Note: This essay is a little more academic than what I intend to post here, but I hope it is still accessible to diverse readers. As I began seminary this semester, my bandwidth for more accessible writing has been significantly reduced, so I might share some academic papers when I consider them to fit my goals for this newsletter. Without further ado, please enjoy my Introduction to New Testament final paper.
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword.
For I have come to set a man against his father,
and a daughter against her mother,
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law,
and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.
“Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.
“Whoever welcomes you welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. Whoever welcomes a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and whoever welcomes a righteous person in the name of a righteous person will receive the reward of the righteous, and whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple—truly I tell you, none of these will lose their reward.” - Matthew 10:34-42 NRSVUE.
Plenty of LGBTQIA+ affirming resources for Christian communities do the much-needed work of confronting Queerphobia, advocating for inclusion, and addressing the most common arguments against the Queer community. At the same time, Queer scholars are now seeking to move the conversation from a space of defending Queer existence into a space where Queer experience becomes a resource for the edification of Christian communities. This essay joins the latter group of scholars who presuppose the goodness and validity of Queer expression and faith. For this, I will study Matt. 10:34-42 to demonstrate how Jesus relativized the nuclear family with his call to discipleship in verses 34-38 and will argue that Queer chosen families offer a model of discipleship in alignment with verses 39-42.
A central component of the anti-LGBTQIA+ discourse is a concern with the so-called destabilization of the nuclear family, which many socially and religious conservative communities consider the bedrock of society. The traditional nuclear family is foundational for the heteropatriarchy, so those who uphold this system oppose the rights of Queer people to be themselves and form their own families. Additionally, many Queer people are blamed for their families’ rejection of their true selves. In Christian communities, it is common for families to use Jesus to excuse the rejection of Queer children, Matt. 10:34-42 is one of the passages often (mis)used in these conversations.
[Content warning: This paragraph contains an example of transphobia.] The famous conservative online publication, The Gospel Coalition, recently posted a horrifying anonymous essay from the father of a trans teenager.[1] In this essay, the father uses a passage similar to Matt. 10:34-42 (Luke 14:26-27), to excuse why he and his wife refuse to use their daughter’s correct pronouns even after she explained how it puts her at risk of suicide. The father consistently misgenders his daughter through the article and says he does so out of obedience to Christ because he is called to love Christ more than his child. This story represents the realities of many Queer people who choose to live as their true selves and end up having to find new, chosen families when their biological families would rather see them die than support them.
As previously mentioned, this paper is not an attempt to change people’s minds about the Queer community, but I hope it can be a gift of freedom for Queer folks to see the blessedness of the paths we are forming for ourselves and an opportunity for the broader Christian community to learn from the Queer experience as a model of faithful discipleship. Is important at this point to clarify what my understanding of discipleship is for this paper. I view discipleship as the life-long call to follow Jesus and be formed in his image. Further, to be formed in the image of Jesus is simply to become more human, to open oneself to the goodness with which we were created, and which is often hidden by the powers of sin that operate in the world. Jesus likens discipleship to be born again or experiencing resurrection, and I would argue that one way in which Queer people participate in this is through the birth or resurrection out of the closet. For Queer Christians, the hard work of discovering, claiming, and living out our true identities is part of becoming who God made us to be—to be resurrected and sanctified as faithful followers of Jesus Christ.[2]
Jesus Relativizes the Nuclear Family: Matt. 10:34-38
Our passage begins with Jesus saying that he has “not come to bring peace but a sword.”[3]Although the usage of such violent and implicitly imperial language is unfortunate, with this statement and the following quotation from Micah 7:6 in verses 10:35-36, Jesus is announcing the inevitable division that comes when people choose to follow him. It is important to note that this passage is not a calling for disciples of Jesus to separate from their families, but it is an eschatological warning that division will come because of those who will not accept Jesus’ message. In other words, division is not something followers of Jesus seek, but something they inevitably face. This is made clear in verses 10:40-42 when Jesus declares the rewards for those who instead of seeking division, open themselves to welcome his disciples.
The use of imperial imagery in this passage is intentional since the author is concerned with delineating the radical difference between the Empire of God[4] and the Roman Empire. Thomas Bohache says, “Jesus states unequivocally that he is not just creating an alternative household but is out to destroy the traditional home, for in God’s Empire, unlike Rome’s, traditional arrangements of power and brokerage avail one nothing.”[5] Jesus in the gospel of Matthew seems to have an antihierarchical agenda; not only is he opposing the Roman empire, but all systems that thrive on oppression and abuse of power, the patriarchal family included.
In A Feminist Companion to Matthew, Julian Sheffield exposes how Jesus displaces the figure of the earthly father and requires allegiance to the Heavenly Father alone. Sheffield notes that in stories where Mark and Luke name different men as fathers, Matthew abstains from calling them father, including when speaking about Joseph. She concludes, “Matthew’s only expression of concern about kinship … focuses on care for children, the little ones.”[6] In her analysis of the passages in Matthew that disrupt the family structure in contrast with Jesus’ reminder of the Torah commandment to honor one’s mother and father, Sheffield notes, “These passages, particularly as they inform each other, confirm that the earthly father’s responsibility for his children becomes transformed into the community’s responsibility for the little ones under the aegis of the heavenly father.”[7] This communal transformation of the meaning of family is of extreme relevance for Queer readers and validates the chosen family dynamic we will explore in the next section.
Theodore Jennings in his book The Man Jesus Loved, presents what he considers Jesus’ consistent and adamant critique of the family. He surveys the gospels and concludes that “the Jesus tradition sets its face resolutely against [family values].”[8] He cites events in the Synoptics such as when Jesus’ family confronts him for being “out of his mind” (Mark 3:21,31-35; Matt. 12:46-50; Luke 8:19-21), the rejection of the people from his hometown (Mark 6:1-6; Matt. 13:53-58; Luke 4:16-30), the eschatological/apocalyptic discourse on family betrayals (Mark 12:12; Matt. 24:21; Luke 21:16), and the call to leave one’s family (Mark 10:29-31; Luke 18:28-30; Matt. 19:27-30).[9] Jennings argues that the displacement of the earthly father in Matthew follows “Jesus’ program for his disciples [which] clearly entails the abolition of distinctions among them and thus the abolition of hierarchical relationships.”[10]
At this point, my feminist hermeneutic requires me to be critical of the fatherhood of God and whether continuing to use exclusively masculine language truly accomplishes the goal of breaking down patriarchal structures. Jennings attempts to solve this issue, but his answer is not satisfactory enough. He says, “The Jesus tradition uses the appellation of God as Father (or Father in heaven) precisely to overthrow the rule of patriarchy.” Later he adds, “The saying attributed to Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel clearly undermines human fatherhood, and so patriarchy, in the context of abolishing all hierarchical relationships. This aspect of the familial structure at least is considered to be completely antithetical to the values of the divine reign whose coming Jesus is concerned to announce and enact.”[11]
Sheffield offers a more helpful angle on how the figure of the heavenly Father also disrupts patriarchal notions of fatherhood. She notes,
Nurture, far more than domination, characterizes the relationship of the heavenly father to the disciples of Jesus, as Matthew describes it. It is true that in Matthew and Luke, the father’s children must do their Father-God’s will (7.21//Lk. 6.46) and must be like the father (5.48//Lk. 6.36). But Matthew adds special qualities to the father: the father bestows good on the ‘righteous and unrighteous’ (5.45), rewards the disciples (6.1, 4, 6, 18), knows what the disciples need before they ask (6.8), values the disciples and feeds them (6.26), reveals the nature of Jesus (16.17), and grants requests made in consensus (18.19). The perfection of the father which disciples emulate clearly must include nurturing concern and provision for the heavenly father’s children, the little ones.[12]
With this explanation in mind, we could still argue that in our context, we might choose to interchangeably use Father/Mother/Parent language, so as not to perpetuate the unfortunate male-centric and patriarchal notions of God that have plagued Christendom.
Queer Chosen Families as a Model of Discipleship: Matt. 10:39-42
Having presented how Jesus relativized the patriarchal nuclear family, we can look at the end of our pericope and draw conclusions about how Queer chosen families embody a model of discipleship in accordance with the re-defined family of the kin-dom of God.
The Queer experience of self-acceptance can be likened to a death and resurrection. For members of the LQBTQIA+ community with conservative backgrounds, self-acceptance often comes at the cost of families and a familiar way of life. By choosing to be the person God created us to be, Queer folks lose our life only to find it again outside the closet where we can experience the goodness of our embodiment despite the pain of the life we had to lose. It is here, at the moment of loss and newfound life that Queer chosen families often enter the picture. Research shows that “Participation in a chosen family may affect an individual’s well-being, often protecting them from the ramifications of discrimination.” Further, “Inclusion in chosen families [is] a protective factor against psychological distress for Black SGM [sexual and gender minority] youth, promoting resilience and belongingness.”[13]
In the kin-dom of God, the little ones, the marginalized, are to be protected and cared for, and in Matt. 10:40-42, Jesus promises that caring for his little ones through acts of hospitality is like welcoming him, and it is worth God’s eternal rewards. Queer chosen families are the places where those without siblings or parents form new bonds and those who are privileged to have the support of their families of origin are able to expand their circles of safety. At the dinner table of chosen siblings, aunties, (g)uncles, and parents, Queer people declare that family can be the people who do the will of God, those who care for the heavenly Parent’s little ones.
No Queer person desires to lose their family of origin, but, sometimes, authenticity and freedom come at the cost of those who were supposed to hold unconditional love for their kin. Jesus understood this and proposed that the oppressive heteropatriarchal family structure be dismantled and redefined under the truly unconditional love of the heavenly Parent, where bonds stronger than those of blood are formed when new life is found.
Image by Shoog McDaniel for Them.us
[1] Anonymous, “I Love My Transgender Child. I Love Jesus More,” The Gospel Coalition, November 22, 2023, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/love-transgender-child-jesus/
[2] See Justin Sabia-Tanis, Trans-Gender: Theology, Ministry, and Communities of Faith. (Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2019) 146-160. Here, the author presents the idea of “gender as calling,” which maps with the concept of life outside the closet as an expression of faithfulness to God.
[3] Matthew 10:34, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition.
[4] From this point moving forward, I will use the language of “kin-dom of God” instead of “Empire of God,” since I believe the use of imperial imagery to be unfortunate and problematic. Imperial language will only be used in direct quotations.
[5] Thomas Bohache, “Matthew,” The Queer Bible Commentary, ed. Daryn Guest et al. (London: SCM Press, 2006), 509.
[6] Julian Sheffield, “The Father in the Gospel of Matthew,” A Feminist Companion to Matthew, ed. Amy-Jill Levine (England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 64.
[7] Sheffield, 65.
[8] Theodore W. Jennings, Jr. The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives from the New Testament (Cleveland, Pilgrim Press, 2003), 174.
[9] Jennings, 174-179.
[10] Jennings, 184.
[11]Jennings, 184.
[12] Sheffield, 64.
[13] Tangela Roberts et al., “Building a Family: An Exploration of Queer Resilience Through the Formation of Family,” Identity as Resilience in Minoritized Communities, eds. Julie M. Koch et al. (Switzerland: Springer, 2023) 35.