Queer theology could be said to reside under the umbrella of ‘liberation theologies’, which are a relatively new group of theologies and ideologies stemming from Latin America in the 1960s (McGrath: 2011: 89). As a collective, liberation theologies are having a large impact on Biblical interpretation as they are re-reading the Bible with an emphasis on the liberation narratives within, such as that of Israel from Egypt. They also highlight the importance of Jesus’ empathy towards the poor and oppressed within the Gospels (McGrath: 2011:91). These subtle moves of emphasis within the field of Biblical interpretation can have an effect on the wider Christian community, both amongst the academic and nonprofessional worlds. For example, Biblical interpretations of this nature were used to aid black liberation in 1970s America. The reason for making this point about the wider group of liberation theologies is that, as a member of that group, queer theology can arguably claim a percentage of the impact that they have had on Biblical interpretation and the wider Church community.

Queer theology as an individual discipline has only truly grown in the past two decades, therefore it has not had as much time as some of the other liberation theologies to make a great impact on Biblical interpretation. However, it could be argued that the small impact queer theology is currently having on Biblical studies is an extremely significant one nonetheless. Arguably queer theology is causing readers of the Bible, both scholars and worshipers, to re-evaluate assumptions which they may have had about what certain Biblical passages mean. Such as with the Romans 26-27 example, these assumptions may have been based on what centuries of previous interpretation had suggested. Perhaps the more significant impact that queer theology is currently having on Biblical interpretation is that it is questioning how scholars approach the Bible by forcing them to acknowledge and engage with the social context in which the Bible was created and initially interpreted. Arguably queer theology’s greatest impact on Biblical interpretation is that it is opening up debates on how the Bible should be interpreted and creating questions to be explored. Questions which have gone unasked throughout the past few centuries of Biblical interpretation, both specific debates, such as whether Romans 26-27 is a condemnation of homosexuality and broader questions, such as whether previous interpreters had fully engaged with the ancient world in which the Bible was created when they analysed the scriptures and suggested their meaning.

Thus, perhaps queer theology has not had a monumental impact on Biblical interpretation when compared with other non-western theologies, thus far. However, some clear impact has been made in the form of the reinterpreting of certain Biblical passages of which the meanings had long been thought to have been known as certain. Biblical interpretation as a discipline has also been impacted by queer theology as it has begun to question the methods used by Biblical scholars when making scriptural interpretations. These questions continue to grow in number as queer theologians continue to grow in their assertiveness to demand answers from the tradition Biblical interpreters. Arguably, therefore the past two decades could give an indication that the impact of queer theology on Biblical interpretation is still in its germination and will develop and become more significant in the forthcoming years of Biblical scholarship.

References:

Armour, E. T., (2011) ‘Queer Bibles, Queer Scriptures: An Introductory Response’ in Hornsby, T. and Stone, K. (eds.) Bible Trouble: Queer reading at the boundaries of Biblical scholarship, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature

Hornsby, T. and Stone, K. (eds.) (2011) Bible Trouble: Queer reading at the boundaries of Biblical scholarship, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature

Loughlin, G. (ed.) (2007) Queer Theology: Rethinking the Western Body, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers

McGrath, A. E., (2001) Christian Theology: An Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers

Punt, J., (2011) ‘Queer Theory, Postcolonial Theory, and Biblical Interpretation: A Preliminary Exploration of Some Intersections’ in Hornsby, T. and Stone, K. (eds.) Bible Trouble: Queer reading at the boundaries of Biblical scholarship, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature

Townsley, J., (2013) ‘Queer Sects in Patristic Commentaries on Romans 1:26–27: Goddess Cults, Free Will, and “Sex Contrary to Nature”?’ Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 81 (Part 1), P. 56-79, Available at: http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/content/81/1/56.full

This blog will focus on the theme and culture of ‘queer theology’ which is a non-western theology, not because it has origins geographically outside of the western world, but because it is a theology that lay outside of the traditional western approach. Specifically, the concentration will be on the impact that queer theology has had, and is still having, on Biblical interpretation. Queer theology is a cutting edge issue with legislation involving same-sex marriage and equal rights currently evolving all over the world. Thus, it is both exciting and important to engage with a theological issue which is deeply rooted within current affairs. Arguably it is also important to engage academically, critically and objectively with subjects which you may empathise with personally, such as equal rights. Equal rights being an issue that is arguably affected by queers theology’s interpretation of the Bible and the reaction that such an interpretation receives from the wider field of Biblical scholarship. It may appear strange, or even insulting, to use the term ‘queer’ when discussing issues that affect those within the LGBT+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, plus) community. However ‘queer’ has become “the insult turned” in the past two decades, emanating from the phrase ‘queer theory’ being used by Teresa de Lauretis in 1991, marking its use as an expression of pride instead of shame within the academic world (Loughlin: 2007: P. 8). Queer theology has grown rapidly in a short time, however it is still a relatively new theory which is often neglected as a serious academic approach to theology. Therefore, queer Biblical readings are often experimental and extremely rare (Hornsby and Stone: 2011: P. ix) yet the impact that they are having is substantial and worth engaging with. Almost every challenge faced within theology involves analysing biblical interpretation in some form, it is interesting to investigate how this particularly troublesome issue has affected traditional biblical understanding thus far. Arguably, one of the main challenges faced by queer theology is that many theologians and Christian groups that are against homosexuality base their arguments within traditional biblical interpretation. It is often expressed by these groups in the streets, in the media, even in the classroom that homosexuality is wrong because ‘the Bible says so’. Arguably, The Bible as an entity does not ‘say’ anything; everything that is expressed in the Bible is subject to interpretation, translation and cultural consideration. The main issue that arises for queer theologians is that centuries of understanding Biblical passages in a particular way has led many to believe that there is no alternative interpretation. Queer theology is rising to this challenge by attempting to remove itself from the anti-gay attitude that has built up through church culture and return to the scripture to determine whether there is a more queer friendly interpretation that has previously been ignored (Hornsby and Stone: 20011: P. x). Through this method it could be argued that queer theology is having a substantial impact on biblical interpretation because it is causing a re-evaluation of specific passages along with a questioning of how we interpret the Bible as a whole.

The first of the two key sources that are integral to this discussion is Queer Sects in Patristic Commentaries on Romans 1:26–27: Goddess Cults, Free Will, and “Sex Contrary to Nature” by J. Townsley. This article discusses how a particular passage in the Bible, which has been used for many years to justify the anti-gay agenda of some Christian groups, has been analysed through a ‘queer lens’ in order to determine if there is a more queer friendly way of understanding it. This article is relevant to focus on for part of the essay because it is important to see specifically how this non-western group is challenging traditional biblical interpretations. This will lead on to a wider analysis of how these in depth reinterpretations of particular passages impact the entire study of Bible reading and the wider Christian community. The second source which will be used in depth will be Bible Trouble: Queer reading at the boundaries of Biblical scholarship edited by T. Hornsby and K. Stone. Arguably, this source compliments Townsley’s as it offers a broader view on the impact of queer theology on biblical interpretation, whilst specific passages are mentioned it does not focus on one. Hornsby and Stone’s work will be explored to help guide the analysis of how queer theology is impacting biblical interpretation by causing scholars and worshippers to question certain parts of Christian culture that have, generally, in the past been ‘set in stone’ or incontestable. Some focus will be given to Hornsby and Stone’s argument that the Bible could argualy be seen as a product of interpretation as opposed to a foundation upon which interpretation takes place because, if this gains academic support it could potentially have a huge impact on the discipline of biblical interpretation..

There are sporadic references in the Bible that are interpreted as referring to homosexuality, these passages have been a focus of Biblical scholarship for groups both championing and condemning equality and homosexuality. In particular these passages are currently under scrutiny by queer theologians who argue that there could be a more queer friendly way of understanding them. One such re-evaluation has been undertaken by Jeramy Townsley with regards to the section Romans 1:26-27;

26 Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature;

27 and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving.

Romans 1:26–27 (Young’s Literal Translation)

Townsley aims to argue that this passage was interpreted by early Christians to be a reference to the pagan goddess cults and their sexual practices and was therefore an attack on polytheism, not homosexuality.  Townsley does not deny the issues of interpreting passages which refer to sexuality in the Bible and he explains them twofold; firstly, our limited knowledge of sexual categories used in Mediterranean antiquity. For example, Romans 26 appears to be a reference to lesbianism, however there is no evidence that lesbianism as a construct existed in the time period in which the passage was written and first interpreted (Townsley: 2013: P. 57). Secondly, it is difficult for modern audiences to understand the connections between sexuality, and sexual acts, and religion as sex does not often play a part in modern, western ritualised religion (Townsley: 2013: P. 57). Recognising these challenges is important to Townsley’s argument as they give potential reasons as to why the passages have been previously interpreted as homophobic. For example, if the modern scholar does not respect the modernity of sexual categorisation into hetero/homosexual then it is highly plausible for the acts described in Romans 26-27 to be seen as homosexual, whereas Townsley argues that they may have referred to sexual perversions of a different nature, namely prostitution and self-castration. Similarly, if the modern scholar does not recognise the link between ancient sexuality and religion then it is understandable that they would have understood Romans 26-27 as an attack against the sexual acts themselves and not as an attack on the religious cults that the sexual acts are an expression of.

Townsley argues that there are several early Christian writers who link Romans 26-27 with goddess cults, for example, Athanasius, in Contra Gentes (335–337 CE). Athanasius’ link between Romans 26-27 and the goddess cults explicitly mentions the acts of prostitution and self-castration which were associated with the goddess cults (Townsley: 2013: P. 59). Athanasius using the Romans 26-27 passage to support his condemnation of the goddess cults and their ritualised sexual acts is one of the many pieces of evidence from the early Christian writers that Townsley uses to support his theory that Romans 26-27 was, firstly, not referencing homosexuality but prostitution and self-castration. Secondly, that the passage was condemning the goddess cults which vindicated the sexual acts it does refer to, not the acts themselves (Townsley: 2013: P. 58).

Thus, through engaging with the context in which the Bible was written and examining other ancient sources that were penned in parallel or shortly after, a passage which has been used for centuries to justify a Christian homophobic position has been re-evaluated and argued to be not condemning homosexuality, or to even be referring to it. This in itself may only pose a small impact on Biblical interpretation as a whole. However, the implications of such an argument could cause a ripple effect into the wider field of Biblical interpretation and further, into the church’s relationship with homosexuality and the LGBT+ community. The effects on the wider field of Biblical interpretation will be discussed further on in the essay, the relationship between the church and the LGBT+ community will be addressed presently. Many groups within the church who hold a strongly anti-gay position use specific Biblical passages as the foundation for their discrimination (Armour: 2011: P. 1). To use an extreme example, the Westboro Baptist Church often quote Leviticus 20:13- 23 amongst others to justify their arguments (http://www.godhatesfags.com/bible/God-hates.html). Until the emergence of queer theology and investigations into Biblical interpretation made by those such as Townsley there had arguably been no fruitful way to debate with these groups as they had the Bible ‘on their side’. However, if all of the supposedly anti-gay passages used by these groups are reinterpreted in the way that Townsley has done with Romans 26-27, by revisiting the passages in their original context, then they may be realised to be not against homosexuality and arguably a real debate can begin as to whether the Bible supports homophobia or equality..

A major issue when scholars, such as Townsley, attempt to re-evaluate Biblical passages is that many scholars suggest that this type of queer theology is imposed onto the Bible by perverse readers to justify their sexuality, as opposed to emanating from the Bible itself (Hornsby and Stone: 2011: P. x). A problem faced by many non-traditional theologies as McGrath highlights when discussing liberation theologies, “Western academic theology has tended to regard [their approach to Biblical interpretation] with some impatience, believing that it has no place for the considered insights of Biblical scholarship concerning the interpretation of such passages” (McGrath: 2011: 91). Hornsby et al. attempt to combat these assumptions and trepidations by arguing that queer readings of the Bible give attention to style, form and critical approach not simply sexual diversity. They argue that our notion of ‘The Bible’ as a fixed product with a fixed form and meaning stems from our engagement with particular texts and interpretations in very specific contexts reliant on translation, hermeneutical assumption, scholarly tradition, strategies for reading and more (Hornsby and Stone: 2011: P. x).. The demand on the discipline of Biblical interpretation from Hornsby et al. and other similar scholars is that the scriptures should be stripped from anachronistic assumption and be turned into “proper objects to be penetrated with proper tools” (Hornsby and Stone: 2011: P. x).  Queer theologians such as Hornsby et al. expect to make a radical impact in the field of Biblical interpretation. However, they do not see themselves as ‘queering the Bible’ (Hornsby and Stone: 2011: P. xii), that is to say they are not forcing their modern views surrounding equality onto the ancient context in which the Bible arose from. It is rather that they attempt to ‘free’ the texts that “centuries of interpreters have sought to put…in a box- to concretise and canonise meaning” because, they argue, meaning cannot be held for any extended period of time as it is fleeting and “what is true is only true right here, right now, then gone” (Hornsby and Stone: 2011: P. ixx).

Therefore, it could be argued that one of the objectives that queer theology is currently attempting to accomplish within the realm of Biblical interpretaton is to “destabilize the established notions” of sexual, social and political identity surrounding the ‘queer’ (Punt, in Hornsby and Stone: 2011: P. 338) in the Bible by revealing their vulnerability to history and politics, and therefore to change (Schneider: 2006: as quoted by Punt, in Hornsby and Stone: 2011: P. 338).” According to Punt,

Queer theory requires that new attention be given not only to the interpretation of the biblical material on corporeality and the body, on sex and sexuality, and on gender and gender performativity, but that the very way in which such issues are addressed be considered. How did authors in the Bible think about the body, gender, and sex? What role did they play in the moulding of contemporary frameworks of thought, perceptions, and themes on and about the body, sex, and gender?

This passage from Punt supports the arguments raised that queer theology is encouraging, and demanding, new attention to specific Biblical passages. Whilst also supporting the idea from such theologians as Hornsby et al. that a re-evaluation is necessary on how Biblical interpretation as a discipline is practised. With an emphasis being placed on scholars becoming more aware of the Bible’s, arguably previously ignored, social context which has roots in its historical placement..