Cambridge sermon: Jesus may have been trans

Leaving aside the deepy iffy theology, since when was a vagina under the ribs?

It was a botched faux-vag op.

Aside - there's a church near me offering a 'Live Nativity'. I wonder how far they're going with that?

I've managed to see the Telegraphy article; the Mail has essentially copied it verbatim but missed a few phrases. That passage was the conclusion of the sermon.

I've read quite a lot of art history and theology in various religions, as well as general psycho-social approaches to religion, and this sounds like the sort of thing I'd expect to find in pretty much any journal. An evensong sermon in an academic college is hardly the Easter message at Westminster Abbey!

I don't particularly agree with the conclusion but it seems to be coming from a place of inclusivity, and there's a long orthodox (small-o) tradition of seeing Jesus as a universal representation of humanity and therefore of all humans, a "Son of Man" if you like.

Shouldn't laugh, but that even made my teenager snort!

Perhaps he also wants to be called Loretta.

'In Christ's simultaneously masculine and feminine body in these works, if the body of Christ as these works suggest the body of all bodies, then his body is also the trans body,' claimed the researcher.'

He has apparently said this but the article in the Mail doesn't make it clear whether it was in the sermon or in his PhD thesis.

Yeah, there's really interesting art criticism/theory around representations of the body and crossing the body's boundaries. Whether you believe that any of this was intended by the artist ot not, it still provides interesting ways to think.

And Jesus is an interesting figure to be a male king/god in our culture...he's passsive, he turns the other cheek. You could definitely write some interesting analysis of Jesus as embodying culturally feminine qualities.

Of course none of this changes one iota about how the sex of our bodies impacts our lives. Exploring the cultural contexts around gender does not mean legitimising the absurdity that sex is subordinate to a secret inner gender.

He was supposedly the son of god. You'd think if he wanted a vagina, dad could have rustled up something a bit more... authentic?

I hate to quote the Mail, but the Telegraph is paywalled. The college's statement;

"Neither the Dean of Trinity College nor the researcher giving the sermon suggested Jesus was transgender. The sermon addressed the image of Christ depicted in art and various interpretations of those artistic portrayals."

As I've said, the wound/vagina imagery has been discussed in art-historical circles for at least 20 years, as as it relates to the sexualisation of Renaissance Christianity rather than Biblical commentary.

The Mail has a quote from the sermon,
'In Christ's simultaneously masculine and feminine body in these works, if the body of Christ as these works suggest [is] the body of all bodies, then his body is also the trans body."

To me, that means that if the aim of the artistic imagery is to present Jesus' physical body as containing male and female elements, and thus representing those part of humanity, then it also encompasses transsexual bodies. In the way that the Church is the Body of Christ.

I don't agree, but it doesn't seem to be what people are criticising here.

What a complete twat. I'm C of E but this was embarrassing.

The Church of England Twitter gang are probably loving it. Trans poetry is "on trend" at the moment amongst middle class vicars and curates alike.

And this right here is why MN needs a like button.

Lovely hair, obviously shops somewhere like Monsoon or East, the Fit-Flops, spends a lot of time visiting the sick and helping out with the food and drink at big events, clearly can't walk past a lamb without giving it a cuddle. I think we're going to have to accept he was at least questioning.

I don’t think one bonkers Dean is representative of the whole Church of England!

This!!
I am a C of E priest (female) and I also would have left that sermon horrified.
I will have to reflect on why, but I find the concept of his sermon deeply upsetting.

Always a fine line to walk between fashionably edgy and complete twat.

😂😂😂 I am C of E and this made me laugh. I am horrified at the sermon but trying not to give it headspace because
it’s just so bloody attention seeking.

I wonder if a preacher has got up and said “you can’t change sex, TWATW not women” whether Dr Banner would be so quick to jump up & defend them

Always a fine line to walk between fashionably edgy and complete twat.

I would have thought the long hair and maxi dress he often wore were more conclusive?

FFS.

So much to unpick in this. The construct of female genitals as a wound. The superimposition of C12th Italian sensibility on Middle Eastern culture a millennium earlier, potential for (interesting, IMO) metaphorical expression of Christ’s body to represent all humankind, etc.

I think that’s what they want to do 🤣

The listeners should have got up and walked out. I would have.

Absolutely fed up of freaky men comparing a vagina to a wound, it’s so insulting.

I wish trans would just go and eat itself.

Well, Jesus could do no wrong, and his acolytes believed he could walk on water so probably a TW...

I don't find it offensive, but I do find it fucking ridiculous.

Ideological spaghetti mash-up

I want to say something wise but all I can come up with is FFS. I'd have gathered up my family and walked out.

I'm agnostic and so do I.