Last Updated on March 12, 2025 by Kittredge Cherry
Symeon the New Theologian was an influential 10th-century monk who used homoerotic imagery to describe human connections with God. His feast day is March 12. He lived in Galatia (modern-day Turkey). Some scholars suggest that he was a eunuch, based on his writings and historical context.
A chapter on “Homoerotic Spectacle and the Monastic Body in Symeon the New Theologian” by Derek Kruger is included in the book “Toward a Theology of Eros: Transfiguring Passion at the Limits of Discipline.” He states:
“Symeon the New Theologian (949–1022), arguably the most important Byzantine religious thinker between John of Damascus in the eighth century and Gregory Palamas in the fourteenth, often presents salvation as a heavenly marriage. Scholars have long noted Symeon’s frequent use of erotic and nuptial imagery to explore the relationship between the monk and God. What scholars have generally failed to notice or account for is that much of this imagery is homoerotic.”
Symeon wrote about mystics as the thighs in the body of Christ. His language suggests that “thighs” may have been a euphemism for “genitals.” He builds on the Apostle Paul’s Biblical metaphor of people playing various roles as members of the body of Christ. Some play the role of hands, while others are the shoulders, the breast, the legs and feet, and the belly.
“Others, again, take the function of the thighs since they carry in themselves the fecundity of the concepts adequate to God of the mystical theology. They engender the Spirit of Wisdom upon the earth, i.e., the fruit of the Spirit and His Seed in the hearts of men, through the Word of their teaching,” Symeon wrote in “On the Mystical Life: The Ethical Discourses, Vol. 1.”
Symeon’s other books include “Divine Eros: Hymns of Saint Symeon the New Theologian,” translated by Daniel K. Griggs.
Writing in the Greek language, Symeon described how discovering Christ within made him begin to feel like a “ptochós philádelphos,” which is translated as “a brother-loving poor man” or “a poor man who loves his brethren.”
Symeon admitted to having a worldly past, including this line in Hymn 24: “Alas, I had also become an adulterer at heart, and a sodomite in deed and by free choice.”
His body-positive theology is expressed in these lines from Hymn 15: “We were made members of Christ, and Christ becomes our members….Each part is the whole Christ Himself. And so thus you well know that both my finger and my penis are Christ. Do you tremble or feel ashamed? But God was not ashamed to become like you…”
___
Top image credit:
Icon of Symeon the New Theologian (Wikipedia)
___
This post is part of the LGBTQ Saints series by Kittredge Cherry. Traditional and alternative saints, people in the Bible, LGBT and queer martyrs, authors, theologians, religious leaders, artists, deities and other figures of special interest to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people and our allies are covered.
This article was originally published on Q Spirit on March 12, 2021 and was updated for accuracy and expanded with new material on March 12, 2025.
Copyright © Kittredge Cherry. All rights reserved.
Qspirit.net presents the Jesus in Love Blog on LGBTQ spirituality.
This type of claim has been debunked countless times by historians who have pointed out that nuptial language was simply a standard metaphor in that era for a purely spiritual union with God (who doesn’t have a physical body, BTW, and hence cannot have sex anyway). The reason for the metaphor was simply that medieval marriage was often purely practical or political – such as marriages to cement alliances between the ruling families – and hence it didn’t have the same romantic/sexual connotation that it does today; and in any event it’s a metaphor for interaction with a purely spiritual being. When Derek Kruger says it’s “homoerotic” he apparently is just referring to the fact that the theologian was male and God is traditionally described in male terms but that’s also symbolic (again, God doesn’t have a physical body and isn’t human). This is all basic stuff.
Why do you have the need to add “this is all basic stuff?” Of course God doesn’t have a body and isn’t male. The article clearly refers to Paul’s imagery of the body of Christ. Your insights don’t “debunk” anything. I find it very sad that debunking seems to be your sole goal.
This is a reply to Bob McCollough since the system still doesn’t allow us to reply directly. You either didn’t read my response or you were trying to create a strawman. I pointed out that historians have debunked the claim that nuptial language by the clergy was “homoerotic” since it was in fact a standard metaphor in that era for spiritual union with God, much as nuns often styled themselves as “brides of Christ” without intending any sexual connotation. No one interprets the latter to refer to heterosexual sex, so what justification is there for interpreting the male equivalent (by monks etc) to refer to homosexual sex or romance?