#queer biblical hermeneutics

[eesirachs]

For a school assignment, I'm assembling an anthology around the theme of queer divinity and desire, but I'm having a hard time finding a fitting essay/article (no access to real academic catalogues :/ ), do you know of any essays around this theme?

below are essays, and then books, on queer theory (in which 'queer' has a different connotation than in regular speech) in the hebrew bible/ancient near east. if there is a particular prophet you want more of, or a particular topic (ištar, or penetration, or appetites), or if you want a pdf of anything, please let me know.

essays: Boer, Roland. “Too Many Dicks at the Writing Desk, or How to Organize a Prophetic Sausage-Fest.” TS 16, no. 1 (2010b): 95–108. Boer, Roland. “Yahweh as Top: A Lost Targum.” In Queer Commentary and the Hebrew Bible, edited by Ken Stone, 75–105. JSOTSup 334. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim, 2001. Boyarin, Daniel. “Are There Any Jews in ‘The History of Sexuality’?” Journal of the History of Sexuality 5, no. 3 (1995): 333–55. Clines, David J. A. “He-Prophets: Masculinity as a Problem for the Hebrew Prophets and Their Interpreters.” In Sense and Sensitivity: Essays on Reading the Bible in Memory of Robert Carroll, edited by Robert P. Carroll, Alastair G. Hunter, and Philip R. Davies, 311–27. JSOTSup 348. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Graybill, Rhiannon. “Yahweh as Maternal Vampire in Second Isaiah: Reading from Violence to Fluid Possibility with Luce Irigaray.” Journal of feminist studies in religion 33, no. 1 (2017): 9–25. Haddox, Susan E. “Engaging Images in the Prophets: Feminist Scholarship on the Book of the Twelve.” In Feminist Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Retrospect. 1. Biblical Books, edited by Susanne Scholz, 170–91. RRBS 5. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013. Koch, Timothy R. “Cruising as Methodology: Homoeroticism and the Scriptures.” In Queer Commentary and the Hebrew Bible, edited by Ken Stone, 169–80. JSOTSup 334. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim, 2001. Tigay, Jeffrey. “‘ Heavy of Mouth’ and ‘Heavy of Tongue’: On Moses’ Speech Difficulty.” BASOR, no. 231 (October 1978): 57–67.

books: Ahmed, Sara. Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006. Bauer-Levesque, Angela. Gender in the Book of Jeremiah: A Feminist-Literary Reading. SiBL 5. New York: P. Lang, 1999. Black, Fiona C., and Jennifer L. Koosed, eds. Reading with Feeling : Affect Theory and the Bible. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2019. Brenner, Athalya. The Intercourse of Knowledge: On Gendering Desire and “Sexuality” in the Hebrew Bible. BIS 26. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Camp, Claudia V. Wise, Strange, and Holy: The Strange Woman and the Making of the Bible. JSOTSup 320. Gender, Culture, Theory 9. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Chapman, Cynthia R. The Gendered Language of Warfare in the Israelite-Assyrian Encounter. HSM 62. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Creangă, Ovidiu, ed. Men and Masculinity in the Hebrew Bible and Beyond. BMW 33. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2010. Eilberg-Schwartz, Howard. God’s Phallus: And Other Problems for Men and Monotheism. Boston: Beacon, 1995. Huber, Lynn R., and Rhiannon Graybill, eds. The Bible, Gender, and Sexuality : Critical Readings. London, UK ; T&T Clark, 2021. Guest, Deryn. When Deborah Met Jael: Lesbian Biblical Hermeneutics. London: SCM, 2005. Graybill, Rhiannon, Meredith Minister, and Beatrice J. W. Lawrence, eds. Rape Culture and Religious Studies : Critical and Pedagogical Engagements. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2019. Graybill, Rhiannon. Are We Not Men? : Unstable Masculinity in the Hebrew Prophets. New York, NY: Oxford University Press USA, 2016. Halperin, David J. Seeking Ezekiel: Text and Psychology. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993. Jennings, Theodore W. Jacob’s Wound: Homoerotic Narrative in the Literature of Ancient Israel. New York: Continuum, 2005. Macwilliam, Stuart. Queer Theory and the Prophetic Marriage Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible. BibleWorld. Sheffield and Oakville, CT: Equinox, 2011. Maier, Christl. Daughter Zion, Mother Zion: Gender, Space, and the Sacred in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2008. Mills, Mary E. Alterity, Pain, and Suffering in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. LHB/OTS 479. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2007. Stökl, Jonathan, and Corrine L. Carvalho. Prophets Male and Female: Gender and Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Ancient Near East. AIL 15. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2013. Stone, Ken. Practicing Safer Texts: Food, Sex and Bible in Queer Perspective. Queering Theology Series. London: T & T Clark International, 2004. Weems, Renita J. Battered Love: Marriage, Sex, and Violence in the Hebrew Prophets. OBT. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995.

[nerdygaymormon]

Matthew 5:21-48 "Ye have heard it said..."

Five times in Matthew chapter 5, Jesus uses some version of "Ye have heard that it was said...But I say unto you..." Jesus is saying that this text has been interpreted this way, but I'm giving a better way. Jesus challenged traditional ideas, He expanded the interpretation.

We can do likewise.

There's two words used a lot in Biblical study, hermeneutics and exegesis.

Hermeneutics is deciding what we will use to help us interpret the text. We bring our own sensibilities, experiences, and understandings. Scholars may bring historical context, linguistical analysis, and a knowledge of Hebrew or Greek.

Exegesis is what understanding we pull from the text. The hermeneutics we use will affect what meaning we retrieve. This is why reading the same verses at different times of our lives will give us different insights.

Jesus taught that all the laws hang on the 2 great commandments to love God and to love people. I think we can use that as our hermeneutics as we read the scriptures. What does this teach me about loving God and about loving people? How does this relate to loving my neighbor, specifically the vulnerable and marginalized?

I also think about how does this relate to queer people? I bring to this my understanding that being queer is not a choice, God made us this way and expects us to live our life as queer. It's incorrect to view queer people as broken, not worthy, or not good enough. LGBTQ+ people deserve hope and an uplifting spiritual life.

Given those hermeneutics, let's look at the examples we find in Matthew 5.

—————————————————————  

Matthew 5:21-26

You've heard it said, 'Don't commit murder because you'll be in danger of being judged.' I say if you're angry at your siblings without a good cause, or you call them names, you'll be in danger of being judged and going to Hell. If you've come to worship God but things aren't right between you and your sibling, then leave and make things right before coming back.

Another way to state this is if a person plans to murder someone, but at the last moment doesn’t because of fear of consequences or cowardice, is that person still good with God? No. Don't murder them, but don't even be angry at them. You can't love God if you don't love your neighbor.

How does this apply to queer people? Don't physically harm LGBTQ+ people. Don't murder us, don't beat us up, don't bully us, and don't call us names. Stigma, prejudice, and discrimination create hostile and stressful social environments which lowers self-esteem, decreases psychological well-being, and has other harmful mental health outcomes. Instead, desire blessings for us and hope for our inclusion and equal standing.

—————————

Matthew 5:27-30

You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that every man who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

It is natural and good for a man to be attracted to women, he can't help that, it's how God designed humans so that we will procreate. But if he's attracted to another man's wife, how does he handle that? Does he merely note that she's attractive and move on or does he lust after her and think about being with her?

If two people have made vows to each other, it's harmful to try to get one of them to break that promise. Loving our neighbor means wanting their happiness and wanting them to have fulfillment in their most important relationship. To selfishly desire something for you that would harm their relationship is not loving. We should wish them the best in their relationship.

Unfortunately, I've had people use this passage to argue that being gay is a sin because I'm lusting after the wrong sort of person, just like the adulterer. And furthermore, by simply using the word 'gay' to acknowledge that I’m attracted to men, they say I'm identifying myself by my sin and I’m committing sin in my heart. That's not a generous or loving interpretation. This is not how straight people apply this teaching to themselves.

This scripture provides no reason to think of homosexual attraction any differently from heterosexual attraction. It's not a sin to be attracted to someone, and there are certainly appropriate ways to express those feelings. But if we seek to have sex with someone and upset their married relationship, that is a sin, as is lusting for that in our heart. A Christian should love their gay neighbor enough to want them to find a rewarding romantic relationship, just as they hope for themselves.

—————————

Matthew 31-32

It was said, 'Whoever divorces his wife must give her a divorce certificate.' But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual unfaithfulness, forces her to commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

The law was if you're going to leave your wife, you gotta give her a divorce certificate. This way she can prove she's not married any longer and can pursue finding another husband.

At that time, men had the power to divorce, women did not. Also, women at that time had little power or rights, they were reliant on men. To divorce a wife is to make her vulnerable to real harm, such as poverty, hunger, and homelessness. To not provide documentation that she is no longer married to you and thus prevent other men from being willing to marry her will cause her harm and is not loving.

Many like to say that sexual immorality is the exception clause, you are not justified in getting divorced unless your spouse has cheated on you, in which case you can move forward with splitting up. I don't know. Maybe Jesus is saying that if she cheated on you then she chose to commit adultery, but if you divorce her then you are causing her to commit adultery should she ever remarry, and you'll also be committing adultery if you remarry.

Christianity has long wrestled with these verses. Forcing people to remain in an abusive relationship or letting them split but not get divorced which means they can't remarry, that doesn't seem like it's in their best interest.

I think due to the LDS experience with polygamy and how difficult it was, the church made peace with the idea of divorce and remarriage. Not that we don't discourage divorce, it's seen as a serious thing, but if someone wants to get divorced, we won't stand in the way. And when someone who is divorced wants to get married, we allow that and even give them the highest blessings by letting them get sealed in our temples. We recognize it is to their benefit to get married and enjoy a loving relationship. They have companionship. They have a partner to help with raising the children and the many tasks of life. They can find sexual satisfaction within the bonds of a marriage. They can help each other progress.

I'm glad my church has put aside this and other teachings against divorce and remarriage, and that we recognize what a blessing it is to individuals to get out of relationships which are harming them and also that it is a blessing for them to join a new, loving relationship.

How can we apply this to queer folks? We allow them the same blessings you want for yourself. Let them form loving, committed relationships and bless those with the recognition of marriage because we know such relationships bless their lives.

—————————

Matthew 5:33-37

Again you have heard 'Don't make a false promise, you should follow through on what you have pledged to the Lord.' But I say you shouldn't make such pledges, and don't swear by heaven. Let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no.

We need to keep the commitments we make. Don't be deceitful. Don't make a promise we intend to break. When we make promises that others rely on, all while knowing we don't intend to keep that commitment, it harms them. They take actions that benefit us without getting the same in return. That's definitely not loving our neighbor. We should be honorable and trustworthy and known to keep our word. We should have integrity.

I think of people who say they love and support queer people, call themselves an ally and say we should be treated fairly by society, and then they vote for candidates who seek to block us from having legal protections and rights. If you're going to vote for our harm, then you're not the loving ally you portray yourself as.

—————————

Matthew 5:38-42

You have heard it said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you when someone hits you on your cheek, turn the other to him. If someone legally takes your tunic, give them your cloak as well. If you are pressed into service for one mile, go two miles.

This is different from the other examples because those were saying for us not to harm others. These verses are how to respond when we get treated unfairly. Jesus is not saying that we should be a doormat inviting more injury to ourselves.

Jesus' examples are forms of passive resistance. If a Roman legionary tells you to do something, and you refuse, you are punished. If you are unjustly sued, and you lash out, then you go to prison, instead here's steps you can take to highlight the wrongness of what is being done.

I've read that in Jesus' time someone could backhand a person of lower status as a way to assert authority and dominance. If someone backhands you, turn your face so they can slap your other cheek. They can't use their left hand as it's used for unclean purposes, so will they now hit you with their open hand as that shows you're equal? By turning the other check, I am forcing them to recognize my equality or to walk away from my challenge to their dominance.

A person's tunic could be used as collateral for a loan, but not the cloak. The debtor can be forced to give the tunic off of his back, but by also giving them the cloak, they're now naked. Public nudity was viewed as bringing shame on not just the one who is naked, but also the viewer. The one enforcing his rights to take your clothes is shamed.

Inhabitants of occupied territories could be forced by Roman authorities to carry messages and equipment for one mile post, but the law prohibited forcing them to go further than a single mile. A Jew at any time could feel the tap on his shoulder from a Roman soldier and know he has to carry the soldier's gear for a mile. By going the extra mile, it's a nonviolent way to criticize the unjust Roman law and cause the Roman soldier to be at risk of discipline

These are each ways to assert our dignity and to shame others for the how they're treating us. Each is a form of resistance but not retaliation, each is a way of highlighting the injustice without it turning into revenge. This is nonviolent resistance, which can be powerful in changing hearts.

This passage reminds me of the first time I went to a Pride event, it was really joyous and wonderful, except for some preacher yelling about how we're all sinners and going to hell and even yelling insults at people walking by including about what they were wearing. He was really getting people upset. Instead of yelling insults back, or worse, a group formed a circle around him and started singing Katy Perry's song "Firework" and the rest of the crowd joined in, drowning out his hateful words, until security could remove him. We did no harm to him and our actions stood in contrast to his hate and anger. It was a way to affirm ourselves and negate his message

—————————

Matthew 5:43-48

You've heard it said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you. God's sun rises on both the good and the bad, the rain falls on the just and unjust, in other words, he blesses all. There's no benefit in only loving those who love you.

When one group perceives another as 'the Enemy,' it's easy for conspiracy theories, prejudice, and fear to cause us to no longer see their humanity. This leads to seeing all Muslims as undercover terrorists or for some to believe that gay people are responsible for hurricanes.

We are to love everyone. This includes people who aren’t our race, or religion, or nationality. This includes sexual minorities, poor people, that annoying coworker, the politicians voting to limit your rights.

We don't have to agree with them. We focus on the issues and don’t make things personal. We can look for peaceful, constructive ways forward. We can have kindness and goodwill for people even as we disagree.

I think of the hatred toward LGBTQIA+ people by many who identify as Christian. The lack of compassion towards queer people is disheartening, and to be asked to love them in return feels difficult, but it can lead to positive change.

In 2004, 60% of Americans disapproved of gay marriage. In 2019, 61% approved of gay marriage. That's a complete flip-flop in 15 years. There were many who were vehemently against gay marriage and expressed hatred towards queer people. Gay rights advocates were speaking of love, and when gay marriage was legalized, we saw videos of couples joyously celebrating their love, which stood in contrast to the bigotry that had been expressed. It's hard to see the joy and love and believe the hateful rhetoric. Individuals naturally don't want to see themselves aligned with people who are harming and hurting people.

We can keep protesting, keep speaking our truth, keep advocating for those who can't, but don't villainize those who oppose us. Stick to the issues and act with compassion and love. Let our actions stand in contrast against those who view us as enemies.

[faeriefully]

Oh, my bad, you're way too down the rabbit hole to speak with actually. But that's the problem when religion is brought into the mix. It is, by nature, a system of blind belief over the physical world, and I was trying to discuss what affects the physical world. I'd rather care about my fellow man in the here and now, with less to answer for on judgment day than you. Some of the best (but still strict) Christians I've met in life will say they don't agree with a lifestyle, but it's none of their business. And never say another word. But those are good people.

I actually wasn't raised in a rigid household. If you interpreted anything correctly (hah), you'd see that my mom didn't adhere to such strict teachings. She always let us follow our own path while still taking us to church and teaching compassionate morals outside of religion. It led to us thinking for ourselves enough to see right from wrong, regardless of allegiance. Which is how I'm allowed to believe in a higher power and still despise the absolute and UNNECESSARY hatred being focused on people in the queer community. (Which I don't even belong to. I just have, you know, compassion.) It's someone else's life. If they're not hurting anyone, why should I get to control it? Why would I even want to? How do you not see that all of the recent backlash against the trans community is nothing but the Republican Party blowing the scope of a community (half a percent of the population) out of the water to win political favor. With public opinion in majority favor of gay rights and Roe v Wade repealed, they needed something to galvanize the base.

Anyway, Target moved pride displays to the back to protect their customers from documented violent threats, which is more humanity than I see in modern Christians. And Target is a lifeless corporation. That's how low the bar is. Disgusting and disturbing.

Just don't act like you won any debate (as if we could have one, I now understand) when all you did was say, "So anyway, religion." You didn't argue or refute anything I said with fact. You will continue to use the Bible only as a tool to hate things which confuse you and ignore the sins you don't care about. (And won't even mention when addressed.) And no, even by Biblical standards, I have nothing for which to repent, so I don't think I will.

Well first, that’s not what faith is…

Moving on:

Because it’s not my morality, it’s not about what I want. It’s about God’s holiness and commands. Also, you jump from your household to Christians to the Republican Party in about 100 words which makes responding to any single misconception about any of those things difficult, which I know is the point.

The issue here is you think you have independent thought rather than the only two options— being of Christ or being of the serpent. Which, if you were raised with the Bible and know it as you claim, should be the basis of your understanding. However, again, you’ve proven not to be qualified to discuss hermeneutics.

Not once in any of this have I condoned being aggressive towards anyone nor even commented on it. That’s a very big jump and assumption of my beliefs, which you’ve never inquired about only assumed thus far.

I also have compassion for those involved in all of this. At no point do I wish them harm or pain or damnation. This is one of the reasons I will not lie to them and seek their spiritual life and redemption. I will share the truth in love, but I will not lie to them and harm them by encouraging delusions or sin. (That’s why they tell me to die in my inbox weekly.)

I haven’t been debating you, you’re right, because none of the arguments presented have been valid. They’re all either strawmen, blatant misunderstandings or false assumptions, or personal attacks. Your definition of hate is incorrect to begin with and if your presuppositions are flawed. I haven’t been confused this entire time, and your responses have been quite predictable honestly. You’re not saying anything I haven’t encountered in my years of genuinely studying scripture. It’s quite bold of you to think an anonymous ask on tumblr of all places will make me stumble.

Your final disqualification for attempting to correct me on anything biblical is your last sentence— if you genuinely don’t believe you have anything to repent for from a biblical view, then you do not understand the Bible in any capacity.

[multifairyus]

Hey There!

Welcome to my Lexicon of interests! My name is Multifairyus, (whatstheswitch if ya nasty 💋) and friends call me Fairy!

Skip to “Keep Reading” for my fandom stuff, stick around to know me better 💖

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Demographics: HBCU & tertiary educated, neurodivergent, queer, zillenial Black-American woman

Occupation: IRL wizard and resident Hot Girl™️ of my laboratory

Interests: Exploring new cities, astrology, make-up, Dungeons and Dragons, Biblical hermeneutics, BDSM, womanism, JRPGs, social commentary/media analysis video essays, weed, orchestral/8-bit/bardcore/Lo-Fi covers of songs, internet/social media memes and culture, being beautiful on the inside and out, committing to the bit

(Tumblr Active) Fandoms: The Legendborn Cycle, Spider-Verse Cinnematic Universe, Kingdom Hearts, Percy Jackson and the Olympians, Critical Role, Megan Thee Stallion, Persona 5, Inu-Yasha

Social Media: @/multifairyus on all platforms. I’m pretty hot too ngl @/lexie.day just don’t be weird or get blocked

Fandom Styles: Playlist curation, headcannon/hot take sharing, fanfiction writing (eventually…), fandom community challenge issuer, fandom discord administration, comment section hypeman.

Genres: General, romance, friendship, found family dynamics, missing scenes/POV switches, porn w/feelings and porn w/warnings, angst with a happy ending, fluff, AUs.

Pro/Anti-Shipping: No. Shut up. Listen to her speak on it for my thoughts.

Asks?: The more fun, thought-provoking, or unhinged the better

DMs?: Yes if you interacted with my stuff. Hell yes if you’re Black and wanna cold open ask to be friends I love that stuff

Note: I like to reblog...a lot. If you aren't interested in one of these fandoms I recommend blocking some of these tags so you get what you signed up for with me: #legendborn #bloodmarked #ATSV #Hobie Brown #Spiderpunk.

That said I'm liable to go on a reblogging spree on any of my interests. My @ is a play on the word "multifarious" for a reason, lmao. I like a lot of stuff and I'm making it y'alls problem...adjust accordingly or develop exquisite taste that just so happens to be exactly like mine!

The Legendborn Cycle

Brelwyn Story Playlists

Volume I

Volume II

Fandom Challenges

• Kane Coded Bingo Challenge and Wrap-Up

Commissions

Birthday Firefly Kiss

Headcannons/Hot Takes

Legendborn AUs

Missing Moments in Volition

LBC and Queer Narratives

Erebus is Secretly a Brelwyn Shipper

Valec Carries Bloodmarked's Humor

Brelwyn & Kanthony

Spider-Verse Cinematic Universe

Playlists

(Hobie-inspired if not stated to be otherwise)

xReader Delulu Vibes (WIP)

A Doobie for your Thoughts (WIP)

Tik Tok Fan-Edit Trash (WIP)

Arachnakids Cover Band Setlist (WIP)

Headcannons/Hot Takes

• Hobie’s Grandma

Kthxbai 💖

[aria-i-adagio]

alina is canonically 17 years old and the darkling is like 500. he also magically enslaves her to him, sexually assaults her, threatens to kill everyone she cares about, tortures two other women, threatens to torture her, and murders children. they are not canon love interests or in a relationship. he is the villain, and she kills him at the end. her canon love interest is a 17 year old brown boy who respects her

Nonny... fandom shipping is not about canon.  Nor is it about making good relationship decisions.  It’s about whatever people find interesting in exploring in FICTION.  Pleased to know Alina makes better choices in canon than in peeps headcanons though - good for her.  Or, I mean, good for her if she existed.  Which she doesn’t.

Seventeen is young, but not a child.  Completely different lifestage (points to every single lifespan development textbook ever).  Not adult - although there’s a lot of theorizing about the historical development of adolescence/young adulthood, versus the post-puberty/pre-puberty distinction that has existed at least as long as there is a historical record (can get you some other sources on this, but the one coming to mind is Porneia by Aline Rouselle) - but definitely not a child.  Curiously, the arguments about “normalization” suggest that socialization and cultural paradigms would, in fact, impact psycho-social maturation. 

But if we want to play the not quite adult card, cool, let's do it.  

I agree that in the real world, a relationship between a late-adolescent woman and a much older partner is highly problematic as it is very likely to be exploitative.  I can’t imagine why an adult would want to be in a relationship with someone in late-adolescence.  I sure as hell wouldn’t want to be.  

But explain to me why child soldiers aren’t a problem.  Explain why we can have any stories where 17 year olds are running around unsupervised without it being a problem because it might convince adolescents that they don’t need constant adult supervision to be safe.  Logical consistency is a nice thing.

I’m curious to know what your opinion is on the current crop of YA/NA novels where the canon relationship is young woman + ancient magical person or other person who appears to significantly out power her.  As previously stated, I’m bored with them, but you know, way more people are reading Sarah J Maas than are reading fics or headcanons shipping Alina and the Darkling.  If you’re really interested in what f’d up but intriguing world building looks like, may I suggest Anne Bishop’s Black Jewels series.

The stories that people find interesting tend to involve placing characters in some messed up situations.  Always have.  Always will.  Mainstream fiction and fan fiction are no different in that respect.

I would think that the fact that the Darkling is 500 some years old might tip you off to the fact that THIS IS NOT THE REAL WORLD since, you know, people don’t live to be 500 in reality.

And you’re entirely ignoring my point about how there are power dynamics other than age which can also apply to the text, some of which better reflect the culture that the text reference.  Intersectionality as a reading praxis demands paying attention to multiple ways that power and privilege operate, not just the most popular or apparent one.  

One of my favorite rants is about how choosing an arbitrary, culturally contextual standard ends up doing violence to a text.  Texts that have far, far more of an impact on the real world than a fandom ship ever could have.

For example, one could take how Evangelical Protestantism applies a “literal” reading to the Bible while ignoring cultural context and historical development.  This is how one gets misreadings of the idea of “abomination” (to be far, I can’t blame the evangelicals for that one - it predates them).  However, one can clearly see how modernist moral panic about sexuality dictates which abominations evangelical Christians obsess about.  Or how conservative Christians focus more on homosexuality in the story about Sodom and Gomorrah than the more textually relevant question of hospitality.  Or how they ignore that there’s any number of words that could be used to refer to homoeroticism in general in the Pauline corpus, and instead the word used is something so specific that it doesn’t appear anywhere else for us to have a comparative tool to derive the intended meaning.  This is one of my favorite rants.  Perhaps I’ll come back with some citations for you on texts that you could look into.  If for no reason other than to have some fodder for the next time you need to argue with Christian homophobes.  I do love arguing with Christian homophobes.  I am, ofc, assuming that you’re queer positive.

Interestingly, one frequently finds this with Orthodox Christian converts who haven’t spent a significant amount of time in immigrant parishes.  They try to apply literalism to the Church Fathers (and Mothers, and Peeps who defy tidy gender categorization) and it just turns into illogical chaos, because there’s quite a bit of disagreement within that body of texts.   That was a theme that I would be interested in seeing how Bardugo plays out, given how Alina’s self-concept was already in conflict with the church created canon regarding her sainthood.

TLDR:  A) Seventeen is still not a child.  B) A plot necessitates tension to be resolved, so something is going to be problematic in order to have a story.  C) The effect of a text on reality and vice-versa is complex.  D) Not recognizing how one is responding to a text based on one’s temporally and culturally shaped comfort zone is a very problematic thing in and of itself, frequently ending up with “orthodoxies” that limit personal agency and freedom.  

Now let's see if I can get a right wing punch from someone complaining about queer readings of Christian texts.

[milkboydotnet]

Early Quakers were radicalized by the Spirit's confrontation.

They may have stumbled into a meeting for worship and experienced the tangible presence of God stirring up holy chaos, causing trembling, shouting, prophecy, and healing. In the thrill of communal silence, they would encounter the living God shining upon their heart - exposing their sin and imbuing intoxicating love.

Or perhaps they encountered Quakers in public, when proclaiming the good news for the poor and doom for the powerful with Spirit-induced confidence. As these hearers were struck by the living Word of God, they found themselves hungry for the kin-dom they glimpsed. With joy, they committed to the same struggle against power waged by the earliest Christians. They found themselves living in the same Spirit of the apostles. They found themselves in the stories of the people of Israel, and all those in desperate need for the eternal year of jubilee.

They found their story and language in the bible. And even more than that, they found themselves participating in Christ's apocalypse.

These Friends, many of which were poor and regarded as lower class, shamelessly proclaimed the coming end of the world. This was good news for them, and they were happy about it. They prophesied to strengthen and encourage the saints, but also in the public square, calling out the wickedness and cruelty of the rich and powerful. They went into town squares, butt-naked, or in sack-cloth, prophesying the coming destruction of the rich and powerful. They even went into churches, prophesying God's judgment on the Spirit-less steeplehouses. They prophesied over the priests' homilies, and plead with the congregants to meet the living God, who tears down the mighty and lifts up the oppressed.

Their prophecies were deeply biblical, fluidly stringing together hundreds of passages. But to them, the bible wasn't the Word of God. To these Friends, declaring the bible to be the word of God would be idolatrous. To them, the Word of God was bigger than a book—it was the living Christ.

The established Church found these wild prophets as resoundingly annoying. They would not stop interrupting mass, or confronting clergy. They couldn't be shut up. They knew the bible just as well as the learned priests, and broke the logic of orthodoxy to reveal a truer way to follow Christ, and a more faithful hermeneutic for the bible. Their declarations that God was not confined to tradition, to rituals, to inherited liturgies, or even the bible, but rather made their temple within all people, angered the Church of power. These Friends knew a God of justice - whose transformative judgment would lead all creation into harmony - who was close to those on the margins, companions in their liberation. This God stood against the Church, and sought its end. The Church knew it, and sought to destroy the rapidly growing Quaker movement.

Friends were heretics, but such accusations and even its legal consequences didn't bother them. Their allegiance wasn't to the status quo, to orthodoxy, to the authorities of this world. Their allegiance was to the lowly, the subjugated, in whom Christ lived. Their allegiance was to the living God, the Holy Spirit, who was their companion, even as thousands of them were jailed and tortured. In their suffering, they rejoiced, seeing persecution and tribulations as the baptism of the Spirit—God revealing their power. Under such persecution, their communities continued to grow and disrupt.

I want the kind of faith that these Friends demonstrated - fearless, not giving a shit about what the powerful think. I want the kind of faith that knows abundant life even in the midst of persecution. I want the kind of faith that would allow me to be the heretic needed to wage this war against empire, and usher in the kin-dom.

My political radicalization was a new Spirit-baptism for me. When I saw the connections between imperialism, capitalism, white supremacy, anti-blackness, patriarchy, anti-queerness, I saw systemic sin. I saw demons, the body of Satan. I saw that following the Way of Christ demanded me to enter the struggle against these things, even if it got messy, even if it meant sacrificing my piety. I heard the Spirit of God call me towards revolution, and my fellowship could not accept it. They saw me as naive and deceived - a false teacher of damnable violence. A heretic.

The Church will never be what the world, let alone the revolution, needs. The ecclesial structure, theology, liturgy and practices of the Church have been formed by 2000 years of a tense, complex, but often synergistic relationship with empire and society's dominant classes. These institutions were formed by those seeking domination, and are rotten to the core. Like those early Friends, I was called not just out of the church, but to combat the church. And I'm seeing others, too, being called to betray orthodoxy, tradition, and follow the Spirit of God into dethroning the powers of this world and fighting for our liberation. I pray that we would have even greater than those early Friends, and even the apostles. That we would not lose sight of the Day of Judgment - and that we would draw it closer. May we be the Spirit's confrontation - the tangible presence of God.

[a-queer-seminarian]

The irruption of the Other complicates everybody’s life: the life of theology, theologians, and the Church. Why? Because to take on board Otherness means much more than to include the different into a familiar discourse… To take on board Otherness implies taking on also the hermeneutical and ecclesiastical challenges presented by a previously silenced subject. This subject by definition is unrepresented and unrepresentable by the system that has produced a symbolic exclusion in the first place. That is to say, it is not only a thematic change that confronts us, but a radical criticism of existing theological methodologies… The Other, by reason of gender, race, class, or sexuality not only brings a criticism to theology but also incarnates a living criticism, as the biblical blood of the just that cries out to God for crimes committed against the different in any theological orthodoxy.

Marcella Althaus-Reid, “On Queer Theology and Liberation Theology: The Irruption of the Sexual Subject in Theology”

[blessedarethebinarybreakers]

LGBTA+ Figures in the Bible

This post is meant to supplement our video on the same topic, providing more information and resources than we had time to discuss in the vid. 

The Bible belongs to LGBTA+ Christians too, and we can see ourselves reflected in its stories. We aren’t saying that all of the figures listed here were definitely LGBTA+ themselves (though we both believe that at least some certainly were), but that something about their stories resonates uniquely with us as LGBTA+ Christians. 

We invite you to add to this post -- either more ideas or resources for figures already listed, or with more Bible characters with whom you connect!

General Books:

The Queer Bible Commentary

Outing the Bible: Queer Folks, God, Jesus, and the Christian Scriptures

The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives from the New Testament 

Another resource is what my textbook says about sexuality in biblical society. 

And a post on why I think it’s important for us to have LGBT-specific Saints and biblical figures 

The rest of the resources are under the readmore; let me know if you are unable to access them. 

God!!!

See our God beyond gender tag, especially this post on Hosea 11 and this post 

Austen Hartke’s video: “What Are God’s Pronouns?” 

Woman Wisdom 

A spoken word piece, “God Is Gay”

Black Theologian James Cone argues that because God identifies intimately with the oppressed, so intimately that God is one of them, God is Black. I agree wholeheartedly, and likewise argue that God is queer.

ha-adam (Adam and Eve)

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2

a post on which I basically write an essay on the adam of Genesis 1 being “all genders” or else no genders, rather being a diversity of physical types, and the adam of Genesis 2 naming himself a man, rather than that gender being imposed on him 

A summary of what I say: In Genesis 1:27, God creates the human race male and female – we can read this as each human being thus being created with an innate capacity to be male, female, and/or somewhere on the spectrum hidden in that word and, as formerly discussed. Even so, the text continues to use the neutral adam in 1:28 through the majority of chapter 2 – God does not label any individual adam as an ish or an ishah, a man or a woman. In Genesis 2, which “rewinds” and offers a more detailed account of humanity’s creation, God forms the non-gender-specific adam out of clay and spirit and then forms a “helpmate” (an interesting, also non-gender-specific word discussed more in the above hoperemains link) from that adam’s rib. Only at that point do gender specific terms enter the story – not from God, but from the adam, who identifies himself as ish, a man, and labels his helpmate ishah, a woman.

Austen Hartke’s two YouTube videos on Genesis 1 and Genesis 2

Austen also responds to the call to “be fruitful and multiply” from a trans perspective 

Austen Hartke’s “Does the Image of God Have a Gender?”

A post on that non-binary “and” in Genesis 1

Hagar

Genesis 16 and 21

Austen Hartke’s “Wrestling and Renaming God,” second half 

Commentary on Dolores Williams’ Sisters in the Wilderness 

Jacob/Israel

Genesis 32

Austen Hartke’s “Wrestling and Renaming God,” first half 

A poem I wrote based on Jacob’s wrestling and renaming from the perspective of my journey as a nonbinary Christian 

Article: “Wrestling to Reconcile Body and Spirit”

Joseph

Genesis 37

A poem by J Mase iii entitled “Josephine” -- a genderqueer telling of the story 

A Presi on Queer Readings of Joseph and Jael that’s pretty interesting

“Joseph and his queer, fabulous, technicolor dreamcoat” 

“There’s Something about Joseph” 

David and Jonathon

1 Samuel 18, 1 Samuel 20, 2 Samuel 1

Article on the love between these two 

Another article, not as detailed: “The story of David and Jonathan’s love is one of the great stories of the Bible. It is a classic tale of star-crossed lovers.”

Another good article from qspirit; with images, a lot of historical info, and further links

Another article: “Why Does the Bible Focus on Their Intimate Loving Same Sex Partnership?” -- “Did God bless David and Jonathan, a same sex couple in romantic committed sexual partnership? Scripture devotes more chapters to their incredible love story than any other human love story in the Bible. What does God intend us to learn from that dramatic emphasis?”

A 2007 essay by an Anglican bishop in Liverpool, James Jones, “Making Space for Truth and Grace”:

“The second is to acknowledge the authoritative Biblical examples of love between two people of the same gender most notably in the relationship of Jesus and his beloved and David and Jonathan. ...”

“ ‘The Theology of Friendship’ Report took me in particular to the relationship between David and Jonathan. Their friendship was emotional, spiritual and even physical. Jonathan loved David “as his own soul”. David found Jonathan’s love for him, “passing the love of women”. There was between them a deep emotional bond that left David grief-stricken when Jonathan died. But not only were they emotionally bound to each other they expressed their love physically. Jonathan stripped off his clothes and dressed David in his own robe and armour. With the candour of the Eastern World that exposes the reserve of Western culture they kissed each other and wept openly with each other. The fact that they were both married did not inhibit them in emotional and physical displays of love for each other. This intimate relationship was sealed before God. It was not just a spiritual bond it became covenantal for “Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul” (1 Samuel 18:3). Here is the Bible bearing witness to love between two people of the same gender. I know that at this point some will ask, “Was the friendship sexual?”, “Were they gay?”, “Was at least one of them homosexual?”, “Were they both heterosexual?”, “Were they bisexual?” I want to resist these questions at least initially. Immediately you start using such words you conjure up stereotypes and prejudices. Further, you assume that it is a person’s sexual inclination that defines their personhood. Is it not possible to say that here are two men with the capacity to love fully, both women and men?”

A Jewish view of their relationship, in Mishnah: “Whenever love depends on some selfish end, when the end passes away, the love passes away; but if it does not depend on some selfish end, it will never pass away. Which love depended on a selfish end? This was the love of Amnon and Tamar. And which did not depend on a selfish end? This was the love of David and Jonathan (Avot 5:15)”

A poem from 1878 by John Addington Symonds called “The Meeting of David and Jonathon;” the whole poem (it’s a long one) can be found in this google book; it starts on page 151. An excerpt of the best parts is here at this post. 

Daniel and Ashpenaz

Both of these figures were possibly eunuchs, who are certainly gender non-conforming as they are (see next section); furthermore, these two may have been in love.

Daniel 1:9 -- “Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs"

Article 

Article 

Article on the other eunuchs in the book of Daniel: Shadrack, Mesach and Abednego

Esther and Eunuchs

“Esther, Vashti, and Eunuchs on Purim: Queer models for such a time as this”

“Eunuch-Inclusive Esther,” an article by Peterson Tuscano

Austen Hartke’s YouTube video on eunuchs 

A spoken word poem I wrote for my seminary’s more light service based around the story of Esther 

Naomi and Ruth

Article: “Whither thou goest;” cool art and contemporary interpretations 

See our Ruth tag, especially this post, for lots on their relationship 

Article: “Ruth Loved Naomi As Adam Loved Eve”

“Naomi and Ruth in Art”

Some other Biblical women

Austen Hartke’s video on “biblical womanhood” 

Deborah

Judges 4

A prophet and military leader, Deborah behaves outside the norms for her gender 

She was either married to a man with an odd name -- Lappidoth, meaning “torches” -- or else she had the title for herself “woman of torches.” If the former is true, she did much independently of her husband; if the latter, then she was not tied to a husband at all

Beginning on page 182, A Queer Commentary on Google Books has a section entitled “Deborah and Jael and lesbian-identified hermeneutics” 

Jael

Judges 4 and Judges 5

Jael drifts from the way women of her culture were “meant” to act. Moreover, her use of a tent peg to kill Sisera is considered phallic.  

Scholarly article: “From Gender Reversal to Genderfuck: Reading Jael through a Lesbian Lens” 

A Presi on Queer Readings of Joseph and Jael that’s pretty interesting

Judith

The apocryphal book of Judith is not in the Protestant Bible. 

Judith also behaves outside of her gender roles, using the relative freedom of her status as a widow to take charge of the situation when her city comes under siege. She and her maid go out to the enemy camp and ply the king with wine; they then cut off his head. 

Jesus

Austen Hartke’s video on the road to Emmaus, “Invisible Like Jesus”

Jesus and the Beloved Disciple

Our tag for the beloved disciple 

From a 2017 essay by Anglican bishop James Jones: “The intimacy between David and Jonathan is also evident in the relationship between the Son of David and his beloved John. We find the two at one with each other during the supper when Jesus washes the feet of his disciples. The beloved disciple is found reclining next to Jesus. Translations are not adequate to the text. Two different phrases are used in verses 23 and 25. One of them says literally that John was leaning against the bosom, breast, chest of Jesus (kolpos). No English word or phrase fully captures the closeness of the liaison. What is significant is that the word used in John 13:23 is found only on one other occasion in the Gospel of John. In John 1:18 the word is used to describe the intimate relationship between “God the only Son” and the Father. “No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son who is close to the Father’s heart (kolpos) who has made him known”. It is difficult for a human being to conceive of a closer relationship than that between the Persons of the Holy Trinity. That this word is used of the relationship between Jesus and John is a remarkable expression of the love between the two men. This love finds expression on several occasions. On the cross Jesus makes his beloved friend his mother’s son in an extraordinary covenant of love and on the day of the Resurrection love propels the bereaved and beloved disciple to outrun Peter and arrive first at the Tomb. Here is energising love, spiritual, emotional and physical.”

St. Aeldred of the 12th century compared the relationship between Jesus and John to “heavenly marriage”: "Jesus himself, is in everything like us. Patient and compassionate with others in every matter. He transfigured this sort of love through the expression of his own love; for he allowed only one - not all - to recline on his breast as a sign of his special love; and the closer they were, the more copiously did the secrets of their heavenly marriage impart the sweet smell of their spiritual chrism to their love." (source)

Article: “Lazarus: Jesus’ Beloved Disciple?”

Article: “John Evangelist: Beloved Disciple of Jesus”; includes great art and links 

Jesus is trans

Jesus did not behave according to the gender norms of his day, speaking to women freely

Jesus is God, made human. God is a genderless being, while Jesus was gendered male upon his human birth. 

See this tag

Mary

Austen Hartke’s video, “Going Home When there’s No Room at the Inn”

Mary the unwed mother and LGBT Christians: here’s a reflection by a lesbian on the virgin Mary.

“Sadly, although we are highly favored by God, receiving His gift puts us out of favor with many of His followers. I can’t fathom the societal rejection and religious condemnation Mary must have weathered as an unwed teenage mother in her day and age. Luke only writes that Mary skipped town in a hurry, but I wonder whether she wasn’t running from the pointing, the whispering, and the scowling as much as she was running to her aunt’s house.”

Mary and Martha

Luke 10

Article: “Mary and Martha formed a nontraditional family at a time when there was huge pressure for heterosexual marriage.”

The centurion and his boy

Luke 7 and Matthew 8

My post on this pair 

Article: “Jesus affirmed a gay couple” 

Article: “Gay centurion”

The Good Samaritan -- and the man on the side of the road

Austen Hartke’s video “What if you’re not the good samaritan?”

My sermon on LGBT+ people and the Good Samaritan story 

Paul

1 Corinthians 7

A post that mentions Paul being aro and/or ace 

Peter

Austen Hartke’s video with use of Peter as a model for being “called out” 

The Ethiopian Eunuch

Acts 8:26-40

“Ethiopian Eunuch: Early Church” 

see also the article on eunuchs linked back in the Esther section

Article 

[digitaldion]

I was so grateful to be offered space by colleagues, friends and comrades to present in the Gender Unit conference on ‘Transgression and Transformation: The role of feminist, postcolonial and queer biblical interpretation in fostering communities of justice’. My paper was entitled: When the personal is political, and the political is personal: Towards a politics of forgiveness among Black and White readers of Matthew 18:15-35 Dion Forster, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology and Ethics, Faculty of Theology, Stellenbosch University Martha Nussbaum notes that, “the ability to imagine the experience of another needs to be greatly enhanced and refined if we are to have any hope of sustaining decent institutions across the many divisions that any modern society contains" (Nussbaum, 2010: 10). In biblical studies, the turn towards engaging the lived experiences of Bible readers is playing and important role in the development of our understanding social hermeneutics. This paper is framed by the slogan, "the personal is political, and the political is personal", that was coined by second wave feminists in 1960’s. By drawing on this claim, the paper aims to explicate the logic that undergirds radically different understandings of forgiveness among Black and White readers of Matthew 18.15-35 in South Africa. Through an engagement with qualitative empirical data gathered over a period of 4 years, the paper will illustrate the importance of a rigorous, textured, and reasonable engagement with the lived experiences and social identities of contemporary South African readers of Matthew 18.15-35. In particular, the data shows that there is a logic to the different understandings of forgiveness among Black and White readers of this text that stems from their social locations and social identity. Yet, the data also shows that there are some possibilities of “imagining the experience of the other” in order to engage divisive and destructive theological and political convictions. @beyersnaudecentre @theologystudents_maties @theology_of_maties_ #theology #gender #Bible #PublicTheology #PoliticalTheology #Forgiveness #SouthAfrica Thanks to Sipho Mahokoto for the photos. (at Faculty of Theology, Stellenbosch University) https://www.instagram.com/digitaldion/p/BvBmSYeg-ML/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=1kyqma0x7rqk5

[davarmidbar]

What does Judaism mean to me?

Well, this is an essay I was supposed to write over a month ago, a midterm essay of sorts for the conversion class I’m in. I sat down and thought it would be rather quick work.  But, alas.

What. Does. Judaism. Mean. To Me. Anyway. 

Well, here it is now. Sorry, It’s long. But I really mean all of it.

I believe that we will win. I believe that we will win.  Standing in a crowd, surging with energy. I’ve seen those words written so many times as a signoff at the end of manifestos and action directives. But I’ve never been in the crowd chanting it myself. And I felt its power like I never have before. I believe that we will win. pumping our fists and reaching as hard as we can to envision the world as we want it to be.  What’s that feeling?

 When the days are dark and dry, or dark and damp, when you feel all alone and trapped in your own cycles of self-sabotage and you wonder, ‘have I ever lived my best life?’ ‘Can I give anything positive to the world?’ ‘How can I not just be a tool of oppression?’ ‘How can I find beauty in this world? How can I find truth?’ When we’re pushing ourselves up against the world we’ve created. This beautiful icy world in which scientism reigns and which I fiercely defend.  

 But, at the end of the Twilight People prayer, it says, “We cannot always define; we can always say a blessing.” And that’s what this Jewish path offers me, it offers me magic to infuse my day and everything I do, and it offers me an escape hatch when it feels impossible to catch my breath.

 Judaism allows me to commune with ancient texts, to make magic in the home and in the community. It helps me shape my days and my weeks, it makes me feel closer to the person I love. Candlelight, spices, baking sweet bread, simmering soups, tarot cards, watching the stars, rose quartz and sage, dreaming of the desert and waking up early to watch the sunrise. Learning Hebrew and forgetting, learning it again. Arguing, arguing, arguing. . . arguing.

 The roots of Judaism and its ancient contours pulls me in, holding up a kiddush cup and looking at all my loved ones around the table, proud to finally be able to recited kiddush all on my own.  Making a haggadah and leading a seder with my sweetheart.  Feeling fully held by the tradition.  Feeling welcomed as a vulgar skeptic, a witch, a queer, a woman, a radical, an agent of chaos.

 When you’re looking into one another’s faces, trying to reach deep inside yourself for belief, and you hear it in the air, “I believe that we will win.”  

 Judaism also means to me. . .  a deep sense of alienation and confusion, and, since we’re being honest here today, revulsion. The Jewish Religion is one of many rough approximations of how to commune with a divine spirit within us all and which we can tap into only when we come together and try to mend this broken world, hold each close and raise each other up.  And this rough approximation, collected and changed over a few thousand years, is so richly steeped in xenophobia and oppression that it would be reasonable to wonder, “is this worth saving? is it possible to resuscitate what is powerful in judaism without perpetuating oppression?”

 Feminist scholarship can and has given me guidance in approaching the Jewish tradition to find what it means to me and what it could mean to me.  Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza (I believe) came up with the language of a dual methodology of “the hermeneutics of suspicion” and “the hermeneutics of remembrance.” And carrying these both with me, like little handwritten notes stuffed into my pants pockets, helps me through.

Judith Plaskow: “In discussing the deep-rooted sexism of the Jewish tradition, I use the Tanakh (Hebrew Scriptures) to demonstrate women’s silence in Jewish writings. In doing so, I presuppose a dual and paradoxical relationship to the biblical text. I take for granted my critical freedom in relation to the Bible; but I also take for granted my connection to it, the value of examining its viewpoint and concerns. I pronounce the Bible patriarchal; but in taking the time to explore it, I claim it as a text that matters to me. . .

 A hermeneutics of suspicion “takes as its starting point the assumption that biblical texts and their interpretations are androcentric and serve patriarchal functions.” Since both the Tanakh and rabbinic literature come from male-dominated societies and are attributed to male authors, they need to be examined for androcentric assumptions and content, and for their attention, or lack of it, to women’s experiences and concerns. . .

 A “hermeneutics of remembrance” insists that the same sources that are regarded with suspicion can also be used to reconstruct Jewish women’s history.” **

 In short, Judaism wraps me in warmth, it makes me believe in magic, and it makes me believe in the power of people. It is a new well of energy for me, who normally relies on analytic rigor (or a burst of overwhelming volume masquerading as charisma) to get things done. This is a new kind of thinking and new way of organizing my energy in a weekly way. Mostly, though, it’s about love, poetry, magic, finding that the future has an ancient heart.** Standing in a crowd, screaming as one, daring to believe in a better world and daring ourselves to be up for it. and quiet moments of reflection by candlelight with my beloved, eating challah i made and letting time stand still. That’s what Judaism means to me.

*Judith Plaskow Standing at Sinai, 13-15, quoting and expanding on Fiorenza.

**[the future has an ancient heart, from Cheryl Strayed]

[eesirachs]

What literature would you recommend?

what a broad question! i'm assuming, though, that you mean theological literature. keep in mind i study xianity!

because i study the critical theory of religion, here are good places to start (and many of these theologians have been teachers of mine!): shelly rambo (try resurrecting wounds and carnal hermeneutics), marcella althaus-reid (indecent theology), mayra rivera (touch of the flesh), monica coleman (making a way out of no way), monica r. miller (any of her work on womanist theology but especially her piece in ain't i a womanist too?), rhiannon graybill (amazing queer theologian; try are we not men?), claire wolfteich (any of her practical theology works), m. shawn copeland (enfleshing freedom). do also try more seminal works in liberation theology (gutierrez and cone ofc), in biblical studies (anchor bible series, anything by the jesuits like harrington), and in sacraments (everyone go read schillebeeckx quick!!!)

also, all good xian theologians need to wade through historical christianity so let me know if you need pdfs of: aquinas, moore, duns scotus, eckert, hildegarde, julian of norwich (in fact most mystics tbh) augustine, any of the cappadocians, any of the desert mothers/fathers, papal doctrine, early fathers (esp. ireneaus!), new prophetesses, martyrologies, christological controversy (which includes early councils), ambrose eusebius jerome (they all count as one entity), bede, anselm (heart eyes), dionysius (pseudo), gnosticism, social xianity/gospel, iberian xianity (random interest of mine), & spiritualism. do not ask me about reformation i cant tell luther and zwingli apart.

these are critical entry points into theology, and can always be supplemented with the kind of readings you'll see all over tumblr. though there's great value in reading falque, derrida, kristeva, bataille, cixous, levinas, etc., i do recommend that theologians dig deeper into womanist, queer theory, liberation theology, historical xianity etc.

if you're not new to theology and you wanted recs on particular movements (i have plenty of good sources on pneumology, exegesis (particularly of prophets and nt), soteriology, hagiographies, and, most of all, sacraments--that's my area of study), then please let me know! also please talk to me, i need more theology doc student friends!

[endtimeheadlines]

Methodist University Offers Students Course on ‘Queer Bible Hermeneutics’

(FW) – The professor of a course on “queer Bible hermeneutics” at a Christian college in Dallas says the class is “always well-enrolled.”  Susanne Scholz, a professor of Old Testament theology at Southern Methodist University, first taught the controversial course in 2014. She taught it again in 2016 and is teaching it this year as well, according to The College Fix. The description of the class says it’s a “study of the historical, political, cultural, and religious-theological discourses about gender and sexuality in the

context of the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible.” The course is intended to help students develop “self-critical perspectives about the influence of biblical meanings on hermeneutically dynamic, politically and religiously charged conversations over socio-cultural practices related to LGBTQ communities.” According to the class’ syllabus, queer interpretation of Scripture is “an increasingly important research area in the academic field of biblical studies.” Scholz told The College Fix she was inspired to teach the course following the controversy over Methodist minister Frank Schaefer, who was defrocked in 2013 after he officiated a same-sex marriage ceremony for his son.

Continue reading Methodist University Offers Students Course on ‘Queer Bible Hermeneutics’ at End Time Headlines.

[faeriefully]

To love the Bible so much, you overlook the fact that it's intentionally interpreted differently by different people, based on what they want to be there. Like how Jehovah's Witnesses interpret passages to prohibit blood transfusion or donation, unlike other Christians. (With further denominational examples for days and days. Different interpretations are how/why denominations exist.) Many people absolutely interpret it to include all manner of "cutting" and mutilation, like body piercings. I know. I am related to some of them. My aunt was mad at my mom for piercing my ears as a child. My sister-in-law won't let my niece have her ears pierced. But sorry, I didn't know you spoke for all Christians.

If you want me to be absolutely by the letter according Biblical translations, you conveniently did not mention how it disallows tattoos, word for word. Will you support legislation banning all tattoos? Will you use testimonies of people regretting tattoos (with a small detransitioning industry dedicated to removing them) as justification? It's a sin. And apparently you have a responsibility to overlook God's gift of freewill and save people from themselves. Even though no one asked.

"It's only to protect children," your ilk cries. Then explain why the same justification is being used to remove adult healthcare in Florida. Explain why Tennessee is trying to pass legislation to refuse marriage licenses to queer couples; children can't get married. (Well, they can if the Republicans voting against banning child marriage have their way.)

You pick and choose the doctrines you want to follow based on what you don't like. Follow everything with equal fervor, or find a new justification for your bigotry. Or if you do, for the sake of your immortal soul, I hope you don't touch a woman when she's menstruating.

I know the Bible. I was raised in it. That's why I despise the hate group that Christianity has become.

Sounds like you were raised in a very legalistic household and have rejected the truth of the gospel in favor of a self-made idol of a subjective interpretation of tolerance, therefore do not have authority to try to educate me on biblical study or hermeneutics; this is predominately illustrated by the muddling of ceremonial, moral, and judicial law of the Old Testament and insistence on using personal attacks verses genuine apologetics.

[ellenlucasonlinedatingblog]

Impurity Culture: On Sexuality & Sin

Hannah Boning

What is sexual sin anyway? Impurity Culture's Hannah Boning offers her unique perspective on the bible, sin, and sexuality.

I’m going to talk about the bible. And sin. And God.

Maybe that’s not your thing. Maybe you don’t believe in a god or in sin or heaven or hell or any other part of that kind of religion. Maybe you aren’t religious, period. Feel free to skip this article. I’m not here to tell you what to think, believe or do. This is my faith: it doesn’t have to be yours. I’m just here to talk about the notion of sex and sin for anyone to whom it matters, especially for anyone who’s struggled with it like I have.

I’m a Christian. That label means a lot of things to different people. To me it means I believe in God. It means I consider the bible to be Holy Scripture. I believe in the concept of sin, but maybe not in the way that you have heard before. I think of sin as oppression and disrespect, not as a list of things that are right and wrong.

The background that I come from – an evangelical, fundamental branch of Christianity – has a lot of ideas about sin. Especially about sex and sexual sin. There’s a long list of things that are considered wrong. And these ideas about sexual sin have done a lot of damage, both to myself and many people I love and care about.

The purity movement views any expression of sexuality outside of a monogamous marriage between a cisgender man and a cisgender woman as sinful. As a queer, sexually active, non-monogamous woman, that means I’m doing a lot of things that many people from my faith background consider sinful. And that means that I’ve endured a lot of shame and guilt about my identity, my body, and my sexual desires.

Maybe you did, too. Maybe you grew up in an environment that used the Bible to tell you that your desires and body were sinful and wrong. Maybe you’re wrestling with your faith and also your sexual identity, or your gender identity, or your sexual desires.

I want to offer one way forward. I’ve done a lot of that wrestling, and I’ve found a way that I can hold true to my faith and also believe that being queer and sexually active isn’t sinful. I’ve found a way to read the bible that allows me to affirm sex and bodies and pleasure as good.

Scripture has been used for years to guilt and shame, to oppress and subjugate. If you grew up in a purity-focused environment, chances are you’ve heard all of the arguments about men and women created for each other, and sex as intended for one man and one woman to become one flesh, and the sins of sexual immorality.

But scripture can also be used in ways that affirm and encourage. In the bible, I meet a God who is beyond all boundaries and binaries, who is focused on justice and dignity. I find affirmation of my queerness and my humanity. I want to let you see what I see in the bible. I want to let you know what I believe about scripture and sex and sin. I want to take on the question “is having sex a sin?” You don’t have to believe what I believe. But if you have also found yourself asking this question, I want to encourage you to keep asking it, and I want to offer you the answers I’ve found.

What does the bible say?

A lot of people start with the question “what does the bible really say?” That can be a tricky question to answer.

First, remember that the bible is in translation. It has been translated many times, and from more than one language. Words and phrases like “sexual immorality,” “homosexuals,” and “sodomites” are modern translations of ancient Greek and Hebrew texts. Those ancient texts also went through years and years of being passed around in oral form, then written, then copied by scribes. What we have as the bible is a cobbled-together bit of stories and letters passed down among generations and then arranged into a book. I’m not trying to say this makes the bible less important or valuable as scripture – but there’s a lot of human influence on this book, which we need to take into account.

On translation – in 1 Corinthians 6:9, for example, the New King James version includes “homosexuals” in the list of wrongdoers. The New International version translates this as “men who have sex with men.” The New Revised Standard version translates this as “male prostitutes,” probably referring to temple or cultic prostitutes. “Homosexual” is a modern term, first used in the late 19th century. There would not have been a cultural understanding of homosexuality, in same the way that we understand it, in Ancient Greece or Rome. Basically, sexual attraction and identity as we think of it was not a concept when the bible was being written. The authors of the bible would not have used the term “homosexuality” or understood queerness as a sexual identity.

What exactly does the bible mean when we find terms like “sexual immorality” or “homosexuality”? We don’t really know. Scripture just doesn’t make it clear.

There’s a lot of focus on the presence of the word “pure” in scripture (the basis of the whole purity movement) but the word in the New Testament that is often translated as pure can mean venerable or sacred, as well as chase and modest. What was the original intent of the author? We don’t know and we can’t know. Was this even the intent of the author, or did a scribe or translator or editor or publisher somewhere along the way influence the way this bible verse reads now?

So when we ask the question “what does the bible really say?” answering can be complicated. Translation, interpretation, cultural norms, and human influence all have to be taken into account before we can even try to figure out what the bible really says.

If you want to get to the nitty-gritty of biblical interpretation, there’s a lot of great books that address this with more detail than I can offer here. I would suggest Dianna Anderson’s book Damaged Goods on purity culture and scripture, and Matthew Vines’ book God and the Gay Christian for a look at scripture and sexuality. Uncovering the convoluted interpretations of certain scripture passages that support patriarchy, homophobia, and cissexism is important.

But I have to be honest. It’s not what I’m interested in the most, and it’s not what gives me peace about saying that the teachings of the purity movement are wrong. For me, the question is less “what does the bible really say?” and more “how do we read the bible, and what does that teach us?”

How do we read the bible?

For me, it’s more about a way of reading the bible. In fancy terms, a way of approaching scriptures, or the lens you use when you read and interpret the bible, is called a hermeneutic. A lot of more fundamental, evangelical folks will say that they don’t “pick and choose” when it comes to the bible, and they’ll accuse other Christians of picking what they choose to believe. But when it comes down to it, everyone is picking and choosing.

The bible is a wild, complicated, confusing collection of stories and myths and poetry and love notes and letters and laws. The bible contradicts itself in many ways. Even in the first two chapters of the bible, we’re given two different accounts of the creation story. Genesis 1 and 2 contain different versions of the creation of humanity, and which one is emphasized in a given church or theology or denomination will have implications for how gender and sexuality are viewed. We’re all picking and choosing – so it comes down it, how do you pick and choose?

Personally, I look at the life of Jesus to guide my interpretative choices. I look to God incarnate, the being who crossed the boundary between divine and human and took on both, refusing to pick between the binary of God and human. I look to Jesus who was a refugee, who lived under occupation, who was himself on the margins of society. I look to Jesus who proclaimed liberation and freedom and dignity for all, Jesus who fought against an oppressive regime, sometimes with gentle words and sometimes with riots. This is my hermeneutic for reading scripture: does it bring liberation? Does it bring freedom? Does it respect the dignity of all?

The image of God

When it comes to deciding what is or is not sin, that last question is the most important for me. Does it respect of the dignity of all? See, in the first creation account, the bible states that “God created humankind in God’s own image, in the image of God God created them; male and female God created them” (Gen 1:27). This verse forms the core of my ethics around sin, especially sexual sin. This is a hermeneutic in itself, a way of approaching scripture and morality – asking, does it respect the image of God?

One thing to note is the phrase that “male and female God created them.” All through Genesis 1, creation is described using opposite pairs of words. Heaven and earth. Light and dark. Sky and sea. Each of these pairs is what’s called a merism, a combination of two contrasting words used to refer to an entirety. In Genesis, merism is intended to represent the full spectrum of creation. God created light and dark, but also sunrise and dusk and cloudy skies. These pairs, far from being binary opposites, are meant to indicate the full, glorious, wondrous expanse of possibilities. God created male and female, and God created the full, glorious, wondrous expanse of possibilities for gender and gender identity.

The emphasis in this verse is that humankind was created in God’s own image. All of humankind – male, female, queer, straight, trans, nonbinary, agender, genderqueer, whatever beautiful configuration of words you use to identify yourself – I believe that you are in God’s image. In the church, this concept is called imago dei, or image-bearers. We are all image bearers of God. We are all made in the image of God, and we all carry and represent the image of God. As imago dei, all are valuable and loved, worthy of respect and dignity.

This is our responsibility: to respect the imago dei in each person. To treat each person with respect and dignity. If this is our responsibility, then what would sin look like? I think sin is harming or violating the image of God in another person.

Based on that idea of sin, having sex outside of marriage isn’t sin. Being queer or trans also aren't sinful.

I think sexual sin looks like disrespecting another person. It looks like violating boundaries. It looks like enacting violence. It’s not waiting for consent. It’s not accepting “no.” It’s using another person to satisfy yourself. It’s viewing people as objects for consumption.

This is my approach to scripture. This is how I think about sexual sin and sexuality, and this is why I don’t have any moral problems with premarital sex, and why premarital sex isn’t in conflict with my religion.

My answers don’t have to be your answers, but hopefully I offered one way to think about sin, one option on how to be a Christian and own your sexuality. There are other options, of course. Some people are committed to celibacy, and some people believe Christians must be monogamous. There’s a wide range of beliefs about sin and morality, and I want you to make up your own mind. If you’re struggling with questions about Christianity, the bible, and sex, I want to encourage you to keep going. Keep asking questions and reading books and coming to your own conclusions. Whatever decision you make, what matters most is that it’s your own decision.

Politics

Sexuality

Etc

In Your Own Words

Impurity Culture

faith

Christianity

sexuality

religion

Bible

scripture

purity culture

interpretation

evangelism

belief

sin

sex

marriage

premarital

queer

from MeetPositives SM Feed 4 https://ift.tt/2Ed9nsK via IFTTT

[republicstandard]

Burqa-Loving Theresa May is a Slave to Salafist Islam

Britain’s conservative Prime Minister Theresa May is no friend of conservative Christianity. May voted in favor of same-sex marriage in 2013. May tweeted her congratulations, when Ireland voted in favor of killing babies, aka abortion.

“The Irish Referendum yesterday was an impressive show of democracy which delivered a clear and unambiguous result. I congratulate the Irish people on their decision and all of #Together4Yes on their successful campaign.” – PM @theresa_may #repealedthe8th

— UK Prime Minister (@10DowningStreet) May 27, 2018

Mother Theresa of Downing Street, who once voted against gay adoption and lowering the age of consent for homosexual acts, has been on a journey more akin to C. S. Lewis’ Pilgrim’s Regress than to John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817585113717094,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7788-6480"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

May’s counterfeit conservative government describes biblical sexual morality as “hateful” in the Wilton Park report. It blames Protestant evangelical churches for spreading “hate-filled messages”. It wants evangelical Christians in the Global South to reinterpret the Bible and accept LGBTI ideology. It calls for “challenging the interpretation of sacred texts”.

Unsurprisingly, it shoves hardcore feminism down the gullets of Christians in Commonwealth countries. “If the Bible is misinterpreted or mistaken on women, the same arguments will apply to LGBTI+,” it concludes and urges non-Western Christians to use a queer hermeneutic to interpret the Bible. The report also castigates western missionaries for “heteropatriarchy” and “an abhorrence of homosexuality”; a theme echoed by Mrs. May, when, in a brazen act of neo-colonialism she lectured the leaders of 35 Commonwealth nations on how she deeply regrets Britain’s legacy of anti-gay laws.

A foundational principle of Conservativism is limited government. The State should keep its nose out of most things—and let its people enjoy freedom from governmental interference. But May’s Tory government has thrust itself into the realm of religion, dangerously transgressing boundaries separating Church and State.

May wants to impose State-regulated liberal Christianity on Britain and the Commonwealth, though that may as well be atheism for all the meaning it contains. But, when it comes to Islam, May flip-flops from liberalism to extremism and welcomes a radical Salafism into the public square. In an act of schizophrenic double-dealing, she thumbs her nose at liberal Muslim scholars who are warning of the dangers of a militant Islam based on a literal interpretation of Islamic religious texts.

It is this cognitive dissonance that is at the heart of the Boris Johnson vs. Theresa May debate on the burqa. Politicians and the secular commentariat have missed the simmering cauldron for the teapot, i.e. the discussion on the burqa and other forms of “modest” Islamic dress for women is a fierce in-house intra-religious debate that has bedeviled Islam for centuries.

At the heart of the debate is the struggle for the soul of Islam and the clash of theologies to find the purportedly non-mythical brand of Islam that is compatible with the values of Western democracy. The struggle has been played out in Islamic countries like Turkey, where “the use of the headscarf in public spaces represents less a personal choice than a political attack on the fabric of the secular state”. Secularists in Turkey see the headscarf as a “ubiquitous and visible symbol of the Islamization of Turkish society”, as Angel Rabasa and F. Stephen Larrabee point out in The Rise of Political Islam in Turkey.

The headscarf or face veil is a dynamic and definitive symbol calibrated to divide the wheat from the chaff—to separate the “true” believers who have submitted entirely to Allah from the “nominal” Muslims who pick and choose from the Islamic scriptures as it suits them or as context and culture dictate.

The debate on the burqa is chiefly a theological debate. Muslims are asking the question: is the veil wajib (compulsory) for all Muslim women? There is no doubt in Islamic fiqh (jurisprudence) that a Muslim woman’s hair and body should be covered. The dispute is over whether this extends to covering the face. Is face covering optional or mandatory?

The Koran does not mandate the face veil. The word hijab is the Arabic word for a curtain. The Koran instructs believers that if they had to ask Muhammad’s wives for anything they had to “speak to them from behind a curtain (hijab)” (33:53). Extrapolating from this verse, Muslims may conclude that the actions of Muhammad’s wives in veiling their entire bodies when meeting men who are not their relatives suggests that a hijab or burqa can also refer to clothing through which a woman conceals herself from view.

In the Koran, Allah commands Muhammad to tell his wives and Muslim women “that they should draw their cloaks (jilbab) over themselves” so they will not be molested (33:59). Again, devout Muslim women apply this to the face veil.

It is the Hadith that really opens a can of worms on the dispute over the burqa or hijab. For example, the hadith of Abu Dawood (No. 641) has Aisha, Muhammad’s wife claiming, "Allah does not accept the prayer of a woman who has reached puberty unless she wears a khimar (a head covering).” Numerous verses in different Hadith collections make the hijab and other head coverings mandatory. Those who insist on the full-face veil usually translate terms used for head coverings as “veils” or full-body coverings, leaving openings for one eye or two so that the woman can see the way.

A number of hadith interpret the verse instructing women to “draw their cloaks over themselves” as covering one’s head and face with the exception of one eye. (Ma’rifatul-Qur’an Vol.7, p.217; Tafsir Ibn Jarir Vol.22, p.29; Tafsir al-Qurtubi. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al- Ilmiyah. Vol.14, p.156; Tafsir Ibn Kathir). Even the pure women of Paradise wear face veils, how much more should earthly women, contend those who insist on the burqa, basing their case on a hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari (Vol.8, No. 6568).

Scholars have pointed out that the form of Islam practiced by most women who wear the burqa is Salafist Islam, the most potent form of political Islam. Salafism advocates a literal and binary interpretation of Islamic teachings as enjoined by Muhammad. Salafists trace their roots to Saudi Arabia. They glorify an idealized vision of the true Islam practiced by Muhammad and the Muslims, in the seventh and eighth centuries.

A German intelligence report points out how, “Salafism rejects the democratic principles of separation of state and religion, popular sovereignty, religious and sexual self-determination, gender equality and the fundamental right to physical integrity”. Salafism is “the fastest-growing Islamic movement in Europe”.

The 100 Muslim women who have written a letter demanding Boris Johnson’s expulsion from the Tory party are using secular-speak to con the Prime Minister and the public with their taqiyya (Islamic deception or dissimulation). They say they speaking as “free women who are able to speak for ourselves” but are, in essence, the radical voice of Islam. They candidly declare they wear the burqa “because we believe it is a means to get closer to God”.

At the moderate end of the spectrum is Taj Hargey, imam at the Oxford Islamic Congregation, who says that the burqa and niqab are “a nefarious component of a trendy gateway theology for religious extremism and militant Islam”. Munira Mirza, former Deputy Mayor of London, has also hit out at the Salafist face veil proponents for throwing: “moderate Muslims under the bus” and empowering “the unrepresentative grievance mongers and extremists who masquerade as Muslim community spokesmen”.

While moderate Muslims are backing Boris Johnson and even calling for a ban on the hideous and oppressive burqa, feminists like Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservative Party, have thrown their lot with Theresa May and the Salafists. In a statement reeking of monumental stupidity, Davidson compared Muslim women donning the burqa to Christians wearing a crucifix.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817587730962790,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-5979-7226"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Theresa May, the daughter of a liberal Anglo-Catholic vicar, has foolishly rushed into a centuries-long in-house intra-religious Islamic debate and declared her advocacy for Salafist Islam. The Prime Minister who has made every effort to stamp out biblical, conservative and orthodox Christianity is now leading the Charge of the Left Brigade and by providing state-sanctioned legitimacy to the burqa is declaring her patronage for the most oppressive symbol of toxic masculinity.

Boris Johnson must not apologize. The values of the British in Britain supercede the values of all others who arrive to their lands.

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine https://ift.tt/2vZlWRU via IFTTT

[c04n]

P“Président sortant : Laurent Pernot Ancien président : Georges A. Kennedy, Marc Fumaroli (un des fondateurs)

SCER : Société canadienne d’études rhétoriques

Séance 1 :  Identité Internet  Séance 2 :  Identité: Culture, race et religion 

I am particularly interested in the renewal of the rhetorical space, as a space of publicity and transition between sacred and secular. From : Mirela SAÏM (McGill University, Canada; mirela.saim@mail.mcgill.ca) “Clamoring in the House of Jacob: Judaism and Rhetorical Space in American Oratory (1770-1870) “ 

  Séance 3 :  Identité: Culture, généricité (gender) et race Séance 4 :  Identité et gestuelle: le corps parle Séance 5 :  Identité feminine Séance 6 :  Identité et actio: la voix et le geste

Using Book Four of De Doctrina Christiana as exemplum of a rhetoric that requires the rhetor to submit to “the will of God” through prayerful hermeneutics, this paper demonstrates that Emerson transforms Augustine’s idea of submission through interpretation into a sense of resignation to higher law and makes it the foundation of his rhetoric From :  Roger THOMPSON (Virginia Military Institute, USA; thompson@vmi.edu) “Emerson and St. Augustine: Hermeneutics, Submission, and the Efficacy of a Spiritualized Rhetoric”

Séance 7 :  Pathos, affect

Calling on Black and Booth, Golden, Berquist and Coleman define conversion rhetoric as “discourse issued by an evangelist-source which leads to a dramatic modification of a listener’s self-concept, attitudes, beliefs, values, and actions.” From:  Jeanie WILLS (University of Saskatchewan, Canada;jeanie.wills@usask.ca) “I Want to Believe: Advertising as Conversion Rhetoric”

Séance 8 :  Rhétorique et médias Séance 9 : Discours scientifique Séance 10 : Politique et discours public Séance 11 :  Discours sur la santé et la médecine Séance 12 :  Combat, résistance et anti-rhétorique

Loïc NICOLAS (FNRS – Université libre de Bruxelles / EHESS, France / Belgique; loicnicolas75@yahoo.fr) “Étude discursive d’une polémique exemplaire : critique et défense de la Rhétorique à la fin du XIXe siècle”

Séance 13 : Nouvelles perspectives en histoire de la rhétorique

Séance 14 :  Citation et mention en rhétorique: définitions, pratiques, valeurs

Pernot, Chiron, Woerther, Guérin... Tous des auteurs que je connais déjà ! Intéressant car l’intertextuallité est une composante du discours catholiques.

Séance 15 :  Rhétorique gréco-latine

Séance 16 :  Rhétorique comparée des civilisations anciennes

Séance 17 :  Rhétorique des XVIe et XVIIe siècles

[...] this paper plumbs the rhetorical character of the Exercises: their explicit engagement of “intellect in reasoning” (logos/docere), acts of the will (ethos/movere), and movements of feeling (pathos/delectare); the resemblance of some exercises to heuristic topoi (cause and effect, comparison, contraries); their aim of moving exercitants from visual “composition” to formulation of petition to communication (colloquy) with God; their kairotic adaptability to exercitants as audience; and their urging of meditative amplification to maximize effect. [...]  This analysis in turn presents a valuable historical context for grounding theoretical work, such as that by Kenneth Burke and Wayne Booth, on the religion of rhetoric. From :  Stephen MCKENNA (The Catholic University of America, USA; mckennas@cua.edu) “Loyola’s Rhetorical Exercises “

My key observation is that recent books in popular piety--in particular, prayer- -may be profitably understood as falling within a rich rhetorical tradition under the heading of artes orandi, that is, instructional texts devoted to the practice of prayer.[...]  My proposed objective is to read several contemporary exemplars of this “how to” genre through the lens of history and tradition to better understand how rhetorical pedagogy and practice are intertwined in the context of religious devotion.  My summary claim is that artes orandi, while typically overlooked in our accounts of the rhetorical tradition, nonetheless remain a significant domain of rhetorical activity, one meriting further attention, as does, of course, the rhetorical activity of prayer itself that artes orandi seek to promote. From:  William FITZGERALD (Rutgers University Camden; USA; wfitz@camden.rutgers.edu) “Artes Orandi, Medieval to Modern: Contemporary Prayerbooks in Historical Context” 

Séance 18 :  Henri III et l’éloquence reine

Séance 19 :  Rhétorique européenne. XVIe-XVIIIe siècles Séance 20 : Cartographier la rhétorique (=> intéressant ! Rôle des éditeurs dans la vision eurocentré de la rhétorique)

Séance 21 : Femme et rhétorique

Séance 22 : Rhétorique en Amérique du Nord

Campbell urges that preachers choose biblical texts to fit the subject of the sermon, rather than the traditional method of searching for sermon topics within the Bible itself. From :  Kenton CAMPER (University of Maryland, USA: kmcamper@umd.edu) The Role of Sacred Text in George Campbell’s Homiletic Theory: With a Focus on Lectures on Pulpit Eloquence

Séance 23 : Cicéron

Séance 24 : Rhétorique épidictique

Le prêtre jésuite Antônio Vieira (1608-1697), qui a vécu au Brésil depuis l’âge de 6 ans jusqu’à sa mort, a été réputé un des plus grands orateurs du XVIIe siècle.[...]  Parmi les nombreuses études sur les oeuvres de Vieira, nous ne trouvons pas des mises au point concernant le parallélisme entre ses sermons et quelques textes de la Grèce classique. Je propose donc, dans le cadre de mon exposé, de présenter les éléments d’ordre rhétorique permettant établir ce parallélisme.   From:  Maria Cecília De Miranda Nogueira COELHO (Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil; ceciliamiranda@usp.br) “La rhétorique de la mort et les conceptions platoniciennes et gorgiennes dans les Sermons d’Antônio Vieira”

Séance 25 : Rhétorique médiévale

Séance 26 : Rhétorique et médecine

Séance 27 : Rhétorique de la Chine ancienne

Séance 28 : Rhétorique en Grande-Bretagne

Daniel SEWARD (Ohio Wesleyan University, USA; d.e.seward@sbcglobal.net) “Financing God’s Monarchy: Religious Inflections on Classical Deliberative Rhetoric in Elizabethan Subsidy Speeches”

Séance 29 : Rhétorique en Amérique du Nord

Séance 30 : Rhétorique et nouvelles technologies

Lev Manovich

Jennifer DEWINTER (Worcester Polytechnic Institute, USA; dewinter@email.arizona.edu) New Media, Rhetorical Contexts, and the Collapse of Space-Time  >> Virilio

Daniel GRIFFIN (University of Arizona, USA; griffin@email.arizona.edu) Rhetorics of New Media Adaptation >> Benjamin

Séance 31 : Rhétorique grecque

Séance 32 : Aristote

Séance 33 :  Rhétorique cicéronienne : thèmes, modèles et fortune

Séance 34 : Rhétorique antique

Séance 35 : Prédication et colonisation

Séance 36 : Rythme rhétorique

Séance 37 : Rhétorique au Mexique

Séance 38 : Rhétorique de la guerre

Séance 39 :  Rhétorique biblique et sémitique

Roland MEYNET (Université grégorienne de Rome; Italie; r.meynet@unigre.it) Rhétorique biblique et sémitique : questions de méthode

Séance 40 :  Rhétorique grecque

Séance 42 : Rhétorique latine

Séance 43 : Rhétorique médiévale

Paul KIMBALL (Bilkent University, Turkey; pkimball@bilkent.edu.tr) Episcopal Authority and the “Rhetoric of Paradox” in Three Early Byzantine Homilies

Séance 44 :  Publics et publications dans les éloges collectifs de femmes des XVe et XVIe siècles

Séance 45 : Rhétorique au Nouveau Monde espagnol

Séance 46 :  La République de Weimar et la rhétorique I. Heidegger et la Rhétorique d’Aristote

In their interpretations of Vico and Augustine, respectively, Grassi and Burke promote a rhetorical-humanistic alternative to Heidegger’s philosophical anti-humanism. From : Steven MAILLOUX (University of California, Irvine, USA; sjmaillo@uci.edu) “Rhetorical Humanism and Anti-Humanism: Heidegger, Grassi, and Burke as Readers of Theology” 

Séance 47 : Rhétorique du corps

For more than twenty years, rhetorical scholars have been arguing that Aristotle’s distinction between deliberative and forensic rhetoric and epideictic rhetoric is problematic because it creates an artificial distinction between argument and aesthetic and because it ignores the serious work that epideictic rhetoric does to affirm shared values (e.g., Bradford 2006; Poulakos 1987; Sheard 1996). Instead, modern scholars argue that epideictic rhetoric should be seen as useful in defining situations (Dow 1989) and as useful for reaffirming or challenging traditional values (Sheard 1996). FROM :  David L. WALLACE (University of Central Florida, USA; dwallace@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu) Expanding Epideictic: David Sedaris as Reluctant Queer Rhetor

Séance 48 : Isocrate

Séance 49 : Rhétorique gréco-romaine

the paper will analyse the impact of this predominance of Greek theorization on rhetorical education and oratorical practice in both pagan and Christian cultural environments within the Roman Empire, and try to make some attempts at mappings and periodizations, in which antithetical pairs such as Latin vs. Greek, center vs. periphery, power vs. intellectual life, Christianity vs. paganism and others will apply.From :  Manfred KRAUS (Universität Tübingen, Germany; manfred.kraus@uni-tuebingen.de) The Delightful Cup from Attica: The Predominance of Greeks in Rhetorical Theory and Education of the Later Roman Empire

Séance 50 :  Modulations de l’ethos féminin aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles

Séance 51 : Rhétorique et littérature anglaise Séance 52 : Rhétorique et memoria Séance 53 :  La République de Weimar and la rhétorique II. Modulations de l’approche rhétorique Séance 54 :  La République de Weimar et la rhétorique III. Polémiques et nouveaux medias

Séance 55 :  Rhétorique et nouvelles perspectives pédagogiques

Séance 55 [sic] : Rhétoriques asiatiques

Séance 56 : Rhétorique et religion / Rhetoric and Religion 

Présidence / Chair: Roland MEYNET (Université grégorienne de Rome; Italie; r.meynet@unigre.it)

Mina TASSEVA (Université Marc Bloch - Strasbourg II, France; mina_tasseva@yahoo.fr) La rhétorique et la notion de « discours sacré » (hieros logos)

Robin REAMES (Carnegie Mellon University, USA; rreames@andrew.cmu.edu) Confessing the Logos: Paul the Rhetorician