Talk:Queer theology

Is it time?

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cfurey, Nwinsick.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 3 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Spiffaroo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2021 and 19 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Claire.lewis171.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello friends, I would like to bring this entry into substantive form, and I would like to ask who would like to help me do this in a reasonable and collaborative way. Queer theology is an established thread in Christian theology and one that has now enjoyed years of discursive, academic and ministerial engagement. There are active engagements with queer theology in Islam and Judaism, and I am very interested to learn more about its reach in the whole range of other traditions and conversations - such as Neopagan, Spiritualist, Hindu, Buddhist, Humanist, so on, and so on... My expertise is in Christian queer theology. It seems from this talk page that previous attempts at developing this entry have struggled because of various levels of contention. To try to avoid that this time, perhaps those who are interested in working on this can begin with a discussion here that will then move afterwards to substance on the page. My hope is that this entry can be complex - adequately characterizing the development and controversies and mixed perspectives on queer theology (both internal and external to queer theology itself), without collapsing into a contest (or silencing) of any particular view of theology or sexuality. --Stella Faith (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Editor Introductions

I also suggest that, because of past contention, we introduce ourselves/avatars here as we wish, so that there is some basis for conversation. What information you include is obviously totally up to you. Even a "Hi, I'm @rs43wu, someone who enjoys cloudy days and clean handwriting" gives us some level of relatability. Of course, substantively relevant background can help, but as we all know only up to a point. There is no gauge of truth or motivation in this forum about personal identity or standing. Additionally, I personally ask that we respect the many ways knowledge and familiarity of the subject can be gained: academically, experientially, religiously, historically, politically, and so on... Does that seem reasonable? I'll begin below. --Stella Faith (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Stellafaith. I'm writing a dissertation on queer theology. My favorite color is orange and my favorite cookie is chocolate chip. --Stella Faith (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Divinedoubter. I'm currently writing a dissertation in the field of queer Ethics. I like a tasty bourbon on a cold night, and robust IPAs year round. Also, I enjoy good strong coffee. Divine Doubter (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussing the Page

Sketching an Initial Outline for the Page

1. Overview
2. Historical Development of Queer Theology
3. Key Figures
4. Key Concepts
5. Controversies and Challenges
6. Future Directions
7. Bibliography

--Stella Faith (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Theologians

I question the list of queer theologians and think that some of them (esp. Glaser and McNeill) are more appropriately gay and lesbian theologians. I think this article needs to carefully distinguish between the work of gay/lesbian scholars and queer scholars. The two are not the same. There are definite differences in political agenda.

Elizabeth Stuart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.207.194 (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed! And we should explain this on the page. I am moving this up to the top portion of the Talk, before the "Old Talk" category, so that it will be more easily found with the new conversation. --Stella Faith (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Old Talk (Archive of Talk Prior to March 2013)

So that we can start "fresh" I have moved the talk from before March 2013 under this new heading "Old Talk." This way the archive and conversation are preserved, but our new work can be informed without being encumbered. --Stella Faith (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Category

I removed this from the category for Christian theology, simply because this stub doesn't explain how it is distinctly Christian, as opposed to just "general" theology. Maybe after some more edits, we can put it there again. KHM03 21:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The answer is: the topic of "Queer Theology" has absolutely no business being relegated to the property of a few latter-day Protestants. The article as it has existed was breathtakingly naive and provincial. Five years later, I've decided to set the record, er, "strait." Chairease (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want an entry that focuses on what the experts think, I would encourage you to first take a cold-sober look at the actual nature of self-appointed experts on the subject of queer theology. If you peruse the book titles that appear on a search for "queer theology," what you will immediately find is the fundamental problem which this revision is trying address: namely, we have been acculturated to assume that "theology" is what a few professionals employed by Protestant and Catholic churches produce. As if there were no Buddhists, Hindus, or, for that matter, and I think far more historically important--Swedenborgians. Moreover, we have also been acculturated to assume that "queer theology" is only what Protestant and Catholic theologians have been doing since Stonewall. If you find queer theologians capable of seriously contemplating our search for meaning as far as back Gilgamesh, then you have a chance. Chairease (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Link to Anti-queer theology site

With reference to the link below, the others are quite right that this page is not about debate. It is perhaps more appropriate to add the link to a page that does address religious controversies over sexual orientation. Queer theology is not at all what your link is addressing. Your link is merely addressing homosexual behaviour and queer theology, whilst marginally concerned with such behaviour, casts a broader net and is more of a strategic political stance.

I edited the page on "queer theology" page to include links to (DR) Rembert S. Truluck's page, and to truthsetsfree.net, another "gay christian" site. In the process, I also added a religion-stub for (Dr) Truluck. And it was also me who added the link to the Anti-"queer theology" site, which you removed, siting reason that it was "not about this debate".

The link was:

• What the Bible REALLY says about Homosexual Issues, by Tony Marco

I protest that your deletion was a POV-inspired deletion. My edit's, I suggest, where balanced, NPOV - two supporting the idea of "queer theology", one against, and the creation of an NPOV page, which I contend added to this category, as Dr. Truluck is an prominent "gay christian".

How can you justify that a link to a page giving the other side of the argument is "not about this debate"? (It's not as if I edited the article to include the stuff in the counter argument - I merely added a link!)

I would suggest that the fact that you are a member of the MCC (which, I presume is a "gay christian" church), adds weight to my argument that your deletion was a partisan, POV-inspired deleltion.

As I understand it, Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia", this means that pages are not "adverts" for one any particular idea, they must attempt to give some degree of balanced analysis.

The idea is that any user, of whatever "persuasion", might look up this page, read the main tenets of the article, and then have an opportunity to see other related ideas, including arguments against.

For example, if someone looks up the article on Stalin, he/she may wish to link to some external pages which are pro Stalin or anti Stalin.

CPMCE 01:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

--Sjharte 10:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC) Hi.

The article on Queer Theology is supposed to be just that - an explanation of the existence and devlopment of this branch of theology. The pro/anti gay debate is real and valid - my suggestion was that it not take place in this article as it would overwhlem it. Perhaps a "see also" link to those many otehr parts of wikipedia where that debate takes place - and I have made this change

The original links that I put in were to a US major acedemic institution that studied queer theology and to an online Queer Theology jounal. Both totally in point. I did not seek to put in links to gay ministries or affirming congregations (what you called "gay churches") - others did that. I would personal prefer to see those links to go too so that this piece could focus solely on discussion of this branch of theology and leave other issues to otehr posts.

In conclusion, I hope that you wills ee that i have not saw myself as trying to enforce my personal POV but instead tried to keep the article clean and relevant as it grows.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sjharte"

Hi. I'm relatively new to this so I hope I am not doing this incorrectly. But I think it is important to note that it would be absurd to have a link to a "pro-Stalin" website in an encyclopedia article. That would be like having a "pro-Hitler" site. I hope to eventually be able to contribute to this article and think that it is relevent to note that there is opposition to queer theology and on what grounds some people oppose it. Part of queer theology, I think, is that it is somewhat radical, which involves noting why it is radical and why some people oppose it -- it threatens power structures that benifit and disadvantage certain groups.

Community ban of the Joan of Arc vandal

This article has been targeted in recent weeks by CC80, a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal. This and similar articles may be targeted again by other sockpuppets of the same person.

A vandal who has damaged Wikipedia's Catholicism, Christianity, cross-dressing, and homosexuality articles for over two years has been identified and community banned. This person will probably attempt to continue disruption on sockpuppet accounts. Please be alert for suspicious activity. Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. Durova^Charge! 17:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Distinction Between Acts & Desires

To ensure that 'trad' teachings are not misunderstood or simplified, a distinction between acts, desires, and the persons who experience (passively) desires and choose (actively) acts has to be made; any church with a coherent theology makes, and has always made these distinctions. Desires are not sinful, insofar as a person does not choose their desires. Despite this, a further distinction is made, insofar as the desires can be fundamentally disordered, i.e. incapable of being ordered to a positive, non-sinful end. Homosexual desires are considered by such in most 'traditional' (Catholic/Orthodox) teaching. The acts themselves are always and have always been considered sinful. Insofar as someone who experiences homosexual attractions but does not act on them is morally blameless, 'traditional' teaching has, at least since Aquinas, always made a distinction which DanB's edit does not reflect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.155.112.104 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This just isn't true. Christianity does teach that certain desires are sinful, even if not acted on. Jesus said of committing adultery that if a (straight) married man looks at a woman (not his wife) lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. A consistent interpretation of this would imply that if a man looks at another man lustfully, he has already committed homsoexual acts with him in his heart. —Angr 12:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"Only" Liberation Theology ?

So i read this part of the article and i`m a little bit surprised. Sure there can be theologian who are defender of liberation theology. But there are also a lot of theologian who have nothing to do with liberation theology, but they are a part of queer theology. 212.95.108.33 10:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What??

"Queer Theology" has got to be one of the most stupid things of which I have ever heard. Is there also a "Black Theology"? Or perhaps a "Hermaphrodite Theology"? The subject of homosexuality is something that should be addressed by theology and not have its own category and page. My vote? Erase this dumb page. In spite of life experience generally telling me about the kinds of things people will do, it still amazes me that controvertial subjects almost always get raised to unreasonable and artificial levels of importance (just to get more public attention). Erase the page.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.183.212 (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is Black theology, actually. And your distaste for a field does not somehow cause to to go out of existence, or be notable. Tb (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, I didn't realize how absurd theology had become. There should be no such absurd thing as "Black theology", "White theology", "Homosexual theology" (a much more appropriate and less derogatory term than "Queer" anyway), "Male theology", "Female theology", "Chain-smoker theology", "Wine-Bibber theology", or any other such idiocy. Believe me, if I could wish these *non-fields* out of existence, I would, and I imagine that I am not quite alone in those feelings. I have no problem with theology speaking to such sub-topics, but none of those things are theologies, and to say they are is, as I said, merely to raise controvertial subjects to unreasonable and artificial levels of importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.183.212 (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're point is. You're against it. You think they shouldn't exist. But they do, and they're notable. That's sufficient for Wikipedia. Now kindly take your bigotry and go home. Tb (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

My points were extremely clear to those with "ears to hear". The page should be removed both because "Queer" is crude and offensive (e.g., "queer" is an inaccurate and vague coloquial term with a crude history...think of the crude "smear the queer" or the stereotype-pandering "Queer eye for the straight guy" for just a couple of myriad examples....At least change it to "Homosexual Theology"...good grief...) and because there really is no such thing anyway (it is merely a subnote addressed by an overarching theology, systematic or otherwise). You need to be very careful and more accurate with where you aim your false accusations of bigotry, Tb. You may be some sort of clergy, but you have not a corner on "truth". If you truly believe in the Bible, then I'll walk you privately through the reasons (in Greek and Hebrew if you prefer) why the practice of a homosexual lifestyle is considered sinful by Biblical standards. I have as much right to express my desire to see these pages deleted or subnoted under some other theology as you have to keep them here, so politely ask you to tame your "tongue", for if you don't like my views then you are also free to ignore them (especially since I am a reasonable enough person not to just repeatedly delete the entire absurd page myself).

None of these are relevant considerations for Wikipedia. Do you understand that? I don't think so. Tb (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, queer is generally seen as a positive term in, at least the younger parts of the queer community, whereas homosexual is seen as non-inclusive and clinicalising. I've never heard "homosexual" used by any native english-speaker except in a derogatory sense. Queer I hear as a negative, but more often as a positive because it embraces the diversity of marginalised sexual and gender identities Curufinwe (talk) 06:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• I guess it would be upsetting to discover there's also African theology, Asian theology, Native American theology, Latino/a theology, mujerista theology, etc.? Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Upsetting? No. Equally absurd? Yes.

• Let me get this straight (tee hee) -- all theology is Judeo-Christian? There is no Hindu theology or Muslim theology or Baha'i theology? No wonder you're so confused about Queer Theology. Even non-Christians have a theology! Aristophanes68 (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing about this, but the IP has a point about the article as it stands, it does not make it clear how and when this term came about. A quick google test reveals that this is a real concept - e.g. in literature such as Queer Theology: Rethinking the Western Body by Gerard Loughlin. The article needs to make it clearer that this is an established term, on the model of liberation theology. There is a big difference between saying that there is a theological discussion of sexuality and that there is a specific concept of "Queer theology". I would ask the IP editor if s/he has a problem with the existence of the liberation theology page, just because there is no page on "oppression theology". It's simply the case that some concepts exist and some don't. Paul B (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten the intro to clarify that the queer theology is not just some wacko term, but that it emerges from the wider concept of "queer studies", which the IP seems to be unaware of, and which might explain his shock at the use of the term. Since I'm no expert, I hope this is not inaccurate. Paul B (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Official Church views and reactions

The article should maybe give room for official Church views and reactions to Queer theology. The same is done for liberation theology, which have been much criticized, the same might very well be true for Queer theology. ADM (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Too much editing

dbachmann has reduced the entry to a tiny stub waiting further revision, under the proposition that if a few American universities teach courses called "Queer Theology," and if a small handful of books have been published with the title, then the term itself has been defined by those actions. But other editors on this page disagree that anyone has the right to narrow the meaning of the term "theology" to only "Christian apologetics." (In addition, some of the editors here wish to define "Queer Theology" as a branch of "Queer Theory," but I question whether a group of "Queer Theology" Protestants are prepared to avow that they have been more indebted to Foucault and social constructionism than to the Bible.) dbachmann, please explain how your approach is consistent with Wikipedia's Notability criterion. Are you implying that the guidance provided to people of faith regarding same-sex love by a few American authors since 1980 in any way remotely compares to the historical influence of Whitman and Carpenter since the 1800s? Please also speak directly to the issue of who has the right to limit the scope of inquiry and tradition meant by the term 'theology.' I am concerned that the current trajectory fails Wikipedia's criteria for cultural relativism. Chairease (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, there is a link box beside this entry bearing links to several other Wikipedia entries on the topics of Christianity and "homosexuality" [sic]. dbachmann, doesn't that provide plenty of latitude for anyone to work on documenting latter-day Christian writings in the way you wish to do? So it seems the current trajectory for "Queer Theology" also threatens Wikipedia's goal not to host a lot of redundancy. Chairease (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

At this point, dbachmann's silence has amply proven that he can't follow Wikimedia guidelines, nor can he constructively collaborate with others. All he can do is destroy content. I am not going to personally get into an edit war with dbachmann, but I am requesting a third party repair the damage he's done, as a basis for further work on this topic. Under the circumstances, I would also recommend that dbachmann be put on a watch list to avoid future vandalism. Chairease (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the material that DB removed, I think a lot of it really was unencyclopedic at best and at worst unrelated to queer theology as the field currently stands. Some of that material might be useful for articles on LGBT/Religious issues, but by and large none of it seemed very theological. Aristophanes68 (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ghettoization

"Queer Theology" is a pov attempt to ghetto-ize lgbt people in the history of Christianity. Queer Theology? What is that? Is it supposed to mean "Apologetics of interest to queer people"? Cross-religious theological debates on LGBT issues? Theology is a social science. You can no more have "queer theology" then you can have "queer statistics" or "queer anthropology". You can have theology, statistics, and anthropology that studies queer issues (but you'd have to define that first - what is a "queer issue"?), but the scholarship (of theology or anthropology) is not inherently queer. This article should be deleted unless it's subject can be explicitly specified in the lede. It's content should be absorbed into primary articles.-Eris Lover (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Which religions

Sources suggest that queer Muslim theology at least exists, but not really to the point where we'd be able to devote more than a sentence or two to it. That being the case, do y'all think we can mention in the lede that this is primarily about the interpretation of Christian and Judeo-Christian doctrines and texts? I see the categorization already basically reflects this. (In fact, I'd want to look further into whether this is really a Jewish thing at all, or if Judaism only comes in because Christianity uses the Jewish Bible.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Queer theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120124122730/http://www.clgs.org:80/blog/commentary/queer-god-really-remembering-marcella-althaus-reid to http://www.clgs.org/blog/commentary/queer-god-really-remembering-marcella-althaus-reid

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference to previous names

I'm a student editor trying to figure this crazy Wiki world out so I apologize if I step on any toes. I've added a cited reference in the intro section to the fact that queer theology was at some point referred to as gay and lesbian theology. Thanks! Cfurey (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Changes

I changed language that takes out the subjectivity of this work and hyperlinked the definitions to the identities listed, and broadened the assumed understanding of what scriptures are theological and for what religious context. I added two cited works for this change. Cheng, Patrick S. (2011). Radical love : an introduction to queer theology. New York: Seabury Books. pp. 9–20. ISBN 978-1-59627-132-6. OCLC 670477054. Cornwall, Susannah (2011). Controversies in queer theology. London: SCM Press. pp. 2–8. ISBN 978-0-334-04355-3. OCLC 704376055. Spiffaroo (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

new section

changed the structure of theologians and added a section that parsed out theologies working within queer theologies and not instead of queer theology. Spiffaroo (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Changes

included diversity in the historical context of early thinkers and included a citation for the expansion of scriptural references. Spiffaroo (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Changes

Expanded the terminology section to take out cultural and historical biases.Spiffaroo (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)