A Catholic college theology professor’s claims about Jesus are rather unusual and would be considered blasphemous and heretical to most Christians.
While I must admit the statement made by this professor is unusual and in contrast to most Christian theology, it isn’t too far from the truth of what many of today’s liberal idealists think. Christian faith is the paradox of many a discussion on who Christ really is and whether or not He is the Son of God. However for someone to make such a statement as those by Dr. Tat-siong Benny Liew who heads the New Testament studies at Holy Cross University would have to be badly skewered in their thinking by liberal ideology in order to place God’s Son in a category with the LGBTQ community.
The issue over these statements made almost a decade ago should be whether or not he should be allowed to continue to hold onto his position when such views are only one statement away on a daily basis and exegesis of teaching. What strikes me about this is that he clearly was trying to define Christ in a sexually sensual way that would defer any qualms about transgenderism among the faithful who see him as a progenitor of New Testament truth.
“[Christ] ends up appearing as a drag-kingly bride in his passion,” he argues. “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.” In this statement made by Dr. Liew, we can see that within the atmosphere of the Catholic church there is ample room for audacious scriptural interpretations to occur that not only strike across theological zones but also God laden spiritual boundaries.
John’s gospel in the New Testament is the most sensual of the four, but it is not given to any sexual perversity of mind, He clearly writes about the passion and love Christ has for all who would believe He is the Son of God. Nothing contained in those scriptures reveals the kind of sensual and seductive imagery that Dr. Liew is promoting. His use of Jesus’ crucifixion to somehow justify a description for homosexual bonding taking place between Father and Son should set off alarms warning everyone he is personally cognate of such sexual promiscuity.
Holy Cross representatives distance themselves from such sighted views but continue to uphold him with the declaration that he is a good teacher and man of faith. Something I will disagree with simply because faith isn’t an atonement for spiritual defamation of the one who is at the core of Christianity, and cannot contain any mindedness to afflict on others such a corrupted view. It might be worth remembering that Satan can promote himself as an angel of light in order to be seen as not conflicting to what scripture says about him. 2 Cor 11:14-15 (MSG) 14 And no wonder! Satan does it all the time, dressing up as a beautiful angel of light. 15 So it shouldn’t surprise us when his servants masquerade as servants of God. But they’re not getting by with anything. They’ll pay for it in the end.
Though Dr. Liew isn’t currently presenting any structured teaching on this doesn’t clear him of any responsibility or accountability concerning the truth about his view of scripture concluding Jesus as a sexually confused male, as he states, if that is what He truly was. The fact that he hasn’t as yet repented of this spiritual error should be a clear statement that he still considers it factual enough to weave it into an ongoing detail he teaches about Jesus Christ the Son of God.
Those who would come to the defense of Dr. Liew are also most likely to defend the devil and his evil mannerisms if it promotes the cause of liberal academics. Any exhorting of such extreme imagination solely for academic freedoms is just an excuse to defame what God has put in place in order to gain personal premises. The sanctioned activity within the confines of liberal arts is today being used by liberals as a platform for relativism as a means to subdue any thought process prone to see naturalism in God’s creation as truth.