The Queerness of Christian Theology

Long before I had theoretical or historical knowledge to fully articulate my idea, I always found many aspects of Christian theology to be either contradictory or unusual when recognizing the broader context. Let me explain with a specific example. Lots of thoughts below that some will find uncomfortable but that have been on my mind for years. 

Christian theology says that the Church is the bride of Christ. This is a very queer aspect of this theology. (This is not to be confused with Queer Theology, which would be completely different.)

The Church, according to dominant Christian theology, consist of people who have been saved or “born again.” These people are men and women.

Thus, things get interesting. Even more interesting when all of the history and biology and relevant social constructions are factored in.

Specifically, if the Church consist of men and women and the Church is the bride of Christ, who is deemed to be male, we have a situation where the ultimate result is all kinds of blurring and bending of ethical, gender, and sexual mores.  

For example, this theology has Christ, the son of the Christian God, marrying a group that consist of both men and women. Here we have manifestations of same-sex marriage, the feminization of men, polygamy, and/or polyamory.

Additionally, aspects of Christian theology hold that marriages are dissolved in heaven and that everyone is brother and sister. So the result, in some ways, is people who were married, become brother and sister (including any offspring they had as humans), and then marry Jesus. In addition to the above, here we have some kind of incestial relationship resulting, added to the fact that Christian theology says that we are all children of God/Jesus and therefore, brothers with Jesus/God. 

The above are all ways in which this theology is very queer – weird, abnormal, and depends on a blurring of what is considered normal and what is followed elsewhere. 

Of course, there are social constructions involved every step when looking at history and science. We know that marriage is always changing and is brand new, historically, when considered millions and billions of years. We also know that the categories of “male” and “female” are irrelevant and inaccurate when science is recognized.  

The above also helps show how problematic any theology is because it depends on applying socially constructed concepts and ideas based on knowledge available in a specific time and place to all times and all places, including those beyond this planet. 

Dr. Andrew Joseph Pegoda



Categories: Thoughts and Perspectives

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

61 replies

  1. An interesting look at this. Thank you for sharing

    Liked by 1 person

  2. And you can add to that the strange fact that Holy Communion can be seen as cannibalism if the claim that the bread and the wine are the actual body and blood of Christ is taken to be true. However, I think that the idea of the church as the “bride of Christ” is meant in the context of the church as an institution, not the church as a collection of men and women. In the Catholic tradition (and theology), the “church” has a separate meaning and existence that’s not dependent on who its members are, be they men, women, or prairie dogs. Go figure!

    Another reaction to your comments: to say that “the categories of “male” and “female” are irrelevant and inaccurate when science is recognized,” is an over-reach. There are theories and interpretations that would support this statement, but there are long-standing paradigms that affirm the reality of those categories. I doubt we’ll know anytime soon.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hello there!
      Thanks for reading and commenting. 🙂

      Communion is absolutely a form of ritualized cannibalism.

      And yes, even if we look at the Church as an institution, “marrying” an institution is very queer itself.

      Re: the categories of “male” and “female” – for sure lots of debate, for sure controversial, but this is something I have read a great deal about and have passionate feelings about – non-essentlists research for decades has pointed to the countless ways in which our two categories of sex are invalid.

      Like

    • I find all these concepts very interesting and it was never something I had even thought of before, even being raised in a church. The idea of a man marrying the church as a whole is very odd because how can you marry a place, but then again, I feel we’ve seen weirder things. I have heard before that a church is not a place, but the people that make up the place. And mixing these ideas together makes it seem very queer because a man marrying the multiple people of the church does not make much sense for a religion that only approves of heterosexual relationships.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Things/expressions in the Bible are often analogies in a man’s attempt to get across the Christian relationships with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. When the Bible says the church (both men and women) are the Bride of Christ, it merely means that Christ loves His church (defined as a “body of believers” regardless of Catholic/Protestant or denomination–just believers) it merely means that Christ loves (agape love) his followers AS a bridegroom loves his bride. When we get to heaven, our souls will meld with the entity of God (a little like Dr.Spock’s mind-meld maybe LOL) and their will be no sexes in heaven. If a man and his first wife go to heaven when they die and they have had second Christian soulmates on earth, all four will meld into the presence of God. No one will wonder will I be with my first love or my second. To label sisters and brothers in Christ as incestious is just silly.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Something I found interesting in this article was how you pointed out different ways that Christians have taken some things in religion such as how men can only be priests in the Catholic Church or how the man is the head of the family because it fits the narrative that the patriarchy has put into place. When you look at different aspects of it such as the queerness of the church being the bride of Christ, it can fit a different narrative for someone else if need be but that isn’t what is considered to be factual. Just like history, everything in religion today that is told as fact fits the narrative that the people privileged enough to be shaping the writing of history want.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I would have to agree to disagree on this subject. Much of religion is just full of analogies and hidden meanings. I believe since the bible was translated over and over for so many centuries that some of the contexts weren’t properly added for whatever reasons. In my opinion I do not believe that since Christ sanctifies the marriage that he is somehow related into a polygamous marriage with him marrying couple. That seems to be strained a little to far to justify what you’re trying to point out. However, I find it very interesting that I was taught that marriage and other earthly aspects are thrown out when entering the kingdom of heaven. As a middle schooler I questioned this heavily but was never given a full answer. Almost as if they didn’t want to believe it themselves. It must stem from the whole belief that women essentially came from Adam and that we’re all related from them. Since we’re all related in some way or form we all become “brothers and sisters.”

    Like

  6. It’s funny how many contradictions there are in the bible yet people refuse to see beyond. I think any text is up for interpretation, no matter how “holy” it is.

    -Thalia Trinidad

    Liked by 1 person

    • I actually like your thought process here , yet I would still say that most of us take our Holy books too literally. In fact most of the times the terms are used to explain or give reference to an idea or analogy. The holy writings are there for us to seek knowledge from and apply it into our lives. We don’t need to change the holy text we need to understand in which context certain words were used and what are they implying . A marriage doesn’t necessarily mean an actual marital relationship , it could be metaphorically used to imply commitment, loyalty and spiritual connection.
      Shazia F.

      Like

  7. This brings up a very interesting point of view that i had never personally thought about. I think that religion as a whole is extremely difficult to discuss because it tends to be very inconsistent. Many focus on certain aspects of the Bible, but ignore others. They pick and choose what it is they want for people to know. It is a debate that can go back and fourth for a very longtime, and really there is no right answer. Things tend to contradict each other, which makes it difficult for one to know what to believe.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Very interesting topic, especially being raised into a Christian Family. I never took into consideration the contradictions in which the Bible implies. For 20 years I only had knowledge of us all being gods children, not realizing we’re marrying a brother or sister!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Islam shares a similar a concept with respect to the whole “brother and sister.” However, it is important to understand the context in which these types of phrases are to be understood. One might find it contradictory to learn that incest is strictly forbidden in Islam, yet everyone is to be considered your brother/sister in Islam. What this entails is that the bond and level of protection you should have with a fellow Muslim should emulate that of an actual brother or sister. Also within the Islamic community, addressing someone as ‘brother’ or ‘sister’ is deemed more as a term of respect, similar to someone referring to another person as ‘ma’am’ or ‘sir,’ To give a specific example of how it is used, a verse from the Quran in the Chapter of the Chambers states, “The believers are nothing else than brothers (in Islamic religion). So make reconciliation between your brothers, and fear Allah, that you may receive mercy.” Hope this sheds some light on what the context behind where and why people may use those terms to address someone else!

      Liked by 1 person

  9. These are very interesting thoughts Dr. Pegoda, I never thought about how contradicting the Bible is. I always knew the Bible had hidden messages, but as for the conflicting topic of incest in the bible – it amazes me. If Christianity really believes we are all brothers and sisters then that would mean they endorse incestual relationships. It is interesting how Christians make the argument that God prohibits homosexual relationships yet this does not recognize the weird unusual relationships spoken in the bible.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Although the text can be taken as conflicting, I do believe that a lot of what is said such as we are all brother and sister and the marital relationships that will take place can also be seen as metaphorical in some aspects. Not everything is meant to be taken literally and it is up for interpretation of the reader.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Queer, with the connotation of weird or abnormal would describe this situation, from my point of view. However, queer, in regards to the LGBTQ community doesn’t fit quite the same. Perhaps that literal look at the text was what happened but I infer that the metaphorical use of marriage was the intended message. Perhaps “marriage to jesus” was an allusion towards the deep bond a heteronormative marriage may bring. An allusion to a deep love, and if placed in the lord, offered transcendence. Or maybe not, who knows!

    Liked by 1 person

  11. The Bible, in my own personal experience and studies, is full of contradictions. On the note of polygamy/polyamory, christian couples who marry and acknowlege god as an active participant in their relationship miiight fall under polyamorous? But if thats true wouldn’t /all/ seemingly monogamous relationships in which one or both partners consult some form of personified higher being fall under polyamorous? The invisible addition to an otherwise monogamous couple could be explained as a poly relationship. The sexism blatantly exhibited in the Bible (as well as most other older religious texts) creates a powerful and alienating disconnect. It is warped and used to justify the power constructs and opression within the patriarchal/cishet institution. I’ve often tried to discuss inconsistencies and contradictions within the bible with religious folks and I always leave the conversation exasperated and exhausted. I was recently told that since I date women I am going to hell because I’m destroying the family god intended me to have. When I asked him why it was so bad he said (yes i was mansplained this as well- cherry on top) man and woman were created to procreate and any sexual activity (he automatically assumed sexual activity even though I identify as ace) outside of procreation was evil. So I posed the query- if he and his wife were to use protection or a form of birth control- was that evil? He said no, because god “understood what they were doing was right” At that point I extracted myself from the conversation but it serves as a good example of the flawed logic and exceptionalism christians tend to apply when faced with any “flaws” in the bible. The idea of a higher being and purpose may be helpful and comforting to some but in my experience institutionalized religion is always corrupt in some way and more damaging than helpful. I try to avoid it as a whole.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. I like the contradictions brought up in this piece, as I’ve always thought religion was full of holes and contradictions. It’s made even more interesting when you take into account the idea that religion itself is a social construct (I’m aware not everyone believes this, but I always have), even though it’s been around seemingly forever, it’s been an ever changing entity throughout history and continues to be an ever changing thing.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. As somebody that grew up going to several different churches and religious schools, I’ve eventually just begun to shrug at religion and not take it in such a literal sense. I don’t feel like there’s exactly one right way to interpret the readings — unless it’s something from the Old Testament like “don’t eat animals with cloven hooves” but even then, we don’t really have to follow that anymore — and to simply go along with the ideas of the messages. Still, a good article! Definitely not a way that I’ve thought of interpreting the text before.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. I also think about christian implications of queerness are very interesting. The very story of Adam and Eve is a perfect example. With only two people to procreate obviously their offspring would have to incestuously reproduce. I also think it’s interesting how god is an “All-being, all-seeing person” yet the one thing he cannot be is female or of color. It is also interesting how you bring up the essentialism, i started thinking of that as soon as i began the article. Placing these ideas that may seem queer to us into labels such as cannibalism, polyamory etc., has different implications today than it did in that time period, if any.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. This is an interesting take but in my opinion a far reach. As a student in Dr. Pegoda’s class I feel safe assuming that he is open to metaphorical interpretations of the Bible. I feel that if we can interpret the Bible metaphorically we can and should also interpret the naming of Church structures, the Christian pantheon and such metaphorically as well. In this situation, I don’t think that the Church is literally the Bride of a priest of clergyman. If we were going to interpret it literally like that we might as well say that the Church itself doesnt represent the people, rather it is actually the building and that Jesus and the clergy have married stones and wood. Rather, the Church symbolizes its membership, doctrines, institutions, teachings etc, and the marriage is also symbolic. I don’t think that when this idea was constructed that Jesus or the clergy or whoever was marrying the Church was thought to be a sexual partner for everything and everyone contained in the Church but that it meant that in the same way that in that time a man might labor for his wife and family, these people labored for the church. The same way that in that time someone may have derived joy from looking in their spouses eyes or other intimacies, these people derived that pleasure from their Churchly duties. Allegedly. Furthermore, it should be noted that the idea of being married to the Church only came about because clergy werent allowed to marry so that they didnt reproduce and demand inheritance for their offspring. Lastly, to suppose that people becoming brothers and sisters indicates incest is also a stretch. That just means that we’ll be less hostile towards each other and look out for each other like family.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Strange for sure. I think this further contributes to the ambiguity of the Bible. As Rain mentioned, by chance the text wasn’t meant to be interpreted in a literal fashion, but rather more metaphorically. Or, maybe it was meant to be interpreted that way, and thinking of it metaphorically is just our attempt to make sense out of what is confusing.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. I’m in absolute love with this blog because I have always been one to challenge the stereotypical Christian “beliefs” that people of the church try and battle me with. It’s helpful to know that not only are there people with the same mindset as me, but that there are so many different examples I can use to show my point and help another understand the battle I face everyday. One I use is that the bible was written many centuries ago, and obviously times have changed, people have evolved, things that weren’t allowed in 1590 are allowed in 2017. However, the Bible hasn’t adapted and been re-written to every single new century/generation/etc. So how do we expect to follow the “rules” of a book thats older than the society we live in.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. I have never actually heard of church being referred to as the bride of Jesus. I am not sure, but I believe the church would argue that they aren’t speaking literally. I am not surprised by all this, because religion can be very contradictory. People also have a history of picking and choosing which aspects of religion they want to follow, and which aspects they want to ignore for the time being.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Interesting. I had heard the phrase about the church being the bride of Christ before and it has always seemed odd to me. Even as I child I found it to be a silly phrase. Maybe this stems from the high regard placed upon marriage as a holy union. Many Christians teach their children that we all come from Adam and Eve (despite how those same people treat others), so to them becoming brothers and sisters in heaven may not seem so off. These ideas are contradictory to the lessons taught on earth. I found this thread incredibly interesting and consider it to be a great example of the contradictory lessons within Christianity.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. I always found it strange how specific and demanding the church was with who and how you love. It never made sense that if we were created in God’s image with our own free will, that we should be limited in how we feel something like love which is supposed to be a good or positive feeling.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. I grew in a Catholic household and was always told how we were all children of God. When I was younger and would attend Sunday school I asked my teacher if this meant we were all brothers and sisters and were blood related. My teacher said no and was very taken back by my question and sort of offended by me asking this. So, hearing the sort of analogies made by Christianity always surprises me because from what I know the bible was created through men not God. This is why I personally decide to not identify with a church as many of the comments made are contradictory.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Although I do not like to argue the ideas of church and religion, or the way I interpret it versus the way anyone else interprets it. However, I do see how you are comparing Christian theology and queerness. Just as a YouTube blogger mentioned once, the theory of everyone being slightly queer in one way or another.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Although I am a catholic, I have to agree with you on one thing that Bible is one of the most confusing thing in the world. There are many ways to interpret it. Somehow people tend to ignore many aspects of the Bible that are opposite to their action. But, I’m pretty sure that the Bible does not teach us to become hostile against a particular group of people. It’s sad to see many people use it as a weapon to fight against queerness.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. It’s funny how I just finished reading the packet about marriage, and I learn that the Catholic church is a bride. The institution itself, married to God. Interesting. It makes sense, though; the church is unified to God. Although, WHY the term “bride” is used confuses me. That really genders God. And I thought God was supposed to be genderless? I’m not familiar with Christianity, so I’m confused. Perhaps followers back then used a gender neutral pronoun for God. But modern times refuses to use “they/ze/” etc. It doesn’t seem like a big deal…but it is. Oh, the patriarchy. ~

    The idea that humans are God’s children is something I knew (as a kid) had to do with spirituality than our bodies. I can see why it seems like incest, that people marry and make babies. But it could also be the wording of today. Christianity had different meanings back then. Maybe that’s why baptisms exist? To cleanse the baby from the incest relationship their parents are in!

    Liked by 1 person

  25. I would have to agree that, even as a Christian, this concept has always struck me as weird or hard to understand. Within Christianity and the Bible there are contradictions and items I have not agreed with. However, I have always thought of it as the church is joined to be one with Jesus just like a man and a woman are joined to be one in marriage. I’m not so sure that marriage would be dissolved in Heaven because a Christian Wedding is “in the eyes of God” so I feel God would still see that.

    Like

  26. Growing up in a non-denominational christian church we focused on strictly what the bible is saying. I till’ this day am still confused. The fact that if i viewed a scripture one way it wasn’t “correct” because obviously their’s only one meaning to a verse. I’m not religious, and my faith is based off what I was told not really what i took the time to learn for myself, which is why i’m conflicted and just live daily according to human common courtesy principles. Mainly believing that if i’m good i this universe, the universe will also be good to me. This article put a lot into perspective as to how many things in the bible are contradicting. I don’t know about poly word being spoken about in lectures, so I’m excited to learn something new!

    Like

  27. I like how you brought up the social construction and the roles of male and female. When you brought up the statement of queerness with the quote “Christian theology says that the Church is the bride of Christ” it had me thinking. I never thought of that the way you did which was really interesting.

    Liked by 1 person

  28. I am fairly new of theology so even reading this could be confusing. I am so lost while it is all being absorbed to me. It feels like one big math problem. So reading this confused me to be honest. But, leads me to believe that anyone can get confused. It’s like if this cancels one then the other one cancels the other. Then what is it?

    Liked by 1 person

  29. This was such an interesting read! I really enjoyed breaking this apart as someone who considers themselves religious and am very curious about this topic! Im in left in awe and truly speechless!

    Liked by 1 person

  30. This blog was pretty interesting. I was little weirded out because you made a pretty good point about how in heaven marriage is thrown out and “we are brothers and sisters” If it is like that then would that make incest relationships just as frowned upon to those who are conservative religious followers who think same sex marriage is so bad? There’s a little contradiction there but its up for a broad open discussion.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Very interesting! As a non religious individual I’ve never given much tought into the contradiction the Bible gives before taking the class, much less queerness of Christian Theology. I work at a church and the older very very religious people are completely against any queerness, even when a boy and another boy or girls hold hands is unacceptable to them so this is definitely an article I would advise others to read. Good article!

    Liked by 1 person

  32. There is nothing contradictory about it. Bride of Christ is so obviously a metaphor, I’m puzzled how anyone could think it actually has any thing to do with gender. It’s just a way of expressing how much Christ loves his people.

    Like

  33. What about if a person you are agnostic or atheist and don’t believe in organized religion? Must you be a member of a church or religion to be lumped into this theological theory? And does DNA come into play when speaking of theological incest? Or you just have to believe you are a child of God and therefore everyone is your brother or sister?

    Liked by 1 person

    • DNA has nothing to do with it. Good grief. People actually take the notion of being brothers and sisters in Christ to mean we become a biologically family? I’ve never heard such a bizarre thought in any of the many churches I’ve attended. It’s like joining the military. Often, you will hear men call the guys in their squad “brothers” No one would even take this to mean they are literally biological siblings, but that they have a close bond because of their experiences together.

      Like

    • Yes I am Aware that the notion of being bothers and sisters is a metaphor for bond. I’m sinply questioning the idea of theological incest which was brought up in the article.

      Like

    • I certainly don’t follow said theology but this is an interpretation of it.

      Like

  34. I am not really into religion, but I do feel validated by the theories I had of the bible after reading this piece. Hidden messages and not making it obvious are some of the things I was skeptical about (and have thus far been confirmed) it is the double standards that jumped out to me most. Endorsing loving healthy relationships, but not allowing all to acquire them because of homophobia. -Phoebe Caudill

    Liked by 1 person

  35. I found this rather fascinating, since I am non religious and was raised in a Catholic household. To start with, I did not know about the church being the bride to Jesus. This was rather new to me from the other information. I was aware of the idea that everyone becomes brothers and sisters in heaven, etc. Yet the idea that the church, a place is the bride of Jesus was something I had never heard of before. It does indeed make sense though if you think about it. Both men and women and non gender formatives are attracted to church. In that case it would make sense for Jesus to be in a polygamous relationship with those individuals. Also if you add the fact that in the end we will all become family, that would mean we are all participating in incest with whoever we may be with.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. I think that as humans we over analyze things and sexualize things. I see how your spouse becoming your brother and sister in heaven could be labeled as incest but you also have to remember that once people go to heaven they leave worldly things behind. You are no longer having sex in heaven with your former spouse. The Bible teaches sex for procreation and not pleasure and you will not need to procreate in heaven therefore you aren’t having sex in heaven.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. From what I’ve been reading this argument was actually a bit of a problem for Christians in the Roman empire, there where many cases where Romans were very bothered because they heard some horrible traditions that Christians had. For example, they did think that they were all having incestual relations because of all the brother/sister talk they had, they also heard about them as cannibals for drinking blood and the flesh of the lord. I just think its funny that these arguments are still around today even now that the religion is more powerful and in a very powerful place. I guess there are a lot of contradictions were just supposed to overlook or ignore because well never be able to understand them.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. The bible contradicts itself all the time, and most “good Christians” I have come across throughout my life simply pick and choose which teachings they would like to follow and which they would like to ignore. There are a handful of people in my life that consider themselves highly religious whom I consider good individuals, and it is because they don’t blindly follow their religion like sheep. Instead, they use it more as a “spiritual guide” of sorts to help find their way through their lives.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. I believe that becoming brother and sister once you reach heaven is more of becoming one with each other. I see why this could be considered incest but as others have said, they won’t be having sex as all that is left behind. According to the bible once you reach heaven you will have the perfect life so all that is left behind won’t be needed as everything you need is there. Who even knows if you would remember your past life as you will be focused on what is currently happening. As for the church being the bride of christ I have no knowledge but this is very interesting to read and learn some things that makes me look at christianity in a new way.

    Liked by 1 person

  40. I’m not very well-versed in Christianity, so I want disclaim that anything I say may stem from a place of ignorance. With that being said, could this sort of “queer” application to Christianity stem from the constant updating of the New Testament as time passes? While I’ve never read the bible, is it possible that each version that gets released is more geared towards a particular society during a specific time period? Perhaps it is the evolution of the bible itself that allows for such ideas to be commonplace within the religion. Another important thing to maybe think about is that could it have been possible to say something along the lines of “The Temple is the Bride of Moses,” when discussing the Old testament?

    Liked by 1 person

  41. For myself, growing up in a Christian household I was always going to church every Sunday with my family. As I grew older, I found myself being turned off my the beliefs and ideology found within the faith. One being that a man can only be with a women. Being a young queer man, I found myself not really feeling comfortable being apart of a religion that is not accepting of homosexuality. I found this post interesting as you mentioned the comparison to loving thy brother and sister in a polygamous aspect. The churches that I attended growing up, would have a moment where everyone held hands and said the same pray connecting one another. That idea and intimacy of a man holding hands with another man and a women holding hands with another woman as they pray to a higher power always made me think, how could a religion that is very homophobic allow for this connection between the same sex. My parents also put me in a bible study class, which ultimately made me more confused and was so contradictory that it pushed me away from the religion. I believe that the Bible has too many “rules” and people pick and choose which ones they want to believe in. The Bible has so many different interpretations that leads to many conflicting ideas.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. I do not know much about religions since I don’t follow any of them. However, because this information is new to me and interesting, so I sent this blog to one of my friends who is Christian. She was surprised that this theory is actually existed, so I think it’s interesting that Christians from different places would know different theories. Beyond that, my friend told me that this information actually makes her feel less guilty because she is a lesbian, since she has been always feeling bad about that because of her religion (I didn’t know I would make she feel better, I was sending it to her because I was wondering if she knew the theory. That’s good anyway). However, both of us was discussing about how marriaged couples become brothers and sisters should not be considered as incest since marriage is dissolved the relationship before disolving is not counted and there is no information given about whether they would have sex or not once marriage is dissolved. Based on that, the relationship is started again, and they are just purely sisters and brothers as they were born again.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. I think it speaks to the ever growing disconnect of men with religion, more over (christianity) or theology who’s edicts seek to bring forth your values or standings of a public eye. As with most theologies you are to lay down your ego and present yourself to the congregation as a fallible being of error and unrighteous motive, which can translates to some as weakness or emasculating. This comes from a comparative view of men in religious institutions presenting some facets of feminine traits like, patients, gentleness, particual tenderness, approachable, proprioceptive comfort or even stoicism, and other characteristics akin to an understanding motherly figure. This being something very much lacking in the eye of heteronormative notions of manliness.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. The idea of theology as a whole is a fluctuating perspective. The teachings in the bible would not be so constantly relevant if the ideas expressed in the book were not continually changing depending on different people’s perspectives. The bible has always had different interpretations depending on the different groups that teach it. Some believe that they can’t even read the bible and that it must be interpreted by a priest or pastor, while some believe they can only become close to God by reaching their own personal understanding of the bible. Though some parts may seem to have queer qualities to you when you read it, that just might be your personal interpretation of it. Someone else may have a different view and see these relationships as meaningless unless a connection with God is made first or someone else might believe that these relationships are necessary to become close to God. There are just different interpretations and perspectives that can change the entire meaning of the book just like any other form of literature, especially in the case of different theologies.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. This post immediately brings to mind a lecture in World Civilization last semester with Dr. Vaughan. She spoke of the reaction of the Romans when they heard of the religion of Christianity practiced among fringe groups. Many Romans believed Christians to be cannibals since they would ingest the “body” and “drink the blood” of Christ during communion. Many Romans also believed the Christians to be incestuous since they would marry their “brother” or “sister.” I was indoctrinated into Christianity by parents and the religion’s plethora of inconsistencies did not become apparent to me until my early teens. I find the examples you highlighted to be quite humorous given the unfortunate fundamentalist Christian views on homosexuality. -Jake Hayes

    Liked by 1 person

Trackbacks

  1. 7 Things You Likely Have Wrong That Few Address – Without Ritual, Autonomous Negotiations

Please Comment While You're Here:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: