This article is nearly unintelligible, let alone completely lacking in any historical or scriptural context. I have no idea where you are coming from. I am insulted--but not because of your pathetic attempt at being "edgy" with all the talk of drag, sex, porn, etc. I mean, what about sex is shocking these days? You can say John is a drag queen. What do I care? If you want shocking, disturbing and graphic scripture passages, you can simply turn to the story of the Levite's concubine in Judges 19. And there's no "creative repackaging" necessary. But let me be clear that I am NOT insulted by the sex and drag talk in this article.
Rather, I AM insulted because you do not respect your readers enough to spend the necessary effort, study, time, and explanation to tell us what on God's green earth you are talking about! Is this supposedly an exegesis of the text? Is it a re-imagining of the narrative in Rev. 17? Are you trying to bring in some unique, overlooked historical context? Or are you simply pulling vague, stray thoughts of a sexual nature and seeing how they play with the text? Can we have some academic rigor here? Can you engage our minds while you attempt to engage our emotions?
Scriptural re-imagining and interpretation is all well and good. But it must be founded on something more than just a need to "disrupt" or shock. It MUST be done in community with a view toward historical, narrative, and scriptural contexts. And it MUST have at least a modicum of academic integrity. Sadly, it is clear, this article shoots wide of those marks.
May I suggest that you rewrite this article? Keep the drag and kinky sex if you want. But this time make a decent effort at helping the readers understand where you are coming from, where you are getting your suppositions, what your theological assumptions are, what your study has revealed, and what conclusions you have drawn. And maybe most important of all: what does your interpretation mean for how followers of Jesus Christ are to live their lives in faithfulness and love?
For instance, you wrote: "The phenomenon of Drag was ubiquitous in Revelation 17 as all of the characters were in drag in some fashion." This would a perfect place to delve a little deeper into what you are saying. What do you mean by the ubiquity of cross-dressing Rev. 17? You could talk about how you support a statement like that exegetically, historically, narratively, etc. But as it is, you insult our intelligence by letting the statement stand as if the observation were self-evident and the reader either must brush your arguments aside as so much dandruff, or else get indignant at the proposition that the Apostle John was a cross-dresser. Why not have enough respect for your readers to actually support your argument with scholarship (or at least with a little bit of reasoning)?
If you did that, I might be interested in hearing what you have to say. But right now, all you are doing is attempting to say some "shocking" things to elicit an emotional response. Please. If I want a circus I'll go to Barnum & Bailey. There's nothing new under the sun, my friend. Stop trying to merely "shock" and start trying to communicate.
You said that your motivation for writing this article is "...an attempt to bring about more dialogue and to help others to see..." But without engaging your readers' intellects and their common sense you ultimately fail in your goal. There may be plenty to get upset about with what you've written, and maybe that's all you want out of this trite circus act. But what is there really to dialogue about here? What is there to see other than a preoccupation with porn and cross-dressing? The answer is that there IS nothing else to see because you have not given us enough TO see.
For the love of God, give us something to THINK about!
Sincerely, David Elkins
Wow, seriously, who actually proofs this before letting this garbage through?
Great reply. Thank you David. It is hard to "spend the necessary effort, study, time, and explanation" for this article because this is not the venue for it. I could of spent 10 pages in going into detail but that is not what the Ooze allows for. It is to write snippets, short pieces or articles which always leaves holes and leave the readers begging or desiring more. My little snippet must have elicited more than an "emotional response" because you spent half a page with some great arguments and cognitive content why you don't like it. So I did give you "something to think about" and not just "something to feel about". I don't believe my account is way off and un"exegetical". The fact of the matter is, two holy people were watching a woman having sex with alot of kings and she eventually was raped, tortured, cut up, eaten and burned to a crisp. Certainly I tried filling in the holes a bit but sometimes "disruption" is a good thing. Rationalizing Revelation 17 with heady "academic scholarship" will maintain status quo and allow us to brush over such shocking texts. I tried to write in such a way that provoked some conversation and disrupt a blind, emotionless reading of the text. Part of my concern is that there is no “emotional” reaction when reading the text. Why is it that people could be “shocked” at reading my piece but read Revelation 17 and not be shocked. Do we just disassociate because it is the “Word of God”? It is just intellectualized and I am not sure that is a good thing. And your right I could have taken various examples in the biblical text but I chose this one. I meant drag in a deeper way then mere dress. Drag in the sense of everyone not being who they seemed. Actors and actresses if you will. The point is that all of the characters in the story were not who they seemed, hence the usage of the word Drag. Some possible questions as a community to explore: Does the Spirit of God make up or Theopneustos sadistic porn to convey natural truths, to point to a greater reality. It is a rhetorical question. The Bible is the Word of God so He must have. What does it mean for us that God does use/write sadistic porn to point to greater reality (whether about Satan, or Rome, future eschatology etc)? Does it blur the lines between “holy” and “horror,” “sacred” and “sec(x)ular? Is sadistic porn okay if used for godly purposes? Are we in drag? Are we really who we seem? Do we go to the “desert”(literally a remote or solitary place) and do things or watch things we should not do or watch? Are there parts of the Bible that children should not read? Remember “they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire” v.16. Should some parts of the Bible be rated? How come many Christians do not get shocked after reading such texts? Do Christians internalize what they oppose i.e. Rome’s tactics of force, oppression, vulgarity etc? Hence the writer of John coming up with his tragic and violent sexual story. Homi Bhabha’s notion of “colonial mimicry” is helpful here. And do we as Christians today internalize what we oppose and use for God? Does the story allow the continuation of subtle misogyny and mistreatment of women?
Blessings!!!
Your reply I would have if Ooze would have let me is vague as well. You had plenty of space and an audience that was well versed and mesmerized with the writings of John in Revelation. You insulted us as readers and took our valuable time. No excuse this piece is too rough to be worthy. As it stands it suggests only your undeveloped curiosity.
I am flabbergasted. God bless ya. Two Things: First Thing: Context. Rule One for exegesis. Many free commentaries are available online. It will bless you to use them. Second Thing: The inspired writer and revelator you are messing with here is John the Beloved. The Beloved. Proclaimed best friend of Jesus. Well, OK Three Things: Verse 12 of Revelation 17 basically gives you some interpretation so it would be wise to interpret within this rubric.
OK, Four Things: I am emotionally responding to what you have written, not the sexual content, I get cable...but to your cold disregard for the scripture. Sorry.
No, Five Things: You know what? I sense that there is a Revelation within this chapter for you, and if you will quiet your spirit and get in a place to receive it...it will minister to you...and then...I would love to read that, as it will bless me too.
Finally, please don't stop reading, thinking, writing, and sharing because you are so worthy of being heard. Seriously. You can only get off-base if you are actually running the bases, so please keep moving.
Love and Honor,
Kelly Deppen
I would have to say that this writing is pointless. I appreciate reading and studying that stretches traditional thought but this is (as I stated before) pointless.
Yellow matter custard, dripping from a dead dog's eye. Crabalocker fishwife, pornographic priestess, Boy, you been a naughty girl you let your knickers down. I am the eggman, they are the eggmen. I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob.
Now hold on guys...I think this article accomplished its purpose. It's purpose was to draw attention to passages that are frequently overlooked, skipped or ignored and say "What's up with this??"
I applaud Mark for "slaughtering the sacred cow", so to speak, and asking the question no one feels comfortable asking: " When God could use other metaphors to get his point across, why use really weird sex and violence? What does this say about God? About the author of Revelation?"
This chapter would be an excellent conversation-starter among teenagers, because they typically enjoy challenging long-held beliefs and having "scandelous" conversations. Perhaps this crowd isn't ready to think that far outside the box?
It seems to me that there is a fine line between attempting to bring about more dialog, concerning a passage of scripture, and seeing how far you can push the envelope by being as filthy and irreverent. My friend, you have not only pushed the envelope, you put a stamp on it and mailed it. I hope the sending address was to the garbage dump, because that is where this really belongs. please forgive me if this sounds harsh, but i believe Jesus Christ said out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, and i think you have a serious spiritual problem...
Dorian, you are right. I do have a serious spiritual problem and I thought admitting that is the essence of the gospel. I realize the above truth in a deep and profound way, which is why I continually cry out and say to God, "who shall deliver me from this body of death" and then, it is beautiful, a Savior comes and rescues me, and his name is Jesus Christ.
(22)
This article is nearly unintelligible, let alone completely lacking in any historical or scriptural context. I have no idea where you are coming from. I am insulted--but not because of your pathetic attempt at being "edgy" with all the talk of drag, sex, porn, etc. I mean, what about sex is shocking these days? You can say John is a drag queen. What do I care? If you want shocking, disturbing and graphic scripture passages, you can simply turn to the story of the Levite's concubine in Judges 19. And there's no "creative repackaging" necessary. But let me be clear that I am NOT insulted by the sex and drag talk in this article.
Rather, I AM insulted because you do not respect your readers enough to spend the necessary effort, study, time, and explanation to tell us what on God's green earth you are talking about! Is this supposedly an exegesis of the text? Is it a re-imagining of the narrative in Rev. 17? Are you trying to bring in some unique, overlooked historical context? Or are you simply pulling vague, stray thoughts of a sexual nature and seeing how they play with the text? Can we have some academic rigor here? Can you engage our minds while you attempt to engage our emotions?
Scriptural re-imagining and interpretation is all well and good. But it must be founded on something more than just a need to "disrupt" or shock. It MUST be done in community with a view toward historical, narrative, and scriptural contexts. And it MUST have at least a modicum of academic integrity. Sadly, it is clear, this article shoots wide of those marks.
May I suggest that you rewrite this article? Keep the drag and kinky sex if you want. But this time make a decent effort at helping the readers understand where you are coming from, where you are getting your suppositions, what your theological assumptions are, what your study has revealed, and what conclusions you have drawn. And maybe most important of all: what does your interpretation mean for how followers of Jesus Christ are to live their lives in faithfulness and love?
For instance, you wrote: "The phenomenon of Drag was ubiquitous in Revelation 17 as all of the characters were in drag in some fashion." This would a perfect place to delve a little deeper into what you are saying. What do you mean by the ubiquity of cross-dressing Rev. 17? You could talk about how you support a statement like that exegetically, historically, narratively, etc. But as it is, you insult our intelligence by letting the statement stand as if the observation were self-evident and the reader either must brush your arguments aside as so much dandruff, or else get indignant at the proposition that the Apostle John was a cross-dresser. Why not have enough respect for your readers to actually support your argument with scholarship (or at least with a little bit of reasoning)?
If you did that, I might be interested in hearing what you have to say. But right now, all you are doing is attempting to say some "shocking" things to elicit an emotional response. Please. If I want a circus I'll go to Barnum & Bailey. There's nothing new under the sun, my friend. Stop trying to merely "shock" and start trying to communicate.
You said that your motivation for writing this article is "...an attempt to bring about more dialogue and to help others to see..." But without engaging your readers' intellects and their common sense you ultimately fail in your goal. There may be plenty to get upset about with what you've written, and maybe that's all you want out of this trite circus act. But what is there really to dialogue about here? What is there to see other than a preoccupation with porn and cross-dressing? The answer is that there IS nothing else to see because you have not given us enough TO see.
For the love of God, give us something to THINK about!
Sincerely, David Elkins
Posted by David E | Posted at 01/14/2009 8:02 AMWow, seriously, who actually proofs this before letting this garbage through? Posted by Steve | Posted at 01/14/2009 8:37 AM
Great reply. Thank you David. It is hard to "spend the necessary effort, study, time, and explanation" for this article because this is not the venue for it. I could of spent 10 pages in going into detail but that is not what the Ooze allows for. It is to write snippets, short pieces or articles which always leaves holes and leave the readers begging or desiring more. My little snippet must have elicited more than an "emotional response" because you spent half a page with some great arguments and cognitive content why you don't like it. So I did give you "something to think about" and not just "something to feel about". I don't believe my account is way off and un"exegetical". The fact of the matter is, two holy people were watching a woman having sex with alot of kings and she eventually was raped, tortured, cut up, eaten and burned to a crisp. Certainly I tried filling in the holes a bit but sometimes "disruption" is a good thing. Rationalizing Revelation 17 with heady "academic scholarship" will maintain status quo and allow us to brush over such shocking texts. I tried to write in such a way that provoked some conversation and disrupt a blind, emotionless reading of the text. Part of my concern is that there is no “emotional” reaction when reading the text. Why is it that people could be “shocked” at reading my piece but read Revelation 17 and not be shocked. Do we just disassociate because it is the “Word of God”? It is just intellectualized and I am not sure that is a good thing. And your right I could have taken various examples in the biblical text but I chose this one. I meant drag in a deeper way then mere dress. Drag in the sense of everyone not being who they seemed. Actors and actresses if you will. The point is that all of the characters in the story were not who they seemed, hence the usage of the word Drag. Some possible questions as a community to explore: Does the Spirit of God make up or Theopneustos sadistic porn to convey natural truths, to point to a greater reality. It is a rhetorical question. The Bible is the Word of God so He must have. What does it mean for us that God does use/write sadistic porn to point to greater reality (whether about Satan, or Rome, future eschatology etc)? Does it blur the lines between “holy” and “horror,” “sacred” and “sec(x)ular? Is sadistic porn okay if used for godly purposes? Are we in drag? Are we really who we seem? Do we go to the “desert”(literally a remote or solitary place) and do things or watch things we should not do or watch? Are there parts of the Bible that children should not read? Remember “they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire” v.16. Should some parts of the Bible be rated? How come many Christians do not get shocked after reading such texts? Do Christians internalize what they oppose i.e. Rome’s tactics of force, oppression, vulgarity etc? Hence the writer of John coming up with his tragic and violent sexual story. Homi Bhabha’s notion of “colonial mimicry” is helpful here. And do we as Christians today internalize what we oppose and use for God? Does the story allow the continuation of subtle misogyny and mistreatment of women?
Blessings!!!
Posted by Mark Karris | Posted at 01/14/2009 9:48 AMYour reply I would have if Ooze would have let me is vague as well. You had plenty of space and an audience that was well versed and mesmerized with the writings of John in Revelation. You insulted us as readers and took our valuable time. No excuse this piece is too rough to be worthy. As it stands it suggests only your undeveloped curiosity. Posted by Danielle Love | Posted at 01/14/2009 10:09 AM
I am flabbergasted. God bless ya. Two Things: First Thing: Context. Rule One for exegesis. Many free commentaries are available online. It will bless you to use them. Second Thing: The inspired writer and revelator you are messing with here is John the Beloved. The Beloved. Proclaimed best friend of Jesus. Well, OK Three Things: Verse 12 of Revelation 17 basically gives you some interpretation so it would be wise to interpret within this rubric.
OK, Four Things: I am emotionally responding to what you have written, not the sexual content, I get cable...but to your cold disregard for the scripture. Sorry.
No, Five Things: You know what? I sense that there is a Revelation within this chapter for you, and if you will quiet your spirit and get in a place to receive it...it will minister to you...and then...I would love to read that, as it will bless me too.
Finally, please don't stop reading, thinking, writing, and sharing because you are so worthy of being heard. Seriously. You can only get off-base if you are actually running the bases, so please keep moving.
Love and Honor,
Kelly Deppen
Posted by diatasso | Posted at 01/15/2009 3:20 PMI would have to say that this writing is pointless. I appreciate reading and studying that stretches traditional thought but this is (as I stated before) pointless. Posted by Chad | Posted at 01/19/2009 8:03 PM
Yellow matter custard, dripping from a dead dog's eye. Crabalocker fishwife, pornographic priestess, Boy, you been a naughty girl you let your knickers down. I am the eggman, they are the eggmen. I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob. Posted by Hugh | Posted at 01/27/2009 6:58 AM
Now hold on guys...I think this article accomplished its purpose. It's purpose was to draw attention to passages that are frequently overlooked, skipped or ignored and say "What's up with this??"
I applaud Mark for "slaughtering the sacred cow", so to speak, and asking the question no one feels comfortable asking: " When God could use other metaphors to get his point across, why use really weird sex and violence? What does this say about God? About the author of Revelation?"
This chapter would be an excellent conversation-starter among teenagers, because they typically enjoy challenging long-held beliefs and having "scandelous" conversations. Perhaps this crowd isn't ready to think that far outside the box?
Posted by Pam | Posted at 01/31/2009 3:55 PMIt seems to me that there is a fine line between attempting to bring about more dialog, concerning a passage of scripture, and seeing how far you can push the envelope by being as filthy and irreverent. My friend, you have not only pushed the envelope, you put a stamp on it and mailed it. I hope the sending address was to the garbage dump, because that is where this really belongs. please forgive me if this sounds harsh, but i believe Jesus Christ said out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, and i think you have a serious spiritual problem... Posted by Dorian | Posted at 02/14/2009 6:52 PM
Dorian, you are right. I do have a serious spiritual problem and I thought admitting that is the essence of the gospel. I realize the above truth in a deep and profound way, which is why I continually cry out and say to God, "who shall deliver me from this body of death" and then, it is beautiful, a Savior comes and rescues me, and his name is Jesus Christ. Posted by Mark Karris | Posted at 02/14/2009 7:35 PM