'Radical Faeries' and 'Clown Nuns'

Observations on the Divinity School's embrace of queer theology

Members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence at a pride parade. Source: Joe Mabel via Wikimedia.

According to an individual identified as “Novice Sister Avocado,” the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (SPI) offer “the morality, the joy, the comfort that religion would bring you” without requiring the commitment of an actual faith. Such was the sales pitch offered at a conference that the Harvard Divinity School held in their honor on March 22. The fact that this is the oldest temptation in human memory—“ye shall be as gods”—seemed to escape the notice of the religious scholars assembled in Swartz Hall.¹

The conference was co-sponsored by the English department, the Standing Committee on Medieval Studies, the Program in American Studies, the Open Gate Foundation,² and HDS itself. It was a two-day affair open to the public; I attended a session presenting several papers in progress and another focused on these so-called “sisters.”

I went with two purposes in mind. Most immediately, I wanted to understand just what about the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence was worthy of Harvard’s attention. After all, one would not expect a divinity school to fête an organization whose members dress in drag as “queer clown nuns” in a heretical parody of Catholic orders. I also wanted to understand why the people behind this conference continue to bother with the pretense of taking religion seriously. It would be easier, one imagines, to study queer theory unmixed with theology. So too would it seemingly be easier to simply condemn Christianity as hateful and backward if one were a queer theorist, yet student presenters generally avoided this tack, the offensive and anti-Christian nature of the SPI notwithstanding.

Perhaps the most interesting paper in this regard was titled “Cursing the Fig Tree: A Queer-Mormon Ethic of Care from Matthew 21.” The author of that work, a master’s student at HDS, argued that Christ—“if there was a historical Christ”—cursed the fig tree because its bareness indicated a breakdown in norms around the practice of gleaning. As seen in Ruth, among other places in the Scriptures, farmers were supposed to leave some of their harvest for the poor. A fig tree devoid of fruit was, she claimed, a violation of this rule. In this way, the story of the fig tree parallels Christ’s condemnation of the money changers who also fail to practice “community care.”

Unsurprisingly, the talk then moved from theological speculation to outright blasphemy. The presenter turned the fig tree into a metaphor for churches that don’t accept queerness. She took it upon herself to rewrite part of Matthew 21 based on this hermeneutic. It begins as follows: “After coming out, Jesus returned to his family, but he (sic) found no support.” The messaging became still more ham-fisted, with “he,” “she,” and “they” all used to refer to Christ. In the climax of the story, this parodical queer “Jesus,” facing resistance from his church, curses it: “and the truth set religion free, and the institution withered at once.”

Other topics discussed were just bizarre. One speaker discussed the sexual content of the visions of 13th-century mystic Christina von Hane, claiming that one of her ecstatic visions served as a spiritual orgasm. Odder still was a talk titled “Frolicking in Faerieland: A Queer Pilgrimage Experience.” The presenter, a “queer humanist chaplain,” identified himself as a “radical faerie.” The radical faerie community, which was once composed of gay men but is now apparently open to all queer individuals, is distinguished by its “gatherings.” These “gatherings” are long camping trips full of “spontaneous pagan rituals,” “heart circles” that serve as communal therapy sessions, hallucinogenic drugs, and other behaviors unfit for discussion in polite company. This “faeriespace” is so disorienting that organizers run workshops on reintegration into the real world.

These gatherings center “around an empathetic principle” rather than any substantive religious tradition, but they are scheduled on a “semi-liturgical calendar” and faeries make “pilgrimages” to attend. In a nod to the contradictions embedded in the progressive worldview, the speaker acknowledged that some radical faerie practices have been culturally appropriated from Native American spiritual practices and occur on once-Native land. Clearly, this is the most objectionable element of their conduct.

As offensive as some of their statements were, the academics at HDS were not openly hostile to the faith. They seemed unprepared to completely abandon Christianity even as they have convinced themselves that some Christian doctrine is dangerous. In other words, I saw the development of yet another heretical sect, one which gives not just religious sanction but significance to the sexual activity of its adherents. From an orthodox perspective, this effort is almost entirely unmoored from its foundations: the word God, much less the concepts of salvation or the divinity of Christ, was almost absent from the conference. Nevertheless, as individuals, these people deserve our pity and require our prayers.

But it is shameful that their misdirected spiritual strivings have been allowed to take the place of actual academic inquiry. It is absurd that this kind of work can qualify someone for a master’s degree in theology. A non-sectarian divinity school owes to the faiths it studies a certain integrity. It might explore the historical development or influence of a faith; it might seek to understand how that faith is practiced today; it might even attempt to make its more arcane doctrines accessible to the general public. What it must not do is simply invent new doctrines out of whole cloth. This is a betrayal of both the academic project and the religious one.

The contradictions inherent in this project will doom it; we know what happens when “every man [does] that which [is] right in his own eyes.”³ One cannot claim to have a superior understanding of Christ’s nature while simultaneously denying the historical Christ. One cannot claim to have a deep appreciation for His teachings while turning a blind eye to His statement, “if ye love Me, keep My commandments.”⁴ Nor can one hope to maintain the benefits of traditional religious institutions while simultaneously engaging in a “tradition of personal scripture writing” that would deny such institutions any solid grounding, as the “Queer-Mormon” presenter attempted to do. The exorcists of Acts 19, who attempted to cast out demons in the name of a God they denied, have their modern counterparts at HDS. The results will doubtless be the same.

Indeed, I got a glimpse of where this project leads in the subsequent session, an interview with members of the Boston chapter of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. In keeping with their bizarre identity, the “sisters” were dressed in unbelievably garish outfits—brightly colored escoffions and nuns’ habits—and all but one of the men wore thick whiteface makeup.

Their religious beliefs were even stranger than their attire. While most of the men came from Catholic backgrounds, none—obviously—professed belief in the Catholic Church. “Sister Lida Christ” claimed that the group is a “philosophical order, not a religious one” with no substantive moral content beyond a desire to spread joy and avoid doing harm. Most of them had only a vague spirituality, though “Ima Miracle” claimed to be an “initiate of an ecstatic American tradition of witchcraft.” “Judy B Good,” for his part, claimed that the existence of a God doesn’t really matter: if God did exist, he’s pretty sure he would have the same values anyway.

The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence—or at least their representatives at the conference—claimed that they are not mocking Christianity. “Avocado” added for good measure that “Jesus was cool.”⁵ The organization’s work, however, gives a very different impression. Beyond serving as a living caricature of nuns, the organization once held a mock exorcism of Pope John Paul II and has excommunicated the Pope. Worse still, the organization holds annual “Hunky Jesus” and “Foxy Mary” contests on Easter Sunday where scantily-clad contestants cosplay as members of the Holy Family. I need not remind the reader how Harvard’s Puritan founders would have responded to such a contest. 

When asked about some of these practices, the “sisters” quickly dropped the pretense. “Lida Christ” argued that “when you make fun of the bully, the bully can’t harm you,” and admitted that the “Hunky Jesus” competition is “flippant” and “parody.” “Judy B Good” claimed that the contest embodies the sexual awakenings of young Catholic boys seeing crucifixes at church. When “Lida” attempted to justify it on the grounds that it causes people to think about Jesus, I could think only of the Apostle Paul’s warning: “Be not deceived, God is not mocked.”⁶

The organization’s mockery of the Catholic Church also extends to the practice of veneration. “Ima Miracle” wore a pendant filled with “sacred glitter,” which is glitter mixed with the ashes of cremated gay people. The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence apparently maintain a stockpile of such ashes: “Ima” mentioned that he would soon be traveling to San Francisco to bring more back to Boston.

“Ima” concluded the interview by ritually blessing some “relics” which were given to a few of the conference organizers. The ritual included an injunction to “share love, passion, and lust” and ended with “amen, a-women, and a-transfolk too.” “Lida” added a common saying among the group, one that should be unwelcome anywhere that religion is studied: “Now go forth and sin some more.”

IRENAEUS

A version of this article originally appeared in The Right Tomorrow, the April 2024 print issue of the Salient.

1. Genesis 3:5, KJV.

2. The Open Gate Foundation is the nonprofit arm of the Harvard Gender and Sexuality Caucus, an advocacy group for “LGBTQ+ alumni, students, faculty, and staff around the world.” Despite apparently being formally independent from the University, several Harvard offices and departments provide information about the foundation’s grant program, and the Mignone Center for Career Services even lists the organization itself among “Harvard Offices and Departments.”

3. Judges 21:25, KJV.

4. John 14:15, KJV.

5. “Avocado” also claimed that he doesn’t “believe that [Christ] ever would have thought queerness is a sin.”

6. Galatians 6:7, KJV.