Gay Jesus, Yet Again
The meme that Jesus was gay is one that has floated around the world of the religious left some time now, like a piece of sewage that won’t go down the drain. The latest example comes from retired Church of England priest Paul Oestreicher, and appears today in The Guardian:
But this truly boggles the mind: Oestreicher claims that because He couldn’t have been sexually involved with Mary Magdalene (after all, there’s no evidence), He must have been gay. Otherwise, He’d be “devoid of sexuality,” and not fully human as the creeds confess Him to be. Did you know that men who don’t engage in “romantic” relationships with women therefore “may well” be gay?Every straight Catholic priest on the planet (which is still the vast majority of them), just went, “hey!”
The fact is that any speculation about Jesus’s sexual orientation is just that—pure, unadulterated, meaningless, evidence-free speculation. As gay rights activists are so fond of pointing out, the ancient world had not conceived of the idea of “sexual orientation,” so there’s obviously not going to be anything in the New Testament that would indicate one, unless, of course, we were willing to grasp at anything that could be twisted into being “evidence,” i.e., Jesus loved a man (sorry, Peter, James, Andrew, etc., He didn’t love you, at least in that way), so it must be He had a homosexual orientation. And if He was oriented that way…well, you know how much trouble those people have keeping their pants zipped, or robes on, or whatever.
Oh, and this needs response as well: the “physical expression of faithful love” is indeed godly, when it is, first and foremost, faithful to the God who created and set the parameters for the proper use of that physical expression, as He has everything else.
Of course, if one is determined to push one’s agenda, none of this will make a difference. Pity the poor folks who had to listen to this drivel on Good Friday.
Suffering was my theme. I felt I could not escape the suffering of gay and lesbian people at the hands of the church, over many centuries.Translation: I really, really wanted to preach on this subject, and thought I’d be avant garde and deal with it on the day of remembrance of the crucifixion of the Lord.
Was that divisive issue a subject for Good Friday? For the first time in my ministry I felt it had to be.Translation: I really, really wanted to preach on this subject, and through I’d be avant garde...
Those last words of Jesus would not let me escape. “When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, ‘Woman behold your son!’ Then he said to the disciple. ‘Behold your mother!’ And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.”
That disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way. All the other disciples had fled in fear. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. That man clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. In all classic depictions of the Last Supper, a favourite subject of Christian art, John is next to Jesus, very often his head resting on Jesus’s breast. Dying, Jesus asks John to look after his mother and asks his mother to accept John as her son. John takes Mary home. John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus’s family.It’s great to know that no man can ever feel this way about another man, so close that they are like brothers, without being gay. I’ll be sure to keep my distance from all my male friends in the future.
Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Unusually, he was unmarried. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong.Why can it be called “very strong”? Because I want it to be, darn it!
After much reflection and with certainly no wish to shock, I felt I was left with no option but to suggest, for the first time in half a century of my Anglican priesthood, that Jesus may well have been homosexual. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.Yeah, I’m sure he had no wish to shock. And I have no wish to suggest that he’s a biblical sophist with an agenda.
But this truly boggles the mind: Oestreicher claims that because He couldn’t have been sexually involved with Mary Magdalene (after all, there’s no evidence), He must have been gay. Otherwise, He’d be “devoid of sexuality,” and not fully human as the creeds confess Him to be. Did you know that men who don’t engage in “romantic” relationships with women therefore “may well” be gay?Every straight Catholic priest on the planet (which is still the vast majority of them), just went, “hey!”
The fact is that any speculation about Jesus’s sexual orientation is just that—pure, unadulterated, meaningless, evidence-free speculation. As gay rights activists are so fond of pointing out, the ancient world had not conceived of the idea of “sexual orientation,” so there’s obviously not going to be anything in the New Testament that would indicate one, unless, of course, we were willing to grasp at anything that could be twisted into being “evidence,” i.e., Jesus loved a man (sorry, Peter, James, Andrew, etc., He didn’t love you, at least in that way), so it must be He had a homosexual orientation. And if He was oriented that way…well, you know how much trouble those people have keeping their pants zipped, or robes on, or whatever.
Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. There can be no certainty which. The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction.“Intimate.” What is it about the modern, dirty mind, that finds it so difficult to conceive of love between men, or between women, that is wholly non-sexual? Of course, “intimate” is Oestreicher’s word, not the Bible’s, and the fact that he can’t bring it up except to suggest something smutty says a great deal more about him than about Jesus (or the actual meaning of the word, for that matter).
It would be so interpreted in any person today.And such is his mind that he can’t even conceive of another human being, living in the 21st century, who wouldn’t think the same way he does.
Although there is no rabbinic tradition of celibacy, Jesus could well have chosen to refrain from sexual activity, whether he was gay or not. Many Christians will wish to assume it, but I see no theological need to. The physical expression of faithful love is godly. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a kind of puritanism that has long tainted the churches.At this point, everything goes out the window—Scripture, logic, the rudiments of rational thought. This is the second time Oestreicher has mentioned that the tradition among rabbis was to be married. Did you suppose it ever occurred to him that it was also the unanimous, uncontested, and biblically-based rabbinical tradition to avoid homosexual behavior like the plague? A gay Jesus who was snogging the Apostle John would never—ever—have developed the kind of following among Jews that He did (unless, of course, His Jewish followers were all gay themselves, a distinct possibility when you consider how much emphasis they placed on “loving one another”—nudge, nudge, wink, wink.)
Oh, and this needs response as well: the “physical expression of faithful love” is indeed godly, when it is, first and foremost, faithful to the God who created and set the parameters for the proper use of that physical expression, as He has everything else.
Of course, if one is determined to push one’s agenda, none of this will make a difference. Pity the poor folks who had to listen to this drivel on Good Friday.
No comments:
Post a Comment