A DRAG QUEEN GENDER NEUTRAL JESUS?
New Ways in Theology at Holy Cross - March 2018
posted Mar 26, 2018, 12:15 PM by RSO The Fenwick Review [ updated Mar 26, 2018,
1:32 PM ]
By Elinor Reilly ‘18
A little over ten years ago, on the occasion of their 50th Reunion, alumni of
the College endowed the Class of 1956 Chair of New Testament Studies, a
distinguished professorship associated with the Religious Studies department.1
In the autumn of 2013, the College appointed professor Tat-Siong Benny Liew to
fill this position. Professor Tat-siong Benny Liew received bachelor’s and
master’s degrees from Olivet Nazarene University and completed his doctorate at
Vanderbilt University.2 Prior to his appointment at Holy Cross, Professor Liew
had been Professor of New Testament at the Pacific School of Theology, and
before that taught at Chicago Theological Seminary. According to the Department
of Religious Studies webpage, his fields of specialty include “synoptic gospels,
gospel of John, cultural and racial interpretations and receptions of the Bible,
apocalypticism, and Asian American history and literature.”3
Professor Liew's numerous publications reveal an unconventional approach to
gender, sexuality, and race in the biblical texts. The 2004 article “Mistaken
Identities but Model Faith: Rereading the Centurion, the Chap, and the Christ in
Matthew 8:5-13,” provides a representative example. Professor Liew and his
co-author, Theodore Jennings, argue that Matthew 8:5-13, the story of the
centurion who goes to Jesus to ask for healing for his servant, ought to be
interpreted in terms of a sexual relationship. Matthew’s account, runs the
argument, does not concern a centurion and his servant, but a centurion and his
lover/slave. “The centurion’s rhetoric about not being ‘worthy’ of a house visit
by Jesus (8:8) may be the centurion’s way of avoiding an anticipated
‘usurpation’ of his current boylove on the part of his new patron [Jesus],” they
assert. Furthermore, “The way Matthew’s Jesus seems to affirm the centurion’s
pederastic relationship with his παῖς, we contend, may also be consistent with
Matthew’s affirmation of many sexual dissidents in her Gospel.”4
In 2009, Professor Liew edited the volume They Were All Together in One Place?:
Toward Minority Biblical Criticism. A copy of the volume is displayed in a case
in the Religious Studies Department. Professor Liew’s contributions give shape
to this volume: along with serving as the primary editor, he wrote the
introduction to the volume and contributed an essay. As such, the volume as a
whole sheds particular light on Professor Liew’s interpretations of the biblical
texts.
Professor Liew’s contribution to this volume, a chapter entitled “Queering
Closets and Perverting Desires: Cross-Examining John’s Engendering and
Transgendering Word across Different Worlds,” demonstrates the centrality of sex
and gender to his way of thinking about the New Testament. In the chapter,
Professor Liew explains that he believes Christ could be considered a “drag
king” or cross-dresser. “If one follows the trajectory of the Wisdom/Word or
Sophia/Jesus (con)figuration, 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),” he claims.5 He later argues
that “[Christ] ends up appearing as a drag-kingly bride in his passion.”6
Professor Liew continues:
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, as [Colleen] Conway points out, 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.7
Professor Liew asserts that Jesus’s “excessive” and “deceptive” speech would be
considered “feminine” in the culture of the time.8 In defense of this claim, he
states that in Greco-Roman culture:
Women pollute since their moist and soft nature is also more susceptible to the
assaults of wanton desires, erotic or otherwise. In short, women are wet and
(thus) wild. I am suggesting that John’s constant references to Jesus wanting
water (4:7; 19:28), giving water (6:35), and leaking water (19:34) speak to
Jesus’ gender indeterminacy and hence his cross-dressing and other queer
desires…9
He clarifies that he is not suggesting that Christ is actually a woman, but that
he is neither male nor female. “I want to suggest that John’s crossdressing
Jesus shows that a so-called ‘core’ is but a(n significant) effect of bodily
acts,” he writes.10
Professor Liew’s understanding of Jesus in “Queering Desires” suggests an
unusual interpretation of the Holy Trinity:
Suffice it to say that not only does this exchange of desires place the Father’s
identity in question but also that the Father-Son dyad in John is always already
interrupted by and dependent on the participation of a third party. One may, as
a result, turn around Jesus’ well-known statement in John, “No one comes to the
Father except through me” (14:6c): Jesus himself needs others to cum with the
Father. Jesus’ statement that “I in them [his followers] and you [the Father] in
me” turns out to be quite a description. What we find in John is a Jesus who
longs to be “had” by the Father…Things do not get less queer as one gets to the
other parts of John’s Gospel. It is noticeable that throughout the Gospel Jesus
and his Father form a “mutual glorification society” (5:41; 8:50, 54; 12:28– 29;
13:32; 17:1, 4– 5). This constant elevation or stroking is nothing less than an
exciting of the penis, or better yet, phallus. Its consistency is then
explainable, since “we all know that after … an orgasmic dissemination or
circulation, the phallus, like most penises, becomes limp” (Sifuentes-Jáuregui
2002, 159). Fast forwarding to the passion narratives, Conway observes that
John’s Jesus is a “quintessential man” because he “reveals no weakening to the
passions that might undercut his manly deportment” (2003a, 175). If this is so,
there is also something quintessentially queer here. During the passion, Jesus
is not only beaten (18:22– 23; 19:3) and flogged (19:1); his body is also nailed
and his side pierced (19:18, 23a, 34, 37; 20:24– 28). Oddly, John defines Jesus’
masculinity with a body that is being opened to penetration. 24 Even more oddly,
Jesus’ ability to face his “hour” is repeatedly associated with his
acknowledging of and communing with his Father (12:27– 28; 14:12, 28; 16:10, 17,
28; 17:1– 25; 18:11), who is, as Jesus explicitly states, “with me” (16:32)
throughout this process, which Jesus also describes as one of giving birth
(16:21– 22). 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.11
Professor Liew’s editorship of the volume reflects the same method of
interpretation. In the introduction to They Were All Together in One Place?, he
and his fellow editors explain the idea of “minority criticism,” admitting that
the “dominant criticism” will at times “outright dismiss” minority criticism.
One of the stated goals here is “relativizing” the “dominant criticism” which
exists. Other chapters in the volume include such titles as “‘That’s Why They
Didn’t Call the Book Hadassah!’: The Interse(ct)/(x)ionality of Race/Ethnicity,
Gender, and Sexuality in the Book of Esther” and “Incarnate Words: Images of God
and Reading Practices.”
Readers will note that They Were All Together in One Place? and “Mistaken
Identities but Model Faith” were published in 2009 and 2004, respectively.
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, “If John’s Jesus, as
well as those who follow John’s Jesus, are supposed to be fully subjected to the
will of the Father to the point of death (6:35–64; 10:1–18; 15:1–16:4;
21:15–19), then are we not back to a scenario in which a Caesar-like head sits
comfortably in a choice seat and watches bare life performing death for his
purposes and his enjoyment?”12
Professor Liew is often responsible for teaching “New Testament,” the College’s
primary New Testament class. Its course description lists three texts: The
HarperCollins Study Bible; The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the
Early Christian Writings, by Bart Ehrman; and The Gospel of Mary of Magdala:
Jesus and the First Woman Apostle, by Harvard Divinity School professor Karen
King. In addition to this class, Professor Liew has also taught “Sex, Money,
Power, and Sacred Texts” and “Apocalyptic Then and Now,” according to the
College’s student registration website.
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.