From Gendering God to Gendering General Terms

This response to Naomi Richman’s paper about gender and sexuality in Pentecostal studies agrees with her call for a broader approach breaking with a narrow “sociological framing” that considers mainly what particular gender regimes are imposed on men and women as well as Pentecostal attitudes toward LGBTQIA+. However, Richman’s analytical shift toward gendered (and sexual) regimes of relationality needs to be extended further to include the very terms of the analysis (such as Pentecostal, Church, passion, or spirituality) and discuss how these are gendered from the outset. Furthermore, Richman’s invocation of “the vertical” and a tendency to romanticize desire lead to a series of epistemic questions with regard to an observable tendency toward metaphysical abstraction and de-politicization. Viewing Pentecostal gender regimes through a global religious history approach, that is through the lens of a globally entangled colonial history, may address some of these limitations while keeping with Richman’s intention toward reorienting Pentecostalism and gender in a broader frame.