User:Spiffaroo/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Queer theology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
So much of queer theology- especially published work- is from a cisgender, white, male, western perspective. The morality applied to queerness is from the lens of heterosexual christian narratives and often leaves out cultural, interfaith, interfaith, non-faith, and gendered understandings. As the landing page of this umbrella topic I wanted to see what the base narrative of "queer theology" was being presented as and through what lens to hopefully offer a more objective, neutral, and balanced perspective.

Evaluate the article
LEAD: The lead section is both broad and nuanced but not in a way that points to the work that queer theology actually does which is to place expansive queer personhood within biblical texts. the lead article names gay, lesbian, and bisexual people but leaves out the rest of those that identify as queer - most notably transgender people. I would suggest changing the language to "queer" rather than listing those that operate in the identity as individual pieces, until it is nuanced as part of the growing edge of history. Also the four scholars named are all white. I would also challenge the word of "assumption" as is perpetuates the lack of authority theologies that center non-hegemonic identities often encounter.

CONTENT: This is article discusses equity gaps but does so through a very narrow lens. There are only three queer theologians listed in the content and of them, there is only one woman (Marcella Althaus- Reid). There are no people of color listen in the content. It also does not name or point toward work that is being done in queer theology today.

BALANCE: using the term "assumption" allows for a hermeneutic of suspicion towards the authority of this lens which does not read as unbiased in my opinion. It also does not speak to the expansiveness of the work being down and its historical relationship to feminism and liberation, as well as racism and ableism.

SOURCES: The sources and references in this page are limited in scope and narrative concentrating on the work of white male christian authors. It does not cite any Jewish queer theologians or name the historical context affected by this work.

QUALITY: The writing is concise and clear. Though not by any means extensive or comprehensive and does not name that there are other spaces and leaders in this work.

IMAGES: There are not images in the content. The image used as the ID image has a description that does not align with the language or understanding of queer theology. Specifically naming Jesus as the son of God.

TALK: the talk page raises similar issues that I have brought up but also allows for the anti-queer pages to be in conversation with safe queer spaces which both places an agenda on the understanding of the work and seeks to delegitimize this work. It is rated Start- Class, Mid Importance and low importance.

OVERALL: This page was lacking and does not lift the voices that have continued and expanded this work in a modern context. It still allows the reader to question the legitimacy of this theological and social lens without questioning the faith material itself. It does not name the people of color or the societies that have a queered social understanding, and operates from a white and western perspective in most of its authorship.