Professor David Tombs has written an article, ‘Should the stripping of Jesus be labelled sexual abuse?’ for Otago Daily Times. You can read it here.
Find out more about the work of Professor Tombs at his project website.
Bible
Katie Edwards, University of Sheffield and M J C Warren, University of Sheffield
It is the start of Lent, a time when Christians reflect on the upcoming Passion of Jesus. Jesus is held up as an example of steadfastness in the face of oppression by malevolent forces. He shows strength through his silence, approaching his suffering willingly.
Throughout the ongoing #MeToo movement Jesus has been invoked by Christian communities as a co-sufferer and promoted as a model for redemptive suffering, particularly in the face of abuse. But is Jesus’s silence a troubling model for victims of sexual assault?
One of the hallmarks of Jesus’s portrayal in popular culture is his silence in the face of Pontius Pilate’s interrogation. This image of silence comes from the three Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke’s versions of Jesus’s trial.
When Jesus does speak, his words are brief, cryptic, and taken from the Gospel of John rather than the other three, where Jesus’s silence is emphasised.
In Matthew and in Mark, the entire trial scene takes place in four verses; in Luke, where there is slightly more input from “the multitudes” as well as a second trial in front of Herod, we are done in eight verses. Even so, in these gospels, Jesus makes no answer to the charges laid against him.
It’s likely that Matthew, Mark and Luke’s versions depict Jesus’s silence as a way of characterising him as the “Suffering Servant” of Isaiah 53:7. In each case, whether in these gospels or in Isaiah, the image portrayed is one of virtue in silence, and of a pious sacrifice in the face of an unjust world. It is that silence that ultimately kills him.
This contrasts with John’s depiction of the same scene, which takes place over ten verses, more than double the amount of text devoted to the trial in Mark and Matthew’s versions. In John, Jesus is clear about who he is and makes a direct response to accusations; he also corrects Pilate’s misunderstanding about his true identity. This is part of Jesus’ plan – he is clear about his death being the will of God his Father.
But whether he is silent as in Mark or whether he speaks in his own defence as in John, Jesus is sentenced to death and crucified. The end result – suffering, pain, and death – is the same.
#MeToo Jesus
Parallels have been drawn between Jesus’s response to his abuse during the Passion and the #MeToo movement. Not least because, like Jesus, the victims of Harvey Weinstein’s alleged abuse have been condemned whether they’ve spoken out or remained silent.
While the torture and crucifixion of Jesus in the Bible is widely accepted, the idea that his abuse included sexual assault is a less established aspect of the Passion narrative.
The work of David Tombs at the University of Otago shows that Jesus’s torture included a sexual element. According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is stripped three times and his nakedness is part of his humiliation. Similarly, biblical scholar Wil Gafney has suggested that the crucifixion of Jesus is a form of sexual assault:
I consider … the full range of torture and humiliation to which Jesus of Nazareth was subjected, physical and sexual. The latter is so traumatising for the Church that we have covered it up – literally – covering Jesus’ genitals on our crucifixes … The mocking, taunting, forced stripping of Jesus was a sexual assault. He was, as so many of us are – women and men, children and adult – vulnerable to those who used physical force against him in whatever way they chose.
A troubling model of suffering
Throughout the ages, Jesus has been presented as a model of suffering. For instance, in the 18th century, St Paul of the Cross declared that:
The more deeply the cross penetrates, the better; the more deprived of consolation that your suffering is, the purer it will be; the more creatures oppose us, the more closely shall we be united to God.
Silence in the face of abuse, sexual assault and violence, then, becomes glorified and dignified. Some Christian communities have recognised the problems in constructing silence in the face of abuse as virtuous and have taken steps to challenge it.
For example, the hashtags #SilenceisNotSpiritual and #ChurchToo have been developed to offer a counter-narrative to the idea that silent suffering is an emulation of Jesus.
But the backlash to these hashtags, which promote the voices of those who’ve experienced sexual abuse and violence, has included some more troubling connections between Jesus and the #MeToo movement. Some social media commentators have presented Jesus as the perpetrator of sexual assault rather than as the victim.
By using sexual assault as a metaphor for Christ taking Christians by force, penetrating their sin with his righteousness, this view presents Jesus as a perpetrator of sexual assault, undermining the experience of survivors and victims of sexual violence and suggesting that sexual assault might be a potentially positive (or even necessary) experience.
The virtue of speaking out
The reaction to Jesus’s silence as well as his self-advocacy presents a troubling model for those who view Jesus as an exemplary victim of abuse, since both silence and speaking out lead to further pain and violence.
This should lead to an interrogation of how we as a society value suffering and especially silent suffering in the wake of #MeToo, but also challenges the notion that victims are obligated to speak out in order to be vindicated. In the end, the blame should still fall firmly on the abusers.
Katie Edwards, Director SIIBS, University of Sheffield and M J C Warren, Lecturer in Biblical and Religious Studies, University of Sheffield
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Religion and Rape Culture Conference
- The University of Sheffield, 6th July 2018
- We are thrilled to confirm that one of our key-note speakers will be Professor Cheryl Exum.
We are delighted to announce a one day interdisciplinary conference exploring and showcasing research into the phenomenon of rape culture, both throughout history and within contemporary societies across the globe. In particular, we aim to investigate the complex and at times contentious relationships that exist between rape culture and religion, considering the various ways religion can both participate in and contest rape culture discourses and practices.
We are also interested in the multiple social identities that invariably intersect with rape culture, including gender, disabilities, sexuality, race and class. The Shiloh Project specialises in the field of Biblical Studies, but we also strongly encourage proposals relating to rape culture alongside other religious traditions, and issues relating to rape culture more broadly.
This conference is open to researchers at any level of study, and from any discipline. We invite submissions of abstracts no more than 300 words long and a short bio no later than 19th March. Please indicate whether your submission is for a poster or a presentation. We particularly welcome abstracts on the following topics:
- Gender violence and the Bible
- Gender, class and rape culture
- Visual representations of biblical gender violence
- Representations of rape culture in the media and popular culture
- Teaching traumatic texts
- Methods of reading for resistance and/or liberation
- Sexual violence in schools and Higher Education
- Religion, rape culture and the gothic/horror genre
- Spiritualities and transphobia
- Familial relations and the Bible
For more information, or to submit an abstract, email shiloh@sheffield.ac.uk
In the past few decades, there has been a slow rise of queer biblical scholarship and queer theological exegesis. Though little of this scholarship has gotten much attention in mainstream biblical scholarship, queer interpretations of one particular narrative defy this tendency: Matthew 8:5-13/Luke 7:1-10, Jesus’ healing of the centurion’s slave.
While little about the passage would initially suggest a queer or homoerotic subtext, commentators build their argument upon three primary features of the story.
1) The centurion uses two words for “slave” in the passage: when referring to a slave in a general sense, he uses the standard Greek word doulos, but when referring to the slave who is ill, he uses the word pais. Though pais often meant “slave” in antiquity, it was also used to designate the younger partner in a pederastic same-sex relationship.
2) The centurion in one passage refers to the slave in question as entimos (Luke 7:2), a word meaning “dear” or “honoured.” Though it might refer to usefulness as a slave for labour, it could also designate something or someone emotionally significant.
3) Finally, there is ample evidence of same-sex eroticism in the Roman military.
Though none of these points necessitates a queer or homoerotic subtext to the story, many argue that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, thereby indicating a sexual relationship between the centurion and his slave. The centurion is thus proclaimed an exemplar of queer discipleship by various theologians, as Jesus seems to interact with him and his slave without either judgment or condemnation.
On this basis, for instance, Tom Hanks contends that “by blessing the Capernaum centurion’s relationship with his beloved slave, Jesus flaunted the common prejudices of his countrymen and furthered his reputation as a ‘friend of tax collectors and sinners’”; Theodore Jennings likewise suggests that “the episode may be termed the ‘centurion’s boyfriend’.”
The purpose of this post is not to argue one way or the other over the plausibility and politics of this reading, something I have done elsewhere. Rather, I would like to observe how this reading, in its praise of a relationship between the centurion and his slave, “forgets” the rape culture of antiquity.
First, this reading overlooks the obvious fact that consent – sexual or otherwise – was not part of a slave’s vocabulary. Ancient sources are almost unanimous on the matter. Seneca writes that “unchastity is a crime in the freeborn, [but] a necessity for a slave” (Controversies 4 praef. 10); and the fictional Jewish man named Trimalchio, a former slave, claims that “for fourteen years I pleasured him; it is no disgrace to do what a master commands. I also gave my mistress satisfaction” (Petronius, Satyricon 75.11). Numerous other examples could be cited. It is clear that every aspect of a slave’s body was at his master’s disposal.
Second, this reading forgets that instances of male-male intercourse between soldiers and civilians are inseparable from the asymmetrical relationship between the Roman army and the regions that army conquered. Particularly vivid is an example from Tacitus: “Whenever a young woman or a handsome youth fell into their hands, they were torn to pieces by the violent struggles of those who tried to secure them….” (Histories 3.33) The Roman army was a force of conquest and imperial domination, not only in combat, but also in the social relations between soldiers and civilians in frontier regions during peacetime situations.
In short, there is little or nothing to suggest a mutually caring romantic-sexual relationship (let alone same-sex marriage!) between the centurion and his slave – a slave presumably born in that very frontier region of Palestine. If anything, recalling Tacitus’ brutal description, the story possibly bears a greater resemblance to the Mahmudiyah rape and killings – a tragedy where American soldiers occupying Iraq raped a 14-year-old girl, then murdered her and her family – than to same-sex marriage of the 21st century.
Christopher B. Zeichmann is a sessional instructor at Emmanuel College in the University of Toronto and Ryerson University. He is at the present under contract to publish A Guide to the Military and the New Testament with Fortress Academic/Lexington Press.
Twitter: @zeichman
Now available! The recording of Professor David Tombs and Dr Jayme Reaves speaking at the Sheffield Institute for Interdisciplinary Biblical Studies (SIIBS) on 16th January 2018.
Click here for more information on the ‘When Did We See You Naked’ Project.
Missed the BBC Radio Sheffield interview with David Tombs and Jayme Reaves earlier this month? Catch up here!
Our White Rose Collaboration Fund project will begin soon and the webpage is already live!
Revelations of pervasive sexual harassment and abuse are emerging from numerous settings. Moreover, educational research shows that such is prevalent already among school pupils. Children as young as 7 experience sexualized name-calling, unwanted touching and appearance-related bullying. Teachers report witnessing such practices and feeling ill-equipped to respond (Women’s and Equalities Committee Report, 2016).
Our multi-disciplinary collaboration brings together academics from Education, English, Biblical and Religious Studies to explore sexism and sexual harassment in secondary school settings using one discrete focus and lens: the role of religious imagery in popular culture (particularly advertising and music videos).
Religious imagery (e.g. the veil, the Cross) is widely used in popular culture both to represent and reinforce ideologies about such complex concepts as ‘sexuality’, ‘purity’, ‘virginity’, or ‘im/morality’. This imagery also conveys notions that casualize or glamourize sexual harassment or violence, reinforce the normativity of heterosexuality, and perpetuate racist associations between Blackness and certain sexual characteristics/desires. Such representations can be regarded as problematic in relation to young people’s understandings of gender, sex and sexualities.
In consultation with secondary schools from all three White Rose regions and a third-sector organization offering gender equality training for school-age girls (Fearless Futures), the network will conduct three pilot workshops with secondary school students (girls and boys) to investigate interactions with religious imagery in popular culture and the ways in which these representations shape understandings of gender, sex and sexualities.
Professor Vanita Sundaram (University of York) will lead the project with Dr Johanna Stiebert (University of Leeds) and Dr Katie Edwards (University of Sheffield), working alongside colleagues Dr Valerie Hobbs (University of Sheffield), Dr Sarah Olive (University of York), Dr Jasjit Singh (University of Leeds), Dr Caroline Starkey (University of Leeds), Ms Sofia Rehman (University of Leeds) and Dr Meredith Warren (University of Sheffield).
Book your place here.
In January 2018 Professor David Tombs will visit SIIBS and deliver a special Shiloh Project lecture on ‘#MeToo Jesus’ with Dr Jayme Reaves.
Professor Tombs is the Howard Paterson Chair of Theology and Public Issues, at the University of Otago, Aotearoa New Zealand. He has a longstanding interest in contextual and liberation theologies and is author of Latin American Liberation Theologies (Brill, 2002). His current research focusses on religion violence and peace and especially on Christian responses to gender-based violence, sexual abuse and torture.
He is originally from the United Kingdom and previously worked at the University of Roehampton in London (1992-2001), and then in Belfast, Northern Ireland, for the Irish School of Ecumenics, Trinity College Dublin (2001-2014) on a conflict resolution and reconciliation programme. He has degrees in theology from Oxford (BA/MA, 1987), Union Theological Seminary New York (STM, 1988), and London (PhD 2004), and in philosophy (MA London, 1993).
Dr Jayme R. Reaves is a public theologian with 20 years experience working on the intersections between theology, peace, conflict, gender, and culture in the US, Former Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, and Great Britain. Her book, Safeguarding the Stranger: An Abrahamic Theology and Ethic of Protective Hospitality is available from Wipf & Stock or any book retailer. You can find out more at www.jaymereaves.com.
Jayme’s social media links are:
Twitter: @jaymereaves
Facebook: www.facebook.com/JaymeRReaves
——————————————-
#MeToo Jesus: Why Naming Jesus as a Victim of Sexual Abuse Matters
2pm, 16 January, G.03 Jessop West, University of Sheffield
Jayme Reaves and David Tombs
© http://www.arttrav.com Used with kind permission.
The #MeToo hashtag and campaign created by Tarana Burke in 2007 and popularized by Alyssa Milano in October 2017 has confirmed what feminists have long argued on the prevalence of sexual assault, sexual harassment and sexually abusive behaviour. It has also prompted a more public debate on dynamics of victim blaming and victim shaming which contribute to the silences which typically benefit perpetrators and add a further burden to survivors. As such, the #MeToo movement raises important questions for Christian faith and theology. A church in New York offered a creative response in a sign which adapted Jesus’ words ‘You did this to me’ in Mt 25:40 to read ‘You did this to #MeToo’. This presentation will explore the biblical and theological reasons for naming Jesus as a victim of sexual abuse drawing on earlier work presenting crucifixion as a form of state terror and sexual abuse (Tombs 1999). It will then discuss some of the obstacles to this recognition and suggest why the acknowledgement nonetheless matters. It will argue that recognition of Jesus as victim of sexual abuse can help strengthen church responses to sexual abuses and challenge tendencies within the churches, as well as in wider society, to collude with victim blaming or shaming.
For further reading, see David Tombs, ‘Crucifixion, State Terror, and Sexual Abuse’ in Union Seminary Quarterly Review (1999).
The Shiloh project directors, Caroline Blyth (University of Auckland), Katie Edwards (University of Sheffield) and Johanna Stiebert (University of Leeds), are co-investigators of a successful Worldwide Universities Network research development grant with the University of Ghana.
Katie Edwards and Johanna Stiebert will visit the University of Ghana in 2018. Stay tuned for more updates on the project!