By Cypress Brannon
W. Norman Pittenger (1905 – 1997) was a prolific writer and noteworthy voice in the process-theological tradition. While Pittenger is well known for his process worldview, he was also an early gay voice in the Episcopal church. His views on sexuality would come to be highly popular during his lifetime, with an unfortunate dropping of relevance after his death. Amidst the emerging social values emphasizing sexual liberation during the 1970’s, Pittenger’s treatment of Christian morality and queer sexuality reflect changing attitudes in Christian theological circles. Through examining Pittenger’s views on sex, sin, and sacraments, we will lay out some basic assumptions that couch his work. Next, we will examine how he applies those values to create an ethic of gay relationships. Lastly, we will examine some evidence of change throughout his books and outline some critiques of his work.
Sex, Sacraments & Sin
In his chapter on sin in Time for Consent Pittenger suggests that sin should not be restricted to overt actions, but rather that intent and attitude are also important, if not more important to consider.[1] Appealing to Alfred North Whitehead’s monarchical principle, Pittenger adheres to the process theological interpretation of God as Love.[2] His argument is that sex and sexuality are not sinful precisely because they are natural and significant expressions of love which involve God. Humanity’s inability to immediately assume this metric is due to the inheritance of a world where people in the past as well as the present who for one reason or another sin against others.[3] Thus, original sin may be interpreted as communal or plural sins that accumulate over time that one is born into and must resist, with personal sin being grounded in the “denial of our dependence on God and on others”.[4] Sin is the state in which people choose to avoid Love. It is precisely from this foundation that he builds flexible yet clear boundaries around healthy modes of sexuality, arguing that failing to consider these more interconnected and divine dimensions of sexuality can make sex blasphemous.[5]
He also considers sex to be a form of sacrament, defining this ritual as “the actual outward and visible sign of the inward and spiritual Charity, in whom all men live and move and have their being.”[6] Taking note of the ways that the physical event of the sacrament is differently important than the inner spiritual event, he advocates that sex and sexuality too are physical events that reflect greater realities of shared experiences.
Gay Relationships, Ethics, and Sex Education
One important aspect of Pittenger’s work is his raising awareness of what it means to be gay, what that looks like, and how that works. He includes a clear and detailed description of lesbian and gay sex, something he includes in all five of his books on sexuality.[7]
Additionally, he spends a great deal of time listing the historical and legal contexts for gay people throughout then-recent history.[8] This attention should be emphasized, as this points to the audience of the text, namely white, Christian, heterosexuals. The entire text of Time for Consent functions as an initial primer on homosexuality in a full and detailed manner.
Pittenger offers a six-prong ethic for gay and lesbian people which functions as a sort of linear path to take when navigating one’s own sexuality. The steps begin with testing one’s homosexuality by experiencing love from the opposite gender to see if one really is homosexual and not going through a phase. If, after testing, one finds that they are indeed homosexual, they must accept this fact and embrace it. Then, the person who is homosexual must remember that God loves them, that God wants them to be responsible, and that God will help that person with the same mercy extended to heterosexuals. Next, one must be responsible, meaning they must refrain from unwanted sexual advances against straight men as much as a straight person should do the same, also exhibiting self-control that loneliness or sexual desire might cause one to lack. After that, same sex attracted persons should find close friends, they do not need to be only gay or lesbian, but the friendship must be authentic as it is sincere. If one feels real love towards another person, they must be in love before having sex, or risk using the other for sexual gratification.[9]
In emphasizing what is ‘best’ for gay and lesbian people, Pittenger creates a metric. His metric is to guide one towards being in a committed relationship with another of the same sex, who engages in a form of loving that is mutually beneficial and considerate of the whole being of one’s partner, respectfully engaging in healthy sexual practices without fear of having that sex with a man, and avoiding sex with people where love is not present, never coercing another towards sex (p 67).[10]
Pittenger writes about his first encounter with a gay couple and the tragic reality surrounding the relationship. In the episcopalian church that he attended as a child, he witnessed the communal mistreatment of a gay couple resulting in a stress-induced heart attack that killed the older of the two. He goes on to say that, had they been secretive and promiscuous, they would not have experienced pressure and discrimination. This may very well explain why he takes on the mantle of defending more ‘acceptable’ forms of queer love, as he feels that visibility and a loving commitment to a member of the same sex are what is primarily persecuted in society. He then centers this form of queer expression for readers as being the most marginalized for people who are gay.
Clearly stating that all work may be a vocation if it serves God, he applies his theology to being chaste in sexuality. His definition of chastity is different, however, than many would understand it to be. He explains that being chaste is about being committed to embodying a sexual life that is in accordance with “the ordering of God’s plan and purpose”.[11] Vocationally, then, the context of loving relationships in marriage or the celibacy of monastic communities can both be equally considered demonstrating sexual chastity. He regards sexuality as being corruptio optimi pessima, that which has the potential for being the best also has the capability, when corrupted, to become the worst.[12]
Pittenger explains that his book Love and Control in Human Sexuality is an attempt to “balance out” the positive view of sexuality in Making Sexuality Human by focusing more specifically on what ways love must be tempered by “controls,” a form of guidance about how to love others that is rooted in process-relational thought.[13]
There are five “distortions” of good sexuality, which he describes as “manifestations of failure in or distortions of love”.[14] Today, I will be focusing on Cruel Sexual Acts.
Cruel Sexual Acts in his view are masochistic and/or sadistic practices, the contemporary designation being BDSM (or bondage, discipline, dominance, submission, sadism, and masochism) Pittenger takes to calling them perversions, of which he qualifies with a note to not judge those who partake in such activities but instead to help them see what is ‘best.’[15]
Critiques
There are also ways that Pittenger changes over the course of his writings. It is important to acknowledge these changes and raise some criticisms of his assumptions.
In queer circles, there exists discourse around the topic of acceptability and the ways that queer lifestyles can emulate or perform queerness in such a way so as to win the approval of the straight, white majority. Pittenger’s experience in queer communities and connection to a broader community began with the overwhelmingly positive response he received from queer folx after his reaction to the Kinsey Report.[16] Through his writing, one may notice the embedded values of acceptability woven into his work. Through advocating that “not all homosexuals” are lascivious, militant, or otherwise indecent people, he falls into the trap of pitting certain kinds of queer folx against others. Not only this, but he outright uses phrasing such as “women pretending to be men” or a “man that looks and acts like a woman” to categorize trans folx as the outlier.[17] While it is factual that people who are transgender or gender nonconforming make up a small portion of the LGBTQIA+ community, their expression and identity is inherent to queer spaces and movements and ways of being. There were trans activists during his time, which might lead one to deduce that his proximity to transgender and gender nonconforming individuals to be lacking, especially since so many of his views are informed by his relationship to others in his life and their perspectives.[18]
Additionally, in his rebuttal of the Kinsey Report, Pittenger argues that human sexuality is so fundamental to being human that such a person, “without these drives, instincts, aspirations, is to that degree less than a full person; he is truncated, wounded, in a state of privation”.[19] Pittenger engaged in his own form of Freudian reductionism by advocating that Genesis 1:27 implies that the whole of a person can be equated with their sexuality. While this idea may have been radical for the time, it is important to note that queer discourse has dramatically shifted since then to accommodate asexuality – where the person feels little to no sexual attraction to others. This development is rooted in reactions to forms of erasure similar to Pittenger’s usage, precisely because of the need to distinguish between romantic attraction and sexual attraction, while normalizing those whose attraction is dependent upon connection first or that feel no sexual attraction at all.
Another development that Pittenger undergoes is made obvious in two books particularly. In his books Making Sexuality Human and Love and Control in Human Sexuality, he claims that BDSM has no place in Love, and that they are perversions of it, adding that they “are a distortion of love and a denial of its basic meaning” (p 49).
Pittenger also seems to conflate BDSM with rape, as his chief definition of sadomasochism is “the subtle attempt to control and use another person…”.[20] In one example of this, he uses the story of a man who he claims has not raped his wife but instead “forced her into bed with him when she was unwilling or in poor health…”.[21] While the attitudes of the 70s may not have yet fully benefited from the more postmodern emphasis of consent, it should be acknowledged that this is indeed rape. Especially whenever a person is hounded repeatedly until they wear down or are bothered until they give up.[22]
In the opening chapter of Making Sexuality Human, Pittenger confesses, “I have come to see, for a variety of reasons, that I had not really been aware of all that is involved in sexuality, nor had I grasped as I do now the utter centrality of the sexual drive in human personality and in human social relationships”.[23] This is his first overt mention of his ideology shifting but also marks his emphasis on sexuality as being central to being human. .
All of this is significant precisely because it demonstrates that, with exposure to criticism as well as proximity to lived experiences of those of which he finds himself writing about, he is open to changing his mind. While contemporary understandings of gender, consent, and sexuality problematize some of his claims, it is obvious that his openness and receptivity abound. This is why Pittenger would likely continue to change his views were he still alive today.
Conclusion
With respect to the person’s loving, and thus all people because of his emphasis that sexuality is inherently part of all people’s personalities, he argues that sex is essentially a physical manifestation of love that should not be viewed as immoral, but instead as normal and valid, even sacramental. Pittenger seeks to comprehensively lay out a more pastoral approach to gay sexuality by advocating for compassion towards people who are gay and lesbian. Through his more comprehensive application of this theology onto a variety of circumstances, he clearly outlines the metric of love he employs to navigate these topics and humanize homosexuals for his straight audience. While there are points of his work that may be outdated or perhaps misguided even for the time he was in, the general thrust of his seminal work is exemplary in advocating for and with queer people in a time where many of these conversations were new and becoming normalized.
[1] Time for Consent p 53
[2] “” p 44
[3] “” p 56
[4] Time for Consent p 60
[5] The Christian View of Sexual Behavior, A Reaction to the Kinsey Report p 35
[6] “” p 35
[7] Time for Consent p 72-75
[8] “” p 92-97
[9] Time for Consent p 116-122
[10] Making Sexuality Human p 67
[11] The Christian View of Sexual Behavior p 41
[12] “” p 62
[13] Love and Control in Sexuality p 12
[14] “” p 105
[15] “” p 71
[16] Time for Consent p 24
[17] “” p 24
[18] Pittenger’s concept of the ‘conscientious homosexual’ encapsulates the acceptability that permeates Pittenger’s work. While he does not condemn the use of prostitutes and sex workers, or frequent and habitual sex encounters with anonymous men, he claims that the conscientious homosexual is far different (p77).
[19] The Christian View of Sexual Behavior: A Reaction to the Kinsey Report p 23
[20] Love and Control in Human Sexuality p 72
[21] “” p 73
[22] An interesting evolution in Pittenger’s interpretation of BDSM practices can be found in his last book on sexuality Gay Lifestyles: A Christian Interpretation of Homosexuality and the Homosexual. In it, he explicitly mentions this change of heart, “Only when I had inquired more deeply and had met and talked with some who engaged in it did I realize that there is almost always a concern not to hurt beyond endurance, a care to accommodate the inflicting of pain to the desire of the person who is being “punished,” and a delight in a degree of suffering, when that is inflicted by a person for whom the sufferer cares.”
[23] Making Sexuality Human p 10