By Mark Ellis –
It is well known that many seminaries are filled with liberal theology professors – some who don’t even believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ or his bodily resurrection from the dead.
But one professor at a Catholic college is stirring controversy with extreme views about Jesus that reach new heights of blasphemy.
Dr. Tat-siong Benny Liew, chair of New Testament Studies at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass., said the death of Jesus on the cross was really a “(homo)sexual bonding of the Father and the Son,” according to Fox News.
“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.”
The professor’s interpretation of what Christians worldwide celebrate during Holy Week begs credulity. “[Christ] ends up appearing as a drag-kingly bride in his passion,” Dr. Liew notes. “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’ or ‘king of the Ioudaioi [Jews],’ but also a drag king.”
His views became more widely known after Holy Cross student Elinor Reilly wrote an article for an independent student journal, describing the professor’s interpretations as “unconventional.” She questioned why Dr. Liew was given a distinguished professorship at the Jesuit college and has been teaching the core New Testament class to undergraduate students, according to Fox News.
The professor supports the view that at the Last Supper Jesus was being “seductive” and performing a “literary striptease” by washing the disciples’ feet.
Because washing feet was considered a “womanly/slavishly task” this is an example of the Apostle John’s transgendering of Jesus, the professor maintains.
John’s indications of Jesus wanting water, giving water, and water flowing from his body on the cross “speak to Jesus’ gender indeterminacy and hence his cross-dressing and other queer desire.”
Therefore, Liew argues that there was a fluidity to Jesus’ sexual identity, which leaves open “whether Jesus is a biological male.”
Plumbing the depths further, he cites the example of doubting Thomas, following the Resurrection, putting his finger in Jesus’ side, as “a kind of pan-eroticism.”