Catholic College Theology Professor says “Jesus was a Drag King with Queer Desires”


The theology program at the Jesuit-run College of the Holy Cross has taken on a new tone ever since the school appointed a gender-obsessed Chair of New Testament Studies who claims Jesus was a “drag king,” a new article contends.

Tat-Siong Benny Liew was appointed in 2013 to fill the Chair of New Testament Studies for the college in Worcester, Massachusetts. Ever since, he’s brought what student Elinor Reilly said in a college newspaper piece are “unconventional readings of Scripture” and “a new theological perspective to Holy Cross.”

Writing for the Fenwick Review, Reilly says “the centrality of sex and gender to his way of thinking about the New Testament” informs the professor on how to teach Jesus Christ to students.

Elionor Reilly suggests that “the centrality of sex and gender to his way of thinking about the New Testament” significantly colors the way that Professor Liew presents Jesus Christ to students at the Catholic College.

In his rewriting of Scripture, Liew reportedly believes — based on the gospel of John — Jesus was not only “king of the Jews” and the “king of Israel,” but also a “drag king.”

Liew, in his 2009 book, “They Were All Together in One Place?: Toward Minority Biblical Criticism,” extrapolates from John 13, when Jesus washed his disciples’ feet, that the Son of God was “appearing as a drag-kingly bride in his passion.”

The professor described the biblical account as a “literary striptease,” “seductive,” and suggested John wasn’t sure if Jesus was “biologically male”:

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. John is clear that Jesus is [a Jew] (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.

Liew also eroticized the Trinity, suggesting the holy relationship between Jesus, the Son, and God, the Father, was in some way sexual. He made his convoluted point through John 14:6, in which Jesus said, “No one comes to the Father except through me.”

He wrote:

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.’

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.”

Ultimately, Liew described the crucifixion as a “masochistic” sexual encounter between Jesus and “his own Father.”

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.

How someone that believes this nonsense could teach Theology .