Holy Cross Theology Professor Says Jesus Was ‘Drag King’ With ‘Queer Desires’

[PetraG]

This is reasonable to me. At times it is required to take positions that do not match your beliefs in order to propel a discussion forward. It’s a tool of argumentation. It’s reserved for those who are capable of understand its purpose (other academics not undergraduates). It’s a widely used practice across all disciplines.

In other words, this is much ado about nothing.

Well, not exactly much ado about nothing. You are right that this matter is right up there with people running around claiming that the Pope said all the things they have claimed the Pope said. The Vatican says, “no, that isn’t right,” but because the Pope doesn’t bluntly call out anyone as a liar there are concerns that the reports aren’t entirely false.

Here is the problem in this case: Elinor Reilly ‘18, writing her piece “New Ways in Theology at Holy Cross,” did not read the work as something (a) not intended for her and (b) not meant to reflect the personal beliefs of the Professor. She saw the work displayed in a glass case in the Religious Studies Department and by that took it to be something undergraduates are meant to read and look up to as the actual sentiments of Professor Liew.

Her writing shows what she understood about the Professor’s work: “Professor Liew and his co-author, Theodore Jennings, argue that Matthew 8:5-13… ought to be interpreted (italics mine: PetraG) in terms of a sexual relationship…”
and (again, italics mine): “In the chapter, Professor Liew explains that he believes Christ could be considered a…”
She continues: “Professor Liew’s more recent works reflect similar lines of thought. For instance, the 2016 essay, “The Gospel of Bare Life,” describes obedience to God as “troubling” and “infantilizing.” Professor Liew writes…”

Note that the publication she wrote for, “The Fenwick Review,” bills itself as a source for independent opinions at the College of the Holy Cross. This isn’t written, published or edited under the supervision of the College. Having said that, this is what at least undergraduate is saying in admiring terms that she believes that he is teaching her peers there.

Yes, an academic can talk about things meant in a figurative way and not mean anything remotely like what he’d be saying if he meant it in a literal way. Having said that, if one reads direct quotes from the chapter “Queering Closets and Perverting Desires: Cross-Examining John’s Engendering and Transgendering Word across Different Worlds” I still have to say it beggars belief to claim the intent was merely to provoke discussion.

 

[Arbovirus]

Jesus did not have concupiscence or any defect.

Many times, people get offended because society tells them they should get offended. Why would a cross-dresser or transgendered person (different thing, not the same) be offended by Catholics finding that professor blasphemous?

 

[Arbovirus]

“It was an intentionally provocative work"

Intentionally blasphemous is still blasphemous. Just who are these Biblical scholars that are discussing such trash?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Here is the problem in this case: Elinor Reilly ‘18, writing her piece “New Ways in Theology at Holy Cross,” did not read the work as something (a) not intended for her and (b) not meant to reflect the personal beliefs of the Professor. She saw the work displayed in a glass case in the Religious Studies Department and by that took it to be something undergraduates are meant to read and look up to as the actual sentiments of Professor Liew.

She made an assumption and ran with it. That is not the professor’s fault. She should have asked questions about the books were being displayed rather than jump to uncharitable conclusions! She would have been told that the books that are most recent or most lauded are put in display and that they do not reflect the views of the university. (Again, a very common practice across all disciplines)

 

[mrsdizzyd]

“It was an intentionally provocative work"

Intentionally blasphemous is still blasphemous. Just who are these Biblical scholars that are discussing such trash?

Your view is far too simplistic. This is a prime example of why these works are not for people outside the academy.

It is often advantageous to take a controversial or contradictory position so that you might better understand and improve your ACTUAL beliefs. He posits an image of Jesus that fits modern psychosexual theory (in the same way a subscriber to that theory might) in order to more effectively ARGUE AGAINST IT!

This is a very old practice amongst intellectuals. If he actually believed this he would have been called out on it a decade ago by the academy itself!

Honestly, this is just a logical experiment. And again, this is a very common practice across all disciplines.

 

[Arbovirus]

Your view is far too simplistic. This is a prime example of why these works are not for people outside the academy.

Jesus is not up for such ridiculous academic “study”. As if He’s some common person. By a Catholic no less. It’s scandalous even if your position is that it were a hypothetical situation.

 

[PetraG]

She made an assumption and ran with it. That is not the professor’s fault. She should have asked questions about the books were being displayed rather than jump to uncharitable conclusions! She would have been told that the books that are most recent or most lauded are put in display and that they do not reflect the views of the university. (Again, a very common practice across all disciplines)

Here is the problem: There is nothing to indicate she thought she was making an uncharitable conclusion. There is nothing about what she wrote to indicate she was on a witch hunt. She was not seeking to misunderstand. To the contrary: she was holding up the professor as an exemplar.

In her defense: Why would a student think that books by members of a department put on display are not exemplary work that she is encouraged to read? Surely an undergraduate is not supposed to think: “Oh, that book is behind glass. That must mean it isn’t meant for me, even though the display is obviously where I and students like me would be the ones who see it.” That is not impossible, but it does not make sense. It’s like putting Tide pods in with similarly-colored candies on display in a gradeschool cafeteria line. Who would do that and then complain they have no idea how school children could get the idea that Tide pods are meant to be eaten?

 

[FiveLinden]

Jesus did not have concupiscence or any defect.

Many times, people get offended because society tells them they should get offended. Why would a cross-dresser or transgendered person (different thing, not the same) be offended by Catholics finding that professor blasphemous?

I did not use the word ‘offended’. I said they would not feel welcome. They wouldn’t. Who says transsexualism is a ‘defect’? Not the Church as far as I know.

 

[Arbovirus]

There is a disconnect between the mind and body. Transsexualism (as well as homosexual inclination) is not normal. That doesn’t mean the person is less dignified in any way. Just that the particular condition is abnormal. It’s like having a congenital defect - the person isn’t “bad” - just born with a certain physical disability that is abnormal.

 

[PetraG]

I did not use the word ‘offended’. I said they would not feel welcome. They wouldn’t. Who says transsexualism is a ‘defect’? Not the Church as far as I know.

In decreeing that a Catholic woman who considers herself to be a man and represents herself as a man cannot be a godparent because she is denying what the Church teaches, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote in part (translated): “…Regarding this particular [issue], I inform you of the impossibility that it be admitted. The transsexual behavior itself reveals, in a public manner, an attitude that is opposed to the moral demand of resolving one’s own problem of sexual identity according to the truth of one’s own sex. Therefore, it is evident that this person does not possess the requisite of leading a life according to the faith and to the position of godfather (CIC [Code of Canon Law] Can 874 §3), not being able, therefore, of being admitted to the position either of godmother or of godfather. Discrimination is not to be seen in this, but only a recognition of an objective lack of the requisites that by their own nature are necessary to take over the ecclesial responsibility of being a godparent.…” (Sept 1, 2015)

In other words, it is not a moral fault to suffer from dysphoria with regards to the truth of one’s sex. It is wrong, however, to contend that one has no moral demand to live according the truth of one’s sex or that one may publicly falsely represent one’s sex because one’s true sex is distressing to admit.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

It very likely is an exemplary work. He very likely was praised for the work. That does not make it suitable for everyone. That does not mean that everyone will understand it. AND, it doesn’t mean he actually thinks Jesus was a crossdresser for goodness sake!

I read through his article. He is not saying what she thinks he is saying.

The section she objects to most is at the beginning where he is summarizing previous scholarship on John’s portrayal of Jesus. Drag king is in there, but not as a value judgement, but as a summary of what other scholars suggest are effeminate characteristics of the gospel based upon historical contextualization of gender norms during the time John was written.

THEN he introduces his thesis which ISN’T that Jesus was a drag king. This is a work about the LANGUAGE or SEMANTICS of the Gospel of John not about Jesus’ actual state of being. He suggests that the LANGUAGE STYLE in John is intentionally gender ambiguous so that The message of Christ is elevated ABOVE the confines of MALE VS FEMALE language structure.

Highly theoretical stuff sprinkled with intentionally inflammatory phases.

 

[PetraG]

Highly theoretical stuff sprinkled with intentionally inflammatory phases.

I’m not disagreeing that she could have taken his work totally out of context. Having said that, she very clearly tells the world that this is indeed not just what he proposes for discussion but what he believes.

If you were a professor teaching at a university and became aware that an off-campus writer was totally misrepresenting your academic work, would you ignore that misrepresentation or speak to it?

This is a very recent piece. I hope he does disavow it to the students of his department.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

If you were a professor teaching at a university and became aware that an off-campus writer was totally misrepresenting your academic work, would you ignore that misrepresentation or speak to it?

I spent years in a PhD program before I escaped. Had I become a professor I actually would not have defended it publicly unless my university required it of me. I might have mentioned it in discussions around my article at conferences.

His hierarchy understands what the work is about. His colleagues have probably queried him on the subject several times.

He doesn’t really have anything to rebut. She has totally misunderstood his exercise. It was one of semantics and pushing a theory to its limits to encourage debate and growth within the field. It’s not a work of theology. It is biblical studies and biblical critique.

If you have a background in reading theory it’s worth a read. It is actually quite well-written and well-developed. It’s a bit jarring to see those controversial phrases bandied about, but if you are used to reading theory you are also used to separating your personal feelings from what you are reading in order to understand and critique the basis of the argument.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Jesus also sexually identified as a lamb when on earth. His preferred pronoun was “baa”.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

(Complete sentence.)

 

[thephilosopher6]

His

Oops, looks like I misgendered baa. Microaggression! Quick, everybody get into your safe spaces!

 

[FiveLinden]

“…Regarding this particular [issue], I inform you of the impossibility that it be admitted. The transsexual behavior itself reveals, in a public manner, an attitude that is opposed to the moral demand of resolving one’s own problem of sexual identity according to the truth of one’s own sex. Therefore, it is evident that this person does not possess the requisite of leading a life according to the faith and to the position of godfather (CIC [Code of Canon Law] Can 874 §3), not being able, therefore, of being admitted to the position either of godmother or of godfather. Discrimination is not to be seen in this, but only a recognition of an objective lack of the requisites that by their own nature are necessary to take over the ecclesial responsibility of being a godparent.…” (Sept 1, 2015)

Thank you for pointing this out. Not a position I can understand I am afraid.

 

[PetraG]

Thank you for pointing this out. Not a position I can understand I am afraid.

This is not to say that someone who suffers from this affliction cannot be a godparent. They are saying that someone who copes with their very real internal conflict with their true gender by assuming a persona of the opposite sex is not living according to Church teaching and while in that condition cannot be a godparent. Church teaching also requires that those suffering from this kind of internal conflict be treated not with a distant sense of pity (let alone with any sense of disgust) but with a willingness to engage with them as persons. Just as the person feeling this conflict is not at liberty to cope with their deep unease by taking on a false persona, ust so those who feel a deep unease with this issue in others are also not at liberty to distance themselves from the afflicted ones as persons, either.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Only if its a private school.

Otherwise, we can easily counter ridiculous remarks like that.

 

[robertlnorman]

An update to the story:

Front Page Featured | MRCTV