The promiscuity of Christ's table and the Eucharist ā in Blessing Same-Sex Unions by Mark Jordan (2005):
The most urgent challenge for Christian marital theology has been to prevent the universality of the agapic feast from reaching erotic relationshipsāhow to prevent agapic community from enactment as erotic community.
Christianity is latent polyamory. ...
The old fear of agapic excess shoots through debates over church blessings for same-sex unions, which are fantasized as intrinsically polyamorous.
As pictured by Christian orthodoxies, unrestricted queer desire disrupts the tidy fiction that sex has been managedāhas been captured and categorizedāby admitting marriage into the Christian church on a kind of perpetual probation. To bless open relationships that will not agree to abide by the fiction would undo the fiction for everyone.
Queer relationships, so far as they are presumed to be āopen,ā dodestroy Christian marriage in this sense, that they destroy cherished fictions about what it has accomplished.
The chief theological accomplishment of Christian marriage is supposed to be that it settles the ancient enmity between eros and agape by granting a restricted title for eros within the universal field of agape. āYou can exercise eros so long as you do so with the minimum number of other peopleānamely, one.āĀ To increase that minimum number at all throws the truce into doubt.
Traditional Christian marriage theology relies at its core on an ascetic imperative, not a model of procreation or social order. To moderate the imperative is to undermine it. Hence early churches emphasized the rule about one wife over the span of a lifetime. Of course, Christian churches long ago mitigated that principleāby permitting remarriage after the death of a spouse or after annulment or after no-fault divorce or . . .Ā
The bad conscience of the churches over these incoherent accommodations is projected onto debates over blessing same-sex unions.
As so often in Christian history, queer desire must bear the burdens of desire simply.
Intellectual hygiene, if nothing else, requires greater candor. Christian theologians would think more clearly if they would admit that they have a polyamory problem not just with the patriarchs, but with the Eucharistic table and the Spirit that has been poured out into their hearts (Rom. 5: 5).
Jesus practiced the sharing of meals with disgraced or ritually impure individuals. The special meal that Jesus is remembered as instituting, the meal that became the Christian Eucharist, is table-sharing pushed to the limit.
The feasting table without edges is linked in many Christian liturgies with unsettling claims about the food for the feast. āTake it . . . this is my body.ā āThis is my blood, the blood of the covenant, poured out for many.ā
The indiscriminate feast is the joining of many, body to body, regardless of sex, with the one-and-many body of Jesus, from whose sex Christology has been a long and terrified flight. Joining bodies promiscuously is the great Christian Mystery.



















