 2018 was chosen as an extension of the Amplify 2016 theme of ‘Revolution’ and, according to Chan when I interviewed him, denoted how God is turning … all things upside down … about God doing a new thing with us and to encourage people to really break out and watch where God is and to follow … and not to try and doing things the same way over and over again and try and do things on their own … so it’s a revolution that’s based on love and there’s a reason why the word ‘love’ is embedded in the word ‘revolution’ … rethink what loving one another and loving God looks like.

Chan’s narrative demonstrates a belief in the interminably evolving activity of God in the world and God’s desire for human beings to follow suit instead of resting on routine and complacence. God’s act of ‘turning … all things upside down’ and ‘doing a new thing with [people]’ can be articulated as God’s act of deconstructing human endeavours while spurring their sense of constructive creativity, and motivating them towards unprecedented methods of operation that are guided by the love of God and each other. I suggest that Chan is alluding to God’s act of queering, which is also God’s act of loving ‘revolution’. In hindsight, Chan understands the selection of ‘Rainbow Bridges’ as premised on a conviction that ‘it was on the heart of God that we were called towards reconciliation’26 on numerous levels. In one of Amplify 2018’s promotional e-posters, the notion of ‘bridges’ was elaborated and  Skype interview, 5th November 2018.

26

2  AMPLIFY OPEN AND AFFIRMING CONFERENCES 

55

enumerated as ‘Bridge to Faith’, ‘Bridge to LGBTIQ Community’, ‘Bridge to Christian Church’, ‘Bridge to Justice in Asia’, ‘Bridge to Affirming Ministries’ and ‘Bridge to Authentic Identity’ (激揚 Amplify Projects 2018, 18). ‘Rainbow Bridges’ thus acted as a focal point around which crucial conversations of reconciliation and connection could be anchored, and pave the way for ongoing revolutionary ideas on discerning and pursuing the will of God for open and affirming churches in Asia. Boon-lin Ngeo sees the ‘Rainbow Bridges’ theme as an impetus for LGBTIQ communities to build bridges with society, particularly for churches to form alliances with social movements. As he says in this interview extract: It’s not about our own lives, it’s about [how] our lives are highly intertwined … with other Christian[s] … we can’t only sit for our personal happiness, or liberation. But to also fight for other folks. And in order to fight for other folks … we need to communicate with other people.

Ngeo aptly points out that the focus of Amplify is on ‘intertwined’ interdependence and communication between participating churches and social movements rather than independent ecclesial, political or social interests. This quality of interdependence is also highly regarded by Silas Kwok-yiu Wong who holds that LGBTIQ-affirming churches cannot toil solely for their agendas but need to ‘coordinate [and] cooperate with different parties’.27 Ngeo’s thoughts are echoed in Pearl Wong’s suggestion that the notion of bridging was concretised in the gathering of LGBTIQ Christians and allies in Taiwan to support same-sex marriage rights. ‘Rainbow Bridges’ was thus an exercise of solidarity among open and affirming churches in Asia for Taiwan as well as, in Wong’s words, to ‘join hands in … advancing [same-sex marriage] legislation in their own countries’.28 For Pauline Ong, there is more at stake in bridge-building than the solidarity of open and affirming churches for marriage equality as Wong suggests, or collaborations between these churches and social movements as propounded by Ngeo. Owing to the fact that ‘a lot of the mainstream churches were the ones who were the loudest opposition’29 of same-sex 27  Face-to-face interview, 26th October 2018. The issue of collaboration between churches, and between churches and non-ecclesial organisations and movements appears variously throughout this volume. 28  Skype interview, 7th December 2018. 29  Skype interview, 28th November 2018.

56 

J. N. GOH

marriages, she sees the importance for bridge-building to take place between open and affirming churches and ‘mainstream’ churches, or churches which are either ignorant of, or unamenable to marriage equality.

Doing Solidarity Amplify has journeyed from being a simple and humble retreat for FCC’s worship team to being an international event which offers open and affirming churches the opportunities to worship together, participate in LGBTIQ-friendly faith formation and personal development workshops, discuss methods of doing church, exchange personal, socio-political and ecclesial narratives of successes, struggles and ambitions, and engage in collective projects of human rights and social justice. Renowned gay and lesbian faith leaders, theologians and activists from around the globe have shared their wisdom through keynote speeches, sermons, presentations and workshop facilitations. LGBTIQ-affirming fellowships have been inspired by, and sprung from these Conferences. The Amplify Stakeholders Presentation describes the vision of Amplify as creating ‘a world where every individual belongs and lives for peace, restoration and wholeness of all relationships and creation’. It also affirms its mission and values to ‘celebrate God’s love for all[,] champion a progressive approach to faith formation[,] connect people of all diversities to inclusive communities [and] contribute to development, wholeness and growth of open and affirming individuals and communities’ (2020). This sophisticated articulation of vision, mission and values is cognisant that ‘a theology that is not affected by the lives of people taking into account their existential needs and problems and the socio-political circumstances, turns out to be a-historical and non-affective’ (Athappilly 2014, 28), and demonstrates how Amplify is increasingly becoming a potent force of Christian communal discernment at the intersection of life, society, politics, jurisprudence and faith.

Bibliography Alston, Macky. 2012. Love Free or Die. Documentary. Amplify ’12. 2012. Amplify ’12 Church + Life Conference. Publicity Slides. Amplify 2010. 2010. Amplify 2010 Conference. Publicity Slides. Amplify 2012. 2012a. Amplify 2012 Promotional Poster. ———. 2012b. Amplify 2012 Stream Workshop.

2  AMPLIFY OPEN AND AFFIRMING CONFERENCES 

57

———. 2012c. Amplify Workshop Detail (Version 4). Amplify 2018. 2018. Amplify 2018 Taipei Statement. 激揚Amplify⑱. 2018. http://amplifyasia.org/amplify18-­taipei-­statement-­en/ Amplify Ministries. 2020. Amplify Asia  – Open and Affirming. https://amplifyasia.org/ Amplify Stakeholders Presentation: Evolving the Future of AMPLIFY’. 2020. January 17. Astorga, Christina. 2016. The Triple Cries of Poor, Women, and the Earth: Interlocking Oppressions in the Christian Context. In Doing Asian Theological Ethics in a Cross-Cultural and an Interreligious Context, ed. Yiu-sing Lúcás Chan, James F. Keenan, and Shaji George Kochuthara, 250–262. Bengaluru: Dharmaram Publications. Athappilly, Sebastian. 2014. Theology of the Heart: Towards an Affective Theology. Bangalore: Dharmaram Publications. BigLove Alliance 大愛同盟. 2017. BigLove Alliance 大愛同盟. http://biglovealliance.org/ Cartledge, Mark J. 2016. Renewal Theology and the “Common Good”. Journal of Pentecostal Theology 25 (1): 90–106. Cartledge, Mark J., and A.J. Swoboda, eds. 2016. Scripting Pentecost: A Study of Pentecostals, Worship and Liturgy. New York: Routledge. Clarke, Sathianathan. 2012. The Task, Method and Content of Asian Theologies. In Asian Theology on the Way: Christianity, Culture and Context, ed. Peniel Jesudason Rufus Rajkumar, 3–13. London: SPCK. Collett, Nigel. 2010. Fellowship and Faith: Hong Kong’s Blessed Minority Christian Fellowship. http://www.fridae.asia/gay-­news/2010/04/02/9798. fellowship-­and-­faith-­hong-­kongs-­blessed-­minority-­christian-­fellowship Courage Singapore. 2017. About Our SD. http://courage.org.sg/reflections/ Covenant of the Rainbow. 2020. Campaign Toward a Truly Inclusive Church Coalition in Hong Kong. https://rainbowcovenant.com.hk/en/ Drillsma, Ryan. 2018. 2018 Taiwan LGBT Pride: A Photo Story. Taiwan News, October 27. https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3562150. Edman, Elizabeth M. 2016. Queer Virtue: What LGBTQ People Know About Life and Love and How It Can Revitalize Christianity. Boston: Beacon Press. Equal Love (婚姻平權大平台). n.d. Equal Love (婚姻平權大平台). http://www. equallove.tw/. Accessed 3 Apr 2020. Equally Beloved. 2020. Equally Beloved. https://www.equallybeloved. com/contacts/ Esch, David Brian. 2016. Trans Terrains: Indonesian Transgender Muslims. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00IMmwx5YY8 Farley, Margaret A. 2008. Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics. London: Continuum. Free Community Church. 2009. FCC Worship Conference 2009. Publicity Slides.

58 

J. N. GOH

———. 2011. FCC Retreat 2011. Publicity Slides. Fridae.asia. 2020. Fridae: Connecting Gay Asia. https://www.fridae.asia/ Garrigan, Siobhan. 2009. Queer Worship. Theology & Sexuality 15 (2): 211–230. Goh, Joseph N. 2014a. Amplify 2014: All-Asia Open and Affirming Church and Life Conference in Singapore. New & Features, October 6. https://www.fridae.asia/lifestyle/2014/10/06/12716.amplify-­2 014-­a ll-­a sia-­o pen-­a nd­affirming-­church-­and-­life-­conference-­in-­singapore ———. 2014b. Report from Jakarta: The International Consultation on Church and Homophobia. Weblog. Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality, December 5. http://aacre.org/ report-­jakarta-­international-­consultation-­church-­homophobia/ ———. 2016. “Why Is It Wrong?”: Conceptualisations of Sexual Wrongdoing and Sexual Ethics among Gay-Identifying Malaysian Men. In Doing Asian Theological Ethics in a Cross-Cultural and an Interreligious Context, ed. Yiu-­ sing Lúcás Chan, James F. Keenan, and Shaji George Kochuthara, 347–360. Bengaluru: Dharmaram Publications. ———. 2019. Practical Guidelines for SOGIESC Theologising in Southeast Asia: Foregrounding Gender Nonconformity, Sexual Diversity and Non-Dyadic Embodiment. In Siapakah Sesamaku? Pergumulan Teologi Dengan Isu-Isu Keadilan Gender, ed. Stephen Suleeman and Amadeo D. Udampoh, 185–210. Jakarta: Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Theologi Jakarta. ———. 2020. Looking Queerly Through the Heart: Towards a Southeast Asian Praxis of Doing Church with LGBTIQ/PLHIV.  In Gender and Sexuality Justice in Asia: Finding Resolutions through Conflicts, ed. Joseph N.  Goh, Sharon A. Bong, and Thaatchaayini Kananatu, 185–201. Singapore: Springer. Hillsong Church. n.d. Hillsong Conference. https://hillsong.com/conference/. Accessed 3 Mar 2020. Ichwan, Juswantori. 2019. The Importance of Spirituality Among Indonesian Gay Christian Male in Partnership. In Siapakah Sesamaku? Pergumulan Teologi Dengan Isu-Isu Keadilan Gender, ed. Stephen Suleeman and Amadeo D. Udampoh, 237–247. Jakarta: Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Theologi Jakarta. Ko, Raymond. 2012. Over 300 from LGBTQ-Friendly Churches Attend Christian Conference in Hong Kong. http://www.fridae.asia/gay-­ news/2012/07/24/11816.over-­3 00-­f rom-­l gbtq-­f riendly-­c hurches-­ attend-­christian-­conference-­in-­hong-­kong Li, Sam. n.d. Amplify Conference Fact Sheet. Love Church (為愛而生聯盟). 2016. Love Church (為愛而生聯盟). https:// www.facebook.com/pg/BornforloveLiveforlove/about/?ref=page_internal Lovelace, Richard F. 1979. Dynamics of Spiritual Life: An Evangelical Theology of Renewal. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Lu, Elvis. 2018. The Shepherds. Documentary.

2  AMPLIFY OPEN AND AFFIRMING CONFERENCES 

59

National Council of Churches in the Philippines. 2018. NCCP as Panelist of the Amplify 18 in Taiwan. News: Sexuality and Reproductive Health, October 29. https://nccphilippines.org/2018/10/29/nccp-­as-­panelist-­of-­the-­amplify-­18­in-­taiwan/ Nur Asyiqin Mohamad Salleh. 2017. Bishop and LGBT Advocate Yap Kim Hao Dies of Heart Failure at Age 88. The Straits Times, November 16. https:// w w w. s t r a i t s t i m e s . c o m / s i n g a p o r e / b i s h o p -­a n d -­l g b t -­a d v o c a t e -­ yap-­kim-­hao-­dies-­of-­heart-­failure-­at-­age-­88 O’Shea, David. 2015. Dateline: High Heels and Hijabs. Documentary. Ong, Pauline. 2017. Towards a Responsible and Life-Giving Ministry with and among Sexual and Gender Minorities. In A Theological Reader on Human Sexuality and Gender Diversities: Envisioning Inclusivity, ed. Roger Gaikwad and Thomas Ninan, 333–344. New Delhi: ISPCK/NCCI. PR Team STFT Jakarta. n.d. Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Theologi Jakarta. http:// sttjakarta.ac.id/?q=englishpage. Accessed 3 Mar 2020. Queer Affirming Fellowship (酷兒團契). 2018. Queer Affirming Fellowship (酷兒 團契). https://www.facebook.com/qaf.hk/ Shore-Goss, Robert E. 2013. Introduction: Queering the Table. In Queering Christianity: Finding a Place at the Table for LGBTQI Christians, ed. Robert E.  Shore-Goss, Thomas Bohache, Patrick S.  Cheng, and Mona West, 1–24. Santa Barbara: Praeger. Studebaker, Steven M. 2016. A Pentecostal Political Theology for American Renewal Spirit of the Kingdoms, Citizens of the Cities. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Student Christian Movement of Hong Kong. 2015. Student Christian Movement of Hong Kong. https://www.scmhk.org/?lang=en Taiwan LGBT Family Rights Advocacy. 2011. Taiwan LGBT Family Rights Advocacy (台灣同志家庭權益促進會). https://www.lgbtfamily.org.tw/ index_en.php Taiwan Tongzhi Hotline Association (台灣同志諮詢熱線協會). n.d. Taiwan Tongzhi Hotline Association (台灣同志諮詢熱線協會). https://hotline.org. tw/english. Accessed 3 Apr 2020. Vickers, Jason E. 2011. Minding the Good Ground: A Theology for Church Renewal. Waco: Baylor University Press. Wang, Amber. 2019. #LoveWon: Taiwan Legalises Same-Sex Marriage in Landmark First for Asia. Hong Kong Free Press, May 17, sec. Law & Crime. https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/05/17/breaking-­taiwan-­legalises-­sex­marriage-­landmark-­first-­asia/ Yap, Kim-hao. 2020. Toward Radical Inclusion. In Unlocking Orthodoxies for Inclusive Theologies: Queer Alternatives, ed. Robert E. Shore-Goss and Joseph N. Goh, 27–33. New York: Routledge. Yip, Lai-shan. 2017. Towards an Affirming Sexual Ethics and Spirituality. In A Theological Reader on Human Sexuality and Gender Diversities: Envisioning

60 

J. N. GOH

Inclusivity, ed. Roger Gaikwad and Thomas Ninan, 245–258. New Delhi: ISPCK/NCCI. 激揚 Amplify 13. 2013. 激揚 Amplify 13: All Asia “Open & Affirming” Church + Life Conference. 激揚 Amplify 13. 激揚 Amplify 14. 2014. 激揚 Amplify 14: All Asia “Open & Affirming” Church + Life Conference. Publicity Slides. 激揚 AMPLIFY 2018. 2018. 激揚 AMPLIFY 2018 – 會議記錄 Event Report – 中 英字幕 with English and Chinese Subtitles. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=49wnrlKMIW8 激揚 Amplify Projects. 2018. 激揚Amplify18. Facebook. Posts, June 1. https:// www.facebook.com/amplifyprojects/photos/a.261314990734800/ 914582288741397/?type=3&theater 激揚Amplify18. 2018. 激揚Amplify18 Conference Guide (English Version).

CHAPTER 3

An Ecclesiology of Interminable Flourishing

They shall again live beneath my shadow, they shall flourish as a garden; they shall blossom like the vine, their fragrance shall be like the wine of Lebanon —Hosea 14.7 I have set before you life and death ... Choose life so that you … may live —Deuteronomy 30.19 But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ —Ephesians 4.15

Life, Not Death This chapter aims at uncovering Amplify’s potential to generate life-­ serving elements that contribute to the flourishing of open and affirming churches, namely through the forging of intersecting identities, the creation of community, and the fostering of mutual learning and interdependence, even if flourishing neither occurs in a linear nor absolute fashion.1 The idea of ‘flourishing’ is deliberately used here as an antonym to 1  This chapter builds on responses from my informants on what they understood as the goals and objectives of Amplify, and the differences they experienced between their own churches and ministries and the Conferences. See Appendix for more details.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. N. Goh, Doing Church at the Amplify Open and Affirming Conferences, Asian Christianity in the Diaspora, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73314-8_3

61

62 

J. N. GOH

‘withering’ or even ‘decay’, terms which are often reflected in the perceptions and presumptions of many non-affirming churches in relation to the personal, social and spiritual states of LGBTIQ people. In many instances, the prevalent theological and ecclesial metanarratives that gender-variant and sexually diverse people are spiritually impoverished help buttress the idea that they are destined for personal disintegration and social ruin, and unbefitting of church membership if they persist in their ‘immoralities’. An example may help elucidate my point about flourishing and withering. One of the major Christian opponents of LGBTIQ people in Singapore is Faith Community Baptist Church (FCBC) pastor Lawrence Khong who has been at the forefront of vitriolic anti-LGBTIQ sentiments and campaigning against Pink Dot (2020), a movement and an annual gathering of LGBTIQ Singaporeans and allies for gender and sexuality justice. In one of his public Facebook postings, Khong alludes to death in describing LGBTIQ people, specifically people with same-sex attraction: Some get angry at me for calling what they do as sin. For example, pornography, drug abuse, molestation, homosexuality, adultery, etc. … However, like a physician, the most cruel thing to do is to tell a patient that his cancer is ok [sic] … This is the deception I see occurring around the world in regard to morality. If the gay who practises anal sex says ‘I am born this way, so give me my rights’, why can’t the pedophile and all those who practise incest, necrophilia and beastiality [sic] say the same thing (2014; added emphasis).

People with same-sex attraction are reduced by Khong to little more than masculine embodiments of sexual acts – the person who engages in homosexuality is ‘the gay who practises anal sex’ (added emphasis).2 His vituperations seem to be directed solely at gay men, but I suggest that he is speaking of LGBTIQ people in general. By mentioning ‘cancer’ and paralleling homosexuality with the use of erotic material, indiscriminate drug use, non-consensual and violent sexual acts, ‘incest, necrophilia and [bestiality]’, Khong reveals a personal crusade of being a truthful,  divinely mandated ‘physician’. He unproblematically proclaims all these actions as sinful, and places same-sex attraction on equal footing with both terminal physical maladies (‘cancer’) and psychological ailments (‘necrophilia’). What I find particularly noteworthy is Khong’s mention of necrophilic 2  While both men and women with same-sex attraction may use the term ‘gay’, the term is predominantly utilised by men in the Singaporean context.

3  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF INTERMINABLE FLOURISHING 

63

tendencies which likely exposes his perception of LGBTIQ people as bearing a bizarre attraction to death, probably through Khong’s own association of LGBTIQ people with HIV and AIDS. Same-sexual sexual expressions, as such, are one of many sinful human deeds which will inevitably lead to certain death. That Khong’s wife and co-pastor of his megachurch Nina has ‘referred to HIV as divine punishment meted out on gay people in a Facebook posting in 2014’ (Goh 2017, 134) reflects a common perception that LGBTIQ people are deserving of, and destined for both physical and spiritual death (see Wijaya Mulya 2019). Moreover, the mentality of spiritual death robs LGBTIQ people of their identities as spiritual beings on their own terms, denies them the solace and support of community, and undermines their capacity to discern, construct and transmit spiritual epistemologies. The attitudes of the Khongs demonstrate that theology often ‘knows little about love outside the heterosexual ideological constructions which sustain Christianity’ (Althaus-Reid 2007). ‘Flourishing’, as such, serves as a theological counternarrative of love and life to death-dealing rhetoric. Spiritual flourishing cannot occur, however, without a practical provision of spaces for physical flourishing as a prerequisite in the context of Amplify. Gary Chan recounts the various factors that he took under consideration when he was selecting venues for Amplify. A major determining factor deals with the practical logistics of space: Goh:

Over the years, you’ve had very different venues, ranging from Hong Kong to KL3 to Jakarta and now to Taipei. Why did you choose these locations? Chan: So, there are a few reasons. One is that the capacity or the estimated capacity. Erm, as we got bigger, in terms of the number of participants, we needed to find venues that were able to accommodate that group of people. Second, we decided that we wanted to do Amplify where people were willing to host us and help with the on-ground logistics. Erm, so we always set up Amplify in a country or city where there was local church support to help us with the liaising with the venue, the, the catering … We wanted Amplify to be hosted by different churches and not, so it would

3

 Kuala Lumpur.

64 

J. N. GOH

not be seen as an FCC or BMCF4 thing … the third would be, if we’re gonna do a rally and a work stream, kind of breakout kind of format, then you’d better have a room that’s big enough.5 Chan acknowledges that a rise in ‘the number of participants’ warrants increasingly larger spaces, which can subsequently facilitate rallies, ‘work stream[s]’ or workshops and ‘breakout’ sessions. He also highlights the necessity of collaboration with other ‘local church[es]’ beyond FCC and HKBMCF, the Amplify co-founders’ affiliated churches, to facilitate the ‘on-ground logistics’ for the Conferences such as ‘liaising with the venue’ and ‘catering’. Chan is not merely detailing the need for cooperation and support in orchestrating practical logistical matters as his desire for the democratisation and shared ownership of Amplify. He seems to imply that the selection of appropriate physical spaces enables the undertaking of sharing space for open and affirming churches to express their faith identities and experience godly grace in community. As Emmanuel S. de Guzman aptly expresses, ‘space is physical but it is also a locus of construction of identity, history, and relationship’ (2015, 84). Chan also admits to the selection and preservation of safe spaces as important considerations: Erm, safe spaces, right. Obviously we wanted to make sure that the venue owner was not going to call the police on us, or that people’s safety wasn’t going to be at risk, in any way. So we tried to minimise … places like Malaysia, that, we don’t want to do it in too public a venue, so having a private event at a hotel was quite safe … And for that reason … there’s never been a proper … main gathering in China, because even within the hotel, they are going to rat out on you.

Chief among Chan’s worries is the risk of being ‘rat[ted] out’, or reported to ‘the police’ at venues which are designated for Amplify-related activities. His concerns are not unfounded. The reference to Malaysia is poignant due to the criminalisation of same-sex sexual expressions. A simple gathering of LGBTIQ people could easily be construed as illegal, perhaps even on par with ‘aberrant’ sexual activities. Additionally, Islamic 4  Hong Kong Blessed Minority Christian Fellowship, which became Blessed Ministry Community Church (BMCC) on 25th July 2016. Information provided by Jason Man-bo Ho, Facebook Messenger communication, 3rd March 2020. 5  Unless indicated otherwise, all indented block quotations in this chapter are derived from interviews with key informants.

3  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF INTERMINABLE FLOURISHING 

65

authorities have been known to raid events deemed as subversive or contrary to Islamic values and Malaysian laws over the years, such as a purported orgy involving several gay men (The Star Online 2019), a fundraising event organised by the Damansara United Methodist Church (DUMC) which supposedly aimed at proselytising Muslims (Malaysiakini 2011), and a transgender beauty pageant (Boo 2016). Chan’s mention of ‘a private event at a hotel’ refers to Amplify 2011 which was framed as the FCC Retreat 2011 and held in Kuala Lumpur. The avoidance of ‘too public a venue’ in this respect is a distinct measure to ensure ‘that people’s safety wasn’t going to be at risk’, namely people who are vulnerable due to gender and sexual identities and practices which are outlawed by both state and religion. The importance of holding faith-themed LGBTIQ events in supportive and affirming spaces cannot be over-emphasised (Masequesmay 2011; McQueeney 2009; Sanders 2013; Zachariah 2017). Chan’s mention of China is also significant as LGBTIQ mainland Chinese are often pressured into secrecy, reparative therapy, familial rejection, social discrimination and bullying, opposite-sex relationships, childbearing, and experience various difficulties in health-related issues (Dong 2016; Wang et al. 2019). Moreover, as activist and Chairperson of Hong Kong’s 2019 Queer Theologies Project for Asian Chinese Christians Eric Sin points out, ‘sexual minorities in the Chinese Church continue to be marginalised, discriminated and forced to be closeted’ (quoted in Queer Theology Academy 2019, 8; added emphasis). There is an absence of specific laws that penalise same-sex sexual behaviours in China and Hong Kong. Yet, Chan is evidently aware that a culturally driven climate of suspicion and stigmatisation renders China an inappropriate venue for Amplify. Physical, emotional and mental wellbeing are an irrefutable priority in the pursuit of sharing space for doing church.

Continuous Thriving My ecclesiological musings in this chapter are guided by my position that ecclesiologies must serve the purpose of fostering human flourishing in order for human beings to ‘have life, and have it abundantly’ (John 10.10), and thus thrive in accordance with the will of the Maker who ‘saw everything that [had been] made, and indeed, it was very good’ (Genesis 1.31). In considering how so much of Asia continues to be subjected to extreme poverty, violence and gender discrimination, Gemma Tulud Cruz describes Asian theologising as one of survival, and marked by

66 

J. N. GOH

courage and creativity … ‘making a way out of no way’ … a way of individually and collectively dealing with oppressive conditions whereby religion is used to make sense of and survive the oppression and life events are infused with religious meanings [whereby] God’s support is sought to the point that God becomes the element of necessity and trust in God is complete (2012, 80).

The deeply intuitive undertones of theologising from the crude realities that still beset countless Asian people is unmistakable, and I applaud Cruz’s empathetic efforts in this regard. Many struggle just to stay afloat, and survival is the sole lifeline that prevents them from drifting towards extinguishment. Nevertheless, I believe that theological labours serve purposes beyond survival. Theologising must be a proactive force which helps to propel human beings from merely surviving to thriving. I find Grace M. Jantzen’s philosophical and theological idea of ‘flourishing’, which argues that a more life-giving framework is necessary to disrupt and recast the traditional notion of salvation, extremely helpful in articulating my thoughts. Flourishing concentrates on thriving in the here and now in contradistinction with a normative notion of salvation which is frequently ‘embedded in an imaginary of death’ (Jantzen 1998, 159) as a consequence of evildoing, and thereby lunges towards the liberative escape of the thereafter as its goal for human existence. Common interpretations of the Christian economy are saturated with, and often centre on salvific formulations that are touted as the accomplishment of salvation in the afterlife, following an ethically productive life in the human realm as based on the teachings of Christ and procured through his redemptive mysteries. Flourishing troubles the focus of salvation as an ethereal project. It foregrounds fleshy materialities as the more appropriate arena for the unfolding of salvation. It recasts the very notion of salvation itself from being a disembodied treatise on liberation from deplorably sinful human existence, and eventual otherworldly reward and punishment, to the pursuit of human potentiality and growth. In contrast with a traditional sense of salvation that advocates reliance on a divine rescue mission from the squalor of human wretchedness, flourishing is an imagery which affirms the potential for human thriving that wells up from within an individual and through interdependent relationships. Jakob Hero notes that ‘a theological anthropology that espouses an image of human beings as inherently broken, flawed, and in need of fixing is an incredible hindrance to human flourishing’ (2012, 148). Flourishing

3  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF INTERMINABLE FLOURISHING 

67

thus ‘denotes abundance, overflowing with vigour and energy and productiveness, prosperity, success, and good health’ (Jantzen 1998, 160). Flourishing recognises the importance of a faith system with strong political investments that promotes human wellbeing in its practical implications, as ‘sick people, starving people, people whose existence is miserable because they lack the necessities of physical and psychological wellbeing cannot be said to be flourishing’ (Jantzen 1998, 167). Flourishing sees Christianity as achieving its most powerful and productive form when it deploys all its available resources to foster holistic human development. The need for human beings to flourish is also captured in the theological insights of the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences (FABC) that denounce ‘whatever threatens, weakens, diminishes and destroys the life of individuals, groups or peoples; whatever devalues human beings, conceived, born, infant, old; whatever socio-cultural, religious, political, economic, or environmental factor that threatens or destroys life in our countries’ (1995, 83–84). Conversely, the FABC upholds a vision of holistic life … that is achieved and entrusted to every person and every community of persons, regardless of gender, creed or culture, class or color. It is the fruit of integral development, the authentic development of the whole person and of every person (1995, 85; original emphasis).

What I can glean from the FABC is a theological attitude of upholding human life and fostering its holistic development. Asian churches, as such, are called to espouse an ecclesiology that can ‘embody a vision of life’ (Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences 1995, 85). ‘Gender’ appears as an obvious allusion to issues such as violence against women, and the multi-pronged disparity between women and men in accessing social resources. LGBTIQ issues evidently do not form part of the FABC’s teachings here, but I find the mention of ‘gender’ relevant for considering the discrepancies in attitudes towards normative and non-normative genders, and by extension, sexual desires and physical genitalia. In this context, ‘holistic life’ is cognisant that ‘what has been negative, abusive, painful, and destructive about sexuality and embodiment needs to be in dialogue with what has been life-giving and a blessing’ (Voelkel 2017, xviii). Nevertheless, thriving never attains the telos of absolute achievement. Interminability – the condition of being continuous, ceaseless, tentative, imperfect and incomplete – is cognisant that flourishing is never a point of arrival whereby an individual has perfected the embodiment of human and

68 

J. N. GOH

Christian living. The idea of ‘interminable flourishing’ acknowledges that flourishing is a work-in-progress, ‘a becoming – a growing into, a journeying to life and to the source of life’ (Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences 1995, 85). It demolishes a utopic view of thriving as it realises that flourishing is simultaneously heightened and hindered by specific geopolitical, economic, socio-cultural and other life-impacting contexts for both individuals and communities. Interminability also acknowledges that flourishing manifests itself in accordance with limited and specific temporalities and spatialities, rather than proliferate universally and normatively in timelessness and spacelessness.

Expanding Intersecting Identities of Gender, Sexuality, Biology and Faith For many LGBTIQ Christians, identities of gender, sexuality and biology – including indeterminate and liminal categories of being non-binary or genderqueer – are as crucial to the production of their subjective identity as the beliefs and practices of their faith (Bong 2020; Greenough 2018; Ichwan 2019; A.  K. T.  Yip 2007). Yet many find that they are coerced into choosing between being either LGBTIQ or Christian. This is particularly true in faith communities where these identities are seen as incompatible and mutually exclusive. The demand to choose one identity over another is an act of violence for LGBTIQ Christians, as it forces them to deny, negate and relinquish one deeply embodied experience in order to ‘legitimately’ preserve another. At Amplify, the space provided by open and affirming churches to maintain and celebrate these intersecting identities is expanded. As evident from his pastoral and theological writings (for example, 2013), Miak Siew is no stranger to the aggression which has been fielded at LGBTIQ communities by non-affirming churches that find the nexus of faith, gender variance and sexual diversity both ludicrous and blasphemous. Any effort on the part of open and affirming churches to do church is thus invalidated in the eyes of such churches, and Amplify is no exception. Yet, as Siew now realises and as he explains to me: Amplify has … reached the point where we are able to say we are the church. I think some of us have grown up to the point that we openly declare we are the church, you cannot tell us otherwise, we are part of the body of Christ.

3  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF INTERMINABLE FLOURISHING 

69

Siew’s narrative implies that Amplify has been subjected to accusations of not being properly and legitimately church, possibly by Asian Christian hierarchical institutions and communities that are similar to Khong’s FCBC. It has become evident to him, however, that Amplify has reached a level of development, maturity, courage and confidence to declare unequivocally and unabashedly to sceptics and antagonists that it is church and has the right to do church. Siew constructs this declaration on the biblical imagery of ‘the body of Christ’. To interpret his words, I will momentarily background discussions on the body of Christ in the epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians in order to concentrate on ‘dissensions in the community of Corinth [which led Paul] to evoke the image of the community as the Body of Christ rooted in the eucharistic Body of the Lord’ (Amaladoss 1998, 103). As Paul insists, ‘for just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ … you are the body of Christ and individually members of it’ (1 Corinthians 12.12–13, 27). Paul’s imagery gestures towards two important theological ideas that I am applying to Siew’s words. First, by insisting that ‘we’ – Amplify and its participating churches  – are ‘part of the body of Christ’, Siew firmly embeds them in the overarching corpus of the Christian community as well as in the person of Christ himself. Siew dismisses any insinuation that they are disqualified from doings of faith and church. Instead, he claims a space in Christianity for Amplify and LGBTIQ-affirming churches, and insists that they need to be accorded the respect to which they are entitled as communities of Christ. It is only when discriminatory exclusion ceases that the body of Christ becomes more fully realised. An unconditional inclusivity is thus adamant that ‘just as the corporeal body is dependent upon its many parts, the Body of Christ is empowered when there is mutual respect within its many members’ (Reagan 2013, 51). Second, the adamant assertion of being ‘part of the body of Christ’ emphasises the notion of dialogical unity in diversity  – a unity which attempts ‘to overcome the unhealthy divisions and competitions in the Christian world and to give common witness as one unbroken, reconciled body of Christ’ (Theophilose 2013, 18), and which can exist within what I see as an ‘agreeing-to-disagree’ ecclesiological framework. To paraphrase a popular saying, unity does not necessarily mean uniformity. It proves useful at this juncture to reproduce other verses from the same epistle to flesh out the significance of Siew’s statement:

70 

J. N. GOH

Indeed, the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot were to say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body’, that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear were to say, ‘Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body’, that would not make it any less a part of the body (12.14–16; added emphasis).

As argued earlier, Siew sees LGBTIQ people as indisputable members of the body of Christ, as full and valid members of the Christian community who are called to ‘live the gospel and bear prophetic witness to it in society challenging it to conversion’ (Amaladoss 1998, 42), even if they have been relegated to the realms of deviance and iniquity by Christian authorities that see LGBTIQ people as lesser or inferior. By inserting Amplify as ‘part of the body of Christ’, Siew foregrounds the gift of difference and variety that LGBTI people bring to the doings of church – that ‘the presence of Queer [and transgender] Christians is transformative to the ecclesial body of Christ’ (Rosenau 2020, 43) on numerous levels of belief, witness and ministry (see also Lowe 2017; Mollenkott 2009). Using Evangeline Anderson-Rajkumar’s words, I suggest that for Siew, Amplify emulates ‘the Body of Jesus [which] affirms and leads the way in de-­ politicising the body in the framework of justice’, and denounces ideologies in which the bodies of LGBTIQ people are unjustly ‘negated or denied or rejected’ (2004, 106) in ecclesial polities. Amplify thus subverts and displaces an insidious sense of entitlement and worth to doing church that is underpinned by cissexism and heterosexism. Mark D. Jordan posits that ‘the church is the open body of Christ’ and ‘if the church is indeed the body of the risen Christ, its forms might be as unusual as that risen body – and as liable to be misrecognized’ (2012, 28). LGBTIQ-affirming churches, which suffer (initial) misidentification as aberrations of Christianity, are body-spurned and body-shamed due to various dissimilarities with their cisnormative and heteronormative counterparts. Nevertheless at Amplify, LGBTIQ-affirming churches are (re) acknowledged and (re)hailed into life-giving (re)identification through open ecclesial attitudes without being coerced to resemble their non-­ affirming counterparts. Jason Man-bo Ho conceptualises the body of Christ by using a familial imagery:

3  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF INTERMINABLE FLOURISHING 

71

I think we are all one body in Christ. BMCC6 is not alone … we need to care about what other churches in the region, what other inclusive ministries are doing. We have to know what GSKL7 is doing, we have to know what’s happening to our brother or sister churches in China. So if we don’t know about what they need … the struggles they’re going through … we do not know our family. Which should not happen in a family, especially to LGBT inclusive communities in organised faith communities in Asia … So we are actually pretty alone on our own … if we do not understand what our other parts of our body is doing … we are just isolating ourselves further from our faith community.

By addressing the potential of BMCC to fall into ecclesial solipsism, Ho highlights the need for all ‘organised faith communities in Asia … in the region’ to grow in mutual awareness of their activities and tribulations as communally communicative acts of sharing since ‘the concept of the body of Christ suggests an interconnectedness of churches and Christians globally’ (van Klinken 2010, 447). The imagery of ‘one body in Christ’ harkens to ‘the body [as] a litmus test that members of the community should feel connected and united’ (Kim 2013, 26). ‘Asian theology’, as Sathianathan Clarke avers, ‘is personal but not private’ (2012, 5). I further suggest that Ho also draws a parallel between ecclesial fellowship and traditionally conservative Confucian views of family life. Namsoon Kang writes that ‘the family is enshrined as a sacred community … the natural basis for all moral and political behavior and the most biologically rooted of all human institutions’ (2004, 172). Members of a family are expected to actively and continuously perform familial awareness and support. As ‘the family is considered … a model for all human social organization’ (Kang 2004, 173), and as Asian Christianity is often both church- and family-oriented (Chan 2014), Ho may be claiming that being oblivious to goings-on of fellow LGBTIQ-affirming churches is tantamount to being oblivious to crucial family dynamics. There are undoubtedly many problems associated with Confucian ideas of the family. Aside from patriarchy and sexism (W.  C. Wong ; L.  Yip 2012), many Asian LGBTIQ Christians experience how their families transform, borrowing Cody J.  Sanders’ words, ‘very suddenly from a  See note 3.   Good Samaritan Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, which was previously known as Good Samaritan Metropolitan Community Church prior to 2nd October 2012. Information provided by Joe Wai-yap Pang, email communication, 15th May 2020. 6 7

72 

J. N. GOH

source of support into a source of scorn’ (2013, 52) upon the discovery of their gender and sexual identities. I believe however, that Ho may be distilling from this immensely complex philosophical corpus the values of familial awareness, intimacy and support. As he sees it, being ignorant of each other’s realities is something that ‘should not happen’ as ignorance can further solidify isolation where each open and affirming church is left ‘alone on [its] own’. Kathy Rudy notes that Christians ‘are not responding as the Body of Christ when … isolation occurs’ (1997, 79) due to failures in fulfilling heteronormative obligations, but in this present discussion the isolation arises from inter-ecclesial ignorance. Becoming ‘one body in Christ’ demands a strong familial solidarity that is informed by a deep consciousness of the doings of such churches in Asia.8 Rose Wu observes that ‘the Body of Christ is made possible only when we are able to transcend the boundaries of our own selves to become something larger’ (2000, 136). Gary Chan also hearkens to the imagery of the body of Christ in explaining the doings of church at Amplify but adopts a more proactive stance in its interpretation: The way that I understand the church today is that … operating as the body of Christ, the hands and feet of Christ, and not being peripheral to the world but really integrated in terms of how, and … leading the world towards greater shalom …we are all essentially, as the followers of Christ, also, called to the mission of God.

Unlike Siew who translates the notion of ‘the body of Christ’ as inclusion and an appreciation of diversity in ecclesial circles, Chan understands this theological symbol in terms of a mandate. The task of the LGBTIQ-­ affirming church is to be ‘the hands and feet of Christ’, and embody his worldview and purpose of ‘leading the world towards greater shalom’. His notion of ‘shalom’, I argue, cannot be reductively and solely interpreted as ‘peace’. Yung-suk Kim’s notions of the body of Christ are helpful at this juncture. Chan’s understanding of church as a trope for Christ’s cellular body and its active operations suggests a broader vision of shalom in which Christians are commissioned to be ‘Christ-like’ (Kim 2013, 21) and adopt ‘Christ’s faith, shown through his obedience to the law of God (God’s law of love, peace, and justice)’ (Kim 2013, 27)  – and as Adrian Thatcher  See Chap. 5 for another discussion on Confucianism and LGBTIQ Christians.

8

3  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF INTERMINABLE FLOURISHING 

73

describes it, ‘a peaceful existence where difference entails co-operation not competition’ (2018, 35). Churches are thus called to be ‘really integrated’ into human realities without relinquishing their ‘the location of living’ (Kim 2013, 21) in imitatio Christi. In this regard, and as Kenan B. Osborne states, ‘the community called church is to reflect Jesus if the community truly wants to be church’ (2009, 393). By envisioning open and affirming churches as part of the larger corpus of ‘the followers of Christ’, Chan disrupts the idea that they are ‘peripheral to the world’. By upending the marginalisation rhetoric, and akin to Siew, Chan transforms a portrayal of LGBTIQ-friendly churches from inconsequential deviants to envoys and leaders of ‘the mission of God’ by ‘becoming present in every culture as a prophetic force’ (Amaladoss 1998, 42), and ‘reconsider[ing] how to present God so that people of other cultures can relate to God and not be alienated’ (Leung 2010, 64). This transformation, celebrated, facilitated and augmented in Amplify, assists in the thriving of these churches.

Magnifying the Community of Open and Affirming Churches A climate of fear, rejection, suspicion, shame and opposition created by many local churches (Andanari and Ng 2015; Hazzan 2015; Minj 2018) frequently drives many LGBTIQ Christians into isolation and detachment from their faith communities as a manifestation of ecclesiophobia (Zachariah 2017). Even those who continue to actively participate in ecclesial activities shudder at the possibility of being outed by fellow gender-­variant and sexually diverse congregants. Efforts to dispel such disenabling climates and create inclusive communities by open and affirming churches in Asia are magnified in Amplify. Sam Li expresses how the Conferences are vital for dissolving a possible onslaught of isolation – echoing Jason Man-bo Ho’s thoughts in the previous section – among LGBTIQ churches: The togetherness … the feeling that you’re not alone has been a very important notion in the Conference in the past few years. And I think a lot of people gain a lot of power and energy from knowing that despite the hardship they have in their home country, working on their own, but there is a lot of people out there similar to them, having same struggle. And I think knowing that you’re not alone is actually, very, very important.

74 

J. N. GOH

Li extols the ‘togetherness’ and feeling of ‘not [being] alone’ which emerge from the convergence of churches that toil for ecclesial, theological and biblical justice. Based on an awareness of common ‘hardship’ and struggle’ among churches, this shared space generates a sense of shared ‘power and energy’ – a mutual empowerment to ‘liberate people in the direction of justice, freedom, and love … against the political horrors and atrocities of human history’ (Shore-Goss 2003, 161). Amplify catalyses a growing recognition among churches that they ‘are not alone’ and that they share a common goal of inter-relationality which realises that ‘all lives are intricately interrelated, that the power to affect and be affected is a part of all relationships’ (Wu 2000, 98). Ecclesial ‘togetherness’ is thus an indispensable feature of Christian community that is predicated on the exchanges of tribulation and the synergy of life-generating empowerment. A sense of not being alone correlates positively with the religious imaginary of a united front in coming out for Boon-lin Ngeo: Goh: What do you think are the goals and objectives of Amplify? Ngeo: Well I think one of them, is a very important one, is to connect each other. So that we know that we are not alone … a lot of gay people in a homophobic society, it’s very difficult for them to come out. And not only difficult for them to come out, they cannot imagine they can come out. So they lack this kind of imagination. So that’s why they don’t strive to come out, because they cannot imagine it is possible to come out. So to connect them to all these different LGBT Christian in different countries, I think it’s very empowering. Focusing on individuals rather than churches, Ngeo articulates his conviction that Amplify makes it possible for ‘gay people’ – possibly a catch-all term to refer to LGBTIQ people  – to divulge their gender and sexual identities by ‘connect[ing with] each other’ in a safe space whereby ‘coming out … becomes an empowering force for resisting unjust power relations involving LGBTIQ people’ (P.  Wong , 20). This connection at Amplify materialises an augmented community that is particularly fruitful for individuals who are generally unable and/or disinclined to reveal and live out their gender and sexual identities in homophobic, biphobic and transphobic societies, and engage in mutual exchanges of lived experiences. As Ngeo sees it, the reiteration of inability and unwillingness to live

3  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF INTERMINABLE FLOURISHING 

75

in freedom stifles any possibility of disclosing one’s gender and sexual identity, and fuels the perpetuation of animosity towards LGBTIQ people. As he says elsewhere: Homophobia and heterosexism not only hurt gay people … they harm almost everyone in society … Until we establish a social environment that is more responsive to and supportive of gay people, gay people will continue to be the subject of discrimination and be afraid to come out (2013, 27).

Ngeo’s expression ‘each other’ in this context is noteworthy. It echoes Rose Wu’s conviction that communal inclusivity necessitates a ‘faith in “the other” who is larger than the self – the larger community, nature, and God’ in order to ‘grasp a glimpse of hope for life’ (2000, 118). The practice, and not just the knowledge of not being ‘not alone’ as experienced at Amplify constitutes doings of church that are interdependently connected and fundamentally communal. Echoing Ngeo, Pauline Ong holds that an awareness of being ‘part of a bigger community’ among LGBTIQ-friendly churches propels them towards a more profound sense of communal interconnectedness: I think Amplify plays a really important role in bringing everyone together … I think especially true over the years when we saw how a lot of the ministries and the churches were really small, and were kind of chugging along, right. And it made a difference when people kind of came together and realise that they’re part of a bigger community of people who were worshipping together, who were trying to do similar things in different countries …. Gives people a sense of hope and vision … I think it made a lot of difference, because people started to catch vision? Because when you’re kind of stuck in a kind of small community right, it’s easy to become inward-looking because there’s so many issues to deal with, you have conflicts to deal with.

Ong’s reference to the more modest scale of ecclesiastical ministry and smaller sizes of open and affirming churches as a ‘kind of chugging along’ alludes to forms of ecclesial life that are slower on numerous levels, and possibly independent of collaboration with other churches and thus less productive in terms of palpable results. Furthermore, being ‘inward-­ looking’ suggests a sort of ecclesial navel-gazing or insularity due to an inordinate preoccupation with internal ‘conflicts’ that lacks an overarching recognition and appreciation of common efforts to promote and create greater acceptance and inclusion of LGBTIQ people, as well as the

76 

J. N. GOH

indefatigable efforts of other ‘progressive communities of faith [that] can help in developing and transmitting this new politics for transformative healing and sustainable activism’ (Masequesmay 2011, 333) towards the creation of affirming spaces in which to flourish. By being ‘part of a bigger community’ that is Amplify, open and affirming churches encounter the possibility of meeting ‘God not in a vacuum but as … inserted in specific social relations and structures of power, and as bearers of a particular culture’ (Kappen 1982, 124). By crediting Amplify’s efforts ‘in bringing everyone together’ as the main reason behind ‘giv[ing] people a sense of hope and vision’, Ong posits a proactive ‘catch vision’ ecclesial trajectory, which alludes to the robust renewal of a shared purpose that is magnified due to communal space provided by Amplify in which ‘the life of the community is nurtured by a mutual dialogue and transformation based on the diverse expressions and life experiences of people’s oppression and resistance’ (Wu 2000, 99). Duncan Mark, a long-time interpreter for Japanese-speaking Amplify participants, includes vital intersectional perspectives in expanding the idea of ecclesial community: It’s basically been just an energising, you know, we live in such a unkind world, even if we’re not Christian, but as LGBT Christians … feeling like we have no place to belong, and even in places where they say, oh, we accept LGBT but … we still are feeling like we’re in a different world … But in a place like Amplify … we definitely get the message that everybody is to be accepted, everybody is to be welcomed. And I might be one of the persons that somebody thinks, oh, you know, we don’t want … a gaijin.

Speaking as a person of European-American descent who lives and works in Japan, Mark discloses the adversities of being a gaijin (外人) or ‘foreigner’ in certain open and affirming spaces in Japan aside from being an out gay man. In such circumstances, even Christian-based claims of LGBTIQ acceptance are conditioned, superseded and nullified by the reality of not being a member of the majority ethnicity and nationality, thus finding ‘no place to belong’. Doings of church are not immune to the intrusions of other potentially exclusionary systems (McQueeney 2009; Wilcox 2009). Conversely, Amplify offers the gift of unconditional community that is at once an ‘energising’ shared space of belonging and welcome. Rather than being ‘in a different world’, Mark finds in Amplify a familiar territory that upholds the premise of openness and affirmation not just towards

3  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF INTERMINABLE FLOURISHING 

77

diversity in gender and sexuality, but also ethnicity and nationality. Amplify thus creates a space to heighten an awareness of, and potential to dismantle death-dealing elements in ‘the multiplicative interstructuring of colonialism and neo-colonialism, racism, classism, patriarchalism, and heterosexism in both the dominant society and within the Christian community’ (Wu 2000, 98).

Augmenting Mutual Learning and Interdependence in Doing Church From my own personal experience in working on queer theological issues over the years, I see a persistent belief among non-affirming churches within (and outside) Asia that LGBTIQ people can never be more than receivers of theological epistemologies that can ‘convert’ and ‘heal’ them of their ‘sinfulness’ and ‘infirmity’. As purported repositories of twisted knowledge, LGBTIQ Christians are always perceived as the anomalous Other, ‘the discordant note [and] the threat to harmony’ in Christianity, using Henriette Katoppo’s words (1982, 159). They are rarely – if ever – seen as possessing knowledge that is worthy of the world around them, least of all in theological and ecclesial circles (Sanders 2013; Siew 2015). Through interactive exchanges at Amplify, participants from various geopolitical and socio-cultural backgrounds can engage in mutually empowering storytellings of lived realities that can potentially contribute to their flourishing as individuals and communities. Pearl Wong harbours a keen appreciation for the sharing of lived experiences by those who are commonly denounced by Christianity: I listen to what’s happening in Hong Kong … in India, they listen to what’s happening in Malaysia … Is it just that or is there more to it than just listening to people’s stories? What happens when people share their stories? What happens when people share their experiences and ideas? When people share their experiences, whether they are lay Christians, or pastors … some of the stories will tell you that they are able to open a window … learning from the experiences of other people … I mean the success or failure … are also valuable experiences.

Wong proposes that the potency of telling and listening to stories extends beyond a frivolous exchange of human tales, or a simplistic desire for stories to be narrated for the sake of being narrated. She proposes that the act

78 

J. N. GOH

of storytelling by LGBTIQ laity and ministers, such as those from Hong Kong, India and Malaysia is valuable, and holds particular poignancy and gravitas during Amplify. Storytelling is crucial to LGBTIQ individuals and supportive churches that have long been denounced and silenced (Simpson 2005). It restores their agentic dignity as authorities of their lives and relationships with God (Hutabarat 2019; Luk 2015; Mendonca 2017; Ueno 2015). Storytelling constitutes the interpretation of lived experiences that intimates the willingness of storytellers ‘to open a window’ and allow listeners to be privy to their ‘success[es]’ and ‘failure[s]’ of doing church. Storytelling is concomitantly a preparedness to share the fluctuations, contingencies and unpredictabilities of performing community. At Amplify, storytelling is an act ‘to bring theology and culture together [so as] to recognise the lived concreteness and particularity of religious practice and belief of Christianity in Asia and so to initiate serious reflection on the fully contextual particularities of Christianity’s development’ (W. A. Wong 2007, 39), chiefly among LGBTIQ-friendly churches. The wealth of such experiences which are transmitted through storytelling lies in the vulnerability and generosity of circulating stories of ‘success[es]’ and ‘failure[s]’ which may be helpful for churches in doing church as equals, in respectful mutuality and without the urge to ‘out-church’ or ‘out-queer’ each other. Wong also sees Amplify as a hub for learning the ‘different situations[,] difficulties or struggles’ of participating churches: First of all it’s kind of like a network, and also it’s important … to be able to know the different situations and the difficulties or struggles that they facing, in the countries, in their region. Networking is, in a way I think that, we do need alliances. Because we are still minority, our influence, our impact is still very small. That’s why I think that support and collaboration are important … there isn’t a lot of conferences like this that they can attend … some of them, after Conference they share with me that, it is life-changing and it is very empowering for them.

Wong is aware of the scarcity of ‘life-changing’ and ‘empowering’ networking opportunities among open and affirming churches. While Pauline Ong sees Amplify as an avenue for ecclesial renewal, Wong underscores the potential of networking through the Conference to form ‘alliances’ of ‘theo-pastoral advisers, consultants and conversation partners’ (Goh 2019, 195) in order to enhance ‘support and collaboration’ that initially requires churches to become cognisant of each other’s vicissitudes. These processes

3  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF INTERMINABLE FLOURISHING 

79

point towards faith-based ‘plausibility structures’ (McGuire 1997) – the dynamics involved in communal exchanges of faith experiences for the purpose of meaning-making – that serve to fortify group cohesion. As I understand Wong, the main issue here is that open and affirming churches continue to be relegated to an inconsequential ‘minority’ status, and the ‘influence’ and ‘impact’ of their efforts for greater ecclesial inclusion and equity undermined, dismissed or denigrated. Wong is undoubtedly appealing to a spirit of manifest mutuality or a sort of ‘friendship [which] blooms in the interdependence of independent beings’ (Bae 2006, 2). This interdependence is a sort of ecclesial strength in numbers through mutual communal awareness in order to pursue greater effectiveness in collective and individual efforts of doing church. Su-lin Ngiam holds views that are similar to Wong’s, in that she sees Amplify as: … an opportunity to network with … LGBTQ Christians from elsewhere … in the way as in build relationships and to really … support one another and to understand the situation in each other’s countries and our various needs, but also as a form of celebration of our identities of coming together as a larger community like beyond Singapore, so we don’t feel so, I guess in a way siloed, or that our problems are just unique to us, in fact, we have common ones but also there are country specific ones, so how do we be community to one another. And I guess also, you know, look beyond ourselves so, you know, looking out. So very much this kind of a … larger sort of network that Amplify was … aiming to foster. I think also the understanding that actually there’s some other churches that … were being persecuted, or even more marginalised so where was our response to that.

Similar to Pauline Ong’s concern over the obsession with being ‘inward-­ looking’, Ngiam lauds Amplify for interrupting a ‘siloed’ modus operandi and emphasising the significance of ‘country specific’ issues alongside ‘common ones’. This double consideration, which fosters an attitude of ‘be[ing] community to one another’ by actively ‘looking out’ for one another and ‘look[ing] beyond [oneself]’, ‘build[ing] relationships’, ‘support[ing] one another’ and ‘understand[ing] the situation … and … various needs’ in ‘each other’s countries’ speaks to a ‘conviction-in-faith that … God … acts and speaks very especially in concrete events in history … through the sufferings and hopes of people today’ (Abesamis 1982, 144), including in LGBTIQ communities.

80 

J. N. GOH

Amplify, as such, creates an outward-looking and other-centred ‘network’ of doing church which bears a preferential option for identifying and assisting churches that are particularly subjected to persecution and marginalisation. This vision, in Ngiam’s esteem, is ‘a form of celebration of [LGBTIQ] identities’ on a global scale and suggests, borrowing Kam-­ weng Ng’s words, ‘a sense of belonging to a divinely sustained movement [which] is necessary to lift up flagging spirits and keep a socially marginalized group from retreating into a ghetto’ (1994, 14). Amplify thus facilitates the doings of church that are sensitive to the pitfall of isolation and the temptation to engage solely in self-seeking interests. The possibilities of mutual learning and interdependence, as understood by Gary Chan, must be accompanied by an acute awareness of ‘power-based … relationships’ and focus on the greater good of participating churches: … learning from one another, the spirit of learning from one another, recognising that we need to move away from that power-based kind of relationships, where Amplify could be seen as trying to be … creating … a new denomination of sorts, which is definitely not the intention of Amplify to do … we want to allow people to use the name so that it is easy for people to understand that this is what missions looks like in Asia in the affirming churches … an opportunity to leverage on this identity of Amplify … gathering of and the resourcing for open and affirming ministries in Asia.

Chan’s seeming disclaimer of Amplify as an entity that is premised on a desire for power through the creation of ‘a new denomination’ hints at the possibility that such accusations have previously been levelled at him. He reasserts the primary aim of Amplify as a twofold mission-based endeavour. First, and as discussed variously in this book, the Conferences are meant as a platform for the ‘gathering of … open and affirming ministries in Asia’ to deepen their comprehension of ecclesial openness and affirmation which is predicated on an ecclesiological perspective that ‘is concerned not only with general conceptions or ideas but also with the material stuff of culture and the ephemera of everyday life’ (W. A. Wong 2007, 38). Second, he envisions Amplify as a focal point for the pooling and sharing of resources on doing church in a spirit of ecclesial interdependence and collegiality (see Goh 2019). Like Wong and Ngiam, Chan looks towards ‘the spirit of learning from one another’ through the mutual learning and interdependence that the Conferences facilitate. The doings

3  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF INTERMINABLE FLOURISHING 

81

of church at Amplify will likely be less fruitful as solo, independent and exclusive projects. The ‘gathering’ and mutual learning of which Chan speaks, as Jason Man-bo Ho perceives, is also a platform for ‘leadership training’: I believe it is about training church leaders, it’s about creating a platform, for regional inclusive churches to get together to share of our experience, to learn from pastors, ministries overseas like the mainly the US, one from Australia and also from … our regional churches … So I think it is not just about leadership training like what they did for the first Amplify. It developed into a platform in, it developed into an inter-church events to support ministries in the inclusive churches in Asia.

Although Ho conceptualises Amplify as a pathway for ‘training church leaders’, he seems to contradict himself by stating that the Conferences are ‘not just about leadership training’. I argue that these seemingly oppositional views are in fact statements that arise from different contexts. Ho’s reference to ‘the first Amplify’ is undefined but he is likely referring to the FCC Worship Conference in 2009 which was held in Singapore and witnessed the participation of FCC and HKBMCF congregants. The event focused on training the dedicated music and worship teams of both churches, and included a stream entitled ‘Leadership & Vocals’.9 Ho may be alluding to this particular version of leadership training. Conversely, I argue that the importance of ‘training church leaders’ for Ho is concretely instantiated by ‘inter-church events’ during which open and affirming churches from around the globe are able to assemble, ‘share … experience[s]’, ‘support ministries’, and engage in a mutual learning and inspiration towards ‘a faith born and nurtured by the experience of God and life in the history and struggle of … people, and not by abstract dogmas’ (Abesamis 1982, 147). Hence, leadership training exceeds the parameters of music and worship, and concentrates on experience-­based, time-tested knowledge that is shared among participating churches. For Joe Wai-yap Pang, a comparison between churches in relation to country-specific persecutions of LGBTIQ people can prove to be an enlightening experience:

9

 See Chap. 2.

82 

J. N. GOH

… like Hong Kong they always think they are tough … when they come to Amplify and meet some Malaysian, and then they know it’s more harder. And then actually a lot of people will have encourage, say oh, you more harder then we cannot complain anymore in Hong Kong. And even … China think they are very tough but they are not illegal, actually not like India, Malaysia, and Singapore, or Egypt, you know. So, so they have compare and encourage each other actually.

Pang’s use of ‘tough’ does not denote either resilience or courage, but a state of oppression and hostility towards LGBTIQ communities. He realises that Christian participants from Hong Kong and China who deplore their experiences of prejudice and stigma do so in a seemingly self-­ absorbed, self-pitying, inward-looking fashion which likely comprises life attitudes that could potentially lead to physically, emotionally and mentally injurious enactments (Cronin et  al. 2019; Wen and Zheng 2019), including self-doubt, self-loathing, self-rejection, isolation, secrecy and denial (Edman 2016; Ong 2017). While there is possibly a questionable element of learning from the misfortune of others in Pang’s insight, I believe it is bereft of any contemptuous satisfaction or inordinate glee. Instead, he is appealing to lessons learned from contrasting realities, whereby Amplify provides opportunities for these individuals to encounter and interact with Malaysians for whom same-sex sexual expressions continue to be unlawful and thus undergo a ‘harder’ experience of being LGBTIQ in their country. The severity of treatment towards LGBTIQ people between countries which  sanction laws that  penalise same-sex sexual acts such as Malaysia, India,10 Singapore and Egypt, and countries where such laws are absent such as Hong Kong and China helps participating churches to glean a realistic perspective on the magnitude of their adversities. I suggest that Pang is also hoping for such a rigorous comparison at Amplify to serve as an impetus for open and affirming churches to ‘encourage each other’. The knowledge that comes from contrasting contexts can lend itself positively to greater vigour in doing church, both within churches and between churches, and concomitantly to the growth of their members. 10  India’s Supreme Court decriminalised same-sex activity on 6th September 2018 and my Skype interview with Pang took place on 25th November 2018. His mention of India as a country in which same-sex sexual behaviours are illegal may reflect either ignorance of this fact or an oversight on his part due to an over-familiarity with the long history of India’s Penal Code.

3  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF INTERMINABLE FLOURISHING 

83

Towards an Ecclesial Font of Life At the close of this chapter, it is important to note that I am not declaring the existence of a direct and an immediate correlation between Amplify and the thriving of churches and individuals. An ecclesiology of Amplify promotes the possibilities for an interminable flourishing of individual human lives and human communities which can be embraced and/or flouted. Doing church in this sense thus upends a necrophilic approach that is often theologically assigned to the position and role of ‘deviant’ and ‘sinful’ LGBTIQ people in relation to Christianity. Therefore, LGBTIQ Christians, and their practices of life and faith are not automatically destined for death and endless misery. They are called to thrive in life as people of God. Therefore,  Amplify’s premise of life bears tremendous repercussions on ecclesiology. As ‘Life’ is another name for God who infuses all creation with existence and intrinsic value, and who desires the burgeoning of individual and communal human embodiments, the doings of church at Amplify cohere with the image, likeness, aspirations and operations of God. An ecclesiology of interminable flourishing affirms that open and affirming churches bear the dignity of being people of God and communities of Christ. Within these churches, LGBTIQ people are not only entitled to valid and complete ecclesial membership – they are known to Christ as the head of his body, the church, and are loved and accepted by him as they are. At Amplify, parts of the body of Christ which have hitherto been shamed out of sight are now exposed and celebrated as operational members that contribute to the entire body. This body upholds a quality of familial familiarity in which the variations of human reality are embraced and enfolded into celebratory affirmation. Amplify champions an appreciation for concerted efforts among participating churches to share experiences and resources in order to thwart the encroachments of isolation, exclusivity and self-proclaimed supremacy. Amplify aims to locate and identify metanarratives of socio-cultural expulsion other than just the condemnation of non-normative gender identities and expressions, sexual desires and anatomies, such as ethnic and nationalistic exclusion, in order to promote more holistically inclusive ways of doing church.11 Amplify thus acts as a safe space for physical, mental, emotional and spiritual wellbeing, a space for individuals and churches  See Chap. 6 for a slightly fuller discussion of this final point.

11

84 

J. N. GOH

to be themselves. The doing of church at the Conferences encourages the multiplicity of identities as myriad senses of self, whereby even departures from the norm are encouraged to grow without fear of repercussions, even if they continue to be held under scrutiny and critique in certain instances. As such, an ecclesiology of interminable flourishing recognises the importance of exchanging stories of life and faith as a strategy to learn and grow from the experiences of others in relational empowerment, and of continuously positioning itself as a critical methodology of unmuzzling subjugated voices.

Bibliography Abesamis, Carlos H. 1982. Faith and Life Reflections from the Grassroots in the Philippines. In Theological Reflection on Asia’s Struggle for Full Humanity, ed. Virginia Fabella, Jack Clancey, and John Ma, 138–157. Hong Kong: Plough Publications. Althaus-Reid, Marcella. 2007. Hard Core Queer: The Church as Dis/Grace. Presented at the Queering the Church Conference, Boston University School of Theology, Boston, MA, April 18. Amaladoss, Michael. 1998. Beyond Inculturation: Can the Many Be One? Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers. Andanari, Kintan, and Yi-shu Ng. 2015. Pastor Lawrence Khong: “We Will Wear White Until the Pink Is Gone”. Mothership.Sg, June 14. http://mothership. sg/2015/06/pastor-­l awrence-­k hong-­w e-­w ill-­w ear-­w hite-­u ntil-­t he­pink-­is-­gone/ Anderson-Rajkumar, Evangeline. 2004. Politicising the Body: A Feminist Christology. Asia Journal of Theology 18 (1): 82–109. Bae, Hyunju. 2006. Blessed Are Friends of God! CTC Bulletin XXII (2): 1–4. Bong, Sharon A. 2020. Becoming Queer and Religious in Malaysia and Singapore. New York: Bloomsbury Academic. Boo, Su-lyn. 2016. JAWI Raids Transgender “Beauty Pageant” for Breaking Fatwa. http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/jawi-­raids­transgender-­beauty-­pageant-­for-­breaking-­fatwa Chan, Simon. 2014. Grassroots Asian Theology: Thinking the Faith from the Ground Up. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Clarke, Sathianathan. 2012. The Task, Method and Content of Asian Theologies. In Asian Theology on the Way: Christianity, Culture and Context, ed. Peniel Jesudason Rufus Rajkumar, 3–13. London: SPCK. Cronin, Timothy J., Christopher A.  Pepping, and Anthony Lyons. 2019. Internalized Transphobia and Well-Being: The Moderating Role of Attachment. Personality and Individual Differences 143: 80–83.

3  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF INTERMINABLE FLOURISHING 

85

Cruz, Gemma Tulud. 2012. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: An Asian Theology of Survival. In Asian Theology on the Way: Christianity, Culture and Context, ed. Peniel Jesudason Rufus Rajkumar, 75–82. London: SPCK. De Guzman, Emmanuel S. 2015. Philippine Transparochial Communities: Forces of Renewal or Blocs of Resistance in the Church of the Poor? In The Second Plenary Council of the Philippines: Quo Vadis? ed. Eric Marcelo O.  Genilo, Agnes M.  Brazal, and Daniel Franklin E.  Pilario, 74–91. Manila: Ateneo de Manila University Press. Dong, Liu. 2016. Gay Christians Struggle for Acceptance in Churches in China. Global Times, July 14. http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/994281.shtml. Edman, Elizabeth M. 2016. Queer Virtue: What LGBTQ People Know About Life and Love and How It Can Revitalize Christianity. Boston: Beacon Press. Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences. 1995. “Christian Discipleship in Asia Today: Service to Life”, Final Statement of the Sixth FABC Plenary Assembly, Manila, Philippines (FABC Paper No. 74). Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences. http://www.fabc.org/fabc%20papers/fabc_paper_74.pdf Goh, Joseph N. 2017. From Polluted to Prophetic Bodies: Theo-Pastoral Lessons from the Lived Experiences of Gay, HIV-Positive Christian Men in Singapore. Practical Theology 10 (2): 133–146. ———. 2019. Practical Guidelines for SOGIESC Theologising in Southeast Asia: Foregrounding Gender Nonconformity, Sexual Diversity and Non-Dyadic Embodiment. In Siapakah Sesamaku? Pergumulan Teologi Dengan Isu-Isu Keadilan Gender, ed. Stephen Suleeman and Amadeo D. Udampoh, 185–210. Jakarta: Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Theologi Jakarta. Greenough, Chris. 2018. Undoing Theology: Life Stories from Non-Normative Christians. London: SCM Press. Hazzan, Dave. 2015. Why Korea’s Christian Churches Are Leading the Anti-Gay Charge. Daily Xtra, August 20. http://www.dailyxtra.com/world/news-­and-­ i d e a s / n e w s / k o r e a % E 2 % 8 0 % 9 9 s -­c h r i s t i a n -­c h u r c h e s -­l e a d i n g -­t h e -­ anti-­gay-­charge-­125870 Hero, Jakob. 2012. Toward a Queer Theology of Flourishing: Transsexual Embodiment, Subjectivity, and Moral Agency. In Queer Religion, ed. Donald L. Boisvert and Jay Emerson Johnson, 2:2: 143–165. Santa Barbara: Praeger. Hutabarat, Pikul Salib. 2019. Here I Am. In Siapakah Sesamaku? Pergumulan Teologi Dengan Isu-Isu Keadilan Gender, ed. Stephen Suleeman and Amadeo D. Udampoh, 258–262. Jakarta: Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Theologi Jakarta. Ichwan, Juswantori. 2019. The Importance of Spirituality Among Indonesian Gay Christian Male in Partnership. In Siapakah Sesamaku? Pergumulan Teologi Dengan Isu-Isu Keadilan Gender, ed. Stephen Suleeman and Amadeo D. Udampoh, 237–247. Jakarta: Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Theologi Jakarta. Jantzen, Grace. 1998. Becoming Divine: Towards a Feminist Philosophy of Religion. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

86 

J. N. GOH

Jordan, Mark D. 2012. Formation, Exile, and Encounter: Teaching Traditions for an Open Body. In The Open Body: Essays in Anglican Ecclesiology, ed. Zachary Guiliano and Charles M. Stang, 19–31. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Kang, Namsoon. 2004. Confucian Familism and Its Social/Religious Embodiment in Christianity: Reconsidering the Family Discourse from a Feminist Perspective. Asia Journal of Theology 18 (1): 168–189. Kappen, Sebastian. 1982. Orientations for An Asian Theology. In Theological Reflection on Asia’s Struggle for Full Humanity, ed. Virginia Fabella, Jack Clancey, and John Ma, 114–137. Hong Kong: Plough Publications. Katoppo, Henriette. 1982. Asian Theology: An Asian Woman’s Perspective. In Theological Reflection on Asia’s Struggle for Full Humanity, ed. Virginia Fabella, Jack Clancey, and John Ma, 158–168. Hong Kong: Plough Publications. Khong, Lawrence. 2014. Lawrence Khong (FCBC). Facebook, February 19. h t t p s : / / w w w. f a c e b o o k . c o m / l a w r e n c e . k h o n g . f c b c / p o s t s / the-­greatest-­fallacy-­of-­the-­lgbt-­argument-­is-­i-­have-­no-­choice-­i-­am-­born-­this-­ way/706846362692814/ Kim, Yung-suk. 2013. Reclaiming Christ’s Body (Soma Christou): Embodiment of God’s Gospel in Paul’s Letters. Interpretation 67 (1): 20–29. Leung, Josephine. 2010. A Feminist cum Queer Reading of Liturgy. in God’s image 29 (3): 61–68. Lowe, Mary Elise. 2017. From the Same Spirit: Receiving the Theological Gifts of Transgender Christians. Dialog 56 (1): 28–37. Luk, Small. 2015. God Loves Intersex People. in God’s image 34 (2): 5–13. Malaysiakini. 2011. Church Raid: Jais Found “Proof of Proselytisation”. Malaysiakini, August 4, sec. news. https://www.malaysiakini.com/ news/172023. Masequesmay, Gina. 2011. How Religious Communities Can Help LGBTIQQ Asian Americans to Come Home. Theology & Sexuality 17 (3): 319–335. McGuire, Meredith B. 1997. Religion: The Social Context. 4th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company. McQueeney, Krista. 2009. “We Are God’s Children, Y’All:” Race, Gender, and Sexuality in Lesbian- and Gay-Affirming Congregations. Social Problems 56 (1): 151–173. Mendonca, Daniel Francies Mary. 2017. Daniel’s Choice. In Christian Responses to Issues of Human Sexuality and Gender Diversity: A Guide to the Churches in India, ed. Philip Kuruvilla, 123–127. New Delhi/Nagpur: ISPCK/NCCI. Minj, Bijay Kumar. 2018. India Church Unhappy with Legalization of Homosexuality. UCA News, September 7. https://www.ucanews.com/news/ india-­church-­unhappy-­with-­legalization-­of-­homosexuality/83280 Mollenkott, Virginia R. 2009. We Come Bearing Gifts: Seven Lessons Religious Congregations Can Learn from Transpeople. In Trans/formations, ed. Lisa Isherwood and Marcella Althaus-Reid, 46–58. London: SCM Press.

3  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF INTERMINABLE FLOURISHING 

87

Ng, Kam-weng. 1994. Doing Responsive Theology in a Developing Nation. Selangor: Pustaka SUFES & Kairos Research Centre Sdn Bhd. Ngeo, Boon-lin. 2013. Gay Is OK!: A Christian Perspective. Selangor: Gerakbudaya Enterprise. Ong, Pauline. 2017. Towards a Responsible and Life-Giving Ministry with and among Sexual and Gender Minorities. In A Theological Reader on Human Sexuality and Gender Diversities: Envisioning Inclusivity, ed. Roger Gaikwad and Thomas Ninan, 333–344. New Delhi: ISPCK/NCCI. Osborne, Kenan B. 2009. A Theology of the Church for the Third Millennium: A Franciscan Approach. Leiden: Brill. Pink Dot SG. 2020. Pink Dot: Supporting the Freedom to Love. https:// pinkdot.sg/ Queer Theology Academy. 2019. 2019 Queer Theologies Project for Asian Chinese Christians. Hong Kong: Queer Theology Academy. Reagan, Debra A. 2013. Reclaiming the Body for Faith. Interpretation 67 (1): 42–57. Rosenau, Sara. 2020. Queer Church: Failure and Becoming in the Body of Christ. In Unlocking Orthodoxies for Inclusive Theologies: Queer Alternatives, ed. Robert E. Shore-Goss and Joseph N. Goh, 34–50. New York: Routledge. Rudy, Kathy. 1997. Sex and the Church: Gender, Homosexuality, and the Transformation of Christian Ethics. Boston: Beacon Press. Sanders, Cody J. 2013. Queer Lessons for Churches on the Straight & Narrow: What All Christians Can Learn from LGBTQ Lives. Macon: Faithlab. Shore-Goss, Robert E. 2003. Queering Christ: Beyond Jesus Acted Up. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press. Siew, Miak. 2013. Open Letter to Pastor Lawrence Khong. Free Community Church Blog (blog), January 14. http://freecomchurch.blogspot. com/2013/01/14-­jan-­2013-­from-­desk-­of-­rev-­miak-­siew.html ———. 2015. Learning to Be Queer: Questions the Church Should Be Asking. in God’s image 34 (2): 65–70. Simpson, Robert Hamilton. 2005. How to Be Fashionably Queer: Reminding the Church of the Importance of Sexual Stories. Theology & Sexuality 11 (2): 97–108. Thatcher, Adrian. 2018. Gender. In Contemporary Theological Approaches to Sexuality, ed. Lisa Isherwood and Dirk von der Horst, 25–39. London: Routledge. The Star Online. 2019. Five Men Jailed, Caned for Gay Sex. The Star Online, November 7. https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2019/11/07/ five-­malaysian-­men-­jailed-­caned-­for-­gay-­sex Theophilose, Kuriakose Mor. 2013. Called to Reconcile. CTC Bulletin XXIX (1): 13–19.

88 

J. N. GOH

Ueno, Reina. 2015. My Queer Exodus Story: As a Japanese Lesbian Minister in a Rural Church. in God’s image 34 (1): 32–36. van Klinken, Adriaan S. 2010. When the Body of Christ Has AIDS: A Theological Metaphor for Global Solidarity in Light of HIV and AIDS. International Journal of Public Theology 4 (4): 446–465. Voelkel, Rebecca M.M. 2017. Carnal Knowledge of God: Embodied Love and the Movement for Justice. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Wang, Yuanyuan, Zhishan Hu, Ke Peng, Ying Xin, Yuan Yang, Jack Drescher, and Runsen Chen. 2019. Discrimination Against LGBT Populations in China. The Lancet Public Health 4 (9): e440–e441. Wen, Guangju, and Lijun Zheng. 2019. The Influence of Internalized Homophobia on Health-Related Quality of Life and Life Satisfaction Among Gay and Bisexual Men in China. American Journal of Men’s Health 13 (4): 1557988319864775. Wijaya Mulya, Teguh. 2019. Another Way Is Possible! On Being LGBT+ Affirming Indonesian Christians: A Critique to Yakub Tri Handoko’s “Rethinking Homosexuality”. In Siapakah Sesamaku? Pergumulan Teologi Dengan Isu-Isu Keadilan Gender, ed. Stephen Suleeman and Amadeo D. Udampoh, 212–236. Jakarta: Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Theologi Jakarta. Wilcox, Melissa M. 2009. Queer Women and Religious Individualism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Wong, Wai-ching Angela. 2007. The Academic Role of Theology in Asian Societies and Cultures. Quest: An Interdisciplinary Journal for Asian Christian Scholars 5 (2): 33–46. Wong, Pearl. 2015. Queering Binary Notions of Sexuality: Proclamation of a Bisexual Feminist. in God’s image 34 (2): 14–24. Wong, Wai-yin Christina. 2015. Self-Reflections after Studying Asian Feminist Theology and Pedagogy. in God’s image 34 (1): 37–41. Wu, Rose. 2000. Liberating the Church from Fear: The Story of Hong Kong’s Sexual Minorities. Kowloon: Hong Kong Women Christian Council. Yip, Andrew K.T. 2007. Changing Religion, Changing Faith: Reflections on the Transformative Strategies of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Christians and Muslims. Journal for Faith, Spirituality and Social Change 1 (1): 83–95. Yip, Lai-shan. 2012. ‘Listening to the Passion of Catholic Nu-Tongzhi: Developing a Catholic Lesbian Feminist Theology in Hong Kong’. In Queer Religion, ed. Donald L.  Boisvert and Jay Emerson Johnson, 2:2: 63–80. Santa Barbara: Praeger. Zachariah, George. 2017. Church and Homophobia: Envisioning an Inclusive Church. In Christian Responses to Issues of Human Sexuality and Gender Diversity: A Guide to the Churches in India, ed. Philip Kuruvilla, 3–17. New Delhi/Nagpur: ISPCK/NCCI.

CHAPTER 4

An Ecclesiology of Promiscuous Irregularity

Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words —Romans 8.26 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts —Isaiah 55.8–9 Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone when the morning stars sang together and all the heavenly beings shouted for joy? —Job 38.4–7

From Tradition to Vision The aim of this chapter is to articulate the theological predilections and trajectories of Amplify that unapologetically acknowledge and celebrate not only multiplicity and plurality, but also uncertainty and irregularity.1 1  This chapter stems from responses to a question I posed to informants on what they understood as the theological underpinnings of Amplify.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. N. Goh, Doing Church at the Amplify Open and Affirming Conferences, Asian Christianity in the Diaspora, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73314-8_4

89

90 

J. N. GOH

This quest did not traverse a conventional route in the original processes of my research project. I knew that the Conferences seek to be trans-­ denominational and multi-theological. I was aware that they adopt a charismatic Pentecostal approach of revival and renewal in their worship sessions, ‘the essence of [which] is engagement with the God who is present, active and relational [and] a seeking of the Spirit who leads the community into such an engagement with God’ (Lord 2016, 85; see also Cartledge 2016; Cartledge and Swoboda 2016; Lovelace 1979; Studebaker 2016). I also intuited that they focus on a Christ-centred ecumenical approach to their workshops and presentations. Yet as I initially reflected at the outset of the project on the Conferences I had myself attended in Hong Kong (2014) and Taiwan (2018), I struggled to identify one common Christian theological tradition that coursed through each instance of Amplify, even though I was certain that the Conferences were pulsating with theological themes. I was thus not completely taken by surprise upon hearing similar impressions from some of my informants. Pearl Wong, for instance, struggles to determine a ‘distinctive’ theological element which unifies the Conferences. As she says, ‘Maybe I actually don’t see a very distinctive theology … from Amplify. Basically I know that what they try to do, but I think they actually seldom emphasise on their theology’.2 Wong’s additional allusion to a seeming diminution of theological thought in Amplify is echoed in Boon-lin Ngeo’s impression of a lack of theological grounding in Amplify and among its participants: Not only Amplify doesn’t have a strong theology, a lot of LGBTI Christian, they don’t have a strong theology … their theology is pretty much same as the traditional churches. The only thing is, gay is okay. The rest is still the same … this is highly problematic, because something is very wrong with our traditional theologies, otherwise we cannot be so wrong on gay issues.3

Ngeo’s mention of ‘LGBTI Christian[s]’ in this context is a reference to Amplify participants, whom he believes are not in possession of a ‘strong theology’, akin to the Conferences themselves. His main concern is that these participants are readily invested in identities as ‘gay’ Christians – possibly a metonym for LBTIQ Christians – without relinquishing ‘traditional  Skype interview, 7th December 2018.  Unless indicated otherwise, all indented block quotations in this chapter are derived from interviews with key informants. 2 3

4  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF PROMISCUOUS IRREGULARITY 

91

theologies’, or theological constructions that are barnacled with heteronormative and cisnormative systems. Ngeo’s concern is mirrored in Gary Chan’s musings: If you theologically take the gay stuff out, the rest of the theological framework, and I’m making a very sweeping statement here, largely follows the more conservative approaches to the gospel and therefore how they look at their role in that.

Chan paints an image of an entire corpus of heteronormative and cisnormative theological tradition which steers the direction and saturates the practices of most mainstream churches that could prove to be pastorally counterproductive. The failure to address this issue translates as a superficial confrontation and engagement with theological ideas that may insidiously turn on LGBTIQ Christians in the long run, or gradually slip into irrelevance. The act of interpreting ‘conservative approaches’ to the faith through ‘the gay stuff’, or understanding and practising theology as LGBTIQ Christians without dismantling its heteronormative and cisnormative foundations is problematic. Ngeo and Chan pose valid points and I concur with them. My own research-based interactions with gay, bisexual and transgender Christians in the Asia Pacific region inform me time and again that many do not abandon heteronormative and cisnormative ideas in faith and life, such as patriarchal and androcentric representations of God, and insistence on physical monogamy in committed relationships as the only forms of union that are divinely sanctioned. I often wonder if the adoption of such mentalities is anything more than a sort of ‘add gay and stir’ (Garrigan 2009, 228) approach to God and relationships. Many LGBTIQ Christians I have met often seem oblivious to, or unconcerned with the heteronormative and cisnormative interpretations of God and scriptures as schooled by their non-affirming childhood churches which they then used to decode their gender and sexual identities and expressions. I believe that many do so not only due to deficient, absent or misguided theological exposure. Some LGBTIQ Christians simply long for the homely and unchallenging comforts of church without the accusation of sinfulness. Others see their participation in ecclesial activities as one of interminable atonement and reparation – to ‘keep the gay at bay’ and be ‘right’ with God ‘despite’ being LGBTIQ and thus avert divine wrath and eternal damnation. In hindsight, I believe that the original question I posed to my participants may have been slightly myopic and I thus missed the mark. Due to

92 

J. N. GOH

my own obsession with identifying and cataloguing theological singularities, I actually missed a reality that was right in front of me. As I took my reflections to a deeper self-reflexive level, I became increasingly convinced that Amplify was not partisan to any single theological tradition and that it did not need to be. It also dawned on me that while Amplify did not bear a particular theological tradition, it housed a clear theological vision which I have discussed earlier4 and is reproduced here: Amplify was born out of a call to be a blessing to the development of inclusive churches and ministries in Asia, providing a space for us as followers of Jesus Christ to explore and embody what ‘open and affirming’ means as we seek to be effective witnesses to the Gospel, meeting the needs of our communities (Gary Chan and Paul Lucas, quoted in 激揚 Amplify 13 2013, 4).

The basic theological vision of Amplify is to hold space for LGBTIQ-­ supportive Asian Christian communities to engage in a more profound contemplation, discernment and development of the meaning of inclusion, openness, affirmation, discipleship, witness, outreach and mutual support. Hence, rather than enquiring after the single theological basis of Amplify, I should have returned to the original vision of Amplify, and deployed it as a springboard to investigate how it guides the experiences and understandings of God, as well as the doings of church at Amplify. In this chapter, I analyse, interpret and theorise the responses of Amplify frontliners to my original question within the framework of the aforementioned theological vision. Nevertheless, as I will elucidate shortly, the feedback of my informants serendipitously exceeded the slippage in my original question and evinced a wealth of wisdom that speaks to the manifestations of God which they inherit, learn and experience from Amplify, as well as those which they cherish and inject into the Conferences.5

Impure Incarnation, Gratuitous God What has promiscuity to do with God, incarnation or theology? How are notions of brazen sexual exploits, often tagged with disconcerting imageries of unabashedly non-monogamous and unrestrained acts of sexual  Specifically, Chap. 2.  Despite being aware of this slippage, some block quotations in this chapter retain my original question to informants as my expression of fidelity to the original research process. 4 5

4  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF PROMISCUOUS IRREGULARITY 

93

pleasure purely for the sake of sexual pleasure even remotely connected to the sacred discourses of God? What have such outlandish erotic ideas to do with ecclesiology? Is the confluence of promiscuity and theology not disrespectful and dishonourable? Inspired by Laurel C. Schneider’s notion of promiscuous incarnation, I use promiscuity as a deconstructive queer sexual theological methodology and language to decipher the arbitrary, lavish and heterogeneous workings of God in human flesh, chiefly in the doings of Amplify. Promiscuity in this respect can be understood in many ways. First, it is a necessary and more comprehensive gendering and sexing of theology in the face of prevalent disembodied and discriminatory treatments of gender, sexuality and biology that ‘honor incarnation in terms of the body of Jesus but force actual bodies in the church, and outside of it, onto the bottom rungs of a tortured hierarchy of being’ (Schneider 2010, 232). It is easy enough to locate sacredness in the organic and ethereal structures of Jesus himself, but much more difficult to do so in the unpredictable mystical body of Christ. Promiscuous incarnation holds that the act of God in fusing with human flesh beyond the one particular historical instance of Christ actually democratises the manifestation of God in all flesh, even those deemed as – and here I deliberately pay homage to the theological jolts of Marcella Althaus-Reid (2003, 2000) – unabashedly indecent, improper and unworthy to constitute or reflect sacredness. The dignity and worth of all human beings that are upheld by the doctrine of incarnation makes fuller sense when God is understood as constantly incarnating in all human beings, without dismissing the primacy of incarnation in Christ as theologians have argued (Osborne 1999). As such, promiscuity points to liberation from one-dimensional logics that govern theological thought and allows for excess, transgression and permeability in its formulations. In so doing, promiscuity becomes averse to singularity, exclusivity and unilaterality. Instead, promiscuity advocates a ‘“mixture of different substances”’ (Schneider 2010, 234) which challenges the grand truth claims of Christianity that are often exclusive, exclusionary, and utterly intolerant of any variation or departure from the acceptable (and often theo-­ judicial) norm. Schneider also challenges the monotheistic grip which colonises much of mainstream theology, including the insistence on the singular manifestation of God in the person of Christ. The image of a monogamous God,

94 

J. N. GOH

or ‘a logic that requires divine truth to be singular and noncontradictory’ (Schneider 2010, 232), derived from both scripture and history, is deployed to insist on the political stature of a belief system that adheres unremittingly to exclusive claims of divine manifestation, revelation and representation (cf. Deuteronomy 7.9, Exodus 34.6, 1 Corinthians 10.13 and 2 Thessalonians 3.3). She suggests that the incarnation is a signifier of the promiscuity of God, the utter willingness of a wilful God who manifests godself indiscriminately in all manner of embodiment beyond rigidly normative gender, sexual, anatomical, religious and theological categories. The incarnation points to the impure, co-mingled and emulsified epiphanies of God. Schneider’s thoughts resonate with Paul S.  Chung’s discussion of an irregular theology that bespeaks ‘a new hermeneutic of God’s speech act by listening attentively to an irregular, unexpected, and provocative voice of God in non-Christian religions’ (2009, 7). By theologising at the tension points of Asian, non-Asian, Christian and non-Christian forms of wisdom, Chung reads, interprets and augments Christian themes in and through traditional Asian classics. What transpires is not a forced parallelism between non-Asian Christian and Asian non-Christian ideas in order to justify and give value to the latter, but a wondrous disclosure of God’s irregular speech patterns in human existence – that God does not speak in a specific way through a specific channel to the people of Asia. An irregular theology fractures ‘instrumental rationality and ecclesial triumphalism’ (2009, 208) in hegemonic Christian manifestations that belittle Asian epistemologies and render them inconsequential for Christianity. Instead, an irregular theology ‘refurbishes the hybridization of interpretation and the resistance of difference in light of the ultimate Other’ (2009, 26). By acknowledging that God speaks differently through unexpected, unfamiliar and unconventional avenues in all areas of human reality, and ‘deepen[ing] the theological recognition of the Other as an extraordinary way of God’s communication’ (Chung 2009, 209), the purported Outsider may not be an outsider after all. By pairing Schneider with Chung here, I extend Chung’s theological notion of irregularity to include Asian LGBTIQ epistemologies. The earthly Jesus who rejected the pressure of being ‘systematized through the people’s expectations or disciples’ confession of him as the Messiah’ (Chung 2009, 190; added emphasis) reflects the refusal of ‘God the ambivalent’ (Althaus-Reid 2000, 95) to be taxonomised, tethered and tamed into theological submission. If God speaks in a totally free,

4  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF PROMISCUOUS IRREGULARITY 

95

impartial, unpredictable and irregular fashion as and when God chooses to, theology must follow suit. The confidence of both Schneider and Chung in the disorderly, unruly, atypical and even unfamiliar eruptions of God in human existence, which echoes the Johannine imagery of how ‘the wind blows where it chooses’ (John 3.8), bolsters my own theological convictions for, and helps give voice to the ‘fleshy divine communal body of Christ that is the church’ (Schneider 2010, 232) in its utter messiness.

Appreciating Theological Uncertainties and Differences As discussed earlier, promiscuity and irregularity are intimately interlinked. They gesture towards a God who labours outside of human surveillance, jurisdiction and expectation in absolute freedom. Although God desires to be intimately recognised, God refuses to be comprehensively known and named in any exclusive manner, for God acts in complete liberty, often outside of comfortable and consistent theological notions. The following narrative of Pauline Ong, in which she draws a parallel between the proliferation of churches in Christian history and the numerous churches at Amplify, succinctly captures the unfurling of God’s ultimate unfathomability: Throughout history we’ve been debating over so many things, right, simply because human beings had to define God and how to make sense of God in a certain way, but God’s not like that … so it made me realise that wow, truly God’s grace and thoughts are higher than ours.

Ong’s reference to historical debates on the nature of God is, I suggest, an allusion to Christianity’s genealogy of encountering and addressing the ‘wrong’ way of doing church, or what are often touted as heresy and schism (Gooder 2008; Kelly 1968; Lyman 1999; Prudlo 2019). She aptly points out with awe – signified by ‘wow’ – that ‘God’s grace’ and divine faculties ‘are higher’ than human operations, possibly an allusion to Isaiah 55.8–9. Ong’s musings in this context help me greatly in own theological meditations. First, my understanding of God’s ‘thoughts’ which God communicates through God’s ‘grace’ is God’s active self-communication to human beings in total freedom through an invitation for human beings to know, experience and love God and each other in the unfolding of human experiences. The gift of God’s personhood to human beings is

96 

J. N. GOH

fundamentally God’s own invitation and initiative of loving relationality (Kappen 1982; Osborne 1999; Pieris 1982), and grace is encountered in both remarkable and unremarkable experiences of life that are constructive, creative and life-giving. Secondly, God’s grace is also God’s invitation for people ‘to join God in the reconstruction of history … inspiring them to strive for that which is true, beautiful and good … and giving them strength to pursue not self-­ interest but the interest of others’ (Song 1991, 8). God desires human cooperation in the productive unravelling of human civilisation and the sustenance of communal welfare, during which people are themselves destabilised and transformed. Michael F. Pettinger muses that ‘grace not only destabilizes the “self” as an autonomous subject but destabilizes the self’s relationship with others as well’ (2015, 130). As human communities of discipleship, churches encounter and accept God’s twofold invitation at the meeting point of faith, in which their efforts ‘to define [and] make sense’ of God comprehensively are well-meaning but futile. Churches often minimise or forget to create space for the apophatic and hidden dimensions of grace. As Michael Amaladoss notes, ‘the rich variety of human creations is a pale reflection of the Infinite that is beyond name and form’ (1998, 145). Open and affirming churches, as well as Amplify itself, must recognise that their responses to the enigmatic outreach of God cannot be definitively and exhaustively determined in any particular manner, because ‘God’s not like that’. ‘The Christian faith’, Adrian Thatcher surmises, ‘is an invitation to enter into a life, the divine life, where identity and difference are held together in the being God is’ (2018, 35). As such, the godly experience of individuals and communities cannot be curtailed and reduced to theological singularity. Sam Li reiterates Ong’s notion of divine mystery and calls to the fore the global diversity of Christian tradition which he compares with the diversity of participating churches at Amplify: There’s a lot of denomination out there … my understanding is that there are over 80,000 worldwide. And each denomination claim that they have the ultimate truth, interpretation or understanding of God’s will … to me, stupid that people say that I’m better than the others just because I feel that I have access to the truth. But I think God is a lot bigger than all of us here. So, I doubt anyone will have the ultimate truth and I believe that we all have to come together to get a little bit closer to what God is … there’s a lot of mystery there.

4  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF PROMISCUOUS IRREGULARITY 

97

While Ong sees God’s identity and operations as ‘higher’, Li sees them as ‘bigger’ or exceeding the claim to absolute theological epistemology to which ‘each denomination [lays] claim’. His quip that such claims are ‘stupid’ seem to reveal his frustration with the myopia and hubris that churches manifest in insisting that ‘they have the ultimate truth’ or a desire ‘to imprison the infinite in a formula or structure’ (Amaladoss 1998, 145), thus evincing an ignorance that ‘theology is a cultural formation as power-­ driven as any other social arena such as politics and economy’ (W. A. Wong 2007, 38). It is perhaps this sort of ecclesial arrogance that prompts Ting-jin Yong to remark how ‘the church institution is basically a set-up of power structures of domination and its attendant and required subordination’ (2009, 51), and in this case, the domination and consequent requisite subordination of theological epistemologies. A more profound knowledge of God does not lie in exclusive claims of ‘access to the truth’ or the most valid interpretation of divine revelation, but in communal pursuits of identifying, missing, piercing, (mis)comprehending and further deciphering the ‘mystery’ that is God. God is not ‘discovered’ exclusively in individual churches – not even in LGBTIQ-affirming ones or Amplify  – but is godself (dis)placed, (re) invited, (un)knotted and (re)acquainted with in communities of believers that journey and discern together. The upshot is not an automatic communal unearthing of a singular understanding of God by default, but appreciation, respect and ever-tentative comprehensions in relation to the complex unfoldings of God in various churches. Sara Rosenau points out that Christian communities are not formed by the ‘unity of shared agreement, but are disoriented by the difference of queer [and I add, transgender] Christians … [which] has the potential to reorient the whole to discover … new configurations of community that recognize the other’ (2020, 39–40). As Li sees it, theological myopia and hubris must give way to the humble appreciation of difference and the acknowledgement of uncertainty: Appreciate … the situation or different ways of thinking without necessarily drawing a conclusion or saying ‘This is better than the others’. So that is … one of the essence of being inclusive … first you need to grow the appreciation of how other people think and … able to … not jump to conclusions too quickly, but able to be part of the discussion. Even though it’s something I may not be in agreement, that doesn’t means that … we need to start

98 

J. N. GOH

an arguments … we should be able to still … be in the same room together … So I think from my understanding and my personal belief as well, I think being inclusive or being progressive as such is that it’s actually okay to be not sure … one thing that definitely is keeping us all together is … affirming LGBTQI people.

The drive to appreciate difference as a practice of inclusivity on Li’s part can be enacted through two major methods. First, while he ‘may not be in agreement’ with the modus operandi of some open and affirming churches based on their ‘model of reality informing their understanding and their environment’ (Ikejiama 2016, 192), he does not need to ‘start … arguments’ or engage in destructive performances of discord which only serve the purpose of allowing each church involved to insist  – perhaps even smugly – on the veracity, legitimacy and supremacy of its theological operations at the rejection and exclusion of those of other churches. Tissa Balasuriya’s comment on interreligious dialogue that ‘so long as we have an attitude of superiority and self-justification we cannot meet others in frank dialogue’ (1982, 25) is also relevant for the present discussion on LGBTIQ-friendly churches. Second, a commitment to ‘the essence of being inclusive’ for Li requires him to ‘be in the same room together’ and ‘be part of the discussion’, perhaps an allusion to the descent of the Spirit as portrayed in Acts 2.1–12. Differences of theological opinion do not need to eventuate in ecclesial alienation or detached co-existence by default. Instead, churches with disparate theological emphases can participate in meaningful exchanges of ideas and learn from each other without the perceived threat of losing their own fundamental identities. Amplify allows ‘for ongoing dialogue that need not be bound to a specific time line or an obligation to achieve some kind of consensus’ (Goh 2019, 197). These methods which can spur a ‘grow[ing] … appreciation of how other people think’ are important to anticipate any potential volatilities between churches, and allow for the mutual witnessing of the doings of God in churches in which ‘pluralism is a sign of the free creativity of God and … humans’ (Amaladoss 1998, 145). What I find particularly striking in Li’s narrative is his avowal that a crucial component of being inclusive is the mindset ‘that it’s actually okay to be not sure’. As discussed earlier, Christianity has been embroiled in myriad forms of power struggle in the name of ‘right’ dogma and doctrine throughout the centuries. The onus which various church leaders invariably impose on themselves to unequivocally determine and pronounce

4  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF PROMISCUOUS IRREGULARITY 

99

theological and biblical truisms in a bid to preserve the ‘truth’ for the sake of Christians has been and continues to be responsible for the schisms, skirmishes and even shedding of blood in the name of Christ(ianity) (Gooder 2008; Kelly 1968; Lyman 1999; Prudlo 2019). Li’s sharing may not explicitly refer to such belligerent episodes and circumstances, but it does emphasise the point that the dogged desire for an unmitigated understanding of God has contributed to the fragmentation of Christianity on many levels. Li is thus convinced that perfect theological certitude is unnecessary for productive doings of church. Instead, it is the common task of ‘affirming LGBTQI people’ among all participating churches that acts as the pivotal unifying factor, an idea which reverberates with what I mentioned earlier as the theological vision of Amplify. A focus on Amplify’s quest to prepare a space for churches to deepen their vocation of being open and affirming, coupled with a humble acknowledgement of not-knowing-it-all in relation to God provide multiple entry points for the promiscuous irregularities of God in ecclesial journeys taken together. It is a method of doing church with the theological porosity and indeterminacy which constitute a humility that is ‘grounded in mutual exchange and willingness to be changed but also the willingness to wrestle and struggle with one another’ (Stuart 1997b, 193). Su-lin Ngiam concurs with Ong and Li, and points out the ‘danger’ of being ‘too inwardly looking’ in approaching, understanding and explaining God: I mean the fact that it has transcended quite a lot of these borders, I think is the true value of Amplify … the church is much larger than just our individual localities, and the danger of that is that we become too inward looking, and I think because no one has the full picture of God and God’s plans, and the way God works, then we need multiple voices because otherwise … we fall into a trap of thinking that maybe there’s only this way or that way.

The transcending of borders of which Ngiam speaks is a convergence of diverse theological ideas that is facilitated and accommodated during Amplify. Not unlike Li, she underscores the proclivities of individual churches to act as imprimaturs of singular ideas of God when the actual reality is that ‘no one has the full picture of God and God’s plans, and the way God works’. Hence, God lies beyond the absolute grasp of any one church or theological formulation. Furthermore, as Kim-hao Yap observes,

100 

J. N. GOH

all theologising is partial and situated as ‘we are limited by our environment and we are creatures of our circumstances [and thus] can only authentically reflect theologically from our peculiar situation’ (1990, 39). No church can legitimately appropriate a rhetoric of the fullness of truth because truth is always partial, situated, contingent and evolutionary. I suggest that Ngiam may be alluding to how the tendency of non-­ affirming churches to declare sole rights to God and pronounce God’s disapproval of LGBTIQ identities and expressions as definitive can be easily reproduced among open and affirming churches that succumb to the power-ridden temptation of pronouncing their own versions of theology as absolute. Any church can overlook the evolutionary fluidity of theology and the fact that ‘any form of solidity is in fact a gesturing toward theology’s temporary roosting in order to allow itself to be grasped, deployed, and reshaped’ (Goh 2020a, 239). A failure on the part of churches to understand and submit to the impermanence of theology is tantamount to ‘ascribing an arrogant and condescending metanarrative to their version of solid theology’ (Goh 2020a, 239) which will inevitably erect dichotomous hierarchies of insiders and outsiders in ecclesial spaces. No LGBTIQ-affirming church is thus impervious to becoming an LGBTIQ metachurch which glorifies its own exclusive metanarratives of God while disavowing those of other churches. Ngiam aptly points out the need for ‘multiple voices’ in order to preserve the justice of realising that ‘the church is much larger than just our individual [local churches]’ and whereby ‘God-talk is made relative to God experience’ (Pieris 1982, 110). Multiplicity helps preserve theological uncertainty and differences as the kaleidoscopic imaginings of God, and Amplify acknowledges that no church can lay exclusive claim to knowledge of God. The uncertainty over God’s operation in human lives thus bears potential for fostering an appreciation towards the irregular spiritualities of LGBTIQ people, which include different styles of worship. Caelan Liu articulates this appreciation during my conversation with her on the difference between Amplify and Love Church, the open and affirming Christian community which she pastors in Kaohsiung, Taiwan: We worship differently … not … in term of Spirit but … the way and the form … we are Spirit-filled church, and we have a lot of spiritual expression in the worship, and this, the big gathering … all these individual is express in their own way, so it’s different in back home.

4  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF PROMISCUOUS IRREGULARITY 

101

Liu is convinced that the Spirit of God who ‘works miraculously in the different communities of faith to actualize the presence of God in [their] lives’ (Kim 2018, 139) is actively present in the worship practices both among her congregants ‘back home’ and in those who participate in Amplify. Nonetheless, by stating that ‘it’s different back home’, she seems to allude to a certain homogeneity in the ‘way and form’ of worship that is practised at her church. In contrast, participants at ‘the big gathering’ that is Amplify evince a diversity of expression by worshipping ‘in their own way’ as informed by their theological traditions and personal spiritualities. Silas Kwok-yiu Wong echoes Liu’s observation of a greater freedom in spiritual expression at Amplify, and compares it with the weekly services he conducts at Tong-Kwang Light House Presbyterian Church: Every Sunday will be routine. Everything is just like ordinary Sunday worship. But because of different people, different from different countries, different impact … singing and the message will much more enthusiastic … it can push our spiritual, theological and some even emotion … I mean, in religious direction.

The unvarying worship styles which Liu mentions is also reflected in the ‘routine [and] ordinary Sunday worship’ at Wong’s church. The worship experience at Amplify however, is one that is more ‘impact[ful]’ and ‘enthusiastic’ as it emerges from the diversity and magnitude of Amplify participation, and can galvanise emotional fervour in relation to spiritual and theological dynamics. Wong’s remark seems to suggest that this larger scale worship ardour at Amplify is ‘vital because it is the means by which the church as a body sustains and nurtures itself and remembers itself, puts itself back together and back on track by recalling and recommitting itself to its mission’ (Stuart 1997a, 108). On numerous levels at these Conferences, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Both Liu and Wong are keenly aware of the spiritual and theological differences and emphases that play out between their churches and Amplify, and within Amplify itself. I propose that on the one hand, these participating churches bring possibly lesser known, geographically specific and culturally conditioned styles of worship to Amplify. On the other hand, these churches also benefit from witnessing the juxtapositions present in the ways in which LGBTIQ Christians experience and express their relationship with God. Difference thus serves as a subtle and mutual

102 

J. N. GOH

dialogue on appreciating human approaches to God in which participating churches act as ‘ecclesia discens (a learning church) and not just … ecclesia docens (a teaching church)’ (Cheah 2020, 11). While Li, Liu and Wong characterise sincere co-journeying, attentive listening and learning, regard for diverging ideas and humble indeterminacy, and variant worship styles as the appreciation of theological difference and uncertainty, Ngiam sees this appreciation in terms of the dynamic of ‘relationship’: A community is any group of people that want to be together … I think one of the core things about being Christian is a call to be in relationship, and not just with one other person but with people … So it goes beyond the individual spirituality, how are we to practise our faith … if not in community then … how would you be getting feedback about oneself and how we’re living out our spirituality … I mean arguably it gets more challenging the bigger the community (laughs), more opportunities for tension, or friction, or difference, but therein lies … this ability to really develop and grow as a person, and as a Christian person.

In speaking of Amplify within the context of community, Ngiam affirms that togetherness and connections are significant hallmarks of Amplify. Yet she also presents two additional considerations. First, Amplify must serve as a platform from which participants can respond to ‘a call to be in relationship’ with what I propose may be Ngiam’s allusion to the wider Christian and human community. To become a Christian is fundamentally to embrace the vocation of living out the Christian faith humanly as a community practice in the world rather than an exclusively solitary, independent and secluded exercise in safe ecclesial cloisters. According to Elizabeth Stuart, ‘the church has always insisted that being a Christian is primarily a communal experience, being part of a community which is the body of Christ on earth’ (1997a, 108; see also Edman 2016). To reiterate an earlier point, this community practice is steeped in ‘seeking not merely to understand the world but to transform it into something deeply human’ (Rayan 1982, 75; added emphasis). As such, Ngiam turns her attention not only to individual Christians, but to open and affirming churches that comprise individual Christians who are called to be deeply Christian by being deeply human. The incarnational elements in Ngiam’s musings are unmistakable. The fusing of God with human flesh in the person of Jesus is the core of all theologising (Athyal 1995; Bohache

4  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF PROMISCUOUS IRREGULARITY 

103

2003), and places upon Christian individuals and communities the divine mandate to be Christ-like in their humanness, notably in doing church. In other words, the doings of church are thoroughly human endeavours, even if they are indubitably infused with divine inspiration. ‘To practise … faith’ in individual and ecclesial ways is tantamount to performing personal and communal understandings of God that do not claim total autonomy, but ones which are constantly challenged and informed through communal exchanges. Ngiam does not romanticise the accommodation of theological difference. She does not discount the human reality of escalating ‘tension[s,] friction[s] or difference[s]’ that accompany the growth of churches. After all, ‘where there is a question of different cultures, different circumstances may lead to different experiences and expressions, not to speak of the freedom and creativity of the people involved as well as of the Spirit’ (Amaladoss 1998, 45). Moreover, as Albert Sundararaj Walters insightfully declares, ‘theology is a living experience, having to do with our very existence as Christians and as churches [and which] must speak to the actual questions people are asking in the midst of their dilemmas’ (2002, 242; added emphasis). The living out of theology in community is not exempted from the granular  and undulating textures of human vicissitude. Nevertheless, a consistent review and evaluation among churches of how a church understands God in doing church, and ‘feedback’ from churches on how its members are doing Christianity are beneficial for individuals and churches ‘to really develop and grow’ in both their human and faith identities through the spaces of mutual learning afforded at Amplify. Doing church in shared spaces is thus a volatile endeavour that dismisses a guarantee of absolute accord and freedom from dispute, but also one which holds great promise for the progress and augmentation of participation in God’s promiscuous irregularity.

Motivating Potential for Ecclesial and Theological Development In open and affirming churches, but especially at Amplify where a convergence and an exchange of ideas can occur, many informants see an anticipation of, and a motivation for theological growth as a sine qua non. Respect for theological difference and uncertainty must never be taken as a legitimate exemption from the mandate to develop interminably in

104 

J. N. GOH

doings of faith and church, and the imperative to learn from the best practices of other Christian communities. Pauline Ong’s thoughts echo this notion: Goh: Do you think that there is a theology of Amplify? Ong: I’m sure there is. I don’t know if it’s articulated or not … I mean I think one of it would be that ... we are doing church in a wider and larger context … kind of questioning how we do things and whether there are new ways of looking at stuff, new ways of doing things, so not kind of translating a status quo kind of theology or practices and say hey, you know, let’s just kind of learn this well and continue doing this kind of thing. So I think there’s a constant kind of pushing towards learning and towards being open to change. Similar to the thoughts of Amplify frontliners which appear at the outset of this chapter, Ong displays hesitance in decisively identifying a singular theological tradition that is propounded by Amplify, or if it appears in distinctively conspicuous forms to participants. Instead, she appeals to the theological vision I discuss variously in this book, in which Amplify furnishes a space for LGBTIQ-affirming churches and for Amplify itself to engage in veracious self-reflexive exercises which are, borrowing Sathianathan Clark’s words, ‘collective reflection[s] on God, the world and human beings and their interrelationships, this reflection being framed by Jesus Christ and formed through the Holy Spirit in light of the realities of the peoples of Asia’ (2012, 4). For Ong, this space facilitates a ‘pushing towards learning and … being open … to change’ for theological conceptualisations beyond a preservation of the ‘status quo’ (see Althaus-Reid 2007). The tendency for Amplify, as Ong seems to imply, is to rehearse familiar and comfortable methods for each instance of Amplify that risk forfeiting opportunities for amenability to the promiscuous irregularity of God, and the vulnerability to be invited and guided by God to the next level, whereby ‘God … make[s] God’s own self heard in human language’ (Song 2002, 104). Just as complacency is simultaneously the reduction of God and God-talk to a monolingual experience, amenability and vulnerability are polyvocal acknowledgements that ‘the Mystery is greater than the representation of it’ (Kavunkal 2008, 40). Ong’s ‘pushing towards learning’ is reflected in Pearl Wong’s perception of Amplify as a space to inject theological diversity. Her presentations

4  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF PROMISCUOUS IRREGULARITY 

105

at Amplify serve as opportune moments to instil elements of what could be termed as progressive theologies, or more liberal theologies that ‘work within the framework of pluralism, feminism, liberationism, post-­ colonialism, and ecological and environmental responsibility [towards] an authentic progressive faith’ (Kuan 2006, 4), particularly among those whom she perceives as unwittingly enshrouded in non-liberative, conservative theological ideas: We need to tell them that first of all, God is diverse, and God is not male only, like God embraces sexuality in different forms, gender identity, gender expression. And the relationship also with us, God with us, is actually not like in a hierarchy, not in the church, okay. We are in fact, God is like a friend to us. God … is on our level, because incarnated through Jesus Christ.

Wong’s emphasis on a God who ‘is not male only’ hints at a pervasive patriarchal and androcentric impression of God in many churches, often to the detriment of indigenous groups, women and LGBTIQ people (Burns and Monro 2014; Hnuni 2004; Melanchthon 2003; Peacock 2017; Yong 2014). Moreover, her conviction that God embraces various configurations of gender and sexuality appears to be a reiteration of Amplify’s core message of inclusion and affirmation of gender-variant and sexually diverse people. Wong’s portrayal of God as ‘friend’ suggests a relationship of intimacy, equality and loving familiarity between the human and the divine without renouncing a ‘respect of distance and strangeness’ (Bae 2006, 2), and which by extension fosters a more critical comprehension of the inextricable link between gender, sexuality, biology and spirituality for LGBTIQ people (Bong 2011, 2009; Cornwall 2010; Luk 2015; Nelson 1996; Tanis 2003; Yip 2012). Such a relationship undermines what may well be the long-held chasm between the divinely pure and the humanly profane, often promulgated by churches, which effectively creates a false dichotomy and disharmony between the values of ‘otherworldly’ faith and ‘worldly’ praxis. In this regard, it is not uncommon for LGBTIQ Christians – particularly those who are still struggling with self-loathing and religiously induced guilt – to develop compartmentalised worldviews between the ‘purity’ of faith and the ‘impurity’ of non-normative genders, sexualities and anatomies within themselves (Goh 2018). There are of course more serious issues at play. This chasm ossifies ecclesial injustices such as androcentrism, patriarchy, cisnormativity and

106 

J. N. GOH

heteronormativity that continue to determine the nature of ecclesial leadership, governance and membership (Kwok 2005), even in churches that purport to be LGBTIQ-affirming (McQueeney 2009; Siew 2015). God’s representatives can deliver convincing and uncontested provisos of ‘correct’ leadership and discipleship, theological meaning, and biblical interpretation that remain unfettered from the aforementioned injustices. While respect for churches, and their leadership and traditions must be upheld, ecclesial injustices must never be tolerated and perpetuated. Additionally, I believe that Wong is trying to drive home the point that the genders and sexualities of LGBTIQ people cannot be treated solely as linear bestowals of  God upon  human beings with little more beyond grateful acknowledgement. Non-normative genders, sexualities and anatomies are not simply gifts that need to be accepted and appreciated. LGBTIQ people are created in imago Dei, or the reality that ‘every human being is an expression of the Christic spirit or presence of God’ (Hipsher 2009, 98). Hence, the diversity that LGBTIQ people detect within themselves must also translate into corporeal interpretations of ‘a God who is as gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered as heterosexual’ (Stuart 1997a, 112). Here, ‘human imagination … as the point of contact between divine revelation and human experience’ (Bieler and Schottroff 2007, 24; original emphasis) needs to gain even more traction. An intimate recourse to God who touches and resides in human flesh, and a translation of God through flesh-and-blood experiences as LGBTIQ leads to a theological act of imagining God who is somehow queer and transgender (Althaus-Reid 2003; Hipsher 2009; Sprinkle 2009), just as God has been imagined as woman, Asian and Black through diverse experiences of being woman, Asian and Black (Abraham 2019; Cone 1975; Daly 1985; Lee 2004). God needs to be (re)imagined by LGBTIQ people as LGBTIQ people through LGBTIQ experiences. There is, I suggest, a high probability that the transgressive demeanour with which Wong approaches theology is both her intended antidote to ecclesial injustices and a heartfelt desire to excite others who have settled complacently in theological assurance to continue excavating the mystery and diversity of God who, in Li’s words in the previous section, ‘is a lot bigger’ than extant assumptions and foregone conclusions. Similarly, Jason Man-bo Ho sees Amplify as a ‘trigger’ for disseminating progressive theologies that can benefit the doings of church:

4  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF PROMISCUOUS IRREGULARITY 

107

I myself, encouraged by the fact that this is an international movement going on, and there are many things we can learn from each other. Yeah, like BMCC learned how to do our worship better, we learn that there are different kinds of theologies going on, there are new ideas about how to look at queers, is not, not just from the gay theology perspective but there are so many, like queer theology, like many other things that other church communities have been concerned about, have been discussing, but it might be the first time for them to learn … So these events … may be a trigger … for better and continuous development in their local churches.

By virtue of being ‘an international movement’, Amplify accords its participants the possibility of mutual learning and ‘continuous development’. Ho recounts how BMCC has benefited from Amplify in terms of worship techniques, and the expansion of knowledge in theology and ‘other things’ that constitute ecclesial concerns. Through participation in Amplify, BMCC exercises a potential for development in its understanding of God and doings of church. Akin to Pearl Wong, Ho also advocates the delivery of progressive theologies at Amplify. The distinction that he makes between ‘gay theology’ and ‘queer theology’ is notable as it adds nuances to the ecclesial injustices which I previously discussed. Scholars are cognisant that despite being one of the forerunners of queer theology, gay – and lesbian – theologies which initially emerged in tandem with the European-American, middle-class gay and lesbian liberation movement in the United States adopt a more apologetic tone (Stuart 2003), and mainly concentrate on gay and lesbian topics while backgrounding the concerns of bisexual, transgender, intersex and other queer people (consult Córdova Quero 2019; Shore-Goss 2003; Stuart 2003). Based mostly on an ontological premise of same-sex attraction as divine endowment, gay and lesbian theologies call for a cessation of gay and lesbian invisibility and discrimination, and seek to restore the rightful belonging of gay and lesbian people and issues in church and theology (Glaser 1998; McNeill 1993; Shore-Goss 1993; Wilson 1995). Queer theologies arose alongside queer theories, and have proven to be ‘queerer’ in the sense of being more interrogative, transgressive and deconstructive of gender, sexuality and anatomy. They are mostly unfettered from the need for validation from non-affirming ecclesial communities. They ‘follow the new understanding of activism and alliances among the many sexual groups which emerged at the end of the 1980s onwards’ (Córdova Quero 2019, 167) and include the experiences of bisexual,

108 

J. N. GOH

transgender, intersex and non-binary people, BDSM communities and practices, queer straight people, People Living with HIV and AIDS, People With Disability, and other ‘politically incorrect’ and ‘unrespectable’ identities and acts. Queer theologies also seek to shatter ecclesial injustices, and are sensitive to intersecting and contextual issues such as race and ethnicity, class, educational and health access, cultural, political, legal and economic norms, age, ability and the influence of non-Christian faiths (Ayers 2004; Cheng 2013; Cornwall 2010; Goh 2014; Hero 2012; Luk 2015; Meneses 2020; Mok and Wong 2020; Shore-Goss 2018, 2004; P. Wong 2015; Wu 2000; Yip 2012). Queer theologies shockingly expand, extend and challenge both mainstream and gay and lesbian theologies to greater criticality (Althaus-Reid 2000), and building on gay and lesbian theologies, further uncover non-­ normative elements embedded in theologies, biblical interpretations and lives of saints (Buechel 2020; Guest et al. 2006; Loughlin 2007b; Stone 2001). A  task of queer theologies, as Gerard Loughlin proposes, is ‘to make the same different, the familiar strange, the odd wonderful; and to do so not out of perversity but in faithfulness to the different, strange, and wonderful by which we are encountered in the story of Jesus and the body of Christ’ (2007a, 31).6 For Ho, these progressive theologies are indispensable elements for the Conferences as participants need to become more conscious of the broader framework of theological marginalisation instead of settling comfortably in what I had discussed at the beginning of this chapter as an insufficiently critical approach to conservative theologies by LGBTIQ Christians. By regarding Amplify as his source for learning about ‘inclusive language’ and eventually implementing it at Good Samaritan Kuala Lumpur (GSKL) in Malaysia, Joe Wai-yap Pang underscores how a development of doing church can also extend to aspects of ecclesial worship: We started to talk about inclusive language actually … in Malaysia and in church we seldom talk about it. But that years in Amplify we talk inclusive like … don’t look at God only is a father image. …We can say parents God, we can say mother … Because we are the inclusive church … when we say we want to inclusive we need to provide a space, and the language, and worship song and everything we should go in line in, inclusive. So in the begin6  Here, Loughlin uses ‘perversity’ in a quite a different way from Althaus-Reid’s per/version as found in her Indecent Theology (2000).

4  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF PROMISCUOUS IRREGULARITY 

109

ning we talk about inclusive and accept our differences, embrace the differences, but at the end our prayer, our worship song, our Bible words all is the same … so slowly we change.

Not unlike most mainstream churches in Malaysia, GSKL initially adopted an androcentric language that portrayed and addressed God ‘only [in terms of] a father[ly] image’ while eliding parental, maternal and other imageries of God that speak to divine/human diversity (Goh 2020b). Encounters with God, as Sebastian Kappen rightly observes, are conditioned by ‘ideas, values, beliefs, attitudes, assumptions, myths, and symbols handed down to us from past generations [which] determine the way we are attuned to the total mystery of human existence and … God’ (1982, 124). Akin to many other Asian ecclesial communities, Malaysian churches generally hold patriarchal and androcentric views of God and by extension, church leadership. Pang senses an incompatibility between the raison d’être of GSKL to be inclusive –likely exceeding gender and sexuality issues – while overlooking and omitting this very inclusivity in the scripts and sung worship of weekly services. The mission of a church to be inclusive or to ‘accept [and] embrace the differences’, he insightfully gathers, needs to ‘go in line’ or be congruent with the material performances of church among its congregants. Good theology, as Stuart asserts, ‘is about real people and affects real lives’ (2003, 27), including church life. Enlightened and inspired by his experiences of those who advocate and implement inclusive language at Amplify, Pang eventually effects a gradual transformation in prayer scripts, musical scores for worship and biblical references that better reflect the goal of his church to foster inclusivity. Amplify thus provides the resources for participating churches to deepen their understanding of theological inclusivity and diversity, combat ecclesial injustices of androcentricity, patriarchy, cisnormativity and heteronormativity, and encounter the growth-inducing promiscuous irregularities of God.

Uncustomary Strategies In one of Pauline Ong’s narratives which appears earlier on in this chapter, her comment that those in positions of ecclesiastical governance are pressured ‘to define God and … make sense of God in a certain way’ is particularly pertinent in my discussion on an ecclesiology of promiscuous irregularity. As mentioned in Chap. 2, many open and affirming churches

110 

J. N. GOH

emerge from the intolerance, incapability and unwillingness of non-­ affirming churches to unconditionally accommodate gender and sexual differences, and their unrelenting demand for absolute ‘loyalty’ through uncontested uni(formi)ty and adherence to heteronormative and cisnormative ecclesiastical traditions, customs and jurisprudence. Yet as my informants imply variously throughout this volume (and more explicitly in private conversations), some LGBTIQ-friendly churches themselves are struggling with difference and uncertainty within their own ranks, and occasionally display a proclivity for theological exclusivity in doing church. Nevertheless, these Amplify frontliners also aver that Amplify allows for an accommodation of theological uncertainties and differences. They uphold the ultimate unknowability and impregnable mystery of God and God’s workings. For them, God certainly exceeds the summation of theological wisdom from churches. Moreover, God desires the company of human beings who are invited to cooperate with God in their realities without succumbing to the temptation of defining God comprehensively, arrogantly and with exclusionary authority. While the sense-making of God from singular yet exclusionary perspectives may still be deemed pragmatic or even necessary for constructions of theological soundness and ecclesial coherence and uni(formi)ty, I wonder if such specific approaches necessarily benefit individual churches which stipulate a particular version of the praxis of faith, and if an insistence on such specific approaches are actually counterproductive to ecclesial collaborations with God in witnessing to Christ’s mission in the world? What if this pressure to explain God in rigid and specific linguistic forms was consciously and purposefully released from doings of church? What if the singularity of theological tradition  – if present  – was cherished and honoured as a possible starting point for reflection, yet de-aggrandised and subsequently made to defer to a holding space of not-knowing-it-all in pursuit of more insights and propositions? What if Christians were willing to develop a keener sense of appreciation for the mystery and diversity that enshrouds God and God-talk? What if an unruly imagination of God was encouraged rather than stifled? What if ‘Perhaps’ was genuinely and rigorously re-envisioned as another name for God, and uncertainty as an indispensable artefact of doing theology and church through a sort of ‘unity in tension’ (Wu 2000, 74)?

4  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF PROMISCUOUS IRREGULARITY 

111

I am not advocating for senseless anarchy, careless relativity or simplistic absorption in doing church. As mentioned earlier in this book,7 openness and affirmation should not be taken to mean an uncritical and assimilative attitude to all ideas of God. The church needs to challenge and critique as much as it should embrace and encourage. An ecclesiology of promiscuous irregularity is no different. Inasmuch as it welcomes diverse notions of God and church, it must also subject these theological and ecclesial concepts to constant appraisal based on the lived realities of actual human beings. Saphir P. Athyal aptly posits that ‘theology … must be produced in the laboratory of life where it is put to test each day’ (1995, 84). Nevertheless, this approach of criticality must be preceded by an approach of openness as its first response and fundamental principle. Such experimental ecclesial processes are never exempted from friction and dispute. Despite being divinely inspired, doings of church are human endeavours, and to listen to God in doing church is to do so humanly. The presence of uncertainty and difference does not mean that churches can cease learning more about God, especially from each other. Theological formation must speak deeply to LGBTIQ realities and not merely rest as superficial  LGBTIQ claddings of conservative theologies. Gender-variant and sexually diverse Christians must learn how to be LGBTIQ Christians who bring their lives to their faith and their faith to their lives, not Christians who just happen to be LGBTIQ or LGBTIQ people who just happen to be Christian. I argue that amidst differences of opinion and possible conflicts, the theological vision of Amplify is necessary as it acts as a porous, versatile and inclusive repository, gatekeeper and reviewer of numerous lived theological traditions that are submitted by the participants of the Conferences, including the theological trajectories that the co-founders, organisers, hosts, consultants, speakers and other active contributors infuse into Amplify. My principal contention in this chapter is that the absence of any singular theological tradition of Amplify paves the way for the infusion of multiple theological strands that are neither obliterated due to pursuits of theological hegemony nor melded into an overarching theological behemoth to placate or  anaesthetise  the reality of differences in God-talk. Instead, each person is allowed a space to experience and share divinity while respecting spaces that are inhabited by others. Amplify does not need to name one particular tradition as its brand. Instead, it needs to 7

 See Chap. 2.

112 

J. N. GOH

continue to be respectful, welcoming, open and affirming of the diverse ways in which God works which then translates into being respectful, welcoming, open and affirming of the ways in which LGBTIQ Christian individuals and LGBTIQ-friendly churches operate at and outside Amplify. A commitment to openness and affirmation is a commitment to the courage of uncertainty and difference, as well as the bold amenability to transformation, change and new dynamics. Individual churches can benefit from these dynamics. The beckonings of God to churches are experienced in myriad ways that need not signal the forfeiting of valid godly encounters simply on the basis of being unfamiliar. These experiences may indicate the beginnings or the midways of human-divine relationships, and probably never be given to any sort of finality, completion, consensus or even resemblance. An ecclesiology of promiscuous irregularity abandons a desire to entertain an obsession with neat categories. An ecclesiology of promiscuous irregularity does not hold itself captive to the threat of shame or embarrassment, is open to the plenitude of divine intimations, is unafraid of not knowing, is unopposed to maybes and is undeterred by the prospect of theological error. By way of an analogy, an Amplify has pillars but no walls – a clear but evolving theological vision paired with the absence of a specific theological tradition. Theological customs, ceremonies, observances and ordinances are welcome at, and subsumed under Amplify’s overarching banner of openness and affirmation. At Amplify, God is permitted to act promiscuously and speak irregularly as God’s commitment to the value of diversity and inclusivity. As such, an ecclesiology of promiscuous irregularity is predicated on the absence of absolute allegiance and commitment on the part of God to any exclusive theological trend, principle or legislation.

Bibliography Abraham, Kochurani. 2019. Freeing Power for Powering Freedom. In Liberating Power: Asian Feminist Theological Perspectives, ed. Andrea Lizares Si and Jeane C. Peracullo, 83–98. Bengaluru: Dharmaram Publications. Althaus-Reid, Marcella. 2000. Indecent Theology: Theological Perversions in Sex, Gender and Politics. New York: Routledge. ———. 2003. The Queer God: Sexuality and Liberation Theology. New  York: Routledge.

4  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF PROMISCUOUS IRREGULARITY 

113

———. 2007. Hard Core Queer: The Church as Dis/Grace. Presented at the Queering the Church Conference, Boston University School of Theology, Boston, MA, April 18. Amaladoss, Michael. 1998. Beyond Inculturation: Can the Many Be One? Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers. Athyal, Saphir P. 1995. Towards an Asian Christian Theology. In Biblical Theology in Asia, ed. Ken Gnanakan, 77–89. Bangalore: Asia Theological Association. Ayers, Jeremy. 2004. Towards a Eucharistic Politics of the Black Body: Black Sexuality in the Horizons of Christian Theology. Theology & Sexuality 10 (2): 99–113. Bae, Hyunju. 2006. Blessed Are Friends of God! CTC Bulletin XXII (2): 1–4. Balasuriya, Tissa. 1982. Towards the Liberation of Theology in Asia. In Theological Reflection on Asia’s Struggle for Full Humanity, ed. Virginia Fabella, Jack Clancey, and John Ma, 23–34. Hong Kong: Plough Publications. Bieler, Andrea, and Luise Schottroff. 2007. The Eucharist: Bodies, Bread, & Resurrection. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Bohache, Thomas. 2003. Embodiment as Incarnation: An Incipient Queer Christology. Theology & Sexuality 10 (1): 9–29. Bong, Sharon A. 2009. Sexualising Faith and Spiritualising Sexuality in Postcolonial Narratives of Same-Sex Intimacy. In Persons and Sexuality: Probing the Boundaries, ed. Carlo Zuccarini and Alison Moore, 33–44. Oxford: Inter-­ Disciplinary Press. ———. 2011. The Narratives of GLBTQ Persons: Towards an Epistemology of the Body. In Feminist Theology of Liberation: Asian Perspectives: Practicing Peace, ed. Judette A.  Gallares and Astrid Lobo-Gajiwala, 81–100. Quezon City: Claretian Publications. Buechel, Andy. 2020. Queering Ecclesial Authority with Mechthild of Magdeburg: A Roman Catholic Perspective. In Unlocking Orthodoxies for Inclusive Theologies: Queer Alternatives, ed. Robert E.  Shore-Goss and Joseph N.  Goh, 94–111. New York: Routledge. Burns, Stephen, and Anita Monro, eds. 2014. Public Theology and the Challenge of Feminism. London: Routledge. Cartledge, Mark J. 2016. Renewal Theology and the “Common Good”. Journal of Pentecostal Theology 25 (1): 90–106. Cartledge, Mark J., and A.J. Swoboda, eds. 2016. Scripting Pentecost: A Study of Pentecostals, Worship and Liturgy. New York: Routledge. Cheah, Joseph. 2020. An Asian Pneumatology of the FABC and the Re-Imagining of Spirituality in Asia. QUEST: Studies on Religion & Culture in Asia 4: 1–14. Cheng, Patrick S. 2013. Rainbow Theology: Bridging Race, Sexuality, and Spirit. New York: Seabury Books. Chung, Paul S. 2009. Constructing Irregular Theology: Bamboo and Minjung in East Asian Perspective. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers.

114 

J. N. GOH

Clarke, Sathianathan. 2012. The Task, Method and Content of Asian Theologies. In Asian Theology on the Way: Christianity, Culture and Context, ed. Peniel Jesudason Rufus Rajkumar, 3–13. London: SPCK. Cone, James H. 1975. God of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury Press. Córdova Quero, Hugo. 2019. Straddling the Global South Bridging Queer Theologies in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. In Siapakah Sesamaku? Pergumulan Teologi Dengan Isu-Isu Keadilan Gender, ed. Stephen Suleeman and Amadeo D.  Udampoh, 157–185. Jakarta: Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Theologi Jakarta. Cornwall, Susannah. 2010. Sex and Uncertainty in the Body of Christ: Intersex Conditions and Christian Theology. London: Equinox. Daly, Mary. 1985. Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation. Boston: Beacon Press. Edman, Elizabeth M. 2016. Queer Virtue: What LGBTQ People Know About Life and Love and How It Can Revitalize Christianity. Boston: Beacon Press. Garrigan, Siobhan. 2009. Queer Worship. Theology & Sexuality 15 (2): 211–230. Glaser, Chris. 1998. Coming Out as Sacrament. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Goh, Joseph N. 2014. “You Must Follow Our Belief or Else You Can’t Receive God”: Constructing a Sexual Bi/Theology of Eucharist. Dialog 53 (2): 149–158. ———. 2018. Living Out Sexuality and Faith: Body Admissions of Malaysian Gay and Bisexual Men. London: Routledge. ———. 2019. Practical Guidelines for SOGIESC Theologising in Southeast Asia: Foregrounding Gender Nonconformity, Sexual Diversity and Non-Dyadic Embodiment. In Siapakah Sesamaku? Pergumulan Teologi Dengan Isu-Isu Keadilan Gender, ed. Stephen Suleeman and Amadeo D. Udampoh, 185–210. Jakarta: Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Theologi Jakarta. ———. 2020a. Afterword: Erotic Dreams, Theology, and the Word-(Re)Made-­ Flesh. In Unlocking Orthodoxies for Inclusive Theologies: Queer Alternatives, ed. Robert E. Shore-Goss and Joseph N. Goh, 233–242. New York: Routledge. ———. 2020b. Songsang, Confessions, and Theologizings of Divine Lavishness. In Unlocking Orthodoxies for Inclusive Theologies: Queer Alternatives, ed. Robert E. Shore-Goss and Joseph N. Goh, 51–69. New York: Routledge. Gooder, Paula. 2008. In Search of the Early “Church”: The New Testament and the Development of Christian Communities. In The Routledge Companion to the Christian Church, ed. Gerard Mannion and Lewis S. Mudge, 9–27. London: Routledge. Guest, Deryn, Robert E.  Shore-Goss, Mona West, and Thomas Bohache, eds. 2006. The Queer Bible Commentary. London: SCM Press. Hero, Jakob. 2012. Toward a Queer Theology of Flourishing: Transsexual Embodiment, Subjectivity, and Moral Agency. In Queer Religion, ed. Donald L. Boisvert and Jay Emerson Johnson, 2:2: 143–165. Santa Barbara: Praeger.

4  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF PROMISCUOUS IRREGULARITY 

115

Hipsher, B.K. 2009. God Is a Many Gendered Thing: An Apophatic Journey to Pastoral Diversity. In Trans/Formations, ed. Lisa Isherwood and Marcella Althaus-Reid, 92–104. London: SCM Press. Hnuni, R.L. 2004. Contextualizing Asian Theologies: Women’s Perspective. Asia Journal of Theology 18 (1): 138–145. Ikejiama, Damian Emeka. 2016. Social Conflicts and Violence among Christian Churches and Denominations in Igboland. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Kappen, Sebastian. 1982. Orientations for An Asian Theology. In Theological Reflection on Asia’s Struggle for Full Humanity, ed. Virginia Fabella, Jack Clancey, and John Ma, 114–137. Hong Kong: Plough Publications. Kavunkal, Jacob. 2008. The Mystery of God in and Through Hinduism. In Christian Theology in Asia, ed. Sebastian C.H.  Kim, 22–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kelly, J.N.D. 1968. Early Christian Doctrines. Rev. ed. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Kim, Grace Ji-sun. 2018. The Homebrewed Christianity Guide to the Holy Spirit: Hand-Raisers, Han, and the Holy Ghost. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Kuan, Kah-jin Jeffrey. 2006. Progressive Theology: Some Musings from a United Methodist Perspective. Progressive Christian Witness, Pacific School of Religion. http://www.psr.edu/ progressive-­theology-­some-­musings-­united-­methodist-­perspective Kwok, Pui-lan. 2005. Postcolonial Imagination and Feminist Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Lee, Archie C.C. 2004. Naming God in Asia: Cross-Textual Reading in Multi-­ Cultural Context. Quest: An Interdisciplinary Journal for Asian Christian Scholars 3 (1): 21–42. Lord, Andy. 2016. A Theology of Sung Worship. In Scripting Pentecost: A Study of Pentecostals, Worship and Liturgy, ed. Mark J.  Cartledge and A.J.  Swoboda, 84–93. New York: Routledge. Loughlin, Gerard. 2007a. Introduction: The End of Sex. In Queer Theology: Rethinking the Western Body, ed. Gerard Loughlin, 1–34. Oxford: Blackwell. ———, ed. 2007b. Queer Theology: Rethinking the Western Body. Oxford: Blackwell. Lovelace, Richard F. 1979. Dynamics of Spiritual Life: An Evangelical Theology of Renewal. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Luk, Small. 2015. God Loves Intersex People. in God’s image 34 (2): 5–13. Lyman, J.  Rebecca. 1999. Early Christian Traditions. Cambridge: Cowley Publications. McNeill, John J. 1993. The Church and the Homosexual. 4th ed. Boston: Beacon Press.

116 

J. N. GOH

McQueeney, Krista. 2009. “We Are God’s Children, Y’All:” Race, Gender, and Sexuality in Lesbian- and Gay-Affirming Congregations. Social Problems 56 (1): 151–173. Melanchthon, Monica Jyotsna. 2003. The Grace of God and the Equality of Human Persons. Dialog 42 (1): 8–19. Meneses, Kristine C. 2020. Deafinitely Different: Seeing Deafness, Deaf, and Healing in the Bible from Deaf Perspectives. In Unlocking Orthodoxies for Inclusive Theologies: Queer Alternatives, ed. Robert E. Shore-Goss and Joseph N. Goh, 174–191. New York: Routledge. Mok, Bryan, and Pearl Wong. 2020. Queering Violent Scenes: A Eucharistic Interpretation of BDSM.  In Unlocking Orthodoxies for Inclusive Theologies: Queer Alternatives, ed. Robert E.  Shore-Goss and Joseph N.  Goh, 51–69. New York: Routledge. Nelson, James B. 1996. Reuniting Sexuality and Spirituality. In Christian Perspectives on Sexuality and Gender, ed. Elizabeth Stuart and Adrian Thatcher, 213–219. Grand Rapids: Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Co. Osborne, Kenan B. 1999. Christian Sacraments in a Postmodern World: A Theology for the Third Millennium. New York: Paulist Press. Peacock, Philip Vinod. 2017. Masculinity and Justice. In A Theological Reader on Human Sexuality and Gender Diversities: Envisioning Inclusivity, ed. Roger Gaikwad and Thomas Ninan, 258–263. New Delhi: ISPCK/NCCI. Pettinger, Michael F. 2015. Double Love: Rediscovering the Queerness of Sin and Grace. In Queer Christianities: Lived Religion in Transgressive Forms, ed. Kathleen T. Talvacchia, Michael F. Pettinger, and Mark Larrimore, 127–136. New York: New York University Press. Pieris, Aloysius. 1982. Toward an Asian Theology of Liberation: Some Religio-­ Cultural Guidelines. In Theological Reflection on Asia’s Struggle for Full Humanity, ed. Virginia Fabella, Jack Clancey, and John Ma, 92–113. Hong Kong: Plough Publications. Prudlo, Donald S., ed. 2019. A Companion to Heresy Inquisitions. A Companion to Heresy Inquisitions. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers. Rayan, Samuel. 1982. Reflections on a Live-In Experience: Slumdwellers. In Theological Reflection on Asia’s Struggle for Full Humanity, ed. Virginia Fabella, Jack Clancey, and John Ma, 66–77. Hong Kong: Plough Publications. Rosenau, Sara. 2020. Queer Church: Failure and Becoming in the Body of Christ. In Unlocking Orthodoxies for Inclusive Theologies: Queer Alternatives, ed. Robert E. Shore-Goss and Joseph N. Goh, 34–50. New York: Routledge. Schneider, Laurel C. 2010. Promiscuous Incarnation. In The Embrace of Eros: Bodies, Desires, and Sexuality in Christianity, ed. Margaret D.  Kamitsuka. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Shore-Goss, Robert E. 1993. Jesus Acted Up: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

4  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF PROMISCUOUS IRREGULARITY 

117

———. 2003. Queering Christ: Beyond Jesus Acted Up. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press. ———. 2004. Proleptic Sexual Love: God’s Promiscuity Reflected in Christian Polyamory. Theology & Sexuality 11 (1): 52–63. ———. 2018. Aids: Deviancy, Stigma, and Grace: Counter-Theology from the Genitals of the Body of Christ. In Contemporary Theological Approaches to Sexuality, ed. Lisa Isherwood and Dirk von der Horst, 200–221. London: Routledge. Siew, Miak. 2015. Learning to Be Queer: Questions the Church Should Be Asking. in God’s image 34 (2): 65–70. Song, C.S. 1991. Telling Stories of the Spirit’s Movement in Asia. In Doing Theology with the Spirit’s Movement in Asia, ed. John C.  England and Alan J. Torrance, 1–14. ATESEA Occasional Papers; No. 11. Singapore: ATESEA. ———. 2002. Third-Eye Theology: Theology in Formation in Asian Settings. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers. Sprinkle, Stephen V. 2009. A God at the Margins?: Marcella Althaus-Reid and the Marginality of LGBT People. Journal of Religious Leadership 8 (2): 57–83. Stone, Ken, ed. 2001. Queer Commentary and the Hebrew Bible. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press. Stuart, Elizabeth. 1997a. Religion Is a Queer Thing: A Guide to the Christian Faith for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered People. London: Cassell. ———. 1997b. Sex in Heaven: The Queering of Theological Discourse on Sexuality. In Sex These Days: Essays on Theology, Sexuality and Society, ed. Jon Davies and Gerard Loughlin, 184–204. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. ———. 2003. Gay and Lesbian Theologies: Repetitions with Critical Difference. Aldershot: Ashgate. Studebaker, Steven M. 2016. A Pentecostal Political Theology for American Renewal Spirit of the Kingdoms, Citizens of the Cities. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Tanis, Justin Edward. 2003. Trans-Gendered: Theology, Ministry, and Communities of Faith. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press. Thatcher, Adrian. 2018. Gender. In Contemporary Theological Approaches to Sexuality, ed. Lisa Isherwood and Dirk von der Horst, 25–39. London: Routledge. Walters, Albert Sundararaj. 2002. We Believe in One God?: Reflections on the Trinity in the Malaysian Context. New Delhi: ISPCK. Wilson, Nancy L. 1995. Our Tribe: Queer Folks, God, Jesus, and the Bible. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. Wong, Wai-ching Angela. 2007. The Academic Role of Theology in Asian Societies and Cultures. Quest: An Interdisciplinary Journal for Asian Christian Scholars 5 (2): 33–46. Wong, Pearl. 2015. Queering Binary Notions of Sexuality: Proclamation of a Bisexual Feminist. in God’s image 34 (2): 14–24.

118 

J. N. GOH

Wu, Rose. 2000. Liberating the Church from Fear: The Story of Hong Kong’s Sexual Minorities. Kowloon: Hong Kong Women Christian Council. Yap, Kim-hao. 1990. Inter-Contextualization: Releasing the “Theological” Frog from Underneath the Coconut Shell. Asia Journal of Theology 4 (1): 36–44. Yip, Lai-shan. 2012. ‘Listening to the Passion of Catholic Nu-Tongzhi: Developing a Catholic Lesbian Feminist Theology in Hong Kong’. In Queer Religion, ed. Donald L.  Boisvert and Jay Emerson Johnson, 2:2: 63–80. Santa Barbara: Praeger. Yong, Ting-jin. 2009. Church – A Community of Faith, Struggle and Tradition. in God’s image 28 (2): 49–54. ———. 2014. The Bible and Critical Feminist Hermeneutics. in God’s image 33 (1): 3–16. 激揚 Amplify 13. 2013. 激揚 Amplify 13: All Asia ‘Open & Affirming’ Church + Life Conference. 激揚 Amplify 13.

CHAPTER 5

An Ecclesiology of Eschatological Accountability

Then afterwards I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions —Joel 2.28 For surely I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope —Jeremiah 29.11 They are to do good, to be rich in good works, generous, and ready to share, thus storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life that really is life —1 Timothy 6.18–19

Old, New, Renew In this chapter, I turn my attention to the strengths, challenges and future directions of the Conferences as perceived and articulated by Amplify frontliners through what I propose as broad themes of impact and sustainability, emotional, cognitive and practical complementarity, and diversity in representation.1 During conversations with these informants, I was par1  This chapter is largely derived from interview material on the strengths, weaknesses, shortcomings and plans pertaining to Amplify. Nevertheless, as this chapter will show, these processes overlap.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. N. Goh, Doing Church at the Amplify Open and Affirming Conferences, Asian Christianity in the Diaspora, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73314-8_5

119

120 

J. N. GOH

ticularly struck by how self-reflexive and pragmatic they were in relation to Amplify. My questions on the strengths, weaknesses, upcoming projects and long-term vision pertaining to the Conferences were met with almost unrestrained candour. My informants were refreshingly honest, and constructively critical and tentative about their (proposed) experimentations in the past, present and future. It was evident to me that these frontliners were not haphazardly and spontaneously inventing action plans as Amplify progressed over the years. None of them glossed over the shortcomings they perceived and experienced in the Conferences, and all of them were eager to improve on existing policies and practices. By way of an imagery, my impression is that these frontliners approach Amplify as an unfinished piece of tapestry, the threads of which may be replenished, replaced and/ or rejected, and new, previously unutilised skeins may be added to the fabric, but the interlacing braids remain as parts of an incomplete multi-­ hued whole. Miak Siew expresses a need for a constant evaluation of Amplify: ‘I don’t want doing it for the sake of doing it … do something just because every two years we do so … and I always ask, is there a better way … achieving the same result?’.2 ‘The same result’, I suggest, gestures towards a productive implementation of the theological vision of Amplify, and Siew is wary of a tokenistic approach to organising the Conferences. His aim to deploy ‘a better way’ that can rejuvenate the doings of church at Amplify is congruent with the Amplify Stakeholders Presentation of 2020 which recognises that: The faith landscape in Asia has evolved over the past 10 years and so has the needs of queer Christians and the faith communities they are a part of.​In order to continue to be relevant and serve local communities in Asia, we need to evolve AMPLIFY’s ministry (2020).3

The desire of Amplify frontliners to improve on existing efforts rather than rest contentedly on past laurels is accompanied by an acute sensitivity to the volatility of human experiences and the need for Amplify to respond with fruitful adaptability.

 Skype interview, 5th November 2018.  Unless indicated otherwise, all indented block quotations in this chapter are derived from interviews with key informants. 2 3

5  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF ESCHATOLOGICAL ACCOUNTABILITY 

121

Imaginative Contiguity Many Christians often approach eschatology with some measure of puzzlement, apprehension and dread, not least because of the apocalyptic ‘fire and brimstone’ undertones that often seem to hold exclusive rights over its interpretation, and suspicions over ‘the oppressive use of “pie in the sky when you die” theology’ (Stuart 1997b, 194) – the theological proposition that the endurance of a life of misery on earth paves the way for eternal bliss. Nevertheless, eschatology cannot and ought not to be reduced to such morose abstractions. More specifically, formulations of eschatological potentialities reveal the merits, concerns and hopes that constitute and inspire present realities. In this regard, I find the eschatological language of both Elizabeth Stuart and Catherine Keller particularly useful to further frame and express my own thoughts. Stuart, who has worked on lesbian, gay and queer issues in theology, holds that Any talk about life after death or life in the kingdom tells us absolutely nothing about life after death or life in the kingdom, but they tell us a great deal about our current values and aspirations. Such discourse function both as mirrors and as critiques of the present … They are the spaces where we dare to dream impossible dreams, where language cracks and the divine presence may seep in … eschatological discourse makes room for God by cracking ‘the deep structure of our accepted world’ (1997b, 195; added emphasis).

In similarly eloquent tones, Catherine Keller, whose theological trajectories include feminist and process theologies, asserts that the ‘end’ in Christian eschatology signifies purpose, not termination … The vision of a desirable future remains a possibility … If we do not counter the literalization of end-times – putting a wedge in the door of the apocalypse, as it were – the future slams shut in our imaginations … In other words, a deformed eschatology cancels out the very hope that defines it. It obstructs the will of God and so the wisdom of an interactive process. As long as the purposefulness of human life seems to dissolve in a preplanned conflagration, theology indirectly reinforces the culture of nihilism (2008, 165, 163; original emphasis).

An eschatology which humbly acknowledges that absolute knowledge of the future is beyond human reach and purposefully takes stock of the here-­ and-­now creates porous avenues for the imaginative permeations that

122 

J. N. GOH

echo what I previously discussed as the promiscuous irregularities of God and God-talk. Furthermore, eschatology is the theological understanding that God’s kingdom is both realised and inchoate, here and not-here, now and not-yet which blurs and breaks down the artificial divisions of past, present and future, producing what I refer to as an imaginative contiguity, or an irresolvable interplay between what-was, what-is, what-ought-not-­ to-be and what-can-be. Eschatology thus troubles the presumed naturalness of time as a linear progression with divisible moments. Imaginative contiguity favours a ‘both-and’, rather than ‘either-or’ approach to the human-divine activities in the world. Imaginative contiguity does not see weaknesses, shortcomings and prospective projects as discrete phenomena of failure, fait accompli impasses, permanent fixtures or pointlessly chaotic schemes, but as phenomena which bear potentiality for informed imaginings that are simultaneously conscious of naïve optimism. Imaginative contiguity, in some ways, ‘is faith in the deepest and most intense sense of that word, a risking of commitment and confidence in the face of the real prospect of misguidance and wrongness’ (Stuart 1997b, 193). It thus harkens to a hope that while human realities may not immediately or even necessarily ‘work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to God’s purpose’ (Romans 8.28), human beings are still able to work indefatigably towards meaningful existence rather than succumb to utter despair. I believe that the doings of church can be suitably enriched by the both-present-and-future dimensions of eschatology that rally around material needs at particular points in time. Additionally, I see imaginative contiguity as the deployment of a concrete praxis of pragmatic hope that demands accountability, particularly in doing church. Some aspects of Felix Wilfred’s exposition on ethical auditing as an indispensable element of public theology is helpful in this regard. Paramount to his ideas is the divine charge to create and maintain a fair and equitable society that is forced to reckon with, and find itself pressured to be dictated by racism, classism, laissez-faire capitalism and exploitation (see also Balasuriya 1982). Wilfred proposes a humanistic ethics of Other-centredness that prioritises the issues and concerns of the disenfranchised and excluded. He proposes that the core of such an ethical vision is an ‘unmasking of the reality’ in order to ‘make people see the reality in all its nakedness’ (2010, 30). A veracious transparency enriches and sustains the pursuit of individual and socio-political justice, and produces ethical values which demand that ‘power at various levels becomes accountable to the marginalised in the society’ (Wilfred 2010, 36; added emphasis).

5  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF ESCHATOLOGICAL ACCOUNTABILITY 

123

Wilfred is adamant that churches follow suit, particularly as many have been freely given to a lack of accountability. As I see it, imaginative contiguity is thus most meaningfully experienced and expressed when it is manifested and exercised as grounded accountability.

Attaining Impact and Sustainability The ongoing development of open and affirming churches, which is a key feature of the theological vision of Amplify, is an endeavour that stretches beyond the parameters of the actual Conferences themselves. The pursuit of this objective reorients the spotlight from Amplify itself to the post-­ Conference operations of participating churches. Informants speak of numerous focal points that deal with the shepherding of Christian communities, effective ministerial outreach, meaningful cooperation with non-ecclesial entities, and critical exchanges with churches that remain unamenable to gender-variant and sexually diverse identities and behaviours in Asia. Nonetheless, Amplify frontliners are not under any illusion that Amplify perfectly and completely accomplishes its every objective, or that it is devoid of shortcomings. Jason Man-bo Ho voices his doubt over the impact of the Conferences on participating churches: Individual churches in different places, FCC, BMCC, GSKL,4 they are all … working on their own ministry on a continual daily basis. So the leadership development, the pastoral care, the supports, the engagement with the local faith communities and non-faith communities, like secular communities, secular organisations … But Amplify Conferences are events … that are held like every year … or every other year … Amplify is not like a mother church … So the events may not have a direct impact on how … local churches do their own church … can be a weakness, if there’s no follow-up. We just hi and bye.

Ho underscores the reality that because Amplify is a series of annual or bi-annual ‘events’ which brings churches together rather than a governing ‘mother church’ that focuses on its own concerns ‘on a continual daily 4  Free Community Church (Singapore), Blessed Ministry  Community Church (Hong Kong) and Good Samaritan Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) respectively. Prior to 2nd October 2012, GSKL was known as Good Samaritan Metropolitan Community Church. Information provided by Joe Wai-yap Pang, email communication, 15th May 2020.

124 

J. N. GOH

basis’, it runs the risk of being a ‘hi and bye’ – a fleeting hit-and-run – occurrence with unpredictable and unmeasurable outcomes. The lack of a uniform and stable operation with ongoing evaluation, coupled with the absence of an overseeing structure in Amplify means that the Conferences ‘may not have a direct impact’ on either how ‘local churches do their own church’ or engage with ‘secular communities [and] organisations’. Ho seemingly suggests that Amplify’s ‘prophetic voice will not be effective, if it is not rooted in the local community and culture’ (Amaladoss 1998, 42) on a protracted level. Fleeting experiences cannot constitute the stability and consistency of being ‘rooted in a community that is rigorous in demonstrating love and accountability to one another’ (Edman 2016, 146). I propose that Ho perceives Amplify’s precarious operations as ‘a weakness’ because despite the potential that it holds for mobilising open and affirming churches in Asia, as well as being an extremely labour-intensive project, Amplify’s offerings are reduced to ostensibly brief, unrepeatable ‘events’ that fail to attain a greater, sustained ‘impact’ in terms of its theological vision. Yet Ho prompts Amplify towards greater self-reflexivity in discerning, as it were, ‘what it is that God is doing in the world and how, in the light of which the church is to be related to this life and purpose of God … with and for human beings and indeed all God’s creation’ (Rees 2007, 36). This ‘weakness’ acts as a locus for reflecting on the potential for greater pastoral effectiveness. In seeming response to Ho, Paul Lucas delivers a poignant reminder that participation in Amplify has led to unprecedented initiatives that take place beyond the Conferences themselves: Actually out of the Amplify Conference in 2012, I mean several of the China-based fellowships were actually born where individuals came to the Conference and then went back to their hometowns and started various fellowships … and being part of a much bigger narrative, and also the responsibility that we have then in turn to go to communities in China … and begin to do the work of ministry within these emerging communities if you will.

Lucas observes how LGBTIQ Christians have drawn on their participation in Amplify 2012 in Hong Kong as an inspiration and a resource to form ‘fellowships’ in their ‘hometowns’ in mainland China. I suggest that these fellowships are not just feel-good clubs, but communities which can ‘[empower] free individuals to exercise their concern for each other in

5  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF ESCHATOLOGICAL ACCOUNTABILITY 

125

genuine community’ (Soares-Prabhu 1981, 601) as such an endeavour ‘embraces and seeks to bring in all who are marginalized, oppressed, excluded from empowering fellowship’ (O’Murchu 2015, 40). I further suggest that these fellowships take the form of sustainable, scaled-down versions of Amplify that offer spaces of inclusion and affirmation. It is also very likely that these LGBTIQ Chinese Christians were previously apprehensive about and/or oblivious to such life-giving possibilities due to socio-cultural and religious disapprobation of gender variance and sexual diversity (Dong 2016; Shih 2010). These initiatives constitute ‘a much bigger narrative’, or an expansion of Amplify’s theological vision beyond the Conferences themselves with an appropriate focus on specific socio-­ cultural, political and economic concerns. Aside from the responsibility of addressing general ecclesial concerns, Amplify is also able to address issues that are peculiar to individual churches. The ensuing emergence of a ‘bigger narrative’, however, demands weightier obligations on the part of Amplify to minister to these fellowships which are located in China. Addressing one issue opens up another for Amplify, which now needs to learn how to engage in ministering to ministers as way of augmenting its impact and sustainability. More recently, Amplify’s plan ‘to create an integrated online platform with real world activation to bring life to the mission of Amplify’ (2020) as outlined in the Amplify Stakeholders Presentation is an ambitious project which holds great promise of farther-reaching impact and greater sustainability. Among other objectives, a dedicated Amplify website has been designed  to create an online community, ‘[curate] resources and mixed content (features, videos, infography, etc) in an e-zine [or online magazine] format that spans across four main topics [which include] Spirituality[,] Well-being[,] Faith & Sexuality [and] Relationship’, and an ‘online learning extension [which] will include theology foundation, leadership and management, counselling and personal development [in] basic foundation courses and videos developed in collaboration with local Christian leaders and communities’ (2020; see also Amplify Ministries 2020). Seemingly pursuing the thoughts of Ho and Lucas, Gary Chan contemplates the ‘training and development’ which Amplify can potentially deliver in the future: How do we help people to being able to get trained up so that they can build strong local communities that are open and affirming … How do they get equipped so that they come to a point where they feel that they can lead

126 

J. N. GOH

the congregation and serve their congregations? I think Amplify is an opportunity to look at, in terms of training and development, through … the non-gathering mode of Amplify.

Chan expresses how the organisers of Amplify do not necessarily approach the Conferences solely as ends in themselves, and thus look towards the longer term impact and sustainability upon the cessation of these annual or bi-annual events. He highlights activities which can be held during ‘the non-gathering mode’ of Amplify, or the period ensuing the Conferences when individual churches return home after being rejuvenated and re-­ motivated by the presentations and activities they experience. One such activity involves ‘training and development’. ‘Training and development’ is a corporate term to denote the enhancement of performance, knowledge and skills (Rowland et al. 2017; Vo and Hannif 2012) which Chan sees as beneficial for helping open and affirming churches in the construction of ‘strong local communities’ that imbibe, uphold and preserve an open and affirming stance beyond just the Conferences themselves. Training and development benefit existing churches, as well as fledgling Christian communities in areas of faith sharing, community, belonging and solidarity – such as the LGBTIQ fellowships in China  – and where ‘those whom society would cast aside and whose very personhood many governments and churches do not recognize come to realize in a disreputable church that they are indeed home’ (Bohache 2013, 284). In so doing, Amplify embarks on a self-reflexive ‘path of continuing reformation … (semper reformanda)’ (Paas 2012, 474) that extends beyond itself. Chan also proposes ‘Christian education’ to extend the impact and sustainability of Amplify: Christian education is a huge topic … the skills to be able to do counselling and pastoral care is a huge topic … … could include certificate programmes towards theological studies, pastoral care … We could get accreditations from other places.

Although Chan uses the term ‘Christian education’ in a rather ambiguous manner, it most likely refers to various forms of philosophical, theological, biblical and religious education which are ordinarily accessible through seminaries and higher institutions of learning that cater to the training of ordinands and lay ministers for Christian ministry (Cheong 2011; Fuliga 2011). Ironically, he lists ‘counselling’ and ‘pastoral care’ under Christian

5  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF ESCHATOLOGICAL ACCOUNTABILITY 

127

education despite the fact that these practices do not necessarily fall under the purview of Christian education or even Christianity in the strict sense even if they may be influenced by Christian systems and values. Nevertheless, spirituality-inflected forms of counselling and pastoral care do exist (Driskill 2006; Kwon 2013), including those that are free from elements of reparative therapy for LGBTIQ people (Buser et al. 2011; Empereur 1998; Kundtz and Schlager 2007). I suggest that in Chan’s mind, Christian education is necessarily pastorally oriented in the sense that it needs to contain the capacity for transformation in the lives of those who find themselves fragmented and shattered due to socio-cultural and religious condemnations of non-normative gender and sexual identities and practices, erroneous choices in life, and other destructive and death-dealing behaviours that contradict the imperative for human beings to flourish in accordance with God’s invitation to live life abundantly.5 Chan’s proposal for ‘accreditations’ in terms of training and development is a desire for authoritative validation of its efforts. It also very possibly reflects a keenness for Amplify to achieve a certain level of recognisable legitimacy as an event of doing church that is connected to, and participatory of the socio-political ethos in which it is embedded, rather than merely a series of well-meaning activities which have little significance beyond pious platitudes. I submit that a socio-politically sensitive strategy of doing church can potentially frustrate and transform normative discourses on LGBTIQ people as shameless affronts to God and nature, and as insidious threats to public morality. Gender-variant and sexually diverse communities can be suitably reimagined as contributing members to church and society (Goh 2019a; Siew 2009; Wong 2010). While there is always a risk that such revisionings may serve to interpret the worth of LGBTIQ people exclusively through utilitarian optics (Goh 2020b), they also hold promise towards subverting the unproblematic demonisation of LGBTIQ people in addition to recuperating their agentic dignity. Aside from training, development and education, Chan also advances the idea of Amplify as a platform for ‘recognising … and installing leaders’: Amplify could then be utilised as a point of either recognising people like a graduation event, recognising leaders and installing leaders, also in the future … being a place where people could be recognised for their ordina5

 This issue is discussed a little more extensively in Chap. 3.

128 

J. N. GOH

tion … not Amplify as an ordaining body, but Amplify as the place … they could be ordained at Amplify, which would make sense because this is the communities that they are called to serve in.

As a series of Conferences instead of an autonomous self-governing ecclesial entity, Amplify lacks the necessary faculties and authority to ordain ministers. Instead, Chan’s proposal for Amplify to act as an open and affirming hub for ordinations and ‘installing leaders’ is predicated on the logic of leaders being prominently and visibly called from and by the communities to which they are called to serve as LGBTIQ ‘men and women who are community facilitators [and] deeply committed to love-making and justice-doing’ (Shore-Goss 1993, 138). At Amplify, the commissioning of gender-variant and sexually diverse leaders to serve their congregations serves not only to dispel the myth that being LGBTIQ and Christian is a blasphemous oxymoron, but can also help establish a sense of ministerial intimacy, familiarity and ease between minister and congregant in terms of shared identities of gender, sexuality, anatomy and faith (Edman 2016; Siew 2015; Wilson 1997). Nevertheless, although a close resemblance between LGBTIQ pastors and congregants could be advantageous in this respect, an awkward and tension-ridden insider-outsider position (Bhopal 2010; Goh 2019b; Nash 2010; Neitz 2013) is not uncommon between both parties. Ministers are ordinarily more academically and pastorally equipped through formal trainings as compared to their congregants. This reality problematises the presupposition that identities which are held in common immediately and automatically assure perfect congeniality and synchronicity in faith journeys. Pearl Wong is eager to explore possibilities of Amplify as a ‘platform’ to bridge the chasm with non-affirming churches: I think it’s a good way to learn how we can actually dialogue with the conservative churches, the mainline churches. Now this is very difficult, but through the years I’ve seen some breakthrough in some of the other regions, for example … like in the Philippines, in Indonesia and even in India. So those are very valuable experiences that we can learn from … maybe I’ll just clarify what I said … Amplify has not yet … created a platform for dialogue between for example the affirming churches and the other … churches … how they are doing it.

5  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF ESCHATOLOGICAL ACCOUNTABILITY 

129

Wong’s use of ‘mainline’ in this context refers to non-affirming churches, and her enthusiasm for ‘dialogue’ may be indicative of an understanding that such churches hold immense sway in shaping theological and ethical views on gender and sexuality, and are thus crucial conversation partners with whom to dialogue on distorted views pertaining to LGBTIQ people (Goh 2020a; Smith 1999). In this regard, Wong likens Amplify to an apprentice that must learn from, and facilitate cases of fruitful dialogue on LGBTIQ issues between affirming and non-affirming churches in Southeast and South Asia as ‘breakthrough[s]’. The notion of breakthrough is extremely nuanced, complex and imbricated. Churches are often divided and/or deadlocked on LGBTIQ issues, and attitudes of acceptance and rejection are frequently dictated by geopolitical and cultural circumstances. While certain ecclesial hierarchies, or individual members of the clergy or laity may be amenable towards tolerance, inclusion, acceptance or even affirmation in relation to LGBTIQ people, such viewpoints are rarely  – if ever  – overarching and uniform. Hence, the interpretation of ‘breakthrough’, I argue, needs to be tentatively approached and never in terms of unqualified success. Occurrences of ‘breakthrough’ are rare and Wong names Indonesia, the Philippines and India as case studies (Hari 2020; Mangiduyos 2016). Nonetheless, I believe that a fuller vignette from India is helpful in contextualising the current discussion. Gay activist Romal Laisram, and Orthodox priest and LGBTIQ-ally Philip Kuruvilla are convinced that a few major churches in India are gradually becoming more sensitised to the concerns of gender-variant and sexually diverse communities, and are subsequently adopting a more welcoming stance towards them. Kuruvilla, who formerly helmed the Ecumenical Solidarity for HIV and AIDS (ESHA)6 programme of the National Council of Churches in India (NCCI) which concentrates on issues of HIV, AIDS, and gender and sexual diversities, speaks of ESHA’s efforts ‘to get LGBTQ members [to] talk to pastors and leaders in order to spark a conversation between the two’ (quoted in Dakshina 2018). Here, dialogue takes place with church leaders who are generally unaccustomed to these controversial issues but who may also yield greater amenability on a personal, organic level in these informal scenarios, rather than in formal and hierarchical settings with mounting

6  The programme currently focuses on issues of gender and sexuality despite retaining the original acronym (National Council of Churches in India n.d.).

130 

J. N. GOH

pressures to preserve a concerted response which rejects and/or condemns LGBTIQ identities and behaviours. Laisram and Kuruvilla single out the Church of South India (CSI) and the Salvation Army, in contrast with the Presbyterians and Baptists, as particularly responsive to such initiatives. Kuruvilla recounts how ‘a priest from the CSI Church in Trivandrum took part in [a] Gay Pride [event and] almost lost his job because the church came down on him heavily but nonetheless … a definite example of massive progress!’ (quoted in Dakshina 2018). Wong’s call for ‘creat[ing] a platform for dialogue’ is a crucial one, and I agree with her that Amplify is the appropriate platform to embark on such a gargantuan task. Miak Siew shares his concerns with future instalments of Amplify that deal mostly with the human and financial resources involved in its undertakings: The previous Conferences we always relied on volunteers. And that has been always a challenge. Burned people out … we need full time organisation to do this thing … We need a full time secretariat to do all the administration. People are doing this on top of what they are already doing, and it’s stretching all our resources … it is not viable, but if we don’t have money for that either … we don’t have manpower.

Siew notes how Amplify, as a series of Conferences rather than a structure which commands a permanent and sustained selection of staff with various allocated duties, lacks ‘a full time secretariat’ that can attend to matters of ‘organisation’ and ‘administration’. By being dependent – and very possibly, highly dependent – on ‘volunteers’, a select few who are adding on more tasks to the burden of their regular responsibilities, Amplify does ‘[burn] people out’ or contribute to their extreme exhaustion and/or a significant escalation of their stress levels. As a condition that ‘is developed in a prolonged process of (harmful) stress which is brought about by the interaction between demanding working conditions and the ensuing personal reaction’ (Tomic et al. 2004, 229), clerical burnout is well documented and correlates negatively with ecclesial productivity on myriad levels (Miner et al. 2010; Shinhwan 2006; Tomic et  al. 2004). Additionally, Siew translates a dearth of financial resources as the unviability of employing human resources for more effective operations and consequently more impactful offerings of Amplify. In

5  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF ESCHATOLOGICAL ACCOUNTABILITY 

131

more ways than one, any successful instalment of Amplify does come at a cost. While a long-term solution to monetary challenges remains as a matter of concern, Pauline Ong does see an improvement in terms of a more equitable distribution of labour in the human workforce behind Amplify: I don’t know if I can honestly say there is an impact of Amplify, so I can’t really tell if something … directly can be attributed to Amplify … I think how we organised Amplify kind of caused some of our church members to burn out a little bit … we’ve learned over the years to do it better and to make sure that people also were able to participate and as much as possible not feel the burden, that they’re carrying a lot of things while they’re actually at the Conference.

Akin to Siew, Ong recognises the burnout that accompanies the organisation of the Conferences, which seemingly emerges as an inequitable trade-­ off for the uncertainty over any tangible impact which ‘directly can be attributed to Amplify’. Yet, she also acknowledges the gradual improvements that attenuate the ‘burden’ of volunteers who perform the dual task of ‘carrying a lot of things’ or attending to the practical management aspects during the Conferences as well as being ‘actually at Conference[s]’ or attempting to participate in Amplify activities for the purpose of spiritual edification. Shinhwan Pan’s proposals to Korean clergypersons for counteracting burnout is also pertinent to Amplify volunteers. These include a greater self-awareness of personal problems, performing rejuvenating spiritual exercises and holistic health measures, setting realistic expectations, joining support networks, and adopting positive attitudes (2006). Although Ong does not specify further details of ‘do[ing] it better’ beyond what was uttered, it is possible that Amplify volunteers are resorting to one or more of these strategies. The challenges of organising Amplify thus appear to be tempered with steady improvements towards resolving these challenges.

Seeking Emotional, Cognitive Complementarity

and Practical

By ‘emotional’, I mean Amplify activities that arouse feelings of piety, sentimentality, joy, spontaneity, fervour, passion, commitment, love and togetherness. ‘Cognitive’ refers to the logical, conceptual, intellectual

132 

J. N. GOH

and, to some extent, abstract elements of human operation. I use ‘practical’ to signal concrete actions that emanate from the emotional and cognitive. The emotional focuses on that which is felt and experienced, the cognitive concentrates on that which is rationalised and theorised, and the practical emphasises actual deeds that impact human lives. Although the emotional, cognitive and practical aspects of Amplify cannot be extricated from each other, even in a simplistic fashion, and each forms a complementary element for spiritual and theological nourishment, this section foregrounds the emphasis that frontliners make in relation to each aspect. Pearl Wong speaks glowingly of current efforts in terms of Amplify’s worship sessions but expresses her hopes for ‘a more diverse programme’: Now to them I can see that praise and worship … it’s very empowering and that’s their way of expressing their love for God … I’m not saying that those are not important elements, for example sharing of experiences, sharing of stories, sharing about the situation from … their own country … it will have an impact, an effect on the emotion for a lot of people … For the next Amplify, I would like … a more diverse programme … in the sense of worship. And maybe more, like spirituality, more theology, and reading of the Bible … I would prefer sitting in silence, meditation, like contemplation … where I can be at peace.

Wong seems to suggest that ‘praise and worship’ are prayerful mood-­ enhancing moments which discharge a significant degree of spiritual empowerment for Amplify participants who can register ‘their love for God’, and experience God’s presence and receive divine gifts (Lord 2016) with little or any pressure to conceal their gender and sexual identities for fear of judgement, rejection or discrimination. LGBTIQ Christians often encounter ostensibly neutral worship that is in reality ‘a constant negotiation and establishment (through its very performance) of particular and specific power relations based on a particular and specific understanding of gender’ (Garrigan 2009, 216), and by extension, sexual embodiments. Wong underscores the ‘impact’ and ‘effect on the emotion[s]’ unleashed by shared storytellings ‘of God-human relationships … of love that sometimes go awry … of connection and communion that sometimes gets broken’ (Josephine Leung 2010, 61) which transpire during individual interactions, but feature more prominently during worship sessions at Amplify. Storytellings are crucial to the subjective formations of LGBTIQ people. As articulations of complex life and faith experiences, storytellings

5  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF ESCHATOLOGICAL ACCOUNTABILITY 

133

are integral to the spiritualities of LGBTIQ Christians (Hutabarat 2019; Luk 2012; Mendonca 2017; Pallotta-Chiarolli 2018; Ueno 2015). Such testimonies, woven into the ensemble of public and private prayer, biblical quotations, speeches and music, typically involve several individuals whose combined presentations can last an hour or two despite being counselled beforehand on the need for brevity. Yet Wong also seemingly proposes a greater diversity in the offerings of Amplify that aim to prayerfully connect participants with God. ‘A more diverse programme … in [terms] of worship’ is, I suggest, her subtle expression of dissatisfaction with the exclusive Pentecostal-style worship at Amplify. Controversies over styles and contents of public worship in ecclesial spaces are not rare (Garrigan 2009; Rees 2007), and are deeply conditioned by theological traditions and spiritual practices (Lord 2016). Wong foregrounds the need for worship styles that involve more varied inflections of spirituality, theology and scriptures. For her, the emotionally weighty offerings of Amplify could benefit from more cognitive grounding, which in her experience can translate into less emotionally-loaded practices of ‘silence, meditation [and] contemplation’ that provide her with a sense of ‘peace’. Jason Man-bo Ho appreciates the space which Amplify provides its participants ‘to meet [and] worship together’ in order to revel in community and common prayer. Nevertheless, akin to Wong, he is also cognisant of the importance of a cognitive dimension to the Conferences which is encapsulated in more liberal or ‘progressive theology[ies]’7: It’s an event for us to meet, to worship together … We need progressive theology, we need to learn gay theology, we need to learn queer theology, we need to learn feminist theology, because they are the blood … behind what we do, they are the mastermind to help us to understand our faith better … Not just to understand it … but to practise it in our decision m ­ aking … to inform … our own ministries whether to do this or not, whether to talk about HIV prevention, whether to talk about sex education, whether to talk about how to use condom … But if our theologies stay the same, the one we learn from … homophobic, transphobic churches, we’re stuck.

In Ho’s esteem, to be schooled in ‘progressive theology’ is to be illuminated  by contextual theologies which are more ingrained in human 7

 See Chap. 4 for a fuller discussion on ‘progressive theologies’.

134 

J. N. GOH

experiences and informed by social analyses (Athyal 1995; Balasuriya 1982). Progressive theologies which favour ‘pluralism, feminism, liberationism, post-colonialism, and ecological and environmental responsibility [towards] an authentic progressive faith’ (Kuan 2006, 4) are vital for effective practices of doing church that intersect with civil society concerns. ‘Homophobic[, biphobic and] transphobic’ theologies will only serve to stifle the growth of LGBTIQ individuals and churches. ‘For theology to be helpfully connected with struggle for liberation’, Tissa Balasuriya poignantly ruminates, ‘theology itself needs to be liberated’ (1982, 26). Furthermore, when open and affirming churches find themselves entangled in quandaries of ‘decision making’ on any issue, the principles that undergird progressive theologies can help ‘inform’ and facilitate the ensuing steps while ensuring that these churches do not get ‘stuck’ due to theological impasses. I suggest that Ho is not referring to the absence of progressive theology at Amplify but to its present paucity. He lists concerns and causes such as ‘HIV prevention’, ‘sex education’ and condom use which are controversial issues from which more homophobic, biphobic and transphobic churches tend to shy away (Goh 2020b; Longchar 2011; Messer 2011; Senturias 1994; Shore-Goss 2018). Nevertheless, by naming them, he seemingly divulges an awareness that open and affirming churches attract a measure of discrimination, stigmatisation and marginalisation which also befalls these issues. There is a likelihood, I submit, that Ho even sees LGBTIQ-affirming churches as bearing a particular responsibility of addressing such matters. Churches which subscribe to more conservative theologies that ‘have been using one pattern of sexuality and a rigid genderisation code’ (Althaus-Reid 2000, 177) may elect to dissociate themselves from involvement in seemingly unrespectable issues, but open and affirming churches, as he understands it, must be guided by progressive theology to make more nuanced and bolder decisions. While any open and affirming church can co-opt progressive theology for its praxis, Amplify provides an opportunity for more exchanges of both strengths and weaknesses in the actual practical implementation of such theologies by churches which are already actively embodying such theologies (see Godfrey 2008; Goh et al. 2019). The Conferences supply valuable experiences of ecclesiological praxis. Stephen Suleeman also shares a similar notion that Amplify allows ‘ethical issues’ that are shared by LGBTIQ Christians to surface, be examined and possibly attain some form of practical resolution:

5  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF ESCHATOLOGICAL ACCOUNTABILITY 

135

I would say that the strength would be, I think the worship … Amplify can really amplify the participants in their sense of being accepted by God … I think many Amplify people might be struggling with ethical issues … I think most of Amplify people come from, Chinese, Christian Asian background with Confucianism … you have to honour your parents, you have to bear children … those could be burden … for some Amplify people … how did you come out to your parents, with confession that you are LGBT, and you may not be able to produce children … I think those area have not been talked very much in Amplify.

Not unlike many other informants, Suleeman appreciates the element of worship in the Conferences, particularly a ‘sense of being accepted by God’ which is heightened during Amplify, as a ‘strength’. As previously mentioned, participants find in worship sessions a space to approach God individually and communally in which the risk of being exposed, ridiculed, ostracised or treated with condescension is significantly reduced or even eliminated. In this space, they are not obliged ‘to “mute” their behavior in subtle ways in order to participate; muting in the sense of not drawing attention to their LGBT-ness’ (Garrigan 2009, 219). Nonetheless, Suleeman is also keenly aware that there are cultural impasses which may not be speedily resolved through worship. The majority of Amplify participants come from a ‘Chinese’ or East Asian background or have been socialised in accordance with the heteropatriarchal alignment of marriage, family life and progeny among Asian people living in Asia as Confucian principles (for instance, see Cheng et al. 2015). Such principles can be disrupted by virtue of being a gender variant or sexually diverse person. These heteronormative and cisnormative principles find a ready ally in conservative Christianity (Cheng 2011; Kang 2004; Wu 2000) which preaches an ‘oppressive theology, or a theology that welcomes those who fit a normative definition of the dominant culture while excluding those who do not’ (Flunder 2005, 7). Same-sex marriages, non-­conventional LGBTIQ  familial configurations and the  raising of  children who are adopted or born through surrogacy by same-sex parents depart from this alignment and are thus unacceptable in many circles of Asian societies.8 Additionally, despite the impressive inroads made in political, social and ecclesial circles in the affirmation – or at the very least, the tolerance – of LGBTIQ people, many people living in Asia continue to encounter great 8

 See Chap. 3 for an earlier discussion on Confucianism and LGBTIQ Christians.

136 

J. N. GOH

adversities in divulging their gender and sexual identities to their immediate and extended families, especially those who continue to live in their childhood homes due to parental piety and/or who are unable to be financially independent (see Tang 2012). These fundamental real-life issues, with which Amplify participants are ‘struggling’, ‘have not been talked very much’ during the Conferences. They may even have been inadvertently masked or shelved by the mood-elevating experiences of worship which can unwittingly create ‘an enchanted world in which nothing of the messiness or complexity of life really encroaches, a sort of ecclesiastical Disneyland where people talk, move and behave differently than they do “outside”’ (Stuart 1997a, 109).

Pursuing Diversity in Representation Several informants point out the overwhelmingly – in the words of Miak Siew – ‘sino-centric’ demographic that grips the Conferences. My own participation at Amplify corroborates their observations, as a vast majority of individuals and church representatives I encountered either hail from East Asia or are people of Chinese descent who reside in Southeast Asia, and many workshops are (also) held in Mandarin. I met with very few South Asian participants or people of Indian descent. Prior to his appointment at FCC, Siew commenced theological training at the Pacific School of Religion at Berkeley, California in the United States in 2008. Upon his return to Singapore in 2011 and eventual involvement in the Conferences, he became startlingly aware of a lack of diversity in Amplify representation: I kept criticising Amplify years ago when I came back from Berkeley, where are our Indian siblings? Because, you say Amplify is Asia-wide … it’s not Asia-wide, it is sino-centric … I want to … break down the wall of race and skin colour and culture … I don’t want it to be exclusive … when we talk about inclusive, you mean you don’t include skin colour? … I insisted that we need to bring them over.

Siew takes the theological vision of Amplify to task by interrogating the claim that it was ‘born out of a call to be a blessing to the development of inclusive churches and ministries in Asia’ (激揚 Amplify 13 2013, 4), with ‘Asia’ being a metonym for an ‘Asia-wide’ participation. He expresses concern over the possibility that an event which is birthed from a theological

5  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF ESCHATOLOGICAL ACCOUNTABILITY 

137

vision of inclusivity is spiralling towards selective inclusivity. Siew seems to suggest that an ethos of accepting and affirming people of gender and sexual diversity which is so central to the very existence of Amplify can be concomitantly oblivious to the need for an equally amenable attitude towards the variegations of ‘race and skin colour and culture’. In order to be true to its vision, Amplify must also labour to rupture the structures of racism and ethnocentrism.9 Nonetheless, Siew’s insistence on including ‘Indian siblings’ or South Asian participants very visibly materialised in Amplify 2018, albeit in very modest numbers, with the participation of three particularly significant Christian personages.10 The first is Roger Gaikwad who adheres steadfastly to a vision of churches ‘embracing [LGBTIQ people] and … need[ing] them[, and that] the church is incomplete without them’. He also refers to Amplify as ‘a very special event that is celebrating the cause of God’s gift to all creation of people of different sexual and gender diversity’ (AMPLIFY激扬 2018). Christopher Rajkumar, then Executive Secretary for Mission, Ecumenism and Diaconia of the NCCI was also present at the event.11 During his tenure, Rajkumar was deeply steeped in canvassing for gender and sexuality rights. The third notable representative from India, Daniel Francies Mary Mendonca is a community organiser for Youth for Unity and Voluntary Action (YUVA) (n.d.), ‘a TEDx speaker, an international gender rights activist and represents India at the UN for putting forth the issues faced by the LGBTQIA+ community’ (LiveWire Staff 2019). An openly intersex person who is gender-fluid, Mendonca has assisted the NCCI in travels throughout India to create and elevate consciousness on gender and sexual diversity (2017). Gary Chan muses on how Amplify has made significant strides in the participation of ‘intersex and transgender’ people whose involvement in the Conferences has been meagre or absent in the past: We have provided space for … intersex and transgender communities to speak … But at the same time we were also very cognisant that in and through the programming we do not want to single out communities, to give them just a soapbox to being able to speak about their own issues but  See Chap. 3 for an additional albeit brief discussion on this issue involving Duncan Mark.  It is very likely that other South Asian people attended Amplify 2018 but I am highlighting these three individuals. 11  Rajkumar served in this capacity from April 2009 to March 2019 at Nagpur, Maharashtra, India. He is currently a presbyter of the Church of South India in Tamil Nadu. 9

10

138 

J. N. GOH

not be involved in the rest of the life of the Conference, or not care about the rest of the life of the Conference. It needs to be a bit of a balance. So every year the, whenever we put the programme together, there is always a struggle about how can we do things differently to make sure that there is better representation … a greater sense of inclusivity.

Aside from Mendonca who participated in Amplify 2018 in Taiwan, intersex activist Small Luk from Hong Kong was also able to share her journey of life and faith in Amplify 2014 in Singapore. Luk is the administrator of the Facebook page 藩籬以外 – 認識和關愛雙性人 (Beyond the Boundary – Knowing Intersex Persons and Caring for Them) (2012). Identifying as Christian and an openly intersex person who presents as female/woman, she interprets her sex characteristic, gender identity and activism efforts as a divine vocation ‘to carry God’s healing balm strength of heart’ (2015, 13) to other intersex people. There have been numerous transgender participants at Amplify, but the presence of transgender activist Joanne Wing-yan Leung from Hong Kong at Amplify 2012 in Hong Kong is exceptional. Leung is the chairperson of the Transgender Resource Center which she founded in 2008 in order to promote ‘awareness of the issues facing the Hong Kong and mainland transgender – or trans – community, while also providing support for local trans people through services such as an online and telephone counseling service and a peer support group’ (Musorrafiti 2018). A devout Christian, she revels in her name ‘Joanne’, ‘which means “to glorify God” [and] is similar to [her] Chinese name (梁詠恩) which means “God’s grace”’ (2015, 27). Chan stresses on the abiding dimension of this endeavour towards inclusivity and ‘better representation’ rather than sporadic attempts to pacify potential accusations of exclusion by giving less visible communities ‘just a soapbox’ or a fleeting avenue to expound their ideologies. Akin to Siew who is averse to the idea of ‘doing it for the sake of doing it’ as mentioned at the outset of this chapter, Chan is keen on improving the mechanics and dynamics of Amplify based on previous lacunae. He is also aware of a strong ‘gay male’ orientation and demographic in earlier instalments of the Conferences: I think when Amplify first started … being gay male ... we did not recognise the inherent patriarchy … in terms of the organisation of Amplify. So obviously Amplify felt a lot more, I guess, welcoming in initial part to the gay

5  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF ESCHATOLOGICAL ACCOUNTABILITY 

139

men than … the lesbian community. But over the years … with the rise of leadership like Pauline coming on board, and people like Pearl coming on board … and also a much more balanced organising team including people like Wan from Hong Kong, we’ve got a lot more female representation and they balance out the maleness of the organisers, and I think that their diversity has helped us create a more welcoming space.

As an out gay man himself, Chan reflects on the ‘inherent patriarchy’ or more aptly, the prevalence of androcentric and gay male emphases which steered the direction of the Conferences in the early years. Yet he notes the increasing prominence of Amplify ‘leadership’ and ‘female representation’ in the person of Pauline Ong, Pearl Wong, and Wan12 of Queer Love Camp, an initiative which ‘empowers and nurtures Chinese speaking LBTIQ in Asia Pacific and works towards a society of inclusivity’. Chan’s narrative suggests that just as he eschews a tokenistic appearance of intersex and transgender people, he wholeheartedly embraces ‘a more balanced organised team’ in terms of gender and sexuality representation which serves the purpose of ‘creat[ing] a more welcoming space’ that is congruous with an element of the theological vision of Amplify to investigate with greater profundity the praxis of openness and affirmation (激揚 Amplify 13 2013, 4). His demeanour reveals how ‘the leadership of communities of faith does not call upon individuals for “token” appearances … only because these persons are representative of the non-­dominant part of the congregation’ (Reagan  2013, 50). Both Siew’s and Chan’s narratives clearly indicate that the cognisance of a shortcoming simultaneously acts as an impetus for improvement. Nevertheless, not all challenges pertaining to diversity in representation can be resolved with a few practical measures. Boon-lin Ngeo underscores the communication complexities that continue to plague Amplify: If you talk about the Amplify itself … the weaknesses I think it’s because of the language. Because different people speak different languages, they’re from different country, different culture. English is not our first language … this is tough … in terms of communicate with other folks … but we have to use English in order to communicate with each other, otherwise it’s so difficult … even though we are all Asians, but still, different.

12  In her own words, Wan wishes to ‘maintain a low profile’ by not divulging her full name. Information provided through Pearl Wong, Whatsapp chat, 24th March 2020.

140 

J. N. GOH

Ngeo acknowledges that the immense array of languages used at the Conferences compels the use of English as a common tongue ‘in order [for participants] to communicate with each other’. The challenge is that because English is not the ‘first language’ of many if not most participants, it gives rise to difficulties in communication. Aloysius Pieris’ postulation that ‘linguistic pluralism is an index of religious, cultural, and socio-­ political diversity’ (1982, 93) highlights language ‘as a collateral element to race or as an ethnic and cultural identity marker’ (Machart and Lim 2013, 22), and thus an integral element of human communication that is both produced and precluded by crucial contributory and exclusionary factors of subjective production. Ngeo aptly dispels the myth of an all-­ embracing ‘Asianness’ which fosters an erroneous assumption of sameness among people of Asian descent in terms of physical appearance, customs and traditions, religious belief and language. Although there is no explicit articulation on his part, Ngeo seems to draw a parallel between the diversities that exist between gender and sexuality, and culture and language. Hence, while Amplify may be effectively addressing the former, it seems powerless in the face of the latter. That he does not offer any suggestions seems to imply that Ngeo himself may not envision a facile solution to this challenge.

Interweavings of Past, Present and Future Is this chapter simply making excuses for the faults of Amplify by waxing eloquent on its actual and intended improvements? Is it little more than making a case for the redemption of Amplify’s failings by highlighting glorified proposals? I am not denying that my bias in favour of Amplify has guided the optimistic direction of analysis in this chapter – and the entire volume  – but neither am I denying my efforts at maintaining an acute sense of self-reflexivity and recognising the self-reflexivity of my informants in my interpretative labours throughout the duration of this project. As mentioned at the outset, Amplify frontliners adopt veracious, analytical and exploratory attitudes about the past, present and future of the Conferences. Amplify performs a pragmatic sense of doing church that is keenly aware of its limitations yet strives to improve on the practical implementations of its theological vision as a commitment to integrity and accountability, as ‘the importance of theology stems from the fact that it always

5  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF ESCHATOLOGICAL ACCOUNTABILITY 

141

seeks to be accountable to God as well as to people’ (Clarke 2012, 5). Both achievements and limitations provide signposts for potential improvements. In this sense, neat delineations of success, failure, efficacy and futility are counterproductive in understanding the unfoldings of Amplify which have spanned over a decade. (Seeming) failures pave the way for ‘more creative, more cooperative, more surprising ways of being in the world’ for they ‘ [imagine] other goals for life, for love, for art, and for being’ (Halberstam 2011, 2–3, 88). In the process of making meaning of my informants’ revelations, I find myself drawn to the interpretative prowess of imagination harboured in eschatology that is concomitantly, deeply and purposefully rooted in the epistemological specifics of the past and present. As an international platform for doing church in community and responsibly striving towards doing better church for itself and participating churches as a mission of relational empowerment, Amplify looks at extant efforts and unchartered possibilities while being cognisant of, and informed by the realities in which it is embedded. In other words, Amplify constantly attempts to see itself from a holistic perspective. This approach forms an eschatological accountability  – a melding of deeply grounded realistic cognisance and the contemplative imagination of optimism which disrupts the seemingly discrete bubbles of past, present and future, what-was, what-is, and what-is to-come. Amplify frontliners are thus accountable to the Conferences and their participants through a deepening and expansion of the theological vision of Amplify in concrete terms by linking it with past and present experiences. This accountability is one in which these visionaries act as both experts and participants who strive to provide and participate in open and affirming experiences of God and church at Amplify and beyond. As the Amplify Stakeholders Presentation describes it, Amplify is heading towards greater growth as an avenue to increasingly CELEBRATE God’s love for all people in all of their diversity. CHAMPION unity in diversity by connecting people and open and affirming communities in Asia; providing an environment to bring to life shared inclusive beliefs, values and ethics. CONTRIBUTE to the growth of open & affirming individuals and communities in Asia through personal growth, faith formation and leadership development (2020).

142 

J. N. GOH

Bibliography Althaus-Reid, Marcella. 2000. Indecent Theology: Theological Perversions in Sex, Gender and Politics. New York: Routledge. Amaladoss, Michael. 1998. Beyond Inculturation: Can the Many Be One? Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers. Amplify Stakeholders Presentation: Evolving the Future of AMPLIFY. 2020 January 17. Amplify Ministries. 2020. Amplify Asia  – Open and Affirming. https://amplifyasia.org/ AMPLIFY激扬. 2018. 激揚 AMPLIFY 2018 – Dr Roger’s Journey. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=FXUMhJa5MnY Athyal, Saphir P. 1995. Towards an Asian Christian Theology. In Biblical Theology in Asia, ed. Ken Gnanakan, 77–89. Bangalore: Asia Theological Association. Balasuriya, Tissa. 1982. Towards the Liberation of Theology in Asia. In Theological Reflection on Asia’s Struggle for Full Humanity, ed. Virginia Fabella, Jack Clancey, and John Ma, 23–34. Hong Kong: Plough Publications. Bhopal, Kalwant. 2010. Gender, Identity and Experience: Researching Marginalised Groups. Women’s Studies International Forum 33 (3): 188–195. Bohache, Thomas. 2013. Unzipping Church: Is There Room for Everyone? In Queering Christianity: Finding a Place at the Table for LGBTQI Christians, ed. Robert E. Shore-Goss, Thomas Bohache, Patrick S. Cheng, and Mona West, 271–291. Santa Barbara: Praeger. Buser, Juleen K., Kristopher M.  Goodrich, Melissa Luke, and Trevor J.  Buser. 2011. A Narratology of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Clients’ Experiences Addressing Religious and Spiritual Issues in Counseling. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling 5 (3–4): 282–303. Cheng, Patrick S. 2011. Gay Asian Masculinities and Christian Theologies. CrossCurrents 61 (4): 540–548. Cheng, Yi’En, Brenda S.A. Yeoh, and Juan Zhang. 2015. Still “Breadwinners” and “Providers”: Singaporean Husbands, Money and Masculinity in Transnational Marriages. Gender, Place & Culture 22 (6): 867–883. Cheong, John. 2011. Christian Education as Mission in Islamic Malaysia: A Survey of Contextual Approaches. Asia Journal of Theology 25 (1): 59–81. Clarke, Sathianathan. 2012. The Task, Method and Content of Asian Theologies. In Asian Theology on the Way: Christianity, Culture and Context, ed. Peniel Jesudason Rufus Rajkumar, 3–13. London: SPCK. Dakshina, Yogita. 2018. Meet the People Who Are Getting Churches to Welcome the LGBTQIA+ Community into Their Fold. The New Indian Express, June 28. https://www.edexlive.com/pride-­unprejudice/2018/jun/28/meet-­the-­ men-­w ho-­a re-­g etting-­c hurches-­t o-­w elcome-­t he-­l gbtqia-­c ommunity-­i nto-­ their-­fold-­3293.html

5  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF ESCHATOLOGICAL ACCOUNTABILITY 

143

Dong, Liu. 2016. Gay Christians Struggle for Acceptance in Churches in China. Global Times, July 14. http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/994281.shtml Driskill, Joseph D. 2006. Spirituality and the Formation of Pastoral Counselors. American Journal of Pastoral Counseling 8 (3–4): 69–85. Edman, Elizabeth M. 2016. Queer Virtue: What LGBTQ People Know About Life and Love and How It Can Revitalize Christianity. Boston: Beacon Press. Empereur, James L. 1998. Spiritual Direction and the Gay Person. New  York: Continuum. Flunder, Yvette A. 2005. Where the Edge Gathers: Building a Community of Radical Inclusion. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press. Fuliga, Jose B. 2011. Problems in Theological Education: A Third World Perspective. Asia Journal of Theology 25 (2): 279–287. Garrigan, Siobhan. 2009. Queer Worship. Theology & Sexuality 15 (2): 211–230. Godfrey, Donal. 2008. Gays and Grays: The Story of the Gay Community at Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Parish. Lanham: Lexington Books. Goh, Joseph N. 2019a. Practical Guidelines for SOGIESC Theologising in Southeast Asia: Foregrounding Gender Nonconformity, Sexual Diversity and Non-Dyadic Embodiment. In Siapakah Sesamaku? Pergumulan Teologi Dengan Isu-Isu Keadilan Gender, ed. Stephen Suleeman and Amadeo D.  Udampoh, 185–210. Jakarta: Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Theologi Jakarta. ———. 2019b. Queer Political Scrutinies and Other Ruminations: Methodologies, Methods and Complexities in Qualitative Research among Non-­ Heteronormative Men in Malaysia. In Revisiting Qualitative Methods in Social Science Research, ed. Bonita Aleaz and Partha Pratim Basu, 110–135. Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan Private Limited. ———. 2020a. Songsang, Confessions, and Theologizings of Divine Lavishness. In Unlocking Orthodoxies for Inclusive Theologies: Queer Alternatives, ed. Robert E. Shore-Goss and Joseph N. Goh, 51–69. New York: Routledge. ———. 2020b. Trans/Forming Church in the Asia Pacific Region: Narratives of Hospitable Ecclesiology by Philippine and Tongan Transgender Women. QUEST: Studies on Religion & Culture in Asia 4: 1–17. Goh, Joseph N., Kristine C.  Meneses, and Donald E.  Messer. 2019. An Ecclesiological Praxis of Inclusivity toward Sexual Diversity and HIV: Learning from Singapore and the Philippines. International Journal of Public Theology 13 (2): 163–184. Halberstam, Judith. 2011. The Queer Art of Failure. Durham: Duke University Press. Hari, Agustinus. 2020. North Sulawesi Church Hosts Discussion on LGBT Support. The Jakarta Post, February 7. https://www.thejakartapost.com/ news/2020/02/07/north-­s ulawesi-­c hurch-­h osts-­d iscussion-­o n-­l gbt-­ support.html

144 

J. N. GOH

Hutabarat, Pikul Salib. 2019. Here I Am. In Siapakah Sesamaku? Pergumulan Teologi Dengan Isu-Isu Keadilan Gender, ed. Stephen Suleeman and Amadeo D. Udampoh, 258–262. Jakarta: Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Theologi Jakarta. Kang, Namsoon. 2004. Confucian Familism and Its Social/Religious Embodiment in Christianity: Reconsidering the Family Discourse from a Feminist Perspective. Asia Journal of Theology 18 (1): 168–189. Keller, Catherine. 2008. On the Mystery: Discerning Divinity in Process. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Kuan, Kah-jin Jeffrey. 2006. Progressive Theology: Some Musings from a United Methodist Perspective. Progressive Christian Witness, Pacific School of Religion. http://www.psr.edu/progressive-­theology-­some-­musings-­united­methodist-­perspective Kundtz, David, and Bernard Schlager. 2007. Ministry Among God’s Queer Folk: LGBT Pastoral Care. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press. Kwon, Soo-young. 2013. Spiritually Oriented Christian (Pastoral) Counseling: An Integrative Encounter between Western Spirituality and Eastern Orthodox Spirituality. Theological Forum 72: 7–36. Leung, Josephine. 2010. A Feminist cum Queer Reading of Liturgy. in God’s image 29 (3): 61–68. Leung, Joanne. 2015. Joanne: God’s Grace!  – A Sharing by a Transgender Christian Woman. in God’s image 34 (2): 25–28. LiveWire Staff. 2019. Watch | “Ladka Hua Hai Ya Ladki”: Not a Coming Out Story By Daniel Mendonca. LiveWire (blog), June 12. https://livewire. thewire.in/gender-­and-­sexuality/watch-­ladka-­hua-­hai-­ya-­ladki-­not-­a-­coming­out-­story-­by-­daniel-­mendonca/ Longchar, Wati. 2011. Unclean and Compassionate Hand of God. The Ecumenical Review 63 (4): 408–418. Lord, Andy. 2016. A Theology of Sung Worship. In Scripting Pentecost: A Study of Pentecostals, Worship and Liturgy, ed. Mark J.  Cartledge and A.J.  Swoboda, 84–93. New York: Routledge. Luk, Small. 2012. 藩籬以外  – 認識和關愛雙性人 (Beyond the Boundary  – Knowing Intersex Persons and Caring for Them). Facebook, February. https:// www.facebook.com/concerns.IS ———. 2015. God Loves Intersex People. in God’s image 34 (2): 5–13. Machart, Régis, and Sep-neo Lim. 2013. Identity and Language vs. Identification through Language: A Historical Perspective. In Intersecting Identities and Interculturality: Discourse and Practice, ed. Régis Machart, Choon-bee Lim, Sep-neo Lim, and Eriko Yamato, 22–44. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Mangiduyos, Gladys P. 2016. Filipino United Methodists Hold Sexuality Dialogue. United Methodist News Service, February 16. https://www.umnews.org/en/ news/philippine-­united-­methodists-­hold-­sexuality-­dialogue.

5  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF ESCHATOLOGICAL ACCOUNTABILITY 

145

Mendonca, Daniel Francies Mary. 2017. Daniel’s Choice. In Christian Responses to Issues of Human Sexuality and Gender Diversity: A Guide to the Churches in India, ed. Philip Kuruvilla, 123–127. New Delhi/Nagpur: ISPCK/NCCI. Messer, Donald E. 2011. Getting to Zero: Embracing Science, Breaking the Silence, and Overcoming Stigma. The Ecumenical Review 63 (4): 384–396. Miner, Maureen, Martin Dowson, and Sam Sterland. 2010. Ministry Orientation and Ministry Outcomes: Evaluation of a New Multidimensional Model of Clergy Burnout and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 83 (1): 167–188. Musorrafiti, Dominique. 2018. Interview with Joanne Leung: LGBTQ Rights in Hong Kong. China Underground, August 28. https://china-­underground. com/2018/08/28/inter view-­w ith-­j oanne-­l eung-­l gbtq-­r ights-­i n­hong-­kong/ Nash, Catherine J. 2010. Queer Conversations: Old-Time Lesbians, Transmen and the Politics of Queer Research. In Queer Methods and Methodologies: Intersecting Queer Theories and Social Science Research, ed. Kath Browne and Catherine J. Nash, 129–142. London: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. National Council of Churches in India. n.d. About Us – ESHA-NCCI. https:// www.eshancci.org/about-­us-­2/. Accessed 25 Mar 2020. Neitz, Mary Jo. 2013. Insiders, Outsiders, Advocates and Apostates and the Religions They Study: Location and the Sociology of Religion. Critical Research on Religion 1 (2): 129–140. O’Murchu, Diarmuid. 2015. Inclusivity: A Gospel Mandate. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. Paas, Stefan. 2012. Church Renewal by Church Planting: The Significance of Church Planting for the Future of Christianity in Europe. Theology Today 68 (4): 467–477. Pallotta-Chiarolli, Maria, ed. 2018. Living and Loving in Diversity: An Anthology of Australian Multicultural Queer Adventures. Adelaide: Wakefield Press. Pieris, Aloysius. 1982. Toward an Asian Theology of Liberation: Some Religio-­ Cultural Guidelines. In Theological Reflection on Asia’s Struggle for Full Humanity, ed. Virginia Fabella, Jack Clancey, and John Ma, 92–113. Hong Kong: Plough Publications. Reagan, Debra A. 2013. Reclaiming the Body for Faith. Interpretation 67 (1): 42–57. Rees, Frank D. 2007. A Conversational Theology for a Conversational Church. Asia Journal of Theology 21 (1): 32–49. Rowland, Caroline, Roger Hall, and Ikhlas Altarawneh. 2017. Training and Development. EuroMed Journal of Business 12 (1): 36–51. Senturias, Erlinda N. 1994. God’s Mission and HIV/AIDS: Shaping the Churches’ Response. International Review of Mission 83 (329): 277–284.

146 

J. N. GOH

Shih, Gerry. 2010. Chinese Christians Are the Focus of Same-Sex Marriage Case. The New  York Times, January 22, sec. U.S. https://www.nytimes. com/2010/01/22/us/22sftam.html Shinhwan, Pan. 2006. Pastoral Counselling of Korean Clergy with Burnout: Culture and Narcissism. Asia Journal of Theology 20 (2): 241–255. Shore-Goss, Robert E. 1993. Jesus Acted Up: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. ———. 2018. AIDS: Deviancy, Stigma, and Grace: Counter-Theology from the Genitals of the Body of Christ. In Contemporary Theological Approaches to Sexuality, ed. Lisa Isherwood and Dirk von der Horst, 200–221. London: Routledge. Siew, Miak. 2009. The Conservative Majority: Examining the Emergence of a Vocal Conservative Minority in Singapore. Unpublished Manuscript. ———. 2015. Learning to Be Queer: Questions the Church Should Be Asking. in God’s image 34 (2): 65–70. Smith, Angela. 1999. “Straight Problems”: The Sacralization of Homophobia, Women’s Sexuality, Lesbian Invisibility and the British Church. Theology & Sexuality 1999 (10): 88–102. Soares-Prabhu, George. 1981. The Kingdom of God: Jesus’ Vision of New Society. In The Indian Church in the Struggles for a New Society, ed. D.S. Amalorpavadass, 579–608. Bangalore: National Biblical, Catechetical and Liturgical Centre. Stuart, Elizabeth. 1997a. Religion Is a Queer Thing: A Guide to the Christian Faith for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered People. London: Cassell. ———. 1997b. Sex in Heaven: The Queering of Theological Discourse on Sexuality. In Sex These Days: Essays on Theology, Sexuality and Society, ed. Jon Davies and Gerard Loughlin, 184–204. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Tang, Shawna. 2012. Transnational Lesbian Identities: Lessons from Singapore? In Queer Singapore – Illiberal Citizenship and Mediated Cultures, ed. Audrey Yue and Jun Zubillaga-Pow, 83–96. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Tomic, Welko, David M. Tomic, and Will J.G. Evers. 2004. A Question of Burnout Among Reformed Church Ministers in the Netherlands. Mental Health, Religion & Culture 7 (3): 225–247. Ueno, Reina. 2015. My Queer Exodus Story: As a Japanese Lesbian Minister in a Rural Church. in God’s image 34 (1): 32–36. Vo, Anne, and Zeenobyah Hannif. 2012. The Transfer of Training and Development Practices in Japanese Subsidiaries in Vietnam. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 50 (1): 75–91. Wilfred, Felix. 2010. Asian Public Theology: Critical Concerns in Challenging Times. New Delhi: ISPCK. Wilson, Nancy L. 1997. Queer Culture and Sexuality as a Virtue of Hospitality. In Our Families, Our Values: Snapshots of Queer Kinship, ed. Robert E.  Shore-­ Goss and Amy Adams Squire Strongheart, 21–33. New  York: Harrington Park Press.

5  AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF ESCHATOLOGICAL ACCOUNTABILITY 

147

Wong, Davy Mei-fung. 2010. Just and Right Intimate Relationships from a Queer Theological Perspective. in God’s image 29 (3): 33–36. Wu, Rose. 2000. Liberating the Church from Fear: The Story of Hong Kong’s Sexual Minorities. Kowloon: Hong Kong Women Christian Council. Youth for Unity and Voluntary Action (YUVA). n.d. Youth for Unity and Voluntary Action (YUVA). https://yuvaindia.org/. Accessed 6 Apr 2020. 激揚 Amplify 13. 2013. 激揚 Amplify 13: All Asia ‘Open & Affirming’ Church + Life Conference. 激揚 Amplify 13.

CHAPTER 6

Open and Affirming Inclusivity: The Journey Continues

We speak of these things in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit —1 Corinthians 2.13 I was glad when they said to me, ‘Let us go to the house of the Lord!’ To it the tribes go up, the tribes of the Lord. For the sake of the house of the Lord our God, I will seek your good —Psalm 122.1, 4, 9 As they came near the village to which they were going, he walked ahead as if he were going on. But they urged him strongly, saying, ‘Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over’ —Luke 24.28–29

The Amplify Open and Affirming Conferences are the fruits of concerted efforts among LGBTIQ-affirming churches to lend expression to their belief in inclusivity, openness and affirmation as reflections of the inclusivity, openness and affirmation of God. Amplify and its participating churches continue to deepen their realisation that they no longer need to depend on traditionally homophobic, biphobic or transphobic churches and theologies for resources, direction, tutelage, framework, approval, validation or support for their existence, even while they welcome opportunities for dialogue, friendship and collaboration in the name of © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. N. Goh, Doing Church at the Amplify Open and Affirming Conferences, Asian Christianity in the Diaspora, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73314-8_6

149

150 

J. N. GOH

wholehearted inclusion and acceptance in doing church. They are becoming increasingly aware of the prowess of LGBTIQ, feminist and other progressive theologies that speak to their lived realities. While they mainly draw on North American and European scholarship, they are also becoming more cognisant of Asian queer, transgender and feminist theologies. They are mindful that their ‘cherished desire to “asianize” theology, to a certain degree, can only be achieved by upholding the integrity of the Asian situation’ (Bautista et al. 1995, 127). Amplify and its participants are growing in the understanding that LGBTIQ Christians are no longer obliged to choose either identities of gender and sexuality or anatomy, or faith in Christianity and belonging to a faith community. They are resisting the rhetoric that LGBTIQ communities are products of faulty familial upbringing, congenital deformation, hormonal imbalance, variant anatomies and dominant parents (Thrikodanmalil 2015), or are evidence of a post-lapsarian world, or that they attract the wrath of God and are thus somehow responsible for the evils of society from pandemics and natural disasters to sexual predation and the dissolution of family life. Instead, they are progressively harbouring a certitude that their gender and sexual identities inform their experience of God and church, and that their relationship with God and church can enrich their gender, sexual and biological identities. LGBTIQ Christians see their genders, desires and anatomies as purposefully intended by a wise and loving Creator who wishes to establish a relationship with them, yearns for them to thrive, and commissions them to act productively and ethically in the world. They are steadily becoming aware that God does not speak monotonously to human realities. Often,  God acts and manifests godself in unprecedented, unexpected, unorthodox and unfamiliar ways to all people, including LGBTIQ people, and human pathways to God which are thus plural and multiple must be welcome and celebrated. They are growing in realisation that they need to be accountable to each other in their faith journeys, and that any shortcomings in their efforts of doing church can be understood in a sense as invitations from God towards greater collaboration with God and potential improvement in ecclesial development. Amplify and its participating churches are experiencing a heightened awareness that LGBTIQ people need not be subjected to secrecy and subterfuge, reparative therapy and condescending conditions in order to qualify as ‘full-fledged’ Christians in a church. While aware of their strengths and shortcomings, they are also becoming more and more

6  OPEN AND AFFIRMING INCLUSIVITY: THE JOURNEY CONTINUES 

151

cognisant of their own grace-filled potential, including their vocation to reach out with concrete and practical messages of acceptance, non-­ judgement, healing, emancipation and empowerment, and to participate in global endeavours for the betterment of human societies and the world. Open and affirming churches are thus increasingly relinquishing notions of unworthiness, self-loathing minoritisation and victimhood. When these churches gather at Amplify, the attributes of inclusivity, openness and affirmation coalesce and are amplified. In many ways and on many levels, Amplify has established itself as the epicentre of LGBTIQ Asian Christianity in Asia that queers ecclesial and ecclesiological normativities on multiple levels. Owing especially to the fact that gender variance and sexual diversity continue to be sanctioned through political, juridical, religious and socio-cultural platforms, Amplify is a particularly crucial welcoming space for doing church in radically inclusive, open and affirming ways. Nevertheless, I believe that it is imperative for Amplify to keep asking questions  – difficult questions  – about how these attributes can be further radicalised. In a public Facebook posting, Christopher Rajkumar shared his thoughts and feelings about his participation at Amplify 2018. He was particularly edified by the Sunday service at the end of the Conference: Most touching time was the Eucharist service … I was also be part of the clerics in the consecration and I was given a privilege to breaking of the bread. It was indeed heart-breaking experience since the invite was to everyone to be part of the Eucharist. The invite is not letting anyone to restrain from the partaking. Though I have been preaching inclusivity, I have served the concerted elements only to the selected. But here the body and blood of resurrected Christ was for everyone who believes[:] Is it not an act only to affirm inclusivity but also practice inclusivity? (2018).

Rajkumar’s experience of open commensality which underpinned the ‘breaking of the bread’ is a deeply moving episode which he refers to as ‘heart-breaking’. Although he holds inclusivity as a personal principle and practice, he realises that this inclusivity has only been extended to ‘the selected’. Hence Rajkumar realises that what he practises is a sort of denominational selective inclusivity even if what he means is that he dispenses the ‘[consecrated] elements’ of communion to the members of his church without any discriminatory requisites. What grips his attention is the radical inclusivity that is both ‘affirm[ed]’ and ‘practi[sed]’ at Amplify

152 

J. N. GOH

through the distribution of communion to ‘everyone who believes’. What Rajkumar does not mention – and possibly is unaware – is that this radical inclusivity of Amplify also stretches to Conference participants who may not necessarily believe in the ‘the body and blood of [the]  resurrected Christ’ that is channelled through the material species but who ‘partak[e]’ of communion as a means of participating in the inclusivity, friendship and solidarity of an LGBTIQ event. As Thomas Bohache says, ‘open communion is paradigmatic of the Body of Christ which includes all people’ (2013, 287; added emphasis). Claudio Carvalhaes (2010) accurately observes that ecclesial, theological, liturgical, socio-economic and political boundaries control and dictate table fellowship. Hence, ‘queer table companionship’, according to Robert E. Shore-Goss, ‘is the ritual practice of basileia thanksgiving of social outsiders or liminal people who become basileia insiders. The eucharistic meal becomes an act of defiance against homophobic oppression’ (2003, 132). By admitting outsiders to the inside, open commensality confounds the insider/outsider binary, fractures the normative order and breaks open God’s kingdom of love, justice and equity. It becomes a queer theo-­ political praxis that resists the exclusion and persecution of gender-variant and sexually diverse people. Yet the migration from the periphery to the centre of which Shore-Goss speaks and to which Rajkumar alludes is still insufficiently radical, even if it is a valid and greatly needed recognition of the experiences of LGBTIQ people – especially those of colour (Cheng 2013) – which have long been dismissed. During Amplify 2018 in Taiwan, Roger Gaikwad was interviewed on his views of God, marginalised communities, the legacy of colonial jurisprudence, and the role of the NCCI in social justice and human rights. Gaikwad quoted Luke 4.18–19 which reads, ‘the Spirit of the Lord is upon me and he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor, release to the captives, sight to the blind, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord’s favour’ (AMPLIFY激扬 2018, 0:29–0:48).1 For Gaikwad, this biblical reference is the ‘Nazareth Manifesto of Jesus’, which among interpretations is the fundamental incarnational purpose of God ‘to be with us – not primarily to rescue us, or even empower us, but simply to be with us, to share our existence, to enjoy our hopes and fears, our delights and griefs, our triumphs and disasters’ (Wells 2015, 24). As Kenan B.  Osborne says, ‘the incarnation indicates that the Logos became a 1

 The precise version of the bible which Gaikwad quotes is uncertain.

6  OPEN AND AFFIRMING INCLUSIVITY: THE JOURNEY CONTINUES 

153

humble human individual and lived in a tent next to our own’ (2009, 396). The Nazareth Manifesto is also Christ’s proclamation of ‘his vision of God’s Jubilee [or] a specific time in the life of the people in which God expected justice to be restored to all those who had experienced injustice [and] God would set right the wrongs of the previous decades’ (Wu 2003, 161). Gaikwad laments how churches continue to fall short of co-opting this divine purpose in their ministry to the people of God through the exclusion of LGBTIQ people. The deliberate precluding of LGBTIQ individuals from church life or the imposition of conditions on ‘legitimate’ ecclesial membership disgraces the principles of the Manifesto. As the interview progressed, it became evident that his interpretation of the Manifesto was primarily informed and steered by concerns that are at the forefront of Latin American and Asian liberation theologies, namely poverty, suffering, oppression and (neo)colonialism (Abraham 2004; Boff 1978; Gutiérrez 1988; Kappen 1986; Pieris 1988). These concerns, which straddle ‘issues of justice, human rights, gender quality, and human and economic development are among the highest priorities in Asia’ (Ariarajah 2008, 230). As I see it, Gaikwad holds an ecclesiological vantage point that centres on the person of Jesus who reached out to the outcast and downtrodden of his time as inspired by the Spirit of God. Contemporary churches which are homophobic, biphobic and transphobic by default must emulate this Manifesto of Jesus in order to authentically become and act as church. Nevertheless, it is something else Gaikwad says in relation to the Manifesto that grabs my attention. Gaikwad highlights the role of the NCCI to defend marginalised communities – not just LGBTIQ people – and more so to stand in solidarity with them. This solidarity, he submits, must not be manifested as a one-­ sided effort: I would say that we need to look at it from a different angle. We have been trying to include, but this kind of inclusion is still very patronising. Instead I should now seek to be included … by people who have been kept on the sidelines and the margins (AMPLIFY激扬 2018; 3:12–3:34; added emphasis).

As I see it, ecclesial and ecclesiological inclusivity as open and affirming for Gaikwad can only radically occur when those who are ordinarily ensconced at the centre of church and theology look towards acceptance and inclusion from those ‘who have been kept at the sidelines’. This is a crucial point, as ‘the theology of those at the center of society often seeks to

154 

J. N. GOH

characterize people on the edge as enemies of God’ (Flunder 2005, 2). Gaikwad’s idea foregrounds the reality that true inclusivity does not purely consist of churches reforming their views and welcoming marginalised people into their folds, and thus initiating a unilateral exodus of those at the periphery to the centre. No matter how noble this gesture is, it is still ‘patronising’. Instead, this notion recognises that some individuals and communities prefer to remain at the edge as a stance of authenticity that is integral to their subjectivities. It is aware of the power differentials that exist between ecclesial hierarchies and marginalised communities. It acknowledges the uncontested hegemony of oppression and discrimination that has long ruled the doings of church, and thus also desires its own relocation to the fringes as an expression of humble request for acceptance and the desire to exercise genuine respect. Inclusivity, openness and affirmation can be further radicalised when the centre moves to the periphery. The segue from midpoint to margins is, as Rose Wu describes it, a commitment to solidarity with those at the fringes, ‘to live like they live, to feel like they feel, to suffer how they suffer’ (2003, 185). In my opinion, Gaikwad is challenging and expanding the theological vision of Amplify ‘to explore and embody what “open and affirming” means’ (Gary Chan and Paul Lucas, quoted in 激揚 Amplify 13 2013, 4) to ecclesial life in Asia. The logic of the centre and the periphery is, however, problematic. The binary which forcefully allocates that which lies in the middle and on the sides perpetuates a power tussle derived from the force of difference that is inevitably generated by, and dependent on this very binary. There already exists an innocuous notion of a ‘given’ pivot and its ‘natural’ perimeters. Neither can the presumption that the centre points decisively to non-LGBT-affirming churches by default hold under all conditions – it is just as easy for any open and affirming entity to appropriate the role of focal point by which all others are appraised and pronounced as wanting. As long as central and peripheral positions are unproblematised and thus persist as constitutive positions in the doings of church, particularly in narratives involving LGBTIQ and other marginalised communities, any perceived centrifugal or centripetal movements involving one party alone are likely to maintain a degree of otherness and separateness which sustains the production of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’. Power, as Foucault (1990) cogently proposes, is fluidly transmogrified rather than diminishes when it is repressed. In other words, power will continue to circulate irrespective of the circumstances in which it finds itself. To imagine the doings of

6  OPEN AND AFFIRMING INCLUSIVITY: THE JOURNEY CONTINUES 

155

church without power would be an exercise in naïveté. Nevertheless, what if  power were imagined differently? What would a discourse of shared power look like, I wonder, instead of a discourse of the margins moving to the centre or the centre moving to the margins? I would like to share a personal anecdote to expand these thoughts. In the history of Christianity, many imageries of doing church have been culled from the scriptures and tradition. As it is beyond the remit of this volume to discuss each of them, I wish to showcase one biblical interpretation of doing church in an open and affirming manner as particularly poignant in relation to Gaikwad’s radical notion of ecclesial and ecclesiological inclusivity which I heard at the Chapel of the Great Commission of the Pacific School of Religion. Between 2008 and 2010, I studied systematic theology, specifically sacramentology through the Jesuit School of Theology of Santa Clara University in Berkeley, California. Despite being affiliated to a Roman Catholic institution of higher learning, I was eager to learn of, and take part in other Christian liturgical celebrations at other Schools in the area that were then part of the Graduate Theological Union consortium. I do not remember the exact date when I participated in a Sunday service at the Chapel which was just a little distance away from the Jesuit School. I was informed that the openly gay and HIV-positive social justice activist and minister Jim Mitulski would be the principal celebrant that Sunday. I was very impressed by Mitulski’s radical ministry to LGBTIQ communities and People Living with HIV and AIDS (LGBTQ Religious Archives Network 2014), and wanted to hear his voice first-hand. Mitulski chose the vision of Peter in the Acts of the Apostles 10.9–16 as the text of his sermon: About noon the next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat; and while it was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners. In it were all kinds of four-­ footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air. Then he heard a voice saying, ‘Get up, Peter; kill and eat’. But Peter said, ‘By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.’ The voice said to him again, a second time, ‘What God has made clean, you must not call profane.’ This happened three times, and the thing was suddenly taken up to heaven.

156 

J. N. GOH

I can no longer recall the minute details of Mitulski’s powerful sermon but I do remember that he deployed this scriptural passage as a trope for ecclesial and ecclesiological  inclusivity. Echoes of his sermon manifest themselves to me today in the form of a reflection on how the ‘profane and unclean’ state of certain animals and birds in some Jewish traditions parallels the many (unjust) Christian portrayals of menstruating women, unwed couples, people with a dependence on chemical substances, (previously) incarcerated people, homeless people, poor and uneducated migrants, LGBTIQ people, People Living with HIV and AIDS, People With Disability, indigenous people, communities at the lowest rungs of caste systems, and even adherents of non-Christian religions as agents of contamination. These classes of people may even be viewed by ‘decent’ and ‘respectable’ churches with as much abhorrence as Peter – a semiotic of conservative and orthodox leadership – recoiled at the thought of ingesting forbidden flesh. Yet within this excerpt from Acts, which reflects the incipient stages of a Christian church that was beginning to discover its own identity as distinct from its Jewish roots, is a divine directive to embrace and include that which has typically been touted as polluted and thus unworthy of God. In some ways, it is easy to see Peter as representing the centre while the contents of the sheet symbolise the periphery. Yet there may be another way of interpreting the scene. Although the massacre of animals is questionable and not a particularly appealing biblical imagery for me, this text is still significant to my personal theological worldview as it speaks to an ecclesiological praxis of inclusivity2 in which the identities of the centre and the margins seem to blur and meld. The sheet lowers itself to Peter in order to make its presence known, but Peter eventually moves towards the sheet that has been raised upwards in order to respond to the divine directive he hears in his heart to exercise unprecedented inclusivity. The power movements here do not reproduce the binary I spoke of earlier – they are instead equitable, synchronous and mutually embracing. The imperative for Amplify to progress towards greater radicalisations of inclusivity, openness and affirmation by advocating what I understand and interpret as a discourse of shared power has also been beautifully captured by Darlene Garner. At the close of Amplify 2014 at FCC in Singapore, Garner was invited to preach on Judges 12.1–6, a passage which focuses on the conflict between the Gileadites and the Ephramites: 2

 I borrow this term from Goh, Meneses, and Messer (2019).

6  OPEN AND AFFIRMING INCLUSIVITY: THE JOURNEY CONTINUES 

157

The men of Ephraim were called to arms, and they crossed to Zaphon and said to Jephthah, ‘Why did you cross over to fight against the Ammonites, and did not call us to go with you? We will burn your house down over you!’ Jephthah said to them, ‘My people and I were engaged in conflict with the Ammonites who oppressed us severely. But when I called you, you did not deliver me from their hand. When I saw that you would not deliver me, I took my life in my hand, and crossed over against the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into my hand. Why then have you come up to me this day, to fight against me?’ Then Jephthah gathered all the men of Gilead and fought with Ephraim; and the men of Gilead defeated Ephraim, because they said, ‘You are fugitives from Ephraim, you Gileadites – in the heart of Ephraim and Manasseh’. Then the Gileadites took the fords of the Jordan against the Ephraimites. Whenever one of the fugitives of Ephraim said, ‘Let me go over’, the men of Gilead would say to him, ‘Are you an Ephraimite?’ When he said, ‘No’, they said to him, ‘Then say Shibboleth’, and he said, ‘Sibboleth’, for he could not pronounce it right. Then they seized him and killed him at the fords of the Jordan. Forty-two thousand of the Ephraimites fell at that time.

Garner took the opportunity to speak about issues of internal ecclesial conflict, and that churches that purport to be inclusive and affirming can occasionally be intolerant of difference themselves. She stressed the need for dialogue within and between churches, and between churches and the world in which they are embedded. Midway through her 45-minute sermon, she asked the following questions: Can we talk, Amplify? Can we talk about becoming a church community that is willing to learn to say and to be Christian differently? Can we talk about what our churches are like for native-born and -living, right language-speaking, able-bodied, gender conforming, gay men and lesbians? Then can we talk about what our churches are like for peoples from other nations, children, young adults, older adults, trans* and gender nonconforming folks? For people with disabilities, those who are HIV+, women, bisexuals, and heterosexuals? For people for whom your spoken tongue is their second, third, fourth, or even otherwise unneeded language?

158 

J. N. GOH

Do we dare talk about how those of us from any one country need to place ourselves on the globe as equals with the rest of humanity instead of assuming that our particular nation is or should be the center of the universe and everybody else is doing it wrong? (2014)

Through these questions, Garner reiterates the imperative for ongoing conversations that can deepen the understanding and praxis of diversity, inclusivity, openness and affirmation for churches in Asia. She challenges the mindset that perpetuates the doings of colonial Christianity in Asia instead of a profoundly inculturated and contextualised Asian Christianity. She calls for a deeper reflection on the doings of church for the privileged and under-privileged. She repeats the importance of issues such as language, age, health, ability and national belonging in conversations on church. She foregrounds the importance of self-reflexivity, equity and humility in the doings of church. Garner’s questions are not merely subtle admonitions of efforts that fall short of the raison d’être of either Amplify or open and affirming churches, or simple exhortations to improve on these shortcomings. Instead, akin to Gaikwad’s aforementioned statement as well as what I had discussed earlier in this book in relation to the musings of Irma Mepico Balaba, Yvette S. Flunder and Duncan Mark on broader forms of inclusivity, these questions are prophetic signposts that reiterate, challenge and recommission the theological vision of Amplify to ‘explore and embody what “open and affirming” means’ (激揚 Amplify 13 2013, 4) beyond increasingly comfortable and familiar issues of gender, sexuality and biology at the Conferences and within individual LGBTIQ-affirming churches. The doings of church at Amplify are queer as they defy, disrupt and displace normative beliefs that ecclesial and ecclesiological performances can only be validly undertaken by unambiguously normative systems, but they can and must become queerer. Garner’s questions prompt Amplify to imagine what it would be like to unfollow ‘the God of the privileged [who] does not exist in the margins but rather remains in the center, safe and secure from all alarm’ (G.  J.-S.  Kim 2015, 101). These uncomfortable and unsettling  questions offer a challenge to Amplify to radicalise its inclusivity, openness and affirmation by learning ways of substituting discourses of the centre and the periphery with a discourse of shared power – of mutually learning and discovering ways of doing church without presuppositions of authority and subordination. The journey of relational and mutual empowerment in doing church continues.

6  OPEN AND AFFIRMING INCLUSIVITY: THE JOURNEY CONTINUES 

159

Bibliography Abraham, K.C., ed. 2004. Third World Theologies: Commonalities and Divergences. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers. AMPLIFY激扬. 2018. 激揚 AMPLIFY 2018 – Dr Roger’s Journey. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=FXUMhJa5MnY Ariarajah, S. Wesley. 2008. The Ecumenical Movement in Asia in the Context of Asian Socio-Political Realities. In Christian Theology in Asia, ed. Sebastian C.H. Kim, 227–249. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bautista, Lorenzo, Hidalgo B. Garcia, and Sze-kar Wan. 1995. The Asian Way of Thinking in Theology. In Biblical Theology in Asia, ed. Ken Gnanakan, 123–137. Bangalore: Asia Theological Association. Boff, Leonardo. 1978. Jesus Christ Liberator: A Critical Christology for Our Time. Trans. Patrick Hughes. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. Bohache, Thomas. 2013. Unzipping Church: Is There Room for Everyone? In Queering Christianity: Finding a Place at the Table for LGBTQI Christians, ed. Robert E. Shore-Goss, Thomas Bohache, Patrick S. Cheng, and Mona West, 271–291. Santa Barbara: Praeger. Carvalhaes, Cláudio. 2010. Borders, Globalization and Eucharistic Hospitality. Dialog 49 (1): 45–55. Cheng, Patrick S. 2013. Rainbow Theology: Bridging Race, Sexuality, and Spirit. New York: Seabury Books. Flunder, Yvette A. 2005. Where the Edge Gathers: Building a Community of Radical Inclusion. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press. Foucault, Michel. 1990. The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1: An Introduction. Trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Vintage Books. Garner, Darlene. 2014. On Letting Go: An Interpretation of Judges 12:1–6. Sermon presented at the Amplify 2014 All-Asia Open and Affirming Church + Life Conference, Free Community Church, Singapore, September 14. https:// www.freecomchurch.org/sermon/on-­letting-­go/ Goh, Joseph N., Kristine C.  Meneses, and Donald E.  Messer. 2019. An Ecclesiological Praxis of Inclusivity Toward Sexual Diversity and HIV: Learning from Singapore and the Philippines. International Journal of Public Theology 13 (2): 163–184. Gutiérrez, Gustavo. 1988. A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation. Trans. Caridad Inda and John Eagleson. Rev. version. London: SCM Press. Kappen, Sebastian. 1986. Liberation Theology and Marxism. Puntamba: Ajit Muricken. Kim, Grace Ji-sun. 2015. Embracing the Other: The Transformative Spirit of Love. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. LGBTQ Religious Archives Network. 2014. Jim Mitulski. Profiles. https:// lgbtqreligiousarchives.org/profiles/jim-­mitulski

160 

J. N. GOH

Osborne, Kenan B. 2009. A Theology of the Church for the Third Millennium: A Franciscan Approach. Leiden: Brill. Pieris, Aloysius. 1988. An Asian Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. Rajkumar, Christopher. 2018. Most Challenging Days in Taipei. Facebook, November  3. https://www.facebook.com/ChristopherRajk/ posts/2101084786589633 Shore-Goss, Robert E. 2003. Queering Christ: Beyond Jesus Acted Up. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press. Thrikodanmalil, Sajeesh. 2015. Union of Persons of the Same Sex: Moral Evaluation and Pastoral Care. In The Pastoral Challenges of Marriage & Family: Responses from India, ed. Scaria Kanniyakonil, Dominic Vechoor, and Anto Cheranthuruthy, 139–152. Kerala: Oriental Institute of Religious Studies India. Wells, Samuel. 2015. A Nazareth Manifesto: Being with God. Malden: Wiley. Wu, Rose. 2003. A Dissenting Church. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Christian Institute and Hong Kong Women Christian Council. 激揚 Amplify 13. 2013. 激揚 Amplify 13: All Asia ‘Open & Affirming’ Church + Life Conference. 激揚 Amplify 13.



Appendix

Premise In some ways, I see this book as an expression of my best attempts to responsively embody Simon Shui-man Kwan’s statement that ‘Asian theology conceived as a discourse has been taking its shape along the growth of Asian voices as a self-assertive collective effort [and that t]hese emerging Asian voices are both theological and political’ (2002, 99; added emphasis). As a gay man, an educator and researcher in gender and sexuality studies, an ordained presbyter and an Asian theological activist living in Asia who works on Asian issues, my sociological and theological endeavours – primarily in the academy – have been somewhat politically motivated in terms of upholding the rights and preserving the dignity of LGBTIQ people on numerous levels. I am acutely aware of the damage that has been done to LGBTIQ people by institutions and individuals that purportedly represent an unconditionally loving God in the name and person of Christ, and I understand my efforts as a Spirit-led calling. Writing for me is thus a sacred tool1 to engage with a passionately spiritual practice. My theological ideas are influenced by a variety of thinkers including Marcella Althaus-Reid, Michael Amaladoss, John B.  Cobb Jr., Carter 1

 I borrow this term from a conversation I had with Sandra Siow-san Ng.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. N. Goh, Doing Church at the Amplify Open and Affirming Conferences, Asian Christianity in the Diaspora, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73314-8

161

162 

APPENDIX

Heyward, Lisa Isherwood, Pui-lan Kwok, Jürgen Moltmann, Karl Rahner, Rosemary Radford Ruether, Robert E.  Shore-Goss, C.  S. Song, Justin Tanis, the Ecclesia of Women in Asia (EWA), the Emerging Queer Asian Pacific Islander Religion Scholars (EQARS) and the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences (FABC), even if I cannot profess absolute and total agreement with all their postulations. I am keenly aware that my labours at the intersection of gender, sexuality and theology in Asian contexts bear a distinct contradistinction to a majority of ‘academics [who] have a tendency to shy away from topics and language considered “crass”’ (Pfeffer 2017, 100). Along with many other scholars in LGBTIQ theologies and religious studies who recognise that God can only be deciphered and known, albeit never exhaustively, through human intellect, emotion and sensation, I share the transgressive joy of bringing discourses of God and actual human lives together, and interpreting God through real human lives in Asia.

Project For the research project which birthed this book, I applied for the Internal Research Grant from the School of Arts and Social Sciences, Monash University Malaysia in June 2018, and my funding request was approved in August 2018 (Approval No. 207). In October 2018, I received permission from the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (Project ID 16985) to undertake fieldwork involving sensitive topics on human experience, issues of deviance and religious matters (Lee and Renzetti 1990) from October to December 2018. Hence, between November and December 2018, I conducted elite interviews with 14 Amplify frontliners in person during Amplify 2018 at Taipei, Taiwan, and via Skype after the event when face-to-face, in-person interviews during the Conference proved too difficult due to the sheer magnitude of their tasks and responsibilities. Each recorded interview lasted between 1.0 and 1.5  hours, and was held solely in English even though my informants included a smattering of non-English languages every so often to punctuate a point. Not all informants spoke with the same level of profiency in English. I also performed extensive web and desk research on Amplify before and after my interviews, and during the writing of the book. Prior to the interviews, electronic invitations to participate in this research project were disseminated to potential interviewees through Amplify’s Operations Director Sam Li. Interview questions, Explanatory

 APPENDIX 

163

Statements and Consent Forms pertaining to the research project were emailed ahead of interviews to informants who voluntarily participated in the project, and Consent Forms were duly signed and returned to me. There was no coercion involved whatsoever in the recruitment of informants. Given that I only had a very short period of time to conduct fieldwork, my recruitment efforts were limited and I settled on 14 informants. Recorded interviews were transcribed, thematised, analysed and organised with the help of a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS), namely ATLAS.ti 7.0. The use of CAQDAS did not replace my actual analysis and theorising, but rather facilitated the categorisation, organisation, retrieval and preliminary analysis of copious amounts of data (Bong 2002; MacMillan 2005), some of which eventually formed the chapters and sections of this book. This monograph was written for the most part during my sabbatical leave (also known as the Outside Study Programme; approved in October 2019) from January to June 2020. This book cannot claim to be representative of a single theological discipline and it is difficult for me to pronounce a definitive taxonomy in regard to my endeavours. Nonetheless, I do draw on three major methodological approaches, including two theological strands, traditions, branches or movements. First, I look to the principles of queer theology which are rooted in gay and lesbian theories and theologies, feminist theories and theologies, liberation theologies, AIDS activism, queer and poststructuralist theories, and the faith experiences of LGBTIQ people (Althaus-Reid 2000; Córdova Quero 2019; Cheng 2011; Shore-Goss 2003, 1993; Lowe 2009; Schneider and Roncolato 2012; Stuart 2003; Wu 2000). In this book, I am especially drawn to Patrick S. Cheng’s threefold proposal of queer theology as: LGBT people ‘talking about God’ … ‘talking about God’ in a self-­ consciously transgressive manner, especially in terms of challenging societal norms about sexuality and gender[, and] ‘talk about God’ that challenges and deconstructs the natural binary categories of sexual and gender identity (2011, 9).

A queer theological stance endorses my efforts to foreground the simultaneous deconstructive and reconstructive theological musings of my informants who identify as LGBTIQ or allies, work among LGBTIQ communities and strive to exercise theological transgressiveness in their personal lives and ministry.

164 

APPENDIX

Second, I adopt practical theological approaches which insist that theological formulations must seriously consider intimate conversations with other disciplines (Chung 2017; Forrester 2000; Pattison 2007; Swinton and Mowat 2016) in order to preserve their transformative prowess. In particular, my discussions in this monograph draw on John Swinton’s and Harriet Mowat’s method of mutual critical correlation and its emphasis on qualitative research, which: … sees the practical theological task as bringing situations into dialectical conversation with insights from the Christian tradition and perspectives drawn from other sources of knowledge (primarily the social sciences). It is a model of integration that seeks to bring these dimensions together in a way that respects and gives an equal voice to each dialogue partner (2016, 73).

Practical theology’s preservation of the interminable and irresolvable tension between theology’s claim to truth as definitive as a consequence of divine revelation and the social sciences’ notion of truth as fluid, shifting and contingent is deliberate. Such a tension galvanises deeper and/or new interpretations of divine revelation that are relevant to contemporary realities, as gleaned from the narratives of actual human beings. A practical theological approach also keeps both theology and the social sciences in a humble, self-reflexive stance in order to prevent either from becoming an uncontested metanarrative. Third, my thematic analysis and theorising are based on the principles of a constructivist grounded theory methodology (CGTM) as propounded by Kathy Charmaz. These principles include an understanding that knowledge emerges from the ways in which people make sense and meaning of their lived experiences. However, knowledge is not a latent commodity that is discovered from the informant by the researcher, but the consequence of intersubjective interpretation and meaning-making between the researcher and the informant. The researcher’s prior knowledge of the subject matter acts as a sensitising tool and departure point for the project, and CGTM is particularly relevant as a tool for research on social justice issues (Charmaz 2017; 2005; 2000; 1995). CGTM allows the researcher to build theory from data towards (well-)grounded epistemologies. CGTM also acts as a form of ‘methodological self-consciousness’ (Charmaz 2017, 36) which prompts me to be reflexively aware of my own positionalities and privilege as a well-educated and urban-dwelling Malaysian

 APPENDIX 

165

citizen, as well as the various political, socio-cultural, economic and religious factors that condition and shape my thoughts in writing this volume. This book thus displays a hybridised and an interdisciplinary approach to theology in Asian contexts  – tentatively a form of Asian queer practical theology – which coheres with both queer and practical theological traditions without being forcibly catalogued as one or the other. I strove to maintain research rigour, integrity and trustworthiness (Bowen 2008; Sandelowski 1993; Whittemore et  al. 2001) through a careful preservation of research data and electronic trails (Morse et  al. 2008; Whittemore et al. 2001), as well as critical analytical interpretations which were faithful to, and respectful of my informants’ narratives. I channelled my bias as a gay man of faith who believes in the empowering, fortifying and healing potential of theology, and the dismantling of religiously destructive rhetoric against gender variance and sexual diversity, through constant reminders to myself of my original intention to complete this volume as a theo-political project with, and for the benefit of LGBTIQ communities (Goh 2019). I acknowledge that bias is an inevitable component of research (Browne and Nash 2010; Freshwater 2005; Yip 2008), and that my bias as a theological activist and an out gay man has been deeply embedded in this project from the outset. I also sought to exercise self-critique and self-reflexivity (Freshwater 2005; Goh 2019; Hill and Holyoak 2011) by revisiting and re-questioning my interpretation and analysis several times over during the entire project, and listening to the valuable feedback of peer reviewers.

Participation My choice of elite interviews is a conscious decision to engage in purposeful sampling (Morse et  al. 2008; Patton 2002; Suri 2011) by selecting experts on a specific subject matter (Kaiser 2009; Nespor 2000; Walford 2012). Amplify frontliners are experts in terms of possessing substantial knowledge in matters of church and/or theology in their respective contexts, are community leader-practitioners (Goh et  al. 2019) who draw knowledge from their experiences in working on the ground with non-­ experts, and are active participants in the activities of the Conferences. With written permission from the informants, this book dispenses with anonymity in terms of their personal identities, and faith and church affiliations where pertinent. The fact that frontliners comprise a small pool of individuals ‘makes it relatively easy for others to reconstruct identities …

166 

APPENDIX

from published accounts’ (Nespor 2000, 547). My decision to reveal the names, roles and efforts of these frontliners is also a nod to their efforts for the betterment of community (Kaiser 2009; Walford 2012), notably their contributions to LGBTIQ Asians of faith in Asia. As mentioned previously, a total of 14 frontliners participated in the project, and I assigned each individual to a particular group in accordance with their primary role (past and present) at Amplify. Group 1 comprises participants who are/were concomitantly organisers and hosts who take/ took the lead in Amplify Conferences, Group 2 is made up of participants who are concomitantly co-organisers and hosts of Amplify, and who have hosted the Conference in their countries, and Group 3 consists of consultants, speakers and other active contributors:

Name Group 1 Gary Chan

Sam Li

Paul Lucas

Su-lin Ngiam

Pauline Ong

Miak Siew

Group 2 Joe Wai-yap Pang

Description

Mode & date of interview

Amplify founder, organiser, host, speaker and facilitator; Skype, 5th pastor of Free Community Church, Singapore November 2018 Amplify Operations Director, organiser and host Skype, 2nd November 2018 Amplify founder, organiser, host, speaker and facilitator Skype, 6th November 2018 Previous Amplify organiser, host, speaker and facilitator; Skype, 22nd previous pastor of Free Community Church, Singapore December 2018 Amplify organiser, host, speaker and facilitator; Skype, 28th Executive Pastor of Free Community Church, November Singapore 2018 Amplify organiser, host, speaker and facilitator; Skype, 5th Executive Pastor of Free Community Church, November Singapore 2018 Amplify co-organiser, host, speaker and facilitator (Malaysia); pastor of Blessed Ministry Community Church (BMCC), Hong Kong, and Good Samaritan Kuala Lumpur (GSKL), Malaysia

Skype, 25th November 2018 (continued)

 APPENDIX 

167

(continued) Name

Description

Stephen Suleeman

Amplify co-organiser, host, speaker and facilitator (Indonesia); retired lecturer of Jakarta Theological Seminary; ordained minister with Gereja Kristen Indonesia (GKI) or Indonesian Christian Church Silas Kwok-yiu Amplify co-organiser, host, speaker and facilitator Wong (Taiwan); previous pastor of Hong Kong Blessed Minority Christian Fellowship (HKBMCF); present pastor of Tong-Kwang Light House Presbyterian Church, Taiwan Group 3 Jason Man-bo Amplify speaker and facilitator; pastor of Blessed Ho Ministry Community Church (BMCC) Caelan Liu

Amplify speaker and facilitator; pastor of Love Church, Taiwan

Duncan Mark

Amplify translator and facilitator (English to Japanese)

Boon-lin Ngeo Amplify speaker and facilitator; ordained minister with @ Ouyang Metropolitan Community Church of New York, USA Wen Feng Pearl Wong Amplify speaker and facilitator; Director of Queer Theology Academy, Hong Kong

Mode & date of interview In person, 26th October 2018 In person, 26th October 2018

Skype, 26th November 2018 In person, 28th October 2018 In person, 28th October 2018 Skype, 6th December 2018 Skype, 7th December 2018

Each informant was asked a series of open-ended questions on what they understood as the purpose of Amplify, its theological stance, strengths, weaknesses, evolutions and future directions, and differences between Amplify and local open and affirming churches. Questions on the logistics of Amplify, such as choice of venues and themes, Conference programmes and choice of speakers were asked of all informants, but particularly fielded to Gary Chan, Sam Li and Paul Lucas.

Bibliography

Althaus-Reid, Marcella. 2000. Indecent Theology: Theological Perversions in Sex, Gender and Politics. New York: Routledge. Bong, Sharon A. 2002. Debunking Myths in Qualitative Data Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 3 (2) http://www.qualitative-­research.net/index. php/fqs/article/view/849/1844. Bowen, Glenn A. 2008. Naturalistic Inquiry and the Saturation Concept: A Research Note. Qualitative Research 8 (1): 137–152. Browne, Kath, and Catherine J. Nash, eds. 2010. Queer Methods and Methodologies: Intersecting Queer Theories and Social Science Research. London: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Charmaz, Kathy. 1995. Grounded Theory. In Rethinking Methods in Psychology, ed. Jonathan A. Smith, Rom Harre, and Luk Van Langenhove, 27–49. London: Sage Publications Ltd. ———. 2000. Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, ed. Norman K.  Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 2nd ed., 509–535. London: Sage Publications, Inc. ———. 2005. Grounded Theory in the 21st Century: Applications for Advancing Social Justice Studies. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, ed. Norman K.  Denzin and Yvonna S.  Lincoln, 507–535. London: Sage Publications Ltd. ———. 2017. The Power of Constructivist Grounded Theory for Critical Inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry 23 (1): 34–45. Cheng, Patrick S. 2011. Radical Love: An Introduction to Queer Theology. New York: Seabury Books. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. N. Goh, Doing Church at the Amplify Open and Affirming Conferences, Asian Christianity in the Diaspora, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73314-8

169

170 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chung, Jaeyeon Lucy. 2017. Korean Women, Self-Esteem, and Practical Theology: Transformative Care. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Córdova Quero, Hugo. 2019. Straddling the Global South Bridging Queer Theologies in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. In Siapakah Sesamaku? Pergumulan Teologi Dengan Isu-Isu Keadilan Gender, ed. Stephen Suleeman and Amadeo D.  Udampoh, 157–185. Jakarta: Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Theologi Jakarta. Forrester, Duncan B. 2000. Truthful Action Explorations in Practical Theology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Freshwater, Dawn. 2005. Writing, Rigour and Reflexivity in Nursing Research. Journal of Research in Nursing 10 (3): 311–315. Goh, Joseph N. 2019. Queer Political Scrutinies and Other Ruminations: Methodologies, Methods and Complexities in Qualitative Research among Non-Heteronormative Men in Malaysia. In Revisiting Qualitative Methods in Social Science Research, ed. Bonita Aleaz and Partha Pratim Basu, 110–135. Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan Private Limited. Goh, Joseph N., Kristine C.  Meneses, and Donald E.  Messer. 2019. An Ecclesiological Praxis of Inclusivity toward Sexual Diversity and HIV: Learning from Singapore and the Philippines. International Journal of Public Theology 13 (2): 163–184. Hill, Theon E., and Isaac Clarke Holyoak. 2011. Dialoguing Difference in Joint Ethnographic Research: Reflections on Religion, Sexuality, and Race. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies 11 (2): 187–194. Kaiser, Karen. 2009. Protecting Respondent Confidentiality in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research 19 (11): 1632–1641. Kwan, Simon Shui-man. 2002. A Discursive History of the Asian Theological Movement – A Critique of Its Binarism. Journal of Theologies and Cultures in Asia 1: 93–133. Lee, Raymond M., and Claire M. Renzetti. 1990. The Problems of Researching Sensitive Topics: An Overview and Introduction. American Behavioral Scientist 33 (5): 510–528. Lowe, Mary Elise. 2009. Gay, Lesbian, and Queer Theologies: Origins, Contributions, and Challenges. Dialog 48 (1): 49–61. MacMillan, Katie. 2005. More Than Just Coding? Evaluating CAQDAS in a Discourse Analysis of News Texts. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6 (3) https://www.qualitative-­research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/28. Morse, Janice M., Michael Barrett, Maria Mayan, Karin Olson, and Jude Spiers. 2008. Verification Strategies for Establishing Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 1 (2): 13–22. Nespor, Jan. 2000. Anonymity and Place in Qualitative Inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry 6 (4): 546–569.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

171

Pattison, Stephen. 2007. The Challenge of Practical Theology: Selected Essays. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Patton, Michael Quinn. 2002. Two Decades of Developments in Qualitative Inquiry: A Personal, Experiential Perspective. Qualitative Social Work 1 (3): 261–283. Pfeffer, Carla A. 2017. Queering Families: The Postmodern Partnerships of Cisgender Women and Transgender Men. New York: Oxford University Press. Sandelowski, Margarete. 1993. Rigor or Rigor Mortis: The Problem of Rigor in Qualitative Research Revisited. Advances in Nursing Science 16 (2): 1–8. Schneider, Laurel C., and Carolyn Roncolato. 2012. Queer Theologies. Religion Compass 6 (1): 1–13. Shore-Goss, Robert E. 1993. Jesus Acted Up: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. ———. 2003. Queering Christ: Beyond Jesus Acted Up. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press. Stuart, Elizabeth. 2003. Gay and Lesbian Theologies: Repetitions with Critical Difference. Aldershot: Ashgate. Suri, Harsh. 2011. Purposeful Sampling in Qualitative Research Synthesis. Qualitative Research Journal 11 (2): 63–75. Swinton, John, and Harriet Mowat. 2016. Practical Theology and Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. London: SCM Press. Walford, Geoffrey. 2012. Researching the Powerful in Education: A Re-Assessment of the Problems. International Journal of Research & Method in Education 35 (2): 111–118. Whittemore, Robin, Susan K. Chase, and Carol Lynn Mandle. 2001. Validity in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research 11 (4): 522–537. Wu, Rose. 2000. Liberating the Church from Fear: The Story of Hong Kong’s Sexual Minorities. Kowloon: Hong Kong Women Christian Council. Yip, Andrew K.T. 2008. Researching Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Christians and Muslims: Some Thematic Reflections. Sociological Research Online 13 (1(5)): 116–129.

Index1

A Ableism, 19 Accountability, 122 AIDS, 63 Amplify Stakeholders Presentation, 36 Anatomy, 107 Androcentrism, 105 Asian Christianity, 5 Asian theology/Asian theologising, 5, 161 B Basileia, 152 Balaba, Irma Mepico, 53 Bible, 8 Biblical, 4 Binarism, 19 Biology, 7 Blessed Ministry Community Church (BMCC), 2

Body of Christ, 12 Burnout, 130 C Cantwell, Jordan, 50 Chan, Gary, 10 Cheng, Patrick S., 47 Cisnormative/cisnormativity, 3, 19 Cissexism, 70 Classism, 19 Colonialism, 77 Communion, 151 Community, 2 Community leader-practitioners, 4 Confucian, 18 Constructivist grounded theory methodology (CGTM), 164 Counselling, 7

 Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. N. Goh, Doing Church at the Amplify Open and Affirming Conferences, Asian Christianity in the Diaspora, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73314-8

173

174 

INDEX

D Denomination, 80, 96 Dialogue, 6 Divinity School of Chung Chi College, Chinese University of Hong Kong, 45 Doing church, 2 E Ecclesial, 3 Ecclesiology, 2 Ecclesiophobia, 18 Education, 21 Ekkle ̄sia, 4 Eschatology, 121 Ethical auditing, 122 Ethics, 13 Ethnicity, 77 Ethnocentrism, 137 Eucharist, 151 F FCC Worship Conference, 43 Fellowship, 4 Feminism, 134 Feminist theology, 133 Flourishing, 61 Flunder, Yvette A., 20 Francis, Pope, 9 Free Community Church (FCC), 2 Frontliners, 4 G Gaijin, 76 Gaikwad, Roger, 16 Garner, Darlene, 23 Gay theology, 133

Gender, 4 Gender-variant, 1n1 Graduate Theological Union, 155 H Heteronormative/ heteronormativity, 3, 19 Heteropatriarchal, 135 Heterosexism, 70 Heterosexist, 52 HIV, 63 Ho, Jason Man-bo, 11 Homophobic, 133 Homosexual/homosexuality, 10, 62 Hong Kong Blessed Minority Christian Fellowship (HKBMCF), 11 I Imaginative contiguity, 122 Incarnation, 92 Inclusive/inclusivity, 11, 53 Interconnectedness, 75 Interdependence, 61 Irregularity, 89 J Jakarta, 41 Jesuit School of Theology of Santa Clara University, 155 John Paul II, Pope, 5 K Kingdom, 152 Koino n̄ ia, 4 Kuruvilla, Philip, 16

 INDEX 

L Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ), 1 Leung, Joanne Wing-yan, 138 Li, Sam, 73 Liberationism, 134 Liu, Caelan, 51 Love, Cindi, 47 Lucas, Paul, 10 Luk, Small, 138 M Marginalisation/marginalized, 20 Mark, Duncan, 76 Metropolitan Community Churches, 15 Ministry, 13 Mission, 5 Mitulski, Jim, 23 N National Council of Churches in India (NCCI), 14 National Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP), 14 Nationality, 77 Nazareth Manifesto of Jesus, 152 Network/networking, 78 Ngeo, Boon-lin, 47 Ngiam, Su-lin, 44 Non-affirming, 10 O Ong, Pauline, 2 Open and affirming, 36

P Pacific School of Religion, 42 Pang, Joe Wai-yap, 11 Pastoral care, 13 Pastors, 77 Patriarchalism, 77 Patriarchy/patriarchal, 19, 52 Penal Code, 17 Pentecostal, 36 Post-colonialism, 134 Practical theology, 164 Praise and worship, 132 Progressive theology, 133 Promiscuity, 92 Protestant, 2 Q Queer matrix of relational empowerment, 18 Queer theology, 133 Queer Theology Academy’s (QTA), 12 R Racism, 77 Rajkumar, Christopher, 16 Robinson, Gene, 46 Roman Catholic, 2 S Scriptures, 47 Sexism, 19 Sexuality, 7 Sexually diverse, 1n1

175

176 

INDEX

Shalom, 72 Siew, Miak, 13 Sin, Eric, 65 Solidarity, 14 Space/spaces, 3 Spirituality, 11 Stories, 77 Storytelling, 78 Suleeman, Stephen, 41 Sun, Selina Shuk-man, 11 T Testimonies, 8n9 Theological Seminary, 41 Thrive/thriving, 65, 66, 83 Tong-Kwang Light House Presbyterian Church, 46

Training, 21 Transphobic, 133 U Unity, 4 W West, Mona, 50 Wong, Pearl, 13 Wong, Silas Kwok-yiu, 11 Workshops, 8n9 Wu, Rose, 47 Y Yap, Kim-hao, 13