Holy Cross College in Worcester, Massachusetts describes itself as a private undergraduate Roman Catholic/Jesuit liberal arts college. Yet their current Chair in New Testament Studies, Professor Tat-Siong Benny Liew, “believes Christ could be considered a “drag king” or cross-dresser.” Professor Liew teaches “New Testament,” the College’s primary New Testament class. I wonder if parents who are paying over $60,000 a year to send their sons and daughters to a “Catholic” college know what their children are being taught.
In an article in The Fenwick Review, an opinion journal at the College, more of Professor Liew’s blasphemous (referred to in the article as “unconventional”) views are revealed. In their March issue, Elinor Reilly references a publication that Professor Liew edited and contributed to, quoting him in part:
“… what we have in John’s Jesus is not only a “king of Israel” (1:49; 12:13– 15) or “king of the Ioudaioi” (18:33, 39; 19:3, 14– 15, 19– 22), but also a drag king (6:15; 18:37; 19:12)…Christ ends up appearing as a drag-kingly bride in his passion…in addition, we find Jesus disrobing and rerobing in the episode that marks Jesus’ focus on the disciples with the coming of his ‘hour’ (13:3– 5, 12). This disrobing… does not disclose anything about Jesus’ anatomy. Instead, it describes Jesus washing his disciples’ feet. As more than one commentator has pointed out, foot-washing was generally only done by Jewish women or non-Jewish slaves. 12 John is clear that Jesus is an Ioudaios (4:9, 22; 18:33– 35; 19:40); what John is less clear about is whether Jesus is a biological male. Like a literary striptease, this episode is suggestive, even seductive; it shows and withholds at the same time.”
It gets worse. Here’s how Professor Liew describes Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross:
“…What I am suggesting is that, when Jesus’ body is being penetrated, his thoughts are on his Father. He is, in other words, imagining his passion experience as a (masochistic?) sexual relation with his own Father.”
Ms. Reilly ends the article like this:
“Professor Liew’s unconventional readings of Scripture has brought a new theological perspective to Holy Cross. The position and prestige which accompany an endowed chair in Religious Studies testify to the esteem in which his work is held by the College’s administration and academic community. He continues to be held up as an example and a bold successor to the learned and discerning tradition of our Catholic and Jesuit College of the Holy Cross.”
My mind explodes trying to reconcile how a “Roman Catholic” and “Jesuit” college can not only allow, but laud, this sacrilege. It confirms, beyond a reasonable doubt, not only the brokenness of our land, but the even more dangerous darkening of our hearts.
To read the full article, click here.
In an article in The Fenwick Review, an opinion journal at the College, more of Professor Liew’s blasphemous (referred to in the article as “unconventional”) views are revealed. In their March issue, Elinor Reilly references a publication that Professor Liew edited and contributed to, quoting him in part:
“… what we have in John’s Jesus is not only a “king of Israel” (1:49; 12:13– 15) or “king of the Ioudaioi” (18:33, 39; 19:3, 14– 15, 19– 22), but also a drag king (6:15; 18:37; 19:12)…Christ ends up appearing as a drag-kingly bride in his passion…in addition, we find Jesus disrobing and rerobing in the episode that marks Jesus’ focus on the disciples with the coming of his ‘hour’ (13:3– 5, 12). This disrobing… does not disclose anything about Jesus’ anatomy. Instead, it describes Jesus washing his disciples’ feet. As more than one commentator has pointed out, foot-washing was generally only done by Jewish women or non-Jewish slaves. 12 John is clear that Jesus is an Ioudaios (4:9, 22; 18:33– 35; 19:40); what John is less clear about is whether Jesus is a biological male. Like a literary striptease, this episode is suggestive, even seductive; it shows and withholds at the same time.”
It gets worse. Here’s how Professor Liew describes Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross:
“…What I am suggesting is that, when Jesus’ body is being penetrated, his thoughts are on his Father. He is, in other words, imagining his passion experience as a (masochistic?) sexual relation with his own Father.”
Ms. Reilly ends the article like this:
“Professor Liew’s unconventional readings of Scripture has brought a new theological perspective to Holy Cross. The position and prestige which accompany an endowed chair in Religious Studies testify to the esteem in which his work is held by the College’s administration and academic community. He continues to be held up as an example and a bold successor to the learned and discerning tradition of our Catholic and Jesuit College of the Holy Cross.”
My mind explodes trying to reconcile how a “Roman Catholic” and “Jesuit” college can not only allow, but laud, this sacrilege. It confirms, beyond a reasonable doubt, not only the brokenness of our land, but the even more dangerous darkening of our hearts.
To read the full article, click here.
RSS Feed